HUCKABEE ATTRACTS A DIVERSE BASE OF SUPPORT

[GET THE "FRESHEST" HUCKABEE AND "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" POSTS HERE]

Governor Mike Huckabee's detractors (mainly the slash-n-burn negative campaign artists affiliated with Fred Thompson and the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney and the Eastern elites of GOP "attack" radio) have repeatedly attempted to frame "Iron Mike" as the "Evangelical candidate" or someone who only appeals to "religious right Evangelicals."

[Of course, these many of these same attackers would also charge that Governor Huckabee wasn't a "real" conservative -- notwithstanding his 10.5 years of solid Reagan-style conservative governance in Arkansas.]

Huckabee's supporters know better.

The Values Voter Blog has an "essential" post anecdotally rebutting the myth that Huckabee's supporters are all extracted from some right-wing Southern Baptist clone factory.

While the whole post is recommended reading for the well-informed, the most compelling reasons for why Governor Huckabee garners enthusiastic support (despite all of the "headwinds")from many diverse corners:

"Of all the 2008 Presidential Candidates, Mike has the most experience of actually running a government. I deeply respect the work of a U.S. Senator, but there is a significant difference in literally making decisions 'by committee' and being the person who is solely responsible for making sure that things get done. Mike is the only remaining candidate who actually has that experience."

"We all want a President who will bring us together instead of dividing us further. Mike was a popular Republican governor in a heavily Democratic State. He became governor just four years after Bill Clinton left office. In a state that was largely run by Democrats, he was re-elected until term limits made him ineligable for further re-election. In a country where most blacks will not vote for a Republican, Mike received 48% of the African American vote. And in a highly divided, "us vs. them" country, many people who held very different views on social issues than Mike still found themselves liking him and believing that he is a good man and an effective leader."

These comments highlight "Iron Mike's" clear RECORD of being able to "disagree without being disagreeable" and of accomplishing strongly conservative objectives against the "headwinds" of Democratic opposition.

In short, that's leadership!

A lot of candiates talk about being "uniters."

Barack Obama claims to be some sort of a post-partisan candidate. Yet Obama's website is loaded with radical left-wing proposals that, if pushed for adoption, will drive deep wedges into our political system.

Once Obama actually has to start actually pushing some of the radical details of what he apparently stands for, "Obamamania" will morph into just another partisan war lead by a glib, but vastly inexperienced commander. If fact, once Obama disposes of Hillary in the primaries, a fair level of his alleged "Republicans for Obama" support will evaporate almost instantly.

Nothing in Obama's anorexic record remotely suggests that Obama can jawbone through a radical leftist agenda without becoming a de facto partisan.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman reminded his readers today that even Jimmy Carter adopted this rhetoric. Governor Huckabee's shoestring campaign, Iowa upset victory and background as a Southern Governor has prompted a few GOP elites to falsely suggest that "Iron Mike" would be "another Jimmy Carter."

Yet nothing in Jimmy Carter's hyper-partisan career suggests that he somehow transcended the partisan divide.

John McCain is criticized by some conservatives as a "maverick" for his abandonment of many points of the Bush Agenda after the brutal 2000 election campaign and his open attempts to court Ted Kennedy and other Democratic liberals for a number of controversial bills.

While McCain is clearly a better choice for "Commander-in-Chief" and "Leader of the Free World" than a neophyte such as Obama, and even likely a stronger leader than the malaise-prone Carter, McCain neither has the record of executive success, nor the natural speech skills of Mike Huckabee.

That's why Mike Huckabee is attracting such enthusiasm from across the GOP, even if they've already told us the "fix is in" for McCain.

Adam's Blog points out some "Huckamath" problems with the conventional "McCain-has-it-wrapped-up" spin.

And "Voteforhuckabee" has the following brilliant rebuttal of the Romney-ian/Elite GOP/McCain chorus for Huckabee to quit:

Quit urging Huckabee to drop out! If he is 100% dead as you claim, then tell McCain to start his national campaign - why worry about some insignificant washed up nobody? But thats not the case is it? The fact is, Huckabee could very easily rack up another 5-7 states before this is all over. Huckabee isn't McCain's problem, THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP VOTING for Huckabee are McCain's problem! The thing is, you can't make people stop voting for the other guy, you can only ask the other guy to quit."

"McCain's supporters are literally shouting from the rooftops that their candidate is incapable of winning the required amount of delegates without Huckabee dropping out."

Huckabee, of course, as this blog has pointed out in several posts, is performing a valuable function for the process of selecting a nominee as well as holding fast to his promise to his loyal supporters.

Doing what you promise--now that's a novel concept for politics!


A BRIEF WORD ON "THE ICEMAN AND THE ISEMAN"

The pundit world is marveling at how the McCain spin machine outmanuvered the New York Times on the VickiIseman tale of innuendo and unidentified sources. And certainly the "movement conservatives" were correct to point out that the New York Times story was virtually unsubstantiated and from a source dedicated to promoting a left-of-center, anti-Republican agenda.

But the real questions surrounding the tale of the "Iceman (McCain) and the Iseman" involve the McCain camp's prior suppression of the story. John McCain's handlers apparently believed that GOP voters were not "adult" enough to evaluate the Vicki Iseman situation during the early primaries. If all the facts are on McCain's side (which Speedzzter has no reason to doubt) why wouldn't McCain want these facts to come out at the earliest possible time.

Another curious detail is that Vicki Iseman, according to reports linked to the Drudge Report, had "lawyered up." Hiring a lawyer, of course, is hardly evidence of any guilt and the right of any citizen. And having a lawyer help navigate highly politicized waters is generally a good idea. But if Iseman really has nothing to fear from the whole truth coming out, is a lawyer filtering the truth really necessary?

