Bush lied. Let’s hope no people died.

Can’t wait to see how he implements these skills in the White House. I’ll be staying home on Election Day.

Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court?
Now that is a disturbiing thought.

Pax americana on February 11, 2008 at 1:23 AM

Believe it. If Hillary nominated him, a Democrat controlled Senate would confirm him. The Dems wanted to make Billy Jeff the “King of the World” over at the United Nations. But they would settle for a lifetime appointment on our Supreme Court. Imagine all of the European ways of doing things that could be written into Supreme Court decisions (as has already been happening, if you aren’t aware). Huckabee said in his speech to CPAC that any justice who relinquishes our national sovereignty by using another country’s judicial decision as the basis for ours, should be summarily impeached. I agree 100%.

…The average ratio from 1972 to 2004 was 3:2, Democrats swamping Republicans…Republicans won 6 of these 9 elections…

CK MacLeod on February 10, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Which means that there are a lot of Republicans sitting at home who haven’t been voting in the primaries so far. If they have a motivation to vote in the remaining primaries, they could come out of the woodwork. And they will. They will look at the two choices put before them: McCain and Huckabee, and they will say Huckabee better represents their values. Knowing that Huckabee must have their support now in order to be a choice come November, and realizing how much they don’t want McCain or a Democrat, they will come out and vote for Huckabee. Meanwhile, McCain supporters will sit at home believing that he has the nomination wrapped up. Huckabee will win the nomination and the general.

Better than Democrats, but not by much.

obama, i am not so sure, though… the cult of personality around him is “freaky-deakily” huge (AP, please forgive my appropriation of your awesome adjective). let’s hope that if he is the nominee, mccain can make him look like the inexperienced wimp that he is…

Indeed. Six of the nine justices will be over 70 by the end of the year. McCain’s credentials on the Supreme Court are rock solid, and leagues away from what Hussein and Hillary will be offering.

McCain might drop dead before they do.

It does boil down to the supreme court. As much as I abhor McCain, his picks for the supreme court will be magnitudes better over what Hillary or Obama would select. We are looking at a minimum of 2 or 3 justices that will retire or die in the next 4 year term.

Sergei on February 11, 2008 at 1:35 AM

Indeed. Six of the nine justices will be over 70 by the end of the year. McCain’s credentials on the Supreme Court are rock solid, and leagues away from what Hussein and Hillary will be offering.

Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court?

Now that is a disturbiing thought.

CK MacLeod on February 10, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Hey, that is informative…I can’t believe I believed an MSM lie…I try so freaking hard not to do that…I’ve heard so many times this primary season that we are getting killed just because of the sheer number of voters…

I should have known better. NOTHING the MSM reports can be believed unless it’s completely subjective fact…for example in this case, I can believe the numbers, but have to figure out for myself what they mean. Foxnews lulled me into a false sense of security…I guess I just have to consider them one of the MSM now.

Anybody else notice that even fox is spinning these numbers? I think fox is in the tank this year for Obama, just my personal opinion.

jerrytbg on February 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM

So, if Hillary is the Democrat nominee, you’d be content to sit at homeonly vote in the local, county, state and US Rep races, let her win, and let her put Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court?

Not I.

jerrytbg on February 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM

So, if Hillary is the Democrat nominee, you’d be content to sit at home, let her win, and let her put Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court?

Not I.

Thanks. Very informative analysis.

dedalus on February 10, 2008 at 11:40 PM

You’re quite welcome. Eventually we may be able to defeat this defeatist meme. Since this at least the second time I’ve referred to it on HotAir, I’ve posted a version of it to my blog for easy reference in the future. (Note: It’s not really a politics blog.)

I haven’t found any statistical overview on comparative campaign spending, and have to wonder whether it would present a more worrisome picture – even if by now we’ve seen many examples of much better-financed individual candidates going down to crushing defeat.

