Clinton out soon, Obama will win presidency

First the news everyone knows by now, via JS Online

Obama has 1,840.5 delegates to 1,688 for Clinton in The Associated Press tally. It takes 2,025 delegates to win the nomination in Denver this summer.

Clinton vows to remain in but has loaned her campaign $6.4 million, most likely a sign of money raising woes. Superdelegates appear to be headed toward Obama.

However, she is expected to take West Virginia and Kentucky next week and, perhaps, prolong her campaign and the Democrats agony further. She holds out hope for Florida and Michigan.

Clinton told reporters it would take 2,209 or 2,210 delegates to win the nomination, not the 2,025 in use by the Democratic National Committee. The higher total would come into play if the delegations were seated from Michigan and Florida, two states that held primaries outside the time frame that party rules required.

But here’s how I see it now. Obama wins the Democratic nomination. That’s obvious to all except Clinton supporters. He then eschews public funding of his campaign. If the voters let him get away with going back on his “promise,” he easily raises more money than McCain.

I’m not sure at this point if McCain ditches the “nice guy” campaigning he’s been engaging in till now, because any criticism of Obama will be proclaimed as racist.

Hey, we’re a long way away and I could be wrong. In fact, I hope I am.

UPDATE: Mac Ranger disagrees.

UPDATE II: Robert Novak says,

With Clinton about to be out of the picture, look for a big Obama jump in the polls to take a lead-maybe a commanding lead-against McCain. The dreadful state of the GOP, as reflected in its recent loss of a Louisiana congressional seat (see below), was bound to catch up with the presidential race. McCain cannot win without sustained battering of Obama, a tactic that McCain deplores.

That’s the way I see it. People want a change; they don’t really care what kind.

Round Two in VP Madness

It doesn’t mean a thing, but round two of CQ’s VP Madness has begun.

With record turnout, more than 6,000 votes were cast in the first round. Here are the big winners:

• Condoleezza Rice (69%) vs. Chuck Hagel (30%)
• Mike Huckabee (60%) vs. Lindsey Graham (39%)
• Mark Sanford (84%) vs. Jim DeMint (15%)
• Mitt Romney (75%) vs. Marsha Blackburn (24%)
• Tim Pawlenty (82%) vs. Phil Gramm (17%)
• Colin Powell (56%) vs. David Petraeus (43%)
• Tom Ridge (53%) vs. Haley Barbour (46%)
• Kay Bailey Hutchison (69%) vs. Rudy Guiliani (30%)
• Sarah Palin (59%) vs. Rick Perry (40%)
• Sam Brownback (61%) vs. Fred Thompson (38%)
• Michael Steele (65%) vs. Tom Coburn (34%)
• Bobby Jindal (58%) vs. Mike Pence (41%)
• Rob Portman (60%) vs. Eric Cantor (39%)
• Joe Lieberman (66%) vs. Jeb Bush (33%)
• John Thune (63%) vs. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (36%)
• Charlie Crist (66%) vs. J.C. Watts (33%)

Visit the site  to make your picks.

Democrats outnumber Republicans in Pinellas County

From the St. Petersburg Times, it appears the county I grew up in has changing politics.

Pinellas County has turned blue, at least when it comes to voter registration in this GOP stronghold.

For the first time in more than two decades, figures from the Supervisor of Elections Office Friday showed registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans, 233,240 to 233,181.

The last time Democrats had the edge, according to records from the supervisor’s office, was in 1984. A decade ago, Republicans enjoyed a 30,000-voter advantage.

When my mom and dad moved there in 1963, they could only register as Democrats.

The reasons?

• National discontent with the GOP.
• Pinellas is becoming younger and more diverse

But what do voter registrations really tell us?

[R]egistration figures only tell part of the story. There are more Democrats in Florida than Republicans, yet the GOP controls nearly all levers [sic] of state government.

I guess we’ll see what happens. In Florida and nationwide.

VP Madness (GOP Edition)

Via techPresident comes this link to CQ Politics, which has a vice president bracket for the Republican vice presidential candidate.

Just select between the sixteen sets of two choices and whoever receives the most votes in each set goes on to the next round. After you’ve selected, a window pops up showing the current results.

UPDATE: For those of you interested, neither Carla Fiorina nor Paul Ryan is on the list.

Another potential McCain VP?

