Rudy Waits For His Bus

Lawyer?

Obama to Paterson: DIAF

Mr. Obama, who seems to have an opinion on everyone else's business, from GM, to Kayne to Israel to what's best for Poland (on the very anniversary of Stalin's men invading), tells NY Gov. David Paterson to get the hell out of the NY governor's race.

However, Obama's track record on getting results by telling Governors what to do is 0-2. He told IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich to get the hell out of town too. Rod told Barack to stick it, and mumbled something about Rahm Emanuel.

The fun part about this story is that Paterson is a WORSE governor than Elliot Spitzer - who thought that paying for high priced hookers was a good idea, while in office, and after prosecuting people for doing the same thing - and it's come to the point where Paterson isn't listening. I'm sure the Democratic party fears that Rudy Fooli-ani, er Giuliani will come back and run (and Win) the governorship of NY.

In the meantime, wait about ten seconds before the folks on FOX News start shouting that Obama is a racist or is against blind people, or some crap. Well, they're using the race card on the Tea Party people, no doubt since it's already on the table - it'll be used again by Paterson's people, and might keep the more popular Attorney General Andrew Cuomo out of the race.

My god, can't we get some new people into this game of politics?

Speculation on Capitulation

Clinton Aides: Tomorrow Night's Speech Isn't Concession. No. Really.
(my source)

Senior Clinton campaign aides privy to the construction of tomorrow night's election night celebration in New York insist that Sen. Clinton will not use the occasion to drop out of the race.
They project that Clinton will do better than expected in South Dakota, losing by a margin of less than ten points; they project a sizable loss in Montana.

Meanwhile, NBC News reports Bill Clinton, "acknowledging the campaign's likely fate," said in South Dakota that "this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind."
Mr. Clinton, aides said, was referring to the end of the primary season -- there are no remaining places for him to campaign for his wife -- and did not attempt to foreshadow her departure.

We shall see. I still think she's got some fight in her - and she's just biding her time.
Like Scott Smith vs. Pete Sell comeback or Matt Hughes vs Carlos Newton. Hell - remember Glen Close in Fatal Attraction... yeah, that's much more like it.

Frankly, I'll believe it once she's 100% out... kicking and screaming and being escorted off the Denver convention floor.

Why was Hillary never able to take out Obama? She had dirt on him, and either used it too late, or when she did - she'd make a mistake by opening her damn mouth. Every time she spoke (just like with Giuliani) the less people liked her. For instance, she just said, "I have won more states than Senator Obama." Hey, I'm bad at math - but if you throw out the results in 38 of the 50 states, that statement becomes true.

God that's good comedy. Please stay in HillDog. We at Blasphemes need the material.

Tale of Two Drop-Outs

I've had a lot of free time today. I've also been quite sober. The medicine and liquor cabinets have both been emptied. I've been spending my time licking my wounds, nursing this hangover, and following the carnage that has followed last night's returns from Florida. Casualties were enormous. Rudy and Edwards both realized the futility and capital needed to continue their campaigns. So they stopped.

As the presidential field has whittled down further, I noticed some stark contrasts between the two. According to the media I was reading and listening to, the proud Democrat John Edwards was serenaded as a trailblazer, a man of the people, a hero - while the moderate Republican Rudy Giuliani was mocked for "living an illusion."

While only a few news establishments were surprised by Giuliani's announcement (and subsequent endorsement of fellow moderate John McCain) after his distant third-place finish in Florida. Edwards' decision must have shocked at least one person -- New York Times reporter Julie Bosman, after her Tuesday story (Pops the NYTimes article) portraying Edwards as the Energizer Bunny, motoring on and becoming a possible kingmaker at the Democratic convention. Oops.

Edwards got sound bites. Edwards was put on a pedestal. A man choosing to step aside so that history could sweep through. In other words, a chick or Tiger Woods can top the party ticket. As if he really thought he was going to stop either of those two events happening? I suppose that by getting out of the way he did understand he wasn't going to stop one of those events from happening.

But when the "other" story of the day came about, it was a comedy piece. The story of his Dizzying Fall For Ex-Mayor, by the tag team of Michael Powell and Michael Cooper, that showed little respect for Giuliani. On NPR - the reporter took Rudy's Leadership Book-on-tape and played portions of it, mostly to mock the author. "Should have listened to page 40." "Had he re-read chapter 6..." and so forth. He attacked Rudy on every level. The reporter laughed at his strategy to out-smart the process by focusing on one winner-take-all state, and ignoring Iowa and Nevada. He was mocked for spending in New Hampshire, but abandoning it when his poll numbers changed. He was attacked for not gathering better advisors, and for accidentally sending out an email with his weaknesses. Overall the report was very demeaning, childish and it was an idea I was going to do here on Blasphemes a while back but never got around to looking at the book.

