I have to say, I’ve probably received more comments regarding my post Riordan’s Closes Its Doors in Annapolis, than most any other post I’ve ever put up.  Certainly it’s not because of my writing style.  Rather, it tells you how large a presence Riordan’s had become in Annapolis over the 30 years it was open.
One thing I’ve been asked several times is, “do you know the recipe for Mike Riordan’s Crab Dip?” The answer is an unfortunate no, though my wife and I (mainly my wife) have come close to replicating it, we don’t have the true recipe.

Which is why I’m asking all of you out there to help me out.  Does anyone know the recipe?  If so, please contact me at dpflanagan at gmail.com.  If I can find the recipe, I’ll publish it for all those fans out there who crave REAL crab dip and have not had it since Riordan’s closed down.

What I can tell you is this; Mike started serving crab dip at his restaurant in the late 80’s while I was still working there.  What I remember hearing is that he got the recipe from a local person who came up with the idea.  Mike heard about it, loved it, and decided to start serving it at his restaurants (Riordan’s, Griffin’s, Griffin’s West).   It quickly became one of his most popular appetizers and soon after, restaurants all over the area were coming up with their own versions; none of which were as good of course.

So, the great “Riordan’s Crab Dip” hunt is on!  If you know anything, please contact me and we will make sure that one of Annapolis’ greatest restaurants will never be forgotten!

UPDATE - June 7, 2009:

After about a month in theaters,  Box Office Mojo reports the latest Star Trek film remains in 5th overall and has so far grossed about $325 million dollars worldwide!  Which effectively makes this re-imagined classic the highest grossing Trek film of all time.  Let’s hope we won’t have to wait for three or four years just to see the next movie.  I’m thinking not as this film is a dream come true for Paramount.  Likely they’re already inking a deal on the next movie.  Keep your fingers crossed!

————————

Original Post - May 9, 2009:

So last night Julie and I made the trek to see the newest Trek film, “Star Trek.” Not “Star Trek: Yet Another Adventure,” or “Star Trek: Beyond the Limits of All Endurance.” No, this was just “Star Trek,” just as the original series was “Star Trek.” You see, before we called it “Star Trek The Original Series,” it was merely “Star Trek” because there were no other series and no movies either. Did you get all that?

Anyway, with the flop of the last few Trek films, the last one being “Star Trek: Nemesis,” (2002), which netted only about $43 million in boxoffice sales, and the early demise of the latest TV series, “Enterprise,” the brand seemed all but dead. Fans were disgruntled and the future uncertain for one of the greatest scifi franchises in history.

Then came JJ Abrams, who decided it was time to go back to the future, in a manner of speaking. Not only did he decide to go back to even before the original series began, he decided to re-imagine and reinvent the series in a rather ingenious way.

This movie is the beginning all over again. It starts on the day that James T Kirk is born, the same day his father gives his own life to save 800 men and women, including his wife and newborn son. And it follows our hero-to-be from that point onward.

The problem is, in the original Trek series and timeline, Kirk’s father never died. Something is new, somehow all that was has been remade, and the crew of the USS Enterprise have before them an entirely new timeline and new destinies to uncover.

How did the timeline change and what happens? Well, you’ll have to see the movie to find out. What you’ve read here is what the studio itself has released, so I don’t feel guilty about sharing that information.

But I hate spoilers and I’ll go no further on any other aspect of the movie’s plot, except to say that it’s the best Trek film since “The Voyage Home,” which means I think it’s the best Trek film in 23 years! And by reinventing the past, Abrams has given us all a chance to watch the future unfold in a different way, not just in this new Trek movie, but in all the potential movies and series to come.

And one of my favorite characters, Spock, played in the movie by Leanord Nimoy (old Spock) and Zachary Quinto (young Spock) is the vehicle — in a manner of speaking — for this change.

