Blogs For Victory

Amie Parnes and Ben Smith put a bright face on what may end up quite a catastrophe for Obama, Hillary and the Democratic Party:

Rep. Loretta Sanchez says she’s happy for the chance to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Democratic National Convention — and she predicts that as many as half of the Democrats in the House could join her.

Just how many former Clinton supporters will vote for the former first lady during the symbolic first ballot is anybody’s guess, but each of them will be called upon to do so — whether they want to or not.

On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call…

…For Obama’s camp, the roll call is a ritual that will defuse any potential tension with Clinton or her supporters without affecting the outcome or the theater of Obama’s dramatic nomination.

Said Sanchez: “I believe there are a lot of supporters for Hillary among the superdelegates, especially now that they’ve agreed to place her name in nomination. I think half the House Democrats would probably be Hillary supporters, especially women. … I felt she was the most experienced and the best candidate and I still feel that way.”…

…“It’s a bizarre strategy,” said one Democratic strategist of the roll call. “It could backfire and show that her influence is waning. Chances are, she’s not going to have as many delegates vote for her on the floor as she had in the primary.”…

…“My boss is totally conflicted about it — and pissed Hillary is putting us in this position,” said a congressional staffer for another New York House member. “We still haven’t made up our mind and I don’t know when we are going to.”

Another New York delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, predicted that as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of the New York delegation would pick Clinton over Obama during the symbolic vote.

Obama’s decision to accept a roll call vote, which came after weeks of talks with the Clinton camp, doesn’t mean he’ll let the process get out of hand, observers say.

“The convention is about nominating Barack, so his people want to speed through the vote as fast as possible so it won’t take too much TV time,” said a Democratic delegate who plans to vote for Clinton. “They also want to avoid a scenario where she’s leading at any point.”(emphasis added)

I highlighted “symbolic” because I’d like to point out that its not symbolic at all – they are real votes being cast at a real convention. The last bit I highlighted shows the danger – the delegates can pretty much do what they want, especially the super delegates, and while the official word is that it’ll just run smoothly through the roll call, the fact of the matter is that no one knows for certain what will happen.

Don’t forget: Obama did not want this roll call. In fact, I’m extraordinarily surprised he allowed it and I can only explain it as a gigantic error on his part, or a subterranean current of pressure from super delegates growing increasingly doubtfull on Obama’s long term prospects. When you add together the disappointment a lot of Clintonites feel, Obama’s inability to generate any significant polling lead over McCain and Obama’s disasterous appearance at Saddleback, the ingredients are all there for the super delegates to come to the realisation that they’ve picked the wrong candidate. Also good to keep in mind that the Clintons never do anything other than actions they believe will advantage themselves – they didn’t set up this roll call in order to help Obama.

There’s really no other way to put this:

A quick reading of the measure that will go before San Francisco voters in November to decriminalize prostitution easily could leave you with the misimpression that the measure is an exercise in fairness that demands that prosecutors go after men who abuse prostitutes and implement policies “to reduce institutional violence and discrimination against prostitutes.” A careful reading of the initiative, “Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers,” however, shows a measure that shields child prostitution and traffickers of human beings.

“If I had just heard from the proponents, I would probably vote for it myself,” said the Rev. Glenda Hope, whose San Francisco Network Ministries helped found the Tenderloin AIDS Resource, in the mistaken belief the measure is meant “to protect women.” But as the executive director of SafeHouse, a residential center that helps women get off the streets, Hope knows too much.

…the San Francisco ballot measure completely ignores the prostitution of children. The measure simply states, “Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.” Astonishingly, there’s no exemption that encourages police to enforce the law for minors.

If the measure passes, the city is likely to become an international haven for pimps who peddle girls and boys, and perverts seeking sex with minors.

And where does that leave Bay Area youth? “They want new and young,” Jasmine, a former teen prostitute from Oakland who now volunteers for the nonprofit SAGE Project, which fights sexual exploitation, explained to me.

Thus the tail end of the sexual revolution – a ballot measure to allow men (and it will be almost exclusively men) to legally procure boys and girls for sexual gratification. When you de-couple sex from marriage and child-rearing, this is precisely what you get as was predicted back in the 60’s when the concepts underlying the sexual revolution first gained a mainstream foothold. This is absolutely no surprise at all – its digusting, but not a surprise. The piece goes on to note that some are expecting the ballot measure to pass rather handily as San Francisco is a “sex-positive” city – meaning, presumptively, that there is so much selfishness and demand for personal gratification that San Francisco may very well cut itself entirley off from civlization and descend to a level of depravity untouched since the worst of Nero.

