Millbank Continues The Post's War Against Feith

Dana Milbank continues the Washington Post's campaign against Doug Feith's new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.

The paper's effort to diminish Feith's book began two weeks ago when Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung wrote a hit piece on Feith's book without waiting for the book to be released or bothering taking the time to read the unedited manuscript of an embargoed book of some 528 pages less than six hours before they managed to obtain less than six hours before they went to press.

It seems a little unethical that Ricks and DeYoung forget to mention that they both have books being sold, books which take a bit of a different view of things than the three Post writers' versions of what is contained in Feith's book.

I feel at least as qualified as DeYoung, Milbank or Ricks to write about Feith's new book. Even though, like the three of them, I have not yet read War and Decision. At least I took the time to talk to Feith about the book and his experiences before writing this. Earlier today I was fortunate enough to participate in a conference call with Doug Feith and other bloggers including some RedState colleagues. As Pejman Yousefzadeh posted, we engaged in an interesting hour-long discussion about the book.

One of my colleagues attended the book launch event the Center for Strategic and International Studies ("CSIS") held for War and Decision, last night. Like Feith, my colleague reported that Mibank's article bore little resemblance to what actually occurred during the book launch. You don't have to take their word for it or my representations about what they said. CSIS has posted a video, or if you prefer, an audio file of the event, so even though you weren't there you can watch or listen to the event and draw your own conclusion.

As for Millbank's article, just note that reviewers, who have actually read War and Decision, give it high praise:

At the National Review, Larry Di Rita calls it "a reference publication:"

Feith draws on countless internal documents, many of which were intended for, written by, or debated among members of the president’s Cabinet, the most senior advisers to Cabinet officials, and the president himself. Feith has performed a public service by taking the time to present these documents, which have gone through the painstaking process of official declassification, in nearly 600 citations that are reproduced online with links to full texts, transcripts, and presentations. (To pick another insider account by comparison, George Tenet’s At the Center of the Storm offers, well, zero documents, citations, or footnotes).

[. . .]

In grasping the importance of this book, it’s crucial to understand the current state of the Iraq-war literature — a genre largely created by journalists, who bring to the task the same rigor and sourcing found in daily news stories (which is to say not much). Tom Ricks, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Bob Woodward, George Packer, Michael Gordon, and others have created a narrative arc that relies upon the insights of civilian and military actors willing to air their opinions, insights, grievances, and point papers with reporters eager to give them a hearing.

[. . .]

War and Decision sets a high standard for official memoirs that will follow. It is fair enough for other officials to take issue with Feith’s conclusions, and some have, but these criticisms are blunt until they can rely on documentation as rich as Feith’s. The press wrote the first draft of the Bush administration and the War on Terror, but Feith’s book relegates it to the recycling bin.

At the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens liked Feith's book for its myth busting:

"War and Decision" offers many more such examples where perceptions of the administration's conduct collide with the reality of it. Much to Mr. Feith's credit, however, his book is no apologia, even for those he obviously admires. Of Mr. Rumsfeld, he notes that "his style of leadership did not always serve his own purposes: He bruised people and made personal enemies." As for President Bush, Mr. Feith argues -- rightly, in my view -- that his problem was not that he "discouraged challenges" but rather that he showed "an excessive tolerance of indiscipline, even of disloyalty, from his own officials."

Washington Times columnist, Frank J. Gaffney Jr. calls the book "extraordinary:"

In contrast to previous books and memoirs on the subject published to date, Mr. Feith's is not aimed at self-promotion or self-vindication. Neither is it an effort to settle scores with those who have, in some cases viciously, attacked the author in their own screeds.

Rather, it is the first attempt by a serious student of history to lay out the myriad, challenging choices confronting a president who, within eight months of taking office, witnessed a devastating attack on this country and resolved to prevent another — possibly far more destructive one.

As mentioned in Larry Di Rita's review, Feith has also set up a companion website to the book, where you can access copies of many of the documents referred to in his book.

I plan to read War and Decision. How about you?

Hillary Gets Her Double Digits

Hillary defeated Obama in the Pennsylvania primary by double digits, 55% to 45%.

In her victory celebration, Hillary made it clear that, with her Pennsylvania victory, the brawl between her and Obama will continue:

“Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either,” Mrs. Clinton said to fervent cheers and applause at her victory party... ."

The Pennsylvania primary seems to have failed to settle anything:

Both candidates performed strongly among the same constituencies that have supported them in other primary states. Mr. Obama was backed overwhelmingly by black voters and also scored well among voters younger than 45 and college graduates, the results show.

Once again Obama was unable to close the deal. Obama, as in other primaries, appeared to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. Even with Obama's huge money advantage, record breaking advertising, and the mainstream media admittedly suffering from Obamamania, he continues to fail to land a knock out blow. One has to ask why Obama can't win the big ones.

Tim Russert discusses what he thinks might happen next in the following video:





The spin doctors will be very busy trying to convince all of us, and more important, the Democrat's superdelegates why Hillary or Obama is entitled to the nomination. But as the battle for the Democratic nomination moves to Indiana and North Carolina, Hillary's goal still seems out of reach. Hillary's campaign is out out money and some party officials would like to see her quit. As Mark Z. Barabak and Noam N. Levey write in the Los Angeles Times, it still comes down to the math:

Mathematically, with just nine contests left, it appears virtually impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in the popular vote and among pledged delegates -- those chosen in primaries and caucuses. Her best hope was to instill enough doubts about Obama to persuade the 300 or so uncommitted superdelegates to rally to her side.

