Thursday, February 28, 2008



From Imus to callers to family to friends to stangers I am daily asked - usually earnestly - "Why do you have a problem with John McCain?"

Don't worry, I've no intention here of yet again detailing that damning indictment. Rather, let us be sporting, and assume that when McCain was recently slapped around by Real Conservatives for his voluminous betrayals, he meant it: he's a proud conservative, really he is, and from now on he'll observe at least the rudimentary values of our ilk.

Most conservatives - your gentle host included - remained deeply skeptical but, again, were willing to be sporting and cautiously give him a chance to prove himself.

Alas, it took Senator McCain only a few days to viloate the terms of his probation.

Yesterday in Cincinnati, a local radio talk show host introduced McCain by way of brief opening remarks wherein he criticized the media's love affair with "Barack Hussein Obama". Shocking! He uttered Obama's name! How base! How low!

The entirety of the radio hosts' crime was to thrice mention the demi-god's full name, Barack Hussein Obama. So awful was this offense that Juan McCain jumped to denounce his supporter for "making some disparaging remarks about my colleague" (Obama). "I condemn it..and I apologize for it."

It gets worse. According to the New York Times, McCain then added "it is not appropriate to invoke Mr. Obama's middle name." "I absolutely repudiate such comments. It will never happen again."

Never happen again?
There goes the McCain campaign.

Look, I am keenly aware that Obama's adveraries (e.g. myself) include his middle name when identifying him by way of drawing attention to the understandable dissonance of a discernably Islamic name carried by a very major candidate for President of the United States.

What of it?

This: the "conservative" Republican candidate for President presumptive believes the Mention of a Candidate's Name is ipso facto "disparaging", is grounds for charges of racism, islamofacism, nativism, xenophobia and sun spots, is grounds for throwing under the bus geunine conservatives, and issuing groveling apology.

As such, there is no conservative, nor genuine Republican, candidate for President.

But then, we already knew that - our nominee is Juan McCain.



Wednesday, February 27, 2008




This could - could - represent the start of a super-delegate avalanche toward 0-BAMA.

N.B. Could this be an indirect validator of my earlier post carrying the rumor of a Friday Clinton withdrawl from this race?





The following is a Rumor.
It is hearsay.
It is third party (someone told someone who told me, now you).
I cannot verify it.
But I do trust the person who told me.
And the principal source is in a position to know such things.
That said:

Someone whom I know intimately, who has top level national media and political connections, contacted me just now to say "I last evening dined with X, and X tells me Hillary is planning to quite the race day after tomorrow, Friday."

That's what I am told.

What do I think?

On the one hand I cannot believe she would do this without testing her chances in Texas, Ohio, in Court and with delegates, super and otherwise.
On the other, if their (superb) internal polling indicates she is going to get hammered, I can well imagine her undrestanding she can either get out now - and look like Mitt Romney, doing what is best for her party, etc. - or be a Loser and get kicked to the gutter by voters and party elders.

What would you do?
What do you think she'll do?



Tuesday, February 26, 2008



This snore-fest is mercifully over.
Mrs. Clinton decided not to go for the knock-out.
I detest her, but I believe she is smarter, a better politician, and would make a much stronger, better president.
Clinton won the debate, but only on points.
And that is not enough to fundamentally change the course of this campaign, this story.
And nearly everybody right now believes we know how this story ends: Obama as the democrat nominee.
Anybody who supported Clinton at 9:00 supports her at 10:40.
Anybody who supported Obama at 9:00 supports him at 10:40.
The tie goes to the runner, and the runner appears to be Obama.

As I mentioned today on the air, there are two ways to go after your opponent: right here, in his face, on television - or via campaign surrogates, or leaked negative stories.
So, my question, having seen this virtual love-fest, is this: is this all Clinton has? Or will we see some bomb dropped on him (perhaps another photo...maybe in women's clothing this time)?
Knowing Clinton(s) as I do, I find it strange and difficult to believe that Clinton(s) will, with all that is at stake, let this campaign just glide into next Tueasday's crucial Texas and Ohio contests.

If this is all there is, the remaining possibility for Clinton(s) is to contest the nomination by stealing Obama delegates and by going into court to claim the banished delegates of Michigan and Florida.
But now I wonder - for the first time - whether Clinton(s) will, in the end, go that route.

So now we watch what they say the next six days.
Then, in seven, we see what Texas and Ohio say.
And in eight, I think we'll know who we'll see on the next debate stage...across from McCain.

N.B. On MSDNC's post-debate TV coverage all the anchors and analysts seem openly frustrated and surprised that Clinton(s) didn't go for the knock-out, that there wasn't more "action"; that they are surprised at the relative timidity of the event.
As, I expect, are we all.

That said: Hey, Obama - do get someone to start your car and taste your food for you between now and Tuesday.





It is now 10:00p.

2/3 of this Debate is gone.

With my apologies, I am Bored and Tired.

I shall check back if something interesting happens, ok?




Q = Question
BO = Obama Answer/Comment
HC = Clinton Answer/Comment
JS = JS Comment

> Start: HC sports hideous faux smile, BO, a disdainful frown.

> HC denies "knowing" source of Obama African photo (1st Lie!)

> JS: lost in the bickering over minute details of both plans is, of course, the fact that the Gov't runs health care, forces you to buy it, and punishes you if you don't. Will somone please say "Socialism"?

> @9:16, BO appears (to some rabid feminists) to "lecture" or "condescend" to her simply by employing her name, "Hillary"
JS: is this sexist? Because it is racist if you say "Hussein" - Keith Olberman says so!

> @ 9:18 Soundbite of the night already? HC loses it: complains that "over last several debates, I get first question all the time." (WAHHHHH!) "like Saturday Night Live, maybe we should ask Obama is he is comfy, wants another pillow". There is, I believe, some audible booing. Men with white coats and butterfly nets cannot be far away...

> 9:25: Thank the gods for Russert. He calls HC on her record, then pins her on NAFTA - she gives one answer, then another, changes course; Russert scores, catching HC in Clintonian double-talk.

> 9:30: First 30 Minutes: HC has chip on shoulder, toward BO and Questioners; BO slipping punches.




As this gladitorial match begins, my guess: Baracks Obama's biggest chalenge will derive from the intention of NBC's Questioners to hold his feet to the fire, in ways he has yet to confront.

Prediction: if 90 minutes from now Obama is playing in a new ball game, the cause will be Russert and Williams Questions - not Clintons'.






Well, That's decided: the Single - as in Only - reason Anybody Ever speaks aloud the actual name of this candidate - Barack Hussein Obama - guessed it....RACISM!

Yes, on the cable network of debate record, MSDNC, Chris Matthew's guests were, surprise!, monolithic in their opinion: "Racism"!

Then, (un)naturally, on Keith OlberWellian's diverse (!) opinion show, the host himself charaterized an Ohio radio host who called Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama as "going racist"!

Yesiree! How much plainer can it be? Mention someone's name, and the Great Spirits of the Left Wing Media KNOW YOUR EVERY THOUGHT.

There is no room for explanation or debate. They KNOW your intentions!

And if you should commit the outrage of calling Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama, then, clearly, You Are A Racist.

What other possible explanation could there be?!

Mark my words: Nothing - NOTHING - in this campaign (including Hillary Clinton without makeup) is nearly as scary as the notion that certain annointed persons on TV have the inherent skill and license to accuse anybody of Racism, based on....the mention of a candidate's name.

Thank the gods we are blessed with Those Who Can See Farhter Than We, like...Keith Olberman. What would we do as an audience - nay, as a culture, a people! - without Swami Keith (et. al.) to not merely analyze our words, but also to Divine Our Motives!

