Presidential Politics

Obama wins big in Guam

2008-11-04T15:28:00.001-05:00

The Unofficial result in Guam, with all 58 precincts reporting gives Obama another win:

Obama - 20,120

McCain - 11,940

Barr - 212

Guam gets no Electoral Votes. But, unlike the results from Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, New Hampshire, Guam has been a reliable predictor of the outcome of the presidential election:

Before President Reagan crushed Walter Mondale in 1984, he won by a landslide in Guam.

In 1992, Guam's straw poll said President George H. W. Bush only deserved one term.

In 1996 Guam re-elected President Clinton by a wider margin than the states.

In Guam, George W. Bush barely snuck past Al Gore in 2000.

W beat John Kerry with ease in 2004.

Voting twice in Philly

2008-11-04T12:31:00.003-05:00

At least one voter has been observed voting twice under the watchful eye of a Philadelphia poll worker.

Listen to the following phone call received by the Honest and Open Election Hotline:

We have already heard that Republican Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in Philadelphia.

What's next?

Ex-Dem Chair Apologizes for Inappropriate RNC Hurricane Remark

2008-09-01T03:55:00.000-05:00

Don Fowler, the callous former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, apologized on Sunday for laughing at the fact that Hurricane Gustav might hit the New Orleans area at the same time President Bush was scheduled to address the Republican National Convention:

"If this offended anybody, I personally apologize," Fowler told ABC News. "It was a mistake, and it was a satirical statement made in jest. And one that I clearly don't believe."

My RedState colleague, Absentee, caught the uncaring Fowler making his inappropriate comments on an airline flight from Denver, Colo., to Charlotte, N.C., following the Democratic National Convention.

In the recording, Fowler says:

"The hurricane’s going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is -- at least it appears now that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates that God’s on our side. [Laughter] Everything’s cool."

I'll bet that doesn't seem very funny to all the folks being evacuated in the face of Hurricane Gustav.

You can watch the video of Fowler's indiscretion here.

Fowler didn't learn his lesson very well. The Former Chairman of the Democrats offered a political required, if insincere apology. Fowler then went on to insult Absentee -- calling him "some right-wing nutcase."

Palin Makes Good First Impression - Better Than Biden

2008-09-01T03:54:00.000-05:00

Sarah Palin made a good first impression.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin:

Palin earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats and 63% of unaffiliated voters.

[. . ]

By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters.

The following video of Governor Palin, speaking at in Dayton, Ohio following her introduction by John McCain as his pick for vice president shows why she made such a good first impression:

Drudge: Obama May Announce VP Tuesday

2008-08-18T22:14:00.000-05:00

Drudge reports Obama has made decided who he wants to be his running mate.

Obama has set out an elaborate roll-out to announce his decision that will begin with an early morning e-mail to supporters, perhaps as early as Tuesday, Zeleny and Adam Nagourney have been told.

Tracking Poll Update - 8/18

2008-08-18T22:12:00.000-05:00

Rasmussen:

McCain - 43%
Obama - 44%

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely voters for Monday shows Obama attracting 43% of the vote while McCain earns 44%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%.

Gallup:

McCain - 44%
Obama - 45%

The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking poll of registered voters finds finds Obama has a three percent lead over McCain, 46% to 43%.

Obama Insults Justice Clarence Thomas

2008-08-18T22:11:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal takes Obama to task for demeaning Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at the Saddleback Church forum:

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

You can watch the Democrats' presumptuous nominee, demean Justice Thomas in the following video:

Obama could have answered the question without being uncivil and insulting Justice Thomas.

Hillary On McCain Versus Obama

2008-08-18T22:10:00.000-05:00

Agence France Presse reminds us that as Obama, the Democrats' presumptuous nominee, pays homage to Hillary at Democrats' convention in Denver, Colorado, he will be faced with specters from the primary battle.

The McCain campaign is running an ad that shows Hillary making that devastating comparison between the experience of McCain versus Obama:

"I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," she says in the ad, referring to Obama's stand against the Iraq war, which Bill Clinton once dismissed as a "fairy tale."

The following video shows that Hillary made the comparison often:

Obama Says McCain Camp Paints Obama As The Anti-Christ

2008-08-18T22:08:00.000-05:00

Immediately after Obama's appearance with the reverend Rick Warren, the Democrats' presumptuous nominee was interviewed by CBN News Senior National Correspondent, David Brody.

Among other things Brody asked Obama whether the McCain campaign is purposely using imaginary to scare people about him being the anti-Christ. Obama answered yes. You can watch and read a partial transcript of the interview here.

I'm sick and tired of this bovine fecal matter where folks try to refute the McCain campaign ad "The One," by falsely claiming the ad tries to make the Obama out to be the anti-Christ. Watch the ad:

I've watched and watched that ad numerous times. All the ad does is use the Obama's own words to show just how presumptuous and egocentric Obama is. And boy is Obama presumptuous and egocentric.

So lets get this straight. Obama is not the anti-Christ. So says the debunker Snopes. And so say the authors of Left Behind, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins:

"I've gotten a lot of questions the last few weeks asking if Obama is the antichrist," says novelist Jenkins. "I tell everyone that I don't think the antichrist will come out of politics, especially American politics."

"I can see by the language he uses why people think he could be the antichrist," adds LaHaye, "but from my reading of scripture, he doesn't meet the criteria. There is no indication in the Bible that the antichrist will be an American."

The Obama has no one to blame for folks thinking he might be the anti-Christ, other than Obama.

And don't forget the Obamamessiah theme picked up by the McCain campaign's ad "The One" was started by Hillary. Hillary used the Obamamessiah theme back in February. Then, the Times of London published Gerard Baker's "He ventured forth to bring light to the world -- The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers."

Warren gets McCain and Obama on the same stage

2008-08-16T10:08:00.000-05:00

Tonight the Reverend Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book "The Purpose-Driven Life," will conduct a "forum" with Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.

Each candidate will be interviewed separately by Warren for one hour. The interviews will focus on four areas: the role of the presidency in government, leadership, the candidates' world view and America's role internationally.

The Associated Press reports that the forum is the Perfect setting for Obama to counter the persistent rumors that Obama is Muslim:

The church forum also gives him a perfect setting to counter the misperception that he is Muslim. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 12 percent of respondents believe the Illinois senator is Muslim.

I've been saying for weeks that Obama needs to confront his Muslim problem head on. Maybe Obama will do so tonight.

The forum will take place in Warren's Saddleback Church, located in Southern California. The so-called mega-church is the fourth-largest church in America.

The two-hour forum will be held in a non-debate format. Warren will have a separate long-form conversation with each candidate for 50 minutes. There will be commercial breaks every ten minutes.

The questions to both candidates will be identical to provide a fair comparison, although the follow-up questions may differ, based on their response.

