Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Ramblings on Where I Stand Today

As we approach "super-duper" Tuesday, I find myself conflicted. It is a conflict I have faced before -- in fact one that is often the reality in a two-party system -- do I support the candidate whose values most closely resemble my own or the compromise candidate who (conventional wisdom) says has the best chance of winning.

Obviously it's not just "winning" that matters. There are a good number of issues on which John McCain and I agree. Most importantly he loves America and realizes that the American people are good. Democrats hate America and believe the people are bad. They believe that they are stupid and bigoted and dangerous. (Stupid and bigoted because they believe in "an invisible man in the sky" and because their love America which makes them xenophobes and, besides, if they were smart, wouldn't they do nothing for a living the way actors and professors and welfare recipients (in other words, the Democrats) do?

But there are a lot of things that McCain and I do not agree upon. Big things. I am not a fan of the ego-boast he gets in being a "maverick." It's okay to be different, it's okay to disagree, but when disagreeing (and being disagreeable about it) are a source of one's self-worth, danger lurks should he be empowered.

Will he "reach out" to the Dems (and prove his "maverickness" by nominating to the Supreme Court someone who makes Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold happy? Will he show how he "works" with the leftists like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by working for an open border with Mexico and amnesty for the rest?

It does not bode well when John Kerry considers him as a running mate, Joe Lieberman endorses him (although Joe does get it right on the big one -- Islamic fascism is evil, America's freedoms are good) and the New York Times endorses him.

My stomach turns when I hear McCain speak of manmade global warming. If he'd fall for such a farce, what else would he fall for? And his argument that he proudly trots out to defend it -- "well, if it doesn't exist so what, we'll still have cleaner air" is the leftists' usual argument for lying to the people. Thus, they lied about heterosexual AIDS, after all, the lie would result in more funding for AIDS treatment and, well, what could be wrong with that?

(The answer is that lying to the people means the people don't have the power to decide how best to spend our money, with donations to breast cancer research and pediatric diabetes going down as people misappropriate funds for an "epidemic" that never existed.)

I am somewhat reassured by McCain's point-blank promises to appoint the right kind of judges (those who care about the law and not making social policy to fit their own political agendas), to secure the border first and to not sign international protocols designed not to clean the air but to shackle America and American ingenuity, but promises are just that and I remain deeply concerned.

That leaves the candidates given less of a chance to defeat the leftists in November.
I like both men a great deal. Both men get it on the biggest issue and I'm sure they will fight the good fight to protect America and our freedoms from assaults both foreign and domestic. They, get that the enemy is the Islamic fascist abroad and indiscriminateness as a basis for policy here at home.

Both have policies as Governor that need to be explained -- and I've listened to Huckebee do a good job of explaining his positions in venues not covered by the leftist media which prefers to merely portray him as a "former Baptist minister" rather than the long-ruling Governor selected by the other forty-nine to be their leader.

Romney's positions are equally explainable in the context of his having to run and rule in perhaps the most far-leftist of all states, the home of Ted "the killer" Kennedy and John "the anti-American liar" Kerry.

I recognize that Romney and/or Huckabee doing well on Tuesday means a protracted and perhaps more divisive battle continuing for months and providing the leftists fodder for their attack machine come the general election.

I also believe that ANY Republican can defeat the Democrats in November. Yes, the polls show the leftists leading Romney and Huckabee at this juncture, but the polls always show the leftists up early as their promises of "everything, all the time, paid for by someone else" are attractive in the abstract. Grown-up realities are less attractive in the winter and spring but become the stuff of elections come the summer and fall.

Further, when Republican candidates get to make their case through the campaign -- in speeches that cannot be edited by the folks at the Caliphate News Network, when debates take place one-on-one and national conventions are viewed by millions, the mature and accomplished Republicans will make their case to the American people in stark contrast to the meaningless cries of "hope" and "change" and Hillary's free health care for everyone paid for by the evil "rich" as portrayed in her "holiday" (not Christmas, of course), commercials.

So...where do I stand? I don't know. I just don't know.

My friend Seth Swirsky, who I have gone back and forth with for hours on end, finds himself in McCain's camp because "he is the toughest hombre on the block," and with enemies like Iran approaching nuclear status and with success in Iraq either going forward under the Republicans or seeing our surrender to the terrorists under the Democrats, that's enough for him. It's close to enough for me. But just close.

So, for another day I go back and forth in my mind. McCain and an early nominee, a protracted battle which may well end up the same way? Is McCain REALLY more likely to defeat the Dems in November? I don't know. I just don't know.

68 comments:

Farmer John said...

In the mean time... you can't go wrong bashing the Democrats!

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Especially if you're a mindless idiot with nothing of substance to say! Yay! Democrats are evil! Ice cream sandwiches for everyone!

tom wright said...

Ramblings? SCRAMBLINGS would be more accurate...man, no wonder nobody but idiots and the people who laugh at them come to this site. Whadda find, though, for those of us who miss the old carnival freak shows.

