McCain and Obama spar over al-Qaida in Iraq

Alright, Obama and McCain are starting to take shots at each other. Not that bad yet, but here we go.

McCain derided Obama's comments that he would go "back into" Iraq if al-Qaida surfaced there, pointing out that "al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaida in Iraq.'"

Obama fired back saying:

"There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq..."

I'm sorry, but that's blatantly false. Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists for decades (yes, we did help them against Iran, I know), and al-Qaida, or al-Qaeda, or however the hell you want to spell it, has had Iraqi ties for decades. There was such a thing as al-Qaida in Iraq before we went in. I'm sorry. They were there.

Obama knows this. He's not a stupid man. He also knows this is a dispute that can go on and on and on. The Iraqi regime under Saddam was not exactly a transparent one.

But, for the record, that statement is simply false. If Obama said that our presence in Iraq had drawn more al-Qaida members there, perhaps I could agree with that. To say that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq before we got there is...being really naive on foreign policy.

And, just a side note, for the love of God, could we all agree on the way to spell al-Qaida? I go with al-Qaeda myself. It's driving me nuts, though.

Even if you swallow Obama's comment whole without blinking, the fact still remains that al-Qaida is on the ropes in Iraq at the moment, in large part due to the troop surge that McCain supported (he always supported going in with larger numbers, but Rumsfeld would never listen to those who called for that, preferring his own misguided vision of "smaller, elite units" doing the fighting -- and simply ignoring the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force).

Godspeed, William F. Buckley -- Godspeed...

William F. Buckley has died.

This is a truly sad day for me. William F. Buckley is a personal hero of mine, a founder of the modern conservative movement. His essay "God and Man at Yale" remains one of the cornerstone pieces of conservative philosophy.

And we're talking true conservative here. He was a fiscal conservative, a philosophical conservative...he supported legalizing marijuana, as well as a number of other drugs...he was all about small government, and all about giving the power to people.

His famous quote that he "would rather live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone directory than in one governed by the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty" still applies today -- more than ever.

Buckley is also famous for being the founder of the National Review.

You can bash if you want, you can praise if you want...but for once, I will not publish any responses to this blog post, be they positive, negative, or neutral. This post stands alone.

Like Buckley once stood alone, for what he believed in.

William F. Buckley
1925-2008

McCain -- too soft on hate

I was asked to have a "fun time defending this jerk" (John McCain), who today apologized for comments that he didn't even make, ones that were made by a talk-radio host introducing McCain -- who slammed Obama and repeated his middle name over and over (gee, I wonder why anyone would repeat "Barack Hussein Obama" over and over *cough* fearmongering *cough*).

Then, of course, after McCain took full responsibility for remarks he didn't even make, within hours, Rush Limbaugh was mocking him with his usual vitriol for -- being a nice guy? Having some sense of integrity?

Is there any doubt left that, of the three politicians left standing (I'm not counting Huckabee, here), two of them are decent guys and one is not afraid to use the "kitchen sink" attack on her opponent in the primary?

Yes, it's tough as hell to defend a decent guy and an authentic hero, I gotta say.

And is there any doubt left that the oozing pus-filled sore that is the Clinton Machine will do anything to get elected? I may not agree with Barack Obama on...well, almost everything...but I do think he's a decent guy who doesn't deserve to be smeared by a power-lusting bitch who is lashing out now that she's cornered.

Roosevelt Colvin released from the Pats

Ayuh. It was expected to happen, but now it's official, the Patriots have cut Roosevelt Colvin. Too bad. For my two cents, I thought the guy was a hell of a player and a class act.

Kevin Faulk, meanwhile, got busted for pot -- please, NFL, give me a break. And yeah, before you say it, if Brady got busted for pot, I bet we'd never even hear about it.

Anyway, farewell Rosie, and may you find success as a free agent...

(Note: Mr. C. -- I hope you read my comments on Belichick stomping off the field like a three-year-old -- and I'm sorry I root for the Pats :p)

Hillary sinks to a new low

Is there anything more disgusting than watching a Clinton attack when they're against the ropes?

You probably already know what I'm talking about -- the fact that Clinton staffers released a photograph of Obama while he was on a five-country tour in Africa wearing a Muslim headdress.

There are hordes of pictures of politicians dressing in traditional native garb. It's what you do. Obama has nothing to apologize for, and a lot to get angry about. Hell, there's a picture of Hillary Clinton herself in a headdress.

And it's just going to get uglier...

Nader '08!

That's right! Ralph Nader is running for president again!

I can barely contain my excitement. Nader fever is here, and Nader fever is contagious! That is why, right now, I have to say, to all my friends on the left, you must vote Nader.