Obama will be interviewed first, as determined by the flip of a coin. McCain will not hear the questions during the first hour. Between the two interviews, the candidates will appear together on stage for photographs.

The forum will be broadcast live on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News Channel, Daystar Television Network, and Southern California's KDOC-TV at 8:00-10:00 P.M. ET / 7:00-9:00 P.M. CT / 5:00-7:00 P.M. PT

In the following video, Time's Amy Sullivan and Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff discuss the forum's possible impact on Hardball:

Image Credit: Getty Images/AP Photo

Dem Chairman Dean Continues Playing Obama Camp's Race Cards

2008-08-16T10:07:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe reports that on NPR today the national chairman of the Democrats' called the Republican Party the "white" party:

"If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the Republican Party,” Dean said at one point.

You can listen the Democrats' chairman continue to play Obama's race card below:

If you want more context, you can listen to the entire NPR broadcast here.

Obama can't get away with playing the race card anymore. No, not now that the McCain Campaign called Democrats' presumptuous nominee on playing the race card. No, not now that the Obama's chief strategist admitted that the Obama's comments referred to Obama's race. No, not now that a majority see Obama's dollar bills comments as racist.

According to the Globe, McCain campaign co-chairwoman Carly Fiorina, called Dean on continuing to play the Obama's race card:

“It is disappointing to see Howard Dean trying to use gender and race to divide voters. His comments are insulting, inappropriate and have no place in this election.”

DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton claims Dean misspoke,

“He misspoke and corrected himself immediately.”

I've listened to Dean's comments several times. You are never going to convince me Dean's comments were not intentional. If you believe Dean's comments were unintentional, well, I have ocean front property to sell you in Kansas.

Florida Republican Party's $2.8-billion Obama Oil Gift

2008-08-16T10:06:00.001-05:00

Lost is found.

The Republican Party of Florida delivered a $2.8 billion "check" to Obama’s Tallahassee headquarters:

"The check was from Senator Barack Obama and made out to oil companies as payment for his vote on the 2005 Energy Bill that provided nearly $3 billion in subsidies for oil and natural gas production," RPOF says.

“A local volunteer found the valuable check at a gas station near the Tallahassee airport yesterday," communications director Erin VanSickle deadpanned in a news release.

She added: “We can only assume that the document was mistakenly dropped by Senator Barack Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe. He likely stopped at the gas station to check the tire pressure on his rental car prior to heading to last night’s campaign fundraiser in Tallahassee.”

The Obama, the Democrat's presumptuous nominee, forgets that it was Obama who voted for President Bush's energy bill, while McCain voted against it.

McCain called the Obama on this a week ago at a Town Hall in Lima, Ohio:

"I want to take a minute here on this issue because I think Senator Obama might be a little bit confused. Yesterday, he accused me of having President Bush's policies on energy. That's odd because he voted for the President's energy bill and I voted against it." -- John McCain

You can watch McCain reminding Obama about that vote in the following video:

John McCain:

"I spoke up against the Administration and Congress and Senator Obama when they gave us an energy bill with more giveaways to Big Oil and really no solution to our energy problems.

I want to take a minute here on this issue because I think Senator Obama might be a little bit confused. Yesterday, he accused me of having President Bush's policies on energy. That's odd because he voted for the President's energy bill and I voted against it. I voted against it had $2.8 billion in corporate welfare to Big Oil companies, and they're already making record profits, as you know. Senator Obama voted for that bill and its Big Oil giveaways. I know he hasn't been in the Senate that long, but even in the real world, voting for something means you support it and voting against something means you oppose it.

Anyway, my friends, just like on the energy bill, I've argued for reform and change in Washington for years and it hasn't made me friends. It hasn't made me friends in Washington. My friends, I was not elected Miss Congeniality again this year, but I don't answer to them. I answer to you. I answer to you. You will always know exactly where I stand and you will always know, no matter what, I will always do what I believe is right for our country. I will put my country first. If there's anything you take from this meeting, I will put my country first.

For his part, Senator Obama is an impressive orator. I applaud his talent and I applaud his success. All Americans should be proud of his accomplishments, but Washington is full of talented talkers, my friends, and unfortunately on issues big and small, what Senator Obama says and what he does are two different things. Senator Obama says he's going to change Washington, but his plan is to raise your taxes and spend more of your money. It's not my idea of a solution that troubles Washington. In fact, it sounds a lot like the problem.

Tracking Poll Update - 8/15

2008-08-16T10:05:00.000-05:00

Rasmussen:

McCain - 41%
Obama - 44%

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely voters for Tuesday shows Obama attracting 44% of the vote while McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 45%:

Despite the Russian invasion of Georgia, daily tracking data shows no shift in voter priorities for Election 2008. Forty-one percent (41%) say economic issues are most important while just 22% name national security issues as the top priority.

Gallup:

McCain - 44%
Obama - 44%

The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking poll of registered voters finds McCain and Obama tied at 44% each:

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Obama's Bad Poll Day

2008-08-16T10:04:00.000-05:00

In the New Republic, Nate Silver writes that three new polls released on Thursday "show significant movement toward John McCain:"

In Washington, SurveyUSA has John McCain trailing by 7 points. This hardly moves Washington into competitive territory, however, SurveyUSA had polled Washington no fewer than nine times since Super Tuesday, and had shown Obama ahead an average of 13.4 points, including 16 points in a survey released in mid-July.

A similar pattern manifests itself in Minnesota, where Rasmussen has Barack Obama's lead eroding to 4 points; Obama had held a 13-point lead last month. And in the critical swing state of Colorado, Rasmussen has John McCain edging into a 1-point lead; last month, it had been Obama by 3.

Silver notes McCain is gaining ground among Independents and Republicans, but doesn't understand what is causing the shift toward McCain. The explanation is simple. Russia has again revealed its belligerent tendencies with its naked and brutal aggression against Georgia. McCain has been right about Russia for a long time and won the Georgian 3:00 phone call moment.

Jon Stewart On The John Edwards Affair

2008-08-16T10:02:00.000-05:00

Jon Stewart takes John Edwards to task for some of the sillier things Edwards said in his confession:

John Edwards -- author of the famed claim that there are two Americas -- was apparently only faithful to his wife in one of them.

Media Bias Bigger Problem Than Campaign Cash

2008-08-16T10:01:00.001-05:00

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds a majority of voters, 55%, believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions.

Rasmussen found the usual partisan and ideological divide:

Republicans are the most likely to see media bias as the bigger problem. Eighty-one percent (81%) of the GOP faithful hold that view. Democrats and unaffiliated voters are more evenly divided. Obama’s Party, by a narrow 50% to 41% margin, say that campaign cash is the bigger issue. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 47% say media bias is the problem while 43% hold the opposite view.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of liberals see campaign contributions as a bigger problem than media bias. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives hold the opposite view. Among the moderates, 49% say media bias is the problem while 42% disagree.