The acting in this movie is well done, the storyline interesting — even if it does at times become slightly convoluted — and, best of all, there’s great chemistry among the new crew. Which is why I enthusiastically recommend this movie to anyone and everyone.

For my fellow Trekkies who have yet to see the film, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. True, Abrams has wiped away the previous universe, but go see the movie with an open mind, and I think you’ll be happy with what seems to me to be an appropriate mix of old and new.

Watching the movie, I felt at times as I had when I watched “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” back in 1979. It all felt very different, yet very much the same. This is true of the new “Star Trek” motion picture. It all feels very different, and yet so wonderfully familiar.

Like the original motion picture released back in 1979, this one looks like it’s going to make oodles of money, which will almost certainly generate additional films. The projection from Deadline Hollywood is that the new Trek film will generate close to $75 million in domestic sales alone this weekend. Global boxoffice sales and DVD sale later on are sure to make this film a record-breaker for Paramount. And for us Trek fans, that’s a very good thing.

Let’s hope it will generate many additional films and draw many new fans, especially among younger viewers who we must all hope will learn to be as enthusiastic as older fans have been these past four decades.

Star Trek is dead, long live Star Trek!

Yesterday I voted for Senator McCain.  Today I pray that President-elect Obama will lead this country with wisdom and that the nation will prosper. I hope all of our new leaders will lead with wisdom and will not forget that they serve the people, not the other way around.

Those who hope that the Obama Administration will be a disaster should be ashamed of themselves. While I wouldn’t call this kind of thinking “unpatriotic” or “un-American,” I would call it dishonorable and low. And that is a rebuke also to millions of liberals who spent the past 8 years wishing disaster upon our current President.

The rhetoric, the schemes, the conspiracy theories, the insults, and the outright loathing poured out on a man who is doing his best to serve his country was especially vile. Those same liberals will, of course, now demand loyalty to the Obama Administration and will cry foul when conservatives treat President Obama in a like manner.

I will say that I was very disappointed in the way the mainstream media handled this election. I’ve never in the 20+ years where I’ve paid attention seen such slanted coverage of candidates. And this behavior comes even as media revenues and viewership plummets. Have media “intellectuals” paused to ask why the American public is turning its collective back on them?

I’ll save them the problem of asking. It’s about TRUST. As trust fades, so does viewership and readership. We’re off in search of people whom we can trust.

Finally, I look forward to 2010, when we will see mid-term elections. This gives Democrats two years to show us that they can do a better job of leading the country. If they cannot, and I have some doubts given the current leadership in both the House and Senate, then Republicans can once again make the case for smaller, less intrusive government.

Higher taxes? Bad idea!

Bigger government? That’s the problem, not the solution.

The answer is not to “direct” the energies of the American people, channeling it here or there, as Democrats seem to want. The answer is to unleash the energy and ingenuity of the American people. And the only way to do that is for government to get out of the way.

Let’s hope that this is what our leaders in Washington will do.

On the lighter side of life, I thought this post from JibJab.com was great.  Enjoy!

This video shows excerpts from the 2004 hearings in which Republicans, at the urging of the President, were working to provide new oversight and stricter controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In the video, you very clearly hear Republicans argue that a failure to regulate the GSEs could result in financial problems.Democrats uniformly opposed the efforts to provide stronger oversight for Fannie and Freddie, even after both of these companies expressed support for the resulting legislation.  Ultimately, the legislation was voted down in committee along a party line vote, all Democrats voting against stronger regulation.

Of course, yesterday, Speaker Pelosi went on a rant against the President and Republicans for a “do nothing” attitude which she claims led to the crisis.  Well, the truth speaks for itself, and this video shows you in no uncertain terms where the problem began.

And please watch the video to the very end when you will see President Clinton, in a recent interview on ABC News, admit the problem resides with the Democrats who resisted efforts to tighten up on Freddie and Fannie.  Don’t believe me?  You can hear it all for yourself.