You see, back when it was first seriously proposed that we de-stigmatize pre- and extra-marital sex and all manner of sexual deviation those who opposed it weren’t just a bunch of squares with sexual hang-ups who just didn’t want anyone having fun. Not, it wasn’t like that at all – the concept was opposed because it was already known what would come of it. It was known – not guessed-at, not theorised over; known. This is because, waaaay back when, Christianity was (among other things, of course) the cure for a society which had allowed sexual licentiousness to descend to such a level that child-bearing and -rearing was considered a burden and personal sexual gratification trumped all, no matter how sterile and un-fulfilling it steadily became. Christianity knew this in 60, 560, 1060, 1560, 1960 and will continue to know it in 2060 – sex is a powerful thing, and unless carefully contained within proper limits this great gift becomes a taskmaster and a means of self-destruction.

And now San Francisco proposes to legalise the worst of it – because people want it and want it now and exactly how they want it and everyone else can go to Hell as far as they are concerned, San Francisco may do this horrible thing. And then we’ll await the inevitible lawsuit, claiming that the right to privacy means that not only San Francisco, but the whole nation must turn a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of youth. How it will come out will remain to be seen – unless, of course, it turns out there is some remaining level of human decency in San Francisco and this terrible, anti-human initiative is defeated.

UPDATE: And the Democrats endorse.

Barack Obama, after a disastrous appearance on Rick Warren’s forum, decided to step up criticisms of John McCain, saying the U.S. economy is a disaster thanks to “John McCain’s president, George W. Bush.”

First, let’s correct señor Obama, on the economy. The economy was enjoying record growth until the Democrats took over Congress. Since Barack Obama’s party took over, gas prices have skyrocketed, and that has had the most significant impact on the economy. The Democrats promised to lower gas prices. They didn’t deliver. The Democrats fought for an increase in the minimum wage. Those of us who understand economics said it would cost jobs. Guess what? We were right. The economy has started losing jobs thanks to the Democrats minimum wage hike.

Sorry Obama, the poor state of the current economy belongs to you and your party.

Second, President George W. Bush is our president, not just John McCain’s. He’s our president and commander-in-chief. I am a proud supporter of President Bush. I donated to his reelection campaign. I started a pro-Bush blog in 2003 that became one of the most successful political blogs of the 2004 campaign season. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. He’s my president, and yours, and he’s the president of every single American citizen who reads these words I’m writing.

I don’t agree with everything President Bush has done, but he’s been a greater President than Barack Obama could ever dream to be. Obama is nothing without a teleprompter and a speechwriter.

I think that Russia’s adventure in Georgia just might turn out to be a fiasco:

Ukraine offers satellite defence co-operation with Europe and US

The proposal, made amid growing outrage among Russia’s neighbours over its military campaign in Georgia, could see Ukraine added to Moscow’s nuclear hitlist. A Russian general declared Poland a target for its arsenal after Warsaw signed a deal with Washington to host interceptor missiles for America’s anti-nuclear shield.

The move came as the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a cease-fire deal that sets the stage for a Russian troop withdrawal after more than a week of warfare with its neighbour Georgia.

Russia has created a mountain of crisis, looks like it will obtain a mole hill of territory, and has angered just about everyone in Europe. Not a very slick move on Putin’s part. The analogy here is the Agadir crisis of 1911 – Germany stamped on its neighbor’s foot and the only real result of the aggressive act was a stronger anti-German alliance.

One thing we have to keep in mind here is that Putin and his gangsters aren’t all of Russia. While we do have to react in various anti-Russian ways, we must always keep the door open to more sensible Russians who may be able to force Putin out at some future date and re-set Russia on the patch of democracy.

Oh, as an aside: don’t you lefties who fought so hard against SDI feel like, well, a bunch of stupid fools? You know, like a bunch of suckers who fell first for communist propaganda about it, and now have fallen for Putin’s semi-fascist propaganda about it? Man, its gotta suck to be wrong about everything, all the time.

When it came to the issue of abortion during the forum with Rick Warren yesterday, Barack Obama, unwilling to stray far from the pro-abortion platform of the Democratic Party, gave a pathetic non-answer a question about abortion:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Let’s face it. Barack Obama is pro-abortion. He can’t pretend he’s not. Democrats try to soften their pro-abortion views by say thing they want to reduce the number of abortion or unwanted pregnancies, but that doesn’t change the fact that at the end of the day, they support abortion, even partial-birth abortions, and actively seek out money and support from radical pro-abortion groups. Barack Obama is no different, and values voters won’t be fooled.