Your next president: unelectable at any speed...

Na-der! Na-der! Na-der! Yes we can! Yes we can!

Times ombudsman blasts McCain story

Aye, like the title says, the New York Times ombudsman came out with some pretty strong criticism of the McCain smear job.

And y'all thought the press loved McCain -- of course, anybody with even an elementary grasp of politics knew the Fourth Estate would immediately turn on Johnny-boy as soon as he had secured the nomination...

And the Razzie goes to...

...Lindsay Lohan in "I Know Who Killed Me". She almost got a clean sweep...

Here are the Razzie winners (The Golden Raspberry, for those of you who don't know about Razzies -- awards you DON'T want to win...)

Worst Picture:
I Know Who Killed Me

Worst Actor:
Eddie Murphy, 'Norbit'

Worst Actress:
Lindsay Lohan, 'I Know Who Killed Me'

Worst Supporting Actress:
Lindsay Lohan (as Aubrey), 'I Know Who Killed Me'
Lindsay Lohan (as Dakota), 'I Know Who Killed Me'

Worst Screen Couple:
Lindsay Lohan & Lindsay Lohan, 'I Know Who Killed Me'

Worst Remake or Rip-Off:
I Know Who Killed Me (Rip-Off of 'Hostel,' 'Saw,' and 'The Patty Duke Show')

Worst Prequel or Sequel:
Daddy Day Camp

Worst Director:
Chris Siverston, 'I Know Who Killed Me'

Worst Screenplay:
Jeffrey Hammond, 'I Know Who Killed Me'

Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie:
I Know Who Killed Me

The official Razzie website is at:

http://www.razzies.com/

A little late posting this, but -- we shot that spy satellite down, whee

Ah, I mentioned this earlier and then never posted up a follow-up.

As most of you probably know, we hit that spy satellite on the first attempt, and we even think we nailed the sucker's fuel tank.

Here's a video of the hit and an AP report on it:

Ah, remember the 80s, when liberals were deriding a missile defense shield as pure fantasy? Bahahaha! Blam-o!

God loves explosions and so do I.

iPhone/iTouch/iPod iDiocy on duplicate songs from different albums

Okay, I had to search a while for this today, so I'm going to put this info in the hopes that it answers someone's question about this more easily than I had it answered for me.

The question is, let's say you have two albums by the same artist that have the exact same two songs on them. Duplicate songs. How do you get rid of one of them and just use one file on both albums?

The answer? You cannot get rid of one of the songs and use the other one for both albums. You have to keep both songs. That's it. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And it's really dumb, in my opinion, and could have easily been taken care of by Apple in the development phase of any of its iPod-family products.

Roseanne Barr is right -- you heard me

I never thought I'd find myself posting a link to an article by Roseanne Barr on politics, but here I am, doing it, because what she says here is absolutely right:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roseanne-barr/experience-vs-inspiratio_b_87982.html

From the piece:

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going.

Burnout Paradise review

With GT5 peeking around the corner, Burnout Paradise has quietly snuck under the radar. And it's a great game. A really great game.

First, a couple of notes on the game. It supports rumble (very nicely), sixaxis control (who the hell uses sixaxis, anyway?), has a great multiplayer mode, and also allows for use of a webcam (in Sony's view, preferably the Eye, but my Logitech worked just fine).

Now the details. Burnout Paradise is an open-ended, open-world game. Of course, when anybody says that these days, it conjures up GTA gameplay that can't be matched. But, for a driving game, this one comes damn close. A good deal of the time you might actually feel a little like you're playing GTA.

Cruising Paradise City
(click for larger image)

The graphics are great. Pure eye candy. Paradise City is rendered in beautiful detail, and there (so far) have been no load times in wandering the immense city.

The way the game works is simple: pull up to any stoplight, spin your wheels, and you're in a competition of some sort. Some are straight races. Some are take-down matches (take out other cars) -- with spectacular collisions (this game contains its fair share of "Oh Shnap!" moments). New cars are unlocked as you finish races, and most of them show up first on the street, where you have to take them down in open gameplay in order to win the car.

As you win competitions and cars, your license (which can contain a webcam-snapped picture of you) goes up in points and grades, allowing you to enter more events.

As in GTA, there are drive-throughs to fix your car, your nitro boost, your paint job...once you discover them, of course.

The physics of the game are great; collisions look and feel real. There are hundreds of stunts, and jumps, some hidden, some out in the open. The world is fully explorable -- except, of course, you can't get out of your car; this is a racing game at heart, and while it reminds one of GTA -- it ain't GTA.