The AP is reporting today that “Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.”  Biden went on to say that “we want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

So, Obama and Biden want to “take money” from one group and “put it back in the pocket” of others. It’s beautiful in its simplicity.

I have to admit being confused by this reasoning. I would be one of those middle-class people that supposedly would get a tax cut, but wouldn’t it COST money to take money from one group and then give it to another? I think what Biden is expressing is the thought that tax hikes on the wealthy will offset the cost of tax breaks for the middle-class.

But I’m not sure how this helps anyone. Why not just cut middle-class taxes and leave those who earn $250,000 or more alone? The top 3% of this country already pay 70% of all taxes, and the top 50% of wage earners pay a whopping 97% of all taxes. This is a system which is already far too top-heavy.

Instead of Democrats insisting that Americans must sacrifice for the government, perhaps the government should sacrifice for America. Perhaps Obama should scale back on his desire to fund every kind of social program you can imagine, including social programs in other countries, and just do better with less.

Just a thought.

There’s an article link on Drudge to the Financial Times, a magazine that I enjoy reading. The FT notes in the article that Obama supporters are ready for a fight.  Which is about what you would expect of a campaign for President.

What I thought was most interesting about the Drudge link though was this picture.   Doesn’t Senator Obama look a tad like “Big Brother,” from Orwell’s book, “1984″?  Sorry, but that is just eery.

Can you think of a single campaign EVER that did this kind of thing?

Nancy Kallitechnis, a supporter of Senator Clinton’s primary bid and member of a pro-Hillary forum site called HillaryClintonForum.net recently compared the questions asked of Governor Palin in her interview with Charlie Gibson to questions asked of Senator Obama by Gibson after he had clinched the Democratic nomination.  It’s an elightening review:

Even the camera angle was designed to be prejudiced against Palin. She is filmed from the side and slightly with her back to the camera. Although there are close ups of her face the long shot shows her back to the camera. It seems filming her with her back to the camera was meant to make her appear less likeable. In contrast, the film crew placed the long shot camera facing Obama so at all times when he is speaking the camera looks him in the face rather than looking at his back.

And Obama was asked much easier questions mostly about feelings about winning, breaking the glass ceiling and 2008 campaign decisions. In contrast, Palin was asked numerous specific policy and military strategy questions that required extensive knowledge about treaties, U.S. anti-terrorism strategy and world history. And Gibson misquoted Palin falsely stating that she said our troops were in an alleged holy war when what she said was that she prayed that we were doing God’s will. The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:

Obama interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5000184

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09…with-abc-news/

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

There’s no doubt the Charles Gibson interviews showed extreme prejudice against Palin and extreme favoritism towards Obama. His manner towards Palin was much more negative. He asked her much more difficult questions and the questions were more adversarial. He constantly questioned her ability to lead but never questioned Obama’s ability to lead, all the more amazing considering that Palin was the only one with executive experience and the presidency is the highest level executive job in politics. The camera angles always focused on Obama’s face when he was talking making him the center of attention yet during Palin’s interview the angle often focused on her back apparently for the purpose of lessening the impact of her presence.

Part of the difference in the line of questioning might be the fact that Palin agreed to an open interview.  She allowed Gibson to ask any questions he wanted.  The Obama Campaign, however, might have screened Gibson’s questions before-hand and indicated which he was willing to answer.  I would love to know for sure if this were the case with the Obama interview; wouldn’t you?

Personally, I don’t think Gibson was over the top in any way, but at times, when he’s sitting with Governor Palin, spectacles half-way down his nose and a sheet of paper on his lap, it looks as if he’s personally conducting a job interview. I’m not sure voters in general trust the media enough these days to trust in their objectivity.  Voters will watch the interview and judge for themselves.

