O'Connor retires!

Well for a week or two it has appeared that Justice O'Connor, and not Rehnquist, would be the first to step down. O'Connor, the notorious swing-vote of the Supreme COurt, has retired at 75. Finally, conservatives have a chance to change up the current liberal leanings of the court. So PLEASE Bush, DO NOT nominate Alberto Gonzales. This seems to be th eworry of conservatives right now, but I really don't expect Rove or Bush to be dumb enough to do this, unless Rove thinks the Senate Democrats would try to filibuster Al, which would really work in conservatives favor as far as reaching out to Hispanics and angering independent voters. Now if only we could get Souter, Kennedy, or Ginsburg to retire as well.


Dean cancels Columbia visit; GOP cashes in

Interesting title for this AP story I noticed via Drudge. It discusses Dean's canceled trip to South Carolina that was supposed to net $20,000 (but because of his no-show only raised $5,000) for the state Democratic party. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it inspired a Howard Dean scream contest held by the GOP that raised $22,000. One HAS to wonder whether Dean's appearances actually raise more money for the GOP than they do for the Democrats.


Oberweis gets first endorsement

Jim Oberweis has been endorsed in the Republican primary by the Family Taxpayer Network. This will lend financial help to Oberweis and may start a movement towards unification behind him. I hope this is not the case, as I believe he takes too many conservative stances to beat Blago, and his image as a wealthy businessowner won't help. Also mentioned in the article is the campaign of Steve Rauschenberger, who is expected to announce his candidacy in July, and has already met with Chicago leaders. If we are going to run a real conservative against Blago, it needs to be Steve, because Oberweis simply carries to much baggage. Currently, I am deciding between Judy Baar Topinka and Rauschenberger. Of course I would immediately endorse Jim Edgar were he to enter the race.

It's All About 9/11

This beatiful article by Andrew C. McCarthy of NRO defends President Bush's use of 9/11 last night in his remarks at Fort Bragg. In it, he goes through step by step how Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were directly involved with eachother, criticizing the "no connection" crowd along the way. It is very informative.
I myself have never bothered to challenge the notion that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no relations. It doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to you. Why? Because as I repeatedly said in my not-so-stellar debate performance last fall, we are in a war on terror, not a war on Osama Bin Laden or a war on Al Qaeda. This is about defeating terrorists, not a certain subset of them. In the debate I qouted John Kerry himself stating that Saddam was a terrorist. No can reasonably deny that this was true. Therefore, it made perfect sense to after Saddam with or without a conection to 9/11. Furthermore, his terrorist like actions against his people and constant violation of UN resolutions necessitated action with or without WMDs as well.
So in light of all this, the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection hasn't really interested me much, so I foolishly bought the mainstream media lie that it was nonexistent. McCarthy brings the proof needed and then some. Interestingly, many of his points are from documents and statements from the Clinton administration and it's appointees. Don't believe me? Read the article.


Obama on Lincoln

US Senator Barack Obama, a smart man and great orator, has gotten more and more on my nerves since his election. Elected with something over 70% of the vote and delivering a keynote address to the Democratic Convention between appearances on Oprah, he is as popular as any Democrat today. In TIME magazine he has done a well written piece on Abraham Lincoln, called "Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln". Don't get me wrong, the rest of the article is quite good, but this one statement makes me angry:
"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."
Not the Great Emancipator? Lincoln and Lincoln alone wrote, and more importantly, made the decision to write, the Emancipation Proclamation. Yes, the document had political purposes. Yes, it had errors. But no one, no one else, had the guts to come out (aginst some of his advisors advise)and make such a bold declaration against a reprehensible action. One could easily see how another president would have backed down from such a daring stance against slavery that wasn't totally popular in Lincoln's day, and the changes for the better that took place all those years ago and those since then might not have taken place at all. It is odd for Obama, a direct beneficiary of the Proclamation, to belittle it and it's effects on the course of history.
Obama also sites Lincoln's "limited views on race". Given that a stance against slavery was the most radical held in the timne period, it is an odd choice of words. Does Obama believe that Lincoln should have supported affirmative action and civil rights issues before even half the country believed that they should be free men? That seems a little ridiculous to me.
Some other things have always bothered me about Obama. Chiefly among them is how the whole of IL embraced him as an aisle-crossing moderate when he had no record of moderation in his previous service as an IL Senator. THe only reason he made statements about cooperation is that he had the money to spare on this, since he was guaranteed a win against Alan Keyes, and because it was politically convenient to do so. Keyes, angry and misguided though he was, was partially correct in his views of Obama as a hypocrite. Keyes constantly lambasted Obama for voting in favor of partial-birth abortions and other votes, but because of Keyes' own extremism, nobody listened. So how has Obama the chivalrous been acting in the Senate. As a bipartisan? No. As a compromiser? No. As I watch the Senate roll call votes, Obama is as consistently liberal as his colleages Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, and Dick Durbin. He obeys the party line on every vote I've ever seen where less than 10 Democrats switch sides, and even then I can count the crossover votes on one hand. More disgustinly, he has been out campaigning for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Sen. Byrd is a former leader of the KKK, who has frequently lied and avioded discussion of this time in his life. He also (along with Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska) brings millions of federal tax dollars in pointless and wastefull pork projects. Sen. Byrd represents all that an upstanding Senator should not. He is a criminal to the common taxpayer, and still, after decades, can't straightforwardly answer questions about his segregationist past. Yet the "fence-mending moderate" and of all things, African American Senator from Illinois is aiding in his reelection.

So here is my projection. In 2012 or 2016, Barack Obama will try to run for president. With a combination of fervor for a minority president and fabulous oratory, he will win the Democratic primaries. But in the general election, he will fall on his face. Without the liberal media to hide and sugarcoat his record, he struggles to explain away the facts brought against him. And who will be the Republican to beat him? Now the little known Secretary of State of Ohio, Ken Blackwell will become Governor of Ohio in 2006. In my opinion, he is more honest than Obama, and will play much better in the West, Midwest, and South. Remember that George Bush is plainspoken for a reason. Obama will fail to learn from Kerry that poeple don't like being talked down to. O, and don't let me forget; Blackwell, like Obama, is an African American.