From The Week magazine’s website

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina has been touring poorer parts of the country with Republican presidential candidate John McCain, acting as an economic adviser and campaign surrogate. Fiorina, named the GOP’s ceremonial “Victory” chairwoman for 2008, is reportedly on McCain’s short list of vice presidential choices. (The Wall Street Journal) “We could do a lot worse than Carly,” said Republican National Committee Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli. (NBC11.com)

What the commentators said
Carly Fiorina? Come on, said Shawn Wasson in the blog The News Junkie. She was a “failed executive” at HP, and “if she can’t run a computer company, she certainly can’t run this country.” If this isn’t a ploy on Fiorina’s part to garner “a little positive publicity for herself,” it’s clearly a “calculated move” to “confuse” the Democrats.

Of course, we saw comments like this at Sean Hackbarth’s also interview at The American Mind when she was in the area with McCain earlier this month.

But maybe since good business people haven’t done that well with the economy, we should let some poor business people try.

Will they split the difference?

From My Way News - Top Michigan Democrats suggest splitting delegates

Michigan Democrats working to get the state’s delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday suggested splitting them 69-59 between presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton has argued that she should get 73 delegates based on the results of the Jan. 15 primary, which she won - 18 more than Obama.

Obama, who removed his name from the ballot, wants the 128 pledged delegates split evenly, 64-64.

The compromise, suggested Tuesday in a letter to Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer, fell halfway between the two proposals.

Obama would be well served to take this deal, as would Clinton. Clinton gets the win she can brag on, Obama doesn’t lose that much ground and delegates get seated, thus avoiding a charge of disenfranchisement.

Clinton challenges Obama to Lincoln-Douglas style debate

Yeah, it would be like that.

Except Douglas would have had to have called Lincoln, “Ape,” and Lincoln would have had to have replied, “Shorty.”

Or something like that.

Early electoral outlook

UPDATE: Here’s a nice little map to summarize.

From the Associated Press, favors the Democrats, supposedly. In summary,

The competition to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win is expected to play out primarily in 14 states. All but one saw the greatest action in 2004. The exception is Virginia, a longtime Republican stronghold where Democrats have made inroads. Eight of the states went for President Bush four years ago, including the crown jewels Ohio and Florida. Six, including big-prize Pennsylvania, voted for Democrat John Kerry. In the battlegrounds, far more electoral votes, 97, are up for grabs for Democrats than the 69 available for McCain to go after.

The states? Those which went Republican in 2004 with their electoral votes, Colorado (9), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Iowa (7), Missouri (11), Ohio (20), Florida (27), and Virginia (13).

Those that went for Kerry, Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (17), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (21) and Oregon (7).

The article mentioned several wild card states, Arkansas (6), West Virginia (5), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Kentucky (8), Arizona (10), Washington (11), Maine (4), and, perhaps, even New Jersey (15) and Delaware (3).

Yeah, it winds up being a lot. The reasons for each are given in the article.

“The public’s disdain for Congress is justified”

So writes James Burkee, professor at Concordia University and candidate for the Republican nomination to the House of Representatives in Wisconsin’s Fifth District, in the latest Small Business Times.

His charge against Jim Sensenbrenner,

A judge would not rule on a case involving a pharmaceutical company he owned stock in. So why would a congressman vote for legislation that positively affected the value of stocks he owned in pharmaceutical companies - or defense contractors?

Even if it’s not corrupt, it sure looks bad.

A similar problem exists with the impact of special interest money. Many members of Congress, including Mr. Sensenbrenner, take millions of dollars from special interests, then vote for legislation that positively affects the very interests that fund their campaigns (the majority of his campaign contributions come from special interests). Or they accept gifts, like the hundreds of thousands of dollars in free travel given Congressman Sensenbrenner, from organizations looking to benefit from Congressional legislation.

It may not be illegal, but it sure looks bad.

Burkee, on the other hand, has promised that he will,

never vote for irresponsible deficit spending, will reject lobbyist gifts and special interest money in his campaign and in office, and will limit himself to three terms.

Jo Egelhoff to run for 57th assembly

She announced on FoxPolitics.net

I’m thrilled to announce that I’ll be running to succeed State Rep. Steve Wieckert, a great Republican representing residents in the 57th Assembly District.

Best of luck to Jo.

A conservative cap tip to Cindy Kilkenny.

