Funny Comment of the Day

Here it is, on a post at Hot Air by Allahpundit, noting that even HuffPo is implying that Edwards lied to ABC's Bob Woodruff about the timeline regarding when he began his affair with Rielle Hunter, and when she was hired by the campaign to produce the video.

No real elaboration needed for this funny comment:

I donated $2,300 to the John Edwards campaign and all I got was six months of pampers for his "love child" .…

SaintOlaf on August 9, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Well . . . except to say that at least it's a better deal than those other early contributors got -- the ones who paid for a few $400.00 haircuts!

Blah, blah, blah . . .

Chapter One, "Plane Truths" . . . (h.t., Newsalert, Edwards on Morality, here)



In the credits at the end of this first chapter in the "Webisode Series, Following John Edwards," note the Director, and also one of the two on Camera.

Yep. "Rielle Hunter."

One-Half Is Less Than Three-Fifths

History has taught us that one of the most deeply flawed and, indeed, tragic conceptions contained in the original charter of our representative government, was the product of compromise, and was first embodied in the original United States Constitution by our founders at Article I, Section II, paragraph 3, providing, in pertinent part:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and exluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.
. . . .

My emphasis was obviously added for the last phrase.

That was the original written basis for the census-like formula that (among other things) established the number of Members of the House of Representatives that each State would send to the Congress, with the proviso that each slave only constituted three-fifths of a person, for that purpose.

A long, bloody and bitter Civil War later, followed by several corrective amendments to the United States Constitution, including Section II of the XIV Amendment, the women's suffrage movement, followed by the XIX Amendment, and a score of Supreme Court opinions later, we Americans had for the most part hopefully rid ourselves of that particular sort of scourge.

Well . . . perhaps not.

It seems that the Democrat Party has decided, in their infinite wisdom, that, through absolutely no fault of the 2.35 million Democratic voters who participated in the primaries in the States of Florida and Michigan, the delegates that they voted for (or, that the Rules & Bylaws Committee has now somehow devined that they voted for, using exit polls) in their respective primary elections this year, will only be able to cast one-half of a vote on any matter that may come before the convention, including the vote to select the party's standard-bearer in the fall election. And it would also include for or against any ratification vote that may work it's way to them regarding the Credentials Committee's ruling on this matter when and if it gets to them!

Bit of a disadvantage for those Florida and Michigan folks, wouldn't you think?

Of course, the immediate thought that comes to mind, is that one-half is even less than three-fifths!

Isn't anyone who participated in that process deeply embarrassed? Maybe this needs a good dose of the old "political button routine" to bring it home!

Here is just one suggestion:



* The original thought connecting the two fractions in my mind, was a snarky comment posted by one Kralizek, here, on a written piece on the subject of the outrage over the Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting, posted by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

Gutter Ball

(Update, below)

Scott Ott at Scrappleface has really nailed it on Obama's stereo-typing characterization -- in a speech at a San Francisco Fundraiser on April 6th -- of what the candidate views as small town Pennsylvania folks:

"It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations."*

Obama's comment to the leftie San Francisco elites was not just a gaffe -- it was a downright verbal gutter ball. He and his apologists will try to explain that it was all taken "out of context," and he will never withdraw the comment, or apologize, or even express any sincere regrets.

As a result, he will likely just keep trying to counterpunch his way out of it.

But the context of those remarks should be abundantly clear to anyone.

The words were not spoken out of any sense of, shall we say, bonhomie. There was nothing gentle or affable about such expressions.

And obviously the comments were not an example of what politicians like to call "connecting" with voters. He was just plain talking down about small town people, their beliefs, their values and their cultural heritage, to a bunch of well-heeled elitists, in behind-closed-door remarks that were simply never intended to become public.

But he got caught.

(Update:)
*This is a transcription of the key portion of the April 6, 2008 comments by Barack Obama to the San Francisco Fundraiser, based on the audio that was posted by Mahill Fowler on the Huffington Post here. It differs slightly from the transcription Fowler himself posted. His version is as follows:

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I cannot hear the "So" Fowler included at the beginning of the sentence, hence I did not include it. It sounds to me (having listened to the recording several times) like Obama said "their guns" -- not just "to guns" as transcribed by Fowler. The context suggests that he did, as well. It also sounds clearly to me like he said "antipathy toward people" not "to people."

Why Mitt?

Many folks have endorsed Mitt Romney for President, and for a variety of reasons.

