LorieByrd.com

Find Your Inner Norris

Hilarious new NRA ad:

 

On Obama's Iraq Speech

Jim Hoft's headline says it best: Pathetic Cut-&-Runner Takes Credit For Victory. 

There are times I think Obama has to "get it" by now.  He has to realize that the ony way he is going to save his miserable political future is to find some humility and admit that his policies have failed.  He has to realize that it would go a long way to restoring some confidence in him and would help his approval ratings if he would just admit that the economy is in the crapper and it is largely due to the failure of the policies he has enacted.  Maybe he will admit it is at least partially due to those policies?  Or maybe that at the very least, his policies have not improved things as he promised? 

Anyone waiting to see that side of Obama -- the side that would make him appear honest and human and in touch with reality -- might just be waiting forever.  More proof was there last night that, as John McCain put it, such behavior is just not in his DNA.  By failing to credit George Bush with success in Iraq, or to acknowledge his own vote against the surge which achieved such success, he just showed me he is still just about as arrogant, dishonest and insecure as a politician could be.  (And yes, a person can be arrogant and insecure at the same time.)  

It was not a huge surprise that he would not admit he was wrong about Iraq.  Jim Hanson described what the consequences of Obama's preferred course of action in Iraq would have been:

He should man up and admit that he was wrong about every single thing he said about the Iraq War while he was in the Senate and he should thank President Bush for being resolute enough to ignore him, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the cut and run chorus. If we had followed the advice of then Sen. Obama, we would have lost the war and al Qaeda and the Iranians would be carving it up between them.

Will Obama's arrogance and unwillingness to admit the reality everyone else (except evidently MSNBC talk show hosts) can see with their own two eyes, be his undoing? I think maybe it already has been.

End the Stranglehold on Congress (NC-2)

Full disclosure: I have been working for Renee Ellmers for Congress since May. I have gotten to know Renee really well and the more I know about her, the more I like her. She is the real deal. Renee is running against Bob Etheridge in congressional district NC-2. Etheridge is famous most recently for his hit YouTube video, but he has been on my radar for years because NC-2 is my home district. He has voted for higher taxes and bigger government for years, but over the past two years has really gone all out for the Obama agenda voting for the spendulus, cap and tax, Obamacare and just about anything else Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have proposed. He has voted with Pelosi 97% of the time.

This year is the best opportunity we have had to defeat Bob Etheridge and get a common sense conservative elected to this seat. But Etheridge has faced little opposition during his 14 years in the Congress and has built up a million dollar war chest which he will be spending soon on television ads. This seat is winnable, but Renee needs money to be competitive. Today the campaign is doing an "End the Stranglehold" moneybomb. Please contribute what you can. This is a great way to make a difference and turn a blue seat red. Please pass this along to your friends. Tweet it. Share on Facebook. And if you are a blogger, grab a graphic to support the campaign. Thank you.

Crossposted at Wizbangblog.com.

On All Those Rich Crooked Bloggers Who Live in the Daily Caller's World

Dan Riehl, Melissa Clouthier and others already ripped that ridiculous Daily Caller story to shreds yesterday, but I had a few comments of my own to add.

If you missed the story, it is titled, “True Stories of Bloggers that Feed on Partisan Cash,” and here is the part that is most at issue:

“It’s standard operating procedure” to pay bloggers for favorable coverage, says one Republican campaign operative. A GOP blogger-for-hire estimates that “at least half the bloggers that are out there” on the Republican side “are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales.”

On those two statements, I call bullshit.  I don’t know who the anonymous “Republican campaign operative” and “GOP blogger-for-hire” are but I’ve been blogging since 2004 and I know many, many bloggers.  I know some of them fairly well and I can confidently say there is no way that 50 percent of bloggers are getting paid (especially beyond ad sales) to blog.  Maybe I move in different circles, but in the world of conservative political blogging that I live in, that is not the case.

Here is what I can tell you about what I’ve seen of bloggers since I started blogging in April of 2004.  I can tell you about bloggers who work all day at a job to pay their bills and then come home and stay up to the wee hours to blog and get paid nothing for it.  I can tell you about bloggers who pay out of their own funds for servers and blog design and to go to events they want to cover.  They often go without other things, and sometimes anger their spouses by spending that money, to be able to blog.  I can tell you about bloggers who would love to make enough money blogging to quit their day jobs and devote all their time to their blogs, but have not found a way to make it happen.

I think bloggers should be getting paid.  Not by a candidate to say what they want them to say without disclosing a relationship, but I do think they should be getting paid for their work and I have been involved in discussions with other bloggers about some ways that might come about.   

I have at times made money blogging by getting a percentage of ad revenue, but since I was part of a group blog most of the time I rarely paid any attention to what ads were even running and it never influenced my blogging.  I have been paid by several publications over the years to write columns.  I have been paid by a couple of candidates to work on their campaigns over the past few years, but I rarely blog during the same time I am working on a campaign (mainly because I don’t have enough time) and when I do I go out of my way to disclose my association with the candidate and campaign, like I did this week.

Read Melissa Clothier’s post on the Daily Caller piece at Liberty Pundits.  She says much of what I would have said if I had not already read her saying it better.  I worked on the same RNC project that Melissa cites (we actually became good friends while working together on it) and am on the same tech listserv she mentions.  We did not get paid for it, but were happy to do it to give the RNC better insight into the blogging community.

I am not going to defend Dan Riehl point by point since he has already defended himself better than I ever could, but will say that anyone who knows Dan has to know he says what he wants to say.  And does so forcefully (and sometimes quite crudely).

I’ve never taken money, in the form of blog ads or otherwise, to blog about a campaign or issue.  I have been asked by people working for campaigns to blog about certain stories and have done it free of charge because they are things I would have blogged about anyway.  As a consultant to campaigns I have asked bloggers to write about the candidates I’ve worked for.    I have asked frequently, in fact.  And I will continue to ask and to attempt to persuade them with my arguments for the candidate, rather than cash.  

When the news about Tucker Carlson’s blog project came out I was surprised because I’d never heard his name associated with blogging.   Maybe he thinks over half of us are getting paid to say what others want us to say.  Maybe if he knew a few more bloggers he, or Jonathan Strong who wrote the piece, could have asked a few of them and found out whether or not 50 percent were getting paid to blog.   I read at Dan Riehl’s blog that Strong graduated from college in 2006 and has worked as a congressional staffer and lives in Arlington.  Maybe he doesn’t know that most bloggers don’t live in the DC area. Or even in California. I’d be glad to introduce him to a few dozen who won’t make a dime.   

I don’t doubt that there are bloggers who have sold their credibility for money from rich candidates who are too stupid to realize that if they are worth electing there are people who will write about them for free.  I don’t doubt that there are consultants who are evil and crooked as well.  But the majority of bloggers are not getting rich, and are not selling their reputations to the highest bidder.  The fact that Daily Caller would publish such accusations with what appears to be little investigation or corroboration, tells me more about their credibility than that of the vast majority of conservative bloggers.

There was another story in the same news cycle yesterday about Philly requiring bloggers to purchase a $300 business permit.  For most bloggers, including most conservative bloggers, that would not only wipe out any money they made blogging, but would put them in negative territory.   Bottom line is if you want to get rich blogging, you’d do better to follow the Tucker Carlson model than the Dan Riehl one.

Update:  When I wrote about hearing about Tucker Carlson's blog project, I was referring to back before the Daily Caller was launched, when I first heard anything about the project.  Before that when I heard Tucker Carlson's name I thought of MSNBC, not blogging. And the Daily Caller isn't a blog --  it is an online magazine -- although Jim Treacher is there and he is a great blogger.  Some other good bloggers write for DC, too.  It's just too bad they weren't assigned to this story.

Crossposted at Wizbangblog.com.

Vote for Renee Ellmers in Ten Buck Fridays

I have been so busy working for Renee Ellmers' campaign that I have not blogged much lately, but had to come back to let you all know that Renee has been nominated for the Ten Buck Fridays moneybomb.  Please go vote for Renee!  Ask all your Facebook friends and Twitter followers to do the same. 

If you don't already know what an incredible candidate Renee is, go read more about her at ReneeforCongress.com.

Protest of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law in Raleigh

My friend, blogger Katy Benningfield, is fearless. She was the only conservative in attendance at a march opposing the Arizona immigation law in Raleigh this week. She even wore a pro Arizona t-shirt she got at the Right Online conference over the weekend.

Read her blog post and watch the excellent video she got.

Best of Right Online 2010

There were many great moments from the Right Online conference.  Unfortunately the video of all the speeches has not yet been uploaded and posted online, but I will post links here when it is. 