The apparent fact that Mr. McCain may have put himself into a questioned situation with a young, relatively attractive lobbyist may have been a lapse in judgment. And some on the left have already jumped at the chance to rip the Republicans for more "family values hypocrisy", based on McCain's reputed tumultous personal life and the wisp of smoke from the Vicki Iseman story.

But, anyone who has spent any meaningful time at all in legislative politics realizes that it is almost impossible to avoid casual associations with lobbyists and constituents with less-than-sterling records. After all, legislators are "public persons" and the work of policy-making should be a mostly public affair. Assuming that there is no "hanky-panky" between "the Iceman and the Iseman," McCain probably should have been a little more circumspect in avoiding an appearance of impropriety.


Trackback linkhttp://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!325.trak and Trackback link http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/trackback/203

HUCKABEE "MESSES WITH" THE DEMOCRATS IN TEXAS

[NOTE: GET THE LATEST COMMENTS ON HUCKABEE'S RUN HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]

According to news reports, Governor "Iron Mike" Huckabee delivered the following remarks to a huge, enthusiastic crowd in Plano, Texas:

"I know there's some wonderful rhetoric floating out there from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But you need to ask yourself, do you want your taxes to up or go down?"

"Down!" the crowd shouted.

"Do you want us to protect life or disregard human life?" Huckabee asked.

"Protect!"

"Do you want us to have a strong military or do you want to drop the guns and run for your lives?"

"Strong!"

"My friends, I believe we ought to be on the offense and not the defense when it comes to terror. I believe mothers and fathers raise better kids than governments ever will. Governments ought to get off the backs of parents. I am convinced that the best government is the most local government. We don't need Washington telling everybody in Texas how to live, let Texas decide those things for themselves. And the fact is, there's one candidate in this race who's run government and been chief executive and that would be me."

WATCH "IRON MIKE'S" PLANO TEXAS RALLY HERE!

While John McCain is vowing to "go to war" with the newspaper that endorsed him before the New York primary (the New York Times) over a mostly rumor and innuendo "bimbo erruption" story and is debating an unconservative public campaign financing deal with flyweight Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee continues to lay down the gauntlet for REAL REAGAN-STYLE TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM.

Although Mike Huckabee has been dogged by the front-loaded, winner-take-all primary schedule and the corrosive influence of the Gucci Chameleon, Bishop "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney's $42 Million Dollar attack war (egged on by the out-of-touch Eastern elitists of GOP "attack radio" and Romney's paid surrogates at the radical "Club For Growth"), Huckabee has "stuck by his guns" in using the "bully pulpit" of the 2008 nominating campaign to spread a powerful traditional conservative message.

Should McCain falter or should the surge in his "bimbo war" with the New York Times turn badly, Mike Huckabee still stands tested and ready.

He's simply doing exactly what he has promised to his loyal supporters: He's staying in until someone has 1191 committed delegates. And he's focusing on the traditional conservative issues that matter most to REAL Main Street, America-First Conservatives.

Mike Huckabee is a valuable and exciting component to the national conversation over the future direction of the U.S.A. He should be commended for continuing to give voice to the concerns of traditional social conservatives.

The "Values Voter" Blog has has an interesting analysis of the odd dynamics of 2008's unreasonable primary schedule:

"In contrast to McCain, all of former Governor Mike Huckabee's wins have come in states where a Republican must win in order to win the General Election."

"The bottom line is pretty clear: McCain has a huge lead largely because of voters who are not representative of the those who have given the GOP its most recent victories. And one additional issue is evident. Ability to attract swing voters is not such an asset in states that have a prolonged history of voting for Democrats during a year in which there are two popular Democratic candidates and an unpopular Republican President. And when the popular leading Democratic candidates is showing unusual strength in places where the leading Republican candidate needs to win but is not winning by much, it spells trouble in November according to the current course."

Mike Huckabee staying in the race is critical to preventing John McCain and the GOP platform from "drifting" too far in the "Blue State Republican/swing voter" direction. Without a strong conservative like Mike Huckabee keeping John McCain "honest," McCain could be lured too far to the left by his increasing engagements with Barack-the-crock Obama. At least one blogger, Sunlit Uplands, has identifed 10 serious risks where McCain drift could be an issue.

It is important that "Iron Mike" Huckabee continue to champion the traditional conservative issues that might be ignored if the campaign switches too early into a vote-buying contest with the "Tammany Hall" Democrats.

Still some self-important "conservative" wonks are slathering on the ad hominem attacks against "Iron Mike."

The so-called "Conservative Post" blog calls Mike Huckabee "the Huckster" and compares him to an unwelcome party guest that won't go home, a "crazy uncle," and a "clown." Then these pontificating "guardians" of conservative orthodoxy question the honesty and sanity of Governor Huckabee:

[HUCKABEE:] “Let me assure you that if it were about ego, my ego doesn’t enjoy getting these kinds of evenings where we don’t win the primary elections,” Huckabee told reporters at a Little Rock hotel.

“We’re really going against an incredible headwind every day, and what I have to remind individual voters is that their voice and their vote still counts. Nobody can take that away from them unless they just give it away,” Huckabee said.

[Conservative Post] "This guy is delusional… it is all about his ego. Like McCain, now that he got a taste of the National lime light, he doesn’t want the media attention to stop. He thinks he’s being clever - using the campaign to strengthen the Huckabee brand. What he doesn’t understand is that timing is everything in politics and show biz, and he’s missed his peak. Every day he says in the race, the guy just looks more and more like the clown he’s turned out to be…"

This vapid, ad hominem-laced "analysis" ignores the obvious fact that -- unlike any of the other candidates for the GOP nomination -- Mike Huckabee has energized a critical constituency in the Republican Party.

