Normally, Liberty’s Apothecary tries to post original comments on the passing scene, and primarily from the libertarian or conservative side of the spectrum.

Occasionally, however, a piece authored by someone other than a contributor here so stands out that the temptation to post it here so that it my be further propagated cannot be passed up.  Such is the case with regard to today’s posting on RealClearPolitics.com by Charles Krauthammer entitled “The Audacity of Vanity.”

Go there and read it.  In plain English as only Krauthammer can fashion, the true vanity and narcissism of BH Obama is laid bare.  This truly is a candidate who never encountered a mirror he did not embrace, a gesture which his handlers are only too happy to accommodate and facilitate.

After you finish reading the piece, ask yourself two questions.  First, and as also posed by Krauthammer: who [the heck] does this guy think he is?  Second: why on earth would anyone vote for him to the lead the nation at this critical juncture in its history and the history of the world?  

  Before Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon gets too far down the trail on his latest braincramp (ummm…who staffs these things for you, Phil?) to generate more money for the city’s coffers - “partnering” with an Indian tribe to bring slot machines to Sky Harbor International Airport - he might want to have his lawyers check out a few laws.  Wait… Gordon is a lawyer, so why didn’t he check out the laws himself?

Like the federal law prohibiting any Indian gambling compacts from authorizing or conducting gambling operations anywhere but within the boundaries of a federally-recognized Indian reservation or trust-held “Indian country” (and last time we checked, Sky Harbor did not qualify).

Or like the state law prohibiting slot machines when used for gambling purposes (with the constitutionally highly-questionable exception for slots operated under a state-tribal gambling “compact”).

Or like the state statute - an initiated measure bringing otherwise statewide prohibited casino gambling to a reservation near you - providing that any state-sanctioned expansion of gambling beyond that authorized in the compacts would eliminate any limits on the number of slot machines an Indian tribe could put into operation and thus blow the lid off the lynchpin hype of the initiative: that this is “limited” gambling.

Maybe this is why, between the time this bright idea was floated yesterday and today, the story has disappeared from the online version of The Arizona Republic… but it is still accessible at the general arizonacentral.com website.

Smooth move, Phil.  P.T. Barnum was right.

Well, the Democrats’ stupidity just keeps on getting more bizarre.  And painful.  They - or at least their “leaders” - just don’t get it. 

Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House give dramatic new meaning to the term “willful ignorance.”  Not only do they continue to oppose, but they are actively obstructing the one thing that will jump-start the process of pulling the nation out of the oil supply and consumption crisis now upon us: drill here, drill now, pay less.

Underscoring the indefensible lunacy of their position, both Reid and Pelosi - like ostriches in the sands of the Sahara - completely ignore that in the mere 3 days since President Bush announced he was lifting the executive ban on drilling in the outer continental shelf, the futures price of oil has dropped over $15.00 per barrel. 

In partial response, the stock market has in that same period gained nearly 350 points.  And this on merely the potential that, by removing the executive branch opposition to outer continental shelf drilling, a reversal or at minimum a moderation of rising fuel prices might be in sight.  Still think the oil futures speculators are “at fault”?

Apparently Pelosi does.  What is her response to all this horrible news?  Glad you asked: “The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon [sic: Nancy, Nancy, who staffs these things for you? … it now averages well over that amount nationwide] because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn’t drill offshore,” Pelosi said in an interview. “That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it.”    

To use the mixed-company vernacular: what a crock.  Of COURSE the problem is hers… but like the Left Coast liberal she is, she will never admit it. 

Had the Democrats and President Clinton not vetoed over a decade ago - while POTUS was mentoring interns in the Oval Office - Republican-sponsored legislation to allow responsible, environmentally-sound drilling in areas the Democrats deem “off limits,” Americans would not now be doing kips and cartwheels trying to figure out how to pay for gas while still paying their other bills.

Worse yet, the Democrats persist in trying to handcuff efforts to shift our reliance on foreign oil sources back to our own domestic reserves. 

