I was terrified of the prospect of a third party candidate. A three-way, split vote might very well … if the third candidate were viable and interesting … insure the re-election of the worst President in American history, Barack Obama. Nothing would make James Carville happier.

Unless, of course, this third party candidate were Hillary Clinton!

Carville would be strapping on two Colt 45’s, lock n’ load, and mosey on down to the 2012 OK Corral right  behind the Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton is now, if you don’t mind my saying so, Carville’s “Main Man”.

James Carville is not, if you remember, a “Judas” like former Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

The Third Party Possibility was a worry I had dispelled awhile ago when Glenn Beck seemed adamant about not running for the Presidency on a Third Party ticket.

Now we have James Carville absolutely certain that someone, so far unnamed, will run against both the Republican and Democratic Candidates.

“I think,” said Glenn Beck in November of 2009,“a third party candidate is going to win in 2012!”

Was Beck talking about himself then?

No.

Beck, in 2009, mentioned Sarah Palin as a third party candidate.

Is Carville echoing the notion?

(more…)

For some reason, some liberals in Hollywood like to give dictators the benefit of the doubt. Their five-decade support for Fidel Castro’s iron rule over 11 million voiceless Cubans is inexplicable. Their “Blame America First” philosophy has brought them into relationships with some of the worlds most nefarious people – like Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.

This shouldn’t surprise us, Hollywood is a fantasy factory – so it seems that the foreign policy experience of these folks reflects more their career than it does any true understanding of the reality of the governments they so enthusiastically defend. Recently, Hollywood liberals have found a new group of dictators to support. They now heedlessly defend the nouveau authoritarians of South America, like Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, and Evo Morales.

In the most recent episode, Sean Penn wrote an op-ed in Huffington Post condemning the State Department for economic sactions against Venezuela’s oil company, PDVSA. Decrying the sanctions’ unfairness, Pennsays that ‘Venezuelans live in abject poverty’. On that we agree: the plight of the poor in Venezuela is stunning. Yet Mr. Penn it seems has not stopped to think of why so many Venezuelans are so poor in such a rich country. Under Chavez’s twelve-year rule alone, Venezuela has earned close to 1 trillion dollars in oil wealth. Yet the people remain desperately poor. Lets put this in perspective, this one thousand billion dollars translates to over $130,000 per average Venezuelan family. What did Chavez do with it? It is hard to believe that after 12 years of this kind of hard income Chavez – who Penn defends so wholeheartedly – has been unable to reduce poverty. This seems to be more a reason to call for new leadership than to defend the current one. If this were the case in the United States, of a President who after holding the equivalent of three terms, as Chavez has – Mr. Penn himself would probably be calling for a change in the White House – and rightly so.

(more…)

If you’re wondering why Hollywood would agree to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in kamikaze missions to produce one embarrassing anti-Bush/anti-America/anti-War-on-Terror flop after another, take a look at Paul Bond’s Hollywood Reporter piece below and then take a look at the definition of an in-kind contribution.

Basically, an in-kind contribution is a perfectly legal way around fundraising limits where you help your candidate and/or party in a way that doesn’t qualify as a legal contribution. For instance, GE contributes to Democrats through an in-kind contribution we like to call MSNBC. Same with AOL through the Huffington post. And…

Same with Hollywood. During the Bush years, the film industry did something it had never done before and that’s bring to life anti-American/anti-war propaganda films while America was still fighting that war. Long after the first few films had flopped, more were still greenlit — and in the case of “Green Zone” at the price of $100m more — in order to bring down Bush, aid Democrats, and lift the Leftist cause. At the time they thought they were aiding Hillary. But once Obama came along, same difference.

And here’s why they were willing to risk all that money and further alienate 50% of their customers…

(more…)

The Vatican calls it “outrageous.” Hillary called it “disgraceful.” Eric Holder smeared it as “idiotic.” And the NYPD called it “dangerous.”

No, those strong words are not about my new mesh thong ( I’m only giving the people what they want). And they aren’t reactions to the mosque built near Ground Zero. They are responses to the putrid pastor’s plans to burn the Quran this Saturday, Sept 11th.

And I agree with all of them. The dude, Rev. Terry Jones, is an attention seeking sack of poop who’s accomplished everything he wanted: He put his morbidly mustachioed face all over the map – and embarrassed everyone from Gainesville, Florida. I’ve been trying to do that for years.

But in a weird way, this handle-barred hooligan has taught us a few lessons:

1. That mostly everyone agrees the pastor can burn the book, but he’s a big weenie if he does it. This was exactly my argument over the construction of the mosque. So in a weird way, this guy may have clued in others who missed that subtle point: The mosque can be built, but a compromise (or a conversation about it) might have been nice. Don’t get me wrong: the Koran burning is pure provocation, and I’m not sure that’s entirely the case with the mosque. But both issues deal with poor judgment. The key distinction: the pastor is a total barfpuck. (more…)

——

(more…)

Last night HBO debuted the documentary “By the People: The Election of Barack Obama,” which chronicles the historic election of our 44th president. The film was shot by Alicia Sams and Amy Rice with a key assist from actor Edward Norton. The directors wanted to follow Obama around on his campaign after seeing his speech in the 2004 Democrat Convention. They couldn’t get any calls back until Ed Norton stepped in to help. Norton doesn’t appear in the film. But there are plenty of other starry-eyed voters lined up to praise “the one.”

The film’s first 45 minutes deals with the Iowa Caucus where Obama’s campaign begins. He spends eight months meeting people and working his bland charm, trying to convince everyone he’s just like them. An agreeable, prosaic kind of guy who looks good in a suit and grins a lot. There is no indication of his politics or past associations being radical. He seems a moderate. There are a few people interviewed who question his past, but it’s given little attention. (more…)