Hillary will battle on as long as she can find the resources to do so. The bottom line here is that the big winner of the Pennsylvania primary is Senator McCain. He is out running a positive and optimistic campaign, as poll after poll finds that no matter which one of the Democrats survives to challenge him in November, theat Democrat will have a serious deserter problem.

Obama With Iran

Time magazine's Scott MacLeod reports that Sergei Barseghian, a columnist for the Iranian reformist newspaper Etemad Meli (National Confidence), notes that in Farsi, the words Oo ba ma would translate as "He's with us."

Iranians are following the American presidential race. In part, because they wish to be rid of President Bush, who branded Iran part of an "Axis of Evil," and because they are taken in by Obama's false hope. According to MacLeod, Iranians favor Obama's hope rhetoric and see a President Obama repairing the U.S.-Iranian relationship:

It's not only the policy expectations that account for Obama's popularity: his Third World ethnic background and the Muslim faith of his father's Kenyan family — even his middle name, Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and a revered figure in the Shi'ite Islam practiced in Iran — offer points of affinity that some analysts believe could give Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the political cover to make a gesture of reconciliation to the country long decried in Tehran as "the Great Satan."

But it's Obama's declared willingness to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with the Iranian leadership that has generated the most interest among senior officials in Tehran, since this would mark a sea-change in Washington's approach. "Obama is a man of engagement, a man of negotiations," one Iranian official told TIME. Amir Mohebbian, an analyst close to Iranian conservative politicians, argues that "the mentality of Iranian decision makers is ready for that." He adds: "I think that the coming of Obama — maybe, maybe — helps to solve this problem, but it needs bravery, from both sides."

MacLeod, fails to mention that the U.S./Iran "30-year Cold War" is the result of Iran's seizure of the U.S. embassy and the subsequent holding of 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days -- the remainder of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Like Carter's failure to free the hostages, Obama's proposed "aggressive personal diplomacy" will also be seen as a sign of weakness that will only encourage this state sponsor of terrorism.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, with his more "Realistic Idealism," is less likely to make nice to the Iranians merely for the sake of making nice.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — the nation’s largest association of Muslim organizations — tried to persuade McCain to drop the adjective “Islamic” when describing terrorists and extremists:

We’ve tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community. If it’s not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are.

Remembering how ineffective our former policy of treating terrorists as mere criminals was in preventing terror attacks against America Senator McCain has rejected ISNA's plea:

Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way.

"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."

Realistic Idealism indeed.

The failed policy of merely criminalizing terrorism brought us to 9/11. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because the organization thought we didn't have the stomach to fight. Following many attacks on Americans in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s culminating in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, America withdrew. Our response to attacks during Bill Clinton's presidency -- withdrawal, angry words occasionally accompanied by a few cruise missiles resulted in attack after attack. Mogadishu in 1993, the 1993 attack on World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, the attacks American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the near sinking of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

I prefer the current approach to fighting the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us and McCain's "Realistic Idealism" to the false hope of Obama's "aggressive personal diplomacy."

The Liberal Media's Fickle Temperament

Michael Leahy's Washington Post temperamental hit job on Senator McCain shows just how fickle the mainstream media wing of the Democratic party can be.

Coverage of Leahy's hit job, ignores Senator Lieberman's downplaying McCain's temper and focuses instead on former senator Bob Smith's, made for television, negative campaign sound bite:

"Does he get angry? Yes," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who supports McCain's presidential bid. "But it's never been enough to blur his judgment. . . . If anything, his passion and occasional bursts of anger have made him more effective."

Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him."

It isn't until twenty-something paragraphs later that Leahy reveals that Smith admits to not liking McCain, and mentions that Smith has held a grudge against McCain from the time they both served in Vietnam, some forty years ago. Smith can obviously hold a grudge a long time.

In the following video Fox News' Carl Cameron describes the inaccuracies in Leahy's attack on McCain, highlighting Smith's allegations:

That's right, Cameron reports Smith said that what is reported in the Leahy article "never actually happened."

One has to wonder if the mainstream media, which admittedly suffers from Obamania, would even consider writing a similarly negative story about Obama. If a reporter did write such a story, would it get the same front-page treatment as Leahy's hit piece, or even worse, the New York Times' "journalism by innuendo" slanderous hatchet job on Senator McCain.

John Fund offers some thoughts that get right to the point in explaining why:

While John McCain is popular with reporters, they have clearly chafed as they see him adopt more-conservative positions on taxes and immigration in the past year. His coverage is much less favorable than it used to be.

But Mr. Obama, who sports the most liberal voting record of any senator according to the nonpartisan National Journal, has avoided much criticism of that record by implying that any conventional critique of his issue positions represent the tired politics of the past. If he had his way, questions about character and questions about issues would be off-limits.

The mainstream media only seems to take on Obama after nonpartisan fact checkers and an army of bloggers point out egregious "distortions," "rank falsehoods," "seriously misleading," statements and "outright lying" from Obama. How long will the American electorate allow the mainstream media to get away with this lack of even-handedness -- giving Obama a free ride while publishing hatchet jobs on McCain? Enough is enough.

Still More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' Statements and 'Outright Lying' From Obama

CHAPTER III

Here he goes again.

Barack Obama, after being beat up by numerous factcheckers for grossly misrepresenting Senator McCain's "100 Years" comment, finally dropped that distortion from his stump speech. Obama stopped using that line because it became obvious to all, even the admittedly Obamamania infected main stream media, that Obama's misrepresentation of McCain's comment was a "serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood."

Now Obama is distorting Senator McCain’s remarks about the economy. At a speech in Erie, Barack Obama quoted John McCain as saying, "I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time." Unfortunately, in his distorting way, Obama did not recite the second part of the statement where McCain said, "But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges."