Anonymous said...

McCain will be the best to beat the democrats , we can't let the congress and president become a democrat .. Lets all vote for John McCain to stop the evil democrats..

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

When you use the word "evil" in every other sentence, it sort of starts to lose its punch, don't you think? What you really need, as a "writer", is a thesaurus. Here are some suggestions to broaden your language, so that maybe you can get that book deal after all:

Baneful
Calamitous
Execrable
Iniquitous
Malevolent
Nefarious
Pernicious
Revolting
Vile
Villainous
Wicked

"The wicked democrats are downright malevolent." Now doesn't that sound so much better? That is a jazzy sentence. That is a sentence written by a man who is on his way straight to the top (of wingnut-welfare punditry, but still, you'll be the belle of the ball with your delightful prose).

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Our choices in November are Clinton and Diet Clinton.

Dan Kurt said...

re: John McCain

Our returned Vietnam War POWs averaged a 60 lbs loss of before capture weight. McCain was the ONLY one who on return had gained weight. His fellow returning POWs to a man considered him a traitor for his actions as a POW. Watch some youTUBE videos on this such as HERE.

Montag said...

Great essay, Evan. Although I am of the belief that there is a plan afoot to marginalize any true Conservaatives running for the presidency. I'm talking about the old-fashioned, blue blood, country club Establishment Republicans. These are the Olympia Snowes/ Lincoln Chaffee/Arlen Specter crowd of RINO's.

They've already blocked Fred Thompson, as they are blocking Romney. Huckabee is only in the race to advance McCain and pick up the vice presidency for himself.

Conservatives, the bed rock on which the GOP is based, is being pushed out of the fold.
Of course, without the base, what are the odds of a GOP victory in November?

Slim to none, I fear. I see a repeat of 1976, 1992, and 1996, where the Establisment picked the nominee, but lost the election.

There's a lot to like about McCain, but he has no business being the Republican nominee.
Montagsworld.blogspot

emma said...

Oh! What agony! What turmoil Evan must be in now! This is such a gut-wrenching, pivotal decision that he must make. Such drama! If it doesn't compete with Williams' "Parade," surely must on a par with "As the World Turns."

Tune in next week to find out which Repugnikkklan candidate Evan will pledge his troth to.

emma said...

p.s. My magic 8 ball sez McCain.

lostinpittsburgh said...

Well put, Evan. I've heard many people boast that they have always voted for the eventual winner. But should anyone be proud of mindlessly checking the newspaper and voting for the current frontrunner? Giuliani and Thompson were both frontrunners at one time. Are many Republicans choosing McCain not on his razor thin conservative credentials, but upon the random fact that his timing was better? It's laughable to think that McCain is the most electable candidate. Picture him debating anything of substance with the more intelligent, silver-tongued Obama. He'll come off as old and cranky. The economy is the biggest factor right now, and Romney is the only candidate with enough experience and intelligence to convince voters that he's the right guy to fix it.

baffledrepublican said...

Yes, but Romney's got such a bald faced record of flipping from liberal to conservative over night. Then, there's the Mormon thing turning off the Evangelicals...

lostinpittsburgh said...

I, too, have been concerned about some of Romney's past positions but believe he's always been a conservative at heart. In order to get elected in an ultra-liberal state, he said some centrist things, much like Reagan did in California. With McCain it's the exact opposite - he's always been liberal at heart, but at election time tries to appear more conservative. What convinced me of this was some recent comments by the conservative Senator Santorum: "...he’s not with us on almost all of the core issues...on the economic side, he was against the President’s tax cuts, he was bad on immigration. On the environment, he’s absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country. He is for bigger government on a whole laundry list of issues...I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion. And then...on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them."

Rush said...

Conservative Talk Radio Is Not Happy with McCain:

One of the curious side narratives of this wide open election season is the way that talk radio has injected itself onto the Republicn presidential primary process. Here in New York City there is a radio station — the influential WABC — in which virtually every host is virulently opposed to Senator John McCain receiving the nomination. Lisetening to the conservative station is not unlike listening to a continuous 24-hour anti-John McCain ad. What effect, however, this has on the primary process in the tri-state area on Super Duper Tuesday is not immediately apparent.

From the AP: ''John McCain heads into Tuesday's Florida primary facing resistance from not only his fellow candidates, but also from the leaders of conservative talk radio, who some suggest have put their reputations on the line, as well.

''Talk radio pioneer Rush Limbaugh said that if McCain or Mike Huckabee are nominated, 'it's going to destroy the Republican Party.' Mark Levin calls the senator 'John McLame.' On Monday, Laura Ingraham said she was "concerned about the mental stability of the McCain campaign" and had cuckoo-clock sound effects accompany his words.

''Radio host Michael Medved said that the big loser in South Carolina was talk radio, 'a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight."'

tom wright said...

Romney's positions are equally explainable in the context of his having to run and rule in perhaps the most far-leftist of all states, the home of Ted "the killer" Kennedy and John "the anti-American liar" Kerry.

