The Pink Flamingo :: Conservatives, “Babykiller” & the Big Mac Attack

This is a very convoluted post. I’m going for the tabloid headline because I am annoyed to the point nearing fury. There are several things going on here and I think they are all connected. It is rather like follow the bouncing ball. My ‘gut’ reaction is this is all offered up now, all the you know what (It’s Lent and I gave up profanity) to help make Obama look good. The thing that caught my eye was something posted on Race 42008 last night. It is rather detailed, but once again, I think it is part of the whole story. If it was getting ready to ‘hit the fan’ so to speak, I am not sure how Dem and liberal voters would deal with it, but it is enough to destroy a candidate with GOP voters.

It is like John McCain was attacked from both the left and the right. There are certain "Christian" conservatives who are literally rejoicing over the recent turn of events. Some, like Rush, Ingraham, Malkin, etc. are being very self-righteous and demanding he pay tribute to them. It's like this, I don't want a President who bows to the far left or the far right. They're all the same, no difference, all demanding a piece of the action so to speak.

Let's face the fact that he's a huge problem for the Dems. He is the only thing standing between them and the White House. Therefore John McCain must be destroyed at all costs. As for the twits of the far right, well he is a threat to their power and their money base. If John McCain wins, conservative talk radio, which as bet the farm on his defeat, is the biggest looser. Therefore John McCain must be destroyed at all costs. I happen to think there is a third party involved in all of this.

The man has mad a heck of a lot of enemies, on the left and on the right. I think that is what happens when you stand up for what you believe. There is an absolutely fascinating aspect to all of this. I'm still trying to figure it out, but I have a source who has given me something to play with, and is allowing me to quote. I am going to give you a tid-bit of the email, and then go on to a second very much liberal, anti-McCain, and extremely anti-Bush source.

Long story short, from what I can tell, John McCain helped certain "religious" i.e. "Christian" cable channels by requiring they be bundled into all telecom packages. This is what it is all about. While I think many of the "stations" he assisted might deserve everything they get, and should considering he went out of his way to help them, and they have betrayed him (that's another story). The 'shady lady' in question worked for one of the companies as a lobbyist. She was going around town bragging about her accessibility to the Chairman of the Committee - and a member of McCain's staff suggested she basically shut up and behave herself. That's the story. No sex, no money, no favors, no offense - just helping "Christian" television survive.

From "my source"

"...Lowell Paxson, and he's a BIG Christian conservative... are you aware of Pax TV? This guy is very, very connected with the top of the religious conservative movement--AND he's a good guy. Also, the alleged "favor" that McCain did in lobbying for Paxson was, in fact, a top priority of a bunch of religious conservatives: de-bundling, they called it. In brief, it involves FCC regs that would give consumers more of a chance to cherry pick their own cable packages -- so, for instance, you'd be guaranteed to be able to get a package of cable channels that excluded the Playboy Channel, MTV, etc... McCain helped the social conservatives by fighting for this option -- and I believe he would have done so whether or not Lowell Paxson and Vicki Iseman lobbied him to do so...."

My source provided additional information:

"...Paxson then formed Paxson Communications and bought radio stations, TV stations, and billboards, primarily in Florida. Eventually, he sold those and put the money into PAX TV, a new network of family-friendly TV shows seen as the alternative to the more "adult" programs of the major networks.[4] The channel also reflected Paxson's background as an evangelical Christian (since 1985), which he spoke of openly. PAX TV began on August 31, 1998...."

And this:

"...Paxson is one of those shady, loathsome Evangelical Christian types... cue the scary music. Turns out Paxson founded the family friendly PAX TV. And it looks like McCain at some point tried to assist in loosening FCC regs with the aim of providing consumers more choice in cable TV -- excluding trash like Playboy and MTV, while including channels like PAX and Disney. Talk about sinister liberal plots!..."

The problem is no one wants to mention this. Conservatives sure don't. If they did, then John McCain would go down as one of the real, real good guys. We can't have that. Remember, John McCain is evil and must be destroyed. Now for the liberal view of the story.

"...Iseman's role in two media corporations who did big favors for Bush, rather than McCain, actually raises more questions for me than it answers. My biggest question about this whole scandal is why this is coming out in 2008, rather than during the South Carolina campaign in 2000. If Iseman was bragging so openly about her access to McCain--and if McCain's advisors saw it as one of his big weak points in the 2000 campaign--then why didn't Karl Rove use it?

