Who Cares Where Mrs. Huckabee Stayed in Vegas?
February 21, 2008
Unbelievable. Carla Marinucci, one of the San Francisco Chronicle’s political writers, just spit out 1,235 words about where Janet Huckabee stayed during a weekend visit to Las Vegas. Huckabee went to watch a middleweight prize fight featuring Arkansas native - and long time friend - Jermain Taylor. Since she is conservative and a Christian, Marinucci felt it necessary to point out that Huckabee stayed at the Hooters Hotel Casino; certainly not where the wife of a former Baptist preacher and presidential candidate should be staying.
What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas - especially if you’re the wife of a presidential candidate. Just ask Janet Huckabee, who attended a middleweight prize fight this past weekend in Las Vegas - where she stayed at the Hooters Casino Hotel.
That eye-opening combination - a title bout in Sin City, which celebrates gambling, drinking and all things wild, along with a hospitality chain favoring buxom waitresses in low-cut garb - could potentially shock the armies of evangelical conservative Christians who have made her husband, the former governor of Arkansas, the only remaining GOP opponent to party front-runner John McCain.
Guess it must be a slow news day. On top of that, Marinucci couldn’t even remember that there’s another GOP candidate still in the race. Remember Ron Paul? Heck, isn’t Alan Keys still in the race?
The article goes on to mention that spouses of candidates have become celebrities and everyone is watching what they do, say and where they do it. This is really out-of-control.
In a highly charged 2008 presidential campaign, some political observers say Janet Huckabee’s news-making extracurricular activities are just the latest in a string of events that dramatize, as GOP strategist Karen Hanretty puts it, that “the larger story line in this campaign is candidate’s spouses as celebrities - whether it’s Jerri Thompson, Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama.”
News-making? You’re kidding right? This isn’t a news-making activity, you’re making the news Carla.
If you’re wondering who won the fight, you’ll have to read down to the last hundred or so words…
Huckabee’s effort to cheer Taylor apparently didn’t bring him much luck this time around; the boxer lost the weekend fight by unanimous decision.
Obama’s Entitlements for Everyone
February 20, 2008
Special thanks to Jim Vicevich for actually watching the full speech by Obama last night. I can’t even watch three minutes. Double thanks for sitting through it all again earlier today and editing down the message so we can get an idea of all the promises.
This is certainly not something new. Both Democrats and Republicans - including Bush 43 - create laundry lists of programs. It’s all about the entitlement agenda and the populist agenda - what can Congress do for you today?
Head over to Radio Vice Online to watch the video. Obama is speaking in Texas and specifically mentions that he supports the free market, understand that the people of Texas are independent and a self-reliant group that does not want government doing what we know we can do for ourselves. Then of course, he goes into the list.
- Reward teachers by giving them more money.
- Raise the minimum wage every year to match inflation.
- Provide a $4,000 tuition credit to those in college.
- Ensure everyone has health insurance as good as his Senate program provides to him.
- Roll back the Bush tax cuts since the rich people didn’t need them.
- Give tax cuts to everyone who makes less than $75,000 per year.
- Seniors who make less than $50,000 should pay no income tax at all.
- Raise fuel efficiency standards to bring down gas prices.
I could barely keep up as I typed out the stuff, and it will not end any time soon. One thing that you’ll note is that his agenda - no matter how well it is delivered - is the exact same agenda that Democrat national candidates have been pushing for decades. There is nothing new here, every single item on the list above comes right from the standard playbook.
Thanks for the new ideas Barak.
When is Too Much, Too Much?
February 20, 2008
Walter Williams posted a great article that fits well with our blog’s theme, a primer for the conservative basics. He takes a close look at what something costs versus the benefits gained. A couple of examples are listed.
Let’s apply cost versus benefits to anti-terrorism expenditures. Wyoming has two major cities: Cheyenne, its capital, with 53,000 population; and Casper, with 50,000. Federal and state homeland security anti-terrorism expenditures in 2007 totaled $6,673,910. What is the risk of Wyoming being a terrorist target and, if so, what is the expected cost in terms of human lives and property?