An earlier Rasmussen survey found that most believe reporters are trying to help Obama win the election.

McCain Wins Russian/Georgian Conflict 3:00 A.M. Moment

2008-08-16T09:58:00.001-05:00

You remember Hillary's infamous 3:00 a.m. ad. Russia's invasion of Georgia presented Senators McCain and Obama with a true 3:00 a.m. moment.

Their responses to the crisis suggest dramatic differences in how each candidate would lead America during an international crisis.

McCain got it right from the start. In his initial statement, McCain sided clearly with America's ally, Georgia, took Russia to task for violating Georgia's sovereign territory, noted danger to Euro-Atlantic stability and security, called for diplomatic pressure on Russia, and a review of what NATO can do to stabilize the situation:

Today, news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.

The government of Georgia has called for a cease-fire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia's security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.

Obama blew it. According to Reuters, the Democrats' presumptuous nominee issued a statement that shows the worlds greatest celebrity is just an empty suit:

"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."

Obama called for direct talks among all sides and said the United States, U.N. Security Council and other parties should try to help bring about a peaceful resolution.

It took a day of watching Russia pound Georgia before the Obama got around to condemning Russia and nuancing his position to sound more like McCain's.

Watch the following video:

Jon Stewart On The 'Celeb' Ad

2008-08-16T09:56:00.000-05:00

John Stewart takes on the "Celeb" ad and Obama's race card:

The Democrats' presumptuous nominee started this meme.

Paris Hilton Has A Better Energy Policy Than Obama

2008-08-16T09:55:00.001-05:00

Wearing a bikini and heels, Paris Hilton responds to McCain's "Celeb" ad, which suggests the Democrats' presumptuous nominee is little more than a widely recognized media concoction:

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Adfunny videosFunnyOrDie.com

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds responded quickly:

“It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - including both alternatives and drilling. Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan,”

Remember, Obama started this meme.

Obama Started It

2008-08-16T09:52:00.001-05:00

Senator McCain's presidential campaign released a new television ad comparing the Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The ad suggests the Democrats' presumptuous nominee is little more than a widely recognized media concoction:

Obama's campaign responded with a commercial dismissing McCain's complaints as "baloney" and "baseless."

Despite those assertions, Obama started this meme himself. CNN's Dana Bash reports Obama compared himself to Paris Hilton at a dinner in 2004:

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," then Senator-elect Obama said at a Gridiron dinner in December, 2004. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

[. . .]

The same comparison was also made in September 2006, when speculation swirled about whether the still-very coy Obama would mount a presidential bid.

Upon speaking at Tom Harkin’s annual Iowa steak fry — a must-attend event for any presidential hopeful — CNN asked Obama about the Paris Hilton comparisons.

“Yeah, exactly,” Obama started to reply before Harkin jumped in and said, “Remember that movie with Robert Redford that was called 'The Natural, about a baseball player? This is the natural of politics.”

In the Washington Post, Richard Cohen writes about the fact the Obama is all talk, while McCain has actual done things:

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam prisoner of war to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.

But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position -- virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.

So, what has Obama accomplished, other than becoming the world's most popular and presumptuous celebrity?

Obama Replaces American Flag With Obama Logo

2008-08-16T09:49:00.000-05:00

When John McCormick reported Obama replaced his Boeing 737 campaign plane with a Boeing 757, he noted the new aircraft had "a giant flag painted on its tail."

In yet another display of his patriotism, Obama replaced the American flag with the Obama Logo. Lynn Sweet reports that Obama's 757 has been repainted "with the Obama sunrise logo on the tail."

Oh the audacity of Obama's ego.

Obama Says New Yorker Insulted Muslim Americans

2008-07-16T15:55:00.000-05:00

By now you have probably seen the New Yorker magazine's satirical cover depicting Obama and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals. You know, the cartoon which depicts Obama in traditional Muslim clothing -- sandals, robe and turban -- his wife, Michelle, with an assault rifle slung over one shoulder and dressed in camouflage and combat boots and her hair in an Afro, while an American flag burns in a fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs above the mantel.

Obama says the cartoon doesn't bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans:

"You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things," the presidential candidate told CNN's Larry King. "And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about."

According to the associated Press article, "Obama blamed himself for not being forceful enough in challenging some of the rumors about him, including that he is Muslim."

For once I agree with Obama. He has only himself to blame for the lingering perception that he is Muslim. As I have said before, Obama must confront his Muslim issue head on.

The caricature of Mrs. Obama would have far less punch had Obama dissociated himself from Bill Ayers, along with his wife Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers was a 1960s leader of the American terrorist group the Weathermen, a Communist-driven splinter faction of Students for a Democratic Society. Ayers is said to have summed up the Whethermen's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

According to Wkipedia, the Weathermen, conducted a series of bombings against the US government throughout the early 1970s, bombing several federal buildings. Dohrn is a principal signatory on the group's "Declaration of a State of War" (1970) that formally declared war on the U.S. Government, and completed the group's transformation from political advocacy to violent action. Dohrn also co-wrote and published the subversive manifesto Prairie Fire (1974), and participated in the covertly-filmed Underground (1976).

Image Credit: Associated Press via the Baltimore Sun.

9/11 Billboards Spark Controversy

2008-07-16T15:54:00.000-05:00

Billboards bearing a photo of the Twin Towers burning and a plea not to vote for Democrats has sparked controversy in Orlando, Florida.

The person behind the billboard, Mike Meehan, is holding the Democrats responsible for the 9/11 attacks:

"I'm holding the entire Democratic Party responsible for the attacks on 9/11," said Meehan, who wrote, sang, produced and recorded the song. He said people should not vote for Democrats because they are too focused on solving the problems in the economy when they should be focused on the war on terrorism.

[. . .]

"Democrats are relaxed on fighting the war on terrorism," he said. "But it's just as important as the economy. The economy and terrorism go together."

Terrorists had warned they would destroy the American economy financially, and we can see their success in the high prices of oil, Meehan said.

Meehan's website advertises a CD and music video titled "The Republican Song," with the chorus, "Don't vote for a Democrat." He sells CDs for $5 to cover the cost of getting his message out.

According to ABC affiliate WFTV in Orlando, both parties have criticized the billboards.

Meehan knows people will find his ads offensive, but he said, "It's more offensive that our nation is forgetting about the attacks." We must never forget.

Image courtesy of ABC.

McCain Pledges More Education Options

2008-07-16T10:49:00.001-05:00

The Associated Press reports John McCain is telling the NAACP that he will expand education opportunities for children in failing schools.

In excerpts released ahead of his speech, McCain says that the worst educational problems in the country are often found in schools in black communities and that he will provide greater school choices and scholarships for such students:

As in other challenges African Americans have met and overcome, these problems require clarity of purpose. They require the solidarity of groups like the NAACP. And, at times, they also require a willingness to break from conventional thinking.