Psychet saying it's alright for a GOP to lie for years to the people to get himself elected. Is this the stupidest, hypoctite motherhumper in the ward or what?

a boil on evans ass said...

Telling the truth has become "an evil Republican tactic"...

The Clinton campaign convened a conference call with health policy experts to denounce Obama's new mailer (.pdf), which attacks Clintons plan for "forcing" Americans to sign up for insurance, and which features a couple at a kitchen table that recalls, for some, the famous insurance-industry financed "Harry and Louise" ads against the original Clinton plan.

I guess when the government threatens to fine or arrest you for not having medical coverage... that's NOT using force.

One of these day's we'll all have to learn liberal doublespeak. I'm sure MiniTru, aka-the Hillary Campaign Rapid Response Team, must have Hillary's translation dictionary lying around the office somewhere...

goodbygop said...

Sayet is confused but Coulter knows where she stands:

Annie razed McCain: Coulter claims she would back Hillary
We know the far right is upset with McCain as nominee but this is really going too far: Ann Coulter asserting on Fox News that if he gets the nomination she would not only "vote for" Hillary, she would "campaign for her if it's McCain." She told Sean Hannity last night that Clinton "is more conservative than he is" and added that in that scenario "she will be our girl." As president, Hillary would be "stronger in the war on terrorism" and would not pull the troops out of Iraq -- she jumped to her feet at the State of Union speech when Bush said the surge was working. Hannity countered: "McCain did support the war." She pointedout: "So did Hillary."

Alan Colmes, enjoying it all immensely, said Hillary would likely say "no" to the campaign offer. But Coulter plunged ahead: "Hillary is absolutely more conservative" and moreover "she lies less than John McCain. And she's smarter than John McCain so when she lies she knows it....John McCain is not only bad for Republicans he is also bad for the country." Hannity clearly doesn't fully agree, but like Coulter hates his anti-torture stance.

Madison said...

This latest exhibition proves (once again) that Evan is devoid of any intellectual honesty and has compromised himself at every opportunity. The pretense that Evan has some sort of moral dilemma along with his insufferable self-absorption is hilarious.

Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst said...

Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain are the national front-runners for their party’s presidential nominations, according to a FOX News poll released Friday, and Clinton is seen as the candidate most prepared to begin leading the country on "day one."

That’s the good news for Clinton. The bad news for the former first lady is she is also seen as the candidate most likely to "do anything — including something unethical — to win," and most likely to embarrass the country.

Rev. DrJon Swabey said...

Obama hates Mexicans...

Now, there is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders. We can't have hundreds of thousands of people coming over to the United States without us having any idea who they are.

I also believe that we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation, hiring folks who cannot complain about worker conditions, who aren't getting the minimum wage sometimes, or aren't getting overtime. We have to crack down on them.


Now somebody yell, "Migra!" and then report anybody who flinches.

theraven said...

Dr. Dobson: I Will Never Vote for McCain

Adam Gorightly said...

The Democratic politicians of the Alinsky School are masters of the old Italian Proverb... "Alexander never did what he said and Caesar never said what he did"

Super Tuesday may be exciting for the Democrats, but for Republicans it will be a big yawn. Whether Senator McCain or Governor Romney wins New York no longer matters, since both candidates are pro-life and will subsequently win the conservative base. Senators Clinton and Obama champion a woman's right to choose, and it will be interesting to ask them what they think of NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposed legislation to make that choice a civil right. The consequence of that proposal, should it pass, would be devastating to our freedom of religion.

The Spitzer bill S.5829 is euphemistically called the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act. It would raise abortion to the level of a fundamental right, like the freedom of speech, and would therefore prohibit virtually any restrictions at all. According to an urgent "news & action update" released by the New York State Catholic Conference and distributed at all masses last week, the act would force doctors to perform abortions; force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions; force health care insurance plans to cover them; force employers to purchase abortion coverage; authorize non physicians to perform abortions, and undermine parental involvement in the life decisions of their children.

In addition, the Conference warns that the state's civil rights laws protecting doctors and nurses who do not wish to be involved in abortions would be in serious jeopardy. The state's funding to abortion alternative programs and agencies would be required to cover abortions. Many regard this proposed law as ultra radical and beyond the pale, but when it comes to abortion, Mr. Spitzer has consistently been loyal to the abortion advocates who've helped fund his political career.

Farmer John said...

I sure wish I subscribed to the totalitarian (aka-progressive) regulate society by requiring universal centrally managed healthcare school of liberalism. NOT!

anita hugeshlong said...

Younger women split from Hillary...

Polls show women tend to favor Clinton -- a gender bias her campaign strategists are counting on. But Obama cut into that support in two of four early-voting states. Older women lean toward Clinton, younger ones toward Obama. Working women favor him, those with children at home like her. And then there is the factor of race, which helped Obama garner 54% of the female vote in South Carolina last week, with 78% support among black women.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Adam Gorightly,

That's an intriguing argument for privacy - making abortion a civil right.

