Come on, now. It’s obvious why you are shouting out the name Barack Hussein Obama at every opportunity. You want voters to think he’s a Muslim and therefore scary and dangerous. Don’t play these cutesy little games.

I’ve listened to various radio talk shows over the past 24 hours (as is my norm) and I’ve heard statements from the hosts such as:

“What if I started saying John Sidney McCain? What’s the difference? I’m just saying his full name.”

“It’s the liberals who want to think there is an ulterior motive here.”

Really? Do you actually believe that? I actually get kind of embarrassed for you while listening.

I was in Target a couple of weeks ago and the cashier offered this opinion:

“I’m so tired of Obama. I hate hearing him talk. I heard he’s a Muslim and his real name is Hussein. His first name sounds like Osama. I bet they’re related. We don’t need that in this country. He would probably help the terrorists.”

So, take comfort, those who enjoy shouting “Hussein” from the rooftops! Your secret plan is working.

There are MANY reasons that I would never vote for Barack Obama for president. His middle name is not one of them.

Let me take a moment to promote my sister up in the NYC (Brooklyn, to be exact). She has a MySpace page set up to share her music, which she describes as indie/experimental/folk rock. And, even though Barack Obama is the second friend on her page, I want to share my sister’s talents with you.

She has been kind enough to provide some great fodder for debate in the Comments section on both sides of this blog (particularly when it comes to the writings of her brother-in-law), so I wanted to reciprocate and draw an audience in her direction.

Hey, sis! Love ya!

I need them. If any of my readers have some they want to get rid of, shoot me an email - nathan-at-moorethoughts.com.

If I find some elsewhere, this post will disappear.

The New York Times’ ombudsman slams the paper of record for its shoddy reporting techniques

In an article signed by four reporters that raised more backlash against the daily than the candidate, the Times Thursday cited unnamed McCain advisers who, “convinced the relationship had become romantic,” had asked Iseman to keep away from the senator.

“The article was notable for what it did not say,” wrote Hoyte in his column to be published Sunday. “It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance.

“It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad,” he said of alleged comments McCain made to his advisers.

In short, four reporters missed a blatant gap in the story. Perhaps the spirit of Jayson Blair still permeates the newsroom.  Or else, this cadre of reporters is just that incompetent. Think of it this way - this Times’ report on McCain is no worse sourced than the story from Larry Sinclair about Barack Obama’s crack use and random gay sex.

Of course, it could just be bad editing. Perhaps there are facts to bolster the unsubstantiated assertions.

But I doubt it.

The only thing this has done is helped galvanize the Republican base around a candidate for who there were significant misgivings.  The leftist press has acted beyond the call of duty, delivering cohesion where there was only dissent. Thank you, dear gray lady. Your help is always appreciated.

I Could Have Been a Contender!

Hillary Clinton has finally gotten shrill. We knew she had it in her.

Too bad it’s too late, though. The time to cut Obama down was before his political beanstalk was watered (I am feeling exceptionally metaphorical this morning). Now, even Hillary’s pledged super delegates are jumping ship (it makes me think of that commercial where the dalmatian leaps from the Budweiser horse-drawn wagon to the Miller Lite beer truck). Earlier action on her part certainly could have kept the troops in line, but someone convinced Hillary that she should treat Obama with kid gloves. It was as if she has been drafting the whole campaign, waiting until it was too late to make her inside move. What is puzzling is that it appeared, at least to me, that she initially had what it took to win straight-up.

An era has passed. The Clintons have maintained their political power by adhering to the rule that all deserters will be shot (metaphorically, of course). Now, if you’re a Democrat, desertion from Hillary Clinton can be considered the only right option. Her dream of a super delegate coup at the convention is no longer viable. The rats are clear, and they’re not coming back.

So, now we can start framing the real debate. We have an exceptionally experienced Republican candidate, with no delusions as to the niceties of foreign relations, against a lightweight Democrat nominee whose greatest political campaign involved trouncing the eccentric Alan Keyes. Democrats will attempt to paint McCain as a Bush-sycophant, but that’s going to be a bit hard now, having had eight years of those same Democrats and media-types declaring him a “maverick” with great fanfare and adulation.