When self-appointed thugs like the "Conservative Post" spew their bile calculated to "gatekeep" the primary and convention process, they aren't just attacking Mike Huckabee. They are attacking millions of voters who believe that voting for Mike Huckabee is both a sacred right and a solemn privilege of citizenship.

Moreover, if in fact the "Conservative Post" is really conservative, why aren't they celebrating that SOMEONE is STILL drawing huge crowds of electrified primary voters to hear a strongly TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE? Why shouldn't the voters in Texas, Ohio and elsewhere have a real campaign and a real opportunity to vote their consciences?

Is the Republican party now so monolithic and uniform that there is no room for debate or elections?

The ridiculous, juvenile attacks of the "Conservative Post" on Mike Huckabee are inaccurate, shameful and beneath the standards of proper conduct for the Republican party. However, the "Conservative Post" telegraphs its apparent disloyalty through the following "web poll:"

"Should Conservatives Bolt the Republican Party to Form Their Own Party?
Yes, Enough is Enough!
No, I Like Compromising my Principles"

Their are no other alternatives in the "Conservative Post" poll.

"Iron Mike" Huckabee, unlike the "Conservative Post" is commmitted to supporting the GOP nominee . . . even if it's not Mike Huckabee.

BARACK OBAMA: NOT AN ALTERNATIVE FOR TRUE CONSERVATIVES

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH" HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]


Senator and former GOP presidential candidate Sam Brownback (R-KS) is sending out a targeted solicitation on behalf of the RETORE AMERICA PAC** that raises a number of succinct points about why true conservatives could never vote for Barack Obama:

"It appears more and more likely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President. Charisma and eloquence are nice qualities to possess, but this is not a man who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Look at some of his positions:

--Earlier this week, Obama voted against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This would severely undermine our intelligence gathering capabilities in the war against radical Islamic extremists.

--Obama has voted against a bill protecting homeowners from being sued by burglars they shoot in their own homes.

--Obama would implement the largest tax increase in American history - by not making the Republican tax cuts permanent.

--Obama has voted against Illinois's version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This act is designed to protect those babies who survive an attempted abortion.

The first of these four makes our homeland weaker. The second makes our Constitution weaker. The third, our economy weaker. And the fourth makes us all weaker. . . ."

"Just as dangerous are the Democratic members of the House and Senate who agree with him. Teddy Kennedy is the Chairman of the Senate Health Committee. Barbara Boxer is the Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee. Barney Frank is Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. And Charlie Rangel is writing our tax code as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee."

All the feel-good babbling and "hiding the ball" in the World by the charismatic and glib Obama will not change the fact that an Obama presidency would be nothing short of a wholesale abandonment of conservative principles of limited government, individual responsibility, Federalism and strong National security.

An Obama presidency would pack the judiciary with liberal trial lawyers and true believers in anti-Constitutional judicial activism.

An Obama presidency would lead to a loss of many traditional freedoms and a vastly more expensive and intrusive Federal bureaucracy.

Whatever the weaknesses of the eventual Republican nominee, he will be ONE THOUSAND TIMES better for America than a rampaging, thinly-experienced leftist with unquenchable taste for "activisim" and "change" on the brain.

Conservatives must fight this with their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor."


**Speedzzter does not endorse the "Restore America PAC" or any other political action committee.

CONVICTIONS PROPEL MIKE HUCKABEE

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH" HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]

Although the paid pundits have declared the GOP race over and even presumptive Democratic front-runner Barack Obama has weighed in on his expectation of McCain the GOP standard bearer (through a USA Today request for an "agreement" on public financing of the general election campaign), Mike Huckabee hasn't quit.

According to mikehuckabee.com:

My candidacy is, and always has been, about convictions – and the issues and core values that are critical to our country’s future, such protecting traditional marriage, the sanctity of life, individual empowerment and a revamping of our federal tax code to encourage productivity. It’s about lifting Americans up, from hope to higher ground, with a positive vision for America’s future that is grounded in a belief in our nation’s basic goodness, and defined by a ‘can—do’ spirit that knows how to gets things done. My goal is to offer Republican voters, a voice and a choice in this election."

"The last four out of five U.S. Presidents have been governors, and there is a reason for this: the challenges facing our nation require steady, experienced, executive management. As governor of Arkansas for 10 ½ years, I delivered on my promises to cut taxes 94 times, reduce welfare by half, reform health care for children and our education system, and transform our transportation infrastructure. My record of results, achieved with a Democrat legislature, gives a meaningful viability to my candidacy."

"There are millions of Republicans from across this country who have yet to be heard from. Clearly we were disappointed by the results in Wisconsin, but I look forward to campaigning hard in Texas and Ohio this week – and taking my case before the good people of those states."

Mike Huckabee is an honorable man who would, in other times and under other circumstances, be a very competitive choice for the Republican nomination. He is clever, articulate, and a traditional "Reagan conservative (notwithstanding all of the Elite GOP "attack radio" slanders of his Arkansas record).

Under the current GOP rules, however, the compressed process, the winner-take-all nature of several states and even the odd order of the primaries and caucuses have inordinately distorted the process against Governor Huckabee and similarly situated candidates.

Without either pre-existing national name recognition (i.e. John McCain) or a huge ability to self-finance (i.e. the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney), it is virtually impossible to be competitive for the Republican nomination.