I missed all of Obama and part of McCain, but the part I saw of McCain was very good – clear, humorous at times, willing to stake out strong positions. While I don’t want to comment too much until I have a chance to read the transcripts, I thought this news report interesting in the contrasts between the two men:

DALLAS – U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who followed Obama onto the stage of the nationally televised event, was more blunt and more emphatic.

He said a baby’s human rights began “at the moment of conception … I have a 25-year pro-life record.”

Sorry, but that was a bit gutless on the part of Obama – he either believes an unborn child has no rights (and thus that elective abortion is ok), or he believes that the unborn child has rights (in which case he would have to switch to the pro-life side, and thus not be nominated in Denver). Obama’s dodge on the issue is a disgusting bit of political gamesmanship – he doesn’t want Joe Average to understand the fanatic pro-abortion positions he’s staked out but he also doesn’t want to give even a hint of pro-life opinion for fear of angering that tiny, but noisy and well-funded, minority in the Democratic party who view abortion as some sort of sick sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.

McCain, on the other hand, went right at it and told everyone where he stands – you might disagree with McCain (and he’d be the first person to say thats ok with him), but you can never oppose McCain because you are unsure of what he believes. In my view, always take the man who has the courage to stake out a position – even a wrong position is better than refusal to take a position.

UPDATE: Mark Hemmingway over at NRO’s The Corner chimes in:

I don’t want to get to overheated about what occurred tonight, but I do think McCain had a clear and decisive victory over Obama. It all comes down to something that Phil Bredesen, the Democratic governor of Tennessee recently said about Obama: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”

By that standard, McCain did extremely well and Obama did very poorly. McCain’s answers were direct, confident and, most importantly, serious. When asked about what leaders he would consult as president, he first suggested Gen. Petraeus, architect of the surge, who he correctly praised as one of America’s all-time great military leaders. By way of contrast, Obama suggested he would seek out the advice of a typical white person, er, his grandmother and his wife Michelle, who’s still trying to decide whether she’s proud of her country.

When asked “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?,” McCain answered “At the moment of conception.” Obama’s answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

That spectacularly inept metaphor is going to haunt Obama throughout the rest of the campaign. News flash: There’s not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States.

As I said, I didn’t see any of Obama – anyone here see Obama and have a comment on his performance?

Rather strange world we live in:

The executives of a gay sex site are apparently more concerned about the perception that they’re associated with John McCain than McCain is about the association with them.

The chairman of the board of Manhunt, the Cambridge-based hookup site, was forced to resign after reports that he gave $2,300 to McCain.

Manhunt co-founder Larry Basile e-mailed the blog Towleroad:

It should be known that Jonathan Crutchley’s donation to McCain left the entire Board in disbelief. I am disappointed that we have lost some customers, and I understand the anger. It is too bad for the web site if we lose customers, but PLEASE never refer to me as a Republican. I consider it an offense.

Earlier today, at the request of the Board, Jonathan has stepped down as Chairman.

McCain’s campaign hasn’t responded to questions about the $2,300 contribution.

Crutchley defended it on similar grounds to those McCain has offered on other hot-button social issues: They agree on national security issues, and can argue domestic policy later.

Being a Republican is offensive, but running a gay sex site is peachy keen? Interesting.

Outside of the rather odd view of morality, the more important issue here is the rank intolerance on the left – I mean, it doesn’t appear that the guy was advocating for McCain on the website…he was just exercising his right to support the candidate of his choice, and for the leftwingers who run the site, that was a crime (how do I know they’re lefties? Oh, come on….). This is the hatred we refer to when we speak of the “hate filled left”…the intolerance is astounding, as if politics is the most important thing which happens.

With its money:

The dollar surged to a two-year high against the pound and a six-month peak against the euro on Friday, as fears about spreading economic gloom triggered a sell-off in commodities.

Against sterling, the US currency notched up its 11th consecutive day of gains – its longest uninterrupted rise in more than 35 years – as markets became increasingly convinced that the US was best-placed to weather the global downturn.

The strong dollar rebound undermined sentiment in the gold market, where prices fell below $800 for the first time this year to $774.90 a troy ounce, almost a quarter lower than early March’s record $1,030.80.

Prices for crude oil, platinum, copper, aluminium, corn and soyabeans have also retreated from records hit this year, prompting speculation that commodity prices have reached a turning point.

“The golden age when commodity prices could only go up is gone,” said Marco Annunziata, chief economist at Unicredit.