Finally, in regards to Palin’s supposed confusion on the “Bush Doctrine,” that’s actually a good thing in my book.  If Palin had been intimately acquainted with that doctrine, it would have been used against her by the Obama Campaign.  They would have run an ad with it and called her “more of the same,” as they tried to do on the day she was nominated.

whoopi slavery
by dollarsandsense123 Today on the view, Whoopi Goldberg, a woman for whom I have great respect, asked a rather silly question.  Senator McCain was being asked about the issue of appointing “strict constitutional judges” to the bench.  The conservative view is that judges should not legislate (make new laws) from the bench.  Instead, their role is to interpret law in light of state and federal constitutions.Conservatives argue that Roe v Wade was a law created by judges who legislated abortion as an inherent constitutional right where no such right is recognized explicitly.  Most conservatives believe that this issue belongs with at the state level, where legislators can decide which abortion laws to implement based on the what meets the needs of constituents at that level.

So, while McCain was explaining this position, Whoopie asked the question, “should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery?”  Now, Whoopie is a very smart person, she has to know the difference between the issue of slavery and the issue of abortion; right?

The issue of slavery, and human rights in general, was addressed in a series of constitutional amendments decided at the federal level.  Unfortunately, it was also decided in large part with a war between the states, where over 600,000 Americans died to finally rid the country of this evil practice.

The practice of slavery and, later equal rights for all, came from amendments that extended rights to all US citizens at all points in life.  In 1973 at the time of the Roe v. Wade decision, about 35 states had abortion laws on their books to regulate the practice, but the decision which came from the US Supreme Court was decided in such a way that the court was acting as a legislative body.

To allow the judical branch to overstep it’s authority and act in a legislative manner is a threat to any democracy.  What conservatives want to see is a restoration of the boundaries between the branches, and the only way to do that is to appoint judges who understand their role in the democratic process.

Of course, many disagree on this issue, but that’s the argument in a nutshell.  What Whoopie was doing, unfortunately was trying to hit Senator McCain with a “gotcha,” which is unfortunate.

Such is life in the world of liberal media.

ABC News is reporting tonight that Senator Biden, Obama’s running mate, told an audience that Senator Clinton might have been a better pick for the VP slot:

At a rally in Nashua, N.H., a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, “not because she’s a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past.”

“Make no mistake about this,” Biden responded. “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight.”

You can expect Biden to modify this statement right away to say that he was only defending a senate colleague.  And that might actually be the case.  Certainly, Senator Biden is well liked by his Democratic colleagues and there’s no reason to think the feeling isn’t mutual.

That said, you know this will be fodder for the next couple of days at least.  Expect at least one ad from the McCain Campaign highlighting this quote.

This quote will hurt Senator Obama, mainly because it will underscore to Senator Clinton’s die-hard supporters that Senator Obama went against all common sense (from their point of view) to pass over Clinton without at least giving her some consideration.  I happen to believe Senator Clinton’s supporters are exactly right.

So Biden’s quote will just anger them all the more and, while they might not vote for McCain/Palin in November, they might not vote for Senator Obama either.

Newsweek has an article today debunking many of the internet rumors that have been flying around regarding Governor Palin.  It was republished from Factcheck.org, which is a reliably bi-partisan source of information.  Some of the rumors debunked include:

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a “courtesty” when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

Now, in regards to the renewed debate over whether Senator Obama is a “secret Muslim,” I don’t believe it for a second.  While I adamantly want McCain to win in November, neither do I want to see false rumors spread about Senator Obama.

Think of Senator Obama after his acceptance speech.  He was with his wife and two girls and they looked great together.  It was a proud moment for all Americans. Senator McCain, class act that he is, posted a campaign ad rightly congratulating the Senator for this great accomplishment.

Then, of course, Senator McCain made some history of his own when he asked Governor Palin to join his ticket.

One final note regarding Senator Obama.  My wife and I have two girls who are roughly the same age as the Obamas’ girls, so I very much identify with them as a family. I just don’t identify with Senator Obama on the issues.  And there is a world of difference on the issues.  Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes, and he’ll do so in two ways.