Nowhere are the limitations of conventional thinking any more apparent than in education policy. Education reform has long been a priority of the NAACP, and for good reason. For all the best efforts of teachers and administrators, the worst problems of our public school system are often found in black communities. Black and Latino students are among the most likely to drop out of high school. African Americans are also among the least likely to go on to college.

After decades of hearing the same big promises from the public education establishment, and seeing the same poor results, it is surely time to shake off old ways and to demand new reforms. That isn’t just my opinion; it is the conviction of parents in poor neighborhoods across this nation who want better lives for their children.

[. . .]

Over the years, Americans have heard a lot of “tired rhetoric” about education. We’ve heard it in the endless excuses of people who seem more concerned about their own position than about our children. We’ve heard it from politicians who accept the status quo rather than stand up for real change in our public schools. Parents ask only for schools that are safe, teachers who are competent, and diplomas that open doors of opportunity. When a public system fails, repeatedly, to meet these minimal objectives, parents ask only for a choice in the education of their children. Some parents may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private school. Many will choose a charter school. No entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity.

[. . .]

If I am elected president, school choice for all who want it, an expansion of Opportunity Scholarships, and alternative certification for teachers will all be part of a serious agenda of education reform.

Obama Erases His Criticism Of The Surge

2008-07-16T09:44:00.001-05:00

In a silly effort to hide how wrong Obama was about the surge, Obama's criticism of the surge has been removed from Obama's campaign Web site.

The New York Daily News, was first to report that Obama's campaign website was scrubbed over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq.

The following video highlights the poor judgment Obama is trying to erase:

Unlike Obama, McCain long advocated that more troops were needed to win in Iraq.

According to the Associated Press, McCain says "Obama is failing to acknowledge success." Someone should tell Obama it's usually best to simply admit when you are wrong. Scrubbing Obama's website to erase Obama's judgments that proved to be wrong won't work well in today's YouTube world.

Time for Some Campaignin'

2008-07-16T09:41:00.000-05:00

Take a few minutes, relax, and enjoy a good laugh. "Time for Some Campaignin'" isn't as good as JibJab's 2004 efforts -- "This Land" and "Good to be in DC" -- but it is still enjoyable. Watch as the good folks at JibJab bid farewell to Bush and welcome Obama and McCain to center stage:

Time for Some Campaignin' | Funny Jokes at JibJab

Obama Financing Flip Flop Widely Criticized

2008-06-20T22:43:00.000-05:00

Obama's decision to become the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public financing system resulted in some of the most negative media coverage Obama has received during the campaign.

NBC Nightly News said the decision "created a firestorm," looked Obama's at pledge to "observe the limits if his opponent did," and showed excerpts from a February interview with Tim Russert in which he indicated he would seek to participate in the system. Watch Andrea Mitchell's video report:

ABC World News called the move "a direct contradiction" of Obama's early promises. CBS Evening News said Obama "abandoned a campaign pledge," adding, "it is a big reversal. Only months ago, Obama was signaling a willingness to preserve public financing. No wonder John McCain smelled a flip-flop."

Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press, said Obama "tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician -- one who means what he says and says what he means -- while undercutting his call for 'a new kind of politics.'"

Sidoti also blasted Obama's argument that he had to make the move to defend himself against independent groups running ads:

But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama — and running commercials against McCain.

So much for being a straight shooter.

McClatchy's David Lightman, said the decision "is not only a huge blow to the Watergate-era campaign finance system, but it could hurt the Democratic nominee's effort to paint himself as a reformer:"

But the Illinois senator, whose campaign mantra has been reform and change, has now put himself in the position of being the candidate who lit the match that allowed the ailing public financing system to finally implode.

Lightman quoted Brad Coker, managing partner of the Mason-Dixon Research polling firm:

"For him to go outside this framework leaves him open to charges of hypocrisy."

Even the New York Times saw fit to criticize Obama in an editorial:

The excitement underpinning Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rests considerably on his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has come up short of that standard with his decision to reject public spending limitations and opt instead for unlimited private financing in the general election.

The Times also pointed out that "Obama’s description of public financing as 'broken' is only half true."

According to Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, "while the primary cycle’s public matching subsidies are 'broken' and need updating for inflation, 'the system for the general election is not.'"

The Washington Post also took Obama to task, editorializing, that Obama "had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation." Politicians "do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it:"

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.

Obama is making a huge mistake here. Candidates frequently prove you can't buy an election. And as the Watergate scandals demonstrated, too much money can corrupt campaigns, despite the best of intentions and disciplined management. More important, when is Obama going to stop changing his mind whenever it is politically expedient and offer some change we can count on.

Obama's The First

2008-06-20T22:41:00.000-05:00

Obama reverses his financing pledge.

By changing his mind today, Obama becomes the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public financing since the system was enacted as part of the 1974 reforms demanded by public reaction to the Watergate Scandal.

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

According to Agence France-Presse, Obama "pledged last year to work 'aggressively' with the Republicans on a deal to preserve public financing, under which candidates limit their spending in return for matching funds from the federal Treasury."

As the McCain campaign correctly notes, this broken Obama pledge "will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system."

Obama has once again revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama.

We should expect nothing more than such expediency from Obama. After all, he started this campaign by expediently breaking his word that he would not run for president in 2008:

On January 22, 2006, Obama stated flat out he wouldn't seek the presidency in 2008:

MR. RUSSERT: There’s been enormous speculation about your political future, Senator. The man you succeeded in the Senate, Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican, said this recently. “I think there’s a very good chance that Senator Obama is on the Democratic ticket in 2008 as the vice presidential nominee.” Do you agree?

SEN. OBAMA: No. You know, I can’t speculate on those kinds of things. What I have said is that, you know, I’m not focused on running for higher office, I’m focused on doing the job that the people of Illinois just sent me to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answer: “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

Can we count on anything Obama says? I mean, other than the fact that he will change his mind.

Obama Is Running For Jimmy Carter's Second Term

2008-06-10T08:49:00.001-05:00

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, McCain said Obama seems to be running for a second Carter term:

Williams: Is it going to be tough to run with an incumbent party for the White House, given this economic backdrop?

McCain: I-- I think it's-- it's tough. But I think the American didn't, people didn't get to know me yesterday. They know me. They know that I have fought for restraining spending, which Senator Obama has been a big part of, with earmarking (UNINTEL) projects. They know that I have been a strong fiscal conservative, and they know I understand the challenges that they face.

They need a little break from-- from their gasoline taxes, and they -- and they know that -- we've got to get spending under control. And we've got to become independent of foreign oil. Sen. Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms. It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second. (LAUGHTER)

It's an apt comparison. On July 15, 1979, Carter went on national television and gave what became known as his malaise speech. Among other things said this:

I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel.