Everyone knows about John McCain. Obama is a different matter. Given his supporters’ declarations that he’s got the beef, let’s all offer a toast to Obama’s straightforward nature, assured now that since Hillary Clinton has been de facto dispatched, he will have the courage to run on his record.

That’s doubtful, actually, and academic - we Republicans will certainly make sure he has no other choice.

The individual responsible for preparing Hillary Clinton for last night’s debate ought to be travel-officed.

Obama did not have a good performance last night, which was what Hillary needed. However, the fact is that neither did she. Last night’s debate could have been an exceptional opportunity for her to demonstrate Barack Obama’s lack of depth and preparation for the presidency. The questions were actually laid out in a way where she would have had the opportunity to do so effectively (and avoid stilted and poorly delivered lines like that xerox “zinger”), but none was forthcoming. From foreign policy to legislative accomplishments, Hillary Clinton should have waxed the floor. Instead, she didn’t even take the opportunity to mention Obama’s repeated entry of “present” in the Illinois State Senate, or failure to sponsor any legislation of note while being in the US Senate. Or point how ridiculous he is for even considering meeting with the world’s pettiest dictators without precondition.

Apparently, some overnight poll noted health care as the number one issue in Texas, so she chose to repeatedly babble on about the differences in their universal plans, pointing out slight differences that have yet to really gain traction with Democrat voters. She has put that record on repeat. Tactically, the Hillary campaign appears to be tone deaf - or just message deficient.

Perhaps I expect too much of the people behind Hillary Clinton. Maybe the candidate herself is beyond rehabilitation. Either way, the SS Hillary Clinton’s rudder is sticking, and her campaign is spinning in aimless circles.

Barring Barack Obama being found with a live boy, dead girl, or hermaphroditic goat, Hillary Clinton has lost the Democrats’ nomination for president.

Her arrogance in seeking presumed victory at the beginning of the campaign has led to an unsound continued campaign. In no scenario did her camp envision the campaign would still be ongoing at this point. But, that’s the great thing about politics - the unexpected ought to be the expected. The path to the political graveyard is filled with decapitated egos and humbled arrogance.

Her loss in Wisconsin is telling. It’s not so much that she lost Wisconsin, but how she lost it. Hillary Clinton’s presumed strengths have weakened to the point that they are now advantages for Obama. Her money demographics are albatrosses. All remaining contests point to an Obama stampede. It’s not that her votes are now staying home - they are voting in droves for Obama.

Alas, to further rub salt in Hillary’s wounds, he has yet to campaign on anything of substance. Nor has he really accomplished anything worthy of making him president. He has won no military battles. He has led a short, and consequently, undistinguished senate career. He is best known for organizing meetings centered around a state senate district on the south side of Chicago. This is hardly the stuff of a commander-in-chief.

And, he is about to permanently derail the Bill Clinton legacy. This might say more about the inconsequence of Bill Clinton’s presidency than anything good or bad about Barack Obama. A legacy based on political survival, absent a single majority election, has made Bill Clinton’s chase for history a Sisyphusian task. Hillary Clinton’s main case for her candidacy rests in her husband’s accomplishments. There just isn’t much there. She is running on empty.

It’s not a stretch to predict now - Obama wins the nomination. Hillary Clinton’s only hope is corralling super delegates outside the popular vote formula. Now, even that is falling apart. We are witnessing a political train wreck unseen for generations

I was listening to The Michael Baisden Show (on 92.1 FM) on the way home from the store a few minutes ago. Why? Well, sometimes I’m just in the mood for wholly inaccurate political information.

A caller from South Carolina indicated that she could never support Hillary Clinton because of her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, which was started to send kids from the ghetto to war. Senator Obama, however, voted against the war. Therefore, Obama would be the caller’s choice for president.

