August 21, 2009


White people thrown into state of confusion

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey is opposed to Obamacare.

Labels: ,

August 06, 2009


The times, they are a-changin' (Gotham City edition)

Guess which image liberals are upset about?

(Note that the last three pictures all link to stories from the same media source, LA Weekly.)

Labels: , ,

April 21, 2009


The times, they are a-changin'

Apparently, calling the American president a fascist is now a bad thing.

Who knew?

Labels: ,

January 26, 2009


Easy question of the day

"Can Canadian Anti-Americanism Survive Obama?"



November 20, 2008


Something I'm rather loath to admit

I completely agree with Mitt Romney.

(h/t Daimnation)

Labels: ,

November 04, 2008


It's finally (almost) over

So I hear rumours that the Americans are having some sort of voting thingy today. By almost all accounts, Barack Obama is headed for a comfortable win over John McCain.

On the day of the first caucuses in Iowa, I ranked my preferences among the major candidates from both parties. McCain came in second, just behind Fred Thompson, while Obama was third.

Since then, the gap has widened substantially. John McCain has consistently taken the right positions on issues like Iraq, government spending, and free trade. Here is a good endorsement by David Frum (h/t Paul Wells), who has been very critical of McCain in the past.

Barack Obama is a very interesting politician, to say the least. In legislative office, he has been a risk-adverse state and federal Senator, seeming to prefer to take the path of least resistance. ("Present.") On the campaign trail, he combines soaring and inspiring rhetoric with clever and downright ruthless behind-the-scenes tactics. (Disqualifying nomination signatures, anyone?) Sometimes he goes way over the acceptable line; I was deeply disappointed when he dabbled in race-baiting this summer.

His association will William Ayers is another example of this. Most likely, he knew all about the guy's shady past, but simply calculated that "this guy has a political network that I need to get elected, and I can probably get away with using it."

On the positive side, I suspect Obama is more centrist that his voting record would indicate. In the lead-up to the Democratic primaries, he very cynically pandered to the extreme left of his party, especially when it came to free trade. Then as soon as he clinched the nomination, we saw that he was playing the nutroots for the fools they are, with dramatic reversals on NAFTA ("Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified"), an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and that wiretapping immunity bill.

I realize I'm essentially saying that I'm glad Obama was lying about his intentions, which sounds rather odd. But when you come right down to it, we're better off having a dishonest leader who implements good policies, than an honest leader who implements bad ones.

His ties to the Chicago School -- and moonbat denunciations of the same -- are also encouraging.

For this reason, I believe that a President Obama will likely be a prudent and effective leader... if he's paired with a Republican Congress. Which he won't be. There's a near-certainty of big Democratic gains in both House and Senate, who will most likely try to push him to the left. And given his track record as a legislator of meekly following wherever his party leads, I'm not very hopeful that he'll be able to buck that trend from the executive chair. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Here's hoping that the Republicans get their act together soon, so that 2010 can be a repeat of 1994. The divided government following that election proved to be rather effective at things like balancing the budget and allowing business to grow the economy, after all. (And in the meantime, let's all pray the Democrats don't get a filibuster-proof 60+ Senate seats.)

Oh, and my prediction for this election? Well, most people seem to be projecting an Obama landslide of 350+ electoral votes, but I think it will be somewhat closer. My reasons for this are twofold:

1) The state-level polls seem to be swinging towards McCain over the past few days.
2) If I put Obama high like everybody else, and I'm right, then my bragging rights are diluted by everyone else. But if I put him low and I'm right, my genius will stand out more. :)

Therefore, my swing state predictions are as follows...
Obama wins: Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia
McCain wins: West Virginia, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and (going out on a limb here) Florida

Total: Obama 311, McCain 227

And so I look towards an Obama presidency with concern, but not fear or outrage.

Oh, one final thought for any Obama supporters who might be reading this: If you're expecting a fairly steady and thoughtful leader who will nudge the United States -- or let it drift -- towards your preferred policies, you'll probably be satisfied.

But if you seriously believe that he will change the way Washington works, or be a "transformational" figure (whatever that means), or vanquish anti-Americanism... you will be sorely disappointed.


September 13, 2008



Regarding the "Did Obama call Palin a pig?" controversy: I doubt that Obama actually meant it that way (although that certainly seems to be how his audience took it). More likely, he was just trying to make a joke referencing Sarah Palin's speech, without realizing how it would sound.

However, given how Obama and his supporters made all those bogus accusations about racism in McCain's TV ads, I'd say that this is simply a case of Obama reaping what he sowed.