The stories about Iseman all suggest (without saying what it means) that her career took off out of nowhere, from receptionist to president's special assistant to partner all in a matter of a couple of years. And her portfolio appears to be rather different than the earmarks portfolio that the company specializes in. Is there a back story to how Iseman became a one-person media lobbyist in such a short time? (Note, I'm not suggesting that she slept her way to the top--rather, I'm suggesting she may have been tapped to play a certain role for conservative media companies and that contributed to her value to the company.)

I don't think Iseman's earlier lobbying of McCain to help these two companies expand in 1999 and 2000 means Iseman had a role in the airing of Stolen Honor. But it does suggest something about the powerful people on whose behalf Iseman was lobbying McCain...."

While you have noted that John McCain is evil and must be destroyed, there is NOTHING about anything illegal, improper, or immoral. The great evil - John McCain assisted family friendly television over liberal immoral television. Family Friendly, family values, conservative values, and he is paying for it.

Yep, John McCain is evil and must be destroyed.

THE CONSERVATIVE BIG MAC ATTACK

Rush acted like someone telling a rape victim 'you were asking for it' because he does not like the NYTimes.

"...The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you're a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. At some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you. They are snakes. If the right lesson is not learned from this, then it will have proved to be of no value. There's a great opportunity here for Senator McCain to learn the right lesson and understand who his friends are and who his enemies are. He's had that backwards for way too long. He has thought the New York Times is his friend. He has thought Chris Matthews and these other people in the Drive-By Media are his friends. They aren't. That's the lesson today.

Senator McCain says that he's disappointed here in the New York Times. Of course, I'm sure he's disappointed. The question is, is he surprised? If he's not surprised, that's a positive. If he's surprised by this, then we've got a problem, Houston, because he doesn't understand who he's dealing with. You know, Senator McCain has disappointed me a lot of times, accusing our intelligence officers of engaging in torture, calling people who opposed his amnesty bill nativists, supporting others who called us racists and so forth, people who opposed campaign finance reform as people unwilling to clean up corruption and so forth. You look at this, and you see it for exactly what it is. Now, here's an interesting aspect here. You talk about the details of the story and how thinly sourced and all that. Yeah, right, yada yada. It's the Drive-By Media, for crying out loud. It's the New York Times reporting about a Republican. You know damn well a story like this wouldn't run about Hillary or Obama, even Bill Clinton, a story like this wouldn't run. If it did, it would be fawning. "Oh, there's old randy Bill out there, still showing us he got some lead in the pencil here after the heart surgery. Oh, yeah!" ..."

Rush is missing the point. No one, I don't care if they are liberal, conservative, Vulcan, human, Democratic or Republican, or even Ron Paulites deserve this kind of treatment. This is something relegated to the ranks of supermarket tabloids where we read about Brittany having Bill Clinton's love child. It doesn't matter. It is hack journalism and an attempt to destroy someone through personal attacks rather than on the issues. That's why I was so tacky as to mention the insinuations about Obama, is little friend, and a cracking good time back in 1999. No one is going to touch it, even if it is true. He is a sacred Democrat.

Jack Wheeler wrote the following today:

''...What personality defect of an otherwise decent pro-American man causes him to be so stubbornly stupid is not of concern here. The focus is now on the opportunity the New York Times' attack and McCain's response to it gives conservatives to make McCain Lemonade. It's going to take a lot of sugar. For this is the lib media's opening salvo. They've got a lot more ammo, and not just more pretty lady lobbyists. Ever heard of a bank loaning millions of dollars to a politician with his donor's list as collateral? Nobody else heard of it either until McCain, his campaign deep in debt and no donors coughing up the dough, put political pressure on Fidelity Bank & Trust to loan him $3 million in November.

They'll resurrect the Keating Five scandal, of course, when McCain got a wrist-slap reprimand from the Senate Ethics Committee in 1990. If desperate enough, they might even expose how he framed Jack Abramoff in revenge for Jack's taking lobbying business away from his staffers-turned-lobbyists when he was chairman of the Senate's Indian Affairs Committee.

A smart shrewd politician would have an effective refutation for each of these, and in a way that endears him to conservatives who would then rally to his rescue. In other words, these scandals, coming in relentless succession, may drive McCain into conservative arms - and conservatives in turn should lock him into their embrace. Yes, he can't get too locked in so he doesn't drive masses of independents and "moderates" (a term I really dislike - "squishes" would be more appropriate). You can ruin lemonade with too much sugar, it has to be both sweet and tart.

