EBay Find of the Day

Enough of this grumpy politics stuff. Here's something really important!
1963 LeMans Tempest sells for $226,521

The eBay auction for this 1963 Pontiac LeMans Tempest started out innocently enough. Obtained after owner died. Appears to have original interior but no motor, no transmission. Body has a little rust and some dents. There's stuff in the trunk, but no key to open it. Opening bid nine days ago was a mere $500. After one week, eBay seller 123ecklin will pocket $226,521 before auction fees. What happened between Day 1 and Day 9 is an amazing story.












The car's plexiglass windows, unusual suspension setup and a dash plate bearing the name of a racetrack tipped the owner to its racing history. But what he didn't know is that the car is one of only six 1963 Pontiac LeMans Tempest Super Duty coupes ever made. Hemmings recently did a story on the rare cars in which they listed all ever built. This one looks to have been driven by Stan Antlocer and was the fastest drag car in 1963 before disappearing.

Reading through the questions on the auction gives us reason to believe the seller truly didn't know the car's provenance. In his answers, he seems both surprised by the car's potential value as well as overwhelmed by the attention. He turned down an offer of $160,000 to end the auction early because he feared getting negative eBay feedback. That decision paid off. With only seven minutes remaining, the highest offer was $95,000. When the virtual gavel fell, eBayer ccsi2000 had bought a very rare, if a little rusty, LeMans for $226,521. Thanks for the tip, Trevor!

H/T: The Other McCain.

The New Feminism

Reclusive Leftist has laid out some rules for developing a new feminism, one not based on ideological unity, but inclusiveness and development of thought. Sounds intriguing.

Hillary for Secretary of State?

Apparently, Teh One considers rival Hillary Clinton as the top contender to be Secretary of State. Allahpundit says she's better than John Kerry or Bill Richardson, but I think even Spongebob Squarepants would be a better SoS than either of those two.

Oddly, a quick scan of liberal sites turns up nothing on most liberal sites and only one feminist blog even mentioned the possibility. What gives? I made the assumption that Hillary supporters would be very excited that she was offered the top spot, or that they would at least be commenting on it.

I'm sure this is just a bone being thrown her way, but it's amusing watching the moonbatosphere not discuss it.

Democrat Lite

Christine Todd Whitman blames social conservatives for John McCain's loss.

I call bullshit.

McCain didn't lose because of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin actually made McCain's loss less of a landslide because she energized the base and caused them to come out and vote in an election when they otherwise would have stayed home.

McCain lost for two reasons, and neither can be blamed on social conservatives.

1. He ran a horrible campaign--John McCain couldn't focus on a single message for his campaign. First he was the war hero whose experience had made him right on national security issues even against his own party. Then he was for energy independence (although not drilling in ANWR, which made no sense). Then he was going to swoop in and save Wall Street. Then he was not the guy who hung out with Bill Ayers. Then he was Joe the Plumber. Because McCain barred the use of the poisonous Jeremiah Wright early in the campaign, it was difficult for him to argue why Obama--who is the most unqualified person to ever reach the presidency--was too big a risk for America.

2. Bush fatigue--It is very rare for a party to hold the presidency after eight years. Americans are fickle things, wanting change no matter what. The unpopularity of George W. Bush hurt McCain and Republicans in general. Couple that with the "making history" aspect of electing Barack Obama and there was virtually no way for John McCain to win.

Whitman's argument that the Republicans need to save the party by becoming Democrat Lite is absurd and impossible. Social conservatives tolerate people like Whitman because it helps them elect candidates who take their concerns seriously. Jettisoning the single most reliable group of Republican voters would be suicide.

Matt Lewis notes,

In my estimation, the argument over whether or not the GOP should be a fiscally conservative party -- or a socially conservative party -- or anything else -- is a false choice. We might argue over which positions to stress during a given election season, but abandoning any wing of the conservative movement would be a disaster for the GOP.

This may not be the time in history to emphasize conservative social values, but it's simply foolish to talk about abandoning them.

More Tolerance from the Left

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, L.A.

Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour, said Scott Freitag, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

None of the writing on the envelope was threatening, and the church received no calls or messages related to the package, Freitag said.

Because sending stuff that could be mistaken for anthrax isn't a threat in itself.

