Redstate

Posted at 3:06pm on Jun. 26, 2008 Obama's sham Christianity

By Kevin Holtsberry

Must read article at the American Spectator from George Neumayr on Obama's appeal to religious rhetoric. Like almost everything surrounding Obama's campaign it is deceptive and dishonest. It is not about real faith and real dialog but about winning:

It is often on display in his oh-so-thoughtful, post-partisan musings about the "connection between religion and politics." Sort through all the sophistries and quasi-religious uplift, however, and the only connection that emerges is strategic: How can Democrats use the language of religion to win, then solidify the gains of secularism? Religion in public life, under Obama's thinking, exists not to purify the party's extreme secularism but to advance it.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | People of Faith | secularism — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:58am on Jun. 10, 2008 Obama's costly primary

By Kevin Holtsberry

This New York Daily News column on the high price of Hillary's losing run for the Democratic nomination received a lot of linkage and commentary yesterday. And understandably so. Many folks, myself included, are enjoying the end of the Clinton era.

Celeste Katz points out that all that Clinton money and name recognition went for naught:

Posted in 2008 Democratic Primary | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Archived | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:58pm on Jun. 3, 2008 The Obama Juggernaut Illusion

By Kevin Holtsberry

As the media worships Obama tonight - on his way to clinching the Democratic nomination - it is worth keeping in mind that if it were not for the bizarre rules of the Democratic Primary process Obama would never have had a chance to win this thing. You don't have to be a Hillary shill - and I don't think anyone can accuse me of that - to recognize the simple fact that had the primary process been anywhere near winner take all Hillary wins.

Yes, Obama built a strong campaign organization. He raised a lot of money. And he did a better job of understanding the rules and organizing to win under those rules. But so much of his momentum was a result of the rules which prevented anyone from really winning. Hillary could beat him by hundreds of thousands of votes in critical state after critical state and gain little advantage. He was the underdog who just kept hanging around and eventually Hillary's own stupid mistakes proved fatal. That and his overwhelming support from African Americans was enough to push him over the top.

What the media seems unable to recognize is that Obama didn't decisively beat Hillary but rather eked out a slim lead and then convinced Democratic superdelegates to give him the nomination. But primaries are always about perception and Obama is the master of winning perception. His cool calm demeanor and his rhetorical skills have clearly won over the media. I think this and anti-Clinton sentiment made a huge difference. Democrats feel this is their year and they were willing to risk an inexperienced candidate because they wanted to put both the Clinton and the Bush years behind them. And they wanted a full-throated liberal even if he was untested.

The question is whether this makes Obama seem like a much stronger candidate than he really is at this point. If Hillary can beat him to the degree that she has what does that mean for the general election? If I was an Obama fan, I would be worried.

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:35pm on May 13, 2008 Ohio Dems Start Impeachment Against AG Dann

By Kevin Holtsberry

It seems lies and misleading statements related to sexual harassment charges are now an impeachable offense. Or at least Ohio Democrats think so:

House Democrats filed articles of impeachment this morning against Attorney General Marc Dann, charging him with nine counts relating to a sexual harassment scandal that has led to widespread calls for him to resign.

Posted in Impeachment | Marc Dann | OH | State Politics — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:15pm on May 5, 2008 Ohio Dems Dealing with Sex Scandal

By Kevin Holtsberry

Having ridden the public's dissatisfaction with the GOP - fueled in large part by scandal or pseudo scandal - into office it seems the Ohio Democratic Party has found itself dealing with a scandal of its own. Now they are trying to get it off the front page:

All statewide Democratic elected officials and legislative leaders today are asking embattled Attorney General Marc Dann to resign from office, The Dispatch has learned.

Dann will be sent a strongly worded letter that should reach him no later than 11:30 a.m. that he must, in the best interest of his office and the party, step down.

[. . .]

The pressure for Dann to resign began rising after developments Friday when two of his top staffers were fired and two others resigned at the conclusion of a sexual harassment investigation triggered by an April 6 story in The Dispatch.

Dann confessed, for the first time, to having an affair with a young female staff member and to having set the tone for a hostile work environment that resulted in sexual harassment.

What the article doesn't say is that there is a great deal of scheudenfraude involved here. Dann is a bombastic and caustic politician with few friends in either party. He won election by blasting Republicans for corruption in connection with the Tom Noe scandal. Funny how things come around.

You have to wonder if some in the GOP would like him to stay in office so they can beat him in the next election. But that is not how they are playing it:

Read on . . .

Posted in Archived — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:01pm on Apr. 28, 2008 Hillary: outsourcing like the Holocaust

By Kevin Holtsberry

Posted first at the Stop Her Now blog.

Did she really say that? Well, not exactly. But her choice of imagery showed a remarkable tin ear given the historical connections:

At the union hall in Gary, she grew so animated in describing the plight of old-line industrial workers that she described them in language from the oft-repeated poem, attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller, about the victims of Nazism. “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist,” goes the version inscribed on a wall at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. After coming for the trade unionists, it continues, “they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.”