Good thing only people licensed to carry firearms do.

gopevil said...

Farmer John said...
I sure wish I subscribed to the totalitarian (aka-progressive) regulate society by requiring universal centrally managed healthcare school of liberalism. NOT!



Meanwhile the criminal right wants to deny abortion by vigilante action and their typical violence.

Farmer John said...

Based upon the abuse of trust the Left perpetrated on our society w/Roe... you're lucky we don't also flog Leftists on the street, just out of respect for general principles!

Abortions would be "rare" the Left said. "Rape and Incest justifies it", they said. 35 years and 50 million dead fetus' later, the Left whines at the thought of stopping 3rd term partial birth infanticide variety. The Left laughs if you speak of limiting abortion to rape and incest, today. Any "limit" would begin a "slippery slope" march towards a total ban, they claim. Even your troll team member dora is a big proponent of "incestuous marriages".

Talk about a DIVE off the moral SLIPPERY SLOPE. I can't wait for Zeus to extract his vengeance on Lycaon.

Madison said...

the rube said...
I sure wish I subscribed to the totalitarian (aka-progressive) regulate society


Do you really think that you can pass off this equivication (time after time) without being called on it? There is no setting aright a mind this screwed up.

Madison said...

FJ: Based upon the abuse of trust the Left

Do you say whatever simplistic, illogical thing that pops into your mind? How can you make such a statement after all of the "abuse of trust" perpetuated upon us by this administration a thousand times over about the war, about the economy, about almost anything that you can name?

tom wright said...

you're lucky we don't also flog Leftists on the street, just out of respect for general principles!


We're lucky, you simple pussy?! You couldn't flog your dick without help from some underage boy. The stupid sack of shit admits the right is criminal and tells us we're lucky they aren't bigger criminals...pussies and thugs at the same time. That's a dangerous combination for you when people get fed up...which is just about now.

Farmer John said...

How can you make such a statement after all of the "abuse of trust" perpetuated upon us by this administration a thousand times over about the war, about the economy, about almost anything that you can name?

Do you really think that you can pass off this equivication (time after time) without being called on it? There is no setting aright a mind this screwed up.

Do you say whatever simplistic, illogical thing that pops into your mind?

The stupid sack of shit admits the right is criminal and tells us we're lucky they aren't bigger criminals...

I'm not the one defending fifty million body bags ass wipe.

membrano said...

I'm not the one defending fifty million body bags ass wipe.


No, you're the one denying all the women who would have been dead from back alley abortions whose lives you'd have gladly traded for those fifty million, microscopic collecton of cells...and the million dead, real humans in Iraq.

Farmer John said...

Yeah, all 3 of those mythical whores... and then I'd spit on their graves.

Farmer John said...

I don't here you crying for the dozens of women who died in the process of having legal abortions. Don't their lives mean anything, either?

Didn't think so.

membrano said...

I don't here you crying for the dozens of women who died in the process of having legal abortions. Don't their lives mean anything, either?



Why would you, moron, since they're thousands fewer than would have died by illegal methods.

Farmer John said...

How many were dying pre-Roe?

You made a statement. Back it up or stf up.

Madison said...

Why don't you use a credible source, FJ? The source cited below is from the CDC, while your info comes from some christian pro-life site.


PIP: According to D. Grimes, of the Abortion Surveillance Branch of the Center for Disease Control, the total complication risk for abortions performed in the U.S. is 12% and risk of major complications is less than 1%. The risk of death from abortion is less than 3/100,000 procedures. Gestational age and abortion method are the major determinants of complication risks. Complication rates can be reduced by performing early abortion with dilation and evacuation. Abortions undertaken during the 7th-8th week are associated with a major complication risk of 0.3%. After the 8th week the major complication rate increases linearly. The respective major complication risks at 13-14 weeks, 15-16 weeks, and 17-20 weeks are 1.4%, 1.9%, and 2.2%. Mortality rates for abortion show a similar pattern. The death rate/100,000 cases at the 8th week is 0.6. Respective rates at 9-10 weeks, at 13-15 weeks, at 16-20 weeks, and at the 21st week are 1.7, 2.7, 7.5, 14.6, and 20.5. Curettage procedures have the least risk of complication. Suction abortions have an overall complication risk of 5% and a major complication risk of 0.4%. Respective risks are 10.6% and 0.9% for sharp curettage abortions, 42.7% and 1.9% for instillation abortions, and 49.4% and 14.9% for hysterotomy. The rates for hysterectomy are similar to those for hysterotomy. Deaths/100,000 procedures were 1.5 for curettage with dilation and evacuation, 13.5 for instillation abortions, and 43.6 for hysterectomy and hysterotomy.

Btw, I meant equivocation, not equivication. That's what I get for talking to a bunch of illiterate boneheads, I guess...it just rubs off on ya.

Madison said...