Hold up a moment! Surely the well-informed Mr. Baidsen would correct his listener and let her know that Senator Obama was not yet even in the Senate when the vote was taken. Nope. Instead, his response was,

“And do you know how brave that was of him? To stand up and vote “no” when everyone else was voting “yes”? I believe it was only him and one woman from Oakland who was in the House of Representatives who voted against the war. They were the only ones.”

In reality, 133 members of the House and 23 members of the Senate voted against the Iraq war resolution. And, Senator Obama was not one of those 23 senators voting “nay” because he would not be elected to the U.S. Senate for two more years. Details, details.

Yes, Senator Obama has stated that he was against the war from the start. And, I take him at his word on that. I don’t doubt that he would have voted against the resolution had he actually been an elected member of Congress at that time. However, let’s not give him credit for the courageous act of standing in the Senate chambers and “voting no when everyone else was voting yes”. (Well, besides Rep. Barbara Lee, who I imagine was the brave woman to whom Baisden was referencing.)

If Obama indeed managed to cast a vote against the Iraq war in 2002, we really need to get better poll officials in the Senate. He was able to vote without an official Senate photo ID and without his name on the rolls. We better investigate some other key issues for which Obama managed to sneak in and vote! Did he have a hand in “Borking” Bork? Did he vote to remove President Andrew Johnson from office? Is he hiding the vote he cast in favor of NAFTA?

America needs answers, and we need them now!

David Brooks satirizes the dissipation of Barack Obama’s campaign magic

The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania — fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness.

Barack the magic candidate - but like any myth, the spell eventually wears off.  David Ehrenstein of the Los Angeles Times noted a different twist on the phenomenon in March of last year.  Of course, no one one year ago would have been able to look into the crystal ball and see the magnitude of lemming magnet Barack Obama would eventually become.

Poking around behind the curtain, we learn that the facade of magic and myth betray a sad truth - change and hope reside in an ideology rejected by the American people since the Johnson presidency. The Obama substance does not match the rhetoric (or Deval Patrick’s rhetoric)

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

Which has been my very tired point for some time, and sums up the meat of the Obama candidacy.  Obama is a haggard type of change, the harbinger of a world populated by the likes of George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Ted Kennedy. He will raise your taxes, increase the size of the federal government, make peace with our enemies on unfavorable terms, and cede ever more foreign policy authority to blue hatted bureaucrats. And he will smile the entire time - maybe even wink.

His candidacy comes down to one indisputable fact. At the end of the day, he just looks better doing it.

She must go negative

“She can’t win by affirmatively making the case for herself. Her vote ceiling has been reached, or she’s close to it,” said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic political consultant who is not supporting anyone in the race. “The best thing she can do is either discredit Obama or raise doubts about him.

“I hate to say it, but in certain respects, it’s using the Bush strategy against Kerry against Obama and raising doubts about his willingness to use force to keep the country safe,” he said.

“The Obama people and the pacifists will scream ‘scare tactics.’ But for a lot of people, that’s not scare tactics — they care about national security and the commander in chief responsibility,” Gerstein said.

There is certainly plenty of ammunition to do that; however, in the midst of a primary in a party that largely favors immediate and unconditional surrender, no matter what the context, this tact seems best reserved for use n the general  election by John McCain. More effective would be a constant pelting, similar to the flap over the alleged plagiarism. Taking Obama off message (well, reducing the repetition of the platitudes “hope” and “change”) reels in his god-like aura and sends his candidacy plummeting to the realm of the mere mortals, where the Clintons perform rather well.  Obama’s lack of politicking experience is the secret soft underbelly of his campaign.

Math is no longer on her side - Hillary needs the super delegates. The strategy now must be to weaken Barack Obama so significantly that the super-delegates have an out. If Obama technically leads in the delegate count, but politically stinks more like a dead fish, the super-delegates will be forgiven for not gambling the Democrat Party’s future on an affable green horn, who everyone agrees will be around for some time to come.  For Hillary, the super-delegates are the only way.  It all comes down to the most precise of triangulations.