Although the Republican party would fancy itself as a "meritocracy," the odd results of the 2008 primary season suggest something else.

Unlike the times of Abraham Lincoln, when a little-known but highly-committed candidate could "barnstorm" and debate his way to the top through old-fashioned "retail politics", the modern Republican nomination process is designed to grossly inhibit competition and limit choice.

Thus it has produced a front-runner with little tie to the GOP base. However, the process may have unwittingly yielded a "presumptive nominee" with more appeal to non-Republicans than to the card-carrying rank-and-file.

In stark contrast, the Democratic primary, with arguably fewer built-in advantages to early victors and more proportional voting, has yielded a contest wherein both "finalists" are so beholden to their left-wing bases, electability in the general election is suspect.

Neither system is remotely perfect. The nominating system of both parties is too biased toward limiting choice and producing a rapid result.

However, if the goal is to vet the most qualified, most representative, and most competitive candidate (regardless of pre-election fame or financial resources), Mike Huckabee and his loyal supporters probably have a legitimate "beef" against the present GOP nominating process.

OBAMA: INCREDIBLE "LITENESS" OF BEING

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH" HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]

The professional pundits say Barack Hussein Obama has the "Momentum" in the race for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.

Obama's amassing a growing string of primary victories over Hillary Rodham Clinton (in actuality victories over a latter-day "Ma and Pa Ferguson" team of Slick Willie "hisself" and his not-staying-at-home-baking-cookies-but-still-standing-by-her-philandering-man wife).

Obama claims to have over 500,000 financial contributors.

Obama's breezy and grossly undetailed rhetoric have inflated him into a "movement" and a "rock star" in what is essentially an "Affirmative Action" contest of personality for the Democratic nomination.

[Speedzzter terms the Democratic contest an "Affirmative Action" primary because neither of the two finalists really have a long record of political accomplishment, which used to be de rigeur as a qualification for a serious chance to be elected to the American Presidency.

Instead, both Obama and Hillary have based their strength on a potent mix of:
(a) appealing to the covetousness, class envy and fears of the underperforming segments of the electorate;
(b) narrowly targeting the incremental "progressive" hopes of the various liberal special interests that animate the Democratic party; and
(c)packing in an elephant-sized "metamessage" of racial/sexual identity politics.

Accordingly, for much of the more casual elements of the Democratic electorate, a vote for either Hillary or Obama is a vote for the general concept of a woman or a "minority" man as a president. As one octogenarian WWII veteran recently explained his electoral affection for Hillary to the press, "I'm tired of being ordered around by men."

The assumption behind the concept of an "Affirmative Action" president is the same as one of the underlying assumptions behind "Affirmative Action" itself -- that somehow elevating a person of a different racial/sexual "identity" to a position of authority will result in a more "diverse" set of outcomes.

Of course, the "fly in the ointment" of this theory is that problems such as national security and the national economy revolve around universal issues which have virtually no relationship to the race or sex of the decision makers.

Thus, the motivating force behind an "Affirmative Action" primary is more about emotion than about any rational expectation. To paraphrase the great civil rights orator Martin Luther King, Jr., the "content of " an potential nominee's "character" should be overwhelmingly more important than the "color of" the nominee's skin or the nature of the nominee's reproductive equipment. ]

The exit polling wonks have determined that Obama has succeeded in "breaking out" of attracting votes from his assumed inherent "identity" constituencies (young, college-educated liberals and voters of the Negro/"Black"/African-American/"persons of Color" race (notwithstanding the irony that Obama is a mulatto of actual "African-African" linage who has no claim whatsoever to the collective experience of American slavery)). Obama is "breaking into" "Clinton Country" -- the old-time, traditional base of FDR's Democratic party (blue collar union members, Caucasian men and women).

Obama is apparently slipping away with enough of Hillary's assumed inherent "identity" constituencies (namely, women, "White folk" and bitter old retirees) that some predict that the primary race will be "over" if Mrs. Clinton doesn't make a comeback in Texas and Ohio.

In less time than it takes to pay off a 60-month auto loan, Barack Obama has risen from a "present-voting" Illinois state legislator and former South Chicago "community activist/organizer" to contending to become the Leader of the Free World.

I guess Pappy Speedzzter (R.I.P.) was correct when he said "You'll never go hungry if you can TALK to the public . . . ."

Frankly, Speedzzter hasn't paid much attention to the Democratic race because the election of either Obama or Hillary would prove an unmitigated disaster for automobile enthusiasts and fans of motorsports.


According to Obama's campaign website, "Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years."

Apparently, that means that he supports an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard from the recently-enacted 35 miles per gallon to SEVENTY miles per gallon! (Even if Obama merely wanted to "double" the old CAFE standard, he'd be imposing by big government mandate a FIFTY-SIX miles per gallon average on all light vehicles sold in the United States of America)

Such radical fuel economy proposals would plunge the world of high-performance and sports cars into an age of banishment far worse than the "dark ages" of the 1970s.

A tiny three-cylinder turbo diesel would be the "Shelby GT 500" or "Dodge Viper" "musclecar" of the Obama age of government-controlled motoring.

If "motorist voters" still remain skeptical of Obama's intention to destroy all semblance of automotive freedom in America, his next proposal ought to remove all doubt: "Obama supports implementation of a . . . system to reduce carbon emissions by . . . 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."

Such a "system" would undoubtedly target the new and used parts supplies for keeping "classic" and "special interest" motorcars on the road (if not the vehicles themselves) as energy-thirsty industries sought to "offset" industrial uses of power through "cap and trade" deals. Chevron's infamous car crushing program of the early 1990s is just a harbinger of what's sure to follow if "President Obama" attempts to roll back energy use to EIGHTY PERCENT LESS than 1990.