Military tensions between Russia and Georgia have offered little support to the price of gold, while oil prices have continued to fall in spite of interruptions to two key pipelines carrying crude from the Caspian sea to Turkey.

The long-running surge in commodities and resulting inflationary pressures had been a main factor in slowing global economic activity – playing a bigger role than global financial turmoil, for instance, in the eurozone. The eurozone economy shrank in the second quarter for the first time since the launch of the euro in 1999, while Japan’s economy contracted 0.6 per cent, its worst performance for seven years. The US staged at least a modest recovery in the same period.

Uh, lefties, its because our taxes are lower and our welfare system less fabulously expensive.

What we need to get out of this slump is just more of the same – lower taxes, more personal responsbility, more reliance upon faith-based groups to provide welfare…McCain offers this; Obama offers the complete failures of Johnson and Carter as the “remedy” for what ails us…

Unsurprisingly, Lincoln Chaffee is one of them. As is Jim Leach (who supported sending Dhimmi Carter as an envoy to “broker peace” between Israel and the Palestinians). And Rita Hauser.

Wait a minute–who is Rita Hauser?

Glad you asked.

A professor coming to Columbia University this fall to head up a Middle East studies institute has said that killing armed Israelis is legitimate Palestinian “resistance” to occupation.

The money Columbia is using to pay the professor comes in part from Rita Hauser, a high-profile New York philanthropist whose former law firm was a registered agent of the Palestinian Authority. Also contributing was a foundation with close ties to Saudi Arabia.

So, a message to Team Obammesiah: You want these three self-loathing, mental midget clowns to head up your “GOP for Obama” contingent? Fine. They’re a great match for your self-loathing, America-blaming platform.

You can have them, with shouts of “good riddance,” to boot.

Take all the RINOs you want.

We never claimed them to begin with.

Just a bit amazing that such a person could be exposed enough to the Christian message to become a convert:

Masab-Joseph Yousef, a son of prominent West Bank MP Sheikh Hassan Yousef, has discussed his conversion to Christianity in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Praying that his family will “open their eyes to Jesus,” he expressed love for his enemies and claimed Muslims’ conversion to Christianity is the only way to have a chance for peace in the Holy Land.

Yousef, 30, said his first exposure to Christianity came in Jerusalem about eight years ago, when he was invited to learn about the faith. He converted four years ago, but did not tell his father. “For years I helped my father, the Hamas leader, and he didn’t know that I had converted, only that I had Christian friends,” he said to Haaretz.

His father, Sheikh Yousef, was a founder of the extremist group Hamas in the West Bank and was imprisoned for several years for his membership in the organization.

Masab-Joseph Yousef, the oldest of eight siblings, was expected to take an active role assisting in the political work of his father, whom he claimed is opposed to killing civilians. He characterized the Israelis’ arrests of his father as very influential events in his life.

“I only knew that the Israeli army had arrested my father repeatedly, and for me he was everything: a good, loving man who would do anything for me. He took care of us, bought us gifts, gave of himself, whereas the soldiers entered our house and took him away from me.”

Arrested at the age of 18 for his leadership role in his high school Islamic society, Yousef told Haaretz he discovered in prison that most Hamas members were not as admirable as his father.

“Their leaders in prison received better conditions, such as the best food, as well as more family visits and towels for the shower. These people have no morals, they have no integrity,” he said, alleging Hamas leaders also embezzle money meant for widowed families.

Yousef, who now lives in California, described how an invitation to learn more about Christianity led him to convert.

“I was very enthusiastic about what I heard. I began to read the Bible every day and I continued with religion lessons. I did it in secret, of course. I used to travel to the Ramallah hills, to places like the Al Tira neighborhood, and to sit there quietly with the amazing landscape and read the Bible.”

“A verse like ‘Love thine enemy’ had a great influence on me,” he continued. “At this stage I was still a Muslim and I thought that I would remain one. But every day I saw the terrible things done in the name of religion by those who considered themselves ‘great believers.’”

I am reminded of St. Francis’ project to end the Crusades by converting the Islamic world to Christianity, on the theory that it is better to make Christians than destroy Moslems – it didn’t work, of course, but not for lack of trying on St. Francis’ part. A very different world would it be had success crowned his efforts…

Aside from that, the story here is important because it shows that cross-cultural understanding between Islam and Christianity is possible. Someone looked past Yousef’s background and decided to introduce to him a new idea, and the courage that person showed has been rewarded by the development of a man who not only doesn’t kill for his religion, but can’t even comprehend the concept any longer. We need not fight each other forever, provided we recognise our common humanity and see in the other person another glorious creation of God, and not an enemy.