Hi there, !
Today Wed 07/02/2008 Tue 07/01/2008 Mon 06/30/2008 Sun 06/29/2008 Sat 06/28/2008 Fri 06/27/2008 Thu 06/26/2008 Archives
Rantburg Home Front: Politix
535864 articles and 1868499 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 60 articles and 251 comments as of 6:10.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Background    Non-WoT    Opinion    Local News       
Afghan, U.S. troops kill 32 Taliban
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 3: Non-WoT
30 00:00 Pappy [15]
7 00:00 JosephMendiola [14]
9 00:00 Bobby [8]
23 00:00 Jan [8]
6 00:00 CrazyFool [10]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
3 00:00 bigjim-ky [12]
Home Front: Politix
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass' for his support
Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama's victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.

Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president's future campaign role is a 'sticking point' in peace talks with Mrs Clinton's aides. The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could 'kiss my ass' in return for his support. A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.

Mr Clinton last week issued a tepid statement, through a spokesman, in which he said he 'is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States '.

Mr Obama was more effusive at his unity event with Mrs Clinton on Friday, speaking fondly of the absent former president, who attended Nelson Mandela's birthday celebrations in London instead. The candidate told the crowd: 'I know how much we need both Bill and Hillary Clinton as a party. They have done so much great work. We need them badly.'

But his aides said he has so far concentrated on cementing relations with Mrs Clinton first. They say they are content to let relations with Mr Clinton thaw gradually.

It has long been known that Mr Clinton is angry at the way his own reputation was tarnished during the primary battle when several of his comments were interpreted as racist. But his lingering fury has shocked his friends. The Democrat told the Telegraph: 'He's been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn't. I've spoken to a couple of people who he's been in contact with and he is mad as hell.

'He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

'You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around. Hillary's just getting on with it and so should Bill.'

Another Democrat said that despite polls showing Mr Obama with a healthy lead over Republican John McCain, Mr Clinton doesn't think he can win. The party strategist, who was allied to one of the early rivals to Mr Obama and the former First Lady, said Mr Clinton was 'very unhopeful' about the nominee's prospects in November.

'Bill Clinton knows the party will unite behind Obama, but he is telling people he doesn't believe Obama can win round voting groups, especially working-class whites, in the swing states,' the strategist said. 'He just doesn't think Obama will be able to connect with the voters he needs.'

Joe Klein, the author of Primary Colours, a fictionalised account of Mr Clinton's 1992 election, who has known the former president for 20 years, said he also heard that he was 'very, very bitter', from people who have spoken with him. 'It's time for him to get over it or go off and do his charitable work. He knows the rules of the road. What's going on now is kind of strange. I think his behaviour is really, really predictable shocking.'
Posted by: tipper || 06/29/2008 12:38 || Comments || Link || [15 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Clinton's bitter, but he knows a lot about consituencies Obama's taking for granted. And - all snark aside - boomer women make up one of them.

Things could change between now and November, but there is a whole lot of fury on the part of many women aged 50+ about the condescending, snide way Hillary was treated. By the press, by bloggers, by party officials and in public by Obama.

I know she's detested here. Many wanted above all to see her humiliated. Well, she was and Obama has the nomination pretty much wrapped up. But even women like me who don't like her are very deeply angry about how she was treated.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 13:06 Comments || Top||

#2  Call me a male chauvanist pig, but how was she treated badly because she was a woman as opposed to the enemy candidate?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 06/29/2008 13:12 Comments || Top||

#3  Why would I call you a male chauvanist pig, NS?

Politicians attack where they can, as do their supporters. Obama's race was declared off limits. But Hillary's sex was not - and that is what many women are fuming about. There were many things to criticize her for. What the press chose to use were unflattering photos and speculation about whether she was old and faded looking . About whether she 'cackled'. About whether Bill was getting any sex.

Lots of that here, lots of that out in the MSM and on 'progressive' blogs. And it has a lot of women angry that she was not dealt with at the level of policy etc. instead.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 13:35 Comments || Top||

#4  well, lotp, what was Hillary's qualification for her NY Senate seat and presidential bid, besides being married to the Clenis? Sad to say even with that, she's more qualified than the empty suit that beat her
Posted by: Frank G || 06/29/2008 13:40 Comments || Top||

#5  The problem seems to be the way the MSM treated Hillary, not Obama. So why aren't women mad at the MSM instead of Barack? After all, the reason the campaign descended into that sort of garbage was because there were no policy differences between them.

The press screwed Hillary the same way they screw every other candidate who's not their favorite. Unflattering photos? George Bush any one? Old and faded? McCain now. The Cackle? Dean's Yarrrrrgh.

Yeah, she's a woman. Yeah, the press screwed her. But not because she was a woman, because that's where she was vulnerable. Just like they do to every male candidate they hate.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 06/29/2008 13:56 Comments || Top||

#6  About whether Bill was getting any sex.

You know, if there's any subject I'd like to hear less of, that would be it.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman || 06/29/2008 13:56 Comments || Top||

#7  A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could 'kiss my ass' in return for his support.