Michele Bachmann's speech was one of the best.  It is long, but it is good.  I especially liked her "solution" to the financial crisis we are in today.  It starts around the 31 min. mark.

Update:  My favorite speech from the conference was from Ann McElhinney.  It actually is one of my favorite speeches of all time.  Listen to it all.  You'll thank me.

Other speeches worth a listen were from Mike Pence and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Must Read -- the JournoListas

Don't miss the excellent post on the JournoListas by Trevor Loudon at Noisy Room. Here's an excerpt.  Be sure to read it all.  Bookmark this one.

This post looks at 106 reported “Journolistas” to look for connections or common threads.

Of the known “Jounolistas” and organizations listed below, many can be linked back to two interrelated groups Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S.’s largest Marxist-based organization and the D.S.A.’s “brain,” the Washington DC-based, far left “think tank,” the Institute for Policy Studies.

Between them, D.S.A. and the I.P.S. dominate or influence several organizations affiliated to JournoList, including:

*The American Prospect – Founded in 1990 by D.S.A. affiliate Robert Kuttner. Current editor-at-large, is leading D.S.A. member Harold Meyerson.

*Mother Jones – Includes D.S.A. member Adam Hochschild on its Board of Directors, plus some D.S.A. affiliated staff and contributors. Hochschild was a supporter of Progressives for Obama.

*Economic Policy Institute - Led by D.S.A. member Larry Mishel and I.P.S. affiliate Jeff Faux and several D.S.A. affiliated board members. This organization has contributed at least three officials to the Obama Administration, including Obama economic adviser and ‘Journolista’ Jared Bernstein.

*Center for American Progress – Several staff and officials are affiliated with D.S.A. and the I.P.S. Writing of the Center’s relationship to the Obama Administration, former Weather Underground terrorist leader and Progressives for Obama supporter Mark Rudd said “There’s a whole govt. in waiting that Podesta has at the Center for American Progress. They’re mostly progressives, I’m told…”

Alvin Greene's Christmas Gift Idea in July

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.  From Alexa Shrugged:

Via Ace of Spades and UK Guardian - Alvin Greene, the crazy jobless guy running for Senate in South Carolina has ideas on how to create jobs:

"Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That's something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It's not something a typical person would bring up. That's something that could happen, that makes sense. It's not a joke."

Now, before you laugh (and I'm assuming the reporter was laughing and that's why Greene said, "It's not a joke.") is that any crazier than current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi saying that sending checks to the unemployed is one of the fastest ways to create jobs?

She's right.  One is just about as crazy as the other, but the visual you get in your head with Alvin Greene's idea is much more amusing.  If crazy ideas that will just keep us in the same crummy current job situation can be amusing, that is.

God Bless General Petraeus

Much of my early blogging was about the war in Iraq -- the war itself, the media coverage of the war and the treatment of our troops.  Listening to the words of Senator Barack Obama talking at General Petraeus in flashbacks today was almost unbearable.  It is hard to reconcile that the man who ignored, downplayed and outright denied the successes our troops were achieving is now their commander-in-chief. Senator Obama spoke about what a failure the surge was when there was evidence it was succeeding.  He continued to deny that success until the point that to do so would have made him a laughing stock.

I read that the people at MoveOn,org who had created the General Betray Us ads have now quietly scrubbed them from the site.  Wow.  What courage.  I can't say anything else about that right now because I might have to get really ugly about.  Instead go read something I wrote a few years ago about the Petraeus Effect.  I feel pretty much the same way today as I did when I wrote that

God bless General Petraeus. I can't imagine any reason to want to walk into the situation he is now in, but it is no doubt his love for country and for his brothers in arms.  Please say a prayer for him.  He is going to need all of them he can get.

Update:  More from Greyhawk.

Things have been a bit crazy lately

Did I say crazy?  I meant beyond crazy, whatever that is.  I have been super busy, working for Renee Ellmers campaign, and tending to all the end of the school year activities with the girls. Then on Monday morning the Bob Etheridge video showed up online. I don't think I need to explain how much crazier things got after that.  It looks like the next few weeks will be super busy as well. I'll check in as soon as we are back to just normal crazy.

Rest in Peace Hugh Slatery

I  was shocked and saddened, as I am sure all Hugh Slatery's readers were, to hear the news of his passing. My prayers are with his family and friends, especially his wife and three children.

It is strange knowing people only through contact online, through emails and comments and blog posts. When I saw Hugh's picture in Kevin's post it took my breath away. He looks exactly like I would have imagined, only much more handsome. I found myself crying off and on yesterday -- first for Hugh's family and their loss, then over regret that I didn't know more about Hugh while he was with us and that I didn't take more time to let him know how much I admired his work.

Looking at that picture, it really saddened me to think that last night was the first time I ever saw his face. In some ways it was the first time I really saw his work, too. I had known him first as a frequent commenter beginning when I blogged at Polipundit and then later as a blogger here at Wizbang. I had enjoyed his comments which were not only intelligent, but also witty and supportive, and later his blogging. Seeing all his blog posts in one collection put everything into new perspective. As I read back through his archive I had a new appreciation for the incredible insight he had. I was already a fan, but I didn't fully realize how much quality work he had produced. I am not quite up to reading back through his comments since those back and forth discussions between the "regulars" are much more personal and I am just not quite ready to go there yet.

I apologize for using so many "I's" here, but knowing Hugh primarily through his writing I knew less about him and more about what his writing meant to me. His observations always made me think. Sometimes they made me smile or laugh out loud. Sometimes the things he pointed out ticked me off and made me want to pick up a sign and go to a tea party. He was a kind and brilliant man and he is already missed.

If you did not read Hugh regularly, take a look at his archive of work. Here are a couple of excerpts from Hugh's posts:

Re the upcoming midterms:

In the 2006 midterm Democrats picked up control of the Senate and the House. One of the lesser known facts about that change of control, from a national viewpoint, is that the change in control of the Senate came down to a difference of 2,847 votes out of a total of 61.2 million cast nationally. And of the fourteen closest races that "settled control of the House of Representatives" (according to Karl Rove) 27,022 votes out of a total of 81 million in all House races made the difference for Democrats. Fund worries that we are forgetting the lessons of the 2000 election recount debacle. That take is a little too kind in my view. I'm concerned that the other side is resolutely determined to steal it right this time.

Re Chris Christie on the teachers' unions:

The Tea Party movement has been all over this issue from its beginning but Governor Christie may be the first big league politician to actually wrestle the problem to the ground. Think about that data for a moment. Government employees in New Jersey enjoy health benefit plans that are 41% more expensive than Fortune 500 private sector plans. Why do public sector employees that create no wealth whatsoever enjoy such riches in excess of a private sector that pays all of the taxes from their own wealth creation? What the Tea Party movement advanced in general last Spring is being brought home by Christie in a manner that makes it personal. And therein is the substance of a winning campaign strategy if only some conservative/libertarian will show the courage to push a policy on a national level that surprisingly is being birthed in New Jersey. Conservatives would be wise to heed Christie's most prescient comment that "subtlety is not going to win this fight,"

I  was shocked and saddened, as I am sure all Hugh Slatery's readers were, to hear the news of his passing. My prayers are with his family and friends, especially his wife and three children.

It is strange knowing people only through contact online, through emails and comments and blog posts. When I saw Hugh's picture in Kevin's post it took my breath away. He looks exactly like I would have imagined, only much more handsome. I found myself crying off and on yesterday -- first for Hugh's family and their loss, then over regret that I didn't know more about Hugh while he was with us and that I didn't take more time to let him know how much I admired his work.

Looking at that picture, it really saddened me to think that last night was the first time I ever saw his face. In some ways it was the first time I really saw his work, too. I had known him first as a frequent commenter beginning when I blogged at Polipundit and then later as a blogger here at Wizbang. I had enjoyed his comments which were not only intelligent, but also witty and supportive, and later his blogging. Seeing all his blog posts in one collection put everything into new perspective. As I read back through his archive I had a new appreciation for the incredible insight he had. I was already a fan, but I didn't fully realize how much quality work he had produced. I am not quite up to reading back through his comments since those back and forth discussions between the "regulars" are much more personal and I am just not quite ready to go there yet.

I apologize for using so many "I's" here, but knowing Hugh primarily through his writing I knew less about him and more about what his writing meant to me. His observations always made me think. Sometimes they made me smile or laugh out loud. Sometimes the things he pointed out ticked me off and made me want to pick up a sign and go to a tea party. He was a kind and brilliant man and he is already missed.