At one point the joke was that Giuliani had sold more books than he had earned votes.

My complaint isn't that the NPR guy was wrong, but that their "All Things Considered" didn't play fair. There should have been an equally satisfyingly hilarious look at how John Edwards still thinks and is convinced that poor people vote. Poor people don't vote! You'd think he would have figured that out the first time he ran for President - lost - and lost by being attached to John Kerry. There should have been a further kicking and punching once the man was down perhaps by mentioning that his "populist" campaign wasn't very effing popular!

There was no balance, or even attempt at balance.
Cap'n's Bottom Line? They both ran terrible games, and should be mocked equally!

Yep, Goodbye Rudy Tuesday

ABC news is reporting that Rudy is in fact out of the race - and will endorse McCain.
(link to that)

I may have called that a little early.

What went wrong for Rudy? Perhaps saying 9/11 to start and end every sentence didn't help him. The fact that every New Yorker I've ever known hated the guy. Not because he did a bad job - but the way he talked down to New Yorkers. They didn't like that, for some reason. Was Rudy just a one trick 9/11 pony? Were voters questioning who his consultancy clients were, and the vast amounts of wealth he generated in his firm? Were people aware of his social moderate views? Maybe they saw him dressed up as a Rockette too many times? Were voters sickened by his coat-tailing of 9/11? Did he run a stupid campaign that focused too much on Florida?

Or was he just too bald?

I think it would be safe to suggest "yes" to all the above. There's probably not one single reason Rudy couldn't pull it together and win the nomination. I'm sure that dissing Iowa and New Hampshire didn't help him at all. I guess you'd have to ask a Republican voter in Florida.

And, will he be a contender for the VeeP spot?

Goodbye Rudy Tuesday

Rudy wants you all to know to, "Remain calm. All is well!" (listen)

It looks safe to say that Rudy's "Screw the Small States, I'm Going to Get a Tan" strategy hasn't worked out too well for him. He might have wanted to try that in New Hampshire, only because the state wasn't a winner take all contest.

Eh, 20/20. Hindsight. All that rot.

My guess is that he might stay in the contest, but after a poor showing on SuperDuper Tuesday he'll be talking about his 'options'. These options will be who gets his couple of delegates, and whether he will be in competition with Fred Thompson for the VeeP spot.

I know it's not over yet, but I blew this one. I kept my eye on the National polls which had Rudy losing the first couple contests, but winning the GOP nod, and then beating the tar out of the Hill in the General. Guess we were both looking at the same data. I also had him picking Newt Gingrich as his VeeP - mostly to haul in the side of the party that didn't like Rudy.

Looks like they're going to need a bigger net.

It's been a crazy month, to say the least. Now we're talking about Old Man McCain or the Mitt from Mich, who governed Mass. Other than the hair, are there major differences? McCain is hated by his party, and Romney is hated by the voters. Again, what's the differences?

Oh, yeah, Hucklebee - but he's almost out of cash. That doesn't play well with the blue blood of the GOP.

To compare McCain or Romney - well, policy wise, it's kind of muddy there. And if you're comparing McCain and Clinton, hell, they're practically the same person. So if it's a personality contest, go John-boy.

I guess I'm kind of bummed because I had Rudy picked as the winner all along - it's kind of like following the pre-season, not seeing a lot of injuries, getting excited, but by that third game of the regular season, knowing that the Bears had no chance to get back to the Super Bowl.

And let me clear this up - I didn't pick Rudy because I like him - I picked him because he said 9/11 a couple million times and I thought he would beat the Hill in the final game. But it looks like Obama is making the playoffs a lot harder for her than she anticipated. Kind of like how the Patriots were almost unseated by the Chargers back-up team two weekends ago.

SuperDuper Tuesday is coming up. Be sure you're registered. And if you're in Illinois, be sure to vote early, vote often.

Caption this...

"and then Tower one was like this..AHHHHHHH, that's when I flew in and saved the day"

Told ya...

Sometimes, you just don't need those fancy polls and whatnot. You just need the Capn.

Here's the latest "news" to be found on Yahoo:
Democrat Hillary Clinton would lose to all major Republican White House candidates, according to a hypothetical election matchup poll Monday, reversing her months of dominance over potential 2008 challengers.