These people are intellectual whores (with apologies to whores), fascists, and very, very dangerous.

But TV and the Globe agree with and embrace they must be wise!

Ask not for whom the witchhunt, book-burning bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

And the rope is being yanked by the great wanker Keith Olberman, and other "journalists".

Remember that, and where, you heard it said: if 0-Bama is the candidate, Any criticism of him will be revealed by the Great Media Swamis to be "Racist"!
Be ready to withstand that charge, or stand silent - which is exactly their idea.






So, finally (or almost final, anyway), it comes to this: the African-American campaign manager for the wife of America's "first black president" oversees the smear of America's first genuine prospective first African-American president with a photograph of the African-American candidate wearing African garb, and a turban - and she says So What?! It's only a picture! And her candidate, named Clinton, asked the same question, denies Any knowledge of the photo's source, and she says "What's the big deal?".

For those of us who for unfathomable reasons have ever believed the famous sociopaths known as the Clintons - do you get it now?

Do you see Clinton(s) will do ANYTHING to get elected - including smearing Barack Obama's heritage and provoking concerns that he is a radical Islamist?

And it just might work.
Maybe not now in the primaries, which may be over.
But Clinton(s) just might be killing off Obama's chances to be president.
And they don't care.

This Barack Hussein Osama Obama photo will not play well for Obama in Texas.
Nor will it play well in several other areas of the country, wherever Americans are justifiably concerned about how well we know this fellow.

NOW do you believe Mrs. Clinton's congenial remarks at the conclusion of last Thursday's debate signal friendship and surrender?

Everything negative Clinton(s) could ever unload on 0-Bama, they will unload in the next few days, next at tonight's debate.

Remember: it ain't over until the Fat Lady sings; and Mrs. Clinton is only humming.



Monday, February 25, 2008



In her Island of Rhode campaign appearance yesterday, Mrs. Clinton sarcastically mocked Barack Obama and his message of Hope and Change. (I will play the audio for you today on the radio.)

The crowd there loved it, but there is a much, much bigger crowd across the country that will, I believe, punish her severely her for it.

Clinton apparently thinks she is attacking her opponent - but she is making a classic, and perhaps fatal, mistake: she is really attacking her opponent's AUDIENCE.

By mocking Obama's Hope/Change pitch, to the loud laughter of her fans - picked up by the media and blasted to all audiences across the country - Clinton is directly mocking the millions of Obama voters...whom she needs to win over in order to have any chance of victory.

Attack your opponent? By all means.
Attack him harshly? Absolutely.
Attack what his audience (to whom You must appeal) believes? SUICIDAL.

Should be quite the debate Tuesday night, yes?



Sunday, February 24, 2008



The Greatest Untold (more precisely mis-told, perverted) Monumental Story of the day is the most disgraceful episode in modern journalism: the naked assasination attempt on John McCain by the New York Times - and, equally significant and shameful, the cover-up.

The MediaMob can, and does, say virtually Anything is wishes about Anyone, without much regard for truth. Last week journalism's equivalent of the Vatican put a salacious sex & corruption story on page one. It turns out the story wasn't true, and shouldn't have appeared even in a supermarkt newspaper next to the disposal razors and chewing gum that headlines Britney Spears love life.

And they did this - with impunity! - to a genuine American hero, respected U.S. Senator, candidate for president. Imagine if they did it to you or me (thanks to a once-great rag known as the Boston Globe, I don't have to imagine). Good luck.

And now, because only the MediaMob reports on MediaMob, there is no apology. There is no examination of ethics and standards. No integrity.

Because just as the MediaMob ensured that the President Clinton Scandal would instead come to be known as the "Lewinsky Scandal", so too now is the New York Times Scandal known - thanks to the self-serving diligence of itself - as the "McCain Scandal".

It is not John McCain scandal.
The scandal is the abdication and perversion of the sacred standards of journalism by its contempoary practitioners who, in perhaps the most shameful act of all, still call themselves "journalists".

Post Script:

As to the "story" itself, oddly enough, it is the sex angle in this story that may have minimized the damage: although John McCain does in fact have a long and somewhat controversial history with lobbyists, sex overwhelms everything else. A Sex Story always trumps a Corruption Story. But if you knock down the sex, you knock down the story. So, however impluasibly, John McCain apparently walks away without serious injury - and with serious, substantial (if indirect) sympathy from the political right.
In the NY Times v. McCain bout, McCain wins the first round.





Sunday morning, This Meek on ABC, Cokie Roberts laments what is "happening to women" in this presidential campaign.

Cokie says she has "been speaking with women around the country - I spoke with Billie Jean King yesterday."

Here is every-woman!

* "And Billie Jean said she looks at what's happening to the Clinton campaign and says 'I feel like everything I have worked for my entire life is going right out the door..."
Cokie continues saying that American women are relating to this because "I have been doing all the right things, all the things you want me to do...and then here comes this cute young man who sweeps in whispering sweet nothings and grabs the job...the story of our lives..." *(I endeavor to quote Ms. Roberts exactly; this transcript from my contemporaneous notes; my apologies to her, and you, if I miss a word or two.)

If what Cokie says is true - that many women feel keen frustration and even anger at Mrs. Clinton's fading campaign, that they believe this is somehow discrimination against women, that it is, in effect, emblematic of lifelong discrimination against strikes me as terribly sad and discouraging.

This is Boo Hoo Feminism. "Poor Me. Nobody likes (i.e. will vote for) me...because I am a woman."

No. No. No.
People are rejecting Clinton(s) not because they are uncomfortable with her gender, but because they are uncomfortable with her politics and, Yes, herself. Becuase she is an arrogant, dishonest, cloying, harpie - not because she is Mrs.

Give us the right woman, and we will, as a nation, give you Madam President.

But stow the Boo Hoo Feminism, would you girls?





As Predicted By Your Host:

When during Thursday night's dumocrat debate Mrs. Clinton feigned "honor" of sitting with
0-Bama, the Conventional Wisdom (always conventional, rarely wise) stampeded to the universal agreement that this was either or both (a) a signal of surrender (b) another touching moment of "vulnerability", the "real" Hillary.

It was neither.

You may recall my saying then that this was, to the contrary, an obvious (if one knows Politics and Clintons) staged move to put a big smiley face button on her campaign - while she was, in fact, readying to stab 0-Bama in the back, the front, and every other place she can shove the blade. This way, Satan leaves voters with a "have-a-nice-day!" image as she plots to steal delegates, go to court, cheat, lie, and commit any and every other act necessary to seize power.
It is absolutely Astonishing to me that anyone could observe Clinton(s) and believe she is remotely capable of acknowledging defeat.

Thus, Saturday on the campaign trail the new, new, new (real) Clinton emerged: "Barack Obama, Shame On You!"she shrieked, slapping 0-Bama for criticizing her health plan.

Gee - where did the kinder, gentler Hillary go?!

But the Big Bonus Story here is what else Clinton said, lost in her whining: she also smacked
0-Bama saying "enough with the big rallies and the speeches!".

I'm sorry, did we miss something? "enough big rallies"? "enough speeches"?
0-Bama is running for President (and beating You, Hillary) and he's not supposed to have big rallies (of which You are incapable, incidentally)? Not supposed to give eleoquent speeches (of which You, are incapable, incidentally)?

Mrs. Clinton is angry with 0-Bama for....campaigning....better than she.

Hillary unchanged.
Hillary unchained.
Hillary unhinged.





Lots to say this fine (AND IT JUST GOT FINER) Sunday morning, but let me not bury my lead:


And here is the delicious Logic Chain:

1. The prospect is great that this presidential contest will, again, be decided very closely - say, within 2%.

2. Ralph Nader will get 1-2%.

3. Despite the desperate, wrong, hilarious attempts by liberals to argue that Nader's vote is "hard to predict" or "he will hurt both parties equally", the fact of life is this: 90% of whatever votes Ralph Nader attracts will have otherwise gone Democrat.