If you did not read Hugh regularly, take a look at his archive of work. Here are a couple of excerpts from Hugh's posts:

Re the upcoming midterms:

In the 2006 midterm Democrats picked up control of the Senate and the House. One of the lesser known facts about that change of control, from a national viewpoint, is that the change in control of the Senate came down to a difference of 2,847 votes out of a total of 61.2 million cast nationally. And of the fourteen closest races that "settled control of the House of Representatives" (according to Karl Rove) 27,022 votes out of a total of 81 million in all House races made the difference for Democrats. Fund worries that we are forgetting the lessons of the 2000 election recount debacle. That take is a little too kind in my view. I'm concerned that the other side is resolutely determined to steal it right this time.

Re Chris Christie on the teachers' unions:

The Tea Party movement has been all over this issue from its beginning but Governor Christie may be the first big league politician to actually wrestle the problem to the ground. Think about that data for a moment. Government employees in New Jersey enjoy health benefit plans that are 41% more expensive than Fortune 500 private sector plans. Why do public sector employees that create no wealth whatsoever enjoy such riches in excess of a private sector that pays all of the taxes from their own wealth creation? What the Tea Party movement advanced in general last Spring is being brought home by Christie in a manner that makes it personal. And therein is the substance of a winning campaign strategy if only some conservative/libertarian will show the courage to push a policy on a national level that surprisingly is being birthed in New Jersey. Conservatives would be wise to heed Christie's most prescient comment that "subtlety is not going to win this fight,"

Sestak Says It's Not His Responsibility

Today on Meet the Press, the Democrat candidate for Senate, Joe Sestak, admitted he was offered a job by the White House (via Politico):

Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official - a potential violation of federal law - but has not offered any specifics on conversation. Republicans are trying to use the issue against Sestak in the November Senate race.

"It's interesting. I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that's all I had to say about it." Sestak said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role. That's their responsibility."

Yet Sestak confirmed to NBC's David Gregory that the incident did take place.

"I was offered a job, and I answered that," Sestak said. "Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about."

Considering the job offer might have possibly been a violation of federal law, or at the very least, the type of political maneuvering that many voters deplore, Sestak's refusal to provide more information about the offer is troubling.  He says, "Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role.  That's their responsibility....I was offered a job.  Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about."  Is this the same position he will take as a Senator? 

If someone were to offer Senator Sestak a bribe, would he just turn them down and leave it up to them to turn themselves in? Or would he let the proper authorities, and the voters, know what was going on, to serve as a strong deterrent for such behavior?  Even if Sestak did not want to raise the issue of the White House job offer, now that it is out in the open doesn't he have some responsibility to provide additional details?  It appears he doesn't think so.  After all, he said, "That's their responsibility."  Well, at least with that statement he is clear with the voters about where he stands on the issue of responsibility.

Crossposted at Wizbang and Riehl World View.

Pantano for Congress

In my early days of blogging and column writing one of my most frequent topics was the war in Iraq.  I was appalled by much of the media coverage and the fact that many Democrats were willing to not only ignore the good work being done in the field by our troops, but to go so far as to smear them in an attempt to gain political advantage.   It should not be surprising that the story surrounding the primary in NC District 7 struck a nerve with me.  The latest news from the losers in that primary race is disappointing to say the least.

The Politico headline says, “GOP Split Clouds McIntyre Race:”

Two unsuccessful Republican candidates in North Carolina have turned their guns on the primary election winner, endangering the party’s hopes of defeating longtime Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) in November.

GOP voters in the 7th District on May 4 nominated Ilario Pantano, a charismatic Iraq warveteran with a personal story many find compelling and a past encounter with military justice that gives others concern.

Among the latter is Will Breazeale, the second-place finisher and 2008 nominee against McIntyre, who told POLITICO on Wednesday he would do what he can to keep Pantano from winning the seat. He said the third-place finsher, Randy Crow, would join him at a news conference Tuesday in Wilmington, N.C., to discuss their plans.

“We’re going to work against him,” Breazeale — also an Iraq veteran — said. “If the Republicans don’t like it, they can kick me out.”

Breazeale says he has a moral obligation to oppose the nominee because of his actions in Iraq.  “It takes a military man like me to explain to civilians how bad that is.”  Here is how Breazeale “explained” it following his primary defeat:

Buyers remorse is a tough pill to swallow. I cannot help but think that perhaps many who voted for Ilario Pantano are now realizing their nominee's claim to fame is the execution of two unarmed Iraqis? In turn, they are already attempting to set up a scapegoat (me) in order to justify his inevitable, massive failure in November.

Breazeale argues that Democrat incumbent McIntyre will use the issue against Pantano in the general election.  If McIntyre is stupid enough to go that route I predict the tactic will be every bit as effective as it has been for Breazeale, and might even ensure the first Republican in 140 years takes the seat.

When Ace of Spades wrote about Pantano’s primary win last week the first comment to his blog post was, “What are the odds his Dem challenger outright calls him a murderer anyway, even though he was cleared?”  The response from another commenter was, “If it happens, I think the campaign will effectively end, since the D will have just ended his chances of victory and indeed his political career.”  They accurately predicted the tactic, but got the party wrong, although the accusations do sound a lot like those of one Democrat – Rep. John Murtha, who declared the Marines in Haditha guilty before all the evidence was in.  Several years ago Pantano commented on Murtha’s charges in the Washington Post.

Breazeale has announced he will be calling a press conference next week to continue this attack on Pantano.  He is currently reaching out to various media outlets (most recently The Daily Beast), but I can’t help but wonder if he might regret doing so if some of his own past is dredged up in the process. That would not only embarrass Breazeale, but it would continue to take attention away from the choice voters have to make in November.

Now that Will Breazeale and Randy Crow have lost, the focus of the race should be on the differences between Pantano and McIntyre rather than grandstanding by those no longer in the running.  Pantano has pointed out that in spite of voting with Republicans on some issues, McIntyre’s vote is for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.  I expect to hear Pantano cite that and many other differences frequently over the next six months.

For those concerned about the charges against Pantano, as Jammie Wearing Fool points out, “Pantano's history is out there for all to see and he isn't hiding anything. A simple Google search will tell you everything you need to know.”

Beginning in 2005, Blackfive’s Matt Burden followed Pantano’s case in a seven part series of blog posts ending with news that the murder charges were dropped.  Burden wrote, “I know Marines who commanded Pantano…every single one of them support Pantano.  Every. Single. One. The ones that I know would follow Pantano to hell and back.”  Burden enthusiastically endorsed Pantano in February.

The Politico headline cited in the beginning of this post is incorrect.  The Republican party is not split.  Pantano’s two opponents lost and instead of honoring the wishes of the voters of NC’s 7^th congressional district, and the overwhelming victory they handed Pantano with 69 percent of the vote, the men are desperately trying to stay in the game.  To do so they may attempt to split the party, but that is not going to happen. 

Iliano Pantano is a strong candidate.  He is young and energetic, as well as media savvy and a wonderful speaker.  Most important, he appears ready to do the work necessary to win the race.  His “100 Days of Work” videos remind me of Charles Kuralt’s On the Road reports – in both production and entertainment value. (In the first video his barber talks with Pantano in a down home southern drawl about Mr. Smith going to Washington and “filly-bustering.”) 

 Read Matt Burden’s Blackfive posts regarding the charges against Pantano – all of which have been dropped.  Read Pantano’s book, Warlord.  Go to Pantano’s website and watch some of his 100 days videos and read his blog posts.  While there watch his interview with Jon Stewart about the book.  Then decide whether or not he is a candidate you might want to support.

Pantano recently posted the following note to supporters about his strategy going forward,

“We have much to do, but let’s do it softly, and with honor and dignity. We are not looking for fights nor do we need to be disrespectful. Imagine a U-boat, that has just fired torpedoes and now moves quietly underwater to a new attack position. Don't ever confuse kindness, and civility with a lack of steely resolve. So get out there and smile. Kill them with kindness. These times are too critical and this race too important to succumb to emotion or foolish rancor. We will win by our rigorous faith and our discipline.”

If you would like to help Pantano prevail in November and be the first Republican to win the NC 7^th district seat in 140 years you can visit his website and contribute to his campaign.  If you are short on cash or live far from his district, his campaign has suggested ten ways you can help him from the comfort of your own home.