Watch the following video, which shows that Obama once again grossly misrepresented McCain's comments:

At MSNBC’s First Read Blog, Domenico Montanaro reports that Obama continued this latest distortion yesterday:

Obama didn't let go of his attack on McCain in Williamsport yesterday afternoon, continuing to criticize the Republican nominee for a comment that he made about the economy making progress under George W. Bush.

[. . .]

"Now, that's what's going on here, but I don't need to tell you this, it’s going on all across the country. John McCain yesterday said that we are, that, that during George Bush's tenure, the economy actually made great progress. That's his quote," Obama said.

However, the attack, like the one earlier today parsed McCain's comments, quoting him on saying that the economy had grown but not including the fact that McCain acknowledged job losses and had said that the economic statistics brought "no comfort" to those suffering the most from the recent downturn.

Obama's misrepresentation of McCain's economic comments is extremely disingenuous. Obama, himself, acknowledges that the economy made progress:

"Our economy actually expanded over the last seven years, that's true," he said, before going on to talk about how the expansion was unprecedented because wages had not increased along with the rise in GDP.

The McCain campaign is pushing back:

The McCain camp, though pushed back hard against this yesterday, sending along this response: “American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest. It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday.”

McCain's actual quote while speaking on Bloomberg TV, per the McCain camp was: "I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges."

You would think Obama would be more careful after already being pummeled by factcheckers for misrepresenting what Senator McCain actually said abut Iraq, and only a week after Obama proved he was out of touch with small town America with his demeaning "clinging" remarks:

[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The media is no longer giving Obama a free ride when he misrepresents what Senator McCain actually says:

ABC News:

Who says Barack Obama doesn't know how to "twist the knife"? … Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. … Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain's Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is "no comfort" to struggling families.

Wall Street Journal:

While Obama sharply attacked free trade deals today in Erie for manufacturing job losses, just four days ago he touted the benefits of free trade in Pittsburgh, where he acknowledged that many jobs had been lost not only because of free trade deals, but because of technological advancements.

Washington Post:

The McCain campaign accused Obama of "intentionally twisting" the Arizona Republican's words. "Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds shot back in a statement. The Republican National Committee circulated video of Obama acknowledging earlier in his Erie speech that "our economy actually expanded

FOX News:

Obama did not quote McCain's addendum, but minutes before hitting the Republican for saying there was economic progress, Obama himself admitted, "Our economy actually expanded over the last seven years, that's true."

At the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp blog:

But Obama only partially quoted McCain, who also acknowledged the struggles people are facing in a down economy. … Not surprisingly, that triggered a response from McCain's campaign.

CNN:

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years." The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

Let’s see how long it takes before Obama drops this hypocritical and distorted attack from his stump speech.

The more I see of Obama's so-called new politics, the more it seems exactly like the old kind.

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing with his continuing distortions and misrepresentations about what Senator McCain actually said.

Obama promised better. As I've said before, Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for his blatant dishonesty, and join Senator McCain in his call for tolerance and respect. If Obama does, perhaps we can engage in a new, civil form of politics.

Also posted at Right Side Politics and RedState.

Obama Denies Flipping Hillary

The Obama campaign denies that Obama gave Hillary the infamous one-finger salute:

A spokesman for the presidential campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has criticized The Ticket for making a "false and childish accusation" in an item Thursday that the candidate's one-fingered gesture during a speech that day might have been the finger aimed at his Democratic Party opponent instead of an innocent finger aimed at brushing his cheek or scratching a scratch.

As displayed in a video clip, Obama was criticizing Washington for its gotcha politics in general and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton specifically as being "in her element" there. As he mentions her name, he brushes his cheek twice with the middle finger of his right hand.

The crowd certainly seemed to think that Obama used the obscene gesture. Lsten to the reaction as Obama uses his middle finger to scratch his cheek:

What do you think -- did Obama flip Hillary the bird? Go to Right Side Politics and vote.

Obama's Union Thugs

Why won't Obama repudiate the union thugs who are advertising on his behalf in PA?

The Service Employee International Union (SEIU) is running a television ad in Pennsylvania, in support of Barack Obama, who is already outspending Hillary Clinton 5 to 1 on the airwaves.

The ad titled "Change," shows mostly white, working and middle-class Pennsylvanians complaining about their gas prices and then declaring their faith in Obama. The ad compliments the SEIU's extensive get-out-the-vote campaign in Pennsylvania.

Why would Obama accept the assistance of the SEIU? Just last weekend, the SEIU dispatched 700 of its thugs to disrupt a labor conference in Michigan, shoving people to the ground and inflicting a head wound on a retired woman.

In California, they are stalk nurses in a rival union by going to their homes and even post YouTube video of themselves doing it.

The SEIU stalking got so bad that a California judge issued a restraining order against SEIU:

So I repeat, why won't Obama repudiate the SEIU's violent tactics and reject the union's ads on his behalf?

Why does Obama choose to stand with the SEIU, and its track record of intimidation? A record which is rendering the union a pariah, even within organized labor.

Thanks to Matt Lewis and Flap for the tip.

McCain - The GOP Comeback Kid

A new Associated Press-Yahoo news poll finds Senator McCain has managed to win the support of disgruntled Republicans, Independents and  moderate Democrats:

Of those who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds voted for President Bush in 2004 but are now unhappy with him, including many independents who lean Republican. The remaining one-third usually support Democrats but like McCain anyway.

Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.

The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.

Tracking a group of about 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll reports some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold — along with a significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders:

The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then.


Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.

The recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found a majority of voters now view Hillary as dishonest:

Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

According to the New York Times, the brawl that the battle for the democrats' nomination has devolved into is causing Democrats to question the party’s prospects in the November election. Nevertheless, that recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found "little public pressure to bring the long and increasingly heated contest to an end."

Luntz Focus Group - More Evidence Of Democrat Deserters

This Frank Luntz focus group called the Democrats' Philadelphia debate a tie. More important, at about 3:45 into the following video, a significant number of these Democrats raised their hands, on camera, to indicate they will vote for Senator McCain in November:



The Democrats are facing a serious deserter problem. In addition to the Luntz focus group, at least at least seven recent polls show that regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, a significant number of Democrats deserters will vote for John McCain in November.

Focus Group: Hillary Wins The Debate

A focus group for Philadelphia's WPVI TV-6, by a two to one margin, says that Hillary Clinton won the Democrats' debate:



I don't think Hillary won. She never seemed to look into the correct camera making her appear shifty and insincere in her responses.

A smaller sample for sure, but at Right Side Politics, readers think Obama won.

The moderators threw nothing but "gotcha" questions at the Hillary and Obama for first half of the debate. Come November, with all that video, the real winner of this debate will be John McCain.

Watch Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell tell a Philadelphia's ABC affiliate, WPVI-6l television reporter that he was disappointed in the ABC debate because of all the "gotcha" questions:

Obamas Earned $4.2 million in '07

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported earning $4.2 million in 2007:

In tax returns the campaign released Wednesday, the Obamas reported a significant jump in their income from the previous year as profits from the books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" accounted for some $4 million. The Obamas paid federal taxes of $1.4 million and donated $240,370 to charity.

Their salaried income was $260,735, which included his $157,102 salary as a U.S. senator and hers of $103,633 as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

For part of 2007, Michelle Obama collected a salary for serving on the board of Westchester, Ill.-based TreeHouse Foods Inc., which produces pickles, nondairy powdered creamer and other products. She resigned in May after two years on the board.

The position had generated some complaints because TreeHouse is a supplier to Wal-Mart, and Barack Obama has criticized some of Wal-Mart's policies and treatment of employees.

The Obamas reported $29,443 from Treehouse Foods.

$4.2 million is one heck of an increase from the $991,296 the Obamas made in 2006. Running for President must be more lucrative than I thought. But its not as good a deal as being a former president and first lady.

Who Won The Debate?

Trying a poll experiment at Right Side Politics. Vote for the winner of tonight's Democrat Debate.

McCain Better Able To Manage Economy

A new Reuters/Zogby poll finds voters see McCain as better for the economy than Hillary or Obama:

McCain was seen as a better steward of the economy than either Democrat despite their repeated criticism of his economic credentials. He led Obama by 3 points and Clinton by 5 points on the question of who would best manage the economy.

The new national poll was conducted April 10-12, before McCain's economic speech on Tuesday, and has a margin of error of 4.3 percent.

In his economic speech, McCain called for the following:

GAS PRICES: A Summer Gas Tax Holiday - suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

STUDENT LOANS: A Student Loan Continuity Plan - calls on the federal government and the 50 governors to expand the lender-of-last resort capabilities for each state's guarantee agency.

MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS: Doubling the Personal Exemption for Dependents - raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.

A SIMPLER TAX CODE: An Alternative New and Simpler Tax System - give America a choice, all who wish can stay under the current system, but everyone else could choose a less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction.

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ELIMINATION: Phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax(AMT) - saving an average of $2,700 for a middle class family with children.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: A One-Year Spending Pause - discretionary spending pause that should be used for a top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs.

MEDICARE GROWTH: A reduction in the large subsidies in the Medicare drug program - limit Medicare prescription drug benefits to those who need them.

James Pethokoukis summed it up well -- one part Ronald Reagan (cut taxes, cut spending), one part Mike Huckabee (help for workers; Main Street is as important as Wall Street), and one part Teddy Roosevelt (criticism of "reckless CEOs and speculators").

Sounds good to me.

Two More Polls Find Dems Have A Deserter Problem

Two More polls find a significant number of Democrats will abandon the party's nominee in November to vote for Senator McCain:

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll:

There are some ominous signs that the party will not easily unify after a long and contentious primary fight. Fully 30% of Clinton supporters in North Carolina said they would switch to McCain if Obama was the nominee (only 14% of Obama backers would defect if Clinton was the nominee).

A Washington Post /ABC News poll:

Just 61 percent of Obama supporters say they'd definitely or probably vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination; 38 percent say they definitely or probably would not. It's very similar among Clinton supporters: Sixty-one percent say they'd be inclined to vote for Obama, 35 percent definitely or probably not.

Among core Democrats -- excluding Democratic-leaning independents -- about a third on each side say they're disinclined to kiss and make up.

That would be a highly unusual -- perhaps unprecedented -- level of party defections. From 1992-2004 just 10 or 11 percent of Democrats have voted Republican. In 1988 Mike Dukakis yielded 17 percent of Democrats; in 1980 and 1984, Ronald Reagan attracted a quarter of Democrats.

There are now at least seven recent polls that show, regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, a significant number of Democrats deserters will vote for John McCain:

The Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday:

26 percent of Clinton supporters would switch to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican, in November if Obama were the Democratic nominee. Nineteen percent of Obama backers would switch to McCain if Clinton were the Democratic nominee.

Gallup :

But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain.

[. . .]

Seventy-two percent of those who support Obama for the party's nomination would vote for Clinton against McCain, while 19% would desert and vote for the Republican.

