Kucinich Enters 08 Race – to pressure Hillary to go Left?

Parker V 0 Comments

From NBC’s Huma Zaidi: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will make a formal announcement at noon tomorrow in Cleveland that he will run for president in 2008. According to the AP, Kucinich said he’s running because he doesn’t feel his party is doing enough to get the US out of Iraq.

Kucinich, who ran for president in 2004, received just 1% of the vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He was the last candidate to officially drop out of the race before endorsing Sen. John Kerry.

Sources tell CandidatesBlog that the progressive wing of the Democratic party is planning high volume support for Kucinich in an effort to intimidate likely frontrunner Hillary Clinton to make a hard move to the left. Once she appears to give to this pressure, they will vocally endorse her in hopes that the strategy will unite the Democratic party. One progressive source currently working for a Senator whom we were asked not to name, tells us “We’re tired of this glorification of being a centrist. If the Republicans nominate Mccain, the last thing we can do is nominate someone like present day Hillary, where the voters will see little difference between the two. If Hillary is destined to get the position, we need to put heavy pressure on her to get back to her roots and actually fight for the values she was once a poster for”.

We have recieved no indication from anyone in the Kucinich camp that they are part of this strategy.

Lindsay Lohan to Battle Drug Charges with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton

Parker V 1 Comment

Lindsay Lohan is set to battle the accusations that she is addicted to the drug Oxycontin and may have overdosed on Cocaine by bringing out the big guns in Washington. The troubled actress sent out a bizarre rambling, often misspelt email, the full text of which can be read on slate.com, which appears to be motivated by recent attacks on Lohan in the tabloid press. The e-mail says she wants help in going after the magazines that made the accusations and drops a few powerful names:

Have Harvey (sic) and all lawyers help me please. If he is willing. Al Gore will help me he came up to me last night and said he would be very happy to have a conversation with me. If he is willing to help me, let’s find out. Hilary (sic) Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Evan metroplis, (sic) and John Daur who works with them would be willing, if we just ask. If we just ASK.

According to the website Actress Archives, Al Gore and Lindsay Lohan did meet last week at the GQ Men of the Year dinner, a fact that was confirmed by Gore’s PR rep, who said, “I can confirm to you that Mr. Gore has only met Ms. Lohan once, very briefly, at the GQ Men of the Year dinner last week. There were hundreds of other guests.”

Hillary Clinton apparently has not been asked if she knows that she is to give Lindsay an assist, but as she has kicked off her run for the 2008 election she may actually have to give some answer.

Although this may be a silly story about Lohan, it doesn’t take a completely conspiritorial mind to notice that any connection these two media-stiff politicians can get to a younger livlier crowd – the better for their image.

Trent Lott holds function for President Mccain

Parker V 0 Comments

Newly elected Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott will host a 10 a.m. coffee session for invited Republican guests Tuesday at the Phoenix Park Hotel on Capitol Hill in Washington to discuss Sen. John McCain’s impending campaign for president with him and McCain.

Lott, a supply-sider and social conservative, had not been allied with McCain previously. However, in his e-mailed invitation, Lott asserted, “John and I have been friends for many years, and my respect for him is unparalleled.” Tuesday’s meeting with McCain, Lott said, will “begin to build an organization that focuses not on our differences, but on our shared goals for peace and prosperity for this nation.”

A footnote: New York investment banker Ken Langone is hosting a fund-raising cocktail reception for former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s prospective presidential campaign the evening of Dec. 19 at the Marriott Marquis Hotel ballroom in Manhattan. The price: $2,100 per person and $4,200 per couple.

Source: excerpt from Robert Novak Column

Keep an Eye on John Edwards…

Parker V 0 Comments


Lost amid the hype about Barack Obama’s presidential prospects, and the conventional wisdom that the Democrats’ 2008 nomination is Hillary Clinton’s for the asking, John Edwards has been overlooked.

But the former one-term senator from North Carolina, who was the party’s vice presidential candidate in 2004, is perhaps its best chance to win the White House.

Part of this is merely the accident of his birth. He was born in South Carolina and no Democrat has been elected president since 1960 who wasn’t a southerner. And, that is the case because of more than just the happenstance of history.

Democrats need some electoral votes in Dixie to avoid painting themselves into an uncomfortable corner. It is mathematically possible for them to win without carrying southern states, but as a practical matter it is a very, very uphill undertaking. It will get even more difficult after the 2010 Census shifts additional electoral votes South and West.

Meanwhile, the northerners that the Democrats have been nominating for president in recent decades have been unable to appeal to enough southern voters, who are generally more conservative, to make the region competitive.