Update:  In the middle of the night when I wrote this post I misspelled Ilario Pantano's name in the post title.  I have corrected the mistake and apologize for that and any other mistakes I might find.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

What the Democrats in Congress should fear most

Plain and simple, what is driving many Democrats in Congress into early retirement is the fear (strike that, realization) that the voters back home are beginning to pay attention to what they do in DC.  There are many politicians that talk a good game at home.  They have convinced voters that they are representing their concerns.  They have convinced voters that all those other politicians in Congress are the problem, not them.  Trouble is, thanks to alternative media, the voters at home no longer have to depend on those in the mainstream media, or even those in the conservative media, for their information.  If they have a computer and an internet connection all they need to know about what their representatives are doing in Washington (chiefly how they are voting) is available with a few keystrokes.  The American people are feeling empowered like never before.  They showed up at town hall meetings and made their opinions known. Their representatives then returned to Congress and voted -- some in accordance to what they heard and some in spite of it.  Those who talked one way at home and voted another way in DC should be afraid.  The truth is finally catching up to them.

Help For Tennessee Flood Victims

Maybe it is because liberals have not yet figured out a way to blame Dick Cheney for it -- I don't know why, but for whatever reason the flooding in Tennessee has not gotten as much media attention as it deserves. If you have seen the heartbreaking pictures from Nashville you know the people there need help. Noel Sheppard and Michelle Malkin have posted links to organizations providing relief to the flood victims in Tennessee, including a telethon airing tonight on WSMV-TV featuring Vince Gill, Keith Urban and others. Follow the links to help if you can and please keep the people of Tennessee in your prayers.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Must See Video

If you've been to a tea party you already know there are Independent tea partiers, and Democrat tea partiers, and yes, even black tea partiers (despite what you might have heard).  People like Keith Olbermann, Jeanine Garofalo, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, are saying tea partiers are all white racists.  They are obviously woefully ignorant of the facts, explaining the black Americans in attendance at the tea parties by calling them names like Uncle Tom.  They need to watch this video. 

Celebrity Apprentice -- Trump Owes Adkins as Much as Adkins Owes Trump

I love watching Celebrity Apprentice, partially because Donald Trump is so entertaining (in a train wreck kind of way), but if he tries to take credit for Trace Adkins' success one more time I am gonna scream.  Evidently The Donald does not realize how ignorant it makes him sound every time he tries to claim credit for the popularity of Trace Adkins.  He has done it numerous times.  In the Celebrity Apprentice finale when Trace Adkins sang his song, "You're Gonna Miss This," Trump claimed credit for the song going to #1.  Tonight when Adkins showed up as part of a country music artist task, Trump made another reference to himself as the reason Adkins is such a big country music star. 

I realize that there are many people who don't follow country music who didn't know Adkins before Apprentice, and were introduced to him and his music through the show.  But for goodness sakes, Adkins has a been a huge country star for quite a few years.  Believe it or not, his huge hit Honkey Tonk, Badonka Donk had nothing to do with The Donald and there were a whole lot of people singing that song who didn't follow country music or watch Apprentice.  Speaking of reaching a non-country audience, Adkins has been appearing on Bill Maher's show since way back when Maher was on ABC.  Sorry Donald, but you probably owe as much to Trace Adkins for him introducing his fans to Apprentice as you do for introducing him to your fans.

UPDATE:  Spoiler Alert!!  Don't read further unless you have watched the episode.  

A few thoughts about tonight's board room... Donald Trump fired project manager Goldberg.  Last week he fired Selena because she didn't do enough and didn't have enough fire.  He could have fired the project manager, Holly, who clearly targeted the wrong consumers (moms) and did not focus on the endurance aspect of the product as they had been instructed.  Instead he fired the person who had the least to do with the task.  Tonight he could have fired Brett, who did the most on the task.  I don't think he should have done that because Brett did a really good job.  His only limitation was the singer who refused to be made over to much extent.  He could have fired Curtis, who said he was managing time for the task.  Curtis did not manage time well, spending the majority of the photo shoot time sitting in traffic with the singer's wardrobe.  If Brett had more time to focus on styling the singer for the shoot he might have gotten him to try more new things.  Instead they were rushed to do the majority of the shoot in about 20 minutes.  Instead he fired Goldberg, saying he should not have volunteered to be project manager since he was not the one with knowledge of the task.  I just thought it was interesting to see how different the criteria for firing was this week from last week.  I think it all comes down to who Trump wants to fire.  It is his show and that is part of what does make it so interesting.  You never really know who is safe and who isn't.  I guess that is one of the reasons I never miss an episode. 

Teaching Your Children About ObamaCare

Blogger Bookworm has already experienced ObamaCare indoctrination through her middle school age child. 

My daughter’s history teacher, when pressed by her students about Sunday’s health care vote, couldn’t keep her mouth shut.  (Keeping her mouth shut would have involved saying, “This is a history class, not a politics class.  You should ask your parents these questions.”)  Instead, she blithely opined that “all civilized societies have universal health care.”

Fortunately, despite years in the public school system, my daughter is still amenable to logic.  In the face of her teacher’s certitude, I challenged my daughter with a few facts and asked a few questions.

Follow the link to read the conversation Bookworm had with her daughter.  More from Kim Priestap.

Health Care Vote Today

Michelle Malkin has a good rundown of today's schedule including the estimated timing of the GOP's Motion to Recommit. Sister Toldjah has more commentary. According to all the reports I am seeing, the Democrats have the votes they need. If they don't then they are going to look especially foolish since they have led everyone in the press to believe they do. Of course that was the strategy though -- create the illusion, then the reality will follow. Of course that reality required more than an illusion. Lots of threats, arm twisting and pay offs were necessary. The Chicago Way.

If the bill does pass expect the media to declare it the fix all for all that has ailed Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Expect their rehabilitation efforts to have some effect, which may or may not be short lived. The media will not remind voters of all that made Obamacare unpopular, and many of the negative ramifications of the policies will not be felt for a while, but candidates will be reminding voters -- from now til November.

Could This Be the Best Way to Kill Obamacare?

It is being reported that President Obama will refuse to campaign for those voting "no" on Obamacare. This might just be the best strategy possible -- for those wanting to kill Obamacare. Okay, maybe not really. It sounds like he is refusing the fund raising kind of visits that make lots of dough for the candidate, but don't necessarily result in pictures of the candidate with the president. When I saw this headline on Drudge though, "Obama refuses to campaign for Dems voting NO on health care," my first thought was that if Republicans could convince Democrats that a "Yes" vote would result in a high profile presidential visit to their district we might be able to kill this thing in a hurry. Just putting it out there.

An Interesting Read

This article about how Andrew Breitbart has changed journalism and politics is an interesting read.  Money quote, "Breitbart is, in short, expert in making the journalism industry his bitch."

RIP - My Favorite Corey Haim Movie

Actor Corey Haim died early this morning at the age of 38. I didn't follow Corey Haim's recent reality show career, but was aware that he battled problems with addiction. Early reports said he died of an overdose, but other reports say he was no longer taking drugs. He recently filmed a new movie, which has not yet been released, and was attempting a comeback.

I was past the Tiger Beat age when Haim enjoyed his biggest popularity so I never had posters of him on my wall or anything, but I always liked him. I thought he was an adorable kid (who happened to look a lot like one of my cousins when he was young) and he starred in one of my favorite movies of all time, Silver Bullet. It is not as well known as The Lost Boys, which I liked as well, but (in my opinion) is every bit as good. The movie is based on a Stephen King story about a little boy in a wheelchair who battles a werewolf with the assistance of his sister and his kinda crazy, sometimes sober uncle played by Gary Busey. It was made in 1985 so the special effects are not spectacular, but the story is funny and kind of scary and sometimes even a little bit touching -- for a Stephen King werewolf movie anyway. I am not big on what critics think of movies, but they didn't all hate this one. If you have never seen it, I recommend you give it a look.

Actor Corey Haim died early this morning at the age of 38. I didn't follow Corey Haim's recent reality show career, but was aware that he battled problems with addiction. Early reports said he died of an overdose, but other reports say he was no longer taking drugs. He recently filmed a new movie, which has not yet been released, and was attempting a comeback.

I was past the Tiger Beat age when Haim enjoyed his biggest popularity so I never had posters of him on my wall or anything, but I always liked him. I thought he was an adorable kid (who happened to look a lot like one of my cousins when he was young) and he starred in one of my favorite movies of all time, Silver Bullet. It is not as well known as The Lost Boys, which I liked as well, but (in my opinion) is every bit as good. The movie is based on a Stephen King story about a little boy in a wheelchair who battles a werewolf with the assistance of his sister and his kinda crazy, sometimes sober uncle played by Gary Busey. It was made in 1985 so the special effects are not spectacular, but the story is funny and kind of scary and sometimes even a little bit touching -- for a Stephen King werewolf movie anyway. I am not big on what critics think of movies, but they didn't all hate this one. If you have never seen it, I recommend you give it a look.