First, he’ll allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.  That alone will amount to the single biggest tax increase in American history.  Millions at lower income levels who currently do not have to pay taxes will have to pay them again.  On top of that, Obama has promised to raise taxes even further on others.

Yes, he’s promised to lower taxes for some, but he could do that simply by making the Bush tax cuts permanent!  So why not start there?

My point here is simple, Obama loses on the issues because Americans don’t want higher taxes.  We also don’t want another eight years of hyper-partisan bickering and rampant conspiracy rumors about our elected officials.  I don’t want to hear that either Obama or McCain is the anti-christ.  I don’t want to hear that anyone is a secret this, or a secret that.

I want to hear where they stand on the issues and what they will do to move America forward.

Nuff said.

British comedian Russell Brand, the host of the recently aired MTV awards, has decided to make a name for himself.  During the awards ceremony, he explained to guests and viewers that they must vote for Barack Obama and labeled the president a “retarded cowboy.”

Looking at his photo, I wonder where this guy gets off calling anyone by any name.  Brand looks like he took fashion lessons from Chris Tucker’s character, “Ruby Rhod,” in the movie The Fifth Element! Perhaps we should call this guy “Off Brand.”

This is nothing new, really.  Just another idiot hoping that he can shock enough people to win his 15 minutes of fame.

Brand was quoted later in the show saying that, “My persona doesn’t really work without fame. Without fame, this haircut could be mistaken for mental illness.”  Personally, I think that, with or without fame, mental illness is a fair description of what I see.

Drudge is reporting that Oprah Winfrey has chosen not to invite Governor Palin on the show until at least after the election.  A note from Oprah to the public had this to say on the issue:

The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.

I think, to be honest, Oprah should at least modify her statement.  Rather than saying “I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates,” she should be saying, “I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the other candidates.”

It is certainly within her right to say no to any person whom she does not wish to invite on her show.  I have a great deal of respect for the media empire Oprah has built for herself.

I will say, however, that I’m disappointed. Oprah’s show is one which has consistently lifted up women’s issues.  Unfortunately, Oprah’s endorsement of Senator Obama hampers her ability to bring some very compelling people to her show, including people like Senator Clinton and Governor Palin.

That is what happens when you too openly involve yourself in politics, things get a bit messy.  While Oprah has been consistent in keeping even Senator Obama off her show, this is likely because of her outright involvement in his efforts to become president.

But now that there is an equally compelling candidate, Sarah Palin, running on the GOP ticket, it makes sense that people want to know more about her.   Oprah played a central role in introducing Senator Obama to America, and then she openly endorsed him for president.

But now America wants to meet Governor Palin, and Oprah’s refusal to bring her on the show will certain create some level of backlash.  As I said, messy.

Today, James Taranto who writes a column, Best of The Web Today, for the WSJ hit the nail on the head when he observed that “‘Community organizer’ is to Barack Obama what ‘war hero’ was to John Kerry.”  Despite that insightful comment, most of us, including Mr. Taranto, would still love to know what it is a “community organizer” does.

Last night, Governor Sarah Palin attempted to lift the veil on this mystery when she commented that “a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.” Oh! No, still don’t get it.

What does the digital oracle, Wikipedia, have to say on this mystery?  Well, even this repository of ultimate knowledge would not provide a definition for “community organizer,” but it does offer some insight on the process of “community organizing”:

Community organizing is a process by which people are brought together to act in common self-interest. While organizing describes any activity involving people interacting with one another in a formal manner, much community organizing is in the pursuit of a common agenda. Many groups seek populist goals and the ideal of participatory democracy. Community organizers create social movements by building a base of concerned people, mobilizing these community members to act, and developing leadership from and relationships among the people involved.      

Great stuff!   I’m enlightened.  And you know what; Wikipedia even goes on to list Barack Obama, among others, as a “famous community organizer.”  