"Motorist voters" can be forgiven if they assume that Hillary would be a better alternative. During "Pa Ferguson's" . . . uh . . . Bill Clinton's presidency, CAFE was stable and the widely feared return to the heavy-handed Naderite days of skyrocketing Federal vehicle regulation did not materialize.

Bill Clinton even rejected the first "creed " of the emerging environmentalist "religion" of "global warming:" the Kyoto protocol.

But Hillary's announced anti-automotive freedom plans are no better that Barack Obama's for motoring enthusiasts.

Like Obama, Hillary also wants to cut "greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050."

Moreover, "Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in 'Green Vehicle Bonds.'"

One suspects that a "Green Vehicle" handout would not include retooling for big-block V8 crate engines . . . .

Speedzzter must observe than NO CANDIDATE in the 2008 presidential race is a deregulating free marketer with respect to automotive issues. Every remaining candidate has, at least, genuflected at the "altar" of global warming. No candidate has called for the end of CAFE, elimination of de facto protectionist vehicle standards, the reigning in of market-narrowing state/regional automobile regulations or other market-based reforms.

But the radical schemes proposed by Obama and Hillary are "worst case scenarios" for all of the automobile-based hobbies and thousands of small businesses which serve automotive enthusiasm and motorsports.

Given that much of the American electorate would come down on the "VW Beetle" side of the "automotive values" debate which initially emerged during the end of the "First Musclecar Era" of the 1960s, and the vast majority of voters have no clue whatsoever about the technology required and the compromises necessary to make good on the unrealistic dreams of Obama and Hillary, it is unlikely that "motorist voter" issues will become a major force in the 2008 election.

Thus, stopping the radicalism of the Democrats must be accomplished on a broader basis.

AS OBAMA INCREASINGLY LOOKS TO BE THE WINNER OF THE DEMOCRATS' "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" PRIMARY, THE INITIAL QUESTION THAT EMERGES IS WHY DOES BARACK OBAMA HAVE APPEAL TO A BROAD CROSS-SECTION OF AMERICANS?

Barack Obama, notwithstanding his various "present" attempts to avoid votes on some issues, is documented as the "most liberal senator" in America.

However, instead of forcefully arguing the case for liberal, intrusive government, bigger social programs and more taxing and spending, his present campaign strategy is to fog soaring rhetoric about "change" with hardly any specifics (other than a near-immediate withdrawal (e.g. surrender) in the Iraq War.

(Cynics wonder if an expectation of $200/barrel oil borne out of Middle East chaos is an inherent assumption to the success of Barack Obama's 80%-less-energy-use-than-1990 scheme)

Some would argue that an honest, overtly and unappologically liberal candidate cannot be elected in a nationwide plebiscite in America. Thus, the Democrats over the past two decades have mastered "Rope-a-Dope" strategies to bury the details of their liberalism in a haze of buzzwords, policy scams and deceptive rhetoric.

The strategic buzzword of the Clinton era was "triangulation."

Hillary's problem with Bill's triangulation is that it trends to moderate compromise and apostasy on essential liberal values.

For example, some say "triangulation" led the first Clinton to support such things as the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was contrary to the normally protectionist bent of the union faction of the Democratic party. Moreover, many in the manufacturing job losing states of the "Rust belt" directly connect the free trading "Wal-Mart" presidency of the 1990s with the explosion of Communist Chinese goods on the shelves at their local Wal-Mart.

Then about a decade later they see former Wal-Mart board member Hillary Clinton and predictably, if not reasonably, expect that she will follow the same internationalist policies which the trade unionists believe have caused the US to export "good middle class jobs" faster than the U.S. exports virtually any other commodity.

Obama is not encumbered with such baggage.

Clintonian triangulation has also led Hillary to be a flip-flopper on the Iraq War.
Obama can honestly claim he was a denuded "surrenderist" from inception.

Obama's central "Rope-a-Dope" seems to be charming everyone into a socialist utopia based on the shear force of this public speaking prowess.

Instead of focusing on policies (which pursual of the candidates' respective websites shows minimal substantive disagreement), Obama's vague and inspiring rhetoric has sought to turn this contest into the equivalent of a nationwide student counsel election.

Thus, the billowing, aromatic clouds of prose emitted by Obama do not focus on the divisive liberalism at the core of his agenda. They make the style and symbolism of Obama the issue.Instead of stone-cold reality , he preaches a feel-good, post-modern gospel of "change" and "unity."

The advantages of such an approach is that it lends itself to an electorate with an MTV video span of attention. It's demagoguery calculated to generate good feelings and to gloss over the very real and deep disagreements that separate.

The obvious disadvantage to this approach is summed up by Alfred North Whitehead: "We think in generalities, but we live in DETAIL."

Obama's personality-based rhetoric does accurately paint the failure of the 1960s generation that Hillary represents. "Woodstockers" such as Hillary railed against the institutions of the 1960s. However, their naked quest for power transformed their myopic and somewhat self-centered "social righteousness" into little more than an inconsistent "lip service" on carefully selected issues of liberal social concern. The "boomer" liberals simultaneously adopted the bulk of the institutional "normalicy" and stability they had once protested against (between bong hits and occasions of "free love.") and salved their collective guilt by showy acts of charity (paid for with other people's money). Hillary is emblematic of this compromise: A little suburban child of the Republican 1950s who became intoxicated by the intellectual "crack cocaine" of the 1960s college campus, but then settled down to a fairly prosaic life as a "conscientious" corporate lawyer, a political machine insider, and -- ultimately --a carpet-bagging, coat-tail-riding politician who franks on the name of her famous (or infamous) husband.