AP-Ipsos:

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Rasmussen Reports:

Only 61% of Hillary supporters say they are likely to vote for Obama against John McCain. On the other hand, if Hillary is nominated, only 67% of Obama supporters are likely to vote for her.

American Research Group:

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

To be fair, as ABC reported, polling about the Democrats' deserter problem is "one that will be more meaningfully measured after the Democrats pick their candidate and lick their wounds." In addition, ABC points out there is also the possibility of GOP crossover:

Fourteen percent of Republicans say they'd vote for Obama if he's the nominee; fewer, 7 percent, say they'd cross over for Clinton.

The longer Hillary and Obama fight it out, the more damage they do to each other. Nevertheless, according to the Washington Post's Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, the Democrats remain willing to let the bruising battle between Hillary and Obama continue. They report the new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds "little public pressure to bring the long and increasingly heated contest to an end."

The Best Ideas From Both Parties

Senator McCain's campaign has launched his "first general election ads in Ohio and Pennsylvania."

Titled "Ignite," the fast moving 30 second spot appeals to swing voters promising the best from both parties:

Announcer: As President, John McCain will take the best ideas from both parties to spur innovation, invest in people and create jobs.

Taxes — simpler, fairer. Energy — cleaner, cheaper. Health care — portable and affordable. Workers retrained, mortgage debt restructured, education transformed. Initiatives that will unite us and ignite our economy.

Big ideas for serious problems. John McCain.

Another well-done effort from McCain's video folks. The quick images of tax forms, wind turbines, medical professionals and office workers illustrate the script. Homes and children roll across the screen to make McCain's point.

Since McCain won the Republican nomination, his campaign has cranked out one terrific video after another. My favorites are Tolerance And Respect and Courageous Service, but there has been a whole series of great McCain videos.

Obama Loses Momentum

A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Hillary still holds a 6% lead over Obama in Pennsylvania, 50% to 44%. That is the same result Quinnipiac found last week.

Obama has lost his momentum. There doesn't seem to be any other impact from Obama's San Francisco remarks demeaning small town America:

"[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The new Quinnipiac poll also highlights the Democrat's deserter problem:

26 percent of Clinton supporters would switch to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican, in November if Obama were the Democratic nominee. Nineteen percent of Obama backers would switch to McCain if Clinton were the Democratic nominee.

This is the fifth poll I've seen in the last three weeks documenting the Democrats' deserters problem.

Gallup :

But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain.

[. . .]

Seventy-two percent of those who support Obama for the party's nomination would vote for Clinton against McCain, while 19% would desert and vote for the Republican.

AP-Ipsos:

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Rasmussen Reports:

Only 61% of Hillary supporters say they are likely to vote for Obama against John McCain. On the other hand, if Hillary is nominated, only 67% of Obama supporters are likely to vote for her.

American Research Group:

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

I take the ARG poll with a bigger grain of salt because it found Hillary had a 20% lead, 57% TO 37%. Only a week before, ARG found the Democrats tied at 45%. Still, deserters appear to be a serious problem for the Democrats in November.

Right Side Politics Examiner

A little shameless self promotion.

For the last year, I have been blogging about Presidential Politics at the Examiner.com. The good folks there have decided to redesign the site and we have agreed to morph "Examining Presidential Politics" into "Right Side Politics Examiner."

As one of the new national Examiners, my Right Side Politics Examiner blog will be featured on all Examiner.com editions, including the three markets where there are print products. Examiners are writing about specific topics and my area of expertise is Politics as viewed from the right.

The newly redesigned site just launched today. Please take a few minutes and check it out. I am very interested in hearing what you all think about Right Side Politics Examiner and what I can do to make it better. Let me know.

You can access Right Side Politics Examiner here: http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner

Thanks!

Voters Disagree With Obama's Comments Demeaning Small Town America

Rasmussen reports finds that 56% of voters nationwide disagree with Obama’s statement that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Only 25% agree with Obama and 19% are not sure.

Rasmussen confirms what many of us have been saying -- this is a bigger problem for Obama in November:

Partisan and ideological differences suggest that the comments are more likely to be a factor in the General Election than in the Primaries. A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%--agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree.

Democrats are fairly evenly divided—34% agree with Obama and 43% disagree. Generally, Obama supporters agree with him while Hillary Clinton’s supporters disagree.

Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with the statement and unaffiliated voters disagree by a two-to-one margin.

Voters under 30 are evenly divided on Obama’s statement while their elders strongly disagree. Fifty-three percent (53%) of African-Americans agree with Obama’s statement while 29% disagree. White voters disagree by a 3-to-1 margin.

Forty-five percent (45%) say that Obama’s comments reflect an elitist view of small town voters. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree. Republicans overwhelmingly say that the statements are elitist and most Democrats disagree. Among unaffiliated voters, 40% say they represent an elitist view while 34% disagree.

This poll also confirms that Obama is winning the PR battle by keeping the main stream media focused on the "bitter" and "frustrated" part of his San Francisco comments rather than the part that offends small town America "[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations:"

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters agreed with Obama’s statement that “People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.” Just 32% disagree. Most Democrats and most unaffiliated voters agree with Obama on this point. Clinton’s campaign initially challenged Obama’s use of the word “bitter” but quickly changed its focus to the more controversial aspects of Obama’s statement.

The main stream media's coverage favoring Obama's talking points is further evidence the main stream media is still suffering from its admitted case of Obamamania.

