McCain Moves Back To The Right For Arizona Election

Why is McCain falling back on his "don't Ask, don't tell" words? Because he is up for reelection and now must appeal to the base - the right wing tea party Christians. It is the growing belief from the right that bipartisanship is not what Americans want, but good ol' boy conservatism instead. Restrict the homosexuals, embrace limited government interaction and promote free wheelin' business. Don't forget Christianity, too. McCain is facing an opponent in the Republican primary - J.D. Hayworth.

Hayworth seems like he would fit in with the tea party crowd, calling Clinton an "unprincipled philandering president" who had "the most corrupt administration in U.S. history," claiming he was "bankrolled by trial lawyers, radical homosexual rights groups, environmental extremists ... along with almost every other left-wing wacko group you can think of." He also believes that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted, and that children of illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship status and supports the "Americanization" program Henry Ford advocated in an interview with the New York Times in 1914.

The ever-so-successful process that used to be called "Americanization" was a major movement in the early 1900s … Henry Ford, a leader in this movement, said, "These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live." Talk like that today and our liberal elites will brand you a cultural imperialist, or worse. But if you ask me, Ford had a better idea.

Currently, McCain is ahead in the polls, leading former Congressman J.D. Hayworth by a 53% to 31% margin, but back in November, the two were almost even. McCain may have gotten a temporary boost from Sarah Palin, who has come on to campaign for her former running mate, which may boost his tea party credentials, but we'll see if this bump is like the one Sarah Palin gave him during the elections - superficial.

According to an article from CQ Politics, other issues that divide the Arizonan Republicans will be put on the back burner because of Arizona's dire financial worries, which is second to California, and in that area, "McCain is on much surer political footing when it comes to a debate on the economy and spending," but I think I may disagree with that. In my opinion, McCain is out of touch. Just think back to the presidential campaign, where McCain couldn't answer how many homes he had, called the economy "financially sound" in the midst of a crisis, and put his campaign on hold for a botched attempt to politicize the Wall Street bailout negotiations. McCain is already positioning himself as the fiscally conservative candidate, which Hayworth has already attacked with his spokesman, Jason Rose, stating that there is a "hypocrisy" in McCain showing off his conservative record even though he supported the bank and mortgage industry bailout in 2008.

According to the CQ article, the Republican establishment and donor base are sticking with McCain, quite possibly because he is a household name, being involved in two presidential elections in the last 10 years and recently having a namesake piece of legislation struck down by the Supreme Court. GOP lobbyist and donor Kevin DeMenna stated that "the donors nationally and certainly in Arizona are not going anywhere." This means that McCain's Arizona campaign is going to have money flooding in from around the nation, and I am sure that there will be an abundance of special interests trying to keep McCain in place, although considering the McCain-Feingold Act, Hayworth may be able to pick up a couple corporate sponsors himself.

I think this may be an interesting election to watch, more so then the ones Fox News proclaims to be the campaign to watch, only because a loss for long term senator like John McCain may seem like a rejection of the old Republican guard, and if McCain wins, one must take into consideration the votes lost to tea party groups that make up the conservative base, because that is surely where McCain will be heading when writing policy.

Huckabee Claims Republicans Not Responsible For Stimulus, Democrats All To Blame For Spending Woes

I just got home and flipped on Fox News, when I noticed Mike Huckabee was on instead of Glenn Beck. Curious, I decided to watch. During the program, Huckabee had a segment where he responded to emails. One in particular had caught my attention. The email asked Huckabee why people are not reminded that the Democrats were in charge of the Senate since 2006 and that the Democrats were in charge of spending the past 4 years (and past 2 of Bush's term). Huckabee responded that the Obama administration needs to stop blaming the previous administration and accept responsibility, stating that Republicans were not the ones to pass the stimulus bill. He went as far as to state that the stimulus bill had nothing to do with the Republicans. I would like to point out that Huckabee is incorrect.

31 Republican senators voted on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, with the House voting 263-171, including 91 Republicans voting "yea", which was subsequently signed into law by President Bush. The second stimulus bill had gone through the House with zero Republican votes and the Senate with 3 Republicans, but that would still invalidate Huckabee's statement.

I assume the next question Huckabee was going to answer was why people aren't reminded that there were no terrorist attacks on America during the Bush administration.