'For the first time in my adult life I am proud of' ..... Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Besoeker || 06/29/2008 14:48 Comments || Top||

#8  #6 About whether Bill was getting any sex.

You know, if there's any subject I'd like to hear less of, that would be it.


Perhaps bill isn't getting any. Perhaps he's desesperate. Perhaps this "kiss my ass" thingie is not a bitter remark, perhaps it's a cry for help, a cry for action, any kind of action, aimed at obama. Who knows?
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 06/29/2008 15:00 Comments || Top||

#9  The complete empty suit aside..

we must start putting lipstick on our pig, John McCain.

How the hell can we begin to rally around our Loser? Somehow we must motivate Trunks and those Donkeys Asses who dislike Obama.

WHAT's AT STAKE

1) Our Constitutional Gun Rights.
2) Private Property Rights
3) Massive ReDistribution of wealth Obama-style.
4) Supreme Court Judges!
5) Freedom of thought Rights.
6) Reparations..
7) Forced to pay for and follow Junk Science edicts.
8) Anti-White-Male Affirmative Action for ever.
9) Wide Open Borders
10) Illegal Immigrants voting.

We must fight for our Presidential candidate inspite of the FACT that McCain is one hell of a DUD! :)
Posted by: RD || 06/29/2008 15:06 Comments || Top||

#10  The problem seems to be the way the MSM treated Hillary, not Obama.

Oh lordy -- watch the videos of the debates or of his press remarks about her. He ooooozes contemptuous male body language to and about her.

The only other person he comes close to using that body language on is Joe Lieberman.

The language he uses with her, tone of voice etc. was just as disrespectful. I recognize it from the years when I lived in LA and occasionally interacted on the fringes of South Central. It's the swagger style that labels women as bitches and hos. And the press never called him on it one bit.

He stopped using it when she was defeated.

As for her credentials to be in the Senate, ask the voters of NY. I didn't vote for her and don't plan to.

But look - if an opponent went after Lieberman by telling jokes about stingy Jews there would be a firestorm. Same thing if it were done via anonymous caricature cartoons on the Web.

But the equivalent was done to Hillary with impunity. And some of us have noticed that fact.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 15:10 Comments || Top||

#11  RD, one of the problems is that McCaine seems to be on the wrong side of about a third of those topics.
Posted by: bigjim-ky || 06/29/2008 15:10 Comments || Top||

#12  WHAT's AT STAKE ?

Simply take a quick look at Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Posted by: Besoeker || 06/29/2008 15:12 Comments || Top||

#13  Sounds like a case for the British Columbia Human Rights Commission.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 06/29/2008 15:53 Comments || Top||

#14  lotp:

who elected you moral arbiter. Your knee jerk compassion for discompassionate low life disqualifies you in my book. Cut the straw man act. No wonder Zenster bailed out of here. Smack yourself in the head.

America charcoaled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I approve of that, and I would like to see more of same. Think of our enemies as cockroaches in human form.
Posted by: Spusomble Jones9012 || 06/29/2008 17:03 Comments || Top||

#15  Nobody elected me arbiter of anything, at least not at Rantburg (apart from arbiter re: trolls as delegated by Fred).

Doesn't mean I don't have opinions tho. LOL

Re: treatment of HRC, well ... I've reported here before what I hear women saying. Doesn't mean I always agree.

Conservatives and libertarians are reported to be willing to deal with facts. And the fact is that many women of a certain age are, at the moment, highly pissed about the treatment they perceive Hillary to have received. Now, their perception might be wrong or they may calm down by November. But at the moment? They're pissed -- and they see it as a bigger issue than one politician.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 17:11 Comments || Top||

#16  who elected you moral arbiter. Your knee jerk compassion for discompassionate low life disqualifies you in my book. Cut the straw man act. No wonder Zenster bailed out of here. Smack yourself in the head.

America charcoaled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I approve of that, and I would like to see more of same. Think of our enemies as cockroaches in human form.


Yah, all this moralizing's got to go. The next gnome we kill probably won't even HAVE a candy bar!
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman || 06/29/2008 17:12 Comments || Top||

#17  I'm not sure what that has to do with enemies, cockroaches and nukes tho. Maybe #14 was meant for another thread??
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 17:13 Comments || Top||

#18  I'm also not sure why a commenter from British Columbia would be quite so ... passionate ... about issues around the Democratic nomination race.

Unless of course that server in BC is forwarding Ms/Mr Jones9012's comment from somewhere in the US.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 17:17 Comments || Top||

#19  The complete empty suit aside..

we must start putting lipstick on our pig, John McCain.


You know, McCain's over seventy years old, it's time for him to learn to manage his own lipstick. He's the one with all the airtime from his "friends" his "electoral reforms" have given a disproportionate voice in the process, there ain't really anything I can do about what he says or doesn't say when he gets up in front of the cameras.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman || 06/29/2008 17:17 Comments || Top||

#20  1) Zenster didn't 'bail'.

2) I'm not interested in charcoaling anyone unless there is no other choice, and right now, we have lots of other choices.