Also well done is the soundtrack. It has, of course, Guns 'n' Roses singing Paradise City (duh), but also a good deal of other great driving music.

This game gets a 9 all the way around. And after playing the demo of Turismo 5...one wonders if the old "ultimate driving simulator" has maybe seen its day come and go.

And, just to add this, a 9 all around on a racing game is a high score for me, because I'm not a big racing game fan. I never have enjoyed the Need for Speed series, for instance (with the exception of Hot Pursuit).

Rent it, try it, love it, go out and buy it.

Boom Boom Boom Boom

No, I'm not referring to a John Lee Hooker song.

I'm talking about how we're going to try blowing a bus-sized satellite out of space with a missile.

Now taking bets on whether we hit it or not. I say we nail the sucker on the first try.

Michelle Obama's misstep...

Right, for those of you not addicted to the 24-hour news cycle -- Michelle Obama got quoted saying that, due to her husband's success, this is the "first time" she has ever been proud of her country.

Oh, man, was that stupid.

Here's all she had to do -- change the wording of the phrase to:

"This is the proudest I've ever been of my country."

Or anything along those lines.

The 24-hour news cycle will guarantee this story goes away, but what the hell, might as well blog while the blogging's still good.

Polls

I went ahead and added a little poll to the right sidebar, all the way down.

Whee.

And has thou slain the Castrowock?

Fidel Castro has resigned.

Oh frabjous day, Callooh Callay!

Just breaking, so not much to say about it right now.

Deciding which Dem to root for...

Obviously, this isn't really me rooting for a Dem to win the general. The question is...which one is easier for McCain to beat?

I think it's almost a tie. If Hillary is nominated, you have a candidate who has negative ratings of 40% and up. The "I'll vote for a toaster oven over her" crowd. Which includes me.

So, high negatives, good news for Republicans.

Then you got Barack. Obama's weaknesses are clear -- two terms as a state Senator and half a term as a real Senator. Although it also gives him a very limited voting record. But that cuts both ways. There's no doubt McCain would beat him in experience, but can a 71-year-old fend off an energized Barack Obama?

The conservative base would certainly turn out more for an Obama general rather than a Hillary general, I think. Obama is just way too liberal. Likable as he is, I'd rather, if the Reps are defeated, have HRC in office than Barack Obama. Not by much, but by a smidge.

HRC may also suffer from "Bush-Clinton" fatigue in the general as well. You know, the curse of the plutocracy we've lived under for a couple of decades. I'm sick of it; everyone is sick of it. Give us something not named Bush or Clinton. I don't care if it's a moderate-sized rock. Seriously.

I think, on the balance, though, in the end, you'd want an Obama general if you're a conservative. I don't think the oratory can outmuscle McCain's experience. Let's not forget that McCain is not some nice, peaceful, serene guy. He has a temper and a long history of shooting his mouth off bigtime (he curses all the time as well). Guy does have balls. Obama will run more liberally than Hillary would. HRC would occupy the same "moderate" space on the Dem side that McCain represents on the Rep side. I don't think Clinton fatigue gets you past that. Total inexperience, which Obama brings, might crop up quite badly in debates during the general election.

Although at the end of the day, it truly is a doubled-edged sword on the Dem side for Reps. And still a hard pill to swallow for conservatives with McCain the nominee.

A more in-depth Devil May Cry IV review

I recently received a pissy email from someone who apparently thinks it's my job or something to review games and was appalled that I didn’t offer anything beyond quick impressions after my vast 10 minute experience dabbling in the Devil May Cry IV.

So here…

Gamespot puts the game's score as: 8.0 ("Great") out of 10.

I would nudge it to an 8.5. On Gamespot it's an 8.0 for the 360 and the PS3 both, although I own the PS3 version, so my comments are going to be more geared that way.

Devil May Cry IV is going to feel the same for followers of the series, control-wise. However, if you’re new to it – it’s along the lines of a game like Ninja Gaiden Sigma. You have sword repertoires you can learn, abilities you can boost – by picking up colored orbs left by dead enemies. The DMC series has always been -- and DMC IV does not deviate -- a lot of very fun hack and slash with a smidge of role-playing game mixed in and maybe one or two puzzles reminiscent of Resident Evil.

There is one issue to get to first -- game installation. It takes 22 minutes on the PS3 for DMC IV to install 5 gigs of game data. Is this worth it? YES. The load times for DMC IV are some of the quickest I've ever seen on any PS console, any game...but the installation is guaranteed to annoy you.