I don't know why you republicans are whining about Roe v. Wade since Roe v Wade was decided by a 7 to 2 majority. Of the seven justices who ruled for women, five had been appointed by Republican presidents. The two “no” votes came from one Republican appointee and one Democrat, Byron “Whizzer” White, who was put on the bench by his buddy, John F. Kennedy.

Dan Kurt said...

Getting back to the fitness of McCain to be President of the USA:

From <://dickmcdonald.blogspot.com/>
who reprinted this from To The Point.

Saturday, February 02, 2008

How the Clinton's Will Destroy McCain

Jack Wheeler

The number of fellow Senators who think John McCain is psychologically unstable is large. Some will admit it publicly, like Thad Cochran who says, "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine."

Others relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum, or Jim Inhofe. "The man is unhinged," one Senator told me. "He is frighteningly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief."

That John McCain is clinically nuts is scary enough. What worries a small group of GOP Senators and Congressmen even more is a deep and dark skeletal secret in McCain's glorified past to which they are privy, and which the Clintons will use to blackmail him.

They have been having discussions with a Russian whom we'll call "T" for Translator. T's father was the Soviet military intelligence officer who ran the "Hanoi Hilton" prison holding captured Americans during the Vietnam War. One of those prisoners was John McCain.

The GRU -- Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije or Main Intelligence Directorate of the Soviet (now Russian) Armed Forces - operated the entire North Vietnamese prison system holding American prisoners of war. GRU officers, all of whom were Russians, oversaw the interrogation of every American POW.

The interrogations themselves were conducted by Vietnamese who spoke some English. After each interrogation session, which could often include torturing the prisoners at the direction of the GRU officers, the Vietnamese interrogator would write a report of the session - in Vietnamese.

These reports had to be translated into Russian. T, a bright teenager living in the GRU compound in Hanoi, had become fluent in Vietnamese, and ended up translating many of the reports and interrogators' notes.

John McCain, flying his A-4 Skyhawk, was shot down over Hanoi on October 26, 1967. Badly injured from the ejection, he was beaten and abused by his captors. In July, 1968, his father, US Navy Admiral J. S. McCain, was made CINCPAC, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, commander of all US military forces in the Vietnam theatre. Upon learning this, the Vietnamese offered - according to McCain - to release him.

McCain claims he refused, because he demanded all American POWs captured before him be released as well. He thus remained a prisoner when he could have gone home, and was subjected to constant brutal beatings and torture for years: that is the source of the "war-hero" saga making McCain a greater war-hero than any other American POW.

Yet the offer of release would had to have been approved by the GRU overseers of the North Vietnamese - and T does not recall any such offer being made. T admits, however, that this took place before McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by the POWs. T had only direct knowledge of what happened at Hoa Loa, and not the other prisons, where T's father was in charge.

McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March of 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators' notes and reports regarding John McCain.

According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.

The notes and reports written in Vietnamese were sent to Moscow, where T was a now a college student, for T's translation into Russian, then placed into GRU archives. That's where they stayed until 1991. Late that year, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the CIA and the GRU made a deal for a document swap.

All of what it involved, T doesn't know. What T's father, by now retired but still with substantial contacts within the GRU, did learn (and thus T learned) was that the swap included all of T's translations.

In other words, the CIA has in its possession the notes and reports of John McCain's interrogators at the Hanoi Hilton, in both the original Vietnamese and translated Russian, showing collaboration with his Communist captors.

Allegations of this nature have been made over the years, many by Vietnam veterans. There is an even an organization, Vietnam Veterans Against McCain. But they are based on suspicions and circumstantial claims. There has never been any hard direct evidence.

What T says the CIA has is such evidence. Its release would destroy McCain. The threat of its release could force McCain to take a fall, blow the election and lose on purpose. And just who do you suppose would know what the CIA has and work with them to release it?

Someone who has been a CIA asset since he was recruited by London station chief Cord Meyer while a student at Oxford in 1968?

(Back in the 90s years after he retired, if Cord drank a little too much Scotch, he would laugh derisively at those conspiratorialists who accused Bill Clinton of being connected with the KGB.

"They all darkly point to Bill's participation in anti-war peace conferences in Stockholm and Oslo, and his trip to Leningrad, Moscow, and Prague while he was at Oxford. Who could have paid for this?', they ask. It had to be the KGB!' they claim." Cord would shake his head. "What rot - we paid for it. We recruited Bill the first week he was at Oxford. Bill's been an asset of The Three Bad Words ever since." Cord passed on in 2001.)

The small group of Senators and Congressmen who have been briefed by T have been unable to confirm with the CIA any details of its document swap with the GRU beyond an admission that such a swap "may have happened." They are very nervous about pursuing the matter any further.

The Clintons are not nervous. They are utterly ruthless, and have buddies at Langley all too happy to help them.

It has been noted many times here in To The Point that while most folks think the CIA is a right-wing outfit, it is not. The CIA has been dominated by left-wing hyper-liberals for years.

