I think Edwards is going to win Iowa. I suppose Fellatio Girl will get second place, but i dunno, that’s a tough one. Edwards never left Iowa after the 2004 cycle. His 24/7 populist message is ideally tailored to Iowa. Fellatio Girl’s pitch boils down to “Remember Bill Clinton? I was one of the women he fucked.” Hey, that’s a pretty good idea for a billboard for Fellatio Girl.
I just think Iowans are too level headed to think that Barack Hussein Osama has a chance in hell of winning the presidency in 2008.
I saw the replay of Huckabee’s session on the Russert show last evening. He’s done. Asked if he still thought that invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden was a good idea, he gave a clintonian response, first crowing about how prescient he was to know that Pakistan is a moslem country which borders Afghanistan, and to know that Bin Laden may well be lurking somewhere in Pakistan, and that he has supporters, many supporters in Pakistan. He boasted about this without any apparent sense of irony or self consciousness.
I couldn’t watch any more after Russert tagged him with earlier remarks putting homosexuality and pedophilia under the same blanket, and with other remarks stating rather bluntly that homosexuality is a sin.
What kind of moron do you have to be to say that a sexual orientation towards one’s own gender, conferred at birth, is per se a sin?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Huckabee comes in third in Iowa, behind Romney and McCain.
There are reports this morning that “someone” is sending out fake Xmas cards in Iowa, featuring particularly juicy verses from the Book of Mormom. My money is on Huckabee for this nasty little gimmick.
Like many people, I saw this coming. It was obvious that the vile snake Fellatio Girl would attack Osama by alleging that he is Muslim. Here it is, from AP reports:
While announcing his support for Clinton on Sunday, Kerrey told The Washington Post in an interview that while he hopes Clinton is the nominee, he would like Obama to have a role – especially because of his ability to reach out to black youth and Muslims around the world.
“It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim,” said Kerrey, a former governor and the current president of the New School in New York City. “There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal.”
Kerrey’s mention of Obama’s middle name and his Muslim roots raised eyebrows because they are also used as part of a smear campaign on the Internet that falsely suggests Obama is a Muslim who wants to bring jihad to the United States.
Rationally, I know that Osama has no chance of being elected president in 2008, although this reality certainly does not please or gratify me in any way. I think Osama could be a factor in 2012, but I hope he mans up and goes after Fellatio Girl with as vicious and ferocious an attack as he can muster. I have suggested a number of productive strategies elsewhere. He needs to get on his horse!
By the way, I kid Osama about his name, but he is Christian.
This study from a scientist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory concludes that the senstivity of global temperatures to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1.1 +/- 0.5 degree K. The sensitivity of the planetary system to increases in CO2 levels is less than half the figure used by the UN’s IPCC. Idiots like Algore, and even the IPCC reports, present the notion that planetary temperatures respond to increased CO2 in a linear relationship. In reality, the relationship is logarithmic–the incremental temperature increase due to CO2 diminishes as CO2 concentrations rise. The reason for this is the mechanism by which CO2 contributes to increased temperature. The shape and size of the CO2 molecule prevents the radiation into space of a certain range of wavelengths of infrared energy reflected from the earth’s surface. As a greater and greater pecentage of this range of wavelengths of energy is blocked, incremental amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere have less and less effect.
But you don’t have to believe or understand anything about the mechanism to look at charts of CO2 concentrations overlaid with charts of global mean surface temperatures (GMST). When you look at the charts, the logarithmic relationship is evident. If the IPCC’s hypothesis were correct, GMST should increase in a linear relationship to CO2 concentrations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even so, given that the relationship is logarithmic, there is still a legitimate concern about the point at which the temperature forcing levels out. The top end of the range assessed by this paper, 1.6 degrees K, may seem small, but there is little doubt that we will all notice this in dramatic (although well short of catastrophic) changes in the planetary ecology. The bigger concern is the possibility that we will experience warming due to changes in solar activity. It would not be a bad thing for the planet to consider what we will do about this, if it develops.