DMC IV sets you up as…a guy named Nero, not Dante (at first), who doesn’t have the familiar “Devil Trigger” that pops up with Dante after taking enough damage, the one that turns him into an unstoppable force for a few seconds. To replace that, you’ve got a devil “arm” capable of delivering huge blows for Nero, big pile-driver smackdowns, grabbing enemies, and navigating certain areas.

Nero and his demon arm (click for larger image).

Note -- for a full gallery of screenshots, go right here.

As I mentioned, as you proceed through the game, you will power up your skills and abilities with your weapons and in-general. For instance, it costs a good deal to get “air hike” – for non-DMCers, that’s like a triple kick in the air (you kick off of air once).

The graphics for DMC IV are very, very good-looking for a 3rd-person shooter. The settings are designed well, the characters move in convincing ways, and there are no real bugs – except for camera malaise. Parts of DMC IV allow a free-roving camera view, others lock you down into one particular camera view, making it difficult sometimes to deal with multiple threats coming from two or more locations at once.

The combat engine is well-done, as usual, and contains nothing that new, really – well, new moves, same idea. The more “stylish” and varied your attacks against your opponent are without letting yourself get hit, the higher your orb modifier goes up, meaning, kill with style and you’ll get more orbs, which in turn power you up further or allow you to buy items.

And don’t worry – you get to play Dante eventually.

DMC IV also allows the Capcom tradition, mentioned above, of replaying parts (or the entire) game as another character – once unlocked. Like many recent FPSers (although DMC IV is a true 3rd person slasher/shooter), it also has a system of rewards and badges you win (say, for killing 100 demons in a row).

Did I mention a story? No. There really isn’t much of a story here, I’m afraid. I mean, yeah, it’s there, but it’s weak compared to every other aspect of the game. The voice acting in the game is also a weak point, not really helped by the fact that this is a game really geared for a Japanese market first -- Japan loves the weird demons (DMC) and the U.S. loves the zombies (Resident Evil). But if even some of the look of this game spills over onto Resident Evil 5 -- we're looking at a really great RE coming up.

To sum up, after playing it for a good amount of time now, I will re-grade (based on a scale of 10, which is pretty damn obvious) the two most important factors for me in a game:

Graphics: 9 (it’s PS3 eye candy; I can’t speak for the 360 version)
Gameplay: 8 (could be higher but it’s repetitive at points and the sometimes-fixed camera makes fighting difficult in certain areas)

That’s all I’m going to throw out there, plus the above admittedly short review. Again, there is the replay value for those who want to buy (although, in my humble opinion, shelling out $20 more for the “Collector’s Edition” is insane).

DMC IV is a good, solid game, and perhaps the best in the franchise in terms of gameplay, and most definitely way up there on the eye-candy scale (barring the annoying fixed-camera moments).

In addition, DMC IV comes with rumble support (works fine with the rumble controller I have; rumble is a little less energetic overall, though, I've found)

Now, whoever emailed me wanting a more detailed review – someone who seems to think it is my obligation to write more detailed reviews on a small, personal blog (I’m not exactly the Gaming News here) – shaddup. Hehe.

Devil May Cry 4, quick impressions

Bear in mind, first, that I love the DMC series, so I'm a little biased. But I will give DMC:

- 8.5 overall (out of 10)

- 9 on graphics

- 8.5 on gameplay (I'd give it a 9 but sometimes the camera gets annoying)

For all those who love the DMC series, like myself, you will surely want to at least rent this game.

An NFL double standard?

I wanted to go back and say a little more regarding G.C.'s remark that had a black player with braids run off the field early, you'd have heard stories of him being a "cancer to the team" and stuff like that, whereas Belichick skips away without anybody pointing it out.

What I want to say is -- I agree. Look at the awful death of Sean Taylor. Two seconds after the press found out, it was just automatically assumed that this must have happened because he was hanging out with the wrong crowd...because he was black...

Of course, it turned out that the NFL apparently didn't sufficiently warn Sean Taylor about spending quiet, peaceful nights at home.

Or...look back to when Randy Moss mooned the Green Bay fans. He was immediately slapped with the hothead-misbehavin' mantle. Give me a break! Personally, I thought it was funny. Even if it wasn't, it didn't deserve to be made into the big deal it ended up as, and the only reason it ended up as a big deal is because Randy Moss is black. That's just my two cents, but I really believe that.

So I wanted to say that on this one, I'm 100% with G.C. There is still a double standard in the NFL (and in plenty of other sports) that will scapegoat a black player for "shenanigans" that a white player or coach could get away with.