In fact, their policies will not only tend to keep the price of oil skyrocketing out of sight, the same policies hold the perverse and dangerous potential for having foreign nations with the financial capability of sinking deep water oil rigs - say, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and China - begin tapping into the oil reserves within the outer continental shelf off our coasts, but from international waters. 

So, under this scenario, Reid and Pelosi (and, BTW, BH Obama supports them too) would actually be forbidding the retrieval of oil that could easily be tapped by American companies in domestic waters in favor of foreign nations capturing the same oil by “slant drilling” from international waters. 

Brilliant!  The California and Florida coasts remain clear of ugly oil rigs, the price per barrel of crude oil again flirts with $150, $180… perhaps even $200 per barrel, and the cost of gasoline breaks the $8.00/gal. mark.  It would be the Democrats’ and Pelosi’s nirvana: rusting, parked cars in the driveway and a bicycle (made in China, of course) in every garage.

Tell me again, Virginia, what a great idea it was to elect these bozos in the first place and what a splendid idea it would be to keep them in office.

On reflection, never mind.  Just vote GOP.        

  Although the Democratic primary race is over (but as they say, “it ain’t over ’til Denver’s over”)  it is instructive - not to mention highly amusing - to again review what BH Obama supporters and representatives had to say about their candidate during the primary campaign when a few not-so-difficult questions were posed to them.

For example, Chris Matthews of MSNBC - not exactly a drinking buddy of President Bush or Republicans in general - had on his show back in February following Super Tuesday Team Obama supporter Kirk Watson, a state senator from Texas and former mayor of Austin.  Oh, and he’s a lawyer, too.  His YouTube “deer-in-the-headlights” clip is devastating.  Watson was a committed and vocal supporter of Obama’s candidacy.  Vocal, that is, until Matthews asked him a few simple questions like:

“Name some of Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments as a U.S. Senator.”   Pause… nothing… then, “Well, what I will talk about more is what he will be offering the American people…,” at which point Matthews reiterates the question.

“No, please name some of the legislative accomplishments of Senator Obama.”  Pause…. nothing…. then, “Well, I’m not gonna be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments….,” at which point Matthews further simplifies the question:   

“Can you name any accomplishment of Senator Obama?”  Pause…. nothing… then, “No, I’m not gonna be able to do that tonight.”

The Democrats and Team Obama, not surprisingly, tried to spin Watson’s embarrassing YouTube gaffe as one giving more insight into the perils of going on live television unprepared than in delving into the “accomplishments” of BH Obama, whether in the U.S. Senate or elsewhere, and there may be some truth in that observation.  

“Gotcha” journalism can be an equal-opportunity thug.   And, of course, leftists immediately began the usual damage-control blogs and tactics of taking faux polls on whether Chris Matthews was “biased.”

However, we are now over five months beyond Super Tuesday, and thus five months closer to general election day, and still we wait for a list from Obama supporter Kirk Watson - or, for that matter, anyone else from Team Obama - accurately identifying any past specific substantive legislative accomplishments of BH Obama. 

Since past behavior and accomplishments are usually, but not always, a fair indicator of future behavior and accomplishments, it would be good to know what past “accomplishments,” legislative or otherwise, can legitimately be included on BH Obama’s résumé.   And no, Virginia, sweetheart mortgage loans don’t count.

Remember, in a post-9/11 America, oratorical fluff and “none” are not particularly reassuring responses.  Especially at 3:00 AM, when the red phone rings.

Federal Election Commission reports for the 2nd quarter were released last night.  Arizona Democrats have been crowing about Bob Lord’s chances against Republican John Shadegg in the 3rd District. 

If the FEC numbers show anything, it is that what was surely an uphill climb for Lord is likely now an insurmountable cliff.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Lord has had a series of disappointments that demonstrate there is more bark than bite in this effort.  He filed an underwhelming 1,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot – after claims of broad grassroots support. At the same time, Shadegg filed with more than 4,000 signatures.

On the fundraising front, Lord raised $235,000 in the 2nd quarter, spent more than $160,000 and finished with a cash balance of $706,000.  Compare that with Shadegg’s fundraising:  $564,000 raised, $147,000 spent and a cash balance of $1,354,000.