("Hello, Doc? I am supposed to call you if I get aroused for a period longer than four hours, right? Well, did you see Meet The Press, this Morning?......)

Run, Ralphie Boy, Run!



Thursday, February 21, 2008



The more one observes this story in these early stages, the more it appears likely the NEW YORK TIMES WOULD RATHER BE WRONG THAN BE BEATEN TO THE STORY BY A COMPETITOR.

When the story is the smearing, the savaging of a national hero - or even just you or me - imagine what a horrible corrupion of power, what arrogance, what Danger that represents.




Important extemporaneous McCain "Scandal" (Media Scandal??) notes:

1. McCain's denial was SO complete (i.e. not only did he fully deny any/all impropriety of any kind) that he even denied ever speaking to any of his staff about this woman, this issue, Ever.

Did he - ironically - go too far?

Now if the MediaMob can prove he spoke about this with one of his staffers even once (maybe he genuinely forgot?), he will appear guilty.

So now the NY Times - oh, and every other media source on earth - is going to chase down all these staffers, and hammer them relentlessly with questions as to whether any of them ever had such a conversation with McCain about "the lobbyist".

If they can find One who says Yes, trouble for McCain.
Knowing as they do that their reputation may be horribly damaged if they cannot impeach McCain's denial, think the NY Times will somewhat, ah, Aggressively, pursue this option?!

2. The profound story within the community of journalism is this: is there a story (i.e worth printing) here? Perhaps.

But since when does the NEW YORK TIMES put on page one a story accusing one of America's most powerful men - maybe about to become President of the United States - of infidelity and corruption ON THE BASIS ON A COUPLE ANONYMOUS SOURCES?

Are there newspapers that do this? Yes - they are right next to the disposable shavers and chewing gum at the supermarket checkout counter. Not the New York Times.

At least not until now.

A brave new day for "journalism"?





It is profoundly important - but it isn't complicated: either John McCain is lying, or the New Yotk Times has committed jounalistic malpractice.

John McCain's denial was full, total, complete, definitive: absolutely no impropriety, personal or professional.

Now, Newspaper of Record, this crucial ball is in Your court.
And Court is where you may well end up - on the losing side.

If John McCain told the truth this morning, the New York Times has some serious 'splainin' to do.

Dare we hope that, if the media produces no damning evidence against McCain, our national attention will turn to the integrity of the NY Times in particular, and the establishment media in general?

It is an investigation very much worth having - unless, of course, it doesn't matter to us that what we are reading on page one of the New York Times are Lies.

Remember in all of this: The New York Times had this story, held this story, ENDORSED John McCain then, when McCain had virtually captured his party's presdiential nomination, droped this bomb to kill his candidacy.

Unless the NY Times can defend what they have done - and unless McCain is lying, they cannot - what we have here is the NY Times guilty of a "reckless disregard for the truth"...and that is the sacrosanct standard by which journalism seperates itself from the lowest forms of gossip.

Your move, MediaMob.





I write the following as I listen to the McCain press conference; here are highlights:

> McCain has solid, credible deportment; appears calm, steady, believeable.

> Crucial: No non-denial denial: This denial is evidently full and complete: no affair, no favoritism.

> Again denies any impropriety of any type, personal or legislative.

> Claims to be unaware of all previous suspicions of himself and lobbyist; denies he was ever told by staffers to "stay away" from lobbyist in question.

> Claims not to have attempted to dissuade NYT from publishing story

> Denies recently having seen the lobbyist.

> Mrs. McCain says "very disappointed in the NY Times; our family knows he'd never disappoint us."

> Q: "Distraction to campaign?" A: "It does distract...keeps me from discussing big issues...but am confident I can move on and do that..."

> Q "Will this hurt campaign?" A: "I believe we can resole this....Americans are fair in their judgement...there will be other obstacles, but we will move on....I look forward to the debate."

> As to whether this goes to the heart of his campaign: "Disappointed by such a story based on anonymous record is clear..."

> "Last saw lobbyist several months ago."

Impressive performance by McCain.

More to come...




In the McCain Lobbyist Story we are witnessing one of the most dramatic and defining moments in contemporary journalism - whatever happens politically.

1. Did the New York Times - the journalism equivalent of the Vatican - have and hold this scandalous story, endorse John McCain, then drop this bomb after McCain had virtually captured the republican nomination?

If this story had appeared one month ago, it is arguable that John McCain would be the GOP frontrunner. And the NYT knows that.

In other words, did America's permier information source intentionally manipulate the outcome of an election in service of their own agenda?

2. It is reported the NYT published this story now because thet feard competitors (e.g. Washington Post, New Republic) were poised to beat them to the punch?

If so, when was the Times ideally planning to drop this bomb - maybe this summer after the national conventions, so as to sink the McCain presidential campaign?

More to come...



Wednesday, February 20, 2008



McCain Scandal Update:

My friend Pat Buchanan reports the New York Times had this McCain story prior to New Hampshire primary - but declined to run with it.

The New York Times endorsed John McCain.

If the Times had this story prior to New Hampshire and held it - while endorsing him - does that not give the New York Times very dirty hands?

9:15p Tuesday



Well do I recall receiving a telephone call from a senior producer at NBC News almost exactly 10 years ago this week asking me if I wished to appear on the network that evening to comment on a breaking story that the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, had reportedly been engaged in an extra-marital sexual affair with a young intern named Monica Lewinsky.

The rest is national (and personal) history.

You may, if you listen to my radio show, recall my sharing two weeks ago a report from a blog site named SunlitUplands which alleges more than one scandals about to be revealed involving John MCain and Hillary Clinton, both of a sexual nature.

Tonight, as I dined, MSDNC reported a page one New York Times story for tomorrow (Thursday) morning alleging the strong possibility of an illicit affair - and, far more significant, possible unethical actions - involving Republican presidential nominee presumptive, U.S. Senator John McCain.

Now, I must caution us all that this "story" is nascent, inchoate; it may well turn out to be absolutely nothing.

And, of course, there exists a possibility that this is the stroy that will destory the candidacy of the Republican presidential frontruner.

I direct you to the New York Times website to examine the story.
My initial impressions are as follows:

1. If this is sex alone, it will be harmful but not fatal to the McCain campaign.

2. If this is sex with favors for the paramour's client - as is being insinuated - it will likely be fatal to the McCain campaign.

3. Should this evolve into a full-blown scandal and if - IF - McCain should find himslef damaged beyond repair (which, if this becomes a matter of sex-for-favors, he will), the next question is: does this makes Huckabee the frotrunner?! (And for those who wonder why Huckabee has been hanging around in the face of impossible odds, did he know something we did not?)

4. Or might it render Mitt Romney a candidate once again, presenting himself to save the campaign, and the party?

5. Or might it mean the draft of an entirely new republican candidate to play savior?

6. Is there more to the New York Times story tan they are reporting in this initital story?
(My guess is almost certainly Yes.)

7. How will McCain handle this? Will he attempt to ignore and push past it? Or will Thursday morning's cumulative media coverage force him to address it head on? (My colleague Michelle McPhee reports Wednesday evening that McCain has made a telephone call to the editor of the New York Times, attempting to disuade him from printing this story. Not since JFK has this ever worked.)

8. This will likely be a huge story tomorrow and, unless McCain responds immediately and effectively, into the weekend, and beyond.

9. The biggest question is how much more the New York Times, et. al. know about this story than they have thus far reported.