Tea Party Continues to Confuse and Anger Liberals

Shawn at Wizbang shared video of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan going berserk in a segment on "Anger in America" saying Tea Party members allowed those who wanted to "kill black people and kill Jews" to be associated with them. Today Hot Air links to Michael Bader's piece at AlterNet about those nutty Tea Party people.

These Tea Party folks seem to most liberals -- well, to most of us who live in the "reality community," or, as I like to call it, "reality" --- like crazy f*ckers.

As a recent New York Times article reports, this hodgepodge of people and groups spout frankly paranoid beliefs as received wisdom, e.g. the Federal Reserve is our enemy and should be abolished; citizens should stock up on ammo, gold; and survival food in anticipation of an impending Civil War; states should "nullify" federal laws and even secede; medical records are being shipped to federal bureaucrats; the army is seeking "Internment/Resettlement" specialists; and Obama is trying to create crises in order to destroy the economy, convert Interpol into his personal police force and create a New World Order.

Conspiracy theories involving shadowy elites like the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have resurfaced. Self-defense and armed resistance are frequently called for. Racist stereotypes, innuendo and hostility run rampant. The Constitution is its sacred text and Glenn Beck its most beloved prophet. They don't usually wear aluminum hats but perhaps they should.

I hate these folks but I also understand them. And, well, uh, I also empathize with them. They share the same psychology as the paranoid patients I treat every day. The only difference is that the paranoid beliefs of the Tea Party movement are political while those in my consulting room are of a more personal nature. The causes and dynamics, however, are the same.

I wonder just how many tea parties Michael Bader has attended. Is he basing his hatred of these folks on anything other than a New York Times report? He thinks tea partiers are "paranoid," engaging in "racial stereotypes" and "innuendo"? Has he seen an episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, or Dylan Ratigan's show for that matter? Instead of analyzing the MSNBC paranoid haters on parade, or the "left-wing conspiracy theorists" he later mentions, he focuses on a NYT description of tea party participants and psychoanalyzes them. Then he offers his analysis of the role the "right-wing media" plays in feeding this paranoia.

It is also obvious that left-wing conspiracy theorists share much of the same pathology as those on the right wing of the spectrum. For new Tea Party members, however, the drift toward paranoia is facilitated by the right-wing media machine that offers several ready-made narratives perfectly designed to help its consumers clear up their confusion, understand their helplessness, absolve them of any blame and offer a way out. The conspiratorial alliance of business and government, a growing tyranny intended to disenfranchise, disarm and exploit ordinary citizens, secret pacts to overthrow the Constitution, etc. all currently led by an un-American, godless, colored, elitist, contemptuous foreigner: Barack Hussein Obama.

Goodness, that is an awfully long sentence fragment. Where the heck is Bader getting the reference to the "colored" president? What is the obsession liberal critics of the tea parties have with race? I have been to two tea parties -- one in North Carolina and one in DC. I have read and looked at pictures fro dozens more over the past year. I know a few wackos have shown up at some tea parties (just as some wackos show up at liberal protests), but they are a tiny minority of those associating themselves with the tea party movement. You have to make an effort to specifically look for them and then you have to ignore 99.9 percent of the hard working, rational, respectful participants in order to define the tea party groups as racist and paranoid. On the other hand, all it takes to find paranoid, race-obsessed wackos associating themselves with those on the left is to turn on a television and set the channel to MSNBC's prime time lineup.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Shawn at Wizbang shared video of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan going berserk in a segment on "Anger in America" saying Tea Party members allowed those who wanted to "kill black people and kill Jews" to be associated with them. Today Hot Air links to Michael Bader's piece at AlterNet about those nutty Tea Party people.

These Tea Party folks seem to most liberals -- well, to most of us who live in the "reality community," or, as I like to call it, "reality" --- like crazy f*ckers.

As a recent New York Times article reports, this hodgepodge of people and groups spout frankly paranoid beliefs as received wisdom, e.g. the Federal Reserve is our enemy and should be abolished; citizens should stock up on ammo, gold; and survival food in anticipation of an impending Civil War; states should "nullify" federal laws and even secede; medical records are being shipped to federal bureaucrats; the army is seeking "Internment/Resettlement" specialists; and Obama is trying to create crises in order to destroy the economy, convert Interpol into his personal police force and create a New World Order.

Conspiracy theories involving shadowy elites like the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have resurfaced. Self-defense and armed resistance are frequently called for. Racist stereotypes, innuendo and hostility run rampant. The Constitution is its sacred text and Glenn Beck its most beloved prophet. They don't usually wear aluminum hats but perhaps they should.

I hate these folks but I also understand them. And, well, uh, I also empathize with them. They share the same psychology as the paranoid patients I treat every day. The only difference is that the paranoid beliefs of the Tea Party movement are political while those in my consulting room are of a more personal nature. The causes and dynamics, however, are the same.

I wonder just how many tea parties Michael Bader has attended. Is he basing his hatred of these folks on anything other than a New York Times report? He thinks tea partiers are "paranoid," engaging in "racial stereotypes" and "innuendo"? Has he seen an episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, or Dylan Ratigan's show for that matter? Instead of analyzing the MSNBC paranoid haters on parade, or the "left-wing conspiracy theorists" he later mentions, he focuses on a NYT description of tea party participants and psychoanalyzes them. Then he offers his analysis of the role the "right-wing media" plays in feeding this paranoia.

It is also obvious that left-wing conspiracy theorists share much of the same pathology as those on the right wing of the spectrum. For new Tea Party members, however, the drift toward paranoia is facilitated by the right-wing media machine that offers several ready-made narratives perfectly designed to help its consumers clear up their confusion, understand their helplessness, absolve them of any blame and offer a way out. The conspiratorial alliance of business and government, a growing tyranny intended to disenfranchise, disarm and exploit ordinary citizens, secret pacts to overthrow the Constitution, etc. all currently led by an un-American, godless, colored, elitist, contemptuous foreigner: Barack Hussein Obama.

Goodness, that is an awfully long sentence fragment. Where the heck is Bader getting the reference to the "colored" president? What is the obsession liberal critics of the tea parties have with race? I have been to two tea parties -- one in North Carolina and one in DC. I have read and looked at pictures fro dozens more over the past year. I know a few wackos have shown up at some tea parties (just as some wackos show up at liberal protests), but they are a tiny minority of those associating themselves with the tea party movement. You have to make an effort to specifically look for them and then you have to ignore 99.9 percent of the hard working, rational, respectful participants in order to define the tea party groups as racist and paranoid. On the other hand, all it takes to find paranoid, race-obsessed wackos associating themselves with those on the left is to turn on a television and set the channel to MSNBC's prime time lineup.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Why is this so hard for Oprah to understand?

I am only just now watching the Oprah interview with Andrew Young and his wife Cheri that I DVR'd yesterday.  The topic of the interview was, obviously, Young's book about the role he played covering up Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter, even claiming to be the father of Edwards' baby.  Throughout the interview Oprah asks over and over again why the Youngs would even want John Edwards to be President or Vice President once they had seen him perpetrate such a deception.  She asked if he lied about something like this what else might he lie about when in office. 

I found it hard to watch the interview because I could not stop yelling at the television.  Am I the only person watching Oprah's questions who could not stop thinking of Bill Clinton?  Was Oprah asking Vernon Jordan or any of the Clinton protectors how they could try to paint a young intern as a lying stalker when they knew Clinton had a sexual relationship with her and she was not lying?  Did Oprah ask why we would want a President who would do such a thing?  Did she ask what else such a person might lie about if he could tell such a lie as that?  Of course not. 

I don't know what Oprah would say if asked what the difference between Edwards and Clinton was, but suspect the fact that a child was involved might be one reason given.  Another might be the fact that Edwards' wife has a terminal illness. My belief, however, is that the biggest difference is that by the time Edwards' sex scandal and deception were revealed he had no chance at the presidency.  Oprah was pulling for Edwards' opponent, Barack Obama, anyway.  By the time Clinton got busted, however, Democrats were so invested in him and his presidency that they vigorously defended his outrageous behavior.  It is amazing what Democrats can forgive and even attempt to cover up when a political office is at stake.

Health Care Theater

If you are planning on following the big show today (the so-called "Bipartisan Health Care Summit"), check out the RNC's live response for live coverage and real-time fact checking. The RNC live feed is already underway and you can even submit your own questions and comments. The RNC research department will also be updating their Twitter feed in response to issues arising during the "summit."

Update: The live feed is embedded below:

Update II (11:00 a.m.): So far the so-called health care summit has been about as expected -- lots of throwing around of bogus "facts" and telling of tear jerker stories, but now getting interesting with President telling "Lamar" his facts are wrong and Lamar actually speaking out in response.