McCain As Squadron Commander

The Los Angeles Times, has an interesting article about Senator McCain's military service following his return from Vietnam, including his return to flying status and his command of a Navy attack squadron:

But McCain surprised his doctors by making a dramatic comeback. With a ferocious determination to fly again and a tough physical therapy regimen, he got his wings back and not long after was awarded command of the Navy's largest aviation squadron, VA-174, at Cecil Field in Florida. Blue-chip connections in the Nixon administration helped.

[. . .]

A review of Navy records and interviews with more than a dozen of his former colleagues paint a picture of a commander who was lionized by his troops as a war hero and respected by aviators as a fair and effective manager. He had rugged good looks and a common touch, and was fiercely loyal to those who worked for him, his former colleagues say.

Read the whole thing and you will understand why McCain points to his command of that squadron when he is asked about his qualifications to lead and manage.

Obama Makes It Personal

NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan and NBC's Mark Murray report that Obama launched a personal attack against Hillary:

Shame on her! She knows better!

Obama was speaking to steel workers, when he launched into a personal attack against Hillary for going after Obama's San Francisco comments demeaning small town America:

[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

In his attack on Hillary, Obama questioned her commitment to the 2nd Amendment, saying that Hillary's support of the right to bear arms was politics and said Hillary was trying to appear like "Annie Oakley."

"Now, I have to admit that I expected some of this out of John McCain. John McCain said I was out of touch, he said I was being condescending and elitist, 'people aren't bitter.'"

[. . .]

"So I expected this out of John McCain. But I've gotta say, I'm a little disappointed when I start hearing the exact same talking points coming out of my Democratic colleague Hillary Clinton. She knows better. She knows better! Shame on her! Shame on her! She knows better!"

"She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the 2nd Amendment, she's talkin like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton! I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds. Haha. Ya know, c'mon. When Hillary Clinton says I'm out of touch I just have to remind people of the track record."

You can watch Obama's personal attack against Hillary in the following video supplied by the Obama campaign:



I strongly disagree with Obama. His San Francisco comments are demeaning to small town America. As I said before, we cling to guns and religion, but not out of bitterness. Small town America clings to guns and religion because of tradition.

Once again, Obama demonstrates that his new kind of politics is nothing but nothing more than the old politics as usual.

The more vicious and personal Hillary's and Obama's attacks become, the more Democrat deserters will vote for Senator McCain in November.

Obama Feels The Heat

Obama concedes remarks about bitter working class voters who "cling to guns or religion" were "ill chosen:"

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said.

Obama is still out of touch -- it's not how he said it, it's what he said:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The main stream media, still suffering from its admitted case of Obamamania, downplays the story. The Washington Post, for example, buried the Obama out of touch story on page 4.

Here's a good video report on the story which was broadcast yesterday on NBC:



I posted my thoughts on Obama not getting small town America here.

‘Out of Touch’ Obama Doesn't Get Small Town America

By now you must have heard about Obama's Liberal/Progressive elitist put down of small town America.

At a San Francisco fundraiser last Sunday, Obama revealed jut how removed he is from those who inhabit flyover country:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I was born and raised in flyover country. In my case, it was a rural agricultural community in Northern California. The small town America I know may cling to guns and religion, but it sure as hell isn't out of bitterness. No, my small town America clings to guns and religion because of tradition. It's the way we were 'raised. We are a self-reliant folk. We don't look to, nor do we expect, the government to coddle us or solve every problem that some Liberal/Progressive elitist politician can identify. Actually, like President Reagan, we tend to think government is more often the problem. The more we can keep the government out of lives, the better off we are.

I resent Obama's assertion that us country folk suffer from "antipathy" toward others. I find it personally offensive. I was raised to respect others and was taught that I should strive, like God, to be "no respecter of persons." I've always tried to do that, and so do the small town folk I know.

The McCain campaign gets it:

McCain sees working-class voters -- many of them once and possibly still "Reagan Democrats" -- as a critical constituency for his hopes of winning the White House. His advisers say Obama will have trouble locking down that support in the general election because his message has been focused more on changing the system than on delivering results.

"It's a remarkable statement and extremely revealing," McCain adviser Steve Schmidt said in a statement. "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking, it is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

When I first heard about Obama's insult to small town America, I thought his handlers would come up with some clever way to apologize. Instead, after initially dismissing criticism of Obama's remarks in a written statement, in Terre Haute, Indiana, Friday night, Obama repeated the insult.

Hillary issued several statements criticizing Mr. Obama, calling Obama "out of touch." The McCain campaign also weighed in:

“It shows an elitism and condescension toward hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

Obama's remarks aren't likely to cost him the Democratic nomination. Nevertheless, one only has to envision those red and blue electoral maps showing county by county the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, to realize the "out of touch" Obama will now be even less likely to defeat Senator McCain in November.

Hillary Still Leads In Pennsylvania

A new Temple University poll finds Hillary continues to lead Obama in Pennsylvania, 44% to 35% percent among Pennsylvanians likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. That comfortable margin shrinks when undecided voters are included:

Nineteen percent remain undecided or refuse to express a preference, but that group leans toward Obama. Adding in the undecided voters who lean to one candidate or the other shrinks Clinton’s lead to 47 – 41 percent.

The Temple poll also found "stark demographic differences:"

• 83 percent of blacks favor Obama, compared to 31 percent of whites
• 79 percent under the age of 30 favor Obama, compared to 28 percent over 60 years old
• 55 percent of women favor Clinton, compared to 32 percent of men

A recent AP-Ipsos poll found Obama losing ground among some of those groups:

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women — from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less.

A new Zogby poll finds Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania even smaller 47% to 43%. Hillary does better in western Pennsylvania, around Pittsburgh, and in the central part of the state. Obama is doing well in eastern Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia.