10. As much for John McCain as the media's golden boy, huh? That didn't take very long.

See you in the morning here, on the radio @ 3:00p.





Having previously set forth the most significant, damning - i.e. splendid! - numbers from last night (please see JayBlog immediately preceding this), now let's ponder these Fun Facts:

* For the very first time today, we have heard in the establishment media an utterance unthinkable until this moment: "Maybe Hillary needs to consider finishing up positively...SO SHE CAN POSITION HERSELF FOR 2012."

* Politics is not much different than Poker of a Knife-Fight: when you're behind, you must take chances. In Wisconsin, Clinton(s) went totally negative, attacking 0-Bama with slash and burn radio and TV ads. They not only failed to work, they backfired. Badly.
This morning, inside Clinton(s) campaign bunker, this dismal question is being asked: "What Do We Do Now?"
Because if they let 0-Bama run free in Texas and Ohio, he beats them...but if Clinton(s) again go on the attack, maybe he beats them Worse.
p.s. not only did Clinton(s) demonstrate horribly bad judgement in attacking, they made it worse by abandoning her positive issue messages - which are custom made for Wisconsin voters.

* The Great Untold Insider Story: the one thing Clinton(s) was supposed to have in massive superiority was Organization - yet the most experienced field operatives (I have well known or well known of many for 25 years) in the political world are being embarrassed by 0-Bama's crew.
This may well be explained by the school of thought (a school I attend) that holds this: 0-Bama knew he could never beat Clinton(s) quikcly but, rather, only win this over a very long haul; thus they built their organization tailored to this circumstance. As such, they have money and organization in place everywhere and are therefore competitive everywhere right into June.
Clinton(s) on the other hand believed the latest this race would go was Super Tuesday - and built their organization to suit that plan. Thus, when Super Tuesday comes and goes, and
Clinton(s) is still running for her life, they find themselves heading into March fighting for their lives, out of money, out of ideas, out of luck.
Mark my word: If 0-Bama goes on to win the nomination, this story - how Clinton(s) were out-smarted organizationally - will be the #1 behind-the-scenes narrative.

* Media Bias?! The conventional wisdom has been droning on that the MediaMob is horribly biased in favor of 0-Bama/against Clinton(s)...yet consider this: Would 0-Bama ever, in your wildest imagination, been cut this kind of slack by the MediaMob if 0-BAMA HAD LOST THE LAST TEN CONSECUTIVE PRIMARIES? Give me a break! MediaMob would have had 0-Bama dead and buried after the 3rd straight loss! But, for Hillary, she always "in the hunt" always "coming back", it is never "over". MediaMob has held Clinton(s) up for the last 10 rounds of this fight!

* Clinton(s) either radically change the story of this race - like Right Now - or this race is Over. And, since she cannot plausibly do this by winning all the remaining primaries by 70% or more, how does she pull it off? BY PLAYING UGLY. UGLY. FUGLY.
This means Clinton(s) ramp up the secret delegate theft - not merely of SuperDelagates committed to 0-Bama, but the regular primary delegates 0-Bama has already won by vote. (I learned yesterday, for the first time in my life, that even these delegates are NOT committed to their candidate, even on the first convention ballot.) Thus everybody is literally up for grabs.
Watch what Clinton(s) will do to win this by stealing delegates and going into court.
Bad for democracy.
GREAT for talk radio! So stay-tuned.

* Did you happen to notice last evening that at no time while she was giving her surreal pep rally on TV did Clinton(s) observe even minimal etiquette in mentioning her opponent, or the Tuesday night primaries?
Could be coincidence, but I believe as 0-Bama's folks watched this from Texas, they jumped on TV at that moment - instantly knocking Clinton(s) totally off TV! 0-Bama proceded to speak for 46 minutes, in prime-time, without further interruption from What's-Her-Name. (Oh, to be a fly on, well, Mrs. Clinton when she learned she wasn't on TV anymore!)

* BONUS: As a preview of the race going forward, as of today...See Cindy McCain slap Michelle 0-Bama on TV last night Michelle's un-patriotic remarks ("This is the first time in my adult life I have ever been proud of my country.")?
I am counting down from ten...then expect to see/hear the response: "RACISM!!!!".

Like I say: stay tuned!




How bad was it, exactly?

When all is said and done, last night is likely to be recorded as one of the biggest, absolute hammerings in the history of American presidential primary politics, to wit:

* In Wisconsin, a crucial presidential swing state and, far more significantly an ostensibly Model state for Clinton(s) - heavily blue collar democrat, minority of college graduates, etc. - the political newcomer 0-Bama beats her like a rented mule, 58-41, a 17 point drubbing. (Hawaii was close, too - Obama captured only 78% of all voters.)

* Worse for Clinton(s), 0-Bama administered this beating by continuing to cut into Clinton's voter base: HRC loses white men 34-63. HRC loses "who would be best commander-in-chief?" by 4%. HRC loses voters with family incomes less than $50k. The only discernable voter group
HRC won was her "firewall" of white women...but only by 5 points. Obama Owns Clinton's voters. In my 25 years of national political experience, that is the single biggest indicator of who is going to win - and lose.

* Worse still: Ten Straight Losses for Clinton(s) - and the odor of Loser that creates in the media, among voters and, particularly, among SuperDelegates. Clinton(s) have 9 remaining primaries in which they will be competitive - and she will have win 70% of the vote in All of them to catch 0-Bama. It Cannot Be Done.

* 0-Bama cannot clinch the nomination based on the available primary delegates - but he is leading by more than circa 150...which, along with his performance, influences the SuperDelegates to support 0-Bama.
As of today, democrats have a definitive frontrunner, and the name isn't Clinton.

On a personal note, having re-read the above I find it prudent - pursuant to the medical warning on the Viagra commercial - to contact my physician, as it is likely I shall develop an e***tion lasting four hours or more.



Tuesday, February 19, 2008



It may be Heave Ho.

It is 9:45 Tuesday evening.
I have listened to two speeches, one by Satan Clinton and another by 0-Bama.
Both were ostensibly positive, upbeat, forward looking. One was.
Obama sounded, looked, appeared like a winner.
Hillary looked like a death skull, whisteling past the graveyard. Already jumped town, speaking to Ohio high school students. Another group that won't vote for her. No mention of anther humiliating, debilitating, depressing beating in Wisconsin...pretending like it never happened.
But it did, and it is. And she appears helpless. Were I a much better Christian, I might even feel sympathy for this witch.
Is that the Mask of Political Death shadowing Mrs. Clinton's face?
So far as I understand the results Tuesday night, Obama has again won virtually every group there is to win.
No matter what the morning light of statistics brings, nine in a row is still nine in a row.
Now the desperation of the Clinton Camp is hard to disguise and spin.
She can still pull out of this death sprial with improbable come-backs in Ohio and Texas in 13 days - but it begins to appear she will not.
13 days. Clinton(s) has 13 days to bail out the Titanic, using a dixie cup.
I shall worry tomorrow about how this affects our big picture.
Tonight I shall luxuriate in the blessing of knowing the Billary Monster is having an utterly horrible night.
If I never say this again, Thank You Barack. Thank You.
That you have brought these evil blackguards to the brink of failure and doom is enough to earn my respect and gratitude.
Depending, of course, on what the meaning of "is" is!
Oh, ah, Hillary: Turn out the lights....the party's over.....
Oh, can it really be?!
Joy! Rapture!
Is the Wicked Witch really (almost) politically dead?
If so, even Mrs. Obama can - if for only the 2nd time in her life - feel proud of her country.
Sweet Dreams, B&B!
I know mine shall be.
More in the a.m.

