In the wake of the unexpected outcome of the New Hampshire Democrat primary Tuesday, sources at the Democrat National Committee (DNC) said theyre still trying to figure out whom to sue amid a flurry of allegations of fraud, malfunctioning electronic voting machines and voter intimidation.
Its a forgone conclusion that if the race outcome defies the pollster predictions, there must have been corruption, said an unnamed DNC source. Just because its an intra-party contest, doesnt mean well subject the results to less scrutiny.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/09/2008 07:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Also from Scrappleface:
Hillary: Too Early to Talk About Withdrawal
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 9 Comments
(2008-01-02) Former presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton today reaffirmed her commitment to her White House bid in the face of polls showing she could finish as low as second or third in Thursdays Iowa caucuses.
Reprising her campaign announcement speech, Sen. Clinton said, Im in, and Im in to win. But it all depends on what your definition of win is.
More on Obama for those who don't know his Chicago machine connections
Prospective First Laddie Bill Clinton bought into the fairy tale theme Tuesday in New Hampshire, wondering why the media doesn't treat Sen. Barack Obama as harshly as we treat his wife.
"Give me a break," Bill said, stumping for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
Normally, politicians whining about media treatment can't be taken seriously. But today, President Clinton, though the earth may crack open and devour me, it appears you're absolutely correct:
The Clintons are indeed the victims of a Vast Left Wing [Media] Conspiracy.
Who knows why, exactly? As surveys have suggested, most reporters are Democrats, and many covering the campaign must be pouring their collective liberal guilt into the vessel that is Obama.
Either way, all this pro-Barack hope and change and excitement, all these delicious, Barack-inspired comparisons to the Kennedys and Camelot and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., it's all quite overwhelming, until you consider what's been cut out:
That Obama is only a few short years removed from taking orders in Springfield, in the Illinois State Senate, and you know how clean Illinois politics is.
So as we wait for Obama to transform our politics, let's hold our breath and see who turns purple first. That'll give me time to apologize to Sen. Clinton about that "white witch" crack over the weekend.
Last Sunday, I dipped my fingertips into fairyland analogies, into C.S. Lewis' land of Narnia, describing Obama as a gentle forest faun, the Mr. Tumnus of the Democratic primaries, the one national political character who gets media hugs from almost everybody.
I like Obama, but I won't apologize for comparing him to a kind and beloved faun. He is indeed the Mr. Tumnus of American politics, gently offering free tea and cakes to all Americans, all the free stuff that won't cost us anything (unless you're a taxpayer).
He doesn't play a flute, but he sure makes great speeches, and you can see that infectious, charismatic Tumnusotude on TV.
But, blinded by Obama, I foolishly used the "white witch" analogy for Sen. Clinton.
So I apologize to her, and not just because my wife told me to. Women have it hard enough without foolish "white witch" analogies. I went too far, I shouldn't have done it, and besides, Hillary had that emotional moment at the diner the other day, and you probably won't believe me, but it melted my frozen heart.
I think it was an absolutely sincere moment. And even though a politician would use everything -- even a sincere moment -- the fact is that Hillary Clinton let her guard down, finally, and stopped being icy.
This doesn't mean I agree with her. I disagree with her on just about everything. But she has been running as a candidate, in the arena, for years. And as she campaigns, Obama gets the applause and media sainthood and a pass as a gentle faun in the national fairy tale.
But this fairy tale doesn't begin in Kenya or Hawaii or Kansas or at Harvard. Obama's political fairy tale really begins in Chicago.
That's where Obama's own real estate fairy loved to play in Illinois Democratic -- and Republican -- politics.
Chicago is not really an enchanted land, unless you've got clout at City Hall, and then you can be white guys with mob connections and drink with Mayor Richard Daley at Como Inn at Christmas parties, and receive $100 million in city affirmative action contracts. And no Democrat -- not even our national change-agent Barack Obama -- would dare demand answers.