Spusomble, perhaps you should actually read Rantburg for a while.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/29/2008 17:24 Comments || Top||

#21  Zenster did not bail. But if you prefer his words to lotp's, Spusomble Jones9012 via British Columbia (pretty bit of country you've got up there, to be sure), you can find him at the Belmont Club and a few other sites where he seems to be happier.

It will definitely be interesting to see whether the Hillary Clinton voters stick with the Democratic Party, or become "McClain Democrats". I've read a number of predictions of the latter recently. I have to agree with Candidate Obama oozing contempt of and condescension to his female competitor until she stepped back; now he merely oozes condescension of the "don't worry your dear pretty heads about it, the menfolk will handle all those difficult things for you" kind. All things being equal -- which of course they aren't -- I'd vote for McCain just to put a thumb in Obama's eye for it. There are a great many things I leave to those better fitted for the task, but thinking and judging I do for myself.
Posted by: trailing wife in Lackawanna || 06/29/2008 17:53 Comments || Top||

#22  McCain Democrats, of course. I fear I haven't had a proper morning nap yet today.
Posted by: trailing wife in Lackawanna || 06/29/2008 17:55 Comments || Top||

#23  That's what the election is coming down to, John McClain vs. Borat Obama.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman || 06/29/2008 18:05 Comments || Top||

#24  I must just be a not too sensitive guy who doesn't watch TV, so I don't get to see the visual cues. But politics is a contact sport and it ain't beanbag.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 06/29/2008 18:49 Comments || Top||

#25  I don't buy the argument that Barack Obama will have difficulty connecting with female voters due to residual bitterness from the primary battle. He comes across as a good family man, pro-choice, and supportive of Democratic mommy-state policies which play well with women. He may lose if the inconsistencies in his positions over time become too glaring or he commits some horrendous political blunder, but right now his only weakness is with working class whites based on cultural suspicions.

And it's only one man's opinion, but Queen Hillary was in no way mistreated during her campaign. John McCain was wrongfully depicted as a warmonger and nastily as a doddering fool. He worked hard to clarify his "100 years" statement and mocked the latter smear job in a Saturday Night Live skit. A lot of people justifiably think worse of Hillary than they are willing to let on in public yet she (and her sexism-decrying supporters) could barely deal with even the mild criticisms she faced.

Politics ain't beanbag, but Hillary's sense of entitlement led her to believe that different rules continue to apply to her than to others.
Posted by: Gliling Lumplump3518 || 06/29/2008 19:44 Comments || Top||

#26  GL, you must be young. Because I have seen it in many of the women I work with aged 45-65. LOTP, an otherwise pretty conservative person, is clearly upset about the way Hillary has been treated. These women were the front wave of women's lib, feminism, whatever you want to call it. They see POTUS as their last glass ceiling. And they think Hillary was disrespected in her run and denied the nomination that was rightfully hers. And it runs deep, because it is quite an irrational belief. There is no evidence presented beyond body language and tone of voice, etc., that's it. It's nothing compared with what Clinton did to Obama, he was raised a Muslim, he's illegitimate, Rezko, etc. So, it may have legs.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 06/29/2008 20:10 Comments || Top||

#27  I don't think Hillary owned the nomination, although other women might have thought so.

I do think she was disrespected during the run in ways that have been stereotypically used for a long time to belittle women. Specifically, used to belittle women who are in contention for a position that ostensibly is about competance, or policy positions and leadership etc.

Been there, dealt with that in business back in the 80s, annoyed as hell to see it be this obvious in 2008.

There are plenty of more substantive criticisms to make of Hillary than her voice, her appearance etc. They start IMO with her policies and continue through character, among other things. So it's striking to see how little those were in fact the basis of critiques of her candidacy.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 20:36 Comments || Top||

#28  There are plenty of more substantive criticisms to make of Hillary than her voice, her appearance etc. They start IMO with her policies and continue through character, among other things. So it's striking to see how little those were in fact the basis of critiques of her candidacy.

The big problem there is that those criticisms would have applied just as much, if not more so, on Obama. So they had to come up with a "she's not one of the cool kids like me" line of attack.

It's nothing compared with what Clinton did to Obama, he was raised a Muslim, he's illegitimate, Rezko, etc. So, it may have legs.

Uh, I consider his relationship with Rezko to be a legitimate complaint, much more serious than any allegations about the status of his birth.

And as I said before, if Obama were a Moslem, it might be an improvement over what he looks like prima facie: a power-hungry moral relativist who will attend any ritually-christian church that preaches the gospel of State according to Marx.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman || 06/29/2008 20:48 Comments || Top||

#29  seems to me that women are pissed that Hillary's gender didn't buy her any favors, and Obama's race did.

after 40 years of whining that they wanted to be treated as if their gender didn't matter they are all in a knot that in this case the gender card didn't buy a woman a free pass.

probably not a popular opinion, but i call it as i see it.
Posted by: Abu do you love || 06/29/2008 21:42 Comments || Top||

#30  No wonder Zenster bailed out of here.

