…if Past be Prologue…

I see Mike Allen at The Politico is reporting the existence of a letter from Bob Dole to Rush Limbaugh, scolding the latter over his insistence on ‘strafing’, as Allen puts it, of John McCain.

And you know, absent Mr. Dole’s abysmal 1996 and 1998 campaigns, his words might actually carry some weight.  In light of the political positions taken then, I suppose it should be no shock to find that Mr. Dole has come to the aid of Mr. McCain, now.  But perhaps recalling those legendary failures will give us pause about pulling the lever for McCain, today.

My instinctive reaction would be to say to Dole, as he famously said to a voter questioning HIM…  ” Shut up and get back in your cage!”. Thing is, I’m not as inclined to tell the people to shut up as Bob Dole and those he’s defending… such as John McCain… are. As of 1996 and 98, we see where that gets us, don’t we?

I’ve been convinced for some days, now that Romney is the only logical choice we have.

I’ll tell you this; I can think of nothing that would motivate the base for the general election like a Romey win, today. And nothing that will kill off the base, and with it, the Republican chances of winning in November, like a McCain win, today.

I note with some degree of satisfaction, McQ saying:

Ed Morrissey brings us his take on the surprise chat between John McCain and Hillary Clinton on yesterday’s Fox News Sunday:

Part of the conservative complaint against McCain is his deference to Democrats while treating conservatives much more harshly. That got put on full display yesterday, as the two exchanged not just pleasantries but assurances that a general-election contest between the two would be “respectful”. Republicans may want someone less inclined to put the gloves on against Hillary than taking them off against fellow Republicans.

Both candidates got taken by surprise, but Hillary hasn’t got Democrats wondering if the Clintons can fight hard enough against Republicans.

It appears, given the probability of a McCain nomination and either of the Democrats as their nominee that the choice for small/less intrusive government voters will be lacking.

If it is McCain/Clinton, it’s hard to decide who the less attractive candidate may be. If it is McCain/Obama, I don’t think McCain will come off well against Obama. McCain is not a great speaker (in fact, as he stumbles and bumbles along, he reminds me a bit of Bush), and that particular stark difference may be enough, in the minds of uncommitted voters, to overshadow the supposed stark difference in issues – especially with the “change” mantra so popular and seemingly powerful at the moment. As most will decide, when they listen to McCain, he is anything but change when compared to Obama. And, given the “respectful” pledge above, I have to wonder, as does Ed Morrissey, if McCain will actually go after either of the possible Dem nominees effectively. I get the impression he’s more worried about being in good standing with his Democratic colleagues than doing what is necessary to win.

No kidding.  Look, most of the left isn’t going to vote for McCain, anyway, because regardless of how much he panders to liberals and cozies up with the open borders crowd, he still has that troublesome (R) by his name.  OTOH, despite having that (R) by his name, Republicans aren’t going to vote for him either… The real ones, I mean… because of the pandering to liberals and cozying up with the open borders crowd, and so on.

I happened to hear Rush mention Ed’s posting.  while in the truck on my way to an appointment. I’m glad that on Fox exchange occurred,  because it exposes quite clearly what we’ve been talking about all along with McCain. I actually had a post in pre-release on that post of Ed’s which I pulled, when Rush made note of it, because Rush pretty much made the same points, saying:

Fox News yesterday kind of tricked Hillary and McCain. They had them both on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, and the idea was that they would both be on separately. After Hillary finished, they asked Hillary to stay there and stay connected so she could hear what McCain said. They kept her microphone live. After McCain finished, she and McCain were asked if they’d like to speak to each other. They had no choice; they did speak to each other and very civil about it.  Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters said that the McCain camp was not particularly happy about this (properly so) because “Part of the conservative complaint against McCain is his deference to Democrats while treating conservatives much more harshly. That got put on full display yesterday, as the two exchanged not just pleasantries but assurances that a general-election contest between the two would be ‘respectful.’ Republicans may want someone less inclined to put the gloves on against Hillary than taking them off against fellow Republicans.”  Morrissey is exactly right here.  McCain is far friendlier to his enemies, the people that are going to try to bury him, than he is to… well, he’s making friends with his enemies, let’s just put it that way.

