McCain may be a good Republican (not necessarily a good conservative) but he needs to pass himself off as a moderate Republican so that the misguided Democrats who are in a fret from having a strong Democrat drop out and having one actually have a flying chance at winning. Bush may be trying to shore up support among Republicans, but all he's doing is tying McCain to himself, even though McCain made the first move.

Which brings me to another point -- is Big Media full of idiots? Well... yes. I think, much like Big Oil and Big Pharma, we shall start calling it Big Media. I like that. Anyway, as stated above, McCain came out with it first, not GDUBS. Besides, no matter how much they like to associate McCain with Bush, they are separate people. In fact, they ought to lighten up on McCain a bit -- remember the McCain-Feingold Immigration Bill? That was not the conservative thing to do, and hardly what Bush would've done (though he is weak in that area.)

Back to Big Oil... after McCain and Bush (here embodying the Republican train of thought, and hopefully that of all sane Americans) pushed for a end to the ban on offshore drilling, the Democrats struck back.

[Let me interject here that ending the ban on offshore drilling wouldn't make it a free-for-all. It would just end the federal ban on it so that coastal states could decide for themselves. That way, eco-nut Calis who don't have any oil could rail against the man while reasonable Gulf Coast states could boost their economies and help lower fuel costs by keeping it in America.]

The Democrats, whom I was beginning to give the benefit of the doubt, never ceased to amaze me. They called for nationalizing the nation's oil refineries!

I could not believe it. I was dumbfounded.

They propose acquiring private property and running it? It's beginning to look like the Dems actually believe in a mommy state that'll always take care of them. Aside from Welfare and Medicare and this proposed socialized health care, now they want to take over a service to which there is no alternatives?

The government can't do anything right. Take the passport thing where you have to have one to come into the US from Canada or those other assorted countries. Do you know how long it took me to get my passport? Well, neither do I, because I still haven't gotten mine back!

If they can't get me a passport in a reasonable amount of time, how are they going to maintain enough gas at a cheap price when they aren't allowing hardly any to be produced domestically? We pay a large tax on gas to keep our roads nice. I can assure you that PA's roads suck.

I'll pay $4.00 a gallon to keep it out of the government's hands. This was not in the Constitution, which provided for a small government in which all powers not specifically delegated to the feds goes to the states. That's been conveniently overlooked, eh?

These Democrat monsters, these idiots, want to slap windfall taxes on oil companies. You tell me how taking away more profits from them will make our prices go down? It's always been shown that the taxes get passed on to the consumer. Americans want to stick the oil companies in the eye, but taxing them (which will be passed back to the consumer) is not the way to do it. You have to stop buying their product. I'm not going to prospect on what should be done there in this blog.
 
Oil companies are making record profits this year. That's terrible, especially when they are raping Americans. Know what? I want to remove taxes from Big Oil. Let's give 'em a tax break. I believe Exxon Mobil pays near 41% in taxes. That means that 41% of the money they take in goes straight to the government -- they don't even see it. On top of that, they have to take out for overhead and $1xx-a-barrel crude. They still manage to turn record profits. That's how to run a company.

Exxon Mobil pays $27 billion dollars in taxes (on $67.4 billion in taxable income at 41%).  They pay as much taxes at the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers... that's 65,000,000 people. They pay 3% of their adjusted gross income, which is taxes of $27.4 of $922 billion. That's right -- Exxon Mobil pays as much as taxes as half of American taxpayers. You want to give them more, and expect to see gas prices go down?

Look, I'm willing to give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt. The problem is there is nothing left to doubt.

-Ze Baron

...wants change, and he'll take it from your pocket.

America blames the President for America's problems. Next time there's not toilet paper in a public bathroom: "God DAMN America! It's all your fault, George Bush!" You've probably worked with people like that. Well, you roll your eyes at them when they blame everything on G-DUB even when there isn't any conclusive evidence.