Excelsior (on acid!),




A brokered convention? Super White, Super Men, Super Delegates making secret decisions, over-ruling the senitments of voters to choose the party nominee? A noisy, public reaction from the camp which believes the nomination was "stolen" from their candidate - and vows to stay home on election day and/or quit the party?

This is merely politics. This is patriotic Porn! Enjoy it.

Right now a great many dumocrats are holding their heads, wondering how they got into this situation.

Their hero Jesse Jackson (et. al.) did it to them, that's how!

Travel with me back to the 1980s, when the dumocrats were presenting a string on utterly unelectable left-wing nutball candidates (e.g. Dudukakis, Mondull and especially Jesse Jerkson).
Jesse was demanding more delegates. It wasn't fair that he didn't get any when he didn't win. Jesse wanted prizes for losing! How very perfectly liberal.

So, afraid of being criticized as unfair to the minority candidate (my, how things don't change) the party caved, and adopted a new rule - "proportional" award of delegates. From that point forward, losers could avoid losing a lot longer - and the eventual winners had to fight and spend and fight a lot longer. Advantage Republicans.

And now the dumocrats might have already had their candidate chosen - were it not for the infamous "proportional" award of delegates. Again, advantage Republicans?

So, when you search for paternity in the matter of this mess, look no further than Jesse Jackson.
Behold, Rev Jackson's gift and legacy for his party: The Super Delegates...and, just maybe, serious - perhas even fatal - problems for the democrat party and its candidate.

Now THAT is what I call keeping HOPE alive .
Thank you, Jesse, thank you!





Upon hearing B. Hussein 0-Bama's remarks on evening last week, "journalist" Chris Matthews of MSDNC looked wistfully into the camera and said "I felt a thrill going up my leg."

Chris, I am sorry I must be the one to inform you...but that was Larry Craig.





In light of the rather troublesome accusations of Plagarism against the demi-god known
as 0-Bama, I wish to throw a lifeline to my main man, B. Hussein O.
Stick with this speech template, and you will be safe (and, apparently, president):

"I am HOPEful, because I believe in a thing called HOPE. You believe in HOPE. We therefore both believe in HOPE. And I HOPE you HOPE - as I HOPE - for the greatest HOPE of all: CHANGE! We must HOPE for CHANGE. Perhaps you, like I, HOPE for loose CHANGE when I CHANGE my trousers or search in the couch cushions. And I make CHANGE often. But that aside, I am HOPING for CHANGE or CHANGING HOPE every damn day. Even if you now support another candidate, I HOPE you will CHANGE. Because that CHANGE would give me HOPE. And that, my brothers and sisters, is HOPEFUL CHANGE. HOPEFULLY, you agree with me, so there is no need ever to CHANGE the subject, I HOPE?" I HOPE you will vote for CHANGE, even if you must CHANGE for HOPE. HOPEFULLY.
Thank you.



Monday, February 18, 2008



Don't look now, but a lot of Democrats are learning - much to their pointed dismay - that those "Super Delegates" are not the Crusaders for Democracy they were ignorantly assumed to be!

The 795 Democrat SuperDelagates are like your banker: they are your big buddy when you need a loan or mortgage...until you miss a payment or two - then they become your nightmare.

Here is the straightforward fact: Democrat SuperDelegates ARE NOT THERE TO SUPPORT AND VALIDATE RANK AND FILE DEMOCRATS - BUT TO OVER-RULE THEM!

The SDs are there to "correct" the stupid decisions of the masses, by using their influence to overturn the preferences of the elected delegates.

Imagine what happens if/when the SDs use their power to overturn the will of the party delegates - and throw their support behind Clinton, even though 0-Bama has more voter support!

It could (and, if there is a God, Will) tear the democrat party apart!

Already there is rumor that, in the event of a S-Delegate revolution, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg will toss his support - and One Billion Dollars - to 0-Bama! (Perhaps with Richy Rich as VP?)

A secret Democrat Star Chamber that over-rules the "will of the people" for the Democrat nomination?






Now it comes to our attention that B. Hussein 0-Bama is evidently guilty of plagarism!

Drugs in the past? No problemo. Judged to be Most Liberal Senator in America? A breeze. Candidate for President with nothing at all to say - but who is believed to say nothing exceptionally well? Great!

But here is the story that 0-Bama's towering rhetoric is, um, *borrowed?!
(*Current national news reports that at least one of 0-Bama's stock campaign speeches
bears a rather **striking resemblance to those of Massachusett's Governor Devolve "TOGETHER (as opposed to "YES") WE CAN!".

(**i.e. "plagarism")

The uncomfortable questions are just now leaking out: Did Barack know? Either way, will it hurt him?"

The answers are (1) Of course. (2) Yes, it just might.

Seems, at first glance, a petty thing.
But recall: Joe Biden actually quit a presidential campaign after being caught "borrowing" the words - all of them, in exact order - from the speech of another politician.

Bear in mind that 0-Bama's chief assest (read: HIS ONLY CONCEIVEABLE ASSET!!!!!!) is his rhetoric of HOPE/CHANGE, HOPE/CHANGE, HOPE/CHANGE, HOPE/CHANGE, ad nauseum.

Live by the Charm sword, die by the Charm Sword.

If 0-Bama's greatest strength - his supposed inspirational speaking skills - are found to be built on a false credential, then this might hurt much more than the conventional wisdom suggests: this is a strike at his number one virtue.

If the Clinton Death Star can seize on this and exploit it, it will very likely be a factor in this steel-cage blood match.
AND: unhappily for 0-Bama, this occurs exactly at the time his heretofore impregnable reputation as a GOD is just starting to attract some questions from the establishment media.

Obvious Racists!





A standard I have often articulated on our show is the same baseline my late, heroic, WWII Dad employed over a lifetime and passed on to me: upon the observation of definitively Good or Bad behavior by a person, my Dad would say to me "James, I don't need to know another thing about that fellow." It turns out that, in this, as in so much else, my father was quite correct.

Which brings us to George Bush, the younger (aka 'the lesser'): end of last week, Bush entertained as a guest in the (i.e. Our) White House racial arsonist, third world radical, and all-around low-life The Reverend (!!!!) Al Sharpton.

In the White House.

Genuine Americans do not need to know another thing about that *fellow.

(*Applies equally to Bush and Sharpton.)






This, after hundreds of years of American political campaigns, emerges as the proud new standard of the brave new world: You can say antything about Anybody - unless, of course, they enjoy the queer status of POLITICALLY PROTECTED PIGMENTATION.

We have on-the-air discussed for many months now the various hideous ways in which a 0-Bama candidcay would instantly re-write the rules of American campaigning. You liked McCain-Feingold? (limiting or abolishing the ability - the consitutional right - of pesky civilians such as we to criticize incumbent politicians during elections???) Well, then you will LOVE The 0-Bama Factor.

The 0-Bama Factor, stated in its simple horror, is that We Are Not Permitted To Criticize The Black Guy.

Aside from having predicted this - an embarassingly easy one - it behooves us to consider for a moment its ramifications.

Within the last few days, the communications director of the McCain campaign, Mark McKinnon, has said that (a) he thinks "criticizing THE DREAM" (i.e. zerOBama) is "wrong". As in, presenting the flaws, perhaps disqualifiying flaws, of a candidate for President of the United States, is a bad idea....If, of course, that candidate is BLACK. (b) he would resign from the McCain campaign - he would dump his client - rather than do anything associated with criticizing the opponent (0-Bama).


The notion that we can, a la 200 years of democracy, engage in vigorous debate concerning the candidates remains a good idea...Until A Minority Is Involved.

i.e. a manifest double-standard. Racism.

Here is one of the leading political advisors of our time, announcing his intention to withdraw from a campaign rather than criticize a political candidate, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THAT CANDIDATE'S SKIN COLOR.