The rhetorical genius of Obama is that he apparently can call out the blatant hypocrisy of the Baby Boom liberals (and Hillary Clinton in particular) without sounding shrill or offensive. After all, his identity lays claim to a fair amount of the hopes and dreams that catalyzed the initial social upheavals of 1960s anti-institutionalism.

Obama pragmatically doesn't expressly focus on the liberal left's agenda of "diversity and perversity." For example, he doesn't provide the specifics of his dream to transform the United States Armed Forces into a tax-payer funded combination of an anti-poverty jobs program and a swinging San Francisco bathhouse.

(Of course, given the fact that Obama version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is apparently "don't ask" the Military to win and "don't tell" them to go fight in most of the places where the bad guys actually are (excluding fantasy insertions of a few "special forces" into Pakastan to arrest Osama Bin Ladin), the need of the U.S. military to remain a professional, cohesive and highly-effective fighting force is substantially reduced).

The "liteness of being" embodied by the cotton-candy empty speeches of Obama is carefully calculated to clandestinely "comfort the afflicted" without unduly "afflicting the comfortable." While Obama's stump talks contain the minimum daily requirement (for a Democrat in a Democratic primary) of carefully-crafted class-warfare appeals, Obama pontificates on and on about being a "different kind" of politician who is a "uniter."

Obama's speeches sound almost as if the original ad writers for GM's Saturn ("A Different Kind of Car, A Different Kind of Company") decided to plagiarize a handful George W. Bush's 2000 stump lines. Of course, Obama's delivery is "Denzel Washington" to Bush's "Don Knotts."

Obama has thus far succeeded in creating a huge adolescent crush.

Such an emotional and juvenile outpouring of affection is actually somewhat appropriate given the political assumptions of the modern Democratic party.

Young Democrats seem to be seeking a "parent government."
Not a dogmatic, rigid, responsibility-demanding 1950s kind of "parent," but a groovy, "cool" "parent" who will buy kegs, pick up all the bills, do most of the hard lifting, and require little in the way of intrusive personal piety or accountability. . . . The sort of "parent" who believes it has no authority to question corrosive pollution of our cultural environment but has near absolute power of life and death over natural "pollution" from carbon dioxide.

The triumph of Obama's style over substance is aided and abetted by his ability to project a "tabula rosa."

A "blank slate."

Obama almost seems like a "shape shifter" who can "be" whatever the beholder wants him to be. No one would confuse him with John Wayne or some sort of tough-as-nails "man's man." Obama himself is a wispy figure. Lank and lean, he seems almost like the sort of "kool everyman" that folks falsely projected onto popular entertainment figures such as the androgynous Michael Jackson (before he devolved down into the morass of plastic surgery, alleged pedophilia, and other assorted weird manias).

The wispy rhetoric from this wispy man also resonates with the post-modern confession of the nominally "Christian" sect to which Obama adheres: the "United Church of Christ."

[Full disclosure: Speedzzter would be adjudged to be a "Christian fundamentalist" by the liberal religionists who claim not to "judge" anyone. Speedzzter believes without apology that "It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. . . . Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4: 10, 12]

The UCC is an "affirming" bunch.

It is primarily focused, not on "saving souls" or teaching fealty to the Bible, or even expanding the size and influence of the church, but on a selectively enforced, redistributionist social "justice." Traditions of personal piety and conventions of doctrinal orthodoxy take a back seat to the "greater good" of "authentic" lives and permissive expressions. "Evil" in the World -- to the extent such a concept remains intellectually viable in the hyper-intellectual post-modern age -- is outsourced to institutions, circumstances, and allegedly artificial social constructs. External structural forces, not fundamental human depravity on the individual level, are the enemies of a self-actualized humanity in the UCC mind. The balms of reeducation toward a socialist mindset and to "tolerance" are the antibiotics of the UCC world view.

Obama's particular UCC "parish" reportedly has a more Africanist culture. However, nothing in the reporting suggests that it measurably strays from the UCC's "affirming," benevolent, "enlightened" band of social "justice" seekers.

Of course Obama's entertaining pabulum is appealing to a whole host of failures, flops and flub-ups.

For those slackers who have spent the last decade implanted onto a bong, or some other escapist device instead of applying themselves, the prospect of a benevolent "parent" government who will collect up all of the bits and pieces from our private "over-revs," knock back down the cohorts who have invested their time and efforts more wisely, and which will guarantee a minimum standard of living (at the expense of the overpaid achievers in society) is attractive.

To those who see "justice" and "fairness" as a games of trial-lawyer piracy and government-enforced "Robin Hood," Obama's "affirming" oratories undoubtedly seem highly enlightened.

To those who desire to excuse, outsource and offshore personal failure and missed opportunity, Obama's views undoubtedly resonate.

To those who existentially believe that "truth" is what happens to work at the moment, Obama is beyond question a visionary.

And for those who posit that intimate, non-economic activities between "consenting adults" do not EVER matter (as long as they occur on all-natural fiber, union made beds (or in hybrid cars), the participants recycle any byproducts, and the quantum of non-renewable energy consumed is less 80% of the 1990 level), Obama is almost messianic.

The "liteness" of being from this post-modern mulatto demagogue, however, will eventually come up against the harsh reality that political divisions in America are based on something more substantial than personal style.

Moreover, just voting "present" won't cut it.