Fiscal Conservative Against Earmarks? Not Senator Richard Shelby

The Republicans would like you to think that they are against federal spending and that they are all fiscal conservatives. They attacked both stimulus bills under the Bush and Obama administrations as nothing but pork, they support retaining the Bush tax cuts, and want a balanced budget while attacking deficits under the current administration. It's funny how the GOP have changed their narrative over the past couple years.

One of their strongest senators, Ted Stevens from Alaska, had pushed for a $385 million "Bridge to Nowhere" project that even fixed spending stalwarts like Sarah Palin once supported, but as soon as Obama was sworn in, any proposed federal spending was a waste. Republican governors and representatives who accepted or supported stimulus funds were RINOs and were just another cog in the progressive machine. Elected officials who negotiated on health care were corrupt, which led to James O'Keefe and his buddies to fraudulently enter a Senator's office with intent to do something. So what makes Senator Richard Shelby interesting? He has put a hold on 70 federal nominees while demanding roughly $40 billion in earmarks for Alabama. Where are the cries from the conservatives now? Why aren't the teabaggers marching on his offices right now?

The answer is simple. The tea party is not completely against federal spending. They are simply against anybody but themselves spending federal money. Spending even a dime of money touched by the opposition party is like abdicating any conservative credentials earned. What Senator Shelby is doing amounts to extortion, and makes him guilty of what the right accused Mary Landreiu of doing. Where are the conservative activists trying to get into his telephone closets? Where are the calls from Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity claiming Shelby is a hypocrite?

The Census Attacks Reignited

It seems the right have latched on to another census-related story, with this time involving the $2.5 million census ad during the super bowl. Many from the right have attacked the census before. Michele Bachmann insisted that census results could be used to put Americans into internment camps and Glenn Beck suggested that people would be fined for not filling out one. Michelle Malkin believes that the census is being propagandized by the left and will be used to ensure they remain the majority party and now the folks at Big Government are weighing in, attacking the price tag associated with getting the message out.

While I understand the concerns, the right seems to be taking the position that it is not the government's responsibility to inform Americans of the census. Gregg Knapp from Big Government wrote the following: "I understand that our constitution requires a census every ten years, but it does not require we waste our money advertising for it. You don’t turn it in – you’re not counted. Next!" It seems the conservatives are never happy. They take a position against the census because the government, headed by Democrats, is administering the census. They advise people not to take the census, attack the government for trying to inform people, and then insist that the government should count heads by simply going by data from only those who return their forms. I don't know about you, but that would make for some inaccurate polling. Go figure... the right is way to familiar with that.

O'Keefe A Racist, Hypocrite? Big Journalism's Larry O'Connor Seems To Forget The Big Government Jim Hoft "Fistgate" Attacks

Big Journalism had decided to defend activist James O'Keefe yet again, but by doing so, they point out their own hypocrisy.

In their article, in which they cite another article from One People's Project, in which the author, Daryle Jenkins, points out that O'Keefe attended a white racist forum, but the right believes that this claim is false and part of another wave of liberal media spin against their golden boy.

(In 2006) ..there was this white supremacist forum that we had called attention to and eventually attended that featured American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor and National Review’s homophobe extraordinaire John Derbyshire. It was originally supposed to be held at the building of the conservative activist organization Leadership Institute until it was forced to move to another location…..

There was also a photographer there, and lo and behold this picture has surfaced of a now familiar face attending the forum - James O’Keefe.

O’Keefe was manning a table at a forum of suit-and-tie Nazis.

A DC area photographer snapped a photo of O’Keefe as he maintained a literature table near the panelists.

The article is also accompanied by a photograph of O'Keefe that was taken at the forum. Pretty cut and dry, but the right found some way to spin this one. First, they attack other news outlets and opinion sites that had picked up on this story, and then they attack the photo of O'Keefe and the way he is depicted in the various articles, with Big Journalism author Larry O'Connor stating that the liberal media have "gone from O’Keefe attending the event to O’Keefe manning a literature table to O’Keefe organizing the entire event!"