In Roseburg, Oregon recently, Obama sounded a lot like Jimmy Carter did when the former president gave that infamous speech:

All right. So that's what we want to do on global warming here in the United States. We are also going to have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy and pretty soon, if their carbon footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment. We got to lead by example. If we lead by example, if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technologies that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pains. But keep in mind, you're right, we can't tell them don't grow. We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership. [Transcript courtesy of CNN's Ballot Bowl]

Next thing you know, Obama will be talking about killer rabbits.

UPDATE: Baseball Crank has more.

Democrats' New Political Threat to U.S. Security

2008-06-10T08:48:00.001-05:00

We have been through this time and time again.

The left and its media allies cannot accept that the country's leaders, especially those leaders with a Democrat "D" near their name, found it necessary to authorize the use force in the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us.

The left's solution has been to fabricate a myth that we were "mislead" into war. Despite the fact that no less than three exhaustive reviews have completely discredited this mythical lie, last week the Democrat controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by West Virginia Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV, tried to try and rewrite history and thereby breath new life into this despicable myth.

As a few Democrats realize, success in Iraq will be a problem for the Democrats. Now that the success of the surge is being recognized by the press, if not the Democrat's standard bearer, those that once supported the war but switched positions with the prevailing political winds are growing desperate. The only way those Democrats who once supported the war, and thereby offended the Democrats' agenda-setting antiwar left-wingers, can see to hold onto power is to blame their support for the war on being mislead.

Fred Hiatt takes a look at Rockefeller's new ~~report~~ revised history and finds Rockefeller has not yet accomplished the left's mission. Hiatt explains that if you bother to read Rockefeller's new ~~report~~ revised history you will find that it fails to support Rockefeller's assertion that the "administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent:"

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

It is peculiar that it is Rockefeller who is now pushing the Bush Lied myth. Peculiar, because it was
Rockefeller, who said in October 2002 that the threat from Iraq was imminent:

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

The committee's vice chairman, Senator Christopher Bond, along with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent and assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Let us again review the facts, at least the way history stood before Rockefeller's attempt at rewriting history.

HISTORY (Before It Was Rewritten)

Again, no fewer than three exhaustive reviews have determined that we were not mislead into war.

The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the report states:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found "no evidence of political pressure." At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly "found no evidence of deliberate distortion." At page 110 the British Butler report states:

Treatment of intelligence material

449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

The effect of departmental policy agendas

450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgments inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgments inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

REWRITTEN HISTORY

In the Committee's rewritten history, according to the New York Times the new report "concluded" that President Bush "and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq's weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda:"

In a statement accompanying the report, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said: “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”

That's funny in the peculiar sort of way.

MORE HISTORY (Before It Was Rewritten)

Here is what Rockefeller and other Democrats said before the history was rewritten:

SEN. JAY ROCKFELLER (D-WV): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. John Rockefeller, Congressional Record, S.10306, 10/10/02)

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): "Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September 11 were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to take action." (Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," 3/17/03)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "[Saddam] has ignored the mandates of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 09/19/02)

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): "With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, S.10147, 10/9/02)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): "The weapons they [Iraq] have are a threat to the world. And mister president, the world must respond." (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10252)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 09/18/02)

SEN. HILLARY CLNTON (D-NY): "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security." (Sen. Clinton, Congressional Record, S.10288, 10/10/02)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Kerry, Congressional Record, S.10172-3, 10/09/02)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate." (Sen. Dodd, Congressional Record, S.10177, 10/09/02)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): "Saddam Hussein is an evil man, a dictator who oppresses his people and flouts the mandate of the international community. While this behavior is reprehensible, it is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.10302, 10/10/02)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." (Rep. Pelosi, Press Release, 12/16/98)

The consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction formed in the Clinton administration. The consensus was more than evident in 1998, when President Clinton was threatening to attack Iraq.

President Clinton:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright:

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

POLITICIZING INTELLIGENCE

The Democrats have tried to politicize intelligence before. In January 2003, during the Senate's battle over how much money will go to each party to pay for committee staff, Senate Democrats successfully insisted on changing the staffing structure of the Select Committee on Intelligence. The Democrats’ change divided the committee's staff into two groups, reporting separately to the panel's Republican chairman and Democratic vice chairman.

In a prescient moment, Senator Pat Roberts (R. Kansas), then the incoming chair of the Committee, warned:

"We should preserve our Intelligence Committee staff as a single unified staff that works for the committee as a whole under the supervision of the chairman and the vice chairman. The minority apparently wishes to divide the committee staff for the first time in history into majority — minority or partisan camps."

Jim Geraghty wrote:

Roberts said the panel has been a unique institution in the Senate and was envisioned from its start in 1976 to operate under different rules than other committees. He contends the committee has worked well and effectively with a professional nonpartisan staff as originally intended and should continue to do so.

The committee has made no comparable change in its history. When the committee was formed in 1976, members were allowed to nominate one staff member each to be placed on the panel's payroll and handle that member's committee issues. But over time, it became clear that the staffers felt a greater sense of loyalty to their sponsoring member rather than to the committee as an institution, and according to committee reports, some staffers worked on non-intelligence issues for their member. That system was scrapped at the beginning of the first session of the 104th Congress, and replaced with a system where staffers were assigned to work with specific senators on intelligence-related work.

By the end of 2003, it was revealed that the Democrats had gone even further in their efforts to politicizing intelligence. A leaked memo caught the Democrats plotting to use classified information against President Bush in the 2004 presidential campaign. The contents of the memo, drafted by the Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic staff and reported by Fox News, can be found here.

You probably remember Democratic Senator Zell Miller's "Heads should roll" reaction:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today released the following statement concerning a memo written by Democratic staff on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests ways to politicize intelligence data:

I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee.

Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized.

If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.

Heads should roll!”

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, who served as vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was critical of this attempt to politicize intelligence. In an article entitled “A Political Threat to U.S. Security,” Kerrey wrote:

The production of a memo by an employee of a Democratic member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is an example of the destructive side of partisan politics. That it probably emerged as a consequence of an increasingly partisan environment in Washington and may have been provoked by equally destructive Republican acts is neither a comfort nor a defensible rationalization.

It is small comfort because the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees were established 30 years ago expressly and explicitly to be a unique refuge from the destructive forces of partisan politics. Keeping these committees non-partisan is vital for the nation's security because much of what is done to collect, process and disseminate intelligence needed by civilian and military leaders is done under conditions of rigorously regulated secrecy.

The Democrats have politicized intelligence before. They didn't get away with it in 2003 and they shouldn't get away with it now just because they attempt to do so under the guise of a poorly rewritten history.

Wright Won't Go Away

2008-06-06T08:52:00.001-05:00

Just last week, Obama finally decided to do what most people of sound judgment would have done much, much sooner -- Obama finally resigned as a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ.