Michael G. Hagen, director of Temple’s Institute for Public Affairs, says the Pennsylvania contest could depend on turnout:

The race remains close enough that turnout will be critical, especially in the all-important allocation of convention delegates. The two sides bring different assets to the turnout contest. The Clinton campaign has the backing of more of Pennsylvania’s top elected officials, but the Obama campaign will have more money to spend to get out the vote.

Pennsylvania is one of those states Hillary has to win. Obama has a chance to deny her that victory and thereby the nomination, if he didn't completely blow it with his insult to small-town America.

McCain Catches Obama

A new AP-Ipsos poll finds that Senator John McCain, the Republican Presidential Nominee to be, has erased Obama's 10-point lead and is now tied with Obama 45%-45%.

Perhaps the constant hammering Obama has taken recently, from nonpartisan fact checkers and numerous media outlets, for his, and the Democrats', gross distortion of McCain's 100 years comment caught up with Obama.

The AP-Ipsos poll, like this recent Rasmussen poll, also provides more evidence that the Democrats face a serious problem with Democrat deserters:

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Obama is losing ground among various groups:

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women — from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less.

Not a good omen for Obama.

Colin Powell On The Olympics, Iraq, Iran, Race And 2008

Diane Sawyer interviewed Colin Powell on "Good Morning America" and discussed the Olympics, Iraq, and Iran, race and the 2008 election.

Presidential Election

Powell insists he hasn't yet decided whom he'll back in the 2008 presidential election:

"I'm looking at all three candidates," Powell said in an exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer for Thursday's "Good Morning America" on ABC. "I know them all very, very well. I consider myself a friend of each and every one of them. And I have not decided who I will vote for yet."

Rejects Olympic Boycott

Powell rejects a boycott of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China:

"That's a judgment the president will have to make. I would not boycott the opening ceremony," Powell told Sawyer.

Powell insists that a boycott will not accomplish its objective:

"We always are aware and have been aware of Chinese human rights problems. And I think if you start to take this kind of action, it doesn't really serve the purpose of human rights," Powell told "Good Morning America."

"What is accomplished by boycotting the opening ceremony?" Powell asked rhetorically. "I don't think that makes the situation any better. It probably makes the situation a little more difficult for the Chinese because they will pull back even more."

Powell encouraged China to begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet.

"I think we ought (to) recognize that these protests are legitimate, recognize that the Chinese ought to move forward and start having a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and not just say, 'We're not going to talk to you.' (The) Dalai Lama has indicated flexibility. And I think that's what the Chinese should do," he said. "But I don't think that these kinds of actions, such as boycotting an opening ceremony, or even perhaps thinking twice about sending your team to the Olympics, has the desired effect."

"I very much supported in 2001, when I was secretary of state, that we give the Olympics to the Chinese because I thought it would put them under a spotlight. And they have responded to that spotlight," he said. "But they haven't with respect to Tibet. And these demonstrations show the Chinese leadership that the world is watching this."

Iraq

Powell expressed concern about the burden Iraq puts on the country's military:

"I'll tell you what they're all going to face -- whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 21 of 2009 -- they will face a military force, a United States military force, that cannot sustain, continue to sustain, 140,000 people deployed in Iraq, and the 20 (to) 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan, and our other deployments," Powell said.

[. . .]

"I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan," Clinton said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on Tuesday.

Iran

Powell, as a soldier, says while military options are always on the table, Iran would be a very tough target.

Race

Powell condemned controversial remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, as "deplorable" but complimented Obama for his speech on race:

"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," Powell said, "And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."

[. . .]

"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told Sawyer.

You can watch the interview in the following video.



Powell was impressive in his ability to weave answers around tough questions and not offend any of the potential powers to be. Very diplomatic and thoughtful.

McCain Sees No Reason To Resign Senate

Senator McCain, campaigning in Connecticut yesterday, said he will not resign from the Senate while running for president:

McCain was asked whether he would resign this summer, and give his replacement the opportunity to run with McCain at the top of the ticket, rather than wait and resign only if he wins.

"No, I will not," McCain told the crowd at a town hall style meeting in Westport, Connecticut. "I have every confidence that there are a number of Republicans who would be elected in my place. So I do not envision a scenario of resigning my seat."

McCain also said he will think about whether or not it makes more sense to resign:

"I will go back and think about it, and think about the scenario that you just described," he continued. "But right now my intentions are to remain in the United States Senate."

Should McCain decide to resign, Arizona law requires that the governor appoint someone from the same party as the departing Senator. That person would serve until the next election in 2010.

McCain should consider posing a challenge to his Democrat opponents -- he will resign if they will. What do you think?

McCain/Rice Beats Dem's 'Dream Team'

The Democrats’ “Dream Ticket” is a nightmare in Democrat dominated New York.

A new WSNB/Marist poll finds a John McCain/Condoleezza Rice presidential ticket would defeat the Democrats' so-called dream team of Hillary/Obama --49% to 46%. The Republicans do even better if Obama is at the top of the ticket -- 49% to 44%.

Maybe this explains why Nancy Pelosi continues to say the Dems' dream team will not come to pass. Obama has dismissed the idea of a Democrat dream team as well.

Bill And Hillary Split

The Hillary Campaign acknowledges that, like Hillary's recently demoted strategist in chief Mark Penn, Bill Clinton "supports a free trade agreement with Colombia that she [Hillary] strenuously opposes:"

Campaign spokesman Jay Carson "said in response to a query from The Associated Press that the senator's opposition is 'clear and firm.' He added: 'Like other married couples who disagree on issues from time to time, she disagrees with her husband on this issue. President Clinton has been public about his support for Colombia's request for U.S. trade preferences since 2000.'"