Other Chicago fairy tales include the gangbanger who runs the corrupt Hired Truck program out of City Hall, and the 11th Ward hacks who broke federal law to create massive patronage armies of city workers -- improperly hired and promoted, for the express purpose of controlling local elections.
Obama endorsed the mayor for re-election, and other machine hacks, including Cook County Board President Todd Stroger, a Daley puppet and political disaster. This upset some local reformers.
His supporters say he had to play ball with the Daley machine to survive. And he's promised Tribune readers that he'd keep U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago fighting political corruption. This threatens Daley and the state's Republican combine masters, but Obama may indeed do most for change by maintaining the status quo.
One fairy tale that touches close to home for Obama (literally, Obama's home) is the story of his real estate fairy, the indicted fixer Tony Rezko, who helped the Obamas buy their dream house.
Rezko is scheduled to stand trial in late February in Chicago, on federal political corruption charges that worry Democrats and Republicans. His lawyers on Tuesday tried to stall the trial -- saying there was too much evidence to process -- but they failed.
Hillary did better than expected in New Hampshire, but to win she'll still have to rip Barack's fairy tale to shreds. And the Clintons know how to do that. blue vs. blue...yes!
The teary, compassionate Hillary and her human moment were just in time and misinterpreted by the media:
(1) She didnt actually break down and cry, but better yet, only teared up a drop or two showing a human side, with glimpses of empathetic frailty, but not rivers of abject weakness and loss of composure.
(2) Contrary to popular wisdom, this was not an Ed Muskie New Hampshire moment. When a tall, lanky man breaks down in tears thats one thing; its quite another to see a teary-eyed confessional woman. There is a double-standard, but its not the one were told: Men always seem to look weak when they tear up; women can look, well, empathetic and sensitive. In this regard, note when she opened her heart there was an enhancing soft light around her, and her make-up was understated and pastelish an aura effect.
(3) The slur against her was that she was an iron-lady automaton, without emotion; so she needed that tearful introspection; it was not like a quirky, psycho-dramatic Pat Schroeder crying 20 years ago, and thereby confirming what we suspected that as a fragile personality, she was subject to wild mood swings and undue passions. Hillarys quarter tear wasnt the weepy Cowardly Lion serially breaking down, but an appreciated sad drop or two coming from the heartless Tin Man.
4) No comment on the authenticity of her human moment, since the Im all choked up is a one-time bromide. It did the trick and cant be repeated.
Again, never underestimate the Clintonian team. (In this regard the astute Dick Morriss apparently obsessive worries are hardly obsessive, but very real.)
(Hillary Clinton is in the midst of a complete focus-group/poll-driven/handler make-over. And to the degree she sticks to it (a big if), she will do fine. As we heard tonight, Hillary has now found her voice; she suddenly speaks more slowly, there are more bite-the-lip-like pauses, and she has been reminded not to go into frenetic panic mode or hit that screech-owl high note as much. She will seek out interviews, welcome questions, and be empathetic, accessible, and sensitive to the public. . . .
A final note: The campaign talking heads and opinion makers this season have been lousy, about the worst in memory especially the shes won, shes lost, shes won... feeding frenzy, and then writing the silly end of the Clinton era essays all based on a few thousand Iowans, some bad polls in New Hampshire, and catch-up to what some other wrong pundit wrote an hour earlier. And remember, these are experts who pontificated each week on the real Iraq war.
They remind one of the ridiculous gnashing tropical carp, splashing about in Saddams old Baghdad pond.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/09/2008 08:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Okay, she's worked the crying thing to stay alive.
Time to bring out what the Clinton's are really good at. The Long Knives...
#2
After GUNS-AND-ROSES [DON'T CRY - Joseph and James], after the BATTLESHIP OKLAHOMA, after those UNDERWATER WALKING PIRATES in "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN", etc., GUAM TAOTAMONAS = GHOSTS OF THE DEAD PAST PRES AND FUTURE, now comes HILLARY.