Update III (11:40 a.m.):Melissa Clothier has a hilarious and pretty accurate summary of the summit thusfar.

This Week

I just noticed that the last thing I posted was about how I was going to start blogging more, then I didn't blog for a really long time and now I have a really horrible headache so I guess I won't be blogging much tonight either. 

I have been cooking a lot this week.  If you want a really good, really easy recipe, try this one for Crash Hot Potatoes from The Pioneer Woman.  I made them tonight and they were great.  I only had six potatoes so instead of smashing the whole potato I cut them in half first.  I used white potatoes instead of red since that is what I had, but otherwise I followed the recipe.  The coarse salt is really good on them so if you make them be sure to use it.  I also baked chicken tenders.  I seasoned them with garlic powder and Lawry's and then dipped them in butter and rolled them in crushed Ritz crackers.  I baked at 350 for about an hour, maybe a little less.  They were crispy, but still moist on the inside and the girls really liked them.  I put honey mustard on the table, but they ate them without it.

I would love to do some political blogging, but that is sure to make my head start hurting again so I'll put it off for another day.

Long Time No Blog

I have not blogged much lately, kinda on purpose.  When I blog my time somehow disappears into thin air and I have had too much to do around the house lately for that.  I keep blogging in my head though.  I listened to a CD today that I had not listened to in a while and thought "I should blog about this."  When I cooked so much over the weekend and when I watched the kids play in the snow I thought "I should blog this."  I even took some pictures to post.  They are still on the SD card.  When I went to my daughter's ballgame and, of course, every time I've read a news item...I've wanted to blog.  But the computer was not in front of me at the time so no blogging occurred.  Twitter is largely to blame.  If not for the ability to micro-blog on Twitter a few seconds at a time, I would probably have gone into blog withdrawal.  I have had a nice little break so I should be back to blogging more regularly now.

"Just Stating the Facts"...and Judge Alito's "You Lie" Moment

After "blaming Bush" for the umpteenth time tonight, President Obama said "just stating the facts." You know, just sayin'. This is the most wonderful gift that could have been given to the GOP. I think they should repeat it ad nauseam. You know, when they show charts of Obama's spending in one year compared to spending under eight years of Bush -- "just stating the facts." Or when they point out the way the Christmas Day bomber, and Gitmo and other "man-made disaster" issues have been handled. Or how the unemployment numbers rose significantly in response to the spendulus bill. "Just stating the facts." And on and on.

I have to admit it takes a lot of nerve or self delusion or something to be able to talk about "just stating the facts" after spending a year (including tonight) pointing to fairy tale magical "jobs saved or created" numbers. Gotta give him that -- he's shameless (just stating the facts, baby).

Most striking to me is that he learned he had to use some different buzzwords in reaction to declining poll numbers and losing elections in Virginia, Massachusetts, etc., but he didn't learn that it is not all about him and that he has made mistakes. I heard plenty of rationalizations, but no admissions that his policies were (and are) crap. If he has not gotten that message, I just don't see how he will turn things around. Be it this economy or his poll numbers. Americans are not gonna blindly trust his word anymore. They have smartened up and will now verify. Just stating the facts.

Update: ABC pointed out (and showed video of) Judge Alito mouthing "That's not true" and shaking his head during one portion of the speech. A kinder, gentler version of "You Lie!"

I have to admit it takes a lot of nerve or self delusion or something to be able to talk about "just stating the facts" after spending a year (including tonight) pointing to fairy tale magical "jobs saved or created" numbers. Gotta give him that -- he's shameless (just stating the facts, baby).

Most striking to me is that he learned he had to use some different buzzwords in reaction to declining poll numbers and losing elections in Virginia, Massachusetts, etc., but he didn't learn that it is not all about him and that he has made mistakes. I heard plenty of rationalizations, but no admissions that his policies were (and are) crap. If he has not gotten that message, I just don't see how he will turn things around. Be it this economy or his poll numbers. Americans are not gonna blindly trust his word anymore. They have smartened up and will now verify. Just stating the facts.

Update: ABC pointed out (and showed video of) Judge Alito mouthing "That's not true" and shaking his head during one portion of the speech. A kinder, gentler version of "You Lie!"

An Election Result Sure to Shock

If Scott Brown beats Martha "Marcia" Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate election today Stu Rothenberg says it could be "the biggest political upset of my adult life." It will certainly be one of the happiest election nights in many Republicans' recent memories. For Republicans to take the seat held for so many decades by the most prominent and influential liberal in the Senate should send shockwaves through the state of Massachusetts, the U.S. Senate and the Democratic Party -- and just about everywhere else as well.

It will be fun to see how the Dems try to spin a Brown win. "Marcia" Coakley will, no doubt, be blamed. And George Bush. I can't help but wonder how many Dems are going to tell Obama to stay away from their districts. A lot can change between now and November, but if Brown does win (especially as strongly as it now appears he will) the psychological effect could easily hold into the fall election. As Rothenberg points out, it will help the GOP recruit some strong potential candidates who are now fence sitters and could drive some incumbent Dems into retirement. It will give Republicans confidence and hope (yeah, I said it) that Americans are not only paying attention and don't like the agenda the Democrats are ramming through, but that they are ready to do something about it.

I don't like to rely on exit polls or interesting anecdotes. I am a nervous nellie and like to wait until the votes are counted before celebrating, but things look really, really good for Brown. So good, in fact, that if he doesn't win the result will be a big shock as well because it would show all the polls to be so incredibly wrong.

Tune in tonight to see the results from Massachusetts. Just for fun click on over to MSNBC periodically to see what Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are saying. I know it is a sacrifice, but if the results are in line with the most recent polls, it will be worth it.

Update:  This was posted at Wizbang earlier today.  Real results are now coming in.  Michelle Malkin has a live blog on the election with lots of links and Kim has an open thread at Wizbang for election coverage.

Jack is Back. 24 tonight!

I started watching 24 in its first season and have seen every single episode since. I even contributed to a book about the series. For some reason, though, I have not been excited about the new season starting. I guess I was too wrapped up in Chuck and Dexter and Pants on the Ground to find out much about the upcoming season.

I hear we will see a softer, gentler Jack Bauer. Hmmm. Not so sure how that will go over, but I'll give it a chance. I am even going to give Kim a chance since she saved his life last season. I do really like the fact that this season takes place in New York. That will change things up a bit. I watched a nice little season 8 "featurette" on the Fox website and found out that Renee is back and Freddie Prinze, Jr. is in the cast. Those are both positive things. I also learned the President is the same as last season. I'm not so crazy about that, but I guess they can't have a new president every season.

The season premiere airs tonight on Fox at 9 p.m. Eastern. My DVR is set. For a humorous take, check out Dave Barry's blog.

Update:  Live blogging at Blogs4Bauer.

I started watching 24 in its first season and have seen every single episode since. I even contributed to a book about the series. For some reason, though, I have not been excited about the new season starting. I guess I was too wrapped up in Chuck and Dexter and Pants on the Ground to find out much about the upcoming season.

I hear we will see a softer, gentler Jack Bauer. Hmmm. Not so sure how that will go over, but I'll give it a chance. I am even going to give Kim a chance since she saved his life last season. I do really like the fact that this season takes place in New York. That will change things up a bit. I watched a nice little season 8 "featurette" on the Fox website and found out that Renee is back and Freddie Prinze, Jr. is in the cast. Those are both positive things. I also learned the President is the same as last season. I'm not so crazy about that, but I guess they can't have a new president every season.

The season premiere airs tonight on Fox at 9 p.m. Eastern. My DVR is set. For a humorous take, check out Dave Barry's blog.

Update:  Live blogging at Blogs4Bauer.

How to Drive Rush from Radio

Every so often I look through the threads at the Democratic Underground discussion forums to see what those on the wacky left are saying. Last night I went in search of any discussion of the latest John Edwards National Enquirer scandal and didn't find much of anything on that front. Maybe they haven't heard about it? What I did find was a brilliant idea about how to drive Rush from radio.

Find out which radio station(s) in your area broadcasting his show - then email/call the station, let them know about Rush's hateful and racist comments, and inform them you will be calling all of the advertisers the station has (not only during Rush's show) and tell them the boycott starts NOW - until they stop supporting the station(s) that supports Rush...We need to start hitting back where Rush lives - I am so sick of doing nothing while this gas-barge spews garbage daily. I will be calling radio stations in my area starting tomorrow.

What a brilliant idea. I'm sure no one has ever tried that. Okay, I'll stop mocking the probably very young liberal-in-training. The people at DU are already doing enough of that. And that is what caught my attention. Here's the first comment:

You are wasting your time.