I don't like it, I don't like it one bit, but the only good news is that the only movement is forward...a lot of people thought the Randy Moss Green Bay incident was way overblown. I think it will only get better and better, that's all I can say. Racism still exists, and we can't have an honest debate on racism until we all admit that fact (that racism exists), and, furthermore, that we will not see the end of racism in our lifetime. It will get better, but it won't go away. Not in my lifetime, anyway.

But, in the plus column, we have a serious black candidate for president this time around (and screw Bill Clinton for that race-baiting he did, including dismissing Obama by comparing him to Jesse Jackson). That's progress. A lot of progress.

You can only hope it gets better.

American Conservative Union ratings for all the candidates in 2008

Here is the ACU's list of ratings for everybody in the '08 race.

Disgruntled conservative friends will still find this not enough, though, I know. Just trying to make the case...to the choir for once.

Not a bad speech by McCain at CPAC

Really. I heard what I wanted to hear. No retreat in Iraq, no letting up pressure on Iran and other rogue countries, no flip-flop on his immigration stance, assurances that he will not elect activist judges to the Supreme Court...not bad.

Remains to be seen if the rest of my conservative brethren begin to embrace it...

Romney's out

No more Mitt.

Jimmy Crack Corn, and I don't care. ;-)

Jeff Jacoby -- "A conservative's case for McCain"

I said listen before, but now I'm telling you to read. Read this piece by Jeff Jacoby that I'm about to put in here, and think about it. Because I think this column really, really, really hits the nail on the head.

------

A CONSERVATIVE'S CASE FOR MCCAIN
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, February 3, 2008


It is not news that much of the conservative base bitterly opposes John McCain and is appalled that the man they consider a Republican apostate could soon be the GOP's presidential nominee. From talk radio to the blogosphere to the conservative press, many on the right are outraged that what Mitt Romney last week called "the House that Reagan Built" -- the modern Republican Party -- might anoint as its standard-bearer the candidate who by their lights is the least likely to follow in the Gipper's footsteps.

Conservatives bristle at the thought of a Republican president who might raise income and payroll taxes. Or enlarge the federal government instead of shrinking it. Or appoint Supreme Court justices who are anything but strict constructionists. Or grant a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Now, I don't believe that a President McCain would do any of those things. But President Reagan did all of them. Reagan also provided arms to the Khomeini theocracy in Iran, presided over skyrocketing budget deficits, and ordered US troops to cut and run in the face of Islamist terror in the Middle East. McCain would be unlikely to commit any of those sins, either.

Does this mean that Reagan was not, in fact, a great conservative? Of course not. Nor does it mean that McCain has not given his critics on the right legitimate reasons to be disconcerted. My point is simply that the immaculate conservative leader for whom so many on the right yearn to vote is a fantasy; ideological purity and presidential politics are never a perfect fit. Conservatives who say that McCain is no Ronald Reagan are right, but Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan either. Neither is Mike Huckabee. And neither was the real -- as opposed to the mythic -- Ronald Reagan.

The conservative case against McCain is clear enough; I made it myself in some of these columns when he first ran for president eight years ago. The issues that have earned McCain the label of "maverick" -- campaign-finance restrictions, global warming, the Bush tax cuts, immigration, judicial filibusters -- are precisely what stick in the craw of the GOP conservative base.

But this year, the conservative case *for* McCain is vastly more compelling.

On the surpassing national-security issues of the day -- confronting the threat from radical Islam and winning the war in Iraq -- no one is more stalwart. Even McCain's fiercest critics, such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, will say so. "The world's bad guys," Hewitt writes, "would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the US through terror."

True enough, McCain was never an agenda-driven movement conservative. But he "entered public life as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution," as he puts it, and on the whole his record has been that of a robust and committed conservative. He is a spending hawk and an enemy of pork and earmarks. He has never voted to increase taxes, and wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent for the best of reasons: "They worked." He is a staunch free-trader and a champion of school choice. He is unabashedly prolife and pro-Second Amendment. He opposes same-sex marriage. He wants entitlements reined in and personal retirement accounts expanded.

McCain's conservatism has usually been more a matter of gut instinct than of a rigorous intellectual worldview, and he has certainly deviated from Republican orthodoxy on some serious issues. For all that, his ratings from conservative watchdog groups have always been high. "Even with all the blemishes," notes National Review, a leading journal of the right (and a backer of Romney), "McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney. . . . This is an abiding strength of his candidacy."