In O'Keefe's defense, O'Connor talked to O'Keefe and O'Keefe set the record straight. He then asked Jenkins if he had an un-cropped picture of O'Keefe manning tables, and when Jenkins stated that he had eye witnesses, O'Connor attacked the validity of the accounts of witnesses after four years. O'Connor states that the one witness that was named, David Weigel, has gone on record stating that he did not witness O'Keefe "manning the table." Weigel wrote an article for The Washington Independent, stating that he was cited as a source, and that while he can confirm that O'Keefe did indeed attend the event, he can neither confirm, nor deny, that O'Keefe manned the tables, acting only on the word of the photographer, and as he points out, he remembers grabbing the racist American Renaissance magazine, and as you can tell by the photograph of O'Keefe's head, there is a man walking behind him and O'Keefe's position places him lower, as if he were sitting.

Here is O'Connor's conclusion:

James O’Keefe attended a forum years ago that dealt with race and politics. The forum was located at a Georgetown University building (that’s right, a 21-year-old man attended an event on a college campus). The forum had as one of its three speakers a controversial figure, Jared Taylor, with a track record of making racist statements. He was being debated by two other people including Mr. Martin (taking issue with the racist figure). Mr. Taylor has also appeared with Phil Donohue, Queen Latifa and Paula Zahn on their TV shows to debate race. Are the audience members of the Donohue show racist for sitting and watching that debate?

So now I am brought to what is so hypocritical about this, and if you haven't figured out from the title of this article, I am referring to the numerous "Fistgate" articles penned by Jim Hoft, attacking Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education, Kevin Jennings. As found on Big Government's site, there was Fistgate I, "Jennings Conference Promoted Dangerous 'Fisting'"; Fistgate II, "Jennings Conference Distributes 'Fisting' Kits"; Fistgate III, "'Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century'"; Fistgate IV, "Gay Bar Guides for Teens"; Fistgate V, "Teacher Laments, 'Fisting...often Gets a Bad Rap'"; and Fistgate VI, "'No Dookie On Your Noodle".

If you look at the Wikipedia entry for "Fistgate," as well as the various homophobic Hoft posts, in which Hoft attacks Jennings for pushing sexually explicit and morally bankrupt literature to children and teenagers at a conference, you can see the hypocrisy. O'Connor insists that O'Keefe may have attended the event, but his presence has been taken out of context, which it may have, but the right has no proof other then O'Keefe's word, which I think is pretty shaky right now. O'Connor asserts that this is only a case of "a 21-year-old man attended an event on a college campus," yet fellow Big author Hoft's attacks seem justified to the right, even though everything about the "Fistgate" articles was taken out of context, especially when they were written years after the event (longer then O'Keefe attending his forum and the Jenkins' article).

Do I believe that O'Keefe was sitting "manning the table?" Yes. All past knowledge of O'Keefe's actions point to this, from actions against Planned Parenthood to ACORN and Mary Landreiu's office, and all the lies in between. Remember, O'Keefe is a conservative activist who is trying to push his twisted agenda that is not representative of true conservatives. In the age of the internet, O'Keefe is now trying to backtrack on his past that has come up to bite him in the rear, and it seems he has the aid of the conservative media to play revisionist.

Conservative Senators Wish To Undermine Judicial Branch, Cut Funding For Federal Trial

Several Senators announced legislation to pull funding of a federal trial as a means to prevent the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to take place in Manhattan.

"The law enforcement model being used by the Obama administration should be rejected," Senator Lindsey Graham said. "We're not fighting a crime, we're fighting a war." Of course, as I like to point out, the shoe bomber Richard Reid was tried in civilian courts and these very same detractors of the Obama administration lay silent years ago. "Our military justice system is best able to protect the American people," Graham continued.

"The fact is, we should not try these people in New York, we shouldn't try them in Illinois, we shouldn't try them in Phoenix," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona. "We should try them in the courtroom in Guantanamo Bay, and we should try them according to the Military Commissions Act," referring to the legislation passed in 2006 under President Bush which governs military trials for terror suspects.

While not all opposition to the trial is coming from the right, with other senators including Joe Lieberman, stating that opposition to the trial stems from supplying terrorists with a platform to recruit new members, but from my understanding, the trial would not be open to the public.

"To try them as common criminals, giving them the constitutional rights of American citizens in our courts, is justice according to Alice in Wonderland," said Lieberman. I find this statement to be interesting because what he proposes is trying these individuals in American military courts without any protected rights. If that is the case, then we should return these people to their country of origin... but wait... that would also be wrong. Maybe we should keep these people indefinitely to ensure they can do no more harm to Americans.