George Bush shot a cruise missile at the Pentagon! The WTC had bombs in it! George Bush hired local Amish to excavate the land in Somerset to look like a plane crash! Dick Cheney shot JFK! George Bush rigged the gas station's pumps!



Look, sorry, he's not the root of all our problems. He's been a little more impulsive that most of our Presidents, but the reason he gets all this blame, methinks, is because he's the public solo face of government that people can point at while they curse and moan about their problems.

How long, about, has the economy been wobbily and the media has been going bonkers about it? One, maybe two years? Back when this presidential race kicked off, just after the 2006 elections, immigration and the war were the hot-button issues. But now it's the economy and global warming with gas prices tying in to both.

Wait, what? Did I just say the 2006 elections? Yes, that's right, the election when the voters easily swayed by what's on Headline News in the last week rejoiced that Democrats won the majority. Yes, the election when the Democrats seized the Senate and the House from the GOP's clutches.

Is there, perhaps, a connection? The economy tanked almost entirely since the Democratic Congress took office. How about a steaming cup of proof with your flabbergasted pancakes?

The Dow Jones hit 13,000 around April 29, 2007. The new Democrats took office on January 3 (House) and January 3 (Senate).They'd barely had their offices redecorated with blue curtains and hadn't had the chance to mess up any legistalation yet (they have two and six years, respectively.) Now, 2008, after they sat down and shuffled papers, what have we got? Gasoline that is flirting with $4, a housing catastrophe (or so they say), high(er) unemployment, a huge drop in home equity, and a financial crisis that has finally been popped with 1% of homes in foreclosure.

So, how about this little diddy I snagged off a blog:

In just one year .  Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

<http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/04/since-the-democ.html>

Yeah, that's right: A Democratic Congress sucks more than Bush. Nancy Pelosi was going to "clean house" but she did no such thing. *sigh*

President Bush's all-time lowest approval rating is 28%. As of May 14th, he sits at 29%. That's funny, though, because Congress's has dipped to 18%... only the fourth time in Gallup's history any Congress's approval rating has dropped below 20%. Pathetic. Good thing that 2008 is a Congressional election year too.

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx>

It all comes back to Barack Obama, our cotton-candy politician. Democrats can elicit all degrees of excitement from the people who gather their only information from TV media who have to make it exciting for ratings. Republicians are not so good at that, but look what happens after the initial newness. The Democrats are just bumbling around while Bush is still plodding along actually getting things done.

Did you see that bill that one of the arms of Congress was voting on? It was some sort of global warming bill that is meant to lower America's overall emissions by like 66% by around 2050. Well, this is going to make gas prices go higher and higher and higher. Say, who's proposing the bill? Did you know that G-DUB is threatening to veto the bill?

Barack Obama is just like Nancy Pelosi and her band of bloodsuckers. After the initial brouhaha dies down, it's just an utterly pathetic deflation and we're left with Democraps.

More on the Democratic primary endgame forthcoming.

-Ze Baron

What an election this is turning out to be. Hillary and Obama have both managed to hold on this long, constantly bickering back and forth. The media is counting Hillary out. TIME magazine, to which I subscribe, is counting Hillary out. Ann Coulter, my bemusing conservative compatriot, is counting Hillary out. But I'm not!

Right now it is 1588 to 1462, Obama's lead. She's only 162 delegates behind! From my understanding, there are about 250 superdelegates floating around either neutral or undecided. There's also about 174 delegates from states yet. Now, granted, the Democrats' system where the winner doesn't take all will sustain Hillary but will make it hard for her to beat Obama. On top of that, the superdelegates are awfully greasy. It's hard to get your hands on one and it is even harder to hold on to it, as Ms. Clinton has been noticing as of late.

The good news for Hitlery is that a Rasmussen poll puts her at 56% over Obama's 27% in West Virginia, the next state to vote with 28 delegates. A SurveyUSA poll puts Hillary over Obama 62% to 28% in Kentucky that has 51 delegates for grabs, up after WV. Oregon, the largest prize left, has 52 delegates available with Obama 51% Hillary 39%.