I’ll say this again… I will only vote for POTUS if bHo is a “candydate” and anybody would be better than him or more accurate,less dangerous. Otherwise, I’m only voting in the local, county, state and US Rep races. Both of my “Seneators” are out of cycle this time and both of those guys need to go also but…

CK MacLeod on February 10, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Thanks. Very informative analysis.

t’s time for many of you to take a SECOND LOOK AT HUCKABEE

And don’t tell me that “It’s time to all rally around McCain”. The Democrats likely won’t have a nominee before their convention, so why do we have to have one before ours? Huck will get it to a brokered convention, and he will win the nomination and the general.

ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 11:22 PM

There won’t be a brokered convention, but it is still good to keep this contest running so that the GOP keeps in the media headlines. I hope Huck keeps going till Penn, but also hope that Mac isn’t foolish enough to take him as VP. Secretary for Agriculture or Health and Human Services would be more like it. A few setbacks for Mac in the short term would be a good way of ending the complacency among his supporters and of spurring them into action.

jerrytbg on February 10, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Will you vote for him in the general election?

If he wins the nomination, and you still say you can’t back him in the general, after all of the conservative positions that he has publicly committed to, then I don’t think you have any right to call yourself a conservative (if in fact you even do).

Thanks for the info, pax. can I have a link to the “Maclaud’s analysis of Dem v. GOP primary turnout figures – this year is nothing unusual” so that I can check it out for myself?

JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Comparative Democrat vs. Republican Primary Turnout since 1972

Scroll down for the chart. It’s not my analysis, but something put together on Larry Sabato’s blog at the Center For Politics.

My gloss: The average ratio from 1972 to 2004 was 3:2, Democrats swamping Republicans. The only years that R primary turnout exceeded Dem turnout were ‘96 (Clinton re-election) and ‘00 (Gore coronation).

Republicans won 6 of these 9 elections, including ‘88, which is interesting because, like the current one, it also followed two terms by the same party (supposedly a disadvantageous position for that party’s nominee – an observation that was a cliche in ‘88 and still survives, even though it was overturned by Bush 41, also isn’t really borne out by history). More to the point, though the nomination fights were contested on both sides, the Dem turnout nearly doubled Republican turnout. Despite this massive turnout “advantage,” the Democratic nominee, Dukakis, was blown out in the general election.

In short, there’s no correlation between primary enthusiasm and general election results. Given that the Republicans won 6 of the 9 elections over this period, you could argue that it’s negatively correlated, and propose several reasons why that might be – including a boom/crash relationship where primary-time hopefulness gives way to general election remorse and disillusionment. I think it’s more likely, however, that there just isn’t enough data to establish any positive or negative correlation, if indeed any exists.

I DO think, however, that there may be a meaningful enthusiasm gap this time around. It’s just nowhere near as significant or unusual as you might gather from the a-historical observations of MSM analysts, Democrats, and many Republican defeatists and alarmists make out. Just as Bush 41 could run and win as more of a centrist than Reagan, I think McCain could and should run, and could win, as more of a centrist than Bush.

Here’s a better idea. Give any business that hires an illegal a million dollar a day fine per each illegal they’ve hired. The instant background check was no problem as far as the Brady Law was concerned right? If that’s no sweat, why are we saying we can’t come up with an instant citizenship check hot-line? Oh I remember, it’s just too hard right?

Then we start rounding up the illegals, giving them a chance to turn them selves in and request assylum or citizenship by the rules currently in place, which I might add were part of McCain’s Immigration fix in 1996. If the numbers or the process is too long, propose the changes, but enforce the laws we have now.

If the illegal in question chooses to go the turned in and requesting citizenship route, tag them with one of those ankle tags, or better yet, set up a tent city jail and hold them there. Tents are cheap and easy to set up. At any time, the illegal if they get tired of waiting, can request to be repatriated to their own nation, and what do you know, we’re willing to do that ASAP.

Cheap, easy, and if you are interested in having them work while in jail, have work details put together. Policing the trash they’ve left all over the desert. Perhaps building or maintaining the wall that McCain is suddenly so in love with, you remember the one that McCain called us all racists for wanting? Sort of like the one around the house he wants to live in?

the moderate/liberal whores are supporting McLiar.
csdeven on February 10, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Looks like ol’ Fred Phelps is back.

JetBoy on February 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM

awesome vid…thx (needed a pickup!)