Senator John McCain Against Gays In Military

Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, spoke about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, claiming it to be effective.  Changing the policy, according to Sen. McCain, would be disruptive, especially at a time when America is waging two wars in the Middle East, and that he would be "deeply disappointed" if the law was changed.  He also believes the Pentagon's decision to launch a study of the policy to be "clearly biased".

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a somewhat neutral stance, saying to "keep the impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind," others, such as Admiral Mike Mullen stated it is "the right thing to do."

On May 10t, 2009, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. John McCain about his views. McCain then sided with the program:

But in all due respect, right now the military is functioning extremely well in very difficult conditions. We have to have an assessment on recruitment, on retention and all the other aspects of the impact on our military if we change the policy. In my view, and I know that a lot of people don’t agree with that, the policy has been working and I think it’s been working well.

You can look at one extreme - slavery worked really well for the South, so why should America have changed it's policy regarding slavery?

According to a Think Progress article from last year, don't ask, don't tell "has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 military personnel across the services, including approximately 800 with skills deemed 'mission critical,' such as pilots, combat engineers, and linguists. According to a 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office, 'the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years totaled at least $190.5 million — roughly $20,000 per discharged service member.'"

Maybe McCain is not the fiscal conservative we all thought him to be?!

Read here to see McCain's reversal from a couple years ago, which shows that McCain is only pandering to the tea party...

Blatant Delusions From The Right

I was reading an article for The American Spectator by Ben Stein, the actor, writer, lawyer, and commentator on political and economic issues, regarding the arrest of James O'Keefe. He begins his article, titled "Free James O'Keefe" rambling about various legal issues involving the Democrats, such as Black Panthers showing up at polling places during the 2008 elections or the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed set in Manhatten. This is all presumably mentioned to make a case for why O'Keefe is innocent. Stein then mentions the arrest of O'Keefe and his pals.

"A few days ago, four young conservatives posed as telephone repairmen and entered the branch office of Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana in New Orleans," Stein wrote. "Their goal was to check to see if the phone system in the office was working." He continues by saying that the group was arrested and being charged with a "federal felony of something called tampering with a federal phone line," but his account gets worse. He mentions a New York Times front page story picturing the conservative activists in prison orange, "presumably to humiliate" the men. Stein then jumps off the deep end.

He insists that this was just a bunch of journalists following their story, and that "they didn't even touch a phone" as far as he is aware, even though an affidavit by witnesses state otherwise, as I am sure their video recordings will also show (this seems to be a classic conservative method of alleging the inverse in an attempt to override the facts). Stein insinuates that this arrest is a violation of First Amendment rights, but I would assume that if anybody were to dry to gain access to, say, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's telephone system, the right would be fuming and demand retribution, claiming it was a terrorist-subversive-Marxist-whatever plot masterminded by the upper echelons of the Democratic party and Attorney General Eric Holder. Stein even goes far as to mention some sort of double standard within the Democratic party, where Black Panthers, most likely not associated with the original Black Panthers, since it dissolved in 1976, are not investigated, while a couple young conservatives, are. He asks the question "When was the last time you read about federal charges against a liberal reporter for going undercover?" I ask the question as to when a "liberal reporter" fraudulently entered a federal building and tried to access the telephone systems or interfere with the workings of the government? It's funny because conservatives seem to be upset that O'Keefe is being called "Watergate Jr.", trying to spin the title to compare him to the reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein then to fellow Fox News gold pitchmen G. Gordon Liddy, who masterminded the Watergate break-ins.

Ben Stein is not the only conservative to rush to the defense of the gang of four. O'Keefe's one time prostitute Hannah Giles responded to the arrest via Big Journalism, citing liberal media bias and Mary Landrieu overreacting to the plot as to why O'Keefe and his pals are in so much hot water. The mainstream media is the voice of the Democratic party, and it was the Democrats that pushed the story against O'Keefe, Dai, Basel, and Flanagan. She also questioned the loyalty of those involved in the conservative movement, turning on Michelle Malkin, who fell victim to liberal media coverage.

Commenter mousiemarie shows the blatant disregard from the right, writing "those who place themselves higher than others are always afraid of the 'rabble'." It seems to me that the fraudulent telephone repairmen decided to place themselves above the average American, taking the law into their own hand and conduct their own form of "vigilante journalism," attempting to expose perceived violations of law and hold them accountable before a proper investigation. For the right, one is presumed guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around...

