The words uttered by Democrats over the last few weeks are nothing short of mind boggling in their flaming hypocrisy and the more they speak the worse it gets. Some are on the edge of comical, but many are worth revisiting.

Let’s start with Howard Dean:

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…

Hillary Clinton:

“If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,”

“It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization”

“We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action,” she said, later adding: “This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress”

Joe Biden:

“I want to make it clear. And I made it clear to the President that if he takes this nation to war with Iran without Congressional approval. I will make it my business to impeach him. That’s a fact. That is a fact.”

Can any of you Obama supporters tell us why this a particularly stupid statement by the long time member of the Senate Judiciary?

Nancy Pelosi:

“Bush needs approval to invade Iran.”

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition.

(We’ll visit that again)

Cenk Uygar/Gary Ackerman:

On his MSNBC show this evening, Cenk Uygur suggested that opposition to President Obama’s Libya policy is “unpatriotic.” For good measure, Dem congressman Gary Ackerman stated that opposing the president is “cheering for the wrong team.”

Nancy Pelosi: Dissent is patriotic.

Barbara Boxer:

“This is different,” Boxer said Wednesday. Today, “you’re facing a dictator who vowed” widespread slaughter in his own country, she said, adding that Obama “did the right thing.”

Note: Saddam killed a estimated one million Iraqis

And the Hypocrite-in-Chief

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

The good news for Democrats is that they’re not alone.

Al-Reutzeera:

Obama is committed to partnering with other countries rather than going it alone as did his predecessor George W. Bush, which both broadens and complicates the decision-making process.

Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya

But Al-Reutzeera finally did define the Obama doctrine;

Stung by accusations that it has sent mixed messages on Middle East events, the White House has said it is putting together a new, overarching strategy that will set out basic principles of U.S. policy toward the region.

In other words, the Obama Doctrine can be described this way:

Ready, Fire, Aim.

If hypocrisy was a crime we’d be bombing Reuters, the White House and the DNC headquarters instead of Libya.

Polls, polls, and more polls. Regular readers know I have no faith in any of them, whether they agree with my position or not. But I figured a post on the recent polls couldn’t hurt on a Superbowl Sunday so here ya go.

First, the poll with the largest sampling, therefore the more reliable one, the Reuters/CSpan/Zogby poll, with 1185 Likely Voters, shows Romney leading McCain in California 37% to 34%. Good news.

This poll had 481 likely voters in the Republican primary in California with a margin of error of +/-4.5%. Less then half that of the Zogby poll and it shows McCain over Romney 32% to 24%. The McClatchy-MSNBC poll had 400 likely Republican primary voters with a margin of error of +/-5% and shows McCain over Romney 40% to 31% and finally RCP has McCain over Romney 35% to 30%.

Quite a mix going on there huh?

The thing that makes my state interesting is that the winner does NOT take all. We have 173 delegates to dole out but they are awarded on a congressional district basis. So basically its 53 separate primaries. The coast areas are going to go liberal and will back McCain I’m sure. But when you get east of there it can be quite conservative. So Romney may just be able to come out of this state with a tie. We shall see. My vote has already been cast with a absentee ballot and I checked off Romney.

As for the other states the McClatchy poll had McCain over Romney in Missouri 37-24, in Georgia 33-27, and New Jersey 46-31. Rasmussen has McCain over Romney in Arizona 43-34, they also note:

Among conservatives in his home state, McCain trails 44% to 36%. However, he holds a forty-three point lead among political moderates in the state.

Rasmussen has McCain over Romney in New York 49-30, no shocker there. In Connecticut its 42-26. In Alabama its McCain 38-30.

In Colorado RCP has Romney over McCain 43-24.

So what to make of all this?

Hell if I know….I already told you I don’t trust polls but in the majority of states, if you believe the polls McCain is winning. Some by a little, some by a lot. Here is Hugh:

If the swing towards Romney in California continues, he will emerge from Tuesday’s contest in a solid second place with a new narrative and a renewed debate about the race –can Romney surpass McCain in Ohio and Texas in March? The rapidly fading Huck would simply disappear, as he is doing in many places where the obvious has already registered: A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain.