As a lifelong conservative, I wish McCain evinced a greater understanding that limited government is indispensable to individual liberty. I wish he were more skeptical of politically-correct environmentalism, and less inclined to expand top-down regulation. Yet there is no candidate in either party who so thoroughly embodies the conservatism of American honor and tradition as McCain, nor any with greater moral authority to invoke it. For all his transgressions and backsliding, McCain radiates integrity and steadfastness, and if his heterodox stands have at times been infuriating, they also attest to his resolve. Time and again he has taken an unpopular stand and stuck with it, putting his career on the line when it would have been easier to go along with the crowd.

A perfect conservative he isn't. But he is courageous and steady, a man of character and high standards, a genuine hero. If "the House that Reagan Built" is to be true this year to its best and highest ideals, it could do a lot worse than unite behind John McCain.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

CPAC day for McCain

Right. It's here. Today is the day John McCain will get his biggest chance to speak directly to the conservative base of the party and try to convince them (us, I guess, but he's already convinced me) that he's the guy to vote for; that "suicide voting" for Hillary as a conservative is insane, that John McCain will hold together the "house that Reagan built".

He's going straight into the belly of the beast -- he's speaking in front of CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference.

These are the hardcore conservatives. These are my brethren. My disgruntled brethren.

All I ask for both CPAC attendees and those who aren't attending, but are CPAC sorts, who will see McCain's speech, is to just listen to him. Give him the benefit of the doubt. For decades we have argued that conservatives are, contrary to common wisdom, more open-minded than liberals.

So let's try to live up to that. Let's prove it. That's all I ask. I know many of you are having trouble swallowing some of McCain's remarks and actions in the past. But McCain's conservative record is there; he's almost always in the 80s on conservative watchdog lists such as the ACU rating list, and almost near zero in the liberal column. Yes, he worked with Ted Kennedy on legislation. Do I like that? No. Do I think it's that big a deal, though? No, no I don't.

John McCain is an honest-to-god hero, a man who has accomplished more than any ordinary politician (are you listening to me, Ann Coulter, you stupid stick-figure bitch? *grumble* -- sorry, I'm a Malkin guy, Coulter is just too stupid for even me to stomach, no matter how great an attack dog she is). This is a man who was offered release from a POW camp -- and let someone else go in his place. Ask yourself -- do you think Mitt Romney would have ever done that? Do you think Mitt even could have done that? Mitt Romney, who is stupid and sufficiently out of touch with reality enough to think that he can compare his sons campaigning for him for president to soldiers fighting in Iraq?

All I'm saying, my fellow conservatives, is that this man deserves to be listened to, at the very least. And not booed as soon as he takes the stage. I know he finished dead last in the CPAC 2007 straw poll, but times have changed, and McCain is our best chance to get a Republican (and, in my mind, a conservative) -- frankly, in objective reality; the reality that exists outside of talk radio -- into the White House.

Just listen. Keep an open mind. Please. I beg of you. I know, I know what McCain said about Alito. It sticks in my craw just like it sticks in yours. I know that we all know he made the wrong decision in limiting political free speech with his campaign finance "reform".

But, for the love of God, do you think Hillary or Obama would appoint better justices to the Supreme Court? Do you really think that?

And I want you to do one other thing, my brethren. I want you to think about what happens if we get hit again on American soil by Islamic terrorists. I want you to ask yourself whom you'd rather have staring down the tyrants of this world. Who is more likely to blink first while staring down Islamic extremism? McCain, Romney, or Huckabee?

You know the answer.

Just listen. It's all I ask. I have the greatest respect for CPAC, and I wish I was attending this year.

Listen. Examine his positions. Try to get past stupid things like the Alito remark. Try to remember that Reagan put liberal justices in the Supreme Court who have proved disastrous for conservatives.

Just listen. And no matter how much you hate that "maverick" label on McCain, do your homework. Look at his votes. Pick up a rating sheet from one of the conservative watchdog groups and scrutinize his conservative rating.

Just. Listen.

I am blown away...

...by the comment from Jackie C in California right here.

There is no higher honor I can be accorded than to have actually changed someone's mind through my writing. None. Period. Except maybe being appointed Emperor of All Pants.

And...all in all, not a bad night for McCain, not a bad night at all, really...

Ah well, #34, I can't really defend Belichick

I was asked in a recent post to defend Belichick's diva tantrum at the end of the Superbowl. I can't. All I can say is I think Bill was outcoached bigtime and he knew it and he wanted off that field as fast as possible.

Because, let's face it, this Pats loss was a breakdown in coaching. You have two weeks to practice, and you know two things for sure: One, the Giants are going to try to take Randy Moss off the board, and two, they are going to be rushing and blitzing Brady like crazy.