The nutroots come within a mustache hair's length of taking Pakistan's title in the Conspirazoid Olympics. I'm linking to Cadillac Tight, who wades into the D.U.M.B. so you don't have to. If you follow his links, make sure to wear safety goggles and check to ensure your insurance is paid up.
#2
Voting machines combined with photo ID - which eliminate voting by the dead and proxy - would be the death of the Dems and they know it.
After 2000, there were cries of outrage from the Dems about how we needed election reform and modernization. I knew then that it was a bunch of hot air, and it's no less so now. The Democrats have no good reason and no incentive at all (actually a disincentive) to want a more modern, accurate tally of votes.
The Democrat party is the party of voter fraud, particularly in the Rust Belt area of the U.S. "Fudgeable" paper ballots and tallies of said ballots have been the means of insuring that Dems win in key close districts in cities in the northeast and upper midwest for decades now. A simple online search will net you a wealth of information regarding this subject.
This began in the 1930's and got a boost in the 1960 debacle, when votes were manufactured to make JFK president. That is the template, and it will be followed.
The real fear of the Dems is not that the Repubs will use the machines to engineer a victory (well, maybe among the moonbat fringe it is - projection and all that), but rather that a more accurate means of counting votes will destroy their hegemonic hold on a lot of urban districts in some of the blue and purple states.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/09/2008 5:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Excellent post, no more uro. The notorious mafia-influenced New Jersey voting patterns and New York's sordid electoral history dating back to Tammany Hall only reinforce your point.
#5
Good points uro. However even with voting machines the donks can defraud their way into office.
Case in point the last Washington state election. modern voting machines, two recounts, 'found' ballots, felons, the dead, and imaginary friends (of the democrats) voting. The King County (Wa's largest) elections office is the county executive's (a democrat) private fifedome.
And now the latest - mandatory vote-by-mail. No need for positive ID (and definately no need of proof of citizenship!). Just send in (or have your local DNC operative send in - with or without your knowledge) you ballot by mail. Trust us - we're the Democrats!
Personally I think if your not disabled or out of the country you can get your lazy fat ass down to the polling place and vote in person. Same with registration.
#7
Speaking of patterns of paranoid thinking, prison planet is claiming the vote was rigged to keep ron paul down (who else?), and boost clinton and guilliani up.
#8
About half the Kossacks are screaming that Hillary and Diebold stole the election. The other half are calling the first group nasty names because they're falling for silly conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/09/2008 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Item 1) Pope Benedict XVI will not debate with these "scholars". The meetings, if they occur, will be with Vatican officials.
Item 2) Remember the two gifts that the King of Saudi Arabia delivered to the Pope last year? One was a sword. The other was a stature of a desert raider. That's the message of Islam to Benedict.
#4
I give this less chance than the U.S. Department of State coaxing the U.N. into being a streamlined and efficient world problem-solving body. When this falls apart, the Muslim "scholars" will have done their Koranic duty to invite the infidels into Islam and thus Islam will then be freed take up the sword against those who have not accepted the invitation.
A major weakness in the western peace movements is the mistaken assumption that hostile parties are all men of goodwill who will sit down to dialogue with no ulterior motives.
#5
When the "Letter" was published last year, the author of this commentary (which should be read), Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, was ecstatic, almost Chamberlainesque, in his response. Then he mellowed a bit, and now, reality bites.
Excerpt:
The greatest danger of the letter of the 138 is in its silences, in what it does not address: there is no reference, for example, to the problems of the international community in regard to the Muslim community, or to the real problems within the Muslim community. The Ummah finds itself at a very delicate point, in a phase of widespread extremism and radicalism among a significant segment of Muslims, which is a form of exclusivity: those who do not think as we do are our enemies. This is evident every day in the Muslim press, and we see violence and attacks in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, among Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or against Christians or Jews, or simply against tolerant Muslims . . . and they do exist!
