Well, to be honest, the only "Times" worth reading hasn't formally endorsed anyone yet.

However, they pretty much make it clear who they WON'T be endorsing today.

Who won't they endorse? John McCain. Who does that benefit? Conservatives.

Check out this indictment they prepared in today's "McCain vs. McCain" editorial. It's as if the Times (the reputable, Washington one) has decided to channel their inner Coulter as a force for truth, justice, and the American way.

McCain vs. McCain: On illegal immigration, Mr. McCain said that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "a liar" and says he has "never" supported Social Security benefits for illegals. However, in 2006 and 2007, he joined with Ted Kennedy to support Senate bills that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegals. In 2006, Mr. McCain denounced in a floor speech and cast the deciding vote against an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, that would have denied Social Security benefits to illegals who work under a Social Security number obtained through identity fraud. He cosponsored the Dream Act providing in-state tuition for illegal-alien college students, but, in the face of intense opposition to the bill from grass-roots conservatives, Mr. McCain announced that he would have voted against the legislation had he been in attendance when it was voted on late last year (he was absent).

Another issue where Mr. McCain has clashed with conservatives was over campaign finance reform, also called the McCain-Feingold bill, which instituted a series of regulations that limit the ability of independent groups not associated with the Democratic or Republican parties to participate in the political process. These regulations, which violate the First Amendment, bar the use of corporate or union money to pay for broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention or within 60 days of a general election. These days, Mr. McCain is not talking much about the issue on the campaign trail. But Mr. McCain's advocacy of the legislation has created a bitter political divide between the senator and the National Right to Life Committee, which views it as a hindrance to its ability to get its message out. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Wisconsin Right to Life group and overturned the above-mentioned section of McCain-Feingold.

On abortion, Mr. McCain has a generally pro-life voting record (although he has supported embryo-destroying stem-cell research). In a 1998 letter to Roman Catholic bishops, Mr. McCain declared himself to be a "lifelong, ardent supporter of unborn children's right to life." But in 1999, he told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X-number of women to undergo illegal and dangerous abortions." Later that year, he sent a letter to the National Right to Life Committee stating his "unequivocal support for overturning Roe v. Wade." On Jan. 22 of this year, the 35th anniversary of Roe, Mr. McCain sent a letter to pro-life marchers in Washington praising them and criticizing the seven Supreme Court judges who made up the majority in Roe.

On judicial appointments, Mr. McCain promises to nominate strict constructionists to the federal bench. But two years ago, he was one of the "Gang of 14" — seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined forces to block Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's effort to end the objectionable strategy of filibustering judicial nominees that was employed by the Democrats.

On taxes and spending, Mr. McCain has a mixed record. He supports extending President Bush's tax cuts. He opposed tax increases pushed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 and President Clinton in 1993 and voted in 1997 to cut capital-gains taxes. The senator also broke with the White House and Senate Republican leadership by voting against the Medicare prescription-drug entitlement and he supports permitting workers to invest part of their Social Security savings in higher-yielding private accounts. But according to the Club for Growth, "his overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards free markets and individual freedom," which includes support for raising Social Security taxes and a 282 percent tax increase on cigarettes. Mr. McCain has been disingenuous in explaining his opposition to Mr. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He claims to have cast these votes to protest the fact that the tax cuts were not accompanied by spending cuts. But the fact is that in opposing these measures, Mr. McCain joined liberal Democrats like Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Tom Daschle in employing class-warfare rhetoric and pushing in favor of higher taxes — voting on the pro-tax side on 14 different occasions.

Mr. McCain also differs with free-market conservatives on numerous environmental issues. He opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska and has joined with Sen. Joe Lieberman to cosponsor legislation that would require that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010 — a measure sure to result in substantial increases in electricity and gasoline costs.

How do you know McCain is lying to you? You are 1) a conservative and 2) he calls his statements "straight talk."

Which I guess proves one thing. An affinity for telling the truth must skip generations. Oh well, maybe McCain's kids will turn out better than their Old Man.

Oh yeah, thanks for this article go to nouvelle-McCain-supporter Beth for encouraging me to "do more reading about the candidates." I guess it is true after all: the more you know!

Unlike McCain, NBC saturday morning public service announcements that run between cartoons to encourage time being spent in local libraries have apparently never lied to me.

Posted by: Jack M. at 05:43 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 978 words, total size 6 kb.

On December 16, Frank Manuma, a man who really loves his golf, discovered that his dog, Caddy, was missing from the equipment shack where he has permission to keep the animal while he's playing. He and his wife, who had never had children, "considered the dog their little boy." So he was pretty distressed to discover Caddy missing. He would soon become more upset.

That's because two employees of the golf club took the dog home and killed, butchered, cooked, and ate it. Fortunately, other club members had seen them take poor Caddy, and so they've been indicted for theft and animal cruelty. They face up to five years imprisonment and $10,000 fines for each charge.

I doubt that's much consolation for the Manumas, who lost their little boy-dog. Fortunately, they welcomed into their home a new arrival on January 2nd, Caddy 2.