Now, Time Magazine's Steven Gray reports Reverend Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years, refuses to relinquish his duties as senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ:

When Sen. Barack Obama severed ties with his Chicago church, most political observers saw the move as a way for the candidate to insulate himself from the controversies stirred by its retiring pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Greta Van Susteren discusses the issue with Steven Gray in the following video:

Obama only expressed concern about his now former church after videos Wright's hateful sermons were made available on the internet:

In response, Obama delivered his widely praised March 18 speech on race, in which the candidate repeatedly referred to Wright as his "former pastor."

But Obama refused to dissociate himself from Wright or the church.

Only after Wright's taunting speech and question-and-answer session at the National Press Club, did Obama see fit to denounce Wright.

Like Obama's audacious arrogance in refusing to get the facts about the success of the surge in Iraq, and his 20-year association with the crook Rezko, Obama's decision to continue his relationship with his radical church and Reverend Wright, long after most people would have dissociated themselves from such blatant hateful preachings, raises serious questions about Obama's judgment.

Rezko And Obama's Judgement

2008-06-06T08:50:00.002-05:00

Antoin Rezko, who raised money for Obama's U.S. and Illinois senate campaigns and, with whom Obama had some peculiar financial relationships, was convicted of federal corruption charges Wednesday for his part in an illegal kickback scheme.

Obama reacted to the news much as he did when we first learned about the hateful sermons of Obama's longtime spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright:

"This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform," Obama said in a statement.

Obama sure doesn't seem to know the people he associates with.

The following video explains Obama's poor judgment in his 20-year association with this crook:

Obama did admit the appearance of impropriety in connection with a series of financial arrangements he made with Rezko to improve their adjoining properties. Nevertheless, Obama hasn't been as forthcoming about his relationship with Rezko as he should have been. A year ago, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. That was much more than Obama ackowledged until recently.

In March, Obama admitted the amount was $250,000:

Obama acknowledged that Rezko had raised $250,000 for him — about $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed and about five times more than Obama conveyed during a November 2006 question-and-answer exchange with the Sun-Times.

Like Obama's refusal to visit Iraq to see the results of the surge, his 20-year relationship with a crook like Rezko and Obama's 20-year relationship with his minister of hate, raise serious questions about Obama's poor judgment.

Obama's Stolen Nomination

2008-06-06T08:50:00.001-05:00

Jack Shafer writes that "Hillary Didn't Lose. Barack Won." Shafer got it half right. Hillary didn't lose. The nomination was stolen from her fair and square.

As I posted in "The Way Democrats Count Every Vote," the Democrats' so-called Rules Committee engaged in a little of that creative count every vote thing the Democrats do so well:

According to CNN, Hillary managed to "win" the Michigan Primary:

Clinton - 55%
Uncommitted - 40%
Kucinich - 4%
Dodd - 1%
Gravel - 0%

Based upon the votes, Hillary earned 73 delegates and Obama none. Fifty five delegates should be uncommitted.

Instead of agreeing to seat a Michigan delegation based on the actual votes, the Democrats cut a deal to "let every vote count" that "allows" Hillary to have 69 delegates and gives Obama 59 delegates. That's right, even though Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and therefore no one voted for him, the Democrats are giving him 59 delegates.

As of 11:00 P.M. tonight, CNN reports Obama has 2,158 delegates. That is only 40 more than the 2,118 required to clinch the nomination. If the Rules Committee had not given Obama four of the delegates the voters said should go to Hillary and 55 delegates the voters said should be uncommitted, Obama would not yet be the Democrats' presumptive nominee.

I don't usually agree with Hillary about anything, but Hillary didn't lose and Obama didn't win. Nope, the Rules Committee simply stole delegates from Hillary and uncommitted and gave those stolen delegates, and the stolen nomination to Obama.

No wonder Hillary supporters are angry and are attempting to do something about it.

Audacious Arrogance

2008-06-05T15:40:00.000-05:00

Arrogance - an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Mr. Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, returned to Iraq earlier this year, as an embedded reporter, and walked the same streets in Baghdad where he served as an infantry platoon leader in the 101st Airborne Division. He says the recent visit reinforced his understanding of how important it is to take the time to visit Iraq and talk with the troops on the front lines. Hegseth takes Obama to task for failing to go to Iraq to get the facts:

Obama was among those in January 2007 who stridently opposed the surge and confidently predicted its failure – even going so far as to vote against funding our soldiers in the field unless the Bush administration abandoned this new approach. It is now clear that Mr. Obama's judgment on the surge was spectacularly wrong.

Yet rather than admit his mistake, Mr. Obama has instead tried to downplay or disparage the gains our troops have achieved in the past 12 months, clinging to a set of talking points that increasingly seem as divorced from reality as some in the Bush administration were at the darkest moments of the war.

Obama's hasn't been to Iraq in 879 days - two and a half years. Much has changed in Iraq since Obama's visit in January 2006.

Senator McCain has been to Iraq eight times since 2003 – including three times since surge forces began to arrive in Baghdad. He has made it his mission to truly understand what is happening on the ground, in all its messy reality:

Indeed, Mr. McCain's own frequent and vociferous criticisms of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his warnings, as early as 2003, that the Bush administration was pursuing a flawed strategy in Iraq, were directly informed by his firsthand interactions during his trips to Iraq. Troops and commanders warned him that we lacked sufficient forces to defeat al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and they were correct.

In turn, Mr. McCain's early advocacy for the surge and his prescient conviction that it would succeed were rooted not only in his extensive knowledge of military affairs, but in his close consultations with troops serving in the theater. They recognized that the new strategy was succeeding far before the mainstream media in the U.S. was willing to acknowledge these gains.

Earlier this week, Peter Wehner noted "Obama Must Face Iraq’s Truth." Wehner cited four Iraq-related pieces:

Reuters:

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Iraq’s oil minister credited better security for the two milestones, which illustrated a dramatic turnabout in the fortunes of a country on the brink of all-out sectarian civil war just 12 months ago.

“We’ve still got a distance to go but I think lower casualty rates are a reflection of some real progress,” Gates told reporters in Singapore. “The key will be to continue to sustain the progress we have seen.”

The New York Times:

The recent successes in quieting violence in Basra and Sadr City appear to be stretching to the long-rebellious Sunni Arab district here in Mosul, raising hopes that the Iraqi Army may soon have tenuous control over all three of Iraq’s major cities.

In this city, never subdued by the increase of American troops in Iraq last year, weekly figures on attacks are down by half since May 10, when the Iraqi military began intensified operations here with the backing of the American military. Iraqi soldiers searching house to house, within American tank cordons, have arrested more than 1,000 people suspected of insurgent activity.

The Iraqi soldiers “are heady from the Basra experience,” Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, the commander of American forces in Mosul, said in an interview. “They have learned the right lessons.”

[. . .]

American and Iraqi officials have called Mosul the last urban bastion of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other Sunni jihadist groups.