If this strikes you as nauseating and dangerous and threatening to our way of life, Good For You.

Mark my words: this ("don't you DARE use the same standard in debating the white candidate as the minority candidate") standard, should is gain traction - and I am feaful it surely will - our system of elctions is finished. Finished.

And please note what I have said previously about a 0-Bama candidacy that goes south on election night: there is every chance the reaction on the streets of American cities will more resemble the election aftermath in Kenya than one here in USA.
Sound harsh?
But you cannot really dismiss the plausibility of it, can you?





You may recall Satan Clinton (TradeMark, J. Severin, Imus in the Morning, 1998) claiming "she" is not really contesting the Wisconsin Primary, tomorrow (Tuesday).
This, like virtually every other Clinton utterance, is a lie: she is fighting for her life, and it is obvious.
Clinton's borrowed Giuliani Strategy ("What, Me Worry?...Ah, I don't care about those steenkeeng early primaires....I will start winning...soon...) And then Rudy was Bye Bye.
No, Clinton is in Wisconsin fighting door-to door. She is getting kiiled by the first real MOmentum of 2008, and it's 0-Bama's.
She needs to stop the bleeding, and though Wisconsin remains an uphill climb for Satan, she is doing all she can to make a decent showing here Tuesday night.
Tihs is, more than anything else, a display for SuperDuperPooperScooper Dem Delagates who will cravenly flock to the flavor-of-the-week.
Clinton needs to slow down 0-Bama's express train, before the cow catcher on it's front does it's job, booting this dreadful bovine off the presidential tracks.
Prediction: Wisconsin will be closer than most expect Tuesday night...but Advantage 0-Bama.



p.s. much more to follow....stick with me, B&B...



My Very Dear Best & Brightest:

Do you by chance recall my having said at last week's end that although I'd be away until today to the Frosty North, my intention was to continue Blogging While On Adventure?
I lied.
It was when I uttered it entirely my intention to do so. But events in the Frosty North overcame me, as it were, and I slacked-off.
Forgive me.
I am returned.
There is much to talk about.

I shall begin by tomorrow (Tuesday) morning (8:30a) embracing the always-cherished-challenging opportunity to appear on the IMUS IN THE MORNING SHOW, heard on my home, 96.9 FM, WTKK.
Do join me.

And now, having ingested a substantial quantity of Brain ExLax to accelerate my delivery of thoughtful commentary, I shall presently yield to the organic Urge To Purge...opinion, that is.

The following commentaries are presented Not In Order Of Importance.....Read On, Brothers & Sisters!



Wednesday, February 13, 2008



This is a MUST SEE video for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, an illegal alien or a Congressman.

This clip from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.

Video was done by Roy Beck.




Stupor Tuesday, Continued....Forever

The "Republicans"

The situation of the "republicans" requires little examination.
Because they are (read: McCain is) screwed.
You know these "All These Nutty Loud Mouth Conservative Radio Talk Show Audiences and Hosts Will Shut Up And Line Up Behind McCain" guarantees the liberal republicans and the MediaMob keep giving you? Well, I hope you're getting it in writing.
Because if your As-Seen-On-TV Ginsu Knives don't work out in 45 years, you can still ask for a refund from Terra Haute - but you won't be getting your political money back on the "McCain Will Unite The Party" warranty.
Juan McCain so far Is Not - and I believe Can Not and, thus Will Not - uniting anybody. He keep slosing the votes of real republicans (i.e. conservatives), including Tuesday night.
McCain keeps saying he doesn't need us; he will win the Independents and Democrats.
Because it appears to me that 0-bama is doing a frighteningly effective job of sweeping up those pesky Independents and Democrats - and, it would appear, a fair number of "republicans"!
Juan thinks he is going to steal liberals from 0-bama - meanwhile he is Hemorrhaging republicans, bleeding, internally, to death!

And another - far more important - matter: Hey, MediaMob: STOP CALLING PASTOR HUCKABEE A CONSERVATIVE. He is not a conservative. What he IS is the only protest vessel on the republican side. Many - perhaps even Most - of Huckster's votes are anti-McCain votes, not pro-Pastor votes.
This "Conservative Huckabee" label is a MediaMob fiction, so when Huckabee loses, as certainly he will, MediaMob can say "Look! The Conservatives Got Stomped!" Sorry, My Marxist Media pals. When Huck loses, it represents a bonding of real conservatives, not a loss. We are here, we aren't going anywhere. And McCain will lose because enough of us will stay home.

Which reminds me: "Huckabee - you still here?!"





Finding ourselves as now we do in the relative doldums of this fabulous presidential primary pageant, where exactly do we (i.e. they) stand?
Not where 95% of the MediaMob would have us believe.
Political Reality Check as follows:

The Dumocrats

For Mrs. Clinton this ain't no disco, this ain't no Mudd Club, this ain't no foolin' around, as de song say. I am not, yet, prepared to amend my 10 year old prescience ("Hillary Clinton will go directly from the White House to New York, where she will seek and win a US Senate seat, then seek and win the democrat nomination for President - and against whomever she runs, she will be the favorite, and likely become President" - Me, on Imus in the Morning, 1998) - but I am quire ready to say to Mrs. Clinton: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
Yes, indeed, for the first time in her life, Satan faces plausible crushing defeat. Here's why:
It is not that 0-bama has more won more votes, states, and delegates, though he has; it is not that he has won eight - count 'em - eight contests in a row; it is not that 0-bama will in a few days likely win the key presidential swing state of Wisconsin, though he probably shall.
It is that last night's election results (Maryland, Virginia) indicate 0-bama for the first time stealing Clinton's base: Whites (he got more than half), Hispanics (he got more than half) and - are you sitting down....on a super-strong chair....Mrs. Clinton? - WOMEN (he got half of white women).
0-bama is winning Whites, Hispanics, and Women?
This stunning fact is either (a) an aberration, a freak occurence (b) a trend.
If it is the latter, Hillary, Say Goodnight to Hollywooooood!
Every - and in Every - single scenario whereby Clinton wins this thing is her supposed greater appeal to Whites in general, White Women in particular, and Hispanics across the board.
If 0-bama has, in fact, cracked into that vote vault, he is unstoppable.
Next Tuesday will not be dispositive, but Texas Tuesday (and 0-bama Ohio?) will be.
March 4: the date Hillary Clinton will see her political X-rays.
And if she doesn't see in that crucial photograph a strong majority of her base voters, Mrs. Clinton is best advised to Get Her Affairs In Order.
(Bill already has His Affairs quite in order.)



Tuesday, February 12, 2008



Let's skip the ludicrous debate over Whether B. Hussein Obama is the recipient of the Monica Lewinsky Treatment from the establishment media. There is no debate, no question.
The media's (esp TV) fawning worship of Obama is painful to watch.
Far more important is the fact that the kind of candidate - only for President of the United States, no big deal - who Most Requires careful media scrutiny is getting a result, someone who was cutting deals over parking tickets in the state legislature two yeara go is poised to assume control of our nuclear arsenal and defense of our country.
I assume Obama wil be celebrating Passover, because that is what the natural presidential candidate media cycle has done - Passed Over Obama: No Criticism, None of the Time.
That said, the question is Why?
And we all know the reason: R A C E.
If Barack Obama were Bobby O'Banion, we'd already be watching the fifth round of the Clinton-McCain fight.
The affirmative-action media coverage of Obama is the most obvious, shameful - and damaging - example of PC and abdication of journalistic responsibility in the history of American politics.
Whether this Obamanation will change depends on finding some real journalist with guts.
So don't count on it.





