Nancy Pelosi's book is tanking, and Michelle Malkin has posted a Photoshop sent by a reader with a funny parody of the book cover. Here's my take:

As I was slogging through the thousands of spam in my e-mail box, I came across an actual letter that I feel compelled, in all fairness, to respond to. Although months old, I just discovered this e-mail today, and as it is a thoughtful critique, I would like to do my best to offer a fair-minded response. Here's the letter:

Dear P. (Sense you favor use of initials),

I find it odd that you are so quick to call H. a racist, but you won't acknowledge your own families(sic) racist history of Slavery. I wonder how many of your readers would be interested in the history of your own families recent past. You are a talented writer and even though I'm a Democrat, I find your post well researched and informative. You should use your talents to be more open-minded and less bias. It is one thing to support your party, but another to build support by posting such negative (and often hateful) comments regarding your opposition. I have not read one post describing anything positive that McCain or Bush (W) stand for that would make the reader switch parties or even see your views. Your posts have more hatred and ridicule towards Obama, Syesha Mercado, R-Kelly, Rev Wright and other minorities than insight on the party issues.

There is an implication here that I am a racist, although it is not implicitly stated. I am not "quick to call" H. a racist; as the letter states, my post is "well researched and informative." I am not sure exactly to which post the letter writer is referring to, but I did a quick search of my posts from April and May (when the e-mail was sent) and could not find a statement where I called H. (Obama) a racist. I certainly have called Reverend Wright a racist, and perhaps it could be inferred by my linking of Wright to H., that I was calling H. a racist. While that may be a fair conclusion, I was primarily trying to question the judgment of H. for associating with racists such as Wright, and not just for a short time, but for twenty long years.

More importantly, I feel the letter writer did make a very important comment when he implored me to be more positive. I think he has a valid point there, and in the future, I will do my best to comment on the positive offered by the people I support, and not just knock the people I don't. I believe I have offered positive comments, but they may have been buried in the deluge of harsher criticisms. For example, I posited that the surge in Iraq is working when I stated on April 26, 2008 that the Iraq War has strengthened the U.S. international position. On March 27, 2008, I called attention to a great speech by John McCain where he deftly describes our current international position in regards to Iraq, and what he feels needs to be done. On February 19, 2008, I called attention to the recognition of Bush from Bob Geldof for providing more aid to Africa than any other American president. And more recently, on July 7, 2008, I compared and contrasted examples of what I feel are patriotic and unpatriotic actions in regards to the service afforded to our nation.

Still, these examples are few and far between, as the letter writer infers. So, in that regard, let me offer some of the positives that have resulted from the Bush administration:

• While the economy seems to be rocky right now and the price of gas was recently increasing, there is no question that our country has experienced one of the longest runs of economic growth in history. I believe this may be credited in part to the tax cute that Bush enacted early in his first term, as well as the pro-business, pro-growth policies that are implicit in lower taxes.
  
• The foreign policy of the Bush administration has yielded significant achievements in our world position. Libya has gave up its pursuit of atomic weapons and is pursuing a path to becoming a partner in the world, rather than an adversary. Pro American politicians have been elected in Britain, Germany and France. While Iraq has been a rough and sometimes tragic endeavor, a fledgling democracy is taking root there. In regards to the Iran problem, one of the reasons they are blustering on the world stage is that we now have our troops stationed in countries both East and West of them (Afghanistan and Iraq). From a strategic stand-point, we have them surrounded. That may a simplistic way to look at the issue, but it is true that we have troops on both sides, and they undoubtedly are feeling the squeeze.
  
• Al Qaeda in Iraq has been shattered. Of course, liberals will say that they weren't there until we drew them there, but one of the best strategic actions any nation can do in fighting an enemy is pick the battleground.
  
• Self reliance by the American individual is supported and strengthened by the Bush administration and Republican policies. While some may say that the American way is to offer hand-outs to the people who have less, I believe this is trumped by the American spirit of creating your destiny, not having it handed to you.
  

• John McCain favors the renewal of the tax cuts, which do not just help the rich, as some would have you believe. As a small business owner, these tax cuts have helped me tremendously. And I am not rich by any means. My income is in the low five figures, in other words, I make less than 50k a year. Much less.
  
• On foreign policy, McCain will continue the practice of regarding terrorists as engaging in acts of war, rather than criminals to be prosecuted. This is actually the number one issue facing the country today, and I believe it was the practice of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of war that enabled Al Qaeda to proceed from the first World Trade Center bombing to the second.
  
• McCain has an admirable record of service to this country, both in war and in the U.S. Senate. He has experience in foreign policy that far exceeds his opponent, and I believe a McCain presidency will benefit our country much more than his opponent.
  