Funny way of saying "His ass was escorted out the door"...
Posted by: Pappy || 06/29/2008 23:53 Comments || Top||


A McCain Win Might Push the Supreme Court to the Right
For much of its term, the Supreme Court muted last year's noisy dissents, warmed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s vision of narrow, incremental decisions and continued a slow but hardly steady move to the right. But as justices finished their work last week, two overarching truths about the court remained unchanged: It is sharply divided ideologically on some of the most fundamental constitutional questions, and the coming presidential election will determine its future path.

A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues made constitutional by previous, liberal judges which are important to the right.

"If there's one thing you can see about this court, it is that it still sits on a knife's edge," said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor who argued three cases before the justices this year.

That was readily apparent in the court's closing days, as it whipsawed from left to right and back again on the constitutional rights of terrorism suspects, individual gun ownership and the ability of government to restrict it, and the increasingly narrow view of who is eligible for the death penalty. Each case pitted the court's four consistent conservatives against its four slightly less consistent liberals, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy returning to his role of last term as the deciding vote.

"The blockbuster cases, the really big cases, have now brought into very sharp focus how closely divided the court is on the really large and philosophically charged issues before the court," said Charles J. Cooper, a Washington lawyer who was an official in President Ronald Reagan's office of legal counsel. It has cast "the sharpest possible focus how important the court is going to be, I should think and should hope, in the upcoming election debate," Cooper added.

The next appointment to the court will almost surely fill the seat now held by one of the court's liberals, whose average age at the beginning of next October's term will be 75. For Obama, any initial appointment would likely replace one liberal with another, albeit with a younger and perhaps more outgoing advocate for his views of the court's role.

But a McCain victory could give the conservative bloc a clear-cut majority for years to come. President Bush has provided the model with his nominations of Roberts, to continue the conservative legacy of former chief justice William H. Rehnquist, and Samuel A. Alito Jr., to replace the former justice found most frequently in the middle, Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I think on any measure one would have to agree this is a more conservative court than was the court a couple of years ago, because on any measure Justice Alito is a more conservative justice than was Justice O'Connor," said R. Ted Cruz, a former Rehnquist clerk who argued before the court several times this year as Texas's solicitor general. "But that being said, this is very much an almost exquisitely balanced court, with Justice Kennedy remaining at the fulcrum of most -- if not practically all -- close decisions."

It is telling that Kennedy, currently the court's most influential justice, is never mentioned as a model by either McCain or Obama. Kennedy's iconoclastic views -- conservative on some constitutional questions, more liberal on others -- would not appeal to either candidate's base. Kennedy's record this year is not as auspicious as last year's, in which he was in the majority of every one of the court's 5 to 4 decisions. But his role at the end of the term cannot be overstated.

He wrote the court's decisions declaring that terrorism detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to take their cases to U.S. courts, and that it is unconstitutional for states to impose the death penalty on child rapists. That broad decision established that capital punishment is appropriate only for the most violent of those who take another human life, and perhaps for crimes against the state such as treason and espionage.

Kennedy provided the fifth vote for the court's decision to strike the District ban on handguns and to find in the Second Amendment the right of private gun ownership. He joined the conservative majority in striking as unconstitutional the "Millionaire's Amendment" in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, which increased contribution limits for candidates with wealthy, self-financed opponents.

(McCain's endorsement of Roberts and Alito as his models for judicial appointments is somewhat ironic, since each has authored an opinion dismantling part of the senator's most notable legislative achievement.)
(Ironically, I did not put that in parentheses; the WaPo did, and on the front page.)

The addition of a conservative in the mold of Roberts or Alito to replace the court's longest-serving justice, 88-year-old John Paul Stevens, would make Kennedy's role less pivotal. For instance, it would not be hard to imagine the court's jurisprudence on the death penalty changing dramatically without Stevens, who this year announced that his 30 years on the bench had convinced him that capital punishment cannot be fairly administered.

Likewise, O'Connor had often been a pragmatic ally for the liberals on issues such as abortion rights, affirmative action and the separation of religion and government. Some of those issues already have been affected by Alito's appointment, and additional changes in those areas would seem likely.

The rush of one-vote constitutional rulings at the end of the term overshadowed the court's earlier ability to resolve equally controversial issues by larger margins. The court voted 6 to 3 on a complicated separation-of-powers case to deny the president's ability to tell courts to rehear a case. By the same margin, it said that requiring voters to present photo identification before casting a ballot was not an unconstitutional burden, an issue that starkly divides Democrats and Republicans.

It voted 7 to 2 to uphold lethal injection against a challenge that the process could sometimes cause pain that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and to approve a congressional rewrite of child pornography law that some said could violate First Amendment rights. In all of those cases, the lopsided majorities were formed by members of the usually liberal wing joining conservatives.