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | Hillary Clinton — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:25pm on Apr. 9, 2008 Pardongate Flashback: The Return of Hugh Rodham

By Kevin Holtsberry

Hugh Rodham has been on the campaign trail for his sister:

The brother of Senator Hillary Clinton told about 60 farmers on Thursday that he heard their concerns about dairy pricing and would bring them to the presidential candidate.

"I really appreciate what you told me today," Hugh Rodham said. "I will convey what you said in the strongest terms to my sister."

Rodham was speaking at a farm along Schoolhouse Hill Road owned by Ken and Connie Teel, during a rally organized by the Progressive Agriculture Organization.

The rally was the first stop in a bus tour by Rodham across the region in the next seven days at 18 locations, including New Milford and Towanda on Thursday.

Why is this important? Well, Hugh Rodham has a rather colorful past and one that you would think would keep him as far away from Hillary's political career as possible.

Posted in 2008 | Bill Clinton | Hillary Clinton | Pardongate — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:10pm on Apr. 2, 2008 Hillary tries 3 AM ad again

By Kevin Holtsberry

Cross posted at Stop Her Now Blog

UPDATE: I see Brandozilla posted this ad earlier and had some similar questions.

This time its economics:

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Hillary Clinton | John McCain — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:07pm on Mar. 17, 2008 Hillary: we lost World War II

By Kevin Holtsberry

Cross-posted at Stop Her Now blog.

If I am following her criteria properly that is . . .

Here is the coverage of her big Iraq speech today from The Chicago Tribune's The Swamp blog:

Speaking at George Washington University this morning, Clinton tied McCain to President Bush, saying there would be little difference in policy if McCain became president.

“Sen. McCain would gladly accept the torch and stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary,” she said. “That in a nutshell is the Bush-McCain Iraq policy – don’t learn from your mistakes, repeat them.”

“We can have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for a hundred years, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no political solution to the situation in Iraq,” said Clinton. “Sen. McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Let’s be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

First of all, as the comments note, this is a distortion of McCain's words:

When McCain was asked about Bush's theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

So let's use this analogy As McCain truly meant it. And ask Hillary a few questions:

- Was WWII a defeat? We still have troops in Europe do we not?

- What about Korea? Should we pull those troops out?

- A little closer to home for Hillary: what about the troops in Bosnia and Kosovo? Your husband engaged in that conflict, without UN approval I might add, and yet there are still US troops there. Was that a defeat?

Posted in 2008 | If I am following her criteria properly that is . . . — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:58pm on Mar. 12, 2008 Hillary's Odd Idea of Fair

By Kevin Holtsberry

Cross posted at the Stop Her Now blog.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Florida and Michigan had their primaries striped of their delegates because they knowingly violated party rules. They went ahead and held them anyway. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and neither campaign was allowed to campaign in Florida. By the rules the votes were not to count. This was agreed to by everyone beforehand. Heck, Hillary campaign advisor Harold Ickes was even on the committee that made the rules.

Now Hillary comes along and says:

"The results of those primaries were fair and should be honored."

What? How can primaries held in explicit violation of party rules and without the participation or campaigning of rival candidates be described as "fair?" I find it incredible that she can spout nonsense like this with a straight face.

The Clintons have always believed that if you say something often enough it becomes true; that you can change conventional wisdom or perception through sheer stubborn insistence and bluster. Hillary is once again testing this strategy.

The question is whether the Democratic Party is going to fall for it. Given the size and importance of these two states I have to think that a re-vote is likely. But this shouldn't distract us from the nature of Hillary's shameless attempts to act as if the initial votes were "fair" and should be counted as any other votes would be. She is simply willing to ignore the rules when it suits her purpose.

Those familiar with her history will not be surprised by this, but voters might want to think about its implications.

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:11pm on Mar. 11, 2008 Obama backers getting fired for telling the truth about Hillary?

By Kevin Holtsberry

Crossposted at the Stop Her Now blog.

First we had the whole Samantha Powers "monster" comment. Now, Hillary may not be an actual "monster" but everyone knew what she meant and a sizable portion of the country agrees with her. Hillary may very well be a wonderful daughter, and a great mother - and all indications are just that - but she is a cold hearted operator when it comes to political combat.

She once told a close friend in the White House: "Your problem is that you are not mean enough." She was hell on wheels when her husband was president and caused untold damage in the process. Find me a person who worked with her regularly in the White House who enjoyed it. I bet you can't do it.

And does anyone want to argue that she has changed in this campaign? She and her advisers are willing to throw out any accusation not matter how specious and any spin not matter how farcical just to stay in the game. They play to win not to make friends.

This is really all Powers was saying. Was she a bit naive for thinking that Hillary would act differently with fellow Democrats or for thinking she could say something like that "off the record"? Sure. But she simply blurted out the truth in a moment of weakness.