Really, we can't even get people on DU to stop listening to Rush everyday which would do the most damage. People hate him so much they have to listen so that they can be outraged by whatever he says next.

I somehow doubt that losing the DU demographic is what would "do the most damage," but I thought the commenter had a pretty good point -- that there are a lot of people who disagree with Rush, but find themselves listening regularly. Do they do it just to be outraged or to find out what the opposition is doing? Maybe a little bit, but if that were the case, wouldn't Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews also be experiencing huge ratings with the help of conservatives who just can't stop watching? And there is where the difference is and why liberals have not yet been able to experience the success of a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. People listen because Rush is entertaining. Love him or hate him, he produces a quality product. He makes excellent points and says things people are thinking and often don't hear anywhere else in the media, but that could be done in a style and format that would put people to sleep. It is the way he presents the information that results in even many of those who can't stand him tuning in daily.

Another thing of note in the DU comments is idea that all these advertisers don't know what Rush is saying. Some of them believe that if advertisers only knew all the hate Rush spews they would have to drop their support. A couple of ironies -- first, that anyone saying Rush spews hate obviously doesn't know much about the actual content of his show. Second, it doesn't get much more ironic than for people at Democratic Underground to be talking about others spewing hate. Just look at what some at Democratic Underground spewed at Rush during his recent hospitalization. These are the people who think the idiotic, hateful stuff Olbermann and Matthews say is just great.

I don't think Rush has much to worry about.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Every so often I look through the threads at the Democratic Underground discussion forums to see what those on the wacky left are saying. Last night I went in search of any discussion of the latest John Edwards National Enquirer scandal and didn't find much of anything on that front. Maybe they haven't heard about it? What I did find was a brilliant idea about how to drive Rush from radio.

Find out which radio station(s) in your area broadcasting his show - then email/call the station, let them know about Rush's hateful and racist comments, and inform them you will be calling all of the advertisers the station has (not only during Rush's show) and tell them the boycott starts NOW - until they stop supporting the station(s) that supports Rush...We need to start hitting back where Rush lives - I am so sick of doing nothing while this gas-barge spews garbage daily. I will be calling radio stations in my area starting tomorrow.

What a brilliant idea. I'm sure no one has ever tried that. Okay, I'll stop mocking the probably very young liberal-in-training. The people at DU are already doing enough of that. And that is what caught my attention. Here's the first comment:

You are wasting your time.

Really, we can't even get people on DU to stop listening to Rush everyday which would do the most damage. People hate him so much they have to listen so that they can be outraged by whatever he says next.

I somehow doubt that losing the DU demographic is what would "do the most damage," but I thought the commenter had a pretty good point -- that there are a lot of people who disagree with Rush, but find themselves listening regularly. Do they do it just to be outraged or to find out what the opposition is doing? Maybe a little bit, but if that were the case, wouldn't Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews also be experiencing huge ratings with the help of conservatives who just can't stop watching? And there is where the difference is and why liberals have not yet been able to experience the success of a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. People listen because Rush is entertaining. Love him or hate him, he produces a quality product. He makes excellent points and says things people are thinking and often don't hear anywhere else in the media, but that could be done in a style and format that would put people to sleep. It is the way he presents the information that results in even many of those who can't stand him tuning in daily.

Another thing of note in the DU comments is idea that all these advertisers don't know what Rush is saying. Some of them believe that if advertisers only knew all the hate Rush spews they would have to drop their support. A couple of ironies -- first, that anyone saying Rush spews hate obviously doesn't know much about the actual content of his show. Second, it doesn't get much more ironic than for people at Democratic Underground to be talking about others spewing hate. Just look at what some at Democratic Underground spewed at Rush during his recent hospitalization. These are the people who think the idiotic, hateful stuff Olbermann and Matthews say is just great.

I don't think Rush has much to worry about.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Pants on the Ground!

With all the sadness in the world today, just watch this and smile. And get ya pants off the ground!

"You call yourself a cool cat, looking like a fool. Walking down town with your pants on the ground."

Here's another version with some additional lyrics.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

You Know the Democrats Are in Trouble...

CNN's angry old man Jack Cafferty is not exactly a fan of Republicans. In the past he has been pretty openly hostile to them. Imagine my surprise (does anyone say that anymore?) when I saw this video clip via Anchoress:

For those who missed it, and for me who just wants to see it in print, here is that last line:

Here's hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.

He is, in effect, telling viewers to return the Congress to Republicans in November. Well, he doesn't go that far. But at the very least he is telling them they should feel really crappy about themselves when they vote for Democrats this time around.

If Obama and the Democrats in Congress have lost Jack Cafferty they are in worse shape than I thought. Lack of transparency and broken promises on health care are the reason for this comment from Cafferty, but there are many other issues out there that do not help Democrats -- "shocking" lapses in security, record high deficit spending, record high unemployment, etc. There is other stuff out there too, like that global warming crisis that made so much money for people like Al Gore and scared your kids half to death. Not even considering those Climategate memos, it is pretty darn cold outside and this winter may be the coldest in 25 years.

I don't know how much difference Cafferty's comments will make except to those who spend a lot of time in airports and other places people are held captive to CNN, but it certainly can't be a good thing for any Democrats on the ballot in November. If Democrats were smart they would start distancing themselves from some of these unpopular policies and would work to deliver on some of those campaign promises. My guess is they will stick to their old playbooks though and blame Bush, who is no longer in office, and Republicans, who have been in the minority since 2007. That has worked for them in the past, but this time around people are paying closer attention.

Update: The following comment was made to this (crossposted at Wizbang):

And who really cares 'how' Obama and Congress go about doing things? What matters is the 'what' they do, the content and substance of the laws they pass and not whether the text of the bill has been posted online.

Here is my response: Who cares "how"? Well, a bunch of those insignificant little voters in flyover country do. You know, the ones who are not career politicians, the ones who pick up the tab. I can only hope that is the arrogant stance Democrats take from now 'til November. Using that logic it wouldn't matter which politicians sold their votes to the highest bidder, as long as the policy outcome was okay.

But that's the problem with the commenter's argument. Voters are not okay with the policies being enacted. These policies are pretty darned unpopular and are only becoming more so. That is one of the reasons people are as upset about the "how" as they are -- because they are not happy with the result of all that backroom dealing in the middle of the night.

Besides, Obama told them it was important to have the negotiations and debate open and aired on C-Span. Blame him if people seem overly interested in the "how." His promises of open government helped get him elected.

Gotta Get Back to Blogging

With all the holiday activities, sick kids, puppies, and now back to school, I have not done any real blogging in a while.  I think one of the reasons I have been so slack when it comes to blogging is due to Facebook and Twitter.  It is so much quicker and easier to tweet something (even easier to retweet it) or to link it on Facebook, that I find myself spending much more time there than here on my personal blog or at Wizbang.  I am going to ease myself back into it though.  There is sooo much to blog about these days.  My biggest problem might just be deciding which topic I want to choose.  This cold as all get out weather we are experiencing (I read today that we may have the coldest winter in 25 years), the reemergence of terrorism as a front burner issue and Obama's lame job of addressing it, the 2010 mid-term elections, and the return of 24 (yea!) and other favorite television shows like Chuck, are just a few.  If you have a favorite topic of interest, post it in the comments section.

A Few More Days

I guess the tree will come down this weekend.  I am gonna miss it. 

Dexter Finale Tonight

Showtime's Dexter is one of my favorite shows of all time and this season has been the most suspenseful yet.  Tonight Season 4 comes to a close with a much hyped finale that will supposedly blow the tops of our heads off and drive fans to therapy.  There was one preview at the end of last week's episode and one scene posted at the Showtime website.  Additional scenes can be found here.  In one of the scenes Dexter's sister Deb tells him she knows who his mother is, and in another you see her putting the pieces together that Brian Moser, the Ice Truck Killer, is the son of Laura Moser, Dexter's mom.  That is a pretty huge revelation, but it has already been released in previews.  In the books, Deb finds out that Dexter is a killer.  Will she figure that out in the television series as well?

There is supposed to be a major twist in the episode and the actress that plays Deb even said many fans might be lost over what happens. The show is amazing and consistently delivers so my expectations are high.  There has been much speculation that Dexter's wife Rita and/or her son Cody will die at the hands of the Trinity Killer tonight.  One of the other clues provided by "Deb" is that everyone matters in the end and that she hopes to see a darker Dexter next season.  I don't have a good guess about what is going to happen, but there is one little thing that has never been resolved and I wonder if it will be addressed tonight.  Dexter has never asked Rita about her first husband -- the one she never told him about.  If she does die in tonight's episode I wonder if that will ever be addressed.  The title of tonight's episode is "The Getaway."  Could the Trinity Killer get away, or will Dexter need to get away?   Or does the title refer to something altogether different?  I read a comment from someone suggesting that Deb commits suicide tonight due to the revelations that take place. That would certainly result in some lost fans.I think one thing is safe to say... it won't be boring.