Of course, money isn’t everything in a campaign, but in a district with a 15-point Republican registration advantage, a Democrat that is at a 2-1 disadvantage in money, while at the same time not having strong name ID or grassroots support is in a dire situation.

Add to that, Lord has been losing ground to Shadegg every quarter since the 2nd quarter of last year, with the biggest slip being the most recent report.  With $235,000 raised and more than $160,000 spent, Lord’s net was only $74,000.

Shadegg, on the other hand, had a net of $416,000 – about six times what Lord reported.

You can count on The Arizona Republic and Democrats to try to put a happy face on Lord’s weak performance, but the tide has turned, and the national Democrats will be looking elsewhere for pick-up opportunities.

   Interesting, isn’t it, that when a liberal gets skewered or lampooned by another liberal - or liberal periodical - the same standards that would be applied if the object of derision were to be a Republican or conservative somehow don’t seem to apply? 

That which is clearly allowed - indeed, encouraged and even rewarded - when deriding a Republican or a conservative suddenly becomes radioactive, or even blasphemous, when applied to a liberal.  

Case in point: the cover of the current New Yorker magazine.  It caricatures BH Obama, attired à la Muslim - complete with sandals, robe and turban - and Michelle Obama - dressed in camouflage, sporting a 60’s-era Black Panther Angela Davis afro hairdo and a banana-clip fed submachine gun over her shoulder - fist tapping each other on reaching the Oval Office. 

Oh, yeah, and the partial picture of O. bin Laden on the wall and an American flag burning in the fireplace add that warm, “special touch” that only a New Yorker cartoonist could create.

The howls from the liberals, including Team Obama, were immediate, who labeled the cover as “tasteless and offensive.”  Even John McCain’s spokesman agreed that the cover drawing was inappropriate. 

Falling back on the First Amendment, the New Yorker editors responded to Team Obama by claiming that the cover was intended to be a “satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create…” adding that it “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.”  Yeah, right. 

Memo to the editors at the New Yorker: critics of the Obamas, “right-wing” or otherwise, do not need incendiary cartoons to paint a clear picture of either BH Obama or his wife.  All that is needed to accomplish that are the unvarnished facts.  And the images that emerge from that exercise are anything but distortions, let alone “obvious” ones.  Sometimes the truth does, in fact, hurt.

It has been said that the real punch of any satirical cartoon or caricature lies in how close it comes to articulating truths that others wish to ignore.  Judging by the level of indignation from the left, the cover cartoon in question seems to have touched some particularly raw nerves, suggesting that it may have gotten a bit too close to the edge for liberal-think comfort.  Good thing there was no attempt to caricature Mohammad in there.  Right?

It is most amusing to watch as liberals are hoisted on their own comical and rhetorical pitards only to thereafter fly into a rage when the “satire” of some cartoonist’s pen gets a little too pointed.

  True to form, the Democrats continue to do everything they possibly can to saddle Americans with the highest gasoline and diesel prices in the history of this nation.  Fact is, they seem almost giddy about it.

While the solutions to the problem are not simple, President Bush’s decision today to lift the executive moratorium on oil and gas drilling on the outer continental shelf is a step - albeit a belated one - in the right direction. 

But to listen to the Democrats, it’s a horrible idea because it could interfere with their quest for yet higher fuel prices.  “Six-fifty a gallon by November 4″ could be their new bumper sticker slogan.  Here’s a better one:  “Gas too expensive?  Thank the Democrats.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry (”The War in Iraq is Lost”) Reid blamed high gasoline prices on the oil companies.  Again.  “We’ve given them ample opportunities to increase supply, but they have failed to deliver,” he belched today.  That contention, of course, conveniently overlooks the fact that oil companies cannot magically create oil where none exists and that congressional red tape has prevented the construction of any new refineries here for the past thirty years.

And yet Reid and the Democrats seem to believe that the oil companies should nonetheless sink millions if not billions of dollars into fruitless drilling on leased lands where there is likely to be no recoverable oil.  This is classic liberalthink: dig a hole, then fill it in, and as long as you look busy, all will be well with the world.