But it's ok, because mainly, the No on 8 folks go for simply trying to run people out of business.

About 70 people gathered at the legendary El Coyote Cafe in Los Angeles' Fairfax District Wednesday morning for a community sit down/brunch to hear Marjorie Christoffersen speak about why she gave $100 to Yes on 8 via the Mormon Church. Marjorie, a lifelong Mormon, is the niece of El Coyote's founder and daughter of the current owner. She receives a salary as a floor manager. El Coyote has 89 employees, many of whom are gay...

Well, El Coyote is involved because 10% of what Marjorie makes from El Coyote goes to the Mormon Church as required tithe, and that $100 she gave to Yes on 8 was in part money paid by gay clientele--and her income was used to strip their rights.

If you don't like a business, you're certainly entitled to go somewhere else. But to be clear, the traditional marriage amendment wasn't about stripping rights; it was about restoring the rights of the people to have laws they choose, not the kind that the leftest-leaning court system in the land wants.

Silencing Talk Radio

It's no secret that liberals want to silence talk radio. They can't compete, so they want to eliminate the competition.

With the election of Barack Obama, reimposition of the unFairness Doctrine is a top Democrat priority. And no wonder; talk radio allows conservatives to have an active voice in the arena of ideas. Given that most journalists are liberal and many news outlets are abandoning objectivity (see their incuriosity about Barack Obama, for instance), talk radio and Fox News Channel (and some blogs) are the only conservative outlets that spread the information liberals don't want you to know.

There's little doubt that the Supreme Court would strike down the Fairness Doctrine as an improper restriction on free speech, but litigating this case would take time (Dick Morris says two years), and by that time, talk radio would be dead. A Pyrrhic victory.

Smear merchants like Media Matters spend hours documenting "errors" and "slights" they perceive on talk radio. If you go to the link, you'll discover just how outrageous their claims are. If Media Matters actually cared about sexism, they would have prominent articles about the outrageous smears and slams by idiots like Keith Olbermann and Andrew Sullivan. Instead, MM is only concerned with things conservatives say. Liberal lies get a pass.

But then, to liberals, truth is lying and lying is truth. Welcome to Newspeak.

Democratic Civility and Tolerance

Weren't we told that Obama supporters were civil and tolerant and McCain supporters were violent? I'm sure that was the meme we were told before the election.

Well, Catherine Vogt wasn't greeted with tolerance at her junior high when she decided to conduct a tolerance test.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.

Vogt created two T-shirts. One said "Obama Girl" and the other said "McCain Girl."

A funny thing happened on the way to inclusion. When Vogt wore the "McCain Girl" shirt she was called "very stupid" by classmates and told by a teacher that she was "very surprised" Vogt would back McCain. She even received death threats.

When Vogt wore the "Obama Girl" shirt, she received nothing but compliments.

So much for inclusion, eh?

Did Barack Obama Lie about His Draft Registration?

Debbie Schlussel thinks so.

Why does any of this matter?

If Obama faked his Selective Service registration card, this is a felony. Felony for the Commander in Chief? Say it ain't so! I'm sure our friends on the Left will be really concerned about this.

Feminism's Palin Problem

I've written before about the double standard so prevalent among feminists when it comes to the treatment of women they like and women they don't like.

Hillary Clinton treated in a sexist manner? Up in arms!

Sarah Palin treated in a sexist manner? Well, she deserves it!

It's amusing, and a bit sad, watching women eating their own this way, particularly since it plays into some of the worst stereotypes about women (think: catfight), which is why Echidne's defense of Palin was rather refreshing.

The question has zero to do with Sarah Palin as a person. The question has everything to do with Sarah Palin as a spoonful of that amorphous mass called womanhood. When sexist commentary is acceptably used with Palin it allows sexist commentary to be used on all other uppity women, then on all women who are not-so uppity, then on the women who have been made into doormats.

The comments get particularly amusing, especially when one man tries to defend the use of "Caribou Barbie" as a "rhetorical flourish," as opposed to a sexist stereotype that demeans all women.