And this:
But then (in the fifth paragraph of the text) they propose a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic, and explain: "By 'intrinsic' I mean that which refers to our own souls and their inner make-up, and by 'extrinsic' I mean that which refers to the world and thus to society". They propose starting on the basis of the letter that they wrote, "A Common Word Between Us and You", and concentrating on "the unicity of God and the twofold commandment of love of God and neighbor". Everything else belongs to the extrinsic dimension, including social concerns.
Honestly, I find this distinction weak and even un-Islamic. Because if "intrinsic" is the soul and "extrinsic" is the world and society, then the Qur'an speaks a great deal of "extrinsic" things, and very little of "intrinsic" things. The Qur'an talks about the world, commerce, life in society, war, marriage, etc., but it says very little about the soul and one's relationship with God. But above all, the Qur'an never makes this distinction. On the contrary; the problem of Islam is precisely that of not making any sort of distinction between these two levels. Why in the world do the 138 want to address only "intrinsic" things? I think they're afraid of confronting the complete reality of the two religions.
From the commentary's conclusion:
I would not like for some theologians, finding themselves in difficulty over the affirmation of the dignity of every man, to look for a way of escape in theological dialogue. This method risks producing nothing but falsehood. But this is a problem that also exists within Islam itself. Until this has based everything upon the human person and reinterpreted the faith in the light of human rights, it will never be modern.
In the two Islamic declarations on human rights, it is repeatedly affirmed that Islam admits human rights, "as long as these conform to the law". To an unsuspecting person who reads the English translation, this may seem to be just fine. The point is that for the English translation "law", the Arab versions say "conform to sharia". This means that the "Islamic" human rights risk re-proposing the usual injustices and violence: apostasy, blasphemy, stoning, injustice toward women and children, etc[8].
Of course, interreligious dialogue cannot focus only upon human rights, but neither can it act as if there were not a serious problem precisely in this regard.
#7
Both the Catholics and the Muslims have a history of religious debate -- both with Jewish rabbis. The early Catholic debates were quite fair, and the rabbis often won; the later ones were loaded, the rabbis being killed and/or massacres of the the ghetto residents if the rabbis didn't allow themselves to be decisively beaten. As far as I know, the Muslim ones were never fair.
The current generation of Catholics go into this debate much, much better prepared than the Muslims, armed with logic, several hundred years of competing in a religious marketplace, knoowledge of the opponent, and honesty. I really, really hope this goes off, and is televised worldwide with running commentary. The Muslim scholars will be tied in knots of hopeless illogic, hatefulness, and revealed taqqiya in front of the entire world... or in temper tantrums when they realize they've lost the argument they started. Oh yes, and make sure the Swiss Guards in the room have orders to shoot as necessary.
#11
Here's a gem passage from the linked article that sums up what *I* want from the debaters:
"Respect" here also means that there are differences that must be guaranteed and welcomed. For example, a Muslim can say to a Christian: I do not agree with what you believe, that Jesus has a human and divine nature. You Christians are polytheists, because you place other gods, your Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, beside the one God. I say: let us seek to live in mutual respect. You have the full right to say that the Islamic conception excludes the Trinity, the divine-humanity. But leave me the right to say, for example, that Mohammed was not sent by God. I can acknowledge that he was a great personality on the human and political level, a social and spiritual reformer, that he also brought negative contributions, but not that he was a prophet. Do I have the right to say that, or not? As you have the right to say that you do not believe in the divinity of Christ - and in this you are consistent in your faith - we, too, have the right to say what we think about Mohammed. In short, there is no such thing as a "taboo" topic, but there are only taboo means and methods, because these are violent and disrespectful.
I think this is an issue that should be forced to the front: will there be true equality, in both directions, for this sort of thing, IN ALL FORUMS? I don't want the muslim weasels saying that criticising Mohammed is okay only in an academic context between faculty members, which is a sliver of a minority of the vast population. Does EVERYONE have that right?