Is Huckabee Already Preparing for Another Prez Run?

That’s what Matt Lewis asks on Townhall.com.

I hope he waits until after John McCain’s second term.

In 2016.

McCain Wisconsin Economic Summit

Cindy Kilkenny is covering this. Start with the link and move forward for the chronological sequence of posts.

Campaign finance

In the aftermath of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, a loud cry is once again being raised to reform the process especially for judgeship races, like theSupreme Court.

I was going to write about it, but Lance Burri already did and his thoughts pretty much mirror mine, to wit,

So we’re all pretty sick of this Supreme Court election. Am I right?Sick of the negative ads. The gutter politics. The mutually assured destruction of reputation and trust.

Me, too. And I’m worried about the effect this all may have on our courts: if the Court simply becomes one more partisan football…

I may be worried unnecessarily. Six months from now, the vast majority of us will have forgotten all about it. In fact, considering today’s expected turnout, most of us may never have known.

His solution? Not what you might have read or heard elsewhere.

I’ll tell you what I’d prefer: no limits on candidate spending. No limits on the money they can raise. It’s more democratic, because it narrows the advantages rich candidates have over the rest of us.

And then enforce strict reporting requirements. You get to spend it, but we get to know where you got it.

It might not work. Or it might. One way to find out.

It won’t entirely settle the “appearance of impropriety” problem, of course, but at least it won’t run afoul of the First Amendment.

It won’t end the nastiness, either. Politics and elections will still be bare-knuckle and bloody – the more important the election, the more that will be true.

But then, none of the other “solutions” people are offering will change that, either.

Read the whole thing.

Lobbyists and term limits

Jim Burkee, a Republican candidate for Wisconsin’s fifth congressional district, writes at his MequonNOW blog, Responsibility Now, and raises some questions that need consideration,

Thus was born the K Street Project - Tom DeLay’s decade-long effort make Republicans the primary beneficiaries of lobbyist cash (Washington’s K Street is home to many of its most powerful lobbyists). In one notorious example, first reported in Washington Monthly, Tom DeLay and Haley Barbour (Chairman of the Republican National Committee) met with the CEOs of several large American corporations. DeLay made clear to the executives - mostly Republicans - that “they were expected to purge their Washington offices of Democrats and replace them with Republicans.” The offended executives promptly walked out. But Tom DeLay’s project was ultimately successful.It also killed the Republican Revolution.

In 2001, when George W. Bush cemented Republican control of Washington, there were just over 17,000 registered lobbyists in Washington. By 2007, when Republicans lost the House and Senate, there were 37,000. Since 1998, according to the Center for Public Integrity, lobbyists spent $13 billion to influence members of Congress. Lobbyist influence extended even further: Half of all retiring Members of Congress now go into lobbying, where they often collect large six and seven-figure salaries.

I can understand where Mr. Burkee is coming from. When we hear how much lobbies give to our politicians and how that money seems to influence their decisions, it’s easy to get frustrated.

But are more regulations on campaign finances required? Are term limits required? With the high cost of campaigning, aren’t we headed toward a government by elite rich people because only they can run for office?

And remember, not all lobbyists are “evil.” God help me, I’m quoting Hillary Clinton here,

“A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said in defense of her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”

Do we punish all because some are evil?

That seems to be Mr. Burkee’s cure.

I’m just not sure it’s the right one.

More left-of-center reaction

UPDATE: 4-8-08 - The discussion in the comments contends I did not read their posts correctly. So be it. My apologies to them.)

As steveegg suggests, get some popcorn.

The people are stupid. Be sure to read those comments. Oh, yeah, did I mention the people are stupid?

Half of the state belongs to the WMC.

Brain Fraley has more, including the two above.

I guess WEAC’s and Greater Wisconsin’s money wasn’t enough. The last link is truly the pot calling the kettle black coming from xoff.

Republicans are ill-behaved, at best. Yeah like that Walker and Hitler post. Those conservatives sure do slime people. Oh, and they are liars.

Some apparently haven’t seen the out state vote, because they blame everything on talk radio.

There are over 400,000 bad people in Wisconsin.

Via Dad29, quoting Mordecai Lee, there are over 400,000 racists in Wisconsin.

The Left actually won.

Lest you think everyone is whining.

Um, weren’t both judges trashed?