UPDATE:  Just watched the finale and it was great.  Unfortunately though the twist no one was supposed to see coming was guessed correctly by many, but they did at least lead up to it in a way that still gave it the element of surprise.  Waiting for Season 5 will be torture.

UPDATE II:  Spoiler alert.  Don't read further if you don't want details.  A couple of things bothered me about the ending.  One is that the writers never tied up the loose end of Rita not telling Dexter about her first husband.  Another is something I read on a Dexter message board.  The commenter pointed out that if Rita was running back to the house to get her ID the cab would have been waiting.  She would not have sent the cab away and called another one if she was in a hurry to get back to catch a flight and just needed to run in to get her ID.  The Dexter writers are brilliant, but little stuff like that just drives me crazy.

UPDATE III:  Great Julie Benz interview here and a live chat with John Lithgow is underway beginning at 3 p.m. at Showtime.

Holiday Baking (well, not really baking -- let's call it holiday microwaving)

I love to bake, but sometimes it is nice to fix something quick and easy that makes people think you took time baking.  If you need a baked good for work or school, but don't want to spend a lot of time cooking, the following recipe is the best.  These candies are delicious and they are pretty and the hardest part of making them is unwrapping the Rolo candies.  I posted this recipe a few years ago and a friend of mine I had not seen in a while said she was searching for it because someone at work made them and she was surprised to find it at my site.  I don't even know if you can call this a recipe, but here it is:

Rolo Pretzel Candy

The recipe only calls for three ingredients, square flat pretzels, Rolo candies and pecan halves.  You just place the Rolo candy (unwrap first, of course) on top of the pretzel, microwave and press the pecan into the top of the half melted candy.  I did a plate of 20 at a time and microwaved them for about 30 seconds on high.  They are extremely easy to make, look really nice and are delicious. 

If you want to try something a little more challenging (but still extremely easy), try Rachel Ray's Five Minute Fudge.  It is quick and easy and can be decorated as a wreath for a lovely gift or party food and the recipe can be modified with just about any mix in you choose.

• 1 bag semisweet chocolate morsels (12 ounces)
  
• 9 ounces butterscotch morsels (3/4 of a 12 ounce bag)
• 1 can sweetened condensed milk (14 ounces)
  
• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
• 1 can or package of walnut halves (8 ounces)
  
• 1/2 cup currants (a couple handfuls)
• 8-inch cake pan, lightly greased with softened butter
• Candied red and green cherries, for garnish (optional)

Preparation

Place a heavy pot on the stove and pre-heat it over low heat. Add chocolate and butterscotch morsels and milk and stir until morsels are melted and milk is combined. Save the empty condensed milk can. Stir in the vanilla and remove the fudge from heat. Add the nuts and currants and stir in immediately.

Cover the empty condensed milk can with plastic wrap and center it in the greased cake pan. Spoon fudge into pan around can, making sure to center the can if it drifts.

The fudge will set up almost immediately. Garnish can only be added in the first minute or two that the fudge is in the pan, so work quickly. Decorate your wreath with "holly" made from cut candied red and green cherries. A wreath left plain can be garnished with a pretty fabric bow when serving.

Chill covered in the refrigerator. Slice the fudge very thin when ready to serve – a little goes a long way!

Instead of melting the chocolate chips on the stovetop, I usually use the microwave.  If you aren't used to melting chocolate in the microwave, the trick is to microwave for a really short time (like a minute or less) and then stir.  Keep doing that at short intervals until completely melted, being careful not to scorch.  This recipe is very versatile because you can use different types of chocolate chips and mix-ins.  My mom got this recipe (or one incredibly similar) from a friend many years ago and used to make this fudge with white chocolate chips, pecans and chopped cherries.

I've posted this recipe the past couple of years and have tried several variations.  One that I found yummiest was made using one bag of Nestle's white chocolate chips and one bag of Nestle's "swirls" chips (the white and milk chocolate swirls).  It makes a light brown fudge with a really unique flavor. This really is super quick and easy.

I'll post my favorite fudge recipe in a separate post because it requires a bit more work (as well as a candy thermometer and a strong stirring arm), but this one is good.  These two recipes can't be beat if you are looking for something quick and easy, yet still really pretty and yummy.

• 1 bag semisweet chocolate morsels (12 ounces)
  
• 9 ounces butterscotch morsels (3/4 of a 12 ounce bag)
• 1 can sweetened condensed milk (14 ounces)
  
• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
• 1 can or package of walnut halves (8 ounces)
  
• 1/2 cup currants (a couple handfuls)
• 8-inch cake pan, lightly greased with softened butter
• Candied red and green cherries, for garnish (optional)

Preparation

Place a heavy pot on the stove and pre-heat it over low heat. Add chocolate and butterscotch morsels and milk and stir until morsels are melted and milk is combined. Save the empty condensed milk can. Stir in the vanilla and remove the fudge from heat. Add the nuts and currants and stir in immediately.

Cover the empty condensed milk can with plastic wrap and center it in the greased cake pan. Spoon fudge into pan around can, making sure to center the can if it drifts.

The fudge will set up almost immediately. Garnish can only be added in the first minute or two that the fudge is in the pan, so work quickly. Decorate your wreath with "holly" made from cut candied red and green cherries. A wreath left plain can be garnished with a pretty fabric bow when serving.

Chill covered in the refrigerator. Slice the fudge very thin when ready to serve – a little goes a long way!

Instead of melting the chocolate chips on the stovetop, I usually use the microwave.  If you aren't used to melting chocolate in the microwave, the trick is to microwave for a really short time (like a minute or less) and then stir.  Keep doing that at short intervals until completely melted, being careful not to scorch.  This recipe is very versatile because you can use different types of chocolate chips and mix-ins.  My mom got this recipe (or one incredibly similar) from a friend many years ago and used to make this fudge with white chocolate chips, pecans and chopped cherries.

I've posted this recipe the past couple of years and have tried several variations.  One that I found yummiest was made using one bag of Nestle's white chocolate chips and one bag of Nestle's "swirls" chips (the white and milk chocolate swirls).  It makes a light brown fudge with a really unique flavor. This really is super quick and easy.

I'll post my favorite fudge recipe in a separate post because it requires a bit more work (as well as a candy thermometer and a strong stirring arm), but this one is good.  These two recipes can't be beat if you are looking for something quick and easy, yet still really pretty and yummy.

An Interesting Update to Pulitzer Prize Winner's NYT ObamaCare Story

Michelle Malkin followed up on a story Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof reported in the New York Times as evidence of the urgent need for universal health care and she found some things the Pulitzer Prize winner didn't find. It appears he didn't find them because he didn't bother to look for them.

Today, I did something that Pulitzer Prize-winning NYTimes columnist Nick Kristof apparently didn't do: I talked to a spokesman at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, Oregon.

I called them up after OHSU's Dr. Johnny Delashaw left a comment about Kristof's piece spotlighting the horrible plight of John Brodniak, an Oregon man with a neurological condition that he says no one would treat.

Kristof used Brodniak's plight to argue for universal health care, decry Brodniak's deadly lack of insurance (even though he got Medicaid coverage in August), and lambaste doctors for refusing to treat Brodniak due to low reimbursements.

Well, OHSU confirmed for me two things:

1) OHSU is a safety-net hospital not far from where Brodniak lives. The hospital accepts all Medicaid patients and would not turn Brodniak away.

Okay, are you ready for Number 2?

2) Brodniak is a patient at OHSU -- and has been a patient there for the past three weeks.

What amazes me (and Michelle makes this point in her piece as well) is that Kristof reported that Brodniak had gotten Medicaid coverage, but then cited the situation Mr. Brodniak was in as proof of the need for universal health care. Huh? So this man who Kristof said could not get adequate health care was a recipient of a government health care program. That is typical of liberals though. Any failure by a government program is not seen as proof that some things are better handled by the private sector, but that the government program is simply not big or far reaching enough. Read Michelle's full post. It is a jaw dropper.

Update:  More from Bookworm.

Crossposted at Wizbangblog.com.

A Big Pile O' Puppies

If you live in North Carolina and want a puppy, I am the woman to see.  The mama is a yellow lab and the daddy is some dog that got into our backyard fence.  All the puppies are black and look like, well, you can see for yourself in the picture above.