Conservative commentators credit Roberts. "I think those [cases] reflect the success of Chief Justice Roberts's stated intent to promote what he's characterized as judicial minimalism," Cruz said. "I think it's a theme one sees heavily his term." By that, he means Roberts wants to focus on the specific facts of the case, and demands proof that the law has caused harm, rather than finding it unconstitutional on its face. Critics such as Steven R. Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said such a "wait-and-see attitude" means voters' rights must be demonstrably abridged, or an inmate inhumanely executed, before the court takes action.

Roberts has also made strategic use of the one real power the chief justice has over this colleagues: the ability to decide who writes the opinion when he is in the majority. He assigned the voter identification case, for instance, to Stevens, and has reportedly urged others to forgo broad pronouncements in the interest of attracting more votes.

Cooper said the narrow opinions "really don't establish far-reaching constitutional principles that will be readily and easily applied in cases down the line." And that may be fine for the core of the conservative wing, which could be revisiting them for years. Roberts is 53, Alito 58, and even Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been on the court for nearly 17 years, turned only 60 last week.
Posted by: Bobby || 06/29/2008 09:51 || Comments || Link || [14 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The Donks will destroy the entire process rather than give in. McCain's best position would be to say that there is no Constitutional requirement on the number of active sitting members for it to issue decisions. The oldest and most likely to die off first are the socialist. Best to gen up the next Constitutional amendment to move the process from the Senate which has already degenerated it into a political circus to a popular vote, at least for SCOTUS.
Posted by: Procopius2k || 06/29/2008 10:27 Comments || Top||

#2  According to the Onion, the Roberts Court is trending less toward strictly constitutional and more toward strictly awesome. It's the Onion, folks. Not safe for work.


Supreme Court Rules Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass'
Posted by: Eric Jablow || 06/29/2008 10:43 Comments || Top||

#3  I agree entirely. To the right to bear arms, to the right to free speech, and all those other pesky rights.
Posted by: Perfesser || 06/29/2008 10:47 Comments || Top||

#4  Maybe term limits for EVERYONE, not just the president.

President appoints them, then a NATIONAL referendum on the first presidential cycle election after 10 years of service, then every 12 years after that. Simple Yes-NO "Should Justice so-n-so be retained?", judged on an electoral college count.

Why 12? It keeps one president from being able to completely pack the courts.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/29/2008 11:28 Comments || Top||

#5  SCOTUS picks are notoriously fickle. You pick a conservative and he turns into a Kennedy or a Souter. You pick a liberal, and he could turn into a potted plant, like Thurgood Marshall. But a potted plant with a party-line vote.

W. Bush had a hell of a time finding Roberts. If I had my druthers, I would pick a sunken-eyed Mormon judge from the bowels of Utah, who thinks Constitutional Amendments after 12 are too liberal and should be repealed.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 06/29/2008 14:12 Comments || Top||

#6  It's a tragedy how many of the court's liberal justices were placed there by republican presidents.

Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - Bush I
Stevens - Ford

That's all but 2, folks, and exactly why McCain was my LAST choice in the primaries.
Posted by: Iblis || 06/29/2008 14:46 Comments || Top||

#7  ION INTERFAX > BOLTON/"ZIGGY" BRZEZINKI [paraph]> US PLANS FOR MISSLE DEFENSE IN EUROPE CAN BE REVISED IN THE NEXT CONGRESS/IFF OBAMA WINS.

Also from INTERFAX > BOLTON: NATO SHOULD ADMIT THE UKRAINE, GEORGIA, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, + ISRAEL.

*GUAM PDN >seems like proposed ASIAN GMD-TMD vv JAPAN-SOKOR, etc. is also being affected by the upcoming US elex.

Posted by: JosephMendiola || 06/29/2008 22:29 Comments || Top||


Rezko prosecutors held back on using Obama's name
Barack Obama's name could have been invoked more at the corruption trial of his former fund-raiser Tony Rezko. But it appears prosecutors opted against bringing Obama into the mix during the two-month trial.

Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about Rezko's ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. The Illinois senator was the recipient of "straw" campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko -- money that Obama has since given to charities.

The documents indicate that prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did not end up offering any such testimony during the trial. "Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama," prosecutors wrote.

Later, St. Eve ruled that Obama references would be allowed into the trial, but prosecutors apparently opted not to invoke Obama's name.
I think they're saving that one for later. Obama might not be their primary target: Blagojevich (Illinois Governor, and a swarmy jerk of one) is the next in the crosshairs. What will be interesting is how Blago decides to play it, since he could offer a very sweet deal or two to the prosecutors.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/29/2008 00:50 || Comments || Link || [8 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Two years after the donation, it was two days after the witness turned states evidence against Rezko that BO sent the $5k to charity. Coincidence and a tax write off to boot....
Posted by: Muggsy Gling || 06/29/2008 1:21 Comments || Top||

#2  Probably righ that Blago is the target. Obama probably has a team of clearners behind him to make sure he doesnt get tarred by this.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/29/2008 2:04 Comments || Top||

#3  C'mon folks, it was simple self preservation. If Obama was mentioned in the trial and wins the Presidency those Prosecutors would be exploring the exciting world of real estate closings. Chicago politicians are very, very into retribution and the Obamessiah is no differrent. But he is dirty, bet on it.
Posted by: Crerens Big Foot7266 || 06/29/2008 2:29 Comments || Top||