I wish the whole story weren't true, and not just because it sounds like a bizarre comedy. I don't want to make too much light of the Manumas' pain, because losing a dog is no joke, but they just replaced their little boy-dog in under three weeks. That's a little fast, don't you think? And "Caddy 2?" Sometimes I just don't understand people.

As for the criminals, I'm hoping that there is more to the story. Why pick Caddy? They would have to know that the owner would notice him missing. Were they mad at Manuma? Are there not enough dogs in Hawaii that you can't just grab one at the humane society? I am disturbed enough to wonder if they were on the lookout for dinner, saw Caddy and decided, "Oh, yeah, that's the one. That one looks tasty." Like a frickin' buffet or something. This story really needs a revenge element.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:47 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

I missed the Republican debate earlier, but Bryan at Hotair has the usual roundup. The only thing I know about it is that our guys must have behaved themselves. The proprietress of a popular lefty site thinks it's a conspiracy:

My thoughts: They are all attacking Hillary and I heard no mention of Obama. What does that signify? Also, they are being so polite to each other. Was that pre-arranged to show the difference between them and the Dems?

Yeah, sister. The candidates agreed to knock off all the subtle and not-so-subtle racist squabbles. It's been such a distraction from the-- Oh, wait. That's your party's problem.

The Republican candidates don't need to agree to behave like gentlemen. I'm sure they understand that a lot of voters would rather not see the potential leaders of the free world play "he-said, she-said" on national television. At least, not the shrill version that Clinton and Obama have adopted. And things probably seem a lot calmer on a stage where the outlier is more easily sidelined than Mr. Pick Me! Pick Me!

Of course, a little on-stage courtesy isn't the only way that our candidates show the difference between themselves and the Democrats. But I like that the first place this Leftist went was "It must be to make the Democrats look bad." Honey, you do that just fine without our help.

More: A quick glance at the headlines shows that everyone else saw the same thing: "Civility marks Republican debate", "At Debate on the Economy, Republicans Become Kindest of Candidates", and "Republican Debate Wrapup: Comity Reigns."

Maybe I'm wrong and they did agree not to behave like Democrats. What do you think?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:21 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

If Huckabee wants a little FDR make-work project, how's about instead of two lanes of highway that the country really doesn't want, we put some folks to work building a wall? -- Jimmie from Sundries Shack

It would help the construction industry, and it could be done almost immediately... it's not like they haven't had 2 years to work on the plans for it.

Oh, and do check out John McCain's Hispanic Outreach Director.

Seriously, do.

Posted by: Ace at 12:16 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Kids these days. This one, a 16 year-old, carried handcuffs, rope, and duct tape onto a plane going from California to Nashville. He must have done something suspicious because he was arrested as soon as the plane landed.

The teen is in custody at Davidson County Juvenile Detention Center, where he faced state charges, but Bolds did not comment on what the charges were. He said he expects federal charges to come.

Bolds dismissed earlier broadcast reports that the teen was planning to crash the plane into a "Hannah Montana" concert in Lafayette, La.

Bolds said it has not been determined if the boy was trying to crash the plane. He said authorities searched the teen's home in California and found a mock cockpit.

Apparently, he confessed to planning to hijack the plane once he was in custody. An earlier story said that his parents had no idea that he was flying to Nashville. How would you like to get that phone call? "Ma'am, this is the FBI. I have your son in custody. In Tennessee." The FBI spokesman says that the 16 year-old is suicidal. Hmmm, parents these days.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:49 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Open thread.

Could Be... that a couple of campaigns may be bringing up Sessions' questionnaire and confronting McCain on his willingness to answer it.

Can't say for sure. It's a possibility, though, I hear.

Streaming Video... here.

Ouch! Ron Paul just asked McCain a question about economics that he doesn't seem to understand.

And McCain did previously confessed his weak grasp of economics.

WTF? ...was Romney's answer on Brady/Assault Weapon Ban? Was that gibberish or what?

As far as I can tell, he's saying he would have signed these bills, as Bush would have, and he was right to take that position, but now he doesn't think we need more laws controlling guns.

He doesn't even bother offering a reason why his past position is different from his current one.

I guess he's had too many flip-flops and can't afford to admit he's flip-flopped on this, too.

Did he flip-flop? I'm still not sure.

Romney's Position: I wrote to the campaign and asked them to explain that dog's breakfast answer. From his site:

"I believe that the Second Amendment protects a truly fundamental individual right.

"I believe that every law-abiding American has the right to own a firearm for hunting, personal protection, skeet, trap or target shooting, or for any other sporting purpose or as part of a collection.
"I do not support any new gun laws including any new ban on semi-automatic firearms. As president, I will follow President Bush's precedent of opposing any laws that go beyond the restrictions in place when I take office. The laws I do and will support include decades-old restrictions on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive devices and would include similar restrictions on new and exotic weapons of similar or even greater lethality.