Heh, TW, I am NOT surprised at the losses suffered by Catholic priests at the hands of Rabbis, which should have warned them that they had some housecleaning to do before the Reformers went after them with Sola Scriptura. Few Christians have any real depth in the Jewish scriptures (Old testament), so they fancy they can prove Jesus is the Messiah solely from Old Testament verses (can't be done: the verses are not detailed enough, in my view, to 'prove' it). The claims that Paul, Apollos, and the apostles were able to do that are unsupported, since the New testament does not report the details of the core arguments that were made.
There actually was one good outcome from those Jewish/Catholic debates: the current book/chaper/verse coordinate system for the Old and New Testaments was developed and accepted by both sides as a way to facilitate those debates, and probably was the only thing of lasting worth coming out of them.
#13
I didn't know about Ptah's thingy either. (He's one of my favourite Rantburg U professors.) But the Catholics have been discussing all sorts of things with their Jewish and Protestant colleagues, and they've learnt a great deal that is useful... and the current pope is considered an expert on Islam.
EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?
Here's how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:
"The Americans have told the world we don't want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.
"We can push these cowardly Americans now. They've had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.
"Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America's might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them."
Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.
At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?
Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?
On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They'll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.
For almost 70 years, we've deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we've gone from "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" to "Will this interfere with my next promotion?"
1. Narrow strait, with even narrower traffic lane. Perfect location.
2. Iranian naval doctrine Additional information on strategy and tactics is here
3. As part of that doctrine, Iran keeps U.S. warships in the region under close observation and gathers intel on them. It's likely they know who's coming in or leaving days before they arrive.
4. In addition to small craft, mines, and submarines, Iran maintains shore based anti-ship missile batteries. Somehow all you wannabe Nelsons missed them. These missiles are Chinese-origin. Some are C-802s (supposedly extended range), similar to the Sunburn-type that hit the Saar 5 corvette off Lebanon. Others are modernized/extended range HY-2 (Silkworm) missiles. There's a lot of them (it's also likely the Iranians have acquired Chinese copies of the Exocet for use by sea and air-borne platforms, but that doesn't necessarily play a part here).
5. The recent IRGCN incident with the USN appears similar to Hisb'allah's successful attempt to draw the IDF into combat in South Lebanon.
In other words, instigate, draw the opponent in, and respond with massive, prepared, force when the opponent 'retaliates'. Had the USN ships fired on the IRGCN boats, it's certain that the IRGC was ready with a response.
There would be a global incident; probably lots of confusion, allegations and counter-allegations, but the bottom line is, three USN ships would have been attacked. Likely badly damaged. Possibly sunk. Iran would have the 'justified' war it wants; or at the very least, a propaganda coup. No doubt the mechanism for disseminating that line was in place with sympathetic outlets.
What worked against it was superior intel: knowledge of Iranian naval doctrine and tactics, long-standing awareness of shore-based missile installations, etc. Combine that with superb discipline and professionalism, and a potential crisis on the eve of a Presidential visit to the Middle East was averted.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(2) Contrary to popular wisdom, this was not an Ed Muskie New Hampshire moment. When a tall, lanky man breaks down in tears thats one thing; its quite another to see a teary-eyed confessional woman. There is a double-standard, but its not the one were told: Men always seem to look weak when they tear up; women can look, well, empathetic and sensitive. In this regard, note when she opened her heart there was an enhancing soft light around her, and her make-up was understated and pastelish an aura effect.
(Hillary Clinton is in the midst of a complete focus-group/poll-driven/handler make-over. And to the degree she sticks to it (a big if), she will do fine. As we heard tonight, Hillary has now found her voice; she suddenly speaks more slowly, there are more bite-the-lip-like pauses, and she has been reminded not to go into frenetic panic mode or hit that screech-owl high note as much. She will seek out interviews, welcome questions, and be empathetic, accessible, and sensitive to the public. . . .