Labels: , ,

September 04, 2008


You think it's easy to come up with real arguments?

I see Stephane Dion is being his usual deep-thinking self:
"We need to win against the most right-wing prime minister in the history of our country."


"Stephen Harper wants to give George W. Bush a third term in Ottawa."

Double wank. And plagiarism, to boot.

One wonders how the Liberals are going to get their self-pleasuring fix after November. The day Obama -- or even McCain -- wins the election, is the day they lose the bogeyman they've been addicted to for the past six years.

Labels: , ,

September 03, 2008


Sarah Palin

There's been a lot of buzz and controversy surrounding John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. FWIW, she's been my preferred pick for the past couple months, but I never really thought she'd actually get the nod.

The Democrats claim that this increases their chances of winning the White House, due to Palin being a rookie Governor with zero foreign policy experience (as opposed to, uh, a rookie Senator with zero foreign policy experience). However, I think their true feelings are perfectly summed up by this CTV interview.

Notice how the Republican is beaming ecstatically, while the Democrat looks like he's about to cry.

On a related note, this is an awesome picture:


August 28, 2008


Bush/Obama '08

From Joe Biden's acceptance speech:
Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked, "What is there to talk about?" Or Barack Obama, who said, "We must talk and make clear to Iran that it must change"?

Now, after seven years of denial, even the Bush administration recognizes that we should talk to Iran because that's the best way to ensure our security.

Again and again, John McCain has been wrong, and Barack Obama is right.

Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says we can't have no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq, that we must stay indefinitely? Or should we listen to Barack Obama, who says shift the responsibility to the Iraqis and set a time to bring our combat troops home?

Now, after six long years, the administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home. John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was right.

Anyone else find it ironic that Biden bolsters the Democrats' position on Iran and Iraq by saying "Hey look, Barack Obama's plan is the same as George Bush's!"


June 05, 2008


Epidermis vs. Genitalia


March 01, 2008


Hey! That was uncalled for!

Responding to the Clinton/Obama attacks on NAFTA, John McCain took a strong stand in favour of free trade:
After mostly hitting Barack Obama on national security, McCain turned to trade today, broadening his indictment to take shots at both the Illinois senator and Hillary Clinton for their criticism of NAFTA.

"I want to tell our Canadian friends, I want to tell our friends in Mexico and other trading partners around the world that I will negotiate and conclude free trade agreements and I will not, I will not, after entering into solemn agreements, go and say that I will abrogate those agreements," McCain said at a corporate town hall meeting on the sprawling Dell campus north of Austin.
Good for him (although I don't agree with his reasoning of us tying the issue to Afghanistan).

But listen to what one of McCain's supporters had to say:
Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator, joined in the attack, taking his candidate's rhetoric a step further to portary the Democrats as insufficiently confident in American ingenuity.

"If we can't compete with Canada, who can we compete with?" Gramm asked. "Are these people proposing that we go build a wall around America and hide under a rock somewhere?"

Gramm said the Democrats "don't have faith in our ability to even compete against Canada."
That was the funniest quote I've heard in a long time. Unfortunately, there's probably a certain amount of truth to it.

Labels: , ,

January 03, 2008


King Corn

When it comes to crack for political junkies, the presidential primaries surpass even the CPAC daily tracking polls in addictiveness. RealClearPolitics is the place to go for your polling and commentary fix.

With the Iowa caucuses today, here are my preferences among the major contenders for who I think would be the best US president. From best to worst, with ones on the same line meaning they're essentially tied:

- Thompson/McCain
- Giuliani/Obama
- Romney/Clinton
- Paul
- Huckabee
- Edwards

Some of these rankings are purely based on my opinions of their policies, while others (particularly Obama) are somewhat of a "gut feeling" of their character and how they would do in office.

Predictions: I suspect that at some point before Super Tuesday, whichever of Thompson or McCain is behind (probably Thompson) will drop out and endorse the other, who will then win the Republican nomination. On the Democrat side, Clinton wins a narrow victory in Iowa, but Obama wins New Hampshire and gradually gathers momentum, which lands him the nomination.

As for the general election... who knows?

Morning after update: Obama wins by a surprisingly wide margin, with Edwards and Clinton essentially tied for second. On the other side, it's another larger-than-expected victory for Huckabee, with Romney in second and Thompson/McCain essentially tied for third.

Now that Iowa's done with, all the politicians will hopefully forget all about ethanol. (Hey, I can dream...)

Update 2: I bumped Rudy up a level, due to his big tax cut plan.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?