For You Wrasslin’ Fans Out There

I thought we should post McCain’s WWE Monday Night Raw video at some point. How ’bout now that we’re nearly to the parties’ conventions. L-L-L-Let’s get ready to rumble!

Money and the Mac

Newsweek tells us: The 2008 Money Race: Still Closer Than You Think

One quibble I have is with the Update at the bottom of the article, which states:

Bottom line, though: this election won’t be decided by who has the most money–it’ll be decided by how that money is spent. Whether Obama’s efforts to expand the map outweigh McCain’s largely negative messaging remains to be seen.

As Jim Geraghty of National Review has noted many times on The Campaign Spot, Obama’s “efforts to expand the map” have netted him almost nothing, which means millions of dollars wasted in state’s like North Carolina because it’ll be winner-takes-all in November.

Obama: Change Definition of “Pro-life”

The Washington Post doesn’t carry a citation for this, but in defense of Obama’s “nuanced” approach to abortion the paper says this:

Similarly, Obama has made a show of reaching out to abortion opponents to find common ground on pregnancy prevention and adoption. He has urged evangelicals and Catholics to expand the definition of “pro-life” to include opposing torture, poverty and unnecessary war.

Now, I don’t mean to trivialize torture and poverty, but what is it about these issues that is a matter of life and death? Are we to also use “pro-life” when it comes to providing in vitro fertilization to same-sex couples? I mean, I’ve heard liberals try to say that capital punishment is a “life” issue, as though the life of a murderer is as highly valued as the life of his victim. But water-boarding? And welfare?

Now, Sen. Obama, let’s say we go so far as to place torture, poverty, unnecessary war, and abortion under the “pro-life” category. Something tells me you’ll still say the issue is above your pay grade.

Graham: These Ain’t Your Grandaddy’s Dems

Obama takes more heat for his “above my pay grade” response to the life question, which Michael Graham of The Boston Herald calls an “artful dodge.”

Says Graham:

With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.

5 . . . Point . . . Lead

Thus saith Reuters/Zogby.

Obama is not an open book

Obama claims that he is a new breed of politician, that he is an open book for all to read. That is why he can’t seem to find years worth of his Illinois State Senate records. That is why he refuses to release his medical records (just a one-page letter from his favorite doctor). That is why he refuses to release his bar exam application.

Here is a new one you may not have heard: Now the Chicago Annenberg Challenge refuses to release the records of when Obama served as a chairman. Why would that be important? Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist, was the founder of the group and most likely put Obama on the board. Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn participated in numerous bombings, and wish they could have done more.

Stanley Kurtz at NRO does a great job of laying out this little cover up. Don’t be fooled by the platitudes, people. Barack Obamessiah can play the system better than Bill Clinton ever thought about doing it.

Say, Obama: “Got Religious Free Exercise?”

Over at The Cackalacky Conservative, I lay the smack down on the recent Ninth Circuit Court’s excuse for a decision in North Coast Women’s Care v. Benitez.

Here, knowing where McCain likely stands on this bewildering holding, I’d like to pose this question to Obama:

What do you think, Senator? Should a doctor be forced to provide in vitro fertilization services to same-sex couples even if doing so would run counter to his deeply-held religious convictions?

Response to an abortion comment

Commenter willpen responded to my post on McCain’s abortion answer:

It is amazing that I read the exact same article and came away with a totally opposing view. Wake up and smell the coffee, no body has any right to tell some body else what to do with THEIR bodies.

Should I tell a fat person that they have no right to eat because if they eat and get fat and I have to sit next to them anywhere then my rights are being denied. How many more rights do you people want to take away from humanity in the name of God?

Let’s respond:

I’m not telling anyone what to do with their body. What I’m saying is simple enough: You do not have the right to kill another human being. If you want to get fat, great! If you want to smoke, great! I’m not the nanny state that is going to tell you to stop. But when you want to end an innocent life, I’m not going to tell you it is OK. There are just a few things that government does right: Roads, war, and crime prevention. Someone has to speak up for the children who have no voice. Someone has to speak up for those who can’t get a restraining order against their mother who would end their life. I don’t care what you do to your body, I care what you do to the body of a poor, innocent little human. Since when (before Roe v. Wade) have humans had a “right” to take another innocent human being’s life? You can’t lose a right you didn’t have!

CNN story on McCain’s time in Vietnam

This is a pretty good read I thought I’d pass along. No real comment, except to say that McCain is an honorable man.

“The Faith of Politicians”

Check out my recent post on The Cackalacky Conservative on the question of whether Obama can get any mileage out of “talking faith.”