Another primary Tuesday, which means another day and night and next day and whole week during which the Establishment Media will furiously peddle the Conventional Wisdom - always conventional, rarely wise.
And here it is: "On a great roll of several straight primary and caucus wins, B. Hussein Obama's MOmentum is now so great - and Mrs. Clinton's slump so deep - that Obama appears cruising toward ultimate victory over Clinton(s)."
Sounds reasonable.
But is probably wrong.
Today Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn (with whom your host advised major campaigns years ago) has released a sobering - and, more to the point, realistic - assessment of where this campaign really is by telling us Where It Is Going.
Penn's Points are, in summary, as follows (verbatim): And this is a True/False Quiz...
1. "The GOP Attack Machine Will Re-Define the Democrat; Hillary Has Withstod That Process."
2. "Sen. McCain Will Run On National Security. Clinton Wins That Argument."
3. "Sen Obama's Negatives Will Rise; Hillary's Are Already Factored In."
4. "...Sen Obama's Coalition Will Be Tested; Hillary's Coalition is Stronger."
5. "Current Poll Numbers Don't Tell The Story of What Will Happen."
6. "Hillary is the Best Candidate to Take On Sen McCain and defeat him."

#1. True.
#2. Not merely False, but hallucinatory.
#3. True.
#4. By history, True...But if the Young and African Americans vote in record numbers, and First-Time voters and Independents flock to him, Utterly False.
#5. Totally True.
#6. (See # 4, above.)

P.S. Can't wait to see what the NON-VOTERS of Washington D.C. have to say tonight, can you?



Monday, February 11, 2008



You will this morning hear that Satan - aka H Clinton - has "accepted the resignation" of her campaign manager. The art of political euphemism alive and well! Accepted The Resgination Of actually means, of course, Was Fired Summarily And Brutally.
But do not buy the hype that this is a "major shake up" in the flailing Clinton campaign. Not so.
The Clinton strategy team has forever been: impeached/disgraced former president Bill Clinton, pollster/strategist Mark Penn, then a group of four or five longtime Hillary devils, aming whom the "new campaign manager" is one. This is not a change of direction for the campaign - more like a change of clothing. The same team, minus one, will run things....ideally, into the ground.
So why do it?
Because HRC needs to quickly send a message ("I AM NOT LOSING!") to a few key constituencies, including You (voters), The Media and, especially, Super-Delegates - who probably hold the key to her victory, or defeat.
This is a common ploy by in-trouble campaigns to declare "we know things aren't going quite as well we had hoped...but we have recognized the problem (i.e. the scapegoat we have just sacked), and we have fixed it...don't worry, everything's just fine."
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, Obama is on an impressive multi-state victory roll (including Maine caucuses Sunday) with three new primaries tomorrow, and the closest thing to
Big Mo(mentum) 2008 has seen.
The next huge moment for the dumocrats: two weeks from tomorrow, the primaries in Texas and Ohio - states filled with traditional blue-collar democrat voters who are Supposed to be perfect for Clinton.
If she loses either - or, if there is a God, both - Texas and Ohio, the next firing will have to be Bill's.



Sunday, February 10, 2008

GEORGE BUSH vouches for McCain? Oh, that's different...NOT.

My Dear B&B:

Now - Now - we really know how much trouble Juan McCain is in: as to the matter of whether McCain is a conservative, his chief character witness is turncoat conservative GEORGE BUSH?!
In an exclusive Sunday morning interwiew with the Fox News' Chris Wallace, our "compassionate conservative" (yea to the former, curses to the latter), "republican" President seemed to suggest that McAmnesty was a conservative and, to remove any lingering doubt, he, Mr. Conservative himself, George "high-spending, affirmative action, open borders" Bush, would vouch for McCain!
Wow, I am persuaded, how about you?
That is: George Bush is totally deluded, how about you?
Were I endeavoring to demonstrate conservative credentials, Bush would be on my list of number 437 on my list. Are you Kidding Me?
Now, with Bush at his side, McCain can look forward to settling this question of whether he is a Ronald Regan/Mitt Romney conservative.
He isn't.
Nothing and no one can make him so.
Especially not George Bush.





In case this hasn't hit home yet...the chances are Great that after all the wailing and gnashing of liberal candidate teeth on the campaign trail, the dumocrat nominee is going to be chosen Not by regualr voters - but by *Super-Delegates in a back room somewhere...maybe even at a brokered convention.
*(Super-Delagates are party big wigs - e.g. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, fomer Presidents and Vice Presidents, fundraisers, activists, members of Congress, et. al. - pre-chosen years ago by the party, to control and decide a close race.)
If this scenario eventuates, most pros believe the Clintons have been plotting for this possibility for Years...and that they will cut deals and call in IOUs to grab most of the Super-Delegates for HRC.
Fear not! That circumstance is not without its bloody massacre possibilities: so many democrats - most especially minority voters - are absolutelt incensed at the very notion of Obama's nomination being "stolen away" from their candidate by party bosses. In fact one of the dems most prominent public faces, former Gore campaign manager and African-American activist Donna Brazille (herself a Super Delegate), has said that if the Super Delegates even try to decide this race, she will "quit the democrat party", and urge others to do the same!
Here is "Change" I can live with!





Have you noticed....that when you look a bit closer at the Clinton-Obama vote returns a clear, very interesting pattern - and challenge - emerges: the Dumocrat vote is virtually split down the middle (just like Clinton & Obama's support), with Chablis vs. Budweiser drinkers.
That is to say, the demographics of Obama voters are more suburban, better educated, Independent, younger - people who are seeking in a candidate "Inspiration" (see" "Yes We Can!")...someone who will Change The System. Wine drinkers.
Clinton voters, on the other hand, are mostly traditional blue-collar Dems, urban, minority - people who seek in a candidate specific Programs and Policies (e.g. unemployment, minimum wage, welfare, etc.) that will help them on a day-to-day basis...someone who will Change Their Lives. Beer drinkers.
This fundamental difference can be heard and seen every day in the rhetoric of these two candidates: Obama's speeches are 95% motivational fluff, 5% policy. Clinton's 5% inspiration, 95% programs.
Omaba is selling Poerty.
Clinton is selling Policy.
And each has a natural appeal to a very different kind of democrat voter.
The billion dollar question, of course, is which group is (a) more numerous (b) more likely to turn up on election day?
Come on - would I leave you hanging, B&B?
In the end I still (for now) believe Clinton's Welfare Laundry List will attract more voters than Obama's JFK impersonation.



Vice President Romney?


That prospect is tantalizing to a lot of us, chielfy because it zooms up the chances there will in our not-distant future be a PRESIDENT ROMNEY.
But, not so fast...though a great many of us would be drawn to a ticket with MR, we must bear in mind that the selection of a VP - even Mitt Romney - almost Never makes a profound difference. McCain is a deeply flawed republican candidate, and the addition of Anybody to his ticket may not be enough to pull off a victory.
If the Dumocrats ride a big wave this year, I don't want it to drown Mitt; I do not want Mitt going down with McCain's leaky ship. Better to live to fight another campaign, unblemished by a national loss.
In the end, it is a difficult choice: the VP spot is, in theory, the fastest track to the White House. But might it not be far wiser for Mitt and his supporters to keep his/our powder dry, and wait for the likely failure and collapse of a Democrat (i.e. Clinton, Obama, or McCain) administration, then seize the 2012 day?