Here’s the bottom line, and Captain Ed is exactly right about this.  “Hillary hasn’t got Democrats wondering if the Clintons can fight hard enough against Republicans.”  The Democrats know that either one of their candidates — Hillary or Obama — are going to take it to McCain and us. But we on the Republican side do have a concern about how hard Senator McCain will go out and fight these people, since he wants to adopt their ideas since they’re “poll[ing] better”.

That ought to raise serious questions in the minds of McCain supporters… Rush has this one correct. And even assuming McCain can win against someone whom he’s stated flatly on live, national TV, that he won’t take on, I’m still not convinced there’s enough policy difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, to make fighting for McCain worthwhile.

• Yes,I know, I didn’t comment last night as regards the Superbowl. I’m just as glad New York won. Not that I’ve ever been a Giants fan, but the last few seasons I’ve been less of a Pats fan, particularly since I follow the Bills, and for other reasons.  For one…. I don’t know, but I suspect Bill Belichick will get the award for NFL anus of the decade.  The man was a total jerk through the post game interviews.  Not that I expected else. Anyone who could come up with some of the sideline cheats he and his boys did, can’t be very good sportsmen, anyway. Personally speaking, I’m delighted such a team lost the big game. Everyone expected a rout and what they got turned into an actual football game.
• Tom Petty’s halftime show turned into an actual halftime show, too.  I was struck by the idea of everyone in the place singing along with about all the songs played. The sight… and sound… of 80,000 or so people singing along was something you’ll never get with, say, Janet Jackson.  The surround sound really brought that up. Speaking of which, a buddy of mine a few days ago, remarked that Petty would never be able to top Jackson’s show… for one thing, he doesn’t have the boobs for it.  Well, perhaps the point isn’t to top the show of others for audibly or physically loud, or risque, or anything.  Perhaps it’s just about being honest entertainment.
• Oh, speaking of Petty, I see Hillary Clinton playing “Me, too”. Petty, for his part, isn’t endorsing anyone, saying “I’m just a guitar player, you don’t want to know what I think”. Wise, I think… and possibly wisdom instilled by the negative feedback he got when his name came up back in 2000, over George W Bush’s use of “I won’t back down”. Still, one wonders why Hillary Clinton gets away with using “American Girl”, if Petty’s remaining “neutral”. Perhaps he just doesn’t wanna fight anymore. (Shrug)
• Clinton, of course, after having decided she’s been a Pats fan her whole life, was quick to jump out in front of the Giants parade as soon as they won. OK, yeah, it’s not direct in it’s indication of how she’ll run the country. Or, maybe it is. She’ll try to play both sides against the middle, and then whatever happens, she’ll be there trying to credit herself for having the foresight on it all along…. whatever ‘it’ is.
• Boortz is running a list of the most Miserable Cities he copped from Forbes Magazine. Let’s have a look:
  1. Detroit, MI
  2. Stockton, CA
  3. Flint, MI
  4. New York City
  5. Philadelphia, PA
  6. Chicago, IL
  7. Los Angeles, CA
  8. Modesto, CA
  9. Charlotte, NC
  10. Providence, RI

  Do you suppose there’s a trend, here that can be seen?  Boortz nails it:

  Forbes defines misery as a state of great unhappiness and emotional distress. Forbes used criteria such as unemployment, taxes, commute times, crime, pollution and weather. Now you can draw your own conclusions by looking at the list of cities above .. but with only a few exceptions from the list … I think that I’ve noticed some commonalities. Strong union presence, for instance, and liberal politicians.

  In short, they’re dominated by liberal Democrats. We’ve pointed the trend out here before, and it continues. What’s amazing to me is the number of people who don’t understand the connection.  It was proven (Unwittingly) with Jimmy Carter’s “Misery Index” decades ago. It’s still true. The more Democrats you have, the worse off you are. It’s pretty much that simple and that direct.