The Zogby International poll was the latest sign that withering attacks on the former first lady were chipping away at her opinion poll leads just 38 days before the Iowa caucuses, the first party nominating contests.

In the new survey, Clinton trailed Senator John McCain 42 percent to 38 percent, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani by 43 percent to 40 percent and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 43 percent to 40 percent.

She also lagged behind former Arkansas Republican governor Mike Huckabee by 44 to 39 percent, and former Senator Fred Thompson by 44 to 40 percent in hypothetical general election matchups.

Clinton's top Democratic challengers Barack Obama and John Edwards however would still beat their hypothetical Republican rivals in potential 2008 contests.

This validates my point about Rove, it validates my thoughts on this stuff since I joined up here on this here Blasphemes deal. I have said that ANY of the Republican fellows could beat her in the national race. I don't know when, search for it. I ask now, how is this crap news? The country voted for BUSH over Longfellow -er- Kerry. The country hasn't come together to teach the world to sing the Coca-Cola song. Why would anyone think that Hillary can or would? She represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic party right now, and until now - right now - the minute you're reading this - has anyone bothered to think that through.

I have been waiting for Al Gore to take the stage. It's his time, and he's due the trumping of the Clintons (both of them) who threw him under the bus in 2000. I even support him to take the DNC nomination. Mostly for the humor factor.

Now it's up to Obama and also Edwards to get off their hands and go for the jugular. Don't hold back for the VeeP spot - you don't want that anyway... especially if you're going to loose with Hillary on top.... ewww... going to have to go back and edit that last sentence...

If you disagree - go on, start a flamewar with me. I'm working slow as I'm still recovering from that damned flu bug. Remember, you gots to show your work.

Iow-ait-a-minute

Clinton v. Giuliani might not be as inevitable as I first thought. Polling in Iowa (uh, hold on..?) the Democratic race is now a three-way statistical deadheat. Also Romney and Huckabee are crushing Giuliani on the GOP.(link)

That's almost interesting - until you know how Iowa actually 'votes' for their candidates. It's the most confusing thing in American politics since the electoral college.

Instead of traditional polling boxes, the Iowans meet at precincts - schools, churches, gathering spots. They do this every two years, but no one gives a rip until the Presidential 'preference' caucus. They vote, caucus attendees propose planks for their party's platform, select members of the county committees, and discuss issues important to their local organizations.

The Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate, like just about everyone else. Instead, Iowa caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who elect delegates to district and state conventions where the national convention delegates are selected. That's a lot of meetings. Bored yet?

The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time.

Republicans pretty much have theirs in a hat, and the Democrats make it extra complicated, with gravy on top.

The Democrats sit in areas for their candidate.

Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. It is not known if threats or body checks are allowed. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

Cutndapasted: After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least that many caucus participants in that precinct. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help you.

When the dust settles, a head count, and then they tell the party... and Dan Rather jumps up and down and spouts blather for half the night.

There's a whole lot of stuff that goes on afterwards, but no one gives a rip about that either.

So the bottom line - Polls before the Iowa caucus in Iowa are completely USELESS!!!!

Pot Calls Kettle Black!

Conservative Christian power-broker Gary Bauer (that one-time presidential hopeful?) turned his attention to a new threat, one social conservative leaders hope will shake their constituents from their apathy about the 2008 presidential race.

"The war against Islamofascism is in many respects a 'values issue,'" Bauer wrote. "That may seem like an odd statement at first glance, but, as I have often said, losing Western Civilization to this vicious enemy would be immoral."

From one perspective, branding "radical Islam" as a family values issue is yet another example of the broadening of the evangelical agenda. But next November, it also could energize one of the Republican Party's key voting blocs, much like anti-gay marriage measures did in 2004.

And if that's if this illegal immigrant drivers license thing doesn't work out. I think it'll piss people off - but not enough to get them into the polling booth... but Rove's got a plan, don't you worry.

The use of "Islamofascism" is the buzzword de jour among the faithful. Proponents of the term argue that Islamic radicals who embrace totalitarian methods magically evokes some sort of European fascist movements of the early 20th century. You're kidding, right? Some critics call it manufactured propaganda, a 21st-century scare tactic that fails to capture the complex causes of terrorism. You say tomato, I say effing tomato...

A quick review of Evangelicals railing against militant Islam recently:

• Televangelist Pat Robertson, explaining his endorsement this week of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said "the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists."