The final point of the letter seems to suggest once again that I dislike minorities, and once again infers that I am racist. I believe Reverend Wright is a racist and have called him so. I do not believe my criticism of him in my numerous posts shows me to be a racist. I am not attacking him because he is black, I am attacking him because I believe he offers a dead-end for the unfortunate members of his church who are posited by him as victims, rather than as self-reliant individuals who can take positive steps to further their own futures. As for Syesha Mercado, she can't sing that well. It has nothing to do with her being black; I just can't take that screechy voice. And the other minority mentioned is R. Kelly, who was found not guilty in his recent trial. Once again, I have no problem with him because if his race. I have first-hand accounts, which of course would be considered hearsay in the eyes of the law, that he has engaged in exactly the types of acts he was accused of. Although I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. In addition, I have also learned that he treats his dogs poorly, one time leaving one locked in a hot car for hours. So I dislike and distrust him because of his actions, not his race.

I think it is unfair to suggest that I dislike minorities by cherry-picking criticisms of them and ignoring the many other people of all races that I have criticized. What about my posts about William Ayers, Allen Colmes, Jane Fonda, and the far more numerous other caucasions I have given the same treatment in my posts? By that logic, I must dis-like all races. I do not believe that minorities are off limits to criticism because of their race. And if I criticize them it is not because of their race.

In the end, I hope this answers some of the concerns this letter writer had. I appreciate his positive comments on my writing, and do thank him for taking the time to read some of my posts, and further, to communicate his response. I look forward to other readers doing the same. I do not allow comments on my site because I do not want to have curse words appear on my site, nor do I want to provide space for "hate bombs" by trolls. Nor do I want to deal with the spamming that inevitably comes with open comments. I do invite readers to send me an e-mail with their thoughts, and I will do my best to address them, as I feel I have done here.

The text message has come in, and the VP pick for H. is Delaware Senator Joe Biden. This is not much of a surprise, as we heard about the private plane to Delaware last night, and most pundits picked Biden as the VP yesterday as the text message circus progressed. I have to say, Biden is probably the toughest, most confrontational pick H. could have made; a foul-mouthed and intemperate, yet experienced and well qualified attack dog.

McCain now needs to pick Mitt Romney, not just to counter Biden's bluster with smooth, intelligent debate, but to have a vice-president who will bring great strengths to the McCain administration, not just to the presidential race.

We'll know in another week...

The big event of the first night of the DNC convention was the speech by Michelle Obama. She spoke passionately and delivered the speech well, but unlike the teary-eyed conventioners shown on the convention floor, I wasn't so moved. Her delivery was good, but the substance of her message was the same old banal platitudes we've come to expect of the Obamas; a lot of flowery rhetoric that seemed contrived, and was designed to appeal to the nanny state liberals. She succeeded in painting a picture of a family that loves their country, but, like a paint-by-numbers oil painting, it was not original nor unexpected.

In speaking to the choir, she was successful. Her mission was to unring the bell of her previous negative comments, and to those who might be eager to sign the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, she probably succeeded. As a potential first lady, she showed that she was eloquent and had some grace, but probably would have been more graceful had she chose a dress which did not expose her bra straps. As a speaker she was confident, and in designing her message, she succeeded in choosing the right words and phrases to bolster the core of her mission, which was to try to show herself a recipent of the American dream, and that we are wrong to question her patriotism or the love of her country.

Of course, I don't buy it. It was another speech in the vein of her presumptive nominee husband, a lot of sound and fury that signify nothing. The conventioners who are already in the camp of H. were obviously moved, but the only apparent substance in the speech was nothing but empty calories. To those who already believe H. is the candidate who is going to change the world it was pure manna, but to anyone who has questions about the H. family, those questions remain.

First, it was the Ayers ad featured in my previous post, now it's an effort to silence National Review reporter Stanly Kurtz. It seems H. will stop at nothing to silence free speech when it is about him and his nefarious relationships.

Michelle Malkin has a lot of coverage of his mafia style tactics, and it is disturbing to see that for all the platitudes and talk of hope and change, H. is not only proving himself to be a typical politician, he is showing himself to be the worst kind of politician: A politician who has no problem using intimidation and strong-arm tactics to silence and shut out detractors.

First of all, I agree with the fact that Barack Obama's Democratic nomination acceptance speech was a historic speech, as the Democratic Party has nominated the first black American in our history to the office of president. Truly a momentous and historic occasion.

In the first five minutes, the speech turned disgraceful. His comments took the personal responsibilities of Americans and blamed the failure to meet them on the Bush administration. He talked of "veterans sleeping on the streets," and referred to Katrina. He talked of the proud auto workers, whose jobs in reality were actually not destroyed by the Bush administration, but the wasteful practices of the UAW, among other things. He talked of self-reliance, but proposed grand government solutions. What happened to the new kind of politician? The negativity and bitterness of his opening salvo negates that new type of politics.

