Alabama Democrats Name Dead Man to Committee

Well, considering how many dead people vote for Democrats, this just seems to be the natural progression.

In assembling a new committee of Mobile County Democrats, the state Democratic party included one person who died last year, his widow and other party members confirmed this morning. Reynolds Smith, Jr., of the Eight Mile community, passed away in November at age 83, according to a Press-Register obituary at the time.

In an interview this afternoon, Jim Spearman, the state party's executive director, attributed the snafu to outdated records. The party had gotten Smith's name from a 2006 list of candidates for the county committee, he said, and then used a state voter list to verify that he was still an active voter. The list, which Spearman said dated from around last November, did not reflect that Smith had died. Spearman said he will write Smith's family to explain what happened.

Maybe the national Democrats can investigate why they have a clinically dead Frank Lautenberg and Robert Byrd still serving in the Senate.

Why is Hillary Passing on North Carolina?

Why is Hillary giving up on North Carolina? It would seem to me that somebody that is trying to make the case that she is electable would want to head to NC and try to blunt any further gains that would be made by Obama. The most common reason given is because of the percentage of voters who are black. Those pearls of wisdom are coming from Democratic strategists. So is it written in stone that if your skin color is dark that you are required by law or some sort of primal instinct to vote for the candidate who most looks like you? Who is playing the race card now?

Even if Hillary can't win, which isn't totally out of the question, and may even point to further disconnect between the elite Dems and the more common folks in this country, why doesn't she at least show up to put up a fight? Isn't she accusing Barack of not being able to handle the heat? It seems to be poor way to drive this point home by cutting and running, but of course this seems to be the only thing the Dems are good at in all matters except trying to seize the power of the White House. It is just another contradiction in a long list of contradictions relating to the Dems. Cut and run in Iraq, bomb the snot out of Iran or invade Pakistan, and refuse to give up on a campaign that pundits are saying is lost.

If she really felt this fight is not over why isn't she fighting then to derail the Obama train?

Sometimes there is just no figuring out the liberal mind. Of course she is also of the mindset that the presidency is "owed" to her and therefore may even harbor dreams that if she can just get this thing to the convention they will hand it to her. Of course if it goes that far and they do give the nod to her, Denver will probably be burning for days.

Meanwhile the people of NC have every right to feel snubbed and I hope come general election time they will remember this and vote for McCain.

MSM Reporting Versus Web Postings of Last Night's Democrat Debate

In reading some of the news stories this morning about last night's Democrat debate and comparing it to the posting on various liberal web sites, it seems that they were covering two different debates.

The progressive bloggers are all up in arms because they don't think any questions were asked of the candidates in regards to issues and rather the moderators were merely repeating rightwing talking points and trying to dig dirt on the candidates related to all the various shady characters, lies, and socialist leanings of the two remaining Dems.

The dinosaur media, on the other hand, has a different take such as this AP article which doesn't mention any of those things but rather tells us first and foremost that Hillary thinks Obama can win but there is no mention of what the nutroots are whining about.

In a 90-minute debate, both rivals pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000, and said they would respond forcefully if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and uses them against Israel.

And, of course, the old Democrat standby issue of Social Security.

They differed over Social Security when Obama said he favored raising payroll taxes on higher-income individuals. Clinton said she was opposed, her rival quickly cut in and countered that she had said earlier in the campaign she was open to the idea.

The UPI seems to think that the candidates stressed party unity during the debate with only a passing shot at any of the things the progressives are screaming like five year olds about.

Clinton brought up Obama's relationship with the former pastor of his church who made racist comments about the United States, and Obama's remarks about some Americans being "bitter." Obama spoke of Clinton's exaggeration about the danger she faced in Bosnia in 1996.

The old grey lady, the New York Times did do a story on the sniping and back and forth between the candidates on various shady connections each other had to some of the name and characters which have been brought up, but didn't pin the blame on the moderators like the progressive bloggers are doing. It is however the last paragraph of the Times story that chilled me.

And Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama said that as president, they would execute promises to begin the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, even if their military commanders at the time advised them that it would be wiser to keep troops on the ground.

So you know what? If the progressive blogs had just kept their mouths shut and moved away from the keyboards most of America wouldn't even know that your candidates had their masks ripped off last night and exposed for the frauds that they are.

But you folks over at Kos, DU, and Huff'N'Puff stay classy and keep hurling around your vulgar language, threats of boycotts and, I imagine by now, have become supporters of capital punishment, at least for George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson.

How unenthusiastic are Republican voters this year?

Based on the early turnouts Republican voters are not too happy with the choices they have. The totals for the four states for which there is data shows the Democrats doing a much better job at getting the vote out. The states I used to gather this data are IA, NH, MI, and SC.

There were no totals for NE, the IA results are estimates and only the Republicans have had a primary in WY so I didn't include WY in the totals. Total number of voters.

Democrats - 955,493
Republicans - 689,500

It will be interesting to keep an eye on the turnout for both parties. No doubt the Democrats will continue to get big turnouts. Nothing like the little race/gender war that they have ginned up to get out the voters.

And if I hear one more person say they voted for XYZ because of charisma, looks, or good speaking I am absolutely going to puke. For some reason I don't think those are the qualities our enemies are looking for.

They are looking for who is the biggest fool they can pull the wool over the eyes of or who is going to be most willing to surrender to their demands. The Islamic extremists want the person most afraid of confrontation.

For the folks that didn't see my post yesterday about a new face in the Republican race click here to learn about Jerry Curry, somebody who needs to get his message and his face out there fast.

Current Events