And Patrick Ruffini:

Should the Republican race go on, I’d expect McCain to have an advantage in the next wave of 2/12 primaries because of his moderate/Washington credentials. The next big stops would be delegate-rich Texas and Ohio on March 4th. By this point, Huckabee will probably have thrown in with McCain, testing what a one-on-one conservative vs. moderate race looks like in the most Republican large state of all, Texas. Here, Romney is not hobbled as he is in other Southern states, because his base, metro conservatives, is huge in Texas. Suburban Houston and Dallas is probably relatively hospitable territory for him. In Ohio, Romney would have a chance to reprise his economic success from Michigan.

Patrick also delves into the exit polls and see’s who the McCain voters are, older belligerent men….heh.

All in all this election year of 2008 sucks ass in my opinion. I am forced to vote against a person instead of for a great candidate. I am not thrilled about Romney but as this video so succinctly describes, I am absolutely disgusted with McCain:

Many people have tried to tell us all that the demise of the GOP is not too far away, Karl Rove disagrees:

Every presidential election is about change, and no more so than at the end of a two-term president’s time in the White House. Parties have to constantly update themselves if they hope to remain relevant. The difficulty for both Republicans and Democrats is that our political system is at a point where more than the normal amount of party growth and development is needed. Both parties are suffering the consequences of seeing substantial parts of their 20th-century agendas adopted; both parties are struggling to fashion new answers to the new challenges of a young century.

But that’s not to say that the Reagan legacy is exhausted. Ronald Reagan’s legacy was not simply that he was “a campaigner and orator of uncommon skill,” as Don Campbell argued last week in USA Today. President Reagan’s gifts to the Republican Party were ideas: growing the economy through tax cuts, limiting government’s size, forcefully confronting totalitarian threats, making human rights a centerpiece of America’s foreign policy, respecting unborn human life, empowering the individual with more freedom. Those ideas endure. They give Republicans a philosophical foundation on which to build. The Reagan coalition has a natural desire to stick together. Fiscal, defense and values conservatives have more in common with each other than with any major element of the Democratic Party’s leadership.

Why then the media’s recent fascination with the supposed demise of the Republican Party? What are the reasons given for why, at least when it comes to the Republicans, “the party’s over,” as NEWSWEEK recently pronounced? First, we are told the GOP nomination has not been won “fairly quickly,” as in recent contests. This is a horrible misremembering of history. The senior Bush took 45 days after the first contest to secure the nomination in 1988. It took Bob Dole 35 days to become the presumptive nominee in 1996. The current president took 45 days to clear the field in 2000. The first contest this year was on Jan. 3. Let’s at least give the process until the middle or end of February before pundits start predicting doom because of how long it’s taking. And if the Republican nomination not being settled is evidence of disaster, what does the Democratic nomination being up for grabs say? It’s normal for both parties’ nominees to be undecided at this point. The season is not moving too slowly. If anything, it is moving too quickly this time, with 38 contests in the first 33 days.

Second, we are told recently by Susan Page, also in USA Today, that “never before in modern times has there been such a muddle,” and then by Jon Meacham in this magazine that the “chaotic nature of the Republican primary race” means “the party of Reagan is now divided in ways it has not been in more than a generation.” Many who witnessed the primary battles of 2000, 1996, 1992 or 1988 might disagree. By their nature, primary races are chaotic. Then a nominee emerges, and the chaos recedes (most of the time). If spirited competition on the Republican side is evidence of a crackup, then what about the Democratic battle? It is focused more and more on race and gender, and Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives of any candidate at this point in an open race for the presidency. The Democratic House and Senate have plummeted to the poorest congressional approval ratings in history.

He also points out to those MSM pundits who go on and on about how the Democrats have raised more money then Republicans that there was no similiar calls when the opposite was true in 2000. No talk about the demise of the Democrat party then…..shocker!

Myself, I see many people in both parties not wanting any of their candidates which just reinforces my notion that this 2008 election sucks ass.