#4  Big Foot, when the Clintonistas took the reigns of power, one of the first things they did was fire all the prosecutors and installed their patronage clients. George was stupid enough to allow carry overs who've stabbed him repeatedly in the back out of DoJ. Obama is going to fire them regardless.
Posted by: Procopius2k || 06/29/2008 5:21 Comments || Top||

#5  Obama is going to fire them regardless

But, if they're good boys, he's going to stop at firing.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 06/29/2008 7:22 Comments || Top||

#6  It was probably smart tactics. If they mentioned Obama too much, and the meme got started (helped along by defense counsel, no doubt) that these were eeeevil RethugliKKKans persecuting Rezko to get to Obama, it might have backfired on them.
Posted by: Mike || 06/29/2008 9:50 Comments || Top||

#7  Why is the total corruption of the Illinois Democrat party/ Daley machine off limits in the press?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 06/29/2008 16:58 Comments || Top||

#8  John Kass at the Chicago Trib is on it - he's good
Posted by: Frank G || 06/29/2008 17:09 Comments || Top||

#9  Because, SPoD, Chicago is "The City That Works"

(snort)
Posted by: Bobby || 06/29/2008 17:20 Comments || Top||


McCain vows to make immigration reform 'top priority'
WASHINGTON — Republican candidate John McCain promised on Saturday that he would make Immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal residents "my top priority" if elected president. McCain made the promise to a group of Latino elected officials as both he and Barack Obama court Hispanic voters who are a key constituency in several Western swing states and in the perennial electoral battleground of Florida.

In a separate appearance before the same group later in the day, Obama charged that McCain had backed away from his longtime support of comprehensive Immigration reform during Republican primaries under pressure from GOP conservatives.

Both McCain and Obama see opportunities for their campaigns among Latino voters. Asked if he would make comprehensive Immigration reform and not just strengthening border enforcement a high priority, McCain responded, "It will be my top priority yesterday, today and tomorrow," drawing sustained applause. "There are 12 million people here and they are here illegally but they are God's children, they are God's children," McCain said, pounding the podium for emphasis as he repeated the words.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/29/2008 00:00 || Comments || Link || [8 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "There are 12 million people here and they are here illegally but they are God's children, they are God's children," McCain said, pounding the podium for emphasis as he repeated the words.

-the clinton's would call that triangulation - trying to reach out to latinos while referencing God in hopes it softens christian conservative critic's stance on amnesty. I call shennanigans on shamnesty which is what this is. f*ck you mCCCPain & all the idiots that misconstrue the original intent of the "anchor baby" ammendment - it was not meant for illegals - it was meant for the offsprings of newly freed slaves so as not to screw them out of citizenship. I'll grant that mCCCPain is definitely a war hero but he's also definitely a shitbag as a republican. I still can't believe this douchebag won the GOP primary. Un-f#cking-believable. Billary, Obomba, and mCCCPain - that's the best we got that will run? What a laughingstock we've become. Sorry Mr. Franklin, we could not keep the republic. Our congress is full of feckless myopic whores, our SCOTUS is infested by 4 lunatics and Not one of our three front runners for the prez generates the least bit of confidence from me.
Posted by: Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6 || 06/29/2008 0:40 Comments || Top||

#2  helloooooooo John? The daily funding requests your minions send are negated by your mouth. Not one frigging dollar, McAmnesty
Posted by: Frank G || 06/29/2008 0:50 Comments || Top||

#3  Build a fence John!
Posted by: 3dc || 06/29/2008 1:08 Comments || Top||

#4  NADA, John. (Not A Dime Amigo) My donations go to conservative Congresscritters.
Posted by: Muggsy Gling || 06/29/2008 1:16 Comments || Top||

#5  Lying sumbitch. He said during the primary that buidling the fence and securing the border would be what he would do first and foremost. Said he had heard us loud and clar last summer.

Lying pandering asshole.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/29/2008 1:39 Comments || Top||

#6  I, for one, never believed him. And I never will.

The problem is, I *do* believe Obama...
Posted by: Iblis || 06/29/2008 1:47 Comments || Top||

#7  Hear, hear, Iblis.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 06/29/2008 7:30 Comments || Top||

#8  Latinos will decide this election. You can get McCain with his faults or you can get Obama who will openly offer blanket amnesty and a return to the Clinton policy of deliberately not enforcing any immigration laws.

Your choice, Republicans.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 8:11 Comments || Top||

#9  This election will be won or lost in the strip of Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Are Latinos and their hangers-on more critical in those states than those desiring secure borders? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 06/29/2008 8:14 Comments || Top||

#10  He keeps pissing off the conservatives that are already holding their nose to vote for him, Obama is gonna have a landslide victory.

