The Primary Is Secondary

It, the Republican primary race, is over and Romney will be the nominee, Louisiana's results notwithstanding.  The Republican party will nominate an unpopular RINO, who is the intellectual and political godfather of socialized medicine in the United States and who has never been re-elected to any office held.

Mr. Romney's source of primary delegates is founded on states which neither he nor any Republican is likely to win against the incumbent.  It is useless for a Republican candidate to spend a nickel to try to win California's electoral votes as my home state will vote for a dead Democrat over any Republican.  That is a fact exercised in Illinois every election, presidential or not.  It is smart primary politics to work those useless electoral states as they do count for the convention nominating process.  But no Republican candidate will obtain a single California, Illinois, Vermont or Massachussets electoral vote, not one.

Romney will be a dreary candidate against the more cool, media-backed incumbent.  He's a pretty-boy with a perfect 10 resume.  That's why he's unliked: he's too perfect, he's all resume; he gives no vibes as to understanding the general electorate.  I think that's because he doesn't understand the general electorate: he sees people as various statistical cohorts which needs to be managed.  McCain was a better candidate than Romney will be including the fact that McCain had Sarah with him to liven up his mortuary appearance.  Romney will have none of that.  And we know how that worked out.

Nevertheless, Romney is very consistent.  He will do what he has historically done best: he will lose.

Liberal Logic

George Zimmerman, the person who shot the boy who looked like Hussein Obama's putative son, is universally described as a white male in the mainstream media.  Seldom is his picture displayed.  The reason is that he is clearly not a Euro-white male: he is a Latino, an Hispanic.  Sadly for the Sharptons, Jacksons and other racist rabble-rousers, that truth does not fit the narrative they're selling.

To a liberal, that Zimmerman has a white father and a Peruvian mother is enough to make him the white killer of a black man.

Following that liberal logic leads one, ineluctably, to the conclusion that Hussein Obama, who has a Kenyan father and a white mother is our 44th white president.

Abortion on Television

Did you ever wonder why an abortion is never shown on television?  We see re-enactments of murder, rape and mayhem.  We see real death, disasters and destructions in news programs.  But we never see an abortion.  Why?

An abortion, the "procedure" as its proponents call it would, if seen, end abortions once and for all.  Imagine the Obama abortion, the one in which the doctor errs and the baby is not killed during the "procedure" but is alive and outside the womb.  Obama, with others, voted to permit the doctor to kill the born child without penalty.

How can anyone do that?  Only a gutless politician could vote that way for his own election.  No decent person would consider it; it is murder to be sure.  Yes, it is: the intentional killing of one human being by another is murder.

Think about it; picture it in your mmind.  Then ask yourself why it has never been shown on television. 

Romney's Electability III

Once again the inevitable Mitt Romney falls far short, capturing something less than a third of the Republican primary voters.  We've said right along that he's a cold fish, plastic and unlikeable.  (See Older Posts)  Romney is simply not a leader in the electoral sense.  It's more than clear that he's very intelligent, has led an exemplary life and is a lot better than Hussein Obama.  But it's not enough.  If you can't get more than a third of your friends to vote for you, how can you secure votes from the undecideds and the democrat voters? 

You can't - and that is the issue.  Newt is, finally, sounding that tocsin.  It's way past time for the Republican Grandees to note that that bell tolls for them as well.  If nominated, Romney will not win the election as Republicans will not come out and vote for him in the enthusiastic droves that Hussein engenders in blacks, Mexicans and food stamp voters, including lottery winners.  That's the ball game.

Feministas

As noted in my prior post, I rarely comment on feminism but Gloria Allred's newest blather is worth noting as it's just so much obvious bs.  Her latest clarion call is a demand that the Florida prosecutors arrest Rush Limbaugh for violating some state law prohibiting defamatory statements against women.  Limbaugh is a Florida resident.

There are major legal impediments with Allred's braying.  First, the law is unconstitutional as it offends the eqaul protection clause of the Constitution.  You can't have a law like that which applies to females only.  I now assume that Allred is okay with rules unfair to men on their face; it's just women who can't be treated unfairly.  It's okay to be unfair to men.  It's a bit like affirmative action: repayment for historical (and hysterical) wrongs.

Another major legal problem is that Limbaugh's remarks are simply not defamatory in the legal context.  They are opinions; they are hyperbole and a reasonable person would interpret them that way.  Such are constitutionally protected speech.  Sorry Gloria; this time you're up the wrong tree.  But she's looking for publicity, not a conviction.  And our compliant press is not simply ignorant but incurious.  They will let any liberal say anything but nitpick the conservative to death.

The lesson here?  Democrat liberal loudmouths get wide-spread exposure from the press even when it's obvious that what they say is wrong.  No lawyer would shout this except secure in the knowledge that there will be no blowback from a press which would love to see Limbaugh taken down/

Speaking of Feminism

I rarely do feminism blogs but this Fluke thing is beyond rational thought.  Can you image the cojones Fluke must have to ask someone else to pay for her personal pleasure?  Why not ask the dude she's with to cover (no pun) the cost or, better, to bring his own condom(s)?  Why does she even need contraception?  Is she a high-risk taker so as to have mucho sex but not mucho safe sex?  Please say it isn't so.

If this new useful idiot of the left is having safe sex, i.e., sex with a guy wearing a condom, she has no need for contraception.  If she's not having safe sex, she needs to attend safe sex classes.  Such are a bit like traffic school where everybody knows how to drive but forgot to follow the rules and got caught.  Maybe, a trip to her doctor would be in order?

Who should pay for that?  Not me.  Maybe you, Lefty.

Experiment in Feminism

Let's try this on for size.  Our feminist friends are large on women having rights equal to men.  Logically, that would mean that in their ideal world, women and men have equal rights.  Okay?

Man tells wife: "I'm outta' here Fatso."  Shortly thereafter, a judge says: "You may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support.  You made a deal and you broke it.  Breaking a contract has consequences.  Pay up."  Okay?

Wife tells hubby: I'm outta' here BetaBoy."  Shortly thereafter, a judge says: She may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support.  It's public policy.  Pay up."  Okay?

"Fair is fair" said the fair feministas.