So along comes an Obama supporter who has just about had enough of the Clintons, but who made the cardinal sin in the Democratic Party: he brought up the huge pile of skeletons in Hillary's closet. This is a Republican tactic! It is just like Karl Rove! It can't be allowed. Said supporter is promptly asked to resign and the Obama campaign repudiates his statements.

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | Barack Obama | Bill Clinton | Hillary Clinton | Samantha Powers — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:08pm on Feb. 28, 2008 Saint Gore and what might have been

By Kevin Holtsberry

Is anyone else sick and tired of the way liberals blame everything on Bush? The way the mere election of Al Gore would have changed the world to its core?

In Tuesday's debate Hillary dodged a question about her ridiculous promises of millions of new jobs by proclaiming that they would have materialized had Gore been elected.

Now comes Margaret Carlson, in a column on Hillary, making the same old argument:

Al Gore was as awkward and stiff as they come. Yet had he been elected, we wouldn't have become the first Christians to invade a Muslim country since the Crusades, have oil over $100 a barrel or be waiting for more studies to see if greenhouse gases are melting the polar ice cap.

See how easy things could have been? If the Supreme Court hadn't stolen the election all of our problems would have been solved by the all powerful Gorical! No problems in Iraq, no high energy prices, and no global warming.

Posted in Al Gore | History | liberal media bias — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:24pm on Feb. 24, 2008 Hillary Clinton and the B Word

By Kevin Holtsberry

UPDATE: YouTube removed video at the request of NBC. You can watch it here.

Tina Fey seemed to endorse Hillary last night on her return to SNL. She claimed that Hillary is a b*itch but that's good because they "get things done." Fey then proclaims that it is "not too late Texas and Ohio" and that "b*itch is the new black." Is this the depth of modern feminism?

Here is the clip:

This seems to match Hillary new persona (see Moe's Red Hot for example).

What do you think? Does a stunt like this help or hurt Hillary? Or does no one care about what happens on SNL anymore?

It seems to me that if you think like Fey you are already in Hillary's camp and this argument is unlikely to work. If you aren't open to this sort of feminist unity call then why would Tina Fey change your mind.

In all probability, it is just someone on TV taking themselves a little too seriously. I can't see it having any impact on actual voters.

First posted at the Stop Her Now blog.

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Hillary Clinton — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:47pm on Feb. 21, 2008 Michelle Obama fondly looks back to another President Bush

By Kevin Holtsberry

Can I find within me the audacity to change this blog entry's location to the front page, where it can bestow upon us its message of hope? YES, I CAN. - Moe Lane

The Hotline's On Call has Michelle Obama trying desperately to dig her way out of her embarrassing comments about being proud of her country for the first time:

Michelle Obama is proud. Yes, she is.

At an event today at Cleveland State University, the wife of Barack Obama talked about the breadth of support her husband's campaign has seen across the country, saying it was a testament to the power of hope.

"When was the last time we've had a presidential candidate of any gender or race or political party who pull together wins in places like Idaho and Utah and Louisiana and Georgia and Maine and Alaska and Missouri, and Illinois?" she said. "What we've been seeing over the course of this year is that folks are hungry for change. ... We've learned that in this nation with a little bit of hope and inspiration people do want to take hold of their destinies and move it in a different place. So yes, I am proud."

Obama took some heat over the last few days for saying during a recent campaign event that she is proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

OK. Let's get in the way-back machine and travel back in time to the last time a politician captured the remarkable combination of states like "Idaho and Utah and Louisiana and Georgia and Maine and Alaska and Missouri, and Illinois."

Set the clock for . . . 1988! That's right, folks. The last candidate to approach the incredible unity and power of Barack Obama was George HW Bush.

Posted in 2008 Democratic Primary | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Archived | Michelle Obama — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:17am on Dec. 18, 2007 The Huckabee Christmas Ad

By Kevin Holtsberry

I apologize if this has been tackled elsewhere, but I wanted to weigh in on the Christmas ad:

Here is what JENNIFER SKALKA at the Hotline On Call blog has to say:

It's warm. It's fuzzy. It's blatant pandering to Christian conservatives ... Whatever happened to 'Happy Holidays' ... ?

Note to the media: Keep attacking Huckabee for being "too Christian" and you just might get him elected. What the Hotline and others seems to forget is that millions of people find Mike's message not only unobjectionable but reassuring and appropriate. In fact, many of them are ticked off that we now seem to live in a world where it is controversial.

I understand that in the midst of a political campaign with religious issues swirling around that political analysts are going to cynically plot out the pros and cons of such an ad. I understand that Huckabee is a politician and that the ad was paid for by his political campaign and thus is aimed at winning votes. But even with all this in mind, the ad is simply a warm expression of something I believe deeply and I think Huckabee deserves credit for saying it.

Andrew Sullivan can call me a Christianist, and others can scream about theocracy, but I am with Huckabee on this one.

Posted in 2008 — Comments (97) / Email this page » / Read More »