The CIA is a left-wing, liberal outfit, and its main job for some time now is not attacking America's enemies but conservatives in general and George W. Bush in particular. The story is best told by friend, Ken Timmerman in his new book Shadow Warriors.

When the time is right, the Clintons will see to the leaking of the GRU archives on McCain to the media. Bet on it, just as you can bet they'll follow it up with media disclosures of the lady lobbyists in Washington having adulterous affairs with McCain. (There are at least three of them; I know the name of one but I'm not going to put it in writing.)

Maybe McCain will try to fight back by confirming Hillary's well-known bisexuality and her lesbian affair with her beautiful assistant, Huma Abedin. Google "Hillary" and "Huma Abedin" and you'll get almost 6,000 hits. Turns out Huma is a Moslem who grew up in Saudi Arabia and is strongly suspected of working for Saudi intelligence.

Or maybe he'll capitulate to Clinton blackmail. You never can tell what a psychologically unstable guy will do.

And that last point is why - be prepared for this, folks - I would not in any circumstances vote for John McCain, not if either Hillary or Obama were the alternative. Evil is safer than crazy. Leftie amateur inexperience is safer than crazy. So I agree with Ann Coulter who says:

"I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility."

How in the world can the Republican Party get saddled with a nutcase whack-job who knows nothing about economics, is so anti-capitalist he uses "profit" as a term of derision, has never run a business or had any job outside of government, will raise taxes, is so stupid that he believes "stopping global warming" is worth destroying the American economy, won't drill ANWR, won't appoint strict constructionist justices, won't protect marriage, will give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, is beloved by the New York Times, and lives in a delusionary world of vanity and rage?

Rush is right. A McCain presidency will be the destruction of the Republican Party. It needs to be rebuilt, not wiped out with the field clear for the fascists of the left to consolidate power and eliminate freedom.

Farmer John said...

Given your minimum figure of 3 per 100,000 means that if 1.2m legal abortions are performed about 36 women will die from complications due to the abortion every year. But how many will die from "other" causes, no longer directly attributed to the abortion, but to "related procedures" like anesthesia? And what about women who are STILL dying from illegal abortions, and the new abortion drugs?

Figures released in 1986 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) show that in the 15 years prior to the legalization of abortion, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in the entire United States was 136 per year and dropping.

The Center for Disease Control gathered national data on abortion deaths from the period 1972 through 1974. Deaths from abortion numbered 88 in 1972, 56 in 1973, and 47 in 1974. Deaths due to illegal abortion decreased from 41 to 21 to 6 during this 3 year period.

1) During the 1981-1984 time period during which Commissioner Joseph said New York City had suffered "30 legal abortion-related deaths," the CDC reported a total of "just" 42 legal abortion deaths throughout the entire United States. If the CDC death total is correct, New York City would have accounted for 71.4 percent of all U.S. abortion deaths while performing "only 12.3 percent of all [the] induced abortions" in the United States during that four-year period.


So it's not that "less women" are dying now from abortion in the USA. About the same number of women are dying... only many, many MORE abortions are being performed. And those "back alley" abortions have NOT gone away. They're all still with us.

It's abortion that is the problem. 50 million fetus' and thousands of what would otherwise have been healthy women.

Farmer John said...

Fudging abortion related deaths...

Beginning in 1979, the Centers for Disease Control undertook a new surveillance of ectopic pregnancy-related mortality, and published its first ectopic pregnancy surveillance report in 1982. As a result all deaths associated with ectopic pregnancy, whatever connection they might have with induced abortion, were excluded from the abortion death totals and the Annual Abortion Surveillance Reports.

The CDC's new rule had a most pernicious effect: ectopic pregnancy deaths subsequent to induced abortions would no longer be counted in the abortion death totals but now all such deaths automatically would be dumped into the pregnancy/childbirth maternal mortality statistics. The relation of such deaths to legal abortion would never be known, it at least by the general public. And once again the invidious comparisons between the alleged safety of legal abortion and the supposedly greater danger associated with child-bearing could be more easily made.


Back on the front page, however, many deaths are incorrectly coded under the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, the system used throughout the world to accurately record the cause of deaths. Instead of using the specific codes pertaining to abortion injuries 635.1: a legally induced abortion complicated by ... excessive hemorrhage, and 635.2: complicated by damage to pelvic organs, and 635.6: complicated by embolism, medical examiners hide the truth of what really had occurred by utilizing codes N867 and E870.

An "N code" describes the nature of the injury while an "E code" designates the external cause of the injury. N867 simply indicates that the injury was to the "pelvic organs" and E870 designates an "accidental cut, puncture, perforation, or hemorrhage during medical care." Note that in using these particular codes the medical examiner has managed to completely hide the fact that the injury occurred during an abortion, and was in fact, caused by the abortion. Indeed, with the codes chosen, there is no way that the death can even be identified as pregnancy-related.