I have watched enough C-Span to have the general Obama stump speech memorized. I would like to provide a paraphrased transcript for those who have not had the time to watch, or listen to , one of his speeches.

I am running for president because I believe in hope. And, I believe in you. Beyond that, I believe that you believe in hope. We have hope for every American. I know you do, so let me hear you! (crowd screams, someone faints)

America … we … can do … better. (halting in tone now because he is really serious) We can change this country so that every American can have even more hope. We are going to change Washington, D.C.! We are going to end politics as usual! We are going to make people believe … in change and … hope … uuhhh … again. And, we are going to do it together (people now too busy screaming and fainting to notice that Obama is looking down his nose at them condescendingly).

Hopefully … by now … you are too starstruck to realize that I am saying nothing of substance. I know Americans would not vote for me if I advocated anything more specific than hope and change. So, I like purple bunnies. Zing, zang, zoom! Have a holly, jolly Christmas! I believe the children are our future! Stand for change! Or sit … whatever … is easier … for you. Believe me, if I’m president you won’t have to work too hard so get used to sitting. Lastly … uuhhh … believe in yourself, believe … in me and always … believe in hope.

Wait! That’s my line!

Barack Obama has been accused (and has admitted), lifting rhetoric from the governor of Massachusetts.

“He has occasionally used lines of mine. I have occasionally used some words of his. I know Sen. Clinton has used words of mine as well. I don’t think that is something that workers here are concerned about,” he said, adding that “I’m sure I should have” given credit to Patrick.

Bottom line: “I really don’t think this is too big of a deal,” Obama said.

Except that you’re addressing it. Ironic. The campaign about nothing has started to borrow the words of others in an effort to continue to say nothing.

Linked by

After yet another massacre in a gun free zone, will the gun control lobby fold, or is emotion that much more powerful than rational thought?

I do not prefer to use disasters of any type to make political points. Quite decidedly, this is no more about politics than whether a civilized society ought to prohibit the dumping of toxic waste in the public square. Being on the wrong side of the gun freedom issue actually results in the loss of life. Putting up a sign declaring freedom from firearms does not a safe zone make. Shooting after shooting after shooting occurs in areas where gun control is absolute and campuses around the country still hold to a plainly disastrous policy. They should all be sued.

So, here’s my invitation. All public universities ought to be sued now over their gun free zone policies. As they are governmentally controlled, and the present restriction of constitutional right to bear arms has been shown to serve no public policy purpose, the gun free zone policy is unjustifiably in violation of the Second Amendment and most state constitutions (this would certainly be the case in Tennessee).

I am offering my services. If you are a student, faculty member, or staff member at a public university who would otherwise possess a concealed carry permit (or do already possess one), and would carry a lawful weapon if permitted on your campus, I want you to contact me. The email to use is nmoore-at-moorelegalgroup.com.

change that light bulb

Nashville liberal blogger Jim Grinstead discusses the Barack Obama phenomenon

Chowing down on a bag of cookies may feel good while the sugar rush is coming on, but once that lift is gone, the crash is anything but fun. Likewise, voters who remember the swell of patriotism they felt listening to an inspiring speech may feel highly disappointed if Obama can’t come through with change his supporters can believe in.

Change takes more than a powerful speech by one person. Change only happens when political leaders believe the public supports it and that it’s in their best political interest to bring those changes about.

If the public supports it - of course, the public would have to know what the “change” actually is first. Right know we have millions flocking to and fawning over not much more than a decidedly peculiar speech cadence. If Barack Obama was a quarterback, his guards would be jumping on practically every down. Even worse, I’m now starting to hear other people attempt to emulate it (the mayor of Boston is one - a professor from Howard University on XM’s POTUS ‘08 station this week is another).

This all begs a rather philosophical question. Can one truly be disappointed absent the existence of actual expectations? At this point, all we know for sure is that Barack Obama has made it clear he is not George W. Bush, which makes him immaterially unlike the other 299,999,999 of us. Oh, and war is bad. Not that Obama has offered a real solution, other than proposing an evacuation of Iraq that would make Dunkirk look like the Battle of Trafalgar.

