Just listened to Obama’s speech where he talked about how “compassionate” and “caring” we all should be.  I have a simple, sincere, serious question:

Who is more “compassionate” and “caring”…those who want the government to take care of everyone, or those who are willing to take care of their neighbors themselves?

It brings us back to the book that came out a couple of years ago (Who Really Cares? ) that showed definitively that Conservatives not only donate more to charity as a percentage of income, regardless of the level of that income, but they are also more likely to participate in charitable, and specifically secular charitable, activities.

So what does compassion have to do with big government liberalism (which is most decidedly what Obama is pushing for: higher taxes on the rich, univeral health care, fleecing “Big Everything)

Last week, Bloomberg ran an article about McCain’s meager (when compared to Obama) campaign fund-raising. Just looking at the numbers, it just doesn’t look that good for Mr. McCain.

Is this enough of a reason for McCain take a second look at Mr. Rolling-in-the-dough Romney? Or shall we rest on the old adage, “Slow and steady wins the race?” Anyone have any ideas about McCain’s lackluster performance in the fundraising arena?

What shall we take away from campaign fundraising? Is Obama’s windfall due to the fact that so many people do not like Hillary; are his supporters trying to buy his nomination? Time will tell how much money the dem nominee will continue generate after the nomination is wrapped up.

Now why would anyone think that the NY Times has an opinion on the matter?

A closer look at who’s running

Also in Politics:

• Where the candidates stand on the issues
• Election results to date
• Continuous coverage of the 2008 election

So Hillary looks twenty years younger than she is, Obama looks proud and somber, and McCain looks like a raving mad lunatic. No slant here at all. LOL. This is just too much.

This is funny…

John McCain is refusing to renounce the endorsement of a prominent Texas televangelist who Democrats say peddles anti-Catholic and other intolerant speech.Instead, the Republican presidential candidate issued a statement Friday afternoon saying he had unspecified disagreements with the San Antonio megachurch leader, John Hagee. Hagee endorsed him at a news conference Wednesday in San Antonio.

“However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not,” McCain said in the statement.

His campaign issued the statement after two days of criticism from the Democratic National Committee, the Catholic League and Catholics United.

Democrats quoted Hagee as saying the Catholic Church conspired with Nazis against the Jews and that Hurricane Katrina was God’s retribution for homosexual sin, and they recited his demeaning comments about women and flip remarks about slavery.

Especially when you compare it to this.

Farrakhan has drawn widespread attention in the past for making anti-Semitic remarks, including calling Judaism a “gutter religion.” In recent years, officials with the Nation of Islam have said they favor unity and tolerance among religions, and Farrakhan now often quotes the texts of other religions in his speeches.

Officials with the Nation have long argued that Farrakhan’s comments are often taken out of context.

During Tuesday’s debate, Russert pressed Obama about whether he accepts Farrakhan’s support. The senator responded that while both he and Farrakhan live in Chicago, that’s where their ties end.

Now compare this guy to this guy.

Anyone still not think Bernie Goldberg MIGHT have a point about bias in the media?

This doesn’t really surprise me, because I read “Audacity of Hope.”  In the book it is very evident that Obama has made his Christian affiliation based on convenience and politics (he essentially says it).  It didn’t really disturb me too much, but I’ve made it evident before (can’t find the post–but I’m sure I did…really) that it wasn’t my favorite thing about him.

But to be a member of this Church goes a little beyond the pail.

As someone who has recently (admittedly cautiously–and so far unsuccessfully) confronted the racist tendencies of his own Church back home, it disturbs me that someone with as good of a chance to be President as Senator Obama would be a member of a Church with so much racist dogma that it would give Lewis Farrakhan an award for “Person of the Year.”

My good friend, Jimmy, constantly tells me:  Satan is a divider.  Anyone who not only visits, talks to, acknowledges, but is a member of such a divisive and racist congregation is going to have a hard time convincing me that he’s really a uniter.

You see, I’m beginning to think that Senator Obama thought that if he wrote this cool book, that people would just stop paying attention and trust him.  The problem I suppose is that the book made many START to pay attention to him.  And that hasn’t been good for him.

There’s only one question for me really:

If a high-profile Presidential Candidate belonged to or closely affiliated with a WHITE racialist Church, would we hear about in the press?

And the corollary: And what if they were a pro-choice, Universal Health Care-supporting, anti-war, Democrat that belonged to a WHITE racialist Church?

In other words:  Is Obama getting a free pass on this relationship because he’s a Democrat or because he’s Black?  Or both?

I think it is becoming very evident that endorsements aren’t nearly as valuable as their recipients would like them to be.   This is why I’m so excited to hear that Clinton is ready to roll out some Texas endorsements. 

McCain has the endorsement of every Senator in Washington and 165 Southern Governors past and present; I think he’s expecting to announce that Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ are going to be campaigning with him in Texas along with Governor Perry.

And still he can barely get the majority of the Republican vote in any of the States he plays in…and that’s among REPUBLICANS!

Clinton has a 30 year old machine working and slaving for her day and night, and with an INSANELY popular Democratic Governor stumping for her she STILL gets her ASS kicked in Maryland.

But at least she has promised us that she’s going to raise the minimum wage to $9.50.  Still waiting to see if McCain agrees with her or not.

If the election comes down to McCain and Obama…McCain should assuredly fight to limit the number of debates on the schedule.  I’m sitting here watching him read his script, and I weep for the party…the guy behind him should be instructed to look at the corner of the Senator’s eye instead of reading the script along with him.  This is elementary.

