novatownhall blog

Hillary Clinton is beginning to seem less objectionable than Barack Obama. This is not just an argument from policy or who would be better in office, but on another meta-level who would be preferable to oppose John McCain. Who we should most like to face in November.

For a time, Hillary seemed preferable simply because of the likelihood she would lose to McCain – this on the assumption that McCain despite all his faults would offer a better chance to get better Supreme Court appointments and better 2nd Amendment fealty, so we should want the weaker Democratic candidate in the general election contest. In the back of mind in this scenario – for me – was the idea that Obama seemed to have captured America’s imagination and therefore would be more likely to win.

As the weeks and news coverage have dragged on, there has been more time to reflect on the possibility that either of the Democrats could actually end up in the Oval Office. To the extent that “hoping” for McCain over either Democrat is akin to hoping for drought over floods, the possibility of Clinton or Obama winning is becoming less unthinkable.

Obama’s negatives are absolutely terrible. This Rev. Wright has been presented as a key influence, and there is no reason to believe that is not the case, all recent sidestepping aside. Wright appears to be a “Christian” pastor in name only. He is “religious” no doubt, but in a dark mode of religion that differs little from any number of prevailing sick, modern, anti-American ideologies. Obama has spent two decades listening to Wright preach almost every week. Then, we have his wife, Michelle Obama, saying she was never in her life proud of this country prior to roughly this past February. There is his “solution” to the Iran problem as dialogue with the mullahs. Finally is Obama committing the gaffe – which in this case reflects perfectly Michael Kinsley’s excellent maxim that “gaffe” = “truth” – by stating that people who adhere to religion and hold other conservative beliefs are just plain backwards.

Barack Obama gives every indication of being the next Jimmy Carter. Honestly, there seems to be no end to what wacky, incompetent stuff Obama might say or do.

This leaves Hillary Clinton, who personifies “the devil we know.” After seeing her speak recently, holding forth on the centrality of religion in American life and the sacrosanct nature of the 2nd Amendment, one must be reminded of the famous triangulations of her husband beginning 15 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong: I would expect awful Supreme Court nominations from Hillary Clinton, and likely a new “Clinton gun ban,” but I honestly think she is more likely to be someone we can work with for sensible policies. Bill Clinton, for all his downsides, was a hell of a better president than Carter. (Mr. Clinton needed a Republican Congress to be so, and that is fine. That could be the 2010 project).

Obama seems like an utter and complete liar. He has said the right things about bridging ideological divides, but his voting record is anything but, and his pedigree as noted above is radical anti-Americanism, through and through.

Consequently, much as it pains me to say it, Hillary Clinton appears to be the better choice for Democrat candidate for president. Better to have the devil we know than the next Jimmy Carter.

So true, yet so rarely stated:

One of the great things about the United States of America is that we killed all our monkeys long ago.

I did not see the debate tonight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but it sounds like ABC did a pretty bang up job in the fair and balanced department:

Barack is defensive (understandably so when everyone is attacking him relentlessy for for he entire time) and Hillary is on topic and relentless in her attacks. But for the mendacity of the questioners and their questions.

Honestly, these people need to be removed from the Public’s airwaves and given ordinary jobs doing something useful like following the horses at Mackinac Island in the summer with a wheelbarrow and a shovel. It is painfully obvious that they have no skill at being “Journalists.”

More here:

So George Stephanopoulos is out there chatting with Newsmax columnists and Sean Hannity…

The Same George Stephanopoulos who is the Political Director of ABC, whose Good Morning America was the first National Network Program to break the Reverend Wright Story. And the Very Same ABC that’s owned by the Disney Corporation, whose other network, ESPN is in the news for Canceling not one but TWO Obama Exclusive Interviews at the executive level (edited with clarification by jethropaleorobber)

Let ABC Know what you think about this Garbage! We Expect Objectivity, not force fed conspiracy guilt by association Gotcha Controversies (and Hannity wet dreams)

Did the ABC News crew go easier on the Republicans at the January 5, 2008 debate in New Hampshire? Did Fox News go easier at the January 10 debate in South Carolina?