– excerpt from recent RealClearPolitics column By Peter Brown

Romney Fights for Marraige Vote (VIDEO)

Parker V 0 Comments

In the video below, Governor Mitt Romney addresses a rally at the Massachusetts State House calling on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. The ballot initiative would allow the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. This is strongly opposed by most hard-leftists because every time citizens are allowed to vote on how their society defines marraige, even the bluest of blue states vote to keep it Man-Woman. Currently the legislature is refusing to allow their constituents to vote on the matter, violating the Massachusetts Constitution.

Although this issue has been proven to not be a left vs right divide (virtually every democrat in congress is against gay marraige), the right is more often smeared as being “anti-gay” for holding this position. Although Mitt Romney has enjoyed a record of being moderate on gay issues while Governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, his current attempt to enforce democracy has earned him a slew of attacks from the left.

However, despite his critics attempts at using this to create a distaste with voters’ association with him, it is difficult to see how this action can do anything but help him. The divide is made painfully clear as Romney reminds his constituents that the founders of the country trusted “the voice of the people, rather than the wisdom of a king”. If Romneys critics strike out on the “don’t vote for him because he wants you to have too much say in how your society is formed” angle, will the “don’t vote for him because he employed someone who employed someone who was not in this country legally” angle work? We all shall see…

Tucker: Can Rudy Get the Nomination?

Parker V 0 Comments

Air America host Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson discuss Rudy Giuliani’s presidential aspirations. Tucker see’s a Rudy nomination as a sell out on issues, Rachel thinks he’s a flip flopper, but they both agree that Guliani would be nothing but a continuation of Bush policy.

HIGHLIGHTS:

-Carefully cultivated tough-guy image?
-Cronyism and corruption problems redux?
-Liberal masquerading as a conservative? (just like Bush?)
-Rachel Maddow, a lesbian, calls Guliani “physically hideous”

Newt’s Free Speech controversy

Parker V 0 Comments

The left side of the blogosphere has taken recent comments by Newt Gingrich and ran with them for red meat criticism. The comment at the center of the controversy, in context, were as follows:

“This is a serious, long-term war,” the former speaker said, according an audio excerpt of his remarks made available yesterday by his office. “Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people.”

Liberal news outlets online have reported this as Newts desire to take away free speech, though, besides Ed from Captains Quarters Blog we had a hard time finding mainstream conservative bloggers (usually ready to eat their own) who were equally outraged. Right wing blog, The Jawa Report cheered Newts remarks with the following:

Gingrich is not talking about establishing the thought police, a censorship board, and a speech Gestapo. Nor is he even proposing enacting draconian hate speech laws, the kind of speech prohibitions that liberals often support. In the same article, Gingrich also talks about doing away with McCain-Feingold—that is, to increase the capacity for political debate.

Gingrich is only proposing to curtail the speech of our enemies. Not imagined enemies. Real people who, literally, encourage young Muslims to go to Iraq to fight your neighbors. Real people who want you dead.

You live in a bizarro world if you think it is okay to kill our enemies, but not take away their tools of propaganda. It seems like an odd moral system to suggest that speech is a higher priority than life. Especially when the life and speech in question is the life and speech of the enemy.

To paraphrase Lincoln, the First Amendment is not a suicide pact.

It should also be noted that the First Amendment does not apply to the battlefield. The cyber jihadis themselves consider the internet a weapon of war and themselves combatants in this fight. This is why they formed the “Global Islamic Media Front”, “The Jihad Media Brigade”, “The Alfajr Media Center”, and “as Sahab”. To recruit. To train. To coordinate. To fight us. To kill us.

So they claim they are combatants. They claim the media, especially the internet, is a weapon. Yet you wish to protect this propaganda because you have some odd attachment to the First Amendment which trumps all other concerns?

WWGD? (What would Goebbels do?)

I believe the WWGD is a legitimate question, but one that most have avoided in this war. In past wars, we have had no problem censoring people. Especially our enemies. And the domestic forces that support them. I doubt any of us would have a problem targetting Joseph Goebells Ministry of Propaganda for a bombing raid during the height of WWII. Had Goebells not committed suicide, I doubt any would raise objections for trying him as a war criminal. Even though he did nothing more than speak.

Nor did any of us have a problem when the leaders of the German Bund were rounded up and their papers and presses shut down.

Sure, censorship has been abused in the past. But the potential to abuse a power is not a sufficient reason to withhold it. Otherwise, governments would have no power.

Carlson & Maddow discuss candidate Clinton (VIDEO)

Parker V 0 Comments

In this clip from around or before May 2006, Air America host Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson discuss Sen. Clinton as a presidential hopeful. Tucker, is a conservative who was against the war from the begining; where as Hillary, a liberal, was FOR it from the begining. Will that hurt her? Rachel says Clinton will NOT be the nominee and will not win – but then again, this was just under a year ago…