Way too much of the criticism of Sarah Palin has centered on things other than her qualifications for the vice presidency, which were as good as Barack Obama's. No one criticized Obama for not being home to take care of his kids. We haven't been treated to numerous pictures of him conducting interviews while making cheesedogs for his children. And no one asked Obama to explain his foreign policy experience, his understanding of the Bush doctrine, intricacies of abortion law (although, as an attorney, he should have a built in advantage here), which newspapers he reads, etc., etc. No, we weren't treated to Obama getting hoist on his own petard because the MSM didn't want Obama to be shown as an empty suit. But portraying Sarah Palin as a bobbleheaded slut best suited for porn movies was just political mischief-making.

I'm glad to see Echidne point out that it hurts all women when these stereotypes are used. I wish more of her commenters could bring themselves to acknowledge that.

Why Do They Only Find Democrat Votes in Recounts?

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of cheating, but it is curious that in most recounts of recent memory, Democrats seem to be the only beneficiaries.

In 2006, there was the disgraceful Washington governor's race, in which votes were "discovered" that favored the Democrat candidate.

Now, we have the Democrat leading the Republican in Alaska, where early ballots seem to be the reason. And we have the Minnesota Secretary of State--a Democrat, of course--doing everything possible to throw the election to Al Franken, including the inclusion of tainted ballots.

Now, I know Democrats will scream and howl about "selected not elected," but everybody with any common sense realized that Democrats were determined to find enough votes to declare Al Gore the winner no matter how far they had to stretch a chad to do so. But surely someone else should notice how missing or uncounted ballots always seem to favor Democrats.

UPDATE: Allahpundit notices the same curious phenomenon.

Selective Outrage

You gotta hand it to the people who run Pandagon. Aside from just being a bunch of leftwing nuts, their selective outrage is astonishing. It's even more surprising that so many sycophants eat up their clueless rants about Republicans, conservatives, religious believers and anyone else who lands within range of their spittle.

For example, there's this Pam Spaulding post on the killing of a woman by the KKK in Louisiana.

If the Republicans don’t clean out the bigots, mouthbreathers, and domestic terrorists in their midst, patriots like this filth in Louisiana will be party leaders before long.

There's nothing in the story to tie this group, which calls itself the Dixie Brotherhood, to the GOP, except that Louisiana went for John McCain.

I dunno. Maybe Spaulding needs to check her history books, because the Klan was filled with Democrats for the vast majority of its history, right up to the present, including sitting Senators. And when Barack Obama talked about white people in Pennsylvania--a Democrat state--having "antipathy towards those who don't look like them," he wasn't talking about Republicans, Pam).

But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good smear?

Spaulding's selective outrage, like the rest of the cartoon characters at Pandagon, is way too easy to spot. It's like doing Seek N Finds for first graders. Sure, I understand her anger at the KKK. Normal people are angry at their disgusting behavior. But oddly enough, Spaulding doesn't cast a single aspersion towards the haters who have threatened, insulted and tried to intimidate (by publishing names, addresses and phone numbers of those who donated to Yes on 8) those who think traditional marriage is a good idea. I guess it's ok as long as it's a good cause, like overturning the will of the people.

But let's see what happens when we rewrite Spaulding's post to reflect the sort of outrage she should have displayed:

If the Democrats don’t clean out the bigots, mouthbreathers, and domestic terrorists in their midst, patriots like this filth in California will be party leaders before long.

Wow, that actually looks good! Too bad we'll never see a post castigating "bigots, mouthbreathers, and domestic terrorists" from the Left at Pandagon.

Get Ready for Four Years of This

My sincerest wish with the election of Barack Obama was that the left would finally have to shut up about race; that the elevation (the right word, really) of a black man to the presidency would finally put to rest all the "America is a downright racist country" arguments.

But I was wrong.

Now, we'll get four years of stories like this.

Many conservative pundits and Republican officeholders on the national stage have reacted to the election of Barack Obama as a promising step forward in the history of race relations and democracy in the U.S. But gaining much less coverage from the national media are local reactions that are far less accepting and positive.

Away from the spotlight, many local newspapers around the country have covered recent incidents of racially-motivated reactions to last week’s election, from flags hung upside down to the dangling of nooses and cross-burnings. As we noted last week, a couple in northern New Jersey who had an Obama sign on their front lawn woke up to find the charred remains of a cross out there. Local residents today announced a "unity march" to protest the still-unsolved incident.