From the Journal Sentinel “All Politics” blog,

“It is a tragedy that such a fine judge and good human being was trashed during the campaign,” Doyle’s statement said. “Justice Butler has served with distinction and honor on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and I thank him for his fairness, his sense of justice and his lifelong commitment to public service.”

No word on Doyle’s opinion of the trashing of Judge Gableman.

But I bet I can guess.

Hear the crickets?

The Left needs to start looking for the beam

Just the post to throw back a Bible verse the Left loves to use. And a word the Left likes to throw at people who try to live what they believe, yet falter sometimes.

Matthew 7:1-5

1“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

A local left-of-center blogger recently juxtaposed a picture of Scott Walker and Adolph Hitler. Sorry, there will be no link. It disgusts me and my respect for this formerly engaging blogger has dropped to new lows. That any sane person could see a similarity between a fine man and a mass murdering psychopath is beyond me.

To their credit several left-of-center bloggers and commenters have criticized him for doing this.

He posted an “explanation” later. Here is the jist.

Of course I was not really comparing the two.

But he was. “Two Ambitious Men” was the title of the post.

Tell me that the Gableman campaign did not know exactly what they were doing when they juxtaposed a picture of Justice Butler next to that of a sex offender who also happened to be the same race as Butler?

They may have known what they were doing. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll ask Justice Gableman if I see him again. He’ll probably deny it. So what will be gained?

The fact remains that any sex offender, as vile and disgusting as the crime may be, is on such a higher plane than Hitler.

Maybe, as someone said, Tim should stick to baseball.

Apologies to anyone offended.

Yet, the fact that the pictures remain posted makes me doubt the sincerity of the apology.

The fact of the matter remains that when the Left wins elections, it’s because of issues and when they lose elections, it must be that the Right somehow did something so despicable that they must be compared with Nazis.

The Left needs to grow up.

(h/t to Nick.)

McCain compiles list of running mates

From Yahoo News

McCain has given no hint of his thinking on a running mate, although he frequently speaks warmly of his former rivals for the nomination, particularly former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Among the other possible choices are several governors: Minnesotas Tim Pawlenty, Floridas Charlie Crist, Mississippis Haley Barbour, South Carolinas Mark Sanford and Utahs Jon Huntsman Jr.

A nice list, right? Others would add Mitt Romney amd others.

All I can say is I don’t think it should be any of these fine seven men.

In a year when, at the least, Republicans are going to face an African American man or a woman or both, McCain has to look at people like Steele, Rice, Martinez or someone from a “minority” group.

Maybe they didn’t get a chance in February

An ad on page 5A in Monday’s Waukesha Freeman. Notice the first line.

April 1st election

UPDATE: The website for your ballot (and voting record, by the way) requires the exact spelling of your first and last name. I have Ms. Lori Howe’s postcard to make me aware that one of my names is mispelled.

I also got Roger Patton’s website from the Waukesha Freeman. I only needed to read this page to know I wouldn’t be voting for him.

I also added the link to Mr. Gleisner’s website, which I neglected earlier.

Cindy Kilkenny tipped us to this web site where you can find out the Wisconsin candidates and/or questions on your ballot. Here’s mine (Links to web sites are included where known, my choices in bold).

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

MIKE GABLEMAN (Non-Partisan)
LOUIS BUTLER (Non-Partisan)

ALDERPERSON (AL3)

CHRISTOPHER R. HERNANDEZ (Non-Partisan)
LORI A. HOWE (Non-Partisan)

County Board Supervisor (NSU19)

Steven Wimmer (Non-Partisan)
Roger Patton (Non-Partisan)

COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, DISTRICT 2

WILLIAM GLEISNER (Non-Partisan)
LISA S NEUBAUER (Non-Partisan)

WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, BRANCH 2
MARK S GEMPELER (Non-Partisan) Um, let me see…

WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, BRANCH 5
LEE S DREYFUS, JR (Non-Partisan) Ditto.

WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, BRANCH 6
PATRICK C HAUGHNEY (Non-Partisan) And again.

School District Unified (US6174)Waukesha
COMO, JOSEPH LEE JR (Non-Partisan) You’re kidding, right?
O’BRYAN, KURT (Non-Partisan)
BRZENK, BARBARA (Non-Partisan)

QUESTION 1: Partial veto
QUESTION 1: “Partial veto. Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of the enrolled bill?”

YES, YES, YES.