The Washington Post:

A little over two weeks ago, U.S. troops in Sadr City were on the front lines of fierce, unrelenting urban warfare. But virtually overnight, their main mission has become one of rebuilding portions of the vast, tattered Shiite district and building trust in neighborhoods where many residents despise Americans.

Reaching that point took a fragile cease-fire agreement that called for a limited U.S. role in military operations in Sadr City, a stronghold of militias loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; thousands of Iraqi soldiers; and wads of cash.

“If we get Sadr City right and create irreversible momentum, there’s no turning back,” Brig. Gen. Mike Milano, deputy commander of U.S. forces responsible for Baghdad, said Saturday during a visit to Sadr City.

Washington Post Editorial:

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Irregardless, of all the evidence to the contrary, Obama continues to insist that the surge has failed:

Obama continues to insist that "Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war" – despite the passage of numerous pieces of benchmark legislation by the Iraqi Parliament and unequivocal evidence of grassroots reconciliation across the country.

Mr. Obama also continues to claim that America has "simply thrown U.S. troops at the problem, and it has not worked" – despite the dramatic reduction in violence in precisely those areas of Iraq where American forces have surged, and since handed over to Iraqi Security Forces.

And of course, Mr. Obama persists in his pledge to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq, on a fixed timeline, beginning the moment he enters office – regardless of the recommendations of our commanders on the ground, regardless of conditions on the ground, and regardless, in short, of reality.

So we ask, what is Obama afraid of? Why is he afraid to look at facts inconsistent with his world view? Why does he promise to meet with tyrannical dictators, but refuse to meet with our commander in Iraq? Ignoring the successes of the of the surge and remaining ignorant of the facts is further evidence of Obama's poor judgment, stubbornness and audacious arrogance.

Democrats vs. Obama

2008-06-05T15:36:00.000-05:00

hese Democrats say Obama is not ready to be president:

HILLARY CLINTON: In this election, we need a nominee who can pass the Commander-In-Chief test. Someone ready on day one, to defend our country and keep our families safe. And we need a President who passes that test.

JOHN EDWARDS: Rhetoric is not enough. High falutin language is not enough.

HILLARY CLINTON: ...No time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You were asked "Is he ready?" You said "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training."
JOE BIDEN: I think that I stand by the statement.

BILL CLINTON: When's the last time we elected a President, based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? He will have been a Senator longer by the time he is inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for President full time, you don't have time to do much else.

HILLARY CLINTON: I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander-In-Chief threshold. And, I believe that I have done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that, and you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.

Watch the video:

McCain Invites Obama To Debates

2008-06-04T14:30:00.001-05:00

On a conference call with bloggers this afternoon, Senator McCain congratulated, Senator Obama and announced that he invited Obama to a series of weekly town hall meetings:

Dear Senator Obama:

In 1963, Senator Barry Goldwater and President John F. Kennedy agreed to make presidential campaign history by flying together from town to town and debating each other face-to-face on the same stage. In Goldwater's words, those debates "would have done the country a lot of good." Unfortunately, with President Kennedy's untimely death, Americans lost the rare opportunity of witnessing candidates for the highest office in the land discuss civilly and extensively the great issues at stake in the election. What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections. It is in the spirit of President Kennedy's and Senator Goldwater's agreement, in the spirit of the politics of change, and to do our country good, that I invite you to join me in participating in town hall meetings across the country to discuss the most important issues facing Americans. I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility.

I propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible, and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details. I suggest we agree to participate in at least ten town halls once a week with the first on June 11 or 12 in New York City at Federal Hall until the week before the Democratic Convention begins at locations to be determined by our campaigns. Federal Hall is particularly fitting as it was the place where George Washington took the oath of office as our first President and the birthplace of American government hosting the first Congress, Supreme Court and Executive Branch offices. These town halls should be attended by an audience of between two to four hundred selected by an independent polling agency, could be sixty to ninety minutes in length, have very limited moderation by an independent local moderator, take blind questions from the audience selected by the moderator and allow for equally proportional time for answers by each of us. All of these are suggestions that can be finalized by our campaigns. What is important is that we commit to participate in these history making meetings to join in the higher level of discourse that Americans clearly would prefer.

To show our good faith, we should both commit to the first town hall I have suggested. In the mean time, we can work out dates for future town hall meetings.

I look forward to your favorable reply and to the opportunity to work with you to give Americans a better opportunity to understand our differences, our agreements and the leadership we offer them.

Sincerely,

John McCain

During the conference call McCain said the town hall format is the best because it provides voters more participation and a greater voice in our democracy:

Unfortunately, the town hall debates aren't likely to happen. Obama wants changes to the format before accepting the invitation:

“As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country,” said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. “We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.”

That's consistent with my impression that Obama is usually heavily scripted and prefers to deliver long speeches from a teleprompter. Without that remote control from his handlers, Obama is prone to gaffes such as his infamous clingy remarks at that San Francisco fundraiser.

In the Lincoln-Douglas debate format preferred by Obamna, each candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour "rejoinder."

Hillary's Non-Concession

2008-06-04T05:24:00.000-05:00

Despite many erroneous rumors, and incorrect news articles yesterday, Hillary did not concede last night:

Charlie Cook puts the demands that Hillary withdraw from the campaign in perspective:

Those pleas were wrong and unfair. When was the last time a presidential candidate who was still consistently winning primaries and getting healthy numbers of votes asked to step aside, particularly with more states to go?

In the same respect, if nobody would expect a football or basketball team that was trailing with a few minutes left in the game to leave the court before the buzzer, why should a candidate still winning drop out of the contest?

Besides, this intense primary process has been a tremendously effective voter registration and organizational effort for Democrats. Finally, the Democratic Party and its various constituencies owed the candidates a little latitude for their service over the years.

But after tonight, all that changes. After the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota, and with the issues involving Florida and Michigan resolved by the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton "stand and fight" arguments take on a shrillness and a futility that would put the Clintons' standing in the party in very grave danger.

I put it a little differently. Now Hillary sounds like one of those bitter people Obama spoke about in San Francisco. She is bitterly clinging to her supporters and the campaign.

Cook offers the Clintons some advice:

At this point, the Clintons should begin thinking about their future and standing in the party. What they do over the next five months will determine what their standing will be. Will they be seen as party unifiers and team players, or party wreckers and sore losers?

[. . . ]

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would bow out over the next few days, take a well-earned vacation and catch up on sleep.

After that, she needs to spend the rest of the summer and fall campaigning for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and paying off her multimillion-dollar campaign debt.

No one would be able to say that Hillary and Bill Clinton didn't do all they could to help Obama win the general election. And in all honesty, she could also be praying every night that he loses, so she could give folks the "I told you so" look and have another shot in 2012.

Obama Wins Nomination

2008-06-03T20:51:00.000-05:00

CNN projects Senator Obama has won the Democrats' nomination for president.

Congratulations to Senator Obama!