Reid, like most Democrats, is more interested in TV sound-bites and appearances than in real solutions, as long as it makes the oil companies - oh, and President Bush - look bad to the electorate.   And while we’re at it, let’s add 50 or 60 additional cents tax to each gallon the oil companies try to market… yeah, that’ll teach them they can’t mess with us.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Capitol, Speaker of the House Nancy (”Partnership not Partisanship”) Pelosi called the president’s action “a hoax that will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence.”  Huh? 

How, exactly, does Pelosi think that drilling for and extracting oil from known domestic reserves on the outer continental shelf would have any effect other than moving us closer to energy independence?  Under her goofy Left Coast theory, it is better to remain dependent upon and continue to pay through the nose for oil from OPEC and Venezuela, while watching China set up deep water oil rigs off of Florida to suck oil from the outer continental shelf, than it is for us to drill for oil in our own backyard.

This, boys and girls, is the species of “enlightened” thought and “reasoning” that Reid and Pelosi (kinda sounds like a gang of ambulance chasers, don’tcha think?) want you to ratify and expand come November 4. 

If they were not so stupid and expensive, the Democrats’ policies in opposition to additional drilling from domestic sources - policies endorsed, of course, by BH Obama - would be merely juvenile.  Regrettably, these adolescents want the pain at the pump to just keep getting worse, or at least until November 5.

Had enough?  Remember those bumper stickers as election day nears.

   You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
  
– Abraham Lincoln

When the Arizona Republic, Democrat Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, and conservative Republicans all agree on something, there must be something to it. The results are in: Goddard’s 2-year investigation of Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools Sandra Dowling was trumped up and politically motivated. This past week Dowling, a champion of home schooling, pled guilty to a low-level misdemeanor of nepotism for hiring her daughter to work at the office. Considering Arizona’s nepotism laws are vague and randomly applicable to certain government positions but not others (in some circumstances because officials have been successful at getting the legislature to carve out exceptions for them), and considering we have heard about other elected officials guilty of the same thing who have not been prosecuted, this is a pretty petty offense.

Dowling had originally been charged by Goddard with 25 felony counts, most which were thrown out by a judge. Fortunately, Goddard was forced to turn the case over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which did the best it could with an overprosecuted, trumped-up case.

Dowling has now resumed her full position as County Schools Supervisor which includes running the Accommodation School District, something Goddard and his buddies had gotten her removed from. But because of the humiliating public witchhunt, she has decided not to run for reelection.

Dowling was just another victim in Goddard’s list of Republican targets - and she was a big target because she could have potentially ran against him for governor in 2010. Let’s go over the list of Republican leaders Goddard has gone after:

1. State Treasurer Dean Martin - investigation is still ongoing, and based on information Martin found about Goddard’s efforts to prosecute Petersen, the Sheriff is now investigating Goddard
Martin is considered a formidable candidate for governor in 2010.

2. Former State Treasurer David Petersen - resigned and pled guilty to a low-level misdemeanor for failing to report $4000 he’d made in income outside of the office

3. Former County Assessor Kevin Ross - felony conviction against him was overturned by the Court of Appeals. Ross is now suing Goddard for malicious prosecution.

4. Former Rep. Colette Rosati - after a 2 -year investigation, found nothing

5. Rep. Rick Murphy - after a 2-year investigation, found nothing

5. Constantine Querard, conservative Republican campaign consultant - after a 2 year investigation, found nothing

As Dowling likes to say, where do they go to get their reputation back?

Call it the Obama playbook. You base your campaign on a personal aspect of your life where you have been successful, and you campaign on that issue. Your opponents challenge you on that issue and you respond, not on the issue of course, but you respond by telling your opponents that that issue is off-limits for them to talk about, otherwise their responses will be deemed racist and they will pay a penalty. Only you are allowed to discuss it.

We saw it when Obama made his personal faith a centerpiece of his campaign then deflected criticisms of Rev. Wright as racist, and we’ve seen it several times since. So we’re not surprised or disappointed when Barack does it. But we are disappointed when an Arizona Republican candidate does it.