Until he puts in writing that he will secure the border, no vote, no money.
Posted by: DarthVader || 06/29/2008 9:04 Comments || Top||

#11  All of which is why electing members of Congress is just as important as the President.
Posted by: Procopius2k || 06/29/2008 9:09 Comments || Top||

#12  I'm here in Utah now, where Rep. Chris Cannon just got his butt kicked by some unknown guy who had never run for office before but who absolutely NAILED Cannon on his pro-immigration stance. If this place is any indication of what the rest of the Republican Party is thinking, McCain better stop his pandering to Latinos NOW and get with the program of enforcement first, expulsion second, and citizenship nowhere. If he doesn't, he's toast because if these folks aren't going to vote for him, he doesn't have a chance in hell.

I don't like McCain worth a damn but I'd vote for him over Obama in a heartbeat. If Obama wins and appoints three more libs to the SCOTUS, we're not only screwed, I'm thinking we're on the fast track to civil war. We're way too divided, and the animosity is far too deep, to continue on this type of track long term.
Posted by: Lumpy Spusoth6394 || 06/29/2008 9:19 Comments || Top||

#13  Are Latinos and their hangers-on more critical in those states than those desiring secure borders?

For the last few years, the city with the highest growth rate in Latino immigrants has been Allentown, PA.

They're not alone.
Posted by: lotp || 06/29/2008 10:07 Comments || Top||

#14  I loath McCains backstabbing conservatives like he did. However this cannot be overstated:

I don't like McCain worth a damn but I'd vote for him over Obama in a heartbeat. If Obama wins and appoints three more libs to the SCOTUS, we're not only screwed, I'm thinking we're on the fast track to civil war. We're way too divided, and the animosity is far too deep, to continue on this type of track long term.
Posted by: Lumpy Spusoth6394 2008-06-29 09:19

Posted by: Vinegar Elmamp8965 || 06/29/2008 10:27 Comments || Top||

#15  ...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

Sign me up.
Posted by: Hellfish || 06/29/2008 10:45 Comments || Top||

#16  Once again I'm in the minority here, but I don't have much problem with regularizing the status of the illegals currently in the country, ONCE the fence is built. 95%-plus of the illegals here now just want a decent life, one that they certainly aren't going to find in Mexico.

My family's ancestors had the same desires, and that's why I'm an American.

I keep saying it: 1) build the fence, high with a wide gate 2) guest-worker program for those who want to work 3) fix the employer abuses 4) take care of the people who have been obeying the law and who want to be here and 5) finalize the status of those already here.

And 6) limit welfare and aid to illegals. You came here to work. So work.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/29/2008 10:58 Comments || Top||

#17  Fence First.

Period.

Then internal enforcement of the laws, especially proof of citizenship or proper visa to work prior to hiring -- and criminal charges wiht expulsion for those who use falsified documents and stolen IDs.

After that, we can talk about "a path to citizenship".

Posted by: OldSpook || 06/29/2008 12:47 Comments || Top||

#18  Both McCain and Obama see opportunities for their campaigns among Latino illegal voters.
Some of 'God's children' break the laws, why do they see these swing states as having to keep the illegals happy, instead of enforcing our rules on the books and making our citizens happy. If a strong stand isn't made now, it will only get harder to do in the future. Is it because Hispanics have illegal family members that they want to get citizenship and benefits?
Time for more blood pressure medicine.
Posted by: Jan || 06/29/2008 13:29 Comments || Top||

#19  Once upon a time, McCain made campaign finance reform a top priority. He blew that just like he will blow the election. This bulb is too dim to resolve anything without real help from a brain. I wonder if his old lady is smart enough.
Posted by: wxjames || 06/29/2008 13:42 Comments || Top||

#20  but I don't have much problem with regularizing the status of the illegals currently in the country

Welcome to permanent minority party status. Hispanics vote 2:1 for the Dems or a 4 million net shift for the Democratic party. Can you say $trillions more in taxpayer transfer payments and absolutely no hope of ever erecting barriers at the border? 12-20 million not enough? There's still 500 million more south of the border.
Posted by: ed || 06/29/2008 14:18 Comments || Top||

#21  Traitor. Fuck real Americans, this turd has made his intentions clear and right now there is little we can do about it.

Time to write in Daffy Duck.
Posted by: Icerigger || 06/29/2008 14:40 Comments || Top||

#22  I'm gonna write in my name for President.

My platform:

Secure the border
Kill the terrorists
Punch the hippies
Posted by: DarthVader || 06/29/2008 16:31 Comments || Top||

#23  Hell, we should write in Tom Tancredo
Posted by: Jan || 06/29/2008 16:37 Comments || Top||


Obama to visit Middle East, Europe
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign announced Saturday that the Illinois senator would travel to Europe and the Middle East “to assess the situation in countries that are critical to American national security.”