Juan McCain's Problemo

Winning Weekend for Juan McCain: He lost 2 of 3 primaries to the Huckster, but really lost them to CONSERVATIVES, who continue to make up 1/3 of the Repub vote - and who continue to believe "Mac Stabs Us in the Back". Huckabee cannot win the nomination, but McCain cannot win the general election unless he can attract all the Romney (i.e. conservative) and Huckabee (i.e. evangelical) voters.
And my estimation is he will not.
Plus: In CPAC's conservative summit POLL, McCain was beaten by Mitt Romney in votes cast both before and AFTER Romney's withdrawl! This is the most influential group of conservatives in the country - and 31% say if McCain is the nominee, they will Stay Home on election day.
Here is real enthusiasm for the frontrunner!



Saturday, February 9, 2008


Dear B&B:

So here I am, up on Cape Ann, minding my own patriotic business on a Saturday afternoon, and what do I read? "Nebraska Supreme Court Stikes Down Electrocution as 'Cruel and Unusual".


As Predcited by me - and fully expected by You - one of at least two key consitutional principles (i.e. capital punishment and gun ownership) is about to hit the dirt. Today, as we sat enjoying our well-earned weekend, yet one more state caved in to the criminals - at the expense of innocent citizens and the cops who risk their lives every day to protect us.

Now it is Nebraska - NEBRASKA! - that says because electrocution inflicts "intense pain and agonzing suffering" (you know, Unlike the victim and her/his family), this form of check-out for crimi-scum is "unconstitutional".

How frighteningly far we have fallen from our law and order roots. In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death". Throwing the switch on 'Ol Sparky is neither. But Nebraska joins the march of nancy boys who say No to the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crimes - as almost always they are.

And, so, the various jihadists (American born and otherwise) continue their relentless assault on our Consitution and way of life. How very scary and sad.

Cruel and Unusual? The name is Hillary...or maybe Barack.




Lovely Saturday afternoon here on Cape Ann - the doggies (especially the new St. Bernard pup, "Hans") love the snow. What a great place. THANK YOU FOR MY JOB!

My enjoyment of this fine day is enhanced profoundly by MSNBC's suspension of smarmy far-left "journalist" David Shyster - for the PC crime of having made an on-air comment including the name of Clinton princess, Chelsea, to the effect that the Clintons "pimped-out" their daughter Chelsea by having her solicit democrat super delegates by telephone.
Well, well, well!
Firstly, the insinuation is True, is it not? But, of course, Truth - while forming the basis of 1000 years of English Common Law (i.e. "In Libel Law, truth is an absolute defense") matters not when one offends someone who is Democrat and this case, Harradin Rotten Clinton.
So MSNBC (very) temporarily gives a time-out to lib attack poodle and Keith Olberwellian getaway driver Shuster. BUT...MEANWHILE...BACK AT THE THE PC RANCH...THERE IS A STORY BEHIND THIS STORY....
During a 1998 fundraising event, republican "maverick" and GOP nominee-presumptive Juan McCain presented his audience this witty Q&A: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" "Because her father is Janet Reno."
Absolutely True Stroy.
Gee...will MSNBC suspend McCain?
Or even mention it?


Thursday, February 7, 2008

The Real Loser

My Dear B&B:

Loser? Who is the real loser?
We are.
Today Mitt Romney, the Ronald Reagan of our time, withdrew from the campaign.
Too bad. For us.
Sour grapes? You decide.
In any event, here he is, your "Republican" nominee, Juan McCain.
He will, of course, lose to either Democrat in November.
Let the disasterous results of left wing policies - which McCain holds - be blamed on Dumocrats, not Republicans.
As Satan (Clinton) or ObamaNation prove to be a national failure, as doubtless she or he will, there will be a cry among patriots for a genuine conservative: Mitt Romney. And, I trust, MR will rise to lead his neo-republican party, and the nation, to electoral victory.
I am not a patient fellow.
I hate the idea of waiting four years. But I am willing to.
I expect only the shocking inferiority and failure of McCain and the other Democrat will move us to join the Romney wing of the new republicam party.
McCain? You're on you own, pal. Hasta la vista, as you would likely say, Juan.
Lose, Juan, lose!
We patriots can and will wait.
And we - we - shall overcome.
Mitt in '12!


Not-So-Super Thursday <2/708)

Dear B&B:

My apologies for my absence following Tuesday p.m. - though I have been on the air, I have been battling an intestinal malady (don't ask), so I haven't been doing much other than preparing for and perfoming the show. Let's catch up:


I do not know. I know only that I continue to support MR whatever he does - both for totally pro-Romney reasons, and for stop-McCain reasons. Can MR stop McAmnesty? Probably not. But if you, as I, entertain the belief that we are seeing the start of a bloody battle for the Definition and Leadership of the neo-Republican party, the question becomes "What can/should Mitt Romney do to serve the wishes of the millions of his supporters across the country?" These are, after all, the very people who will form the political/vote/funding base of a (theoretical) Romney 2012 campaign. So, under this scenario, serving their interests becomes the new Romney campaign. How to serve their interests? STAY IN THE RACE...because this is the only way MR maintains a big seat at the national political poker game. Maybe, just maybe, MR's voters would like to see him stay in, battle McClinton all the way to the convention this summer, then maybe cut some deal to Stop McLiberal...and the convention chooses someone new! No, Mitt wouldn't be the nominee (bummer, yes), but if he was the one who helped stop McDemocrat, he would be a hero to his base, tens of millions of new supporters, and the de facto leader of the new republican party.
Perhaps merely a pipe dream...but pass me the pipe.

HILLARY BROKE (or "Brother Can You Spare a....Pizza?")

Yesterday Satan/Clinton was forced to contribute five million clams of her own money to the campaign. Think THAT was in the original campaign plan?! ObamaNation raised $31M in January alone. Who would have imagined in early Feb, Barack Hussein Hussein would be virtually tied with the Great Satan/Clinton - and forcing her to dig into her own deep (read: XXXplus-sized) pockets? I am nearly aroused.


Have you heard this mawkish twaddle? How about prior to producing a song, you produce a rationale? An agenda? A defintion of "Change"? A reason why, in an age of worldwise Islamofacist terrorism and wars, any sane person could trust the job of Commander-in-Chief to an unknown, un-tested, unqualified ambitious junior politician who is being idolized - who, indeed, is a candidate - only because of PC pigmentation? (Quick: imagine of Barack Hussein Obama's name was Bobby O'dell, a white state legislator from Chicago?!).
Oh, oh, oh, Yes We Can! My turn in the orgasmatron! Together We Can! Oh, oh, oh, ohhhhhhh!
Was it good for you?
Or just dangerously silly?


Perhaps you have seen reports that various constituencies are showing up to vote in states which have already conducted there primaries? Remember: these geniuses have a vote equal to yours. Best way to stop the Dumocrat candidates, who realy on the stupid vote? In each state on the real election day, send out sound trucks cruising the streets of the city declaring "Don't forget to vote...NEXT Tuesday!" Trust me, hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens - virtualy all of them democrats - will fall for it, hit the convenience store, flip on Judge Judy, and leave the voting to us.
Where do I send my sound truck contribution?

SO CALL ME TODAY and tell me what you think : 617-822-1-969 3-7p on 96.9 WTKK FM...

and check back here regularly.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Maiden Blog Voyage

My Very Dear Best & Brightest:

These words represent my first-ever Blog! And one never forgets one's first time, right?
(So, please, be gentle. And call me tomorrow?)

As our broadcast concludes, I am off from my north shore home studio directly to join Governor Romney and his staff for the evening, to strategize and monitor election returns; eventually, Mitt will speak to the media, hence the world. I hope very dearly - for you, me, our families, and our contry - that this will be an affirmative night for a great man and a great friend, Mitt Romney.

If I am able, I will be in touch throughout the evening; if I am unable - for tech reasons - to do so, I will next post late tonight and/or early tomorrow morning, continuously.

I am so very grateful for your support, and excited about this history we are making together.