Knowing that, the offensive line should have been ready for the blitz packages. And they weren't. Guys were coming straight up the middle at Brady. He had no time whatsoever. And while you can blame it on the offensive line, true, that offensive line has held before and it should have been at least ready for that pressure in some SMALL way. Blocks were just totally missed. And a lot of that comes from coaching.

Again, I think Belichick knew he had simply been outcoached and he wanted off that damn field as fast as possible.

As for no shots of the Pats crying or anything -- I think, more than anything else, the Pats were stunned. Even though they came out flat (and there's no debating that). Stunned rather than depressed, I think. Although I'm sure they're also depressed. But I do give them credit for all of them freely admitting they were outplayed (and outcoached) in that Superbowl.

Ah well, there's next year, and for those who be hatin', remember, New England lost a #1 draft pick over Spygate -- so it's not like they've gone unpunished. And none of you have to worry about asterisks next to their perfect season, because -- they lost.

I also happen to agree that the "greatest team ever" stuff was WAY over the top.

There, there, happy now? :-)

And I thank you, GC, for not rubbing the loss in, especially given what I assume is a great affinity for the Giants (do you really like Coughlin, though?). You know the Perfect Season is the Holy Grail of football, and I thought I might get a chance to see it -- and that's a chance that literally comes around once in a lifetime.

I'm getting over it, though...and God, what an awful game the Patriots played. Awful. Although New York played a great game, I'm not taking anything away from that. Especially up front, blocking for Eli, which is where it really counted.

My fellow conservatives, you are in the midst of a HUGE MISTAKE...

Okay. I'm not going to get much into the mess that Super Tuesday is turning into, but I will say this: conservatives are making a mistake. 80% of them appear to be going over to Romney.

Listen to me, for God's sake, especially in the states where the polls are still open. LISTEN TO ME. Do you want Romney fighting Islamic extremism? Do you think he will actually do it? Who do you think the terrorists are more worried will win, Romney or McCain? McCain, dammit, MCCAIN.

Look, it's a bitter pill to swallow when McCain makes remarks about not nominating judges like Alito. But neither did Reagan. Reagan also passed, I believe, the largest amnesty bill ever for illegal immigrants (and the Earth, amazingly, did NOT fall into the Sun).

VOTE MCCAIN. Romney will LOSE THE GENERAL. Romney is a WHORE. Romney is a Stepford Candidate.

Romney, my friends, is not even Bob Dole. Romney is John Kerry with darker hair and weird Mormon underpants. Perhaps not on policy, but that's the overall vibe he projects. You think that's going to win the general?

My fellow conservatives, I beg of you:

VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

And I'm out.

A quick video hello

I'm playing around with my Quickcam, so, um, here, here's me saying hello. Four meg file .wmv file.

The Dualshock 3 controller

Well, after a little bit of waiting, I got my hands on a Dualshock 3, the one with "rumble" (force-feedback) in it. Yeah, I know, it's not released in the US for another couple of months; I shelled out an extra $20 or so to get one from Japan -- it's the exact same model the US one will be.

Quick impressions:

- The controller is now a good deal heavier, and I like it like that, personally. It feels much less like the previous Sixaxis -- which pretty much feels like a cheap plastic toy. Feels good in your hands.

- The triggers have been modified slightly and I think the analog sticks may be a touch more accurate.

- As reported, there is now a sort of "directional" rumble; a bullet flies by to the left, you feel it on the left.

- The rumble is back, it's great, but it's not nearly as strong as it used to be.

- Charging time and battery life seem to mimic the original Sixaxis -- that's a good thing.

Now, some games are going to be releasing patches to update to rumble, some already have rumble built in (Kane & Lynch, Turok...), but some will never have rumble at all.

Now...here is a list of games that Sony says will support rumble in one fashion or another...

I like the thing. I really do.

I don't want to talk about it but yes the Giants deserved the win

And even though the Giants deserved the win, the Patriots *still* almost had them -- that one play where they chased Eli all over the place and he hurled up that desperation pass that was caught in a circus catch...

One play, season down the drain.

Congratulations to the New York Giants fans, you folks outplayed us today. Not by much, New York was far from stellar, but they made the plays when they needed to and the Patriots did not.

Now, that being said:

The last 19 games did not happen. This season did not happen. I will not talk about it. We will, henceforth, refer to this as The Game That Shall Not Be Named. And we will NOT NAME IT.

That's it. That's all. I don't want to talk about it. I won't talk about it.

Here goes -- I am endorsing John McCain

Okay, I know I said in one of my last posts that I was leaning Romney, but I've settled down since my beloved Rudy dropped out (perhaps for the best, given his wife's personality) and now...it's McCain. And I know I have said McCain ain't the guy, but that was before the field narrowed.