No one searching death records for abortion or pregnancy-related cases would ever think of pulling up for examination a female death coded in the upper 800's-abortion and pregnancy death code numbers range between 630-676.

Farmer John said...

Doctors BURY all their mistakes. Their insurers wouldn't have it any other way.

Farmer John said...

I see the Winter Swift-boaters are here! LOL!

Next thing you know, they'll be accusing McCain of deliberately choosing to get captured and of taking his own home movies of his captivity and saving them for the day he might run for President.

Oh wait, that's what JFnK did (in imitation of PT-109 JFK). SORRY, wrong election.

Apeinthewhitehouse said...

Moron Losing Two Wars at Once:

NATO Allies Divided Over Growing Afghan Crisis
Both reporting for The Independent UK, Raymond Whitaker writes: "A spate of reports in the past week has warned that Afghanistan risks becoming a 'failed state' and that there will be a 'humanitarian disaster' unless aid and military efforts are better co-ordinated," and Tony Paterson writes: "Germany currently has some 3,200 soldiers stationed in comparatively tranquil northern Afghanistan and the capital Kabul as part of the current NATO peacekeeping mission. It has been urged to deploy troops in the south before but has consistently refused. Yesterday however, it became clear that Washington had stepped up pressure on Berlin to commit troops to the south."

simes said...

So, behind the excess verbiage, Farmer John tries to feed us the idiocy that more women die from legal abortions than from illegal ones. Someone has already posted the definitive, non-religious-psycho study demonstrating that the no of abortions remains nearly the same regardless of their legal status. It's clear that a non-psycho society would just forget this nonsense and get on with making abortions as safe and easy to acquire as possible.

simes said...

I see the Winter Swift-boaters are here! LOL!

You know this fool was all excited about the Kerry swiftboaters...I can't wait to see this version take McCain apart and watch them squeal about it. Between them and Limbaugh et al, there won't be much left of the old goofball. Maybe Kerry will come to his rescue....hahahahahaha

this must really hurt said...

Ann Coulter asserted on Fox News that if the well fed POW, McCain, gets the nomination she would not only "vote for" Hillary, she would "campaign for her if it's McCain."

Farmer John said...

Farmer John tries to feed us the idiocy that more women die from legal abortions than from illegal ones.

Nope that the same numbers of women are dying... regardless of the legal status of abortion. The only difference between now in then is, that now they bury the statistics.

Someone has already posted the definitive, non-religious-psycho study demonstrating that the no of abortions remains nearly the same regardless of their legal status.

Really when was that? Are you saying that a million abortions a year were being performed pre-Roe? Where were the cops? LOL! Prove it. Post the numbers.

Cause I've already posted the fact that there were barely 136 women dying from botched abortions per year... NOT thousands...

More myths exploded...

* Before Roe v. Wade, there were approximately 100,000 illegal abortions per year, a number far lower than the 1 million claimed by abortion advocates.

* The largest reasonably possible number of illegal abortions in any one year before Roe v. Wade was approximately 210,000 in 1961; the lowest was about 39,000 in 1950. The mean was 98,000 per year.

* The data demonstrates an exponential increase in the number of abortions since legalization. There are roughly 16 times as many abortions now each year as there were in an average year before Roe v. Wade.

* The claims by abortion advocates that 1,000,000 or more illegal abortions occurred annually and 5,000-10,000 women died are based on inaccurately calculated extrapolations from flawed and erroneous data of the 1920s and the 1930s - the pre-penicillin era.


btw - How's the "Superbowl Myth" working for you? Did you get beat up last night?

Let's hear some more about the myth of heterosexual AIDS, too.

You liberals are ALL HYPE and no facts. No wonder you want to get your hands on the health care system... all the easier to bury the REAL statistics...

foolme1shameonufoolme2xshameonme said...

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that the sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

babykillerscanrunbutcanthide4ever said...

UK babykillers exposed...

Botched abortions mean that scores of babies are being born alive and left to die, an official report has revealed.

A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone, it emerged.

Rather than dying at birth as was intended, they were able to breathe unaided. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours.


But since government infanticide is the rule now, no doctors were charged or arrested.

elitegal said...

Nope that the same numbers of women are dying... regardless of the legal status of abortion. The only difference between now in then is, that now they bury the statistics.


Oh, I'm sure getting a coat hanger abortion in a hotel room is every bit as safe as getting one in a hospital.

elitegal said...

Someone has already posted the definitive, non-religious-psycho study demonstrating that the no of abortions remains nearly the same regardless of their legal status.

Really when was that? Are you saying that a million abortions a year were being performed pre-Roe? Where were the cops? LOL! Prove it. Post the numbers.


Tedious little people...they need you to repost the info every other post because they can't retain anything they don't like...then they paste some nonsense from some unattributed religious wackos to counter it...

takesomeresponsibility4achange said...

The point is, elitegal, that women shouldn't be getting ANY abortion sbecause they shouldn't be getting their lame lazy asses pregnant!