Some readers of this paper conclude that the author is saying that some large portion of the total possible forcing from increased in CO2 levels has already occurred, i.e., during the industrial era, increased CO2 has already probably caused an increase of about .5 degrees C, +/- .3 C. I am uncertain as to whether this is an accurate reading.
It continues to amaze me that so many alleged scientists are apparently so willing to ignore the facts.
I like this story from Politico. Once again, the ratsocrats think they are special, and they want to be able to veto the president’s appointees. The ratsocrats have no respect for the law. The only thing they care about is their own power, and its perpetuation.
Well, I think having the FEC hamstrung until President Romney is sworn in would be just ducky. I’d like to think that the republicans in Congress took the time to actually read the Bill of Rights, and noticed for the first time the words “Congress shall make no law…”
I can just see it: Mitch McConnell had to poo really bad, and the only thing he could find in a hurry to take with him to read was a 1977 copy of Newsweek (Jimmy Carter wearing a cardigan on the cover), and a little pamphlet of the Constitution and all the amendments. He comes out of the cloakroom bathroom, and clears his throat nervously and asks uncomfortably, “Now, when this says ‘Congress,’ are they talking about us?” Heads nod all around.
“What does this word ‘no’ mean, as in ‘no law’?” Surely it doesn’t really mean NO law!” Someone looks up the word “no.” They are all shocked. They look around for Fellatio Boy, hoping that he will perhaps be able to provide a different spin on this word’s meaning. But Fellatio Boy isn’t there, he is giving mouth-to-mouth 24/7 to Fellatio Girl’s campaign (using a dental dam, I am quite certain).
“Now, if we pass a law restricting freedom of speech on candidates for election to federal office, wouldn’t that be a law, so, how can we do that if this thing says NO law?”
Silence fills the room as they realize they have made perhaps a little boo boo.
This is what I’d like to think happened. Bye bye, McCain-Feingold!
How stupid do you have to be to say this? This would be like a man, seeing that his dog is pooping all over his yard, deciding that he is going to ban the dog from pooping for 90 days. Does Fellatio Girl really not get how stupid an idea this is, or is she just so evil and lacking in character that she doesn’t care?
I have to vote “evil.” She will say and do anything she feels will help her get elected. She’s in kind of a bind right now because she is forced to talk out of both sides of her mouth about immigration, and she just isn’t as good at this as Fellatio Boy was. Perhaps she could spent 15 minutes in the next ratsocrat debate explaining the meaning of the word “is,” just her rhetorical skills to hone [Enrico does lame imitation of Yoda].
One of the troubling things about Mitt Romney is something of a pattern of “convenient” changes of position, notably on abortion. As a candidate for governor and senator in Massachusetts, Romney was pro choice, a stance which could be fairly described as “well calculated” for maximizing his electoral prospects in that state. Now, as a candidate for the republican nomination, he is pro life, also a well calculated position.
There are other topics on which his public views have apparently changed, where he has changed to a position more likely to see him nominated. This raises the very fair question, what does he really believe? Can we believe anything he says, given an apparent tendency to change what he claims to believe apparently based on his calculations of political advantage?
Romney addressed the abortion point on Russert’s show this morning. I was struck favorably by his detailed description of the specific situation which caused him to change his mind. To me, his story has the ring of truth, and his story is supported by the public record. I was also struck by his remark that, although he changed his mind about the government’s proper role in the abortion issue, he honored the promise he made while campaigning for governor, that he would not seek to change the state’s laws on abortion.
I am convinced that Romney would prefer to see an America where abortion was essentially banned, with narrow exceptions rooted in the preservation of life. However, I am also convinced that he is not going to make abortion law the centerpiece of his administration. It is clear that the nation will not support such a dramatic change in the status quo at the moment. I think Romney would resist expansions of government-sponsored activity that threatens human life, and would gladly seize upon opportunities to roll back the destruction of human life. I would be satisfied with that. It would be wrong for the president to attempt to violently impose a revolution in abortion law on the nation.