Right -- just like other married couples.

The New York Post reports, Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 in speaking fees for his support of the Columbia free-trade deal:

In June 2005, Bill Clinton, who holds enormous sway as an adviser to his wife, was quoted by the Spanish-language news portal Terra as publicly backing the trade pact at an appearance with Colombia President Alvaro Uribe.

"I will raise your point when you return to the United States," Clinton said, according to a translation by Politico.com. "I am in favor of the free-trade agreement and it is my hope that we will find the right formula to reach the agreement."

The same month, Bill Clinton reaped the six-figure windfall from the Colombia-based development group Gold Service International - a booster of the trade agreement - for four speeches.

So will former President Clinton be fired demoted as was Penn?

Hillary is now faced with concerns with her management ability. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani addressed this last October:

She's never run a city; she's never run a state; she's never run a business; she's never met a payroll; she's never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people. So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here.

If she can't run a campaign, how can she run the federal government?

Another Obama Supporter Insults McCain

Obama backer, West Virginia Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, joined the Obama Democrats war on truth chorus and insulted Senator McCain:

Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.


"What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, USMC (Ret.), who shared a cell with McCain in the Hanoi Hilton, demanded that Barack Obama denounce Senator Jay Rockefeller's smear against John McCain and the men and women of our military:

Senator Rockefeller's statement is an insult to all the men and women who are serving or have served in America's military. Had Senator Rockefeller served himself, he would appreciate and understand that most who have been to war emerge with a much deeper concern for humanity than they otherwise might. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that John McCain wasn't dropping laser-guided missiles at 35,000 feet in 1967.

Barack Obama has a responsibility to denounce Senator Rockefeller's smear against John McCain's character and military record.

So what is it with Obama and his supporters? Instead of joining in Senator McCain's call for a civil discussion, they insist upon campaigning with insults and "'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' and 'Outright Lying'"

Obama promised better. Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for Rockefeller's smear against McCain's character and military record.

Why doesn't Obama have the courage to stand up for the principles of 'new politics' he outlined in his book, "The Audacity of Hope?"

Image: A mob pulling John McCain from his plane after it was hit by a missile plunged into a lake.

More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' and 'Outright Lying' From Obama

This morning on the “Today” Show, Barack Obama claimied he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?”

SEN. OBAMA: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)

Like Obama said, “we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.” Well, YES WE CAN. Those YouTube quotes, in Obama's own words, show Obama’s dishonest smear against McCain and that Obama lied on the Today Show:



We have been through this before, but Obama continues the distortions, even though Obama acknowledges McCain was speaking bbout a post-war situation like South Korea, not a 100-year war:

“At The End Of The Exchange Obama Admitted That He Understands McCain Is Talking About The Korean Style Bases And Not A Hot War Like Iraq …” (Sunlen Miller, “Obama Claims Characterization Of McCain’s Statement On Iraq Is Fair,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, www.abcnews.com, 3/31/08)

Non-Partisan Fact-Checkers Call It Distortiion:

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org calls DNC attacks on “100 Years” comment a “serious distortion” and “a rank falsehood:” “

The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. ... There’s little doubt that McCain is less ea ger than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com calls Obama attacks on “100 Years” comment “false:"

”“Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)

The Washington Post's FactChecker -- Obama's false claims do not pass The Pinocchio Test:

McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq. … [T]hey have twisted his words, by claiming that he 'wants' to fight a 100-year war.

Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Senator McCain’s Position:

The New York Times’ Frank Rich -- “Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain.”:

“Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is ‘willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq’ (as Mr. Obama said) or ‘willing to keep this war going for 100 years’ (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where ‘Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.’ See for yourself on YouTube.” (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, “Tet Happened, And No One Cared,” The New York Times, 4/6/08)

Columbia Journalism Review -- “Obama Is Seriously Misleading Voters -- If Not Outright Lying To Them -- About Exactly What McCain Said:”

“Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s ‘100 years’ notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying to them -- about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it. … To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing. This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)

New Hampshire Union Leader -- “It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It:”

“You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it.” (Editorial, “McCain’s ‘100 Years’: The Democrats’ War On The Truth,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/6/08)

The New York Times -- Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment:

“But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3 …” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/08)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder -- Obama’s “100-Year War” Attack “Is Simply Not What McCain Said:”

“[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)

The Associated Press -- “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq:”

“[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

USA Today -- McCain’s Comments Being “Distorted:”

“[Sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or wounded)...” (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/08)

Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke -- “The Charge That McCain Wants To Carry On The War For 100 Years Is A Total Canard:”

“Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. ... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer -- “A Serious Argument Is Not What Democrats Are Seeking:”

“But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

Richmond Times-Dispatch -- Democrats’ “Hyperventilating Criticism Suggests They Either Did Not Read His Words Or Deliberately Are Distorting Them:”

“Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)

National Review -- “This Is So Obvious A Distortion That It Must Backfire Against Democrats Over Time. . .:”

“Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse...” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez -- “This Favorite Talking Point Of The Two Democrats Presidential Candidates Is Bogus:”

“Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing with his continuing distortions and misrepresentations about what Senator McCain actually said.

Obama promised better. Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for his blatant dishonesty, and join Senator McCain in his call for tolerance and respect. If Obama does perhaps we can engage in a new Politics -- a new civil politics different than Obama's Chicago rules.

Also posted at Examining Presidential Politics and RedState.

UPDATE: More at First Read, Marc Ambinder and Political Punch.