He can nonetheless vow to protect our borders and the sanctity of marriage, disavow amnesty for illegals, and question the claims of global warming in such a way to comfort conservatives without scaring the squishes away. These scandals, then, are an opportunity for McCain to create the kind of conservative enthusiasm and passion for him that we talked about last week in McCain as the Anti-Reagan, that he doesn't have and must have to win. He's made an initial good move at seizing the opportunity. Now let's see how he actually wages war against the New York Times, how he follows through. What he must realize is that conservative support and passion are his only protection from the lib media scandal onslaught. His candidacy will be in smoking ruins without it. He can't get mad, he can't lose his volcanic temper, he's got to look at the scandals as an opportunity. Will he do it? It's being urged upon him. It's going to be fascinating to watch the drama of making McCain Lemonade unfold...."

I gather you have noticed the abject arrogance of Wheeler's demands that sound almost like blackmail. Let's face it, John McCain is evil and must be destroyed.

The Politico:

“…Greg Mueller, a veteran Republican strategist, said conservatives would side with McCain against the paper they love to hate.   “The New York Times is trying to swift-boat McCain,” Mueller said. “This is the first real salvo of the general election. Certainly, the Times cannot complain about a negative general election campaign, since they fired the first shot.   "It was a poor and revealing attempt by The New York Times to try and smear McCain at a time when he is starting to define Obama as an inexperienced liberal, so The New York Time takes up for Obama's defense. If anything, this helps energize conservatives to come to McCain's aid in beating back attacks by The New York Times and other liberal MSM outlets."…”

What is the Romney connection to the NYTimes Big Mac Attack?

“…Sources told Radar that one of these associates was John Vincent (Vin) Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota who was an advisor to McCain's presidential campaign in 2000. In 2007, Weber became Policy Chairman for the Romney for President Exploratory Committee. Weber did not immediately respond to a message left with the receptionist at Clark & Weinstock in Washington this morning, where Weber is a partner. The message said Radar would report that Weber was one of the sources of the story in the New York Times. The receptionist said Weber was in a meeting and could not come to the telephone….UPDATE: At 12:51 PM, , after this story was posted, Weber called Radar with this statement: "Absolutely, positively completely not true in any form."…”

SENATOR BABYKILLER
Now we are back to following the bouncing ball. I know this is lurid and I planned it to so be. Barack Obama's honeymoon with the press appears to be drawing to a close. The following is the text of the IL state law protecting infants born alive after an abortion. Obama helped kill the bill. He is one of the most pro-abortion candidates I’ve encountered in ages.

“LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b
1        AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.
2        Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3    represented in the General Assembly:
4        Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5    Section 1.36 as follows:
6        (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7        Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8        (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9    rule, regulation,   or   interpretation   of   the   various
10    administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11    "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12    member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13    stage of development.
14        (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15    respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16    complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17    member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18    or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19    the umbilical cord, or definite movement of   voluntary
20    muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21    cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22    occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23    section, or induced abortion.
24        (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25    be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26    protection under the law.
27        Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28    becoming law….”

From Race 42008 comes the following: What I find interesting is how Obama's famous rhetoric isn't exactly being used here. The man doesn't appear to be all that bright.

"...“…OBAMA: Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child. Then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present….”

Because of the NYTimes Big Mac Attack, this is now on the back-burner. Would it have made a difference in the primaries? In Texas it might. It might also change some of the Hispanic Catholic vote back to Hillary, who is pro-abortion, but not this bad. It could have seriously changed the Texas vote, but now it is useless. Obama's pro-abortion stance from The Swamp:

"...The literature against Obama has focused on a series of “present” votes Obama cast as a state legislator on controversial measures to restrict abortion rights. A present vote allows a legislator to avoid a public stand for or against a measure. The Clinton campaign and two pro-abortion rights groups supportive of her candidacy—EMILY’s List and National Organization for Women—have used those votes to question Obama’s commitment to abortion rights.

The Obama campaign has argued his present votes were part of a legislative strategy devised by the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood to counter a Republican leadership strategy to force pro-abortion rights Democrats into politically damaging “no” votes against popular abortion restrictions. The legislators wound then be attacked at election time for voting no legislation with names such as “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” The present votes would provide political cover and still have the same effect as a no vote.

The Tribune last year found few lawmakers remembered such a strategy and many of those who joined with Obama to vote present were, like him, in politically safe districts. But leaders of Illinois Planned Parenthood have maintained since the controversy erupted that they did in fact devise the present-vote strategy and asked Obama to participate. Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, vouched again in the conference call that Obama’s present votes were made a the request of Illinois abortion-rights advocates. “It was our strategy from Planned Parenthood,” Sutherland said.