So, is he a flip flopper? I think he is. He has changed his tune on several other topics: immigration and gun control, notably. But when you drill down on the change of tune, there is a similar story. Romney talks a lot about what he is going to seek to do, in a fairly pragmatic, concrete manner. He views these remarks as a kind of contract with the electorate: vote for me, and this is what I am going to try to do. Not surprisingly, his description of what he is going to try do changes depending on the position he is seeking, and the electorate he is seeking to represent, or to lead.
I can live with this kind of flip flopping, as long as he accurately describes what he is going to try to do, and substantially sticks to it.
I liked his response to Russert, that if you are looking for someone who never changes his mind, no matter what, then Romney is not your guy. When I was hiring people at my consultancy, I used to ask more experienced candidates to tell me about a time when they changed their mind about a matter of some importance. I had a hard time hiring someone who claimed he never changed his mind. Real life just doesn’t work that way. Who is always right from the very beginning?
I think Romney holds the right core principles. I am more persuaded after seeing this interview that we can trust what he says.
I am not a scientist. But my reverence for the white-coated priests of logic, evidence, reason, caution and dispassionate objectivity has been shaken to the core by the alleged prevailing scientific consensus that human-emitted carbon dioxide is causing or is going to cause a catastrophic increase in global average temperatures.
This conclusion is simply not at all supported by the facts.
I don’t know if there are going to be any more ratsocrat debates after Iowa, but I think Osama ought to mention Monica Lewinsky in the next one. I think he should ponder aloud what kind of character it reflects for a woman to stand by a scumbag of such low character for such obviously venal reasons. If she is willing to live a lie for political advantage in her career, to what levels will she NOT stoop? Mrs. Clinton, are you going to engage in illicit sex in the oval office, too? I don’t remember ever hearing say you thought your husband was wrong to take advantage of a woman young enough to be his daughter. Mrs. Clinton, I don’t remember hearing you say that your husband’s pardon of the felon Marc Rich was wrong. Are you selling your support to felons also? Just how much did your husband collect from the fugitive felon? Is the cash in your freezer in Westchester? What did you do in return for getting that amazing commodity trade? How did you become such an expert on feeder cattle futures? Who did you get to kill Vince Foster, and why did you have to have him whacked? When you canoodle with your aide, are you the pitcher or the receiver? Do you prefer the term “carpet muncher” or “muff diver”?
I think Fellatio Girl’s head might explode. There is no possible answer she can give that will not make her completely transparent. The sputtering and speechless fuming will be a good opportunity for Osama to look stern and disgusted.
Ok, so maybe hardball doesn’t play well in the hawkeye state, but punching her in the gut and kicking her in the cooter will go over big in South Carolina and in Florida.
I have come to hold Bush in contempt, but I have to admit it, it amuses me greatly to see him spanking the congressional ratsocrats around, seeing the feuding between comrade Pelosi and Reid, and seeing congressional approval ratings go even lower than his own. The ratsocrats just don’t know what to do, now that it is obvious to everyone except perhaps the silky pony and the plagiarist that things are better in Iraq. The ratsocrats don’t know what to say about immigration, as seen in fellatio girl’s confusing effort to say “yes” and “but then again no.” The only thing the ratsocrats can do is hope for disaster in Iraq, hope for economic reversals in this country, and work 24/7 on their oppo research for the general. Heck, they’ve already dug up all the dirt on Osama all the back to kindergarten, all the GOP nominee will have to do is make a few choice hirings amongst the whore parade of ratsocratic staffers, and he’ll have all the oppo he needs for the general.
I hope they all break their teeth. I hope Bush sticks to his guns on the budget, and makes the ratsocrats either cave or do the gingrich walk out of their shuttered offices, flanked by their furloughed staffers. Bush should insist that, prior to signing the budget, Pelosi and Reid write 100 times on a blackboard “I will not say that the American military has been defeated before they’ve even begun to fight.”