Obama Cancels Visits To Moon

It appears that NASA is on the list for some cutbacks, including the moon program that was initiated by President George W. Bush back in 2004, and with the program, the Ares rocket and the Orion crew capsule, as well as over 7,000 jobs (from the cancellation of the Constellation program and the discontinuing Shuttle program) which may cause a ripple effect across the east coast. While Obama wishes to increase NASA's budget by to about $20 billion a year over the next five years, it seems that NASA will experience a tremendous shake up to make room for private space enterprises.

I personally disagree with the cancellation of the Constellation program, and believe that it was one of the brightest spots on Bush's presidency, if not the brightest. I believe support for the International Space Program is essential but lacks some benefits of a permanent moon base and that investing in the moon will set America back in the next generation of space exploration and research. Congressman Artur Davis commented on the recent decision:

"A manned space flight program is a vital component of America's scientific future. NASA's decision to scrap the Constellation program is a major error that Congress needs to correct. I will work with a bipartisan group of lawmakers to push the Administration to reverse course; if our voices are not heard, the advocates of Constellation will be waiting on the floor of the House and the Senate. It also goes without saying that the 2200 job loss from shutting down Constellation is an unacceptable blow to North Alabama's economy."

While other countries, such as China, India, and Russia, invest and develop there space programs, it seems as America is moving ahead more cautiously, having vague plans for the future that may or may not yield positive results. Where is that "yes we can" attitude from the presidential campaign?

Christopher Dawson, over at ZDNet, says it best:

I absolutely understand why budgets have been re-prioritized and I applaud efforts to address climate issues and explore public-private partnerships for “capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station.” However, this seems like a lost opportunity to engage the next generation of scientists in ways that the first space race did quite admirably.

Big Government Compares O'Keefe To ACORN?

Updated February 2nd, 2010.

In relation to O'Keefe's arrest, Big Government has been all over defending their prodigal son. This time, the article, penned by an anonymous source, stressed that he wasn't really wiretapping anything and that O'Keefe scored some victories against the media because they had to retract some statements and that all that is left of O'Keefe's wrongdoing is entering a federal building under false pretenses, which may come with jail time and a fine, but is not a felony. According to the article, "the federal government and its officers do not like to be trifled with, and the ability to bring punishment to US citizens for minor offenses isn’t limited to smoking a joint without the benefit of having a judge as a blood relative." I am not sure of the reference, but it sounds as if they want O'Keefe to get a slap on the wrist for his illegal activities, but then they look to ACORN and that is a completely different story. According to O'Keefe, he doesn't really think that they broke any laws and that it is "sort of a misunderstanding." I believe there is a word for people who don't believe in reality - delusional.

In the article, a correlation is made between O'Keefe, who entered a federal building under false pretenses to try to gain access to the telephone closet, and ACORN, which had "secret shoppers" enter the Department of Social Services in Missouri "to determine the availability of voter registration services, signs, and the readiness of the staff to offer voter registration services." The author questions as to whether ACORN's actions violated the law as well. While the actions may be similar (entering a building pretending to be someone else), the intent is completely different. O'Keefe was malicious and mischievous while ACORN sought the readiness of social services. Regardless, O'Keefe broke the law.

"Whatever you call it, the double standard is exposed," writes the author. "In coming weeks, I expect to see O’Keefe exonerated with a slap on the wrist, but the public will remember only the accusations of wiretapping. So congratulations, media. You can unfurl that banner that says: Mission Accomplished." According to a New York Times report, "the four men, two of whom were dressed as telephone repairmen, were charged with entering a federal property on false pretenses with the purpose of committing a felony. The crime charged is itself a felony that carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison." It's nice to see that the right-wing believe a felony is punishable by a slap on the wrist...

If you recall O'Keefe's initial ACORN videotapes, the public only remembers the accusations of ACORN assisting a pimp run a brothel of underage girls, even though ACORN was not found guilty of any criminal charges. Congress had also written a Bill of Attainder against ACORN, which was struck down in the courts (a slap of the wrist?) and I believe the right-wing media and tea party people unfurled their "Mission Accomplished" banner.