The campaign said the Democratic presidential candidate plans to visit France, Germany, Israel, Jordan and the United Kingdom to discuss national security issues and climate change. “This will be an important opportunity to have an exchange of views with leaders in these countries about these and other issues that are critical to American national security -- and global security -- in the 21st century,” Obama said.
Firmly stuck in the early 1990s. France and Germany are but peripherally important to our security these days, and only to the extent that they'll carry their weight in the War on Terror. Jordan has little influence over what happens in the Middle East, and the UK is going to see a change in government in the not-too-distant future.
The campaign did not reveal whether the senator would also visit Afghanistan and Iraq. Republicans have hammered Obama over the fact that he has not been to Iraq in about two and a half years. The Illinois senator’s campaign said, however, that he would go there before the election.
Apparently not on this trip. He's got to keep the nutroots with him until November.
Visiting Israel could help Obama with assuaging concerns that some Jewish voters have expressed over the presumptive Democratic nominee. “Israel is a strong and close friend of the United States, and is confronting grave threats from Gaza to Tehran,” Obama said regarding the trip.
But it's how we respond to those threats that matter. If Obama denounces Hamas as a bunch of murderous thugs, and the Mad Mullahs™ as murderous thugs writ large, then I'll begin to believe he's done the necessary intellectual heavy-lifting to understand the region.
By going abroad to meet with foreign leaders, Obama also hopes to show that he is ready to represent the U.S. on the international stage. “France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are key anchors of the transatlantic alliance and have contributed to the mission in Afghanistan, and I look forward to discussing how we can strengthen our partnership in the years to come,” he said.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/29/2008 00:00 || Comments || Link || [10 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Is he going to stop in Brussels and prostate before the throne?
Posted by: Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6 || 06/29/2008 0:42 Comments || Top||

#2  I'm waiting to see if he pays his respects to Arafat's grave ...
Posted by: Steve White || 06/29/2008 1:03 Comments || Top||

#3  At first I thought "prostate" was a spelling error.

Now I'm not so sure..........
Posted by: no mo uro || 06/29/2008 9:32 Comments || Top||

#4  no mo uro - unintended pimf mistake on my part - but certainly an intended sub-concious freudian slip however.
Posted by: Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6 || 06/29/2008 9:42 Comments || Top||

#5  This trip will give Obama the excuse he needed to recalibrate his foreign policy positions for the general election campaign. He is one slick operator.
Posted by: Gliling Lumplump3518 || 06/29/2008 20:19 Comments || Top||

#6  First Step Brussels - as some have mentioned.

Next Step Iran - to meet with no preconditions and receive the terms of our surrender.
Posted by: CrazyFool || 06/29/2008 20:26 Comments || Top||


Hanoi Hilton Jailer Tran Trong Duyet endorses McCain.
HAIPHONG, Vietnam - John McCain has an unusual endorsement — from the Vietnamese jailer who says he held him captive for about five years as a POW and now considers him a friend. 'If I were an American voter, I would vote for Mr. John McCain,' Tran Trong Duyet said Friday, sitting in his living room in the northern city of Haiphong, surrounded by black-and-white photos of a much younger version of himself and former Vietnam War prisoners.

At the same time, he denies prisoners of war were tortured. Despite detailed POW accounts and physical wounds, Duyet claims the presumed Republican presidential nominee made up beatings and solitary confinement in an attempt to win votes.

His statements seem to echo the communist leadership's overall line on America: It insists the torture claims are fabricated, but that Vietnam now considers the U.S. a friend and wants to lay the past to rest. Duyet said one of the reasons he likes McCain for president is the candidate's willingness to forgive and look to the future.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Besoeker || 06/29/2008 00:00 || Comments || Link || [12 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Who gives a flying shit what's this torturer says.
Posted by: Spats Shinter7948 || 06/29/2008 11:46 Comments || Top||

#2  Who cares? The AP, who likes to raise doubts about McCain's story, and still believes the war was a mistake (as opposed to a SEATO obligation).
Posted by: Bobby || 06/29/2008 17:13 Comments || Top||

#3  What a psycho, I'm sure McCaine would love to meet up with him. And snap his neck.
Posted by: bigjim-ky || 06/29/2008 19:08 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
60[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2008-06-29
  Afghan, U.S. troops kill 32 Taliban
Sat 2008-06-28
  N. Korea destroys nuclear reactor tower
Fri 2008-06-27
  Muslim anger at sniffer dogs at station
Thu 2008-06-26
  Israel shuts Gaza crossings after rocket attacks
Wed 2008-06-25
  Attempted coup splits Hamas military wing in two
Tue 2008-06-24
  US Special Forces: 1 Al Qaeda's emir in Mosul: 0
Mon 2008-06-23
  Israel opens Gaza crossing points
Sun 2008-06-22
  25 Christians kidnapped in Peshawar
Sat 2008-06-21
  Sadrists collapse in Missan
Fri 2008-06-20
  Israel-Hamas truce begins
Thu 2008-06-19
  Talibs flee Arghandab for their lives
Wed 2008-06-18
  Talibs destroy bridges in preparation for Arghandab battle
Tue 2008-06-17
  Muntaz Dogmush deader than a rock
Mon 2008-06-16
  Hundred of Talibs swarm Arghandab district of Kandahar
Sun 2008-06-15
  Karzai threatens to send troops across Pak border


Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
13.58.157.240
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Background (15)    Non-WoT (18)    Opinion (8)    Local News (7)    (0)