Look, I find racist remarks and demonstrations to be as offensive as anyone. And, frankly, it couldn't possibly have been unexpected that there would be jerks who would make their ideas about race and a black president known to the world. Welcome to the arena of free speech where you have the right to be as offended as the next person.

But stories like this one, about second and third graders chanting "Assassinate Obama" deserve way more scrutiny than they are likely to get from the likes of Pam Spaulding who's licking her chops at the idea of smearing the GOP as the party of the KKK (psst, Pam. The KKK isn't in anybody's party. They're equal opportunity!)

After reading the story about grade schoolers, I had a lot of questions, none of which were answered in the article.

1. Where did the kids hear the word "assassinate"?

2. Who told them that killing the president was a good thing?

3. How many kids are we talking about here?

4. Since the article had a big picture of a Mormon temple with it, is there any evidence that shows this was a Mormon attack on Barack Obama, or just a bunch of kids who were mimicking someone they'd heard, either in person, on the radio or on television?

5. Why hasn't the school bothered discussing the badness of killing a president before now? Is it ok if the president is a white guy?

6. Did the people, including media types and the usual talking heads, display equal disgust and anger when books and movies were made about assassinating George W. Bush?

Don't think for a minute that the Secret Service isn't going to be on super duper extra high level security alert for the next four years. Yes, there are whackos who won't like Obama because he's black and those nuts will probably try to take him out. But guess what? If he weren't black, there would still be nuts who tried to take him out. It happened to Ronald Reagan. Or you could ask George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W.Bush about slobs wanting to kill the president.

But for God's sake, try not to smear whole religious groups or the GOP over the behavior of a few jerks. I don't blame all Democrats for the numbnuts who produced Death of a President and Assassination.

Stealing Elections

Democrats are desperate to get their veto-proof majority in the Senate, and they're not above cheating to get it.

Let's face it. We've watched the Democrats steal and attempt to steal elections for generations. They're famous for it. From Tammany Hall to the Chicago Machine to Lyndon Johnson's infamous box 13 down to Al Gore's shameless attempt to steal the 2000 election, we've watched it happen. Now, they're trying to do it again.

They're counting votes that were in the back of someone's car. Doesn't Minnesota have standards for counting ballots? Evidently not if it's an insult to humanity like Al Franken stealing the election.

Now, the Democrat Secretary of State--who is doing as much as he can to help Franken--has the audacity to say that incumbent Norm Coleman is trying to steal the election. Are we through the looking glass? What is this jerk smoking? Someone stop him before it's too late.

Where Was the Joke?

I've read all the stories about Michael Barone's supposed joke that the media wanted Sarah Palin to abort Baby Trig. I see a lot of truth in the statement, but no joke at all.

A roomful of academics erupted in angry boos Tuesday morning after political analyst Michael Barone said journalists trashed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans' vice presidential nominee, because "she did not abort her Down syndrome baby."

Did any of the booers actually read posts and comments from the moonbatosphere following Sarah Palin's selection for V.P.? I did, (also see here and here for other posts on the subject) and support for Sarah Palin not killing an inconvenient child was virtually non-existent.

Obviously, Barone said bluntly what academics and others don't want to hear, but that doesn't make it any less the truth. Democrats in general and the luny Left in particular were disgusted at the sight of Baby Trig, and they didn't mind saying that it made one "question Palin's judgment" that she gave birth to a Downs Syndrome baby when she didn't have to. That's no laughing matter.

It's Not April Fool's Day But It Ought to Be

Saudi Arabia to lead U.N. Faith Forum.

This is the same country that doesn't allow women to drive or even wear Western dress, let alone vote.

Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich Islamic kingdom that forbids the public practice of other religious faiths, will preside Wednesday over a two-day U.N. conference on religious tolerance that will draw more than a dozen world leaders, including President Bush, Israeli President Shimon Peres and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Don't bring your Bible or say, "God bless you" in Saudi Arabia. Don't wear a cross. Don't celebrate Christmas. But we're going to waste time and money going to a religious tolerance conference sponsored by one of the main oppressors. This is what the U.N. is good for and why Barack Obama wants us to be more involved with them?

The Future of the Republican Party

David Brooks sees it as a fight between Traditionalists and Reformers.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

Well, as Patterico notes, cutting government and taxes and reforming immigration sounds good to me. I don't know anyone who considers supporting Sarah Palin to be a "core value," although many with traditional values do like her very much.