My reasons really can be reduced to a connection. Few agree 100% with the positions on issues of a candidate they support, so I am sure I'm no exception. But, having evaluated the views and the approach of the candidates, for some time now I have felt a solid connection to his approach. Mitt Romney's real world career successes, both in business and in the public sector, are far and away the most impressive of any of the candidates. And the manner in which he and his family have lived their lives is notable as well. But it was his approach, the way he talked about how he would govern, that won my support and my vote.

To me, the best Presidents have a few solid qualities, ones which can oddly seem somewhat contradictory on occasion. But the Presidency demands several qualities because a President fills several roles. And the best Presidents do so in a relatively seamless manner.

Constitutionally, a President is our nation's chief executive and the military Commander in Chief. A President is also the head of state. All three roles demand unique qualities, and for me Mitt Romney would best fill all three. In fact, his grounding in the business world is a particularly significant factor now in dealing with economic turbulence, including avoiding an over-reaction that would hamstring us on the back end.

Here in New Jersey, I am reminded that a few successive Democrat administrations have literally destroyed the economic viability of our State government -- not of our economy quite yet -- but certainly of our State Government. At the same time they have bloated the size of government all out of proportion. New Jersey has become a certifiably obese state Government. The current governor's "solution," however, is to mortgage the future with enormous toll road increases, which will simultaneously ruin whatever remains of our quality of life by driving traffic off onto local arteries. And he'll be long gone before the piper even begins to tune up!

In short, New Jersey has permanently adopted the J. Wellington Wimpy model of governance, "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." So, I want a president who will not continually be knocking on Democrats' doors looking for ways to compromise and grow the government, all while enabling personal dependence and diminishing our individuality, just so he can prove he is an independent.

A president must have extraordinarily strong convictions to successfully pursue a political agenda, but those should be coupled with an inherent modesty of purpose, an understanding that in promoting and protecting and ultimately preserving our representative democratic polity and our free society, the framework for pursual of a political agenda is, and should be, limited indeed. He or she leads, but not without being fully connected, and not without understanding that at the end of the day, our core values of freedom and liberty not only remain intact, they should ideally be enhanced.

Just because of the nature of the game, many candidates this year seem to exude much of that first quality -- strong convictions -- but too little of the latter, that inherent modesty of purpose.

Anyone who truly values and cherishes freedom and liberty knows that they both inform our national soul, and can be mighty messy as well! Nothing good usually comes out of the kitchen without a sink full of pans and dishes!

Good leadership, therefore, ought to arise out of energetic engagement in public debate, and succeed only through persuasion. Good politics is the fight for the right tomorrow, employing the means that preserve our political inheritence. Finding ways to tamp down or cut off politically motivated speech and debate, therefore, is inherently wrong. McCain/Feingold was and is an abomination. And when I hear a politician opine -- as several leading Democrats have threatened since eeking out a bare majority in Congress nearly two years ago -- that talk radio may need to somehow be reigned in, that is it for them. Where was the classic liberal who stood up and said "no" to that rubbish?

I often suspect that progressives -- that's what they like to be called these days --really believe that free speech and expression are merely means to the imposition of their ends, and that once their ends are being achieved, those means can just "whither away." "Political correctness" is a demonstrable current precurser of that end game. Just think of the perfectly legitimate things you're no longer "allowed" to say, and the new euphemisms you are now expected to employ! Nuts to that!

Some "progressive leaders" even exhibit a tendency to equate, or should I say conflate their own power-seeking ambitions, with our national zeitgeist. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. It is, and always has been all about her. Well, I say, "go garnish your own wage, lady!" And she really ought to lay off the bogus tears, too!

Finally, I like the idea of a President who, like Mitt, proved he could win and govern in a blue state, in some ways, the bluest state of all -- at least then! And this year, I was impressed by his ability to go into what will undoubtedly be a battleground state of Michigan, and win as well.

Lest anyone point to current polls, however, to suggest that only McCain scores against Democrats, I'm not impressed. As at other times in the past, John McCain has gotten a free primary-length pass from the main stream media outlets, including being endorsed for the primary by both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. But that honeymoon will not last for one single second, should he secure the Republican nomination. If he does win, the media-wide spigot will be abruptly turned off.

Then there will be a lot of cheerleading for Clinton or Obama. And, as in the past few cycles, there will be some significant breaking through that filter here on the internet. I predict, more and better.

So, HERE, as with some other notable locations elsewhere on the internet, I'm for Mitt Romney for President.

Now I think I'll go vote!