Comments Posted By steveegg
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 43 Comments
Happy blogiversary, Rick.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 23.09.2008 @ 18:46
MY CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT - FOR NOW
But does she meet the 35-year-old requirement?
As for throwing it to the House, I don't know if you want to do that. The 'Rats have an absolute majority of the state delegations, so that would just give it to Obama.
That reminds me, she would be tougher on the other side of the aisle than the current GOP "leadership".
Comment Posted By steveegg On 30.07.2008 @ 21:10
TALES OF HORROR FROM THE HEARTLAND
A dart gun does wonders
Comment Posted By steveegg On 23.06.2008 @ 08:51forto the red-winged blackbird.
EXCLUSIVE! OBAMA-CLINTON TRANSCRIPT
Just damn, Rick. That's an instant-classic.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 6.06.2008 @ 11:11
You should be able to change the zoom (aspect ratio) on the non-HD signal. Of couse, you'll have the black bars on either side, but I prefer that to seeing a bunch of out-of-proportion fatheads.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 11.05.2008 @ 20:11
Congrats on the move. Two words for that yard - lawn tractor.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 9.05.2008 @ 13:58
Two reasons:
- Once one factors in the much-larger-than-average independent vote (Wisconsin is a wide-open primary state where only the voter knows which primary he or she particiaptes in), Obama crushes her. The usual suspects do not factor that in fully, mainly because it is all-but-impossible to quantify because there is no party registration here.
- Even if Clinton pulls off the upset, Obama will get more delegates. Obama will rout her in the 4th Congressional District (city of Milwaukee) to get at least 5 of the 6 delegates there, and should take the 1st (significant black populations in Racine and Janesville) and 7th (significant student populations, and at least partially influenced by Minneapolis media). If Obama also takes the delegate-rich 2nd (8 delegates in the People's Republic of Madistan) or the 5th (one of two districts with only 5 delegates, the other being the 6th), Clinton would have no chance to win the popular vote, much less by the 3.8 percentage points needed to guarantee at least 2 more of the 26 statewide delegates than Obama.That isn't stopping me from running the NRE Spring Hill campaign, which has but 3 rules; vote for Clinton on Tuesday, shower afterward, and do not repeat in November.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 17.02.2008 @ 10:22
WHY I AM SICK TO DEATH OF BOTH PARTIES
Every time I think I'm out, even temporarily, I'm pulled back in; I had decided to try and not deal with national politics until Wednesday. I know what you're saying; I've been told much the same by the Cheddarsphere's pro operator, Brian Fraley.
The most-important part is that we do not stay home. Whether it is McCain or Hillbama, the absolute worst thing that can happen is the 'Rats (whether they have the "D" or "R" behind their name) maintain or grow their control of Congress. Trying to get a conservative Congress is now my main goal for November.
I even agree in part with the "hold the nose" analysis, especially with regard to the War on Terror. My big question on that is, would McCain get unconditional surrender out of the Islamists in 4 (I doubt it would be 8) years? That's essentially how long we will have if we're lucky; if we're unlucky, it's 11 months.
However, those who are saying to suck it up lose me when they say that McCain will nominate better judges than Hillbama. We will likely have "like-for-like" replacements out of McCain, especially if the 'Rats maintain control of the Senate. Remember the Gang of 14? Its entire purpose was to attempt to stop the replacement of liberal judges with conservative ones. As for who Hillbama will put on the bench, we know it will be liberals all the way; the thing is it is likely only 2 liberals will leave SCOTUS by January 2013, so at least at the SCOTUS level, that is not much of a threat.
Even the remainder of McCain's limited upside is wholly dependent on a Congress that is not controlled by what I call the bipartisan Party-In-Government. Arguably the two biggest policy successes of the last 16 years, the (temporary) stopping of HillaryCare and the reformation of welfare, came about because of Congress over the objections of the President.
I have come off my "never" position, even though I have a laundry list of reasons to have gone to the "never" that haven't been addressed. I've been convinced to move to See-Dub's current position of wait on McCain. I'm a bit more interested in Congress now.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 10.02.2008 @ 18:12
DELEGATE MATH DOESN'T ADD UP FOR ROMNEY
Steve, the RNC also lost. Their candidate, Rudy Giuliani, pushed up the daisies after Florida because the national party underestimated the distain the early-state voters have for being told they don't matter.
Unfortunately for us, the conservatives both got aced and aced themselves right out of the party as the rank-and-file east of the Mississippi took the core message to drive the conservatives out to heart. Romney ran as a third-termer, and had all of the flip-flop issues we savaged the last candidate from Massachussets for. Thompson was singularily uninspiring to those with attention spans that do not allow for a reading of War and Peace (sadly, most of the country). The evangelicals attempted to foist a liberal in Christian clothing on us in Huckabee. Now, we're stuck with a candidate that would rather put a 500-lb bomb on us than shake our hand.
As for the future delegate count, I went through the next 2 weeks' worth of contests involving 9 contests in 8 states/districts/territories, and there are, depending on whether one wants to count the "unpledged" delegates in Washington's caucus and dependent on result of Louisiana's primary, between 219 and 258 delegates up for grabs. Except for those 18 "unpledged" Washington caucus delegates, 10 pledged ones from Washington's primary tied to the statewide vote, and the 6 up for grabs in Guam's caucus, all of those are some form of winner-take-all; 69 by Congressional district (4 of those) and 135 or 155 in 5 or 6 (respectively) statewide/DC-wide WTA contests.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 6.02.2008 @ 22:31
There definitely has been a shift, and its net effect has been to emasculate the shrinking herd of those that can be called American Conservatives, those that strongly believe in either governmental or economic conservatism, in favor of foreign-policy-based European conservatism with just a dash of social conservatism. First, every candidate who has espoused a smaller, federalist, Constitutionally-bound government, from Fred Thompson to Ron Paul, from Duncan Hunter to Tom Tancredo, has been summarily rejected by the GOP. All of them except the blind-to-history Ron Paul have realized this and departed the field, and Paul won't win because his foreign policy is modern European liberalism.
Now, the target is the last person who can be considered an economic conservative, Mitt Romney. Even though his only contested win has come as a result of a move toward socialism (beyond the massive socialism that MassachussetsCare represents), and he cannot possibly be credibly called a small-government type, that is not enough for the big-government socialists that have taken hold of the masses. He dared to speak the American Conservative language throughout, even as he both campaigned in the past and governed as a centrist.
Even social conservatives aced themselves out of the process. In their rush to join in the bums rush on the remainder of the American Conservative movement to claim "top dog" status, they failed to recognize that the alternatives either hate their guts (McCain, Giuliani) or are outright socialists who display rank incompetence in foreign policy (Huckabee).
In sum, while there is still one last major difference between Republicans and Democrats (the War on Terror), 70 years of almost-unchecked growth of government and vilification of "Big Business" have successfully crushed the small-government tendencies of America and its attendant side issues.
Welcome to Europe.
Comment Posted By steveegg On 4.02.2008 @ 17:35