Here we sit - still. The more Obama talks about nothing, the more rabid and widespread his support becomes. I’m not yet worried about the American body politic, but a little voice deep in the recesses of my consciousness is whispering that I should be.

According to longtime political reporter Ron Fournier of the Associated Press, the apt answer to that question is a single word -  “worthless”.

Bill Hobbs notes an amateurish surveillance effort by the Tennessee Democratic Party.

I guess “Mike” won’t be on the NOC list anymore.

Obama picked up support with white women, and won Latinos yesterday.

Hillary lost everywhere in Virginia, picking up her share of delegates only in the southwest of the commonwealth.  Northern Virginia, Richmond and the Norfolk / Hampton Roads area all went solidly to Obama. As for Maryland and the District - things were never going to be close there, anyhow.

Things are not looking good for Ms. Rodham.

An absolute solution is not readily apparent, though it is safe to conclude the game plan thus far for the Clinton campaign is proving wholly inadequate.  As the campaign progresses, Obama has been consistently peeling away the layers of Hillary’s presumed strengths. If Hillary Clinton cannot rely on middle aged white women, is losing strength among men, and has lost Hispanic voters, Texas and Ohio may be the denouement.

The Hillary campaign had to know that Tuesday wasn’t going to go well.  Whether that followed on an assumption that Obama was going to do so well last weekend is more unclear. If Hillary wants to have the moral authority to compel the super delegates to fall to her, she must win the common delegate vote. That requires an average a margin of victory of approximately 54% in all remaining contests. There is only one way way to do this - go negative. She must stop trying to make the race about her. Clearly when the focus has been on her, she has done poorly.  Hillary is physically unable to command any of Obama’s support by being herself. It’s as if Al Gore has gone blond.

Whether the negative approach works depends on how deeply imbued Obama’s messiah status has become. Either the negative attacks crack the force field, Obama becomes a mere mortal, and the myth dissipates, empowering the Clinton effort, or Obama’s supporters become more emboldened and stampede to the nomination. The difference lies in the nuance of the approach.

Remember, we are talking about the Clintons.  If anyone can do negative well, it’s the Clinton special-ops squad.

If you go to Rusty Hardin’s law firm web site, you see a tab for “professional athletes”. As you may know (if you’re not living under the world’s largest rock), Rusty represents Roger Clemens. He has been in the news recently (that is an “understatement of the day” award nominee).

Click the link marked “professional athletes”, and this is what you see

Calvin Murphy

Warren Moon

Steve Francis

Rudy Tomjanovich

Wade Boggs

Other Representative Clients

Scottie Pippen

Eddie Griffin

Roy Tarpley

Notice anyone missing?

“Dwight Lewis”

Everyone has standards, and everyone has blind spots. It’s the racially tinged standard of Dwight Lewis, long time columnist for The Tennessean, that occupies that troublesome never-seen area between the back driver’s side window and your left shoulder.

Per Mark Rose

Lewis, if you recall, wrote in the wake of Bob Corker’s defeat of Harold Ford, Jr. for the U.S. Senate that “I’ll go to my grave believing that Tuesday’s election between Harold Ford and Bob Corker shows we still have a long way to go to achieve social justice and equality.” This prompted me to pen an editorial for the Tennessean a few days after the 2006 election. Now, a little more than a year after Corker’s 51-48% defeat of Harold Ford, Jr., Tennessee Democrats selected the white candidate over the black guy by 54-41%, and Dwight Lewis has yet to refer to Tennessee Democrats as racists. One can only conclude that in Dwight Lewis’ world of perpetual racism, it’s okay for Democrats to vote white, but not Republicans.

I guess Tennessee Democrats just aren’t interested in justice or equality. More likely though, Dwight Lewis just hasn’t found enough articles to quote from to write his own column yet.

Link courtesies of VV.