Check Out C-Span's Coverage

Last night I skipped the Republican National Convention because I frankly could not stomach the self-important pontification that goes on on the main news outlets - and that includes Fox News. I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of the news treating me like some 3-year-old who needs to have everything explained. It is so bloody annoying. And Fox is one of the worst for interrupting what is going on so that its pundits can hear themselves talk.

Well, tonight I really wanted to hear Sarah Palin's talk, and decided that I would try to stomach it again, and when I was flipping through the channels I saw C-Span and remembered that they broadcast with no fluff. That got my vote.

I watched tonight without anyone blathering on and on about what the Obama campaign has had to say today or about the latest dust bunny that the Democrats have dug up. I didn't have to listen to someone try to spin what I had just heard straight from the horse's mouth.

IT WAS SO AWESOME!!!

Now if I could only get the news the same way.

Seriously. If you want a totally different way to watch the convention, blow off the main networks and watch on C-Span. It was channel 350 on Direct TV in my market.

There was so much that I'd love to comment on from the convention tonight, but there is no time nor energy. You will have to wait. Perhaps by that time some of the best parts will be available on YouTube. I will say that I heard some great speeches tonight - mostly by the folks who ran for the Republican nomination. I loved Giuliani's speech. But they definitely saved the best for last. Sarah Palin knocked it out of the park. But more on that tomorrow.

PS C-Span is also a great outlet for Presidential speeches like the State of the Union.

Want Some Salt With That Crow, Dr. D?

Dr. Dobson has finally come to his senses. About a year ago he said in no uncertain terms that he would rather stay home than vote for John McCain. He has changed his mind. You may recall that I showed the folly of his statement and predicted that this day would come. Well, it has.

In an interview with Dennis Prager, Dobson said:

Well, you know I did a radio program about a month ago with Dr. Albert Mohler, and we talked about what was at stake in this election and our concerns about the policies that Barack Obama would implement. The more I hear the more I learn, the more concerned I am, and so on that program Dr. Mohler and I talked about the fact that John McCain is not the perfect candidate. He’s certainly would not be my choice and, for over a year, I did not feel that I could vote for him. But I said in that radio program that “I can’t say it now”—which was then, because I didn’t know who his vice presidential choice would be, and he if would come up with Lieberman or Tom Ridge or somebody like that, we’d be back in a hole again. But I said for the first time “I might, I might.” And some people call that a flip-flop. If they do, so be it. Campaigns are long. You get information. You find out what the choices are. So I’ve been moving in John McCain’s direction....

...I can tell you that if I had to go into the studio, I mean the voting booth today, I would pull that lever....

...You know, Dennis, the things that concern me about John McCain are still there. I made those comments not just based on emotions, but based on his record and some of the things that took place—embryonic stem cell research, and other things, the campaign finance, and other things. Those are still there. So, there’s still concerns. But I tell you, when I look at the choices that are ahead and what the implications are for this country, and now especially with this selection, with just an outstanding V.P. candidate as a running mate, I tell you what I am relieved and very excited.

So there you have it: Dr. James Dobson has all but endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket for President.

Perhaps Dr. Dobson should leave the emotions completely out of his commenting. That way he wouldn't have to eat his words. It simply wasn't logical or wise to make the statements that he did earlier, knowing who was running on the Democratic side. Even Rudy Giuliani (as liberal as he is) would have been a better choice than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I hope that he will exercise more wisdom in the future.

A Quote For Today

Republicans used to have leaders and role models like Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole. Now it's Rudy Giuliani and Britney Spears. Far better than Barbara Streisand and her idiot "Happy 911" husband. Far better than Al Sharpton and Dick Durbin. But not the kind of people a religious person can get excited about supporting. I may be a pretty weak Christian, but I would never help women hold onto the right to have convenience abortions, and I don't like knowing I may eventually have to vote for a person who did. Either him or a guy who belongs to a heretical cult. Or Fred Thompson, who will have to have a special Secret Service detail to roll him out of bed at noon. Thompson is a disgrace. I actually took his campaign seriously; it's too bad he'll never be able to say the same. A prominent conservative media figure used the word "pathetic" to describe Thompson to me in an email. I thought that was harsh, but as time passes, it seems more and more appropriate.

When politics and religion agree, it's purely coincidental, so I should have known a long time ago that my love affair with the GOP was not going to last. The GOP is by far the lesser of two evils, but it's not worth my full-time support.