Who are the Reformers?

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

Well, I agree with some of these ideas, too. I don't think we can simply ignore environmental concerns, but neither can we enact policies (as Obama will most assuredly do) that devastate our industries.

The biggest problem Republicans will have is luring Hispanics to the party. Culturally, Hispanics have far more in common with Republicans than Democrats. But immigration makes it very hard for Latinos to vote for the GOP. Unless that changes, we will be in a permanent minority.

I am an "enforcement" person when it comes to immigration, a position that has gotten me thrown off a board for being "racist." My position is that we should enforce the laws we have; if we don't want to enforce those laws, then change them. One thing that should be changed quickly is to drastically raise the number of people who can come here from Mexico legally (I'm talking about an exponential change). The only way to encourage people to come here legally is to make it easy enough to discourage taking the risk of coming illegally.

I don't want to reward illegals for breaking our laws, but the last two years has shown that balking at immigration reform is worse.

So, IMO, I see no reason Republicans shouldn't champion smaller government and allowing the personal freedom that comes with keeping your own money. At the same time, we should work towards tax credits and rewards that encourage industries to go to cleaner technologies, including coal, wind, water, and nuclear energy. We will have to make considerable concessions to Hispanics in the area of immigration (I think raising or lifting the cap on the number of Mexican immigrants might do it) to get their attention and start building their trust in the GOP before they become entrenched in the Democratic Party.

Mostly, the GOP has to find a way to be the loyal opposition to Barack Obama and the Democrats running Congress. I don't think that will be terribly hard, because many of the same policies they champion will hurt Hispanics specifically (who are typically at the bottom of the ladder economically and will lose their jobs if wage hikes force job cuts) and hurt others, including small business owners, generally. But just being against Democratic policies will not be enough. We will have to come up with reasonable, attractive alternatives to their ideas. The field is wide open now, and I don't think it will be that difficult to find those ideas.

Happy Veterans Day!

Those who have served our country deserve our respect and honor.

48 to 52

Certainly not PC (in that we're all supposed to be oh, so happy that Teh One is gonna be president), but funny as hell.

Imagine That!

Number of black voters who view society fair and decent nearly doubles after election.

I wonder if they asked women if they felt the same.

Answer to the Question: Dems Are Sore Losers

Yesterday, I asked this question at Common Sense Political Thought:

I’ll admit that I’m lazy and don’t want to take a lot of time to research this, so I’ll just ask it of our resident Dems and liberals: can you cite me any examples of liberal blogs saying that George Bush was a good man and that we needed to give him a chance before crucifying him? I’m looking for links for 2000 and 2004.

I’ve seen multiple examples of conservatives making this argument (Patterico has gone to a lot of effort to cite examples of Barack Obama’s decency, only to be castigated by other conservatives), but I truly don’t remember liberal bloggers of any stripe making this argument in either 2000 and 2004. Any examples?

The question was not a trick; I was genuinely interested to see if liberals knew of any examples of leftwing bloggers who had been willing to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt in either 2000 or 2004. I figured it was better to ask the question and discover there were no examples than to write a post and have a barrage of "You moron! X said Y!" comments.

Well, guess what? My unscientific survey of popular liberal blogs hasn't turned up any examples. Instead, there are:

-- comparisons with the Taliban

-- calls for secession

-- the ever-present name-calling,such as "homo haters"

-- More name-calling; this time liars and bigots

-- Even more name-calling! This time, those who voted for George Bush become Timothy McVeigh

-- Most bluntly, the American voters are dumb as posts.

I wonder how these liberal bloggers feel about American voters now. Do they still think they are dumb as posts? Homophobes? Liars? Bigots? Candidates for admission to the Taliban?

I suspect that, even though voter turnout was essentially the same as 2004 (sorry, Pho, but you were wrong, yet again), liberals would claim that the voters were more enlightened, smarter...or something.

But meantime, as Orrin Judd notes,

and, no, it isn't fair that it is only Republicans who are expected to be--and will be--magnanimous in defeat. But, the fact of the matter is that the American political system and to some degree the society generally has been infected since Florida 2000 and if the election of a Democrat can just drain some of the pus out it's all to the good.

Well said.