My overriding issue is national defense and holding a firm line in the war on terror; not letting it descend into a "war on drugs" lip-service affair, which is what I think Romney would help do to the effort. McCain will hold the line on defense and Islamic extremism -- and Iraq. His record is clear on that. Crystal.

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe makes a compelling case for conservatives to rally behind McCain right here; I know Rush is foaming at the mouth about this stuff, but Rush ain't always right (I think some of my fellow VRWC conspirators just fainted from me saying that).

There you go. For what it's worth, Kip Lange now officially endorses John McCain for President. I'm not ecstatic about it, but he's the best choice. I think if I even tried to vote Romney my central nervous system might completely melt down.

The pile of smoking rubble the primaries have left conservatives

Okay. As John McCain would say, "My friends --" (everybody seems to be McCain's friend to McCain)...we of the conservative ilk don't have a viable candidate this time around.

It's not the end of the world for the conservatives in the Republican party. We initially rallied around Rudy, I think, minus the hardcore Thompson fans or Huckabee's siren song to evangelical conservatives. And really, we all know Mike Huckabee is not going to win the primary. And really, we all know, if he did, he'd get his ass round-house kicked (you brought the joke on yourself, Mike) with a force measuring 10.0 on the Norris Scale.

Right. So we had, as Peggy Noonan recently called in, a "bubbling stew" with candidates, those of us on the right.

Now there seem to be only a couple of chunks of meat left.

You've got Romney and McCain. All Huckabee will do is siphon delegates *off* of those two, especially in states where Independents can vote in any party's primary.

A lot of conservatives are rallying around Romney. Okay, so I've mocked Romney my whole life -- I have a Mormon problem, I guess. But given what the press calls McCain's "maverick" status (which is code for "he's liberal") and his age and...well, people are worried about McCain being able to beat down a young and virile Barack Obama or a battle-tested woman with balls bigger than her ex-President husband.

I guess what I'm trying to say is -- pass me the air sick bag, but I might have to vomit up a Romney ballot. I don't like it, but it may well be the best shot the Republicans have got, I think.

This is not really the conventional wisdom, it seems; it seems McCain has "earned" the nomination, and it really feels like 1996. Sure, Rudy endorsed McCain when he dropped out, and he's got other endorsements (although from some with shaky conservative streed cred like the Governator of California). And yeah, the press loves McCain, but the second he wins the primary -- the press will jump all over him, just watch. Honeymoon over, gloves off.

Doesn't he remind you of Bob Dole?

Not in manner, maybe. But remember, Dole ran as a "compromiser" -- which he was -- and that is exactly what McCain is running as (and he's not hiding the bad connotation of the word, either, i.e. repeatedly settling for what's not the best option). Both are old, as well, very old.

We chose Dole in this manner. Don't my fellow VRWC folks remember this? We chose Dole, and it was a disaster. And we all felt about Dole the way we feel about McCain.

Which is why I think -- ugh -- I think -- I might go Romney. It's still up in the air, though, I need a little more time to think.

Ow. Ugly thing to have to type. "Go for Romney". Ick. Did I actually say that? No...can't be...

It's too bad Jeb Bush can't really run. :-) (I actually partially mean that, believe it or not)

Look, you don't have to read McCain's liberal history to understand why conservatives are wary of him; just listen to some recent comments regarding how he wouldn't elect conservative judges like Alito to the courts. Guys, that's a big issue. A BIG issue -- who appoints those justices.

From John Fund:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.”

And that is something a conservative really doesn't want to hear. Besides, give me a break about Alito wearing his conservatism "on his sleeve". Okay, he's a strict constructionist, but...the guy is a good justice and we should be glad to have him in there.

So let's see how things break. All I know is that McCain ain't gonna get much of a reception at CPAC, the annual conservative pow-wow (after all, I believe last year they were handing out "No Rudy McRomney" buttons) -- this will be one of his few chances to reach out to the conservatives en masse and McCain better watch out and be ready to defend his liberal record on taxes, global warming, and campaign finance "reform" (or rather, the throttling of political free speech).

I know CPAC cats. I don't see them buying McCain's rhetoric. I see them seething because there is no conservative to vote for. I mean, another thing about Huckabee -- he's a Big Government fan, period.

Where does this leave us? I dunno. Right now McCain has The Big Mo, as they say, and we'll have to see if Romney can derail it by throwing fistfuls of money at him.

Ah well. At the end of the day, members of the choir, remember that it's still better to have McCain or Romney in there than it is to have Obama or Clinton...