No, they did not – they just asked normal questions designed to force the candidates to address the sticky questions, and take a stand on current issues, often in light of the candidates’ previous statements. That’s what they do. I think the Democrat supporters, especially Obama supporters, are showing pretty thin skin at this point in the campaign, because it has not been a good few weeks for their candidates.

UPDATE: Maybe Steph was cribbing from Sean Hannity!

UPDATE II: Brrrrrr! Chilly appraisals of ABC.

UPDATE III: Shameful!

UPDATE IV: GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER.

UPDATE V: Man, I have now seen a number of video clips of the debate on CNN and must say: This was another huge night for John McCain. He has not even had to comment or respond – he could be on a three-week golf vacation in Scotland for all anyone knows – and his stock has gone up big time. Neither of the Democrats seem remotely, plausibly “presidential.” I have problems with John McCain, but there is no denying this campaign is his to lose. The landscape could not have been made more favorable to him and all he needs to do is present a stable persona to contrast with the skittishness of these two Democrats, because neither of them gives the impression of being on solid ground.

This seems significant:

Skeptics have long questioned the value of diverting food crops for fuel, and the grocery and live- stock industries vehemently opposed an energy bill last fall, arguing it was driving up costs.

A fifth of the nation’s corn crop is now used to brew ethanol for motor fuel, and as farmers have planted more corn, they have cut acreage of other crops, particularly soybeans. That, in turn, has contributed to a global shortfall of cooking oil.

Spreading global dissatisfaction in recent months has intensified the food-versus-fuel debate. Last Friday, a European environment advisory panel urged the European Union to suspend its goal of having 10 percent of transportation fuel made from biofuels by 2020. Europe’s well-meaning rush to biofuels, the scientists concluded, had created a variety of harmful ripple effects, including deforestation in Southeast Asia and higher prices for grain.

Even if biofuels are not the primary reason for the increase in food costs, some experts say it is one area where a reversal of government policy could help take pressure off food prices.

Some studies have shown the amount of energy required to create ethanol (i.e., to grow and transport the crops) exceeds the amount of energy ethanol provides. In any case, this seems like as good a time as any to pull the plug on this feel-good experiment.

Yes, it’s old news, but it’s important enough to recall this quote periodically to ensure everyone goes into the voting booth with eyes wide open:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

If you think that the propaganda espoused by the homosexual community saying they don’t want to impose their views on others, read this.
The idea that a person cannot have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion in the face of this “right” to freedom of behavior is just plain outrageous. Telling someone they cannot determine they don’t want to do something which violates their religious convictions (by aiding someone to do what they consider immoral) is violating their 1st amendment rights. Forcing people to do what they consider wrong. I would protest someone telling a member of PETA to do a commercial for a butcher, even though they don’t have any religious beliefs on the line. If the Huguenins don’t want to do business with someone, they should have that right regardless of the reason. Someone doesn’t want to do business with anyone that should be their choice. Any business should be able to set their own moral standards and should not be forced to violate those standards. Not in this country. Next thing these people will want is to become the pastors of churches … oops, already been there.

The border fence, one of the proposals for deterring illegal immigration, is a plan that by itself will do no good. Why? The same reason that intelligent people know that just locking the doors at night is no guarantee that their house will not experience a break-in. The locks only prevent honest people from entering. Dishonest people will break-in to homes, or break-in through the fence.

What the fence buys is a little time. Just like locks and alarms buy time for those in a home. In a home, when someone breaks in, you gather the family into the most secure location you can, arm yourself so that the intruder will be stopped if he continues, and call the police. Anything less, and you risk being the one that “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” The country needs to treat this the same way. People that cut through a fence to enter the country should be viewed as potentially being drug runners, smugglers, terrorists, or any other kind of evil people. They are attacking the borders of our country, and should be repelled with all available force. The fence — along with technology to warn of the attack — should be used to give enough time to deploy force. We have a national guard, we ought to use it.