- Steve H. Graham @ Hog On Ice

Shades of Gray? Whatever!

Michael Medved wrote an interesting article over at Town Hall.com In it, he claims that Rudy Giuliani's stance on abortion is still far to the right of anyone in the Democrats' camp. You can find the article HERE.

The article title is Abortion's Shades Of Gray, which I think is absurd, but the article raises some interesting points. I was, in the end, happy to read Mr. Medved's disclaimer,

Personally, I disagree with Giuliani on abortion. I am unhesitatingly pro-life, and I yearn for the Supreme Court to overturn the monstrous abomination of Roe v. Wade. Even so, whatever our distance from Giuliani on specific policies, we ought to recognize that he's far closer to the GOP mainstream than Clinton, Obama or any other Democrat, and that his mixed position — anti-abortion and pro-choice — actually correlates with the American majority.

I'm not sure that I buy all of that, but I heartily AMEN the sentiment of the second sentence.

The Problem With Lines In The Sand...

I was reading a couple of weeks ago about Dr. James Dobson's adamant stand that he would not support Fred Thompson's bid for the Presidency, and I have to say that I was disappointed in Dr. Dobson. I have always respected him, and that really hasn't changed, but I have to wonder how well he has thought this thing through before making such a bold statement.

Just for the record I haven't decided who I am supporting among the present roster of GOP hopefuls. I do know that I have found it fairly easy to eliminate some candidates from my consideration at this time. Giuliani is WAY too liberal. And Romney has his problems. Tancredo is too right wing. McCain is weak on gun issues and then there is the whole McCain/Feingold issue. This, of course brings us to Fred.

I have a number of issues with Fred Thompson. Probably number 1 to me is the whole McCain/Feingold/Thompson thing. I also sympathize with Dr. Dobson's reservations.

The simple fact of the matter is that I haven't seen anyone who has wowed me. And this is where the question arises. There is only one candidate on the Republican side that I don't think would be any better than Hillary Clinton, and that is Giuliani. However, given the choice who would I vote for? That is a tough question. I absolutely DETEST abortion, so voting for either would almost be unconscionable for me. I would probably vote for an independent over either of those. But it gets a little fuzzier on the other candidates.

Of one thing I am pretty sure: I would vote for a moral, conservative non-Christian over a liberal, amoral "Christian." If my only choices are two evils, I see no other choice. Perhaps Dr. Dobson should consider that this may be the choice that we face next November.

Mighty Casey Has Struck Out

You have just got to love lawyers...

Apparently in legalese (aka legalsleaze) "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean "not legal."

Below is an excerpt from an interview between Glenn Beck and Rudy Giuliani. Here is the link to the article.

GLENN: ... you've got this quote from '94 and you give me the context on this. Quote: If you come here, you work hard. You happen to be an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect. We want you to get out from under what is often a life of being a fugitive, which is really unfair.

GIULIANI: The context of that was for people to come forward to report crimes because we needed their help and we didn't want them to be afraid of coming forward. The context of that was we wanted them to put their children in school not to be afraid to do that. Even with the policy that I pointed, I continued it was probably seven, eight years old, there were still people, illegal immigrants, who would not report crimes. But we wanted them to.

GLENN: Right. But isn't illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

GIULIANI: No.

GLENN: Aren't you saying --

GIULIANI: Glenn --

GLENN: You're protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.

GLENN: It's a misdemeanor but if you've been nailed, it is a crime. If you've been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.

GLENN: Is it --

GIULIANI: One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it a crime, which indicates that it isn't.

GLENN: Should it be?

GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. If you were to make it a crime, you would have to take the resources of the criminal justice system and increase it by about 6. In other words, you'd have to take all the 800,000 police, and who knows how many police we would have to have.

GLENN: So what's your solution?

GIULIANI: My solution is close the border to illegal immigration.

There you have it, folks. Rudy will keep the illegal (though not really illegal 'cause illegal in this case really means legal) aliens out by closing the border to illegal (really legal according to RG) immigration. For those of you trying to understand or illustrate Orwellian doublespeak, there you go.

I predict that this statement just sank Rudy's chances at the oval office. It sounds like he has no clue about America's level of frustration with illegal (most of us tend to think that illegal really means illegal) immigration. This frustration is high among both Democrats (at least Southern ones) and Republicans (especially Southern ones.) I think that the backlash from this statement will be severe.

It doesn't matter much to me, though. I wasn't going to vote for him anyway. Now it is definite.