Dr. Williams’ mention of anti-terrorism expenditures got me thinking. Billions of dollars have been made available for homeland security funding at the federal, state and local levels for many years. What determines the pattern of spending from year to year, place to place?
After Sept. 11, the city of New York received billions to meet the terrorism threat. Dollars were spent on just about everything you can imagine, and maybe rightfully so. Firetrucks, special vehicle command posts, computers, weapons, monitoring systems and other hardware were purchased and brought online.
In 2005 and 2006, after sustaining funding levels for the first few years, the federal government realized that enough was enough. New York City was put on notice that the previous funding levels would not continue. Bloomberg, Clinton and Schumer all went nuts. From the Washington Post, June 1, 2006:
“As far as I’m concerned, the Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York,” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press. “It’s a knife in the back to New York, and I’m going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision.”
The problem I have is that Senators Clinton and Schumer demanded the cash flow continue, and used the threat of terrorism to bash the Bush administration for cutting funding. “We will not be prepared”, they said.
Bull feathers - and here’s a good analogy for you. If your town needed two new fire trucks (hardware) to prepare for the worst, and I gave you two million dollars to go out and buy those two trucks, would you need two million dollars next year too? Nope, you wouldn’t - you already have the damn trucks!
Liberal politicians do this all the time, and it must stop. Who said that only Republicans use the threat of terrorism to grow the size of government?
Castro’s Retirement Equals Status Quo for Cubans
February 19, 2008
For years, many Cubans have been awaiting the passing of Fidel. Americans - and Cuban Americans - have seen his imminent departure as the coming out party for the true Cuba. The numerous times Castro was believed to have reached room temperature, there were parties in the streets of south Florida.
With Raul Casto - Fidel’s younger brother - almost a shoo-in to be the next leader in Cuba, we’re not going to see parties in the streets.
What does this mean for those who thought that once Castro was dead, everything would be a celebration? Honestly, since he’ll now pass away while not in power, there will be no great change in the day to day operations of Cuba’s government. By clearly indicating his successor, Fidel has guaranteed status quo for the next few years.
Michelle Malkin, Redstate and LGF all have more, and Michelle’s even got the Fidel death watch doll on display.
Mexico’s Hypocritical Policy on Border Control
February 15, 2008
Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon is a hypocrite. Recently he spoke in front of California’s State Legislature demanding that the American people fix our immigration policy. Who does he think he is?
Malkin has the full details including comments from McClintock and Tancredo. This, along with Mexico and our Executive Branch planning to secure Mexico’s southern border is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Take a look at Mexico’s immigration policy; it is pretty strict. Their policies are in place to ensure foreigners do not take jobs from Mexicans.
Shall we review just two aspects of Mexican law concerning buying property and working in Mexico?
The rules about buying land as a foreigner are usually pretty thick, and Mexico is no different.
- Property may be purchased and owned outright for residential use by foreign nationals outside of the 100km restricted land border zone, or outside of the 50km coastal zone;
- Inside of the restricted border/coastal zones, foreign nationals may own land through a fidecomiso (a trust) which is set up through a bank and provides for ownership of the land and property in all but name.
What that means is foreign nationals can not buy property for a home closer than 50km from the ocean unless you are willing to sort of own the property. So if the government wants that beach-side pad, they can take it.
What about working in Mexico? No problem, but before you come into the country you have to be sponsored by a company and the position must go through a thorough check to ensure a Mexican is not qualified and wants the job.
Permits are gained from the Mexican Government and are issued to people who are sponsored by companies in Mexico (or foreign companies with Mexican operations / subsidiaries), or by people with specific skills required in Mexico.
Sounds reasonable to me, maybe we should just adopt the Mexican government’s own rules, then maybe Calderon will stop lecturing us about our immigration policy.