"I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership. I also applaud the efforts of Second Amendment supporters – particularly in the aftermath of the terrible crimes at Virginia Tech – to support measures to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as a screening tool to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those judged mentally incompetent. I will protect the promise of a fair and instant check and oppose any effort to expand the NICS beyond its original purpose. I was pleased, in fact, that recently, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act with NRA support and over liberal opposition to finance, improve, and streamline the current NICS system.

"I believe that any discussion regarding firearms and crime control must focus on the criminal. Unfortunately, many in Washington believe that restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will diminish violent crime. They are wrong. Over the years, the idea that it is possible to curtail crime by banning firearms has run up against a mountain of empirical evidence that forces one to conclude that gun control laws fail because they rely on the cooperation of a very unlikely element – the criminal. Any measure that fails to focus on the criminal and infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans will be a non-starter for me.

"My message on the Second Amendment is simple: the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be protected in a Romney administration.

"On the other hand, if you're a criminal, here is your warning: I will ask every law enforcement agency across this great land to enforce the gun laws that are already on the books so that those who use guns illegally will know that they will be caught, prosecuted, convicted and jailed.

"I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of our personal freedoms. Should I be fortunate enough to become President, I will stand up and fight against any attempt to weaken or infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. And I will do this without any apology and without any hesitation."

Eh. He seems to be claiming consistency on the issue because he was/is willing to continue anti-gun laws already in effect (as the assault weapons ban was and Brady is) but is not willing to sign any new gun control measures into law.

That's sort of an odd position, relying as it does upon sheer happenstance to determine if a law is good or constitutional. I suspect it's a retrofitted explanation to avoid the charge of another "flip-flop."

But his position is, I guess, that he will not sign a new Assault Weapons Ban law into effect. Brady he'd reauthorize, if it were to come up for a vote, which I don't think it's going to, as I don't think it sunsets and so just remains on the books until affirmatively repealed.

JESUS!!! How many times are they going to ask Mike Huckabee the same fucking question about his religion that allows him to pose as a victim and thrills his supporters for his "standing up for Jesus Christ"?

They've now asked him this same question with minor tweaks ten times.

One would almost imagine they're serving up big fat hanging curveballs to their new favorite Christian "conservative" deliberately, just to keep him in the game.

MIKE HUCKABEE LOVES JESUS.

MIKE HUCKABEE IS NOT ASHAMED TO SAY HE LOVES JESUS.

WE FUCKING GET IT.

STOP ASKING QUESTIONS WHICH EASILY LEND THEMSELVES TO MIKE HUCKABEE TELLING US ABOUT HIS LOVE FOR JESUS AND START ASKING HIM ABOUT POLICY AND CHARACTER.

Posted by: Ace at 05:37 PM | Comments (221)
Post contains 912 words, total size 6 kb.

This isn't my issue. By which I mean I agree with McCain and disagree with the conservative orthodoxy.

But if Romney is to be hit for his flip-flops, and Giuliani written off as not sufficiently concerned about life issues, I think it's only fair to note that McCain is unapologetic on his stem cell stance.

Posted by: Ace at 05:12 PM | Comments (78)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Can you feel the excitement?!?!

How about "Pile of Fail"?

It's actually a short story title from the collection bundled together as For Your Eyes Only, but it's a horrible title. The story, by the way, is awful too; it's not even a James Bond story, really.

What it actually is a guy listening to wives and husbands argue at a dinner party and then this guy being told some story illustrating the amount of comfort (quantum of solace) required for a marriage to work.

Sounds boring? Yeah, you bet. Ian Fleming I'm guessing figured he couldn't sell that piece of crap and so rewrote this flimsy bit of observations so that the guy hearing these stories is superspy James Bond, for some reason hanging out with people he despises on a cruise or something. And he probably cadged Hugh Hefner out a couple of grand for this, ahem, "James Bond story." (Playboy used to buy these; probably bought this one.)

Anyway, that obviously has nothing to do with the actual movie, but seriously, just because it's a "real Ian Fleming title" doesn't mean you have to use it.

Fun! Rinseandspit writes:

Top 5 Alternative Titles for the next James Bond Movie:

5) Stickiness of Glue

4) A Flagon of Teardrops

3) Wartfreezer

2) Unbearable Lightness of the Hedgehog

1) Afternoon Tea with Mr Wiggles

Good idea-- propose your alternative lame-o independent-movie-sounding titles -- but with a Bondian edge.

Posted by: Ace at 04:45 PM | Comments (88)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

This has been a tough primary campaign season for Republicans. There doesn't seem to be any candidate that can unite the base and excite voters, and the primary results thus far seem to be bearing that out. The lack of a front-runner threatens the GOP's unity and weakens the party as it faces a challenging election this fall.

It's time, perhaps to look in another direction. Time to find a candidate who can appeal to the base while bringing in the all-important independent voter. A candidate who has strong opinions and isn't afraid to voice them. A candidate who knows what people want, and when needed, can be the only important person on a stage. A candidate that will put the entire country on notice, and will slice jihadists like an f'ing hammer.

That's right, folks. It's time to embrace our new candidate. more...

Posted by: Slublog at 04:44 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Animator vs. Animation.

Thanks to A. Weasel.

Posted by: Ace at 04:16 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.