• I see Bill Quick has a list of concerns over John McCain. A fairly comprehensive one, at that. Conservative Reader has his thoughts up, as well. For my part, I’m still not convinced, either way. McCain and his followers cannot under any conditions lean on his record to help him prove his case. His record, when viewed without the current hype, is one of a hanger-on… In a very Clintonesque fashion, McCain is someone who jumped into the parade of Conservatism back in Reagan’s day because it happened to be winning, not because of any commitment to conservative principle. His actions then and since make this case quite plainly.  McCain Fiengold, McCain Kennedy, and so on, and his anti-business, anti-freedom, pro enviro-nazi nonsense, much of which Quick lists… On that basis of what he’s been doing recently, alone, I’d have questions about him.  Add in the historical references and I’m more than a little uneasy about the man being every bit as bad in office as either Clinton or Barrack Obama. So, what would it take to convince me? I don’t know. Frankly he’s done everything he could to damage his reputation, and it’s now to the point where I doubt it can be burnished anymore without poking holes in it. It comes down to a matter of trust… or more correctly, the lack of it. Look, he COULD, I suppose, come out and say… “Hey, I was wrong with this stuff”… as he did with his open borders nonsense… but there’s an issue of trust, here….. he’s still cozy with pro-open borders types as I’ve written here previously, having one on his staff…  his “I was wrong on immigration” not withstanding. He’s clearly not changed his mind, he’s simply telling people what they want to hear. On what basis do I trust anything else he says, particularly when what he would (in theory), say now, runs directly foul of long held positions? What could he say that could be trusted?

Can Mrs. Clinton cry her way back into the White House? Jason George, Swamp:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton’s eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that the sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

Femosphere reax:

Anchoress:

How come Hillary only cries when it’s about her? In New Hampshire she gets asked, “how do you do it, how are you so wonderful,” and she cries. Now it’s “look at our little girl, all grown up” and she cries. Never for anyone else. The tears are always for her, and always just before a primary that looks iffy.

Kim Priestap, Wizbang:

The day before the New Hampshire primary where she was trailing Obama and was expecting to be blown out, Hillary magically turned on the emotion. The following day – shazam! – she won New Hampshire because enough Democratic voters actually thought the tears were sincere. Now we’re less than 24 hours away from the all important Super Tuesday where she’s again in the race of her political life, and low and behold, she tears up again. Gah

Mary Katherine Ham, Townhall:

You know what they say. The problem with a milking cow is it won’t stay milked.

Which, now that I write it, sounds like an unfortunate knock on Hillary when it’s really meant to be a metaphor for winning over women voters. Which, now that I write it, sounds like an unfortunate knock on women voters.

But I digress. Point is, she had to go back to the well on the crying thing. It worked with women last time, and voters who are just tuning in had to get a snapshot of “human,” “emotive” Hillary just in time for tomorrow:

Kate, Small Dead Animals:

The Would-Be Commandress In Chief has the sniffles again!

And fellow Swamp Stomper, Sister Toldjah:

As there was the last time this happened, there’s a debate going on as to whether the tears were fake or genuine. I haven’t seen a video, so I can’t offer an informed opinion, but my guess is they probably were real … at least if she’s keeping up with the latest polling information which suggests that the comfortable lead she’s had in several Super Duper Tuesday states has all but evaporated.

Let us see if Mrs. Clinton’s tears work a second time. I think not.

Addendum:  Michelle Malkin:

Oh, crikey. Not again. The tears of a clown are flowing once more. Why not

Well, we now understand why William Kristol got hired at the leftist rag, called the New York Times He seems willing to tow their party line… and their endorsements.

This is an important moment for the conservative movement. Not because conservatives have some sort of obligation to fall in behind John McCain. They don’t. Those conservatives who can’t abide McCain are free to rally around Mitt Romney. And if McCain does prevail for the nomination, conservatives are free to sit out the election.But I’d say this to them: When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.

Kristol ignores, of course, that while McCain’s perspective on Iraq is somewhat better than the Democrats, it should be said that none of the Democrats have stood up and stated they’d leave the place hanging, right away, and indeed that none of them has stated a specific date at all; pretty much ending up with the same timeframe GWB placed on our efforts there a few years ago. Therefore it seems logical to assume that they’re not going to cut and run, for fear of being tagged with having lost a war. The likelihood, therefore, that Iraq gets lost with either of the cuirrent Demorat leaders, actually in the White House seems small at least… and certainly smaller than it did some months ago.

It should also be said that, as regards Supreme Court nominees, McCain has stated flatly he wouldn’t appoint an Alito, because he was too obviously conservative.

Sorry, Billy… no sale.  You’ve still not convinced anyone that McCain would be better than either Hillary Clinton or Obama on any major point.

Ask yourself, people… why would a liberal rag like the NYT endorse McCain? You KNOW why, don’t you, really?

Some conservatives can close their eyes to all this. They can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come.

That’s OK, Billy. You are herewith disinvited from your former position of responsibility as regards conservatism. It evens out.