• Perhaps the nation's most influential evangelical leader, James Dobson, has spotlighted the issue a dozen times over the past year on his Focus on the Family radio show. Dobson has warned that both Republicans and Democrats need to "wake up" to the dangers of militant Islam.

• At the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in June, evangelical thinker Charles Colson spoke of a "long war" against Islamofascists.

Tensions between evangelical Christianity and Islam are long-standing, too. You know, with the Crusades and the Battle of Tours and such. Oh, and that oil and Israel thing too...

They're also trying to 'grow the business' and you just can't have a Subway and a Quiznos in the same parking lot, for some reason.

John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and Balloon Doggies said, "radical Islam, in the same way that radical Communism was, is a threat that would interfere with families, with good government, and also the church and the spreading of the Gospel."

U.S. Muslim leaders are critical of the pitched rhetoric and warn of the consequences if evangelical leaders fail to separate militants from the vast majority of Muslims. Or what? Or else they'll bomb them? Uh, what's up with that, guys? You MAY want to consider firing your PR firm. Just some free advice there for ya.

"If you look at the global picture, what these groups are doing is reinforcing the idea that America is in a crusade against Islam, and that this not a war against a group of extremists, but a war between religions," said Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. "In the long run, it's to the detriment of America's interests and it's pandering to a bloc of voters in a very shortsighted way." Yeah, say what you will Salami, it's a free country, after all, but those people do vote! And they do have a history of voting on the fear ticket.

In meetings with Republican presidential candidates, Christian conservatives are most interested in hearing an acknowledgment of the Islamic threat.

The GOP hopefuls are obliging. Here's your scorecard:

Giuliani — whose preferred term is "Islamic terrorists" — has denounced Democrats for failing to use the phrase. Christian conservative leaders acknowledge their elevation of the issue has contributed to an ironic twist at the top of the polls: Giuliani, the candidate most associated with the war on terrorism, not only won Robertson's endorsement but is polling well among evangelicals despite his two divorces and support for abortion rights and gay rights.

Mitt Romney, who is aggressively courting evangelicals, produced a TV ad in Iowa titled "Jihad," in which he says, "It's this century's nightmare, jihadism — violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism." He's also Mormon, so it's likely that the evangelical support would offset.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a favorite of many Christian conservatives, for failing to grasp the threat of radical Islam.

Mike Huckabee has since tried to make amends. In a Republican debate in Orlando, the former Southern Baptist minister labeled Islamofascism "the greatest threat this country's ever faced."

Green, of the Pew Forum, said if radical Islam does become a major campaign issue, it will help the GOP nominee because voters tend to view Republicans as stronger on national security. But he isn't sure it will motivate conservative Christian activists. To be whipped up into some kind of religious fury; a kind of jihad, if you will?

"If you get off into issues of taxes or foreign policy, their eyes glaze over," Green said. "If politics is going to be about those things, they'd rather be back at their churches saving souls."

Another influential conservative activist, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, said it's unclear whether conservative Christian voters understand the threat of radical Islam well enough for it to become a factor in the election.

"We've got a year to make sure they know what's going on," said Weyrich, a Romney supporter. "If they do, probably this will be the motivating issue. If they don't, you can forget it. I think the election goes to Hillary (Clinton)."

I would have thought that Hillary alone would be enough to get the Conservatives into the polling places? Eh, I guess Rove figures he oughta' whip 'em up good, just to make sure.

Original story By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer. Edited and editorialized by The Cap'n.

Clinton and Giuliani in Possible Rematch - DUH!

The most obvious headline I've read since, "Uranus at its biggest and brightest this week"

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (9/11) and Senator First Lady, Lord Hillary Rodham Clinton: Rudy and Hillary face off!

Again

For the first time.

Yeah! I've been saying that these two would be the leading assh*les for the the 2008 election for the last 7 years. I've been telling you that this is how the thing is going to shake up! The best part is the behind the scene features on the DVD. You'll have Karl Rove against James Carville in a campaign that'll make the whole Willy Horton spot seem quaint.

But it's not a rematch. It's a makeup from a rain delay folks. Ahem, Reuters, I'm looking right at you. What?

Memory, or the facts, would point out that Rudy bailed out. He bailed out before the PRIMARY which he was expected to win. He withdrew his candidacy. The stated reason was that he had been diagnosed as having prostate cancer and needed treatment.

Frankly, we haven't even seen this fight yet. But What a Bout it will be! Rove and Carville in a cage match for the death of the country! Get your tickets now folks. You'll want to be in the first three rows - because there will be blood and teeth souvenirs. And yes, you will get wet.