Millions of conservatives are unwilling to quietly acquiesce to an even more bloated government that is "strong at home" and weakened abroad. Scores of demonized special interests couldn't care one whit about any "new tone" in Washington, D.C. These entrenched interests (including a majority of those who naturally support the Obama campaign) enjoy the periodic pleas to unity, but are grounded in the realpolitik of open warfare.

Eventually, Obama will have to produce something other than secular sermons calculated to entertain the "choir" of an adoring fan base and media. Eventually, Obama's talks will need to produce something of substance.

PENSKE DODGES SPOIL TOYOTA CORONATION AT DAYTONA

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH" HERE (http://speedzzter.blogspot.com)]


The Fiftieth running of the Daytona 500 stayed “on script” for about 499 miles.

The non-production, purpose-engineered and built Toyota V8s had a reported 30 horsepower advantage over Chevrolet’s non-production, purpose-engineered and built “R07" engines (at least according to the horrendously shoddy Fox television broadcast of the race).

Apparently some were "more equal than others" in this year’s “Great [Nippon-]American Race.”

Toyota’s sudden engine prowess seemingly propelled the Joe Gibbs “Toyota Camry” funny-cars of Kyle Busch, Tony Stewart and Denny Hamblin to the front of the pack at will. Even formerly uncompetitive ham-n-eggers such as Michael Waltrip suddenly had almost “lead at will” ability in their stocky, common-template “Car of Today” “Toyotas.”


Tipping their hand, Toyota had snatched all but one of the four preliminary races run starting Thursday.

The “common-template-Toyota” funny-cars had an air of “inevitability.”

The lone non-Toyota-powered victor up to that point was the overwhelming fan favorite Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Earnhardt, now in a Hendrick Motorsports “Chevrolet” funny-car, benefitted from the assumed momentum of an organization which captured 18 of 36 “points races” in the Grand National . . . err . . . Winston . . . uh . . . Nextel . . . um . . . Sprint Cup in 2007.

[One would forgive the casual sports fan from missing the irony in that some of the longest motorsports races in the World during the longest professional sports season in the World as being for the "Sprint" Cup. At least it's not the Viagra Cup . . . yet]

Junior also basked in the week-long glow of a win in the pre-season NASCAR all-star race.

The hapless Fox broadcast spent most of the pre-race mostly ignoring a couple of dozen legendary past Daytona 500 drivers and beautifully restored American stock cars (nary a Japanese car among them), assembled apparently to yield an ersatz note of historical legitimacy to how the third generation of the France Family has systematically ruined “stock car” racing in America.

But the Fox pre-race show did build up the legacy, legend and fortunes of Junior, as expected.

Of course, to make sure that nobody missed the importance of the Earnhardt "brand" to the "modern" NASCAR, the France family made sure to thrust what looked like the 1998 race-winning No. 3 Chevrolet of the late Dale Earnhardt, Sr. dramatically out from under the performance stage and into the race-groupie crowd during the pre-race ceremonies.

The sum of the Earnhardt mania literally brought paid Toyota shill Darrell Waltrip to tears in the broadcast booth. (Waltrip then babbled some "Inside The Intimidator" anecdote about the Bible book of Proverbs, apparently not realizing that 98% of his handlers back in non-Christian Japan wouldn't have the slightest idea what he was rambling on about).

Thousands of fans in freshly-minted green & white “Junior 88" gear probably viewed Earnhardt, Jr., as the last hope for loyal Americans to beat back the “inevitable,” NASCAR-ORDAINED Japanese invasion of “the Great American Race, and temporarily save another tradition from being sullied by the money-grubbing hands of Brian France.”

And as it was, the “Fiftieth Renewal” of the Daytona 500 did appear to be a Tokyo rout for most of the afternoon. Joe Gibbs “Common-Template-Toyota” funny-car driver Kyle Busch (dumped from the Hendrick uber-team last year) “was on a mission,” spending 86 of 200 circuits in front of a bland, common-template car & driver field.

"Indiana" Tony Stewart, apparently seeking a “free haircut” in victory lane from the fawning motorsports press (NASCAR’s de facto outsourced public relations department), got his Joe Gibbs “Common-Template-Toyota” funny-car straightened out and was at the front for the denouement.

"Smoke" Stewart's surge was almost as if scripted to give the Gibbs traitors and the Tokyo invaders a touch of All-American Apple Pie "cover" for what was shaping up to be a certain object lesson as to just how far Detroit had fallen during the past five decades.

(Never mind that the never-been-production Toyota “engine of tomorrow” is a bizarre compacted graphite iron and aerospace aluminum concoction borne of computational fluid dynamics, thousands of dynamometer hours, and millions upon millions of dollars to make a “contemporary” single-cam-in-block, pushrod/rocker arm/two-valves-per-cylinder racing engine inside of an arbitrary, almost-luddite rules “box” that could have been drafted in 1955. Also never mind that the chunky “Camry” funny-car traces its engineering linage through such obscure parts as 1960s Chevrolet half-ton truck trailing arms, 1950s Ford “Nine-inch” third members, and 1960s-era four-speed manual transmissions ).

One wonders had NASCAR's selective abhorrence of technology not begun stultifying the adoption of modern original-equipment developments in 1957 (fuel injection, supercharging, turbocharging, overhead camshafts, multiple valves, IRS, etc.) whether the Japanese invasion of America's streets and in motorsports would have progressed as far as it has.

Almost the only respite from the first three-and-a half hours of “riding around” (occasionally punctuated by one of NASCAR’s infamous “debris cautions” thrown about the time everyone needed a pit stop anyway) was a spate of Chevrolet ads touting that even though everything in Junior’s world had changed, he was still loyal to the Bow-tie brand (i.e. still cashing multi-million dollar checks from GM, unlike that disloyal worm Tony Stewart . . . .) Chevrolet also threw in a few “loyalty” spots for Junior’s senior brethren at Hendrick Motorsports – elder statesman Jeff Gordon and two-time defending “Cup” champion (and Gordon clone) Jimmy Johnson.