The way that is explained is that Hillary has a big lead in each a medium and large state, while Obama has a small lead over Hillary in the biggest state. Buckle that with the fact that Hillary has two states but a deficit and you've got a hell of a race. That doesn't even make mention of  South Dakota and Montana with admittedly small amounts of vital candidates.

A Gallup poll puts Obama at 48% and Hillary at 46% nationally for the nomination. That hardly discounts this as a blowout race in which Hillary should drop out! I'm shocked at the axe job she's gotten in the media recently. It's not even a sizable lead at all, especially when Gallup cites a ±3 percentage points margin of error! Theoretically it could be Hillary 49% Obama 45%.

Even though I love Rush Limbaugh's idea of Republicans voting for Hillary (for which this post is entitled, which apparently paid off for her in Indiana), and I love the idea of splintering the Democratic party, this race needs to be fought to the convention unless there is a clear leader. I'm really interested to see how it turns out if it is indeed fought to the convention, though.

Last time the Democrats were in such a fuzzle it was 1968, and you see how that election went for them with Richard Nixon winning the presidency. This bodes amazingly well for John McCain, who doesn't have much support from hard-right conservatives and thereby doesn't have a secure holding on the GOP voter bloc, not to mention that it would have been unimaginable for a Republican to have a flying chance in 2008 looking at the race from 2005, 2006, or even most of 2007.

This gives him time to let the public get sick of a Democratic candidate, whichever wins the nomination, by having another Democrat rip him apart, saving McCain time, money, face, and attacks on his own character. He's just happily watching from the sidelines, raising funds and whatnot.

Even if a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, well, gosh darn it, I like him! I'd rather have a war hero Senator in the White House with a pretty wife than a lawyer with a scandalous hubby or a lawyer with an unpatriotic wife. That, and he's a Republican! Look, God handed this race to the GOP on a silver platter with the divided party, the Republican candidate Democrats can vote for, and an early sealed nomination, even in spite of a very rough-looking political situation that GW left us.

So eat, drink, and be merry... the forecast looks good in November.

-Ze Baron

Ahh, yes, the sweet smell of hypocracy in the morning!

I'm not voting for Barack Obama. He's a dirty negro.

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton. Her place is in the kitchen.

How does that sound? Doesn't it make me sound so arrogant? That's because that sort of talk is bigoted. Whoever talks like that has another thing coming. Somewhere Hillary Clinton was, I think it was getting off a plane, some man repeatedly yelled, "Iron my shirt!" As much as I hate Hillary, that's despicable.

I think discrimination on anything that a person has no control over -- such as sex or race -- is discrimination in the highest form. What gets me, though, is something of a different matter.

Jesse Jackson endorsed Barack Obama as his candidate of choice. We know Jackson's rash behavior when it comes to racism... what does it say about the endorsement?

The Alabama Democratic Conference recently endorsed Obama, providing him with a key black endorsement. A county commissioner involved was quoted as saying Clinton was most likely to win in November "because of her husband and because of some other things, mainly because she's white." What does that say about the endorsement?

The National Organization for Women (NOW) endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. Their Political Action Committee calls it "Make History With Hillary." What does that say about the endorsement?

Isn't it racism or sexism to endorse someone solely on those traits? What makes liking someone based only on those traits any better than disliking someone only on those traits?


The NAACP has confused me this election cycle. The California NAACP endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for 2008. I can only assume that they slipped up and actually endorsed a candidate that they might agree with. Then again, this isn't the national NAACP.

People have criticized John McCain as being too old. At least AARP doesn't have such an agenda.

-Ze Baron

I haven't yet finished it, but I'm very near. It's great so far!

Bob Hope explains to us the difference between zombies and Democrats... or the lackthereof.