My friends…this might just be ugly.

Anyone who would like to see the POSSIBILITY of a Huckabee nomination, need look no further than:

Right Smart

Personally, I think it would be a mistake…once again…to count this man out. At the VERY LEAST, he’s a serious factor at the convention for pulling together the party. Especially given a) Dobson’s endorsement, b) the demographic makeup of the majority of the States left, and c) the fact that there’s another GOP debate scheduled toward the end of February.

It is absolutely impossible for McCain to have the needed 471 delegates between now and the next debate at the end of February, because there are only 308 up for grabs between now and then…which Huckabee will undoubtedly win many of…conceivable a majority.

And thank you to Chuck Todd…who is actually paying attention to the Huckabee factor and not simply ignoring it to start writing about the general election. Considering the Obama factor, if Huckabee were to pull off winner-take-all Virginia (maybe a long shot, but with my Loudoun “Bully Pullpit”, and the millions of hits I get a day…) then this gets REALLY interesting.

Here’s my comment on Chuck Todd’s site:

Here’s the deal…Huckabee is NOT going to exit the race whether or not he loses Virginia…He’s going to stay in and gather up at least as many delegates as Romney has. Why in God’s name wouldn’t he do that?

He will DEFINITELY win more total delegates than Romney if he stays in…therefore he will DEFINITELY have significant clout at the convention.

McCain CANNOT win more than the needed 471 before March 4th…period. He will have to debate Huckabee (and Paul) later this month…period. There is good reason for this to happen because if Huckabee is GOING to concede, then the two can have a little GOP love-fest to unite the party around McCain’s Iraq agenda (while pissing off Ron Paul). Everybody wins.

But if Huckabee makes (yet another) comeback…(and winning Virginia would probably be required) then who knows?

Mr. Huber seems to think that the fat lady is clearing her throat, but the question is: Who is she voting for?

A few things we should take from last night:

Obama has the momentum.  If California hadn’t been voting for weeks already he would likely have picked up more votes there.  He wins almost everytime he has a chance to show up and on a night with very little chance to show up everywhere, he still won the majority of the States in play.

Huckabee proved a couple of things.  “Front-runners” aren’t necessarily front-runners in Middle America.  A few thousand votes in Missouri and this would have become a VERY different race.  Romney supporters can rest assured that if anything HE ruined HUCKABEE’s chances at the nomination and not the other way around.  The person responsible for Romney’s lack of success is (well…other than Romney) Rudy Giulliani, who engineered winner-take-all-ism in the Northeast, and endorsed McCain.

Huckabee is less of a factor in Romney’s demise than anyone is willing to admit for three reasons:

1) Polls have shown that the majority of Huckabee supporters’ second choice is not Romney, but indeed John McCain…the assumption that Huckabee supporters automatically dislike McCain is flawed and is born of ignorance of the media about how Southerners really think.  No big surprise there…except possibly to members of the media.

2) Huckabee WON 5 states yesterday.  Winners are not “spoilers”…third place finishers are spoilers…and in many cases it was Romney who finished third, thus making HIM the spoiler for Huckabee (Missouri being the best example, but Oklahoma as well).  And in those states where Huckabee finished third he was hardly even a factor.

3) Add up Romney’s, Huckabee’s, and Paul’s delegates and you still can’t equal McCains.

But number 2 is the rub.  Romney fans have forgotten that this is a National Election and winning a few key states (even handily) cannot win you the nomination anymore.  Delegate counts from Southern states in the Republican primary get bigger and bigger and bigger and will play a key role for years to come (it’s warm there…and there are jobs there, and people keep moving there–maybe global warming will help solve that problem).  If you doubt me look at the “Blue vs. Red” makeup in the previous two Presidential General Elections.  All the “big-important” states are blue…sometimes heavily blue…and yet there’s still a southern redneck Republican in the White House.

So what lessons should we all take from this:

1) The South is still important…and will continue to be more and more important (Thank God.)

2) Nothing against Mitt Romney; I actually like the guy…but a smooth-talking New England governor who is only recently towing the Conservative line does not do well in the South.  Believe it or not Southerners read the paper and consistency is fairly important to them.  They prefer Huckabee AND McCain over Romney, because they TRUST them.  Right or wrong, that’s the deal.  And I’m saying this as someone who in a two man race between McCain and Romney would DEFINITELY support Romney.

3) Not a lesson, but instead a position.  I have decided that if Obama gets the nomination he actually has LESS of a chance to get the Presidency than Hillary Clinton.  The reason I believe this is because once the nominations are over Obama can (thankfully) begin to talk about issues…and the Clinton machine will be less of a factor.  Once real issues are being discussed again (finally–hopefully)…Conservative ideals will win the day.  Either of the three on the Republican side can win the argument on ideas.  Obama’s blatant liberalism would finally be on full display, while Hillary can continue to hide around her faux-Moderateness “If I would have known…”

The reason I believe this is simple:  Many people are dissatisfied with the current administration NOT because President Bush has adhered to Conservative principles, but because he hasn’t. But he WON on them…twice.

Billary distorts Obama’s record and tells lies, followed by a tomahawk dunk of recording straightening by Obama. I watched about a 1/3 of the debate and Obama was by far the least nauseating candidate, least scripted, least shrill, and most intelligent.