The other, more insipid diversion was Fox’s new “Gopher Cam” and matching cartoon graphic. Apparently assuming that the average NASCAR fan prepares for the race by downing a case or two of Budweiser (the official beer of NASCAR, we’re told) and has the mental age of a toddler, someone at Fox decided it was an entertaining use of one of Fox’s 75 cameras to bury it at the edge of the pavement, and then claim it was a breakthrough in racing television. Undoubtedly, most of the fans enduring the Toyota 499 hoped that Junior would stray below the yellow line just long enough to whack the blurry camera and the cartoon mole. Sadly, neither happened. But Junior’s still in a Chevy . . . .

By the way, there were some field-fillers from Ford and Dodge in the Toyota 499. . . .

Ford -- apparently not wanting to spoil the impact of the return of Knight Rider as a Shelby GT500KR later that night on NBC -- kept their chrome-decal Gillette Fusion grilles mostly off camera.

One notable exception was when one of the seven Ford funny-cars (the one that used to be driven by the “ageless” (according to Fox) Mark Martin) slammed into one of the other seven Fords (driven by the still-aging Matt Kenseth). Perhaps the Roushkateers figured that would be about the only way to get some sponsor air-time during the Toyota 499 . . . .

During the Toyota 499, the hapless Foxcasters delighted to point out that the even more hapless Robby Gordon had “switched” from Ford to Dodge in the weeks leading up to the Toyota 499.

Not much of a loss (except that this “other Gordon” finished two full spots ahead of the highest finishing Ford).

Fox also tracked down Bob Nardelli, Cerberus’ head dog at the latest “new Chrysler,” for an interview. Nardelli said nothing newsworthy or memorable to Fox, but he had previously promised any Dodge team who won Daytona a million dollars of Cerberus’ money.

Given how the “common-template-Toyotas” were running (including the one paid for by Nardelli’s former employer, “Home Depot”) old “Minimum Bob” probably felt like the “Cerberus Million” was safe.

And it was . . . right up to lap 199 of 200.

As is the modern script, the racers just “rode” in forgettable queues until about the last 25 laps. Then it was “time to go.”

Still, even “go time” was mostly “common-template-Toyota” funny-car time.

Uncharacteristically, the Hendrick “common-template-Chevrolet” funny-cars had mostly faded. The hopes of the crowd faded as well as Junior’s new Hendrick brain trust apparently failed to bring him in for new tires at the proper time during the late-race caution flags, giving the Joe Gibbs “common-template-Toyota” funny-cars an even larger advantage. Fox reported that Junior would have come in with the leaders on one stop, except that the Hendrick brain trust clogged the radio and failed to tell Earnhardt to come in soon enough.

The Richard Childress “common-template-Chevrolet” funny-cars driven by Clint Bowyer and former Roush-Fenway Ford driver Jeff Burton each had brief moments in the lead spot light during the caution-plagued final 20 laps. But nothing they did dashed any hopes that the race was between a handful of “common-template-Toyotas.”

After all, the non-production, purpose-built pushrod OHV “Toyota” mill had 30 extra horsepower (as the Toyota-paid shills in the Fox broadcast booth repeatedly reminded us) . . . .

Undoubtedly, everyone expected the race to finish under caution or in a "made-for-HDTV" “green-white-checker” “Overdrive,” given the “script” of the past few years.

So when the race went green to the end after the last “inside 10 to go” single-file restart, it was a surprise.

As was the sudden strength of the Roger Penske “common-template-Dodges” of Ryan Newman and Kurt Busch.

(Ford fans will of course lament that Penske was an opportunistic defector to Dodge from Ford when DaimlerChrysler rammed its way back into NASCAR a few years back)

Tony Stewart’s “common-template-Toyota” funny-car was on-the-point as expected – its rumored 30 extra horsepower holding off all comers. Teammate Kyle Busch was charging in the lower line behind the “common-template-Dodge” of Ryan Newman. Stewart blocked low and Newman swapped to the high side, slotting in front of his teammate (former Ford driver) Kurt Busch. Busch (Kurt, not Kyle) then used the giant railroad tie bumpers on the two Penske common-template “cars of today” to their best effect, ramming Newman into the lead during the last half of the last circuit of the race.

The Toyota 499 was over.

The threat from Tokyo via North Carolina was vanquished . . . for at least one more week.

Inevitable apparently wasn’t.

The Toyota “sweep” of the NASCAR portion of “Speedweeks” was averted. An ALL-AMERICAN combination of “common-template car/driver” had won the Fiftieth Daytona 500. The first (and perhaps only) winner of the Cerberus Million had been crowned.

What happened to the script? Apparently nobody dropped off a copy at Penske.

As if to add an ironic, if not cynically surreal, bit of comedy to the unexpected triumph, “the Captain himself, Roger Penske bummed a Hendrick Motorsports “pit cap” from convicted felon Rick Hendrick** and wore it during the post-race interview on television.

Where were the Fords?

10th Greg Biffle
19th Carl Edwards
26th Jamie McMurray
28th David Gilliland
30th Travis Kvapil
36th Matt Kenseth
42nd David Ragan

But that Shelby GT500KR did get a lot of screen time over on NBC . . . .

**Rick Hendrick was convicted of mail fraud in 1997 but was pardoned by William Jefferson Clinton.