“Sen. Obama was key to that present-vote strategy,” She continued. “He was always gong to be no votes on all of these bills. But we specifically asked him to vote present because he was so respected among his fellow Democrats that, if he did the present vote, they would follow suit. And that ended up being the case. They did follow suit. And not only did many of the Democrats follow suit. So did a couple of Republicans follow suit." “It actually worked, because the then-Senate President was no longer able to use these votes against candidates in their races,” Sutherland added.

Jan Nicolay, co-chair of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, also vouched for Obama’s pro-abortion-rights commitment, saying he was the only one of the presidential candidates to send money to aide with a ballot initiative to overturn a nearly complete ban on abortion that the South Dakota legislature passed. Shortly after the Obama campaign conference call ended, the Clinton camp held its own conference, in which a former leader of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women argued that Obama and other lawmakers should have voted a firm “no” on the abortion restrictions.

“NOW and other pro-choice groups did want a vote on those bills. And it was important….Let’s talk about women and standing up for women, not about strategies to protect other people,” said Gaye Bruhn, who was identified as president of NOW at the time of the voters...."

OBAMA'S LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT

Obama’s Legislative achievements: ZILCH I am wrong, he does have one legislative achievement. It is called BAIPA – The Born Alive Infant Protection Act – From Real Clear Politics

“…If you have a better copy, I’d be interested in seeing it, but this should hopefully give us something better to work with than the views of hyper-partisans on either side. You can decide for yourself how much of a threat to Roe the bill posed. The counter to this argument (aside from the fact that it is questionable whether this really poses a threat to Roe) is that Obama apparently killed an attempt to change the Illinois definition to match up with the federal definition. As for the argument that it was already illegal, I’m not sure that’s right. Obama speaks out against the bill on March 30, 2001. My understanding is that the federal act wasn’t signed until August 2002….”

FITNESS TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF
Karl Rove’s WSJ column about Obama. I swear his campaign is behind this, or it is being done to assist him.

“…Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue. Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.

Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism….”

AJ Strata on Obama and mob mentality.

“…What makes this (one time?) Obama supporter nervous is the mob mentality that frightens everyone when an orgy of emotion over takes reason and sanity. Idol worship is a dangerous event to watch take over politics. It has led to such great leaders as Hitler - who was idolized by a Germany tired of war and suffering. I am NOT comparing Obama to Hitler - I am simply noting the site of mass hysteria towards an icon is bad enough when it is a British Rock Band touring the US of A for the first time. But when a political leader is the recipient both their mob and themselves lose their minds. The thing that has been nagging at me with Obama for a while now is how he has become a propaganda fountain of vacuous platitudes, and many desperate souls have swooned in response. Obama is not the second coming folks - he just keeps repeating images of a Nirvana pulled from watching Happy Days as kid, I suspect. But where ever he became entranced with with a simple minded world that resembles Sesame Street more than mains street USA and the mean streets of the Middle East really is irrelevant….”

HOW HE OPERATES
Sally Vee sent the following about Obama channeling Denzal.

The Obama campaign is now threatening Hillary Clinton because she has recently started dealing with a new 527 for fund-raising. He also threatened John Edwards over the same thing awhile back.

“…"There’s going to be a reckoning here," he warned. "It’s going to be rough — it’s going to be rough on the officers, it’s going to be rough on the employees, it’s going to be rough on the donors." "Whether it's at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions," Bauer said. Asked how this differs from the pro-Edwards 527 in Iowa, which Obama also denounced, but which he didn't call illegal in these terms, Bauer said he wasn't sure "how to answer that." His charges seem to hinge, however, on some details that aren't entirely clear: whether the group has already spent more than $1,000 and whether the FEC (which is currently not sitting because of a congressional standoff) will rule that this group is engaging in "express advocacy" for Clinton….”

From the UKTimes

“…But that was not what she said. She said this was the only time in her adult life that she had felt pride in America. It was instructive for two reasons. First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign. There's always been a Second Coming quality about Mr Obama's rhetoric. The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that America has achieved in its history can only add to that worry. Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place….”

On Sunday I wrote about Barack Obama's previous races, and how he won them. I can't help but think that the Obama campaign has something to do with the timing of these revelations. The only reason he is in the Senate is because of Jack Ryan's sex scandal. The only reason he made it to the Illinois State Legislature is because a "scandal" that was later found to be false, attacked his 'mentor'.