Except for one small thing.  What did the Senator organize?  What did he bring people together for?  What were the goals of his community group and, how successful was he in acheiving those goals?  The almight Wikipedia was vague on this.

You know, of course, that if Governor Palin has made even one small error as mayor or as governor, the press will report on it in endless minute detail.  Already the Washington Post has highlighed a reduction made by Governor Palin in the money allocated to a shelter for pregnant teens.  I don’t know if they ever mentioned that the amount was reduced from what was budgeted in previous years or if it had been reduced only from what the Alaskan senate had recommended. Either way, it was a front page article for the Post.

So, have any journalists ever looked at Obama’s community organizing activities?   As a matter of fact, the Nation had this to say about Obama’s community organizer efforts:

Then he [Obama] got a call from Jerry Kellman, an organizer working on Chicago’s far South Side for a community group based in the churches of the region, an expanse of white, black and Latino blue-collar neighborhoods that were reeling from the steel-mill closings. Kellman was looking for an organizer for the new Developing Communities Project (DCP), which would focus on black city neighborhoods.   Obama, only 24, struck board members as “awesome” and “extremely impressive,” and they quickly hired him, at $13,000 a year, plus $2,000 for a car–a beat-up blue Honda Civic, which Obama drove for the next three years organizing more than twenty congregations to change their neighborhoods.Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama–and hundreds of other organizers–did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. 

What does Senator Obama have to say regarding his experience as an organizer?  Here’s a telling quote:

“I can’t say we didn’t make mistakes, that I knew what I was doing,” Obama recalled three years ago to a boisterous convention of the still-active DCP. “Sometimes I called a meeting, and nobody showed up. Sometimes preachers said, ‘Why should I listen to you?’ Sometimes we tried to hold politicians accountable, and they didn’t show up. I couldn’t tell whether I got more out of it than this neighborhood.”   

While I appreciate the Senator’s desire to do what he could for others, the question remains; is this a core pillar of Obama’s experience which qualifies him to be the next President of The United States?  Not only do we know unequivocally that Senator Obama’s efforts failed, the senator isn’t even sure if got more out of it than the neighborhood!

This goes a long way towards explaining why Senator Obama would rather compare himself to Governor Palin, does it not? It also explains perfectly why the McCain Campaign is happy to make this comparison.  

You see, even if grant, for a fleeting moment, that “community organizer” is somewhat akin to being a mayor, in Wasilla Alaska, there are 9000 residents who are glad to tell you that their “community organizer with actual responsibility” succeeded in her job.  Whereas, Senator Obama would have to concede that he failed in his.

Republicans LOVE this lady.  What’s not to love?

Democrats have been bragging for two years now that we wish we had someone like Obama in our party.   Guess what; we do!  Her name is Sarah Palin.

Just in the first couple of minutes of her speech, you can see the Governor is a natural.  She looks like she’s been doing this her whole life, sounds natural and confident.  Her only challenge so far is that people are cheering so much that she had to wait about five minutes to begin her speech!

I was reading an article today by Ann Coulter who said that “the best man turned out to be a woman.”   It’s no secret that Ann doesn’t like Senator McCain.

A VERY interesting line from Governor Palin who was talking about small town people who “grow our food, run our factories, fight our wars and are ALWAYS proud of America.”  Could that be a bit of a response to Michele Obama’s comment some time ago?

Governor Palin also told a great joke.  “What’s the difference between a hocky mom and a pitbull?  Lipstick!”

The word that springs to mind repeatedly as you listen to Governor Palin is “authenticity.”  As she talked about her guiding political philosophy, you can see that she is crystal clear in what she believes.  She doesn’t need a teleprompter for this part of her speech.

She joked about putting the former Governor’s luxury jet up for auction on eBay.  Or was it a joke?  Hmmmm.

Palin talks about how she has, so far, vetoed almost half a billion in state spending.  She talks about her initiatives to reform various parts of the state government, and the start of a natural gas pipeline to assist in helping the US to become energy independent.  She makes an excellent case for why we must move in this direction.