Before a woman gets pregnant, she needs to line up a baby-support system that preferably ISN'T the government! That way she'll never NEED a coat hanger!!! And given the state of the government welfare system, there no longer is ever ANY reason for a coathanger except to avoid "inconveniencing" the mother with a pregnancy that would "cramp" her sex/drinking/drug lifestyle.

babykillers4freeabortions said...

Yes, unattributed religious wackos like Planned Parenthood and the CDC! LOL!

Theirt secular dogma sure is a bitch, ain't it!

ken wright said...

"The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns. The aversion to Romney seems to go beyond mere policy disagreements. It's also a suspicion of what they see is his hypocrisy and essential phoniness - what one former staffer for Fred Thompson called Romney's "wholesale reinvention."


Hypocrites out hypocricized.

barbie said...

Ken, can you believe rabid dogs like Farmer John want to tell others how to live when they are such poor citizens themselves. I find it laughable.

ken said...

I see your point clearly, Barbie. It's just reprehensible that such lowlifes should even be allowed to voice an opinion. That's the disservice to society that blogs like this one provide to people who can't be educated. Shouldn't there be a citizenship class for people like this? Say, Barbie, let's get together for sexual intercourse this afternoon; I like the way your flawless thighs shine in the afternoon sunlight.

barbie said...

Oh, Ken, I'm so glad you asked; frankly I've been having "dirty" thoughts all day. Please come right over. Of course, we'll be responsible like liberals always are...not like those red state trailer trash, but if birth control should fail us, we'll do the right thing and not bring an unwanted child into a world despoiled by right wing policies...a degraded environment, constant, unnecessary war and another great depression. I just hope you're as stiff as you were last time, Ken...that was sooo marvelous.

skipper said...

Oh Ken, after you do Barbie can you do me again, too? I hear my big sister Barbie's got gonorrhea, but that's okay, I've done all the responsible liberal things and so I've contracted BOTH herpes and AIDs, and probably am not going to live very much longer anyway. And having already had three abortions by the age of fifteen, I'm sure the taxpayers won't mind paying for another third trimester partial birth abortion, since I probably won't have enough time to get away from my sizzling escort business before then.

Oh, and can you bring one of your black friends? I hear that their johnsons are the sames size as the average Asian guy's! Four inches. Whoo Hoo!

midge said...

Chelsea Clinton On The Campaign Trail: Former First Daughter Stumps For Mom, *Deflects Date Offers -
'You're not voting for the Clintons. You're voting for my mother,' candidate's daughter emphasizes.


I wonder if the Clinton's were all raised on phone sex. What'll Chelsea say on the phone for $100 donation to her mother's campaign?

*unless it's Ken, of course!

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

The point is, elitegal, that women shouldn't be getting ANY abortion sbecause they shouldn't be getting their lame lazy asses pregnant!

Obviously! They should be using the birth control they learn all about in their abstinence-only sex education classes! And if they're too stupid to do that then they should by God have their baby because they're the woman and that's their job! Uppity women and their desire not to be baby factories! What's next, negroes who tell white people what to do? What a world!

the boil on evans ass said...

I've seen the light!

ken said...

Skipper, I'm sorry but I don't do backward little monkeys who don't understand sex education and how to keep themselves from getting preggers or how to avoid STDs. And I don't want my child home schooled by an ignorant parent who won't let them learn about science or social responsibility or who will raise them in a violent, Christian tradition so they become bigots and narrow minded, counterproductive citizens. It sounds like you were the product of such an upbringing.

barbie said...

Skipper, why aren't you serving in Iraq? The army would make a real woman of you.

barbie said...

My friend Seth Swirsky, who I have gone back and forth with for hours on end, finds himself in McCain's camp

Look, Evan has found an imaginary friend...that is so touching. Imaginary friends are an option of last resorts for shut ins and people who have finally broken mentally and can't stand being shunned by society any more.

skipper said...

It sounds like you were the product of such an upbringing.

Nah, both my parents went to Woodstock. They were militant atheist lesbians who got David Crosby to donate the old fashioned way during a threesome in 1990.

But then, you know the story Ken. Why are you playing dumb? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you're a blond, too.

barbie said...

both my parents went to Woodstock. They were militant atheist lesbians who got David Crosby to donate the old fashioned way during a threesome in 1990.


I'm so sorry to hear of your background. I believe it may be helpful for you though to face up to it in adult fashion instead of with seeming adolescent flippancy. It may very well be that you are a victim of fetal alcohol and drug syndrome. This is sometimes associated with promiscuity, but is much more prevalent in red state honky tonk culture.

skipper said...

Sis,

You know we were both brought up in a free love commune in New Jersey! Has Ken been slapping you around again? You seem to have temporary amnesia. It's me, skipper, your sister! And yes, your mom was an alcoholic and you were born with fetal alcohol syndrom. My mom was the junkie, and I was on methodone until our commune went yuppie and we no longer qualified for free medical care.