From the St Pete Times:

HILLSBOROUGH — The spokesman for the Department of Children and Families was arrested on child pornography charges Friday night, accused of soliciting two teen-agers to perform sex acts which he used to make child pornography.

Al Zimmerman, 40, who has worked for DCF since spring 2005, was arrested in Lakeland and taken to the Hillsborough County Jail, where he was booked on eight counts of using a child in a sexual performance. Investigators say the victims were between the ages of 16 and 17.

Well I suppose her two children might miss her.  Provided that is that they have any good memories of her.  If there is anythiong we anything need less than another doper is a celebrity doper.  National Enquirer:

Britney Spears had been on a 24-hour meth binge before she was rushed to the hospital, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Ironically, she was desperately trying to stay awake – because she was terrified that if she fell asleep, her family would “drag her off to a mental institution,” according to a close source.

The drama began at 2 a.m. Wednesday when Britney and Sam Lutfi checked into the Beverly Hills Hotel and she began doing meth.

Fame is such a cruel and destructive master.   We, as a society, really do pick some horrible role models.   Will I miss Spears?   No there will be new fodder for sport.   We seem to be able generate a bountiful supply of celebrity fools.   There will be some fool after Spears. 

Hat tips:  story, Conservative Grapevine; photo,  I Don’t Like Youin That Way.

Ron Coleman:

Here’s something … conservatives must understand if they don’t want to relegated to a fringe: The electorate is not all that conservative. We will not win the Presidency with a strong conservative candidate. You can’t deduce anything from Ronald Reagan. There was one Ronald Reagan. If another one emerges, we’ll know (some of us were not fooled).

Well, your reference to Reagan, Ron, is telling, in that they said Reagan couldn’t win, either, because the electorate wasn’t all that conservative.  Perhaps you don’t recall that point. As Reagan’s long term victory, and it’s impact on America shows clearly, the way to change that is for the Republican party to actually OFFER a conservative to support, instead of someone who carries the Republican name, but not it’s ideas and ideals. We’re not going to advance conservatism by offering the electorate, half-baked liberals, and Democrat populist wannabees with R’s in front of their names.

Conservatives: Look at the body of work.

I HAVE looked at the body of work. And on that basis, John McCain is DISMISSED. Do you have a real conservative to offer?

Mrs. Clinton has evidently either never read the Constitution of the United States or thinks she is free to ignore it, Charles Babington, Associated Press:  

WASHINGTON – Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The federal government has no authority under the Constitution for Mrs. Clinton to garnish anybody’s wage to pay for her health care scheme.   Citizens who don’t want Mrs Clnton’s heath care scheme have no obligation to buy it.

Decided to get the plugins updated. Three of them were outdated. The new ones all seem to work, though some of you may have noticed the ads  or You Tube inserts working strangely for about a half hour, there, while I figured them out.

We wrote here some time ago on the subject of one Lynne Stewart.

I see John Stephenson linking stories which suggest she’s about to be released. I’m with John, and Mchelle Malkin on this one.  Lynne Stewart should rot in jail. I’ll take it one step farther… the scum should rot in jail permanently,  and consider herself lucky she wasn’t shot for her crimes.

Anyone need clarification?

A while ago, while addressing a different (And very personal) topic, I wrote about change versus transformation.

If I take a rock, and in the other hand I take a large hammer, and I hit the rock with the hammer, and break it, I’ve changed that rock. If I take that same rock, and take a small hammer and chisel, and very carefully, perhaps over a period of decades, sculpt that rock into a flower, I’ve still merely changed that rock.
Transformation, on the other hand, is when the rock itself, as a matter of responding to it’s own will, becomes a flower.

I know this is a little dated, and we’ve moved on rather a lot since Obama made so much noise about change in winning Iowa.  Ideas, though, don’t often come on command, they come when they get around to it. Usually, in the shower.(Snort)

It strikes me as interesting, that the Democrats…. and the leftist Republicans, such as John McCain… are mumbling about change…. Interesting, in that they should choose the word for externally imposed alteration, as opposed to the one meaning a willing alteration from within. The left will usually, after all, be the ones using the power of government… by definition, externally imposed ideas and concepts…. in their attempt to achieve their ends. Interesting too, that in history, the far more effective of the two… change or transformation… has invariably been transformation. Externally imposed alterations seldom work, and on those rare occasions when they do, it’s not for long.