Interesting comment from Palin that Obama has authored two major memoirs but not a single major piece of legislation.  She then reminds people that Obama can give a whole speech about wars and never use the word “victory” except to talk about his own campaign.

I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps Governor Palin could beat Obama all by herself.  After Senator Clinton’s speech, supporters asked the question, “why isn’t she on the Obama ticket?”  After this speech by Governor Palin, Republicans will be asking, why isn’t she the ticket?”  I feel very certain of that.

Could someone please draw a cartoon showing Senator McCain being helped across the finish line of a race by Governor Palin?  She might just carry him across where he could not ever have crossed the line by himself.

McCain’s opponents wanted to knock Palin out of this race as quickly as they could.  They just failed.

Mayor Guliani came out with a great line tonight.  He said, reminding people of Senator Obama’s theme of “change” that, “change is not a destination as hope is not a strategy.”  A perfect response to this mindless insistence for some kind of ethereal change.

About ten minutes later, Guliani went through a litany of issues where Senator Obama has changed.  He committed to public financing, then rejected it.  He spoke out against wiretapping laws, then voted for them.  When speaking to a Jewish group in Florida, he said he supported an undivided Israel, then said something completely different the next day.

Then Guliani said, “if I were Senator Biden, I would get the Vice President thing in writing.”  Hilarious.

He went on to discuss more changed positions from  Obama, then suggested that, the next time he was unsure of how to decide on issues of foreign policy, he should call McCain.  Ouch!

Guliani’s speech overall is terrific.  Lots of humor, some biting wit, some excellent statements which I think highlights perfectly both McCain and Palin’s experience.

Final point, which is exactly right; Guliani asks, “how dare they question whether Governor Palin, as a woman, can take on the position of Vice President?”  Exactly.  Is this the early 21st century, or are we living in the 1950’s again?

This video regarding some of Obama’s statements and commitments is turning viral.  Trust me, it’s a must see. 

   

First of all, unlike our current Vice President, Sarah Palin, the future Vice President of The United States is a MUCH better aim.  Secondly, from what I’ve seen on the Internet, the Governor is also adept at using a laser-sighted rifle.

Food for thought. 

(And of course I’m joking!)

One fascinating trend I’ve observed since Senator McCain formally introduced Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a shift away from comparisons between Senators Obama and McCain to comparisons between Senator Obama and Governor Palin.  “Well,” supporters say, “Senator Obama has much more experience than Governor Palin.”  “What foreign policy experience does she have,” they ask.  And you can often hear the question, “why in the world would Senator McCain choose a  one-term Governor and former mayor 0f 9000?”

It’s as if the shock of Senator McCain’s pick has driven liberals in general and the lefties of the nutroots in particular into a near-murderous rage. But that does not change the fact that since McCain unveiled Palin as his pick for VP, the McCain/Obama comparisons immediately ceased to be replaced with the Palin/Obama comparisons.

Here is an example of how subtle this trap has become for Senator Obama.  Here’s an excerpt from an article posted today in the “political ticker” section of CNN.com:

In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, Obama was asked about whether his experience in the U.S. Senate dealing with weather-related situations compares to Palin’s executive experience running the state of Alaska and as the small town mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We’ve got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

Senator Obama is being asked by the media to compare his experience to Governor Palin’s.  Even worse than answering this question is the fact that Senator Obama doesn’t even mention her experience as governor at all.  Instead, Senator Obama talks about Governor Palin’s mayoral experience, which is the worst possible thing that Obama could do, as you’ll learn in a few moments.

This is all to the good if you are a McCain/Palin supporter.  The reason why it’s good for those of us who support the McCain/Palin is that It’s based on a fundamental principal that Senator Obama has yet to acknowledge and, therefore, does not understand.