Recent GOP convert Tony Bouie is an African-American who was a lifelong Democrat before re-registering as a Republican five days before filing his campaign paperwork for the State House in LD6. This last second change has sparked concern among GOP officials who fear that Democrats who could not otherwise get elected in solid Republican districts willl simply run as Republicans, and then govern as Democrats. Think Slade Mead. Early reports on Bouie’s positions on critical issues were also cause for concern as emails sent by current GOP State Representative Sam Crump indicated that Bouie was soft on border issues and undecided on tax issues.

Soon thereafter, Bouie’s campaign website was launched and it described him as a solid conservative, invoking comparisons to the mightiest of all “former Democrats”, Ronald Reagan himself. On it, Bouie also spent a great deal of time telling his life’s story as an “up from the bootstraps” kind of guy who started businesses and did things the hard way, overcoming several major hurdles including a serious battle with cancer.

The issue positions on his website were in stark contrast with his early positions, so folks were eager to hear from the man himself and a crowd was on hand for the Clean Elections debate that featured Bouie, Rep. Crump, and Carl Seel, the third Republican candidate for the two seats. Sadly, Bouie was a no-show after indicating that he would attend, so no one was able to ask him any questions or get any answers from him. The debate carried on however and one of the questions dealt with Ward Connerly’s Civil Rights Initiative that will be on this fall’s ballot. As part of his answer, Crump indicated that he supported the initiative and that racial preferences in business contracts should be done away with. He preferred that people stand on their own merits. Then Crump pointed out that Bouie was a small business owner whose business website claims that he is a certified minority business owner, a designation that allows one to claim preference in government contracting. Crump’s point seemed to be that he opposed racial preferences being given while Bouie had gone to the trouble of getting his business certified to receive those very same preferences.

This was a legitimate policy difference, it was an answer to a direct question posed at a debate, and it also attacked one of Bouie’s major arguments regarding his qualifications for office, specifically, his success as a businessman who did things the right way. Had Bouie bothered to attend the debate he could have explained his rationale or indicated whether or not he had ever used the designation, or he could have responded in any number of ways. Instead, he pulled out the Obama playbook, attacked Crump, and interjected racism into the debate.

In an email with a subject line of “Crump the Chump and Seel the Heel”, Bouie tries to combine Dr. Suess rhyming with a defense of preference-based contracting. He accuses Crump and Seel of wanting to “strip away the ability of these small businesses to compete in the marketplace, therefore, placing them back in the disadvantaged place they were just in 10, 15, 20 years ago.” Then, the rhetoric gets lofty and a touch, dare we say “Obama-esque” as he describes the difficult life he has endured, the racial challenges he has overcome, etc. It even comes complete with the grand finale of “This is a historic campaign. There will be no one that gets in the way of our destiny.”

First, let us congratulate Bouie on overcoming the challenges he has. They were substantial and he deserves real credit for accomplishing all that he has accomplished. There is, in fact, much to like about Bouie were it not for his fatal personal and ideological flaws.

Second, Bouie needs to understand that his campaign is not “historic” by any means. He is not the only black man to ever run for office as a Republican. He’s not even the only black man to run as a Republican here in Arizona. In fact, he’s not even the only black man running for office as a Republican in 2008. We’re not here to speculate what will happen to those who “get in the way” of his destiny, but judging by Bouie’s tone we’ll urge them to be careful.

Third, and most important, we urge Bouie to return to the issues and not hide behind race. If you want to make your business acumen a central theme in your campaign and you have set yourself up to benefit from racial preferences, then your support for racial preferences in government contracting is a fair issue for your opponents to take up. It is not racist to talk about it. By refusing to debate his opponents and choosing the path of grade-school rhymes, Bouie demeans his campaign and the entire contest.

Campaigns should be about lofty ideas and visions. But sooner or later, you have to get into specifics and answer for your ideas and records. Its unavoidable no matter how much some candidates wish otherwise. Don’t believe us? Just ask Obama.