But you see, there’s a reason that none of these call for transformation… such self-imposed alteration requires a free society in which to operate, and individuals empowered  enough to make such alterations from within.They’re calling for change, and not transformation, because in the end, this isn’t about you, this isn’t about Americans exersizing their freedoms to move in their own directions. They want to be the ones imposing that alteration.

The left has been trying for decades to IMPOSE alteration. When you see them complaining today about how they want CHANGE, you need to remember that what they’re really asking for is more of what they’ve been trying to impose onus for generations, now. Put another way, all they’re demanding and offering, is more of the same.

Clearly, not what we want.

I’ve settled long ago on Winamp because of the way it handles the rather large MP3 collection I have here.

However, I thought I’d post what plugins I’m using with Winamp to make the system more livable.

First, I’m using MuchFX, which allows me to ‘stack’ DSP audio effects. This is really the most useful thing I’ve ever seen for Winamp’s effects since there isn’t a single plug-in that matches all the audio needs.

Inside MuchFX, then, is Enhancer v0.17. Sometimes, early betas get it right. This one allows simple pseudo-parametric EQ and some fairly basic broadband AGC, as well as some echo both of which work quite well so long as it’s kept in the low ranges. Don’t ask it to sound like your Pop FM station.

From there, tend to run Compressor and Wider v1.1, which is as it suggests, a fairly good broadband compressor, with the usual limitations, thereof.  It also allows you to play with the difference signal. Long as both of these abilities are handled with kid gloves, they don’t get objectionable. The compression I use in a very light mode to allow a fairly constant RMS level, since I generally have music playing softly in my office all day, every day.  The compression (Actually the combo of compressors, in my stack) is set so as to not change the quality of the dynamics so much as make up for variances in the recorded level in individual MP3’s… a management issue when you have a large collection. Without the compression I lose whole songs. (The different attack and release times tend to mask the AGC to some degree, which is why I’m running two of them.) Total stack gain comes up around 15 DB or so. Nothing dramatic.  In any event, I can always cut the processing out if I want to get to some serious listening. (I’m currently looking for a re-leveler that will re-write the MP3, resetting the zero level to a present. I know CDEX will do this, but not in batch… and 80 gigs of MP3’s are a bear to do by hand!)

Finally, my audio playtoy is Sound Solution v1.1, which reminds me of nothing so much as an old Orban 8100. True old-style Brute force processing for broadcast applications. I suppose if I ever had any designs on running a pirate radio station, I’d be all set with that one. It’s fairly CPU intensive, though, so if I ever do that, I’ll need a seperate computer to do it with.

I’m still playing with playlist managers, and have not really come up with one I like yet, mostly because when I started burning MP3’s from the collection of LP’s I have around here, I was initially rather sloppy with how the files were labeled… it was early on in the game, and ID3 tags didn’t even exist.

I’ll open up for comments, and suggestions for Winamp plugins, and tricks.

John McCain said at the GOP debate two days ago: “I’ll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep.”

The company John McCain keeps:

Russ Feingold.

Teddy Kennedy.
Lindsay Grahamnesty.
Juan “Mexico First/Free Flow” Hernandez.
Jerry “Spanish first” Perenchio.

Geraldo Rivera.
La Raza.
Charles Keating.
John Kerry.
The New York Times.

Doesn’t that just say it all?

A legislator with too much time and not enough brains, by William Kates, Associated Press: 

SYRACUSE, N.Y. – A New York City lawmaker’s plan to regulate antique firearms like other weapons could have severe economic repercussions for museums and historical societies around the state and prevent hundreds of living history events and re-enactments staged every year.

If passed in its current form, the proposal by Democratic Assemblyman Michael Gianaris of Queens would make the state the first in the country to require owners of antique guns, black powder weapons and muzzleloading firearms to go through a background check and purchase a license, said Ralph Walker, a legislative specialist with the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association.

Such is the proposal, and for the motivation:

The lawmaker said he determined such guns needed regulating following two incidents last year.

One incident involved a student at St. John’s University with a history of psychological illness who was apprehended on campus while in possession of a loaded black powder rifle. In the second incident, a convicted felon shot and wounded a New York state trooper with a black powder rifle.

There some twenty million of us New Yorkers.   And this idiot wants to regulate black powder arms because of two incidents, none fatal.   Black power arms are simply not a problem.  Stupid legislators are a problem.