If you’ll remember, it was Senator Obama, after one of the early Democratic debates, that insisted he would sit down with any foreign power for diplomatic talks without precondition.  He refused to acknowledge that, for the most powerful nation in the world to sit down with, for example, a terrorist-supporting dictator of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gives that person a certain stature they would otherwise never have achieved.

Now, Governor Palin is not a dictator.  Rather, she is a hugely popular Governor who managed to take down the two most powerful political dynasties in Alaska.  With that said, she was not tapped to become a presidential candidate.  She is McCain’s Vice Presidential pick, and the obsession that Obama supporters have demonstrated does two things for the McCain/Palin ticket:

1. It unites the party base firmly behind Senator McCain in the same way that the impeachment hearings against President Clinton united his party behind him.
2. It lowers Senator Obama’s stature in a very subtle way, the same way it would lower this nation’s international stature to bargain with Iran if they were to suddenly demand talks.

The point is that Senator Obama is being compared with the Vice Presidential candidate, which enhances Governor Palin’s stature and lowers Senator Obama’s.  And it makes Senator McCain seem to be a candidate with no peer, because Obama supporters are treating Palin as if she is the peer in this contest.

Here is the biggest problem for Senator Obama; none of this is his doing.  To his credit, he has been leaving Governor Palin alone until he and his advisors can think of the best way to deal with her addition to the campaign.  But there are many Obama supporters, including liberals in the media and the nutty netroots, who are showing no such restraint.

These people are forcing the comparison and thus damaging the Obama Campaign’s efforts to portray the Senator as the best candidate to be the next president.  What can Senator Obama do about this?

No idea.

For those who have enthusiastically supported the selection of Governor Sarah Palin to be McCain’s VP, it was rather a tough day.  Today Governor Palin announced that one of her daughters, 17-year-old Bristol, is about five months pregnant.

According to the Palin family, Bristol is engaged to her boyfriend and the baby’s father, and they have asked for the same kind of privacy often afforded by the media to family members of political figures.  To his credit, Obama stated publicly today that he agrees with this and thinks that family members are off-limits.

The problem, however, is not anyone on the Obama Campaign or in the mainstream press.  The problem comes from some of the most radical of the left-wing bloggers who love to start salacious rumors about any conversative for whom they feel threatened.

So, shortly after Governor Palin appeared with Senator McCain last week, the lefty blogs were already engaged in hurtful debates over whether Governor Palen’s young baby, Trig, was really hers.   These losers speculated that the baby was actually Bristol’s, and her mother claimed that she had the baby to cover up this embarrasing secret.

Well, the good news is that the whole world knows for a fact that Trig is indeed Governor Palin’s child.  The bad news is that we know this to be true because Bristol is five months pregnant with her own child.

There is already a new line of attack on Governor Palin.  This personal attack centers on whether Palin is a proper mother to her children.  You see, Governor Palin was travelling when her water broke and labor began with Trig.  But she didn’t panic, rather, she called her doctor, finished her business, then got on a plane and returned to Alaska to have her baby.

Of course, if Governor Palin were a Democrat and radical right bloggers were questioning her judgement as a mother, the mainstream media would pick up the story immediately.  Not so if you’re a Republican.

Why attack someone like Governor Palin, who is so obviously a great leader and Governor?  To discredit her as quickly as possible of course.

If you haven’t noticed, one thing that liberals began to do from day one of McCain’s announcement is to run Obama against Palin.  You see, Obama vs. McCain is a big problem for their campaign.  Obama vs. Palin, however, is much more of an even match.

And by trashing someone like Palin, who immediately energized Republicans across the country, they are trying to blunt the positives she brings to the McCain Campaign.  At worst, if the McCain-Palin ticket wins in November, those on the left hope to so hurt her image, that running for President in the future would be nigh impossible.

This is all very sad, and quite transparent.  The problem for these lefties is that this whole revelation about Palin’s daughter may well insulate the Governor against even worse attacks.  To have this kind of thing happen now is very likely a blessing in disguise.