When he talked of changing America, that's when I became scared. He talked of measuring progress, but ignored the fact that the only reason the Clinton years were prosperous were largely because of the Internet boom. That bubble burst at the end of Clinton's presidency, and while still under Clinton's budget, the nation plunged into recession. He does not mention the fact that recession was remarkably short-lived under President Bush, and to this day, even though we have had an economic slowdown, no such recession has recurred. The economy, despite the Democrats Chicken Little prophesies that we have endured for the last few years, and through the housing crisis, has shown remarkable resilience. Just this week, we have learned that economy grew twice as much in the last quarter as was expected. He talked of businesses creating jobs, but it is no secret that he regards business as a villain, and his tax policies will hurt businesses, small businesses in particular.

The speech then turned to his familiar platitudes of his "brother's keeper." He talked of getting specific on these issues. He talked of cutting taxes for 95% percent of working families, and ending our dependency on Middle eastern Oil. These are all subjects he has spoken of before, but he still offered no real specifics. Nothing new here. It sounded like he was reciting the Picken's plan for energy independence.

At that point, it started sounding pretty expensive. Investments, tax breaks, world class education, free health care, etc. These all sound good, but I suspect that income redistribution will be his method of paying for it. That, and a decrease in military spending, but once again that's just an educated assumption on my part. He talked of eliminating programs that no longer work, but who decides what works?

He did talk of individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, but before he could delve into any details on that, the speech turned into an attack on John McCain and the Iraq War. That's an issue where he will have no chance to best John McCain. He can bluster about being strong in foreign policy, but John McCain can dance circles around him in this. He called for withdrawing the troops, which has been his mantra.

He made a claim about a squandered American legacy due to Bush, but I believe that Bush has made our nation stronger. After all, Bush smashed Al Qaeda in Iraq (eventually, I must admit), and had a real foreign policy success in Libya. Before Bush, America was thought of as a paper tiger. I'm sure Al Qaeda probably doesn't believe that anymore. Obama talked of veterans benefits, even though his party was the party that cut the military so much under Clinton, that any shortfalls of funding were really the fault of the Democrats.

The most ironic part of the speech was his call to not question another's patriotism. It reminded me of the Simpson's episode where Homer forgot to pick up Bart from softball practice, and Homer tried to wash away the subject by saying "we can argue all day about who forgot to pick up who..." It is obvious that no one will question McCain's patriotism. It is Obama's patriotism that is in question, so for him to make the call not to question it is completely disingenuous.

The speech finally devolved into the lofty platitudes we are used to hearing from Obama. "All across America, something is stirring," he said... it's not even a mouse. It is Barack Obama and his is a cult of popularity that has little to do with anything beyond a charismatic speech.

McCain runs around the side with his VP pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and surprises many. Not a bad pick, as she is conservative, has at least some executive experience (unlike anybody else on either ticket), and will almost certainly confirm the Republican vote of some Hillary supporters. Beyond that, I don't yet know enough about her to offer any educated opinion. Her name came up a few months ago, and from what I heard then, she would make a strong choice. But I'll have to do some home-work to go beyond that.

Of course, she adds fuel to Democrat criticism on the experience front, but that's like the pot calling the kettle black. Obama has no experience - he spent most of his time in the Illinois Senate running for the his U.S. Senate seat, and has spent most of his time in the U.S. Senate running for his Presidential nomination. Palin at least has demonstrable executive experience as governor, and as mayor of the town Wasilla. Now Wasilla may be a small town but she did the job and did it well, from what I've read so far.

The Daily Kos is already complaining about having this "unexperienced" woman a heartbeat away from the presidency, but from what I've read about her so far, I'd rather have her in that position than their questionably qualified, arguably unpatriotic candidate.

And she only owns one house.

If you're looking for photos of Sarah Palin in a swimsuit from the 1984 Miss Alaska competition, you've come to the right place. Can you believe she would wear something like this? Wow. And I thought today's swimsuits were revealing....

Of course, the swimsuit isn't really in the picture, if that's what she's even wearing. But if she was wearing a swimsuit in this picture, just imagine what it might look like!

Actually, you haven't come to the right place, as I have no Sarah Palin swimsuit photos. But as Michelle Malkin's site, and Ace Of Spades are reporting, the liberal bloggers are frantically searching for such photos of her in a swimsuit, as if they think something like this is going -- horrors! -- cause a scandal. The delusion...

Anyway, I thought I'd jump in on this subject, and help them waste their time looking for photos on my site. Good luck liberals... hope you find what you're looking for, and it turns out not to make any difference!

Some Democrats and liberals are joyously celebrating that Hurricane Gustav is going to hit New Orleans on the eve of the Republicans Convention. What more needs to be said? it is they who are the petty and mean-spirited partisans...

Michael Moore:

Former DNC Chair Don Fowler:

Pathetic.

God help all unfortunates effected by this disaster. How you can help.