It is no small accomplishment to be the first African-American in U.S. history to lead a major-party ticket.

As expected, Obama picked up a slew of superdelegate endorsements on Tuesday. According to CNN, those endorsements, combined with the delegates he's projected to receive from South Dakota's primary, will put him past the 2,118 required to win the nomination.

Obama will claim victory during a speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, according to prepared remarks released by his campaign:

"Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another -- a journey that will bring a new and better day to America," he's expected to say.

"Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States."

Hillary Wins South Dakota

2008-06-03T20:34:00.000-05:00

Hillary is projected to be the winner in the Democrats' South Dakota primary.

Obama, the Democrats' apparent nominee, has lost a majority of the primary contests held since early March.

The Dems' Loathsome Campaign

2008-06-03T15:52:00.001-05:00

Richard Cohen has an editorial in the Washington Post in which he writes about how he loathes the bitter fight between Hillary and Obama:

I loathe above all the resurgence of racism -- or maybe it is merely my appreciation of the fact that it is wider and deeper than I thought. I am stunned by the numbers of people who have come out to vote against Barack Obama because he is black. I am even more stunned that many of these people have no compunction about telling a pollster they voted on account of race -- one in five whites in Kentucky, for instance. Those voters didn't even know enough to lie, which is what, if you look at the numbers, others probably did in other states. Such honesty ought to be commendable. It is, instead, frightening.

I acknowledge that some people can find nonracial reasons to vote against Obama -- his youth, his inexperience, his uber-liberalism and, of course, his willingness to abide his minister's admiration for a racist demagogue (Louis Farrakhan) until it was way, way too late. But for too many people, Obama is first and foremost a black man and is rejected for that reason alone. This is very sad.

I loathe what has happened to Hillary Clinton. This person of no mean achievement has been witchified, turned into a shrew, so that almost any remark of hers is instantly interpreted as sinister and ugly. All she had to do, for instance, was note that it took Lyndon Johnson to implement Martin Luther King's dream, and somehow it became a racist statement. The Obama camp has been no help in this regard, expressing insincere regret instead of a sincere "that's not what she meant."

I loathe also what Hillary Clinton has done to herself. The incessant exaggerations, the cheap shots, the flights into hallucinatory history -- that sniper fire in Bosnia, for instance -- have turned her into a caricature of what her caricaturists long claimed she already was. In this campaign, Clinton has managed to come across as a hungry hack, a Janus looking both forward and backward and seeming to stand for nothing except winning. This, too, is sad.

I loathe what has happened to Bill Clinton.

Cohen discusses his editorial in the following video:

I agree. The playing of the race card and "exaggerations" gave us plenty to loathe.

Perhaps after his loathsome fight with Hillary, Obama will join McCain in a more civil debate about the important issues facing the nation.

Hillary Leads In Montana, Obama Leads In South Dakota

2008-06-03T06:50:00.001-05:00

It will be funny if, on the day Obama claims the nomination, he loses another primary to Hillary.

A new American Research Group poll finds Hillary leading Obama 60% to 34% in South Dakota

Another new American Research Group poll finds Obama ahead in Montana 48% to 44%.

Obama's Chicago Politics

2008-06-03T06:49:00.001-05:00

I got a chuckle out of this video:

Obama Set To Claim Victory

2008-06-03T06:48:00.000-05:00

Obama will claim the Democrats' nomination and bring the long and divisive primary fight to an end today, after the last two primary contests are held in Montana and South Dakota.

James Clyburn, House majority whip and the top-ranking African-American in Congress will endorse Obama today.

Superdelegates will rally around Obama. As many as 34 of the undeclared superdelegates in the House will endorse Obama by Wednesday. Eighteen of those 34 members Congress will do so before the vote counting ends in South Dakota and Montana.

Most of the remaining 17 uncommitted Democratic senators will endorse Obama.

The 11 governors supporting Hillary are "set to sell switch to Obama."

Even Bill Clinton admits it:

This may be the last day I’m ever involved in a campaign of this kind. I thought I was out of politics, til Hillary decided to run. But it has been one of the greatest honors of my life to go around and campaign for her for President.

Watch Andrea Mitchell's report from last Monday's Nightly News broadcast:

There is more interesting analysis in the following video segment from Hardball:

McCain Urges Nations To Cut Funds To Iran

2008-06-02T09:24:00.001-05:00

Today, outlining his vision For Israel's security and the Middle East, Senator John McCain called on states to cut funds to the rogue state of Iran.

McCain's remarks were made at the AIPAC Policy Conference, and came as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again predicted Israel will soon disappear.

In his speech, McCain described a vision for the Middle East that includes the following points:

In A World Full Of Dangers, Israel And The United States Must Always Stand Together.

As the threats to Israel's security increase, John McCain believes America's commitment must also grow. He strongly supports the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October, and is committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.

Addressing The Iranian Threat:

The Foremost Threat To Israel Is The Iranian Regime. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called Israel a "stinking corpse" and for it to be "wiped off the map." Beyond the vile insults, the Iranian leadership acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and America.

Iran's Leadership Has Repeatedly Used Violence To Undermine Israel And The Middle East Peace Process. Iran sponsors both Hamas and Hezbollah. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq, and remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism.

Iran's Continued Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Poses An Unacceptable Danger That We Cannot Allow. Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor terrorist attacks. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce others to join a nuclear arms race. There would be the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist networks. An Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel.

Rather Than Sitting Down Unconditionally With The Iranian President Or Supreme Leader, John McCain Will Work To Create Real-World Pressures To Peacefully But Decisively Change Iran's Behavior. John McCain has been a leader on these issues, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act.

The United Nations Security Council Should Impose Progressively Tougher Political And Economic Sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay, the U.S. must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework.

John McCain Has Proposed Applying Sanctions To Restrict Iran's Ability To Import Refined Petroleum Products. A severe limit on imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Iran's leadership to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

We Will Encourage Those In The Region And Our European Partners To Impose Targeted Sanctions. These would include the denial of visas and freezing of assets.

We Will Impose Financial Sanctions On The Central Bank Of Iran, Which Aids In Iran's Terrorism And Weapons Proliferation.

We Will Apply The Full Force Of Law To Prevent Business Dealings With Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. John McCain was pleased to join Sens. Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Sen. Obama.

We Will Launch A Worldwide Divestment Campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already.

Supporting The Peace Process:

The Palestinian People Are Badly Served With Hamas In Charge Of Gaza. This is a group that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, to denounce violence, and to acknowledge prior peace commitments. They deliberately target Israeli civilians, spread hatred, and set back their people's cause with every new bombing.

We Hope That The Talks Between Israel And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Will Yield Progress Toward Peace. While encouraging this process, we must also ensure that Israelis can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace. A peace process that places faith in terrorists can never end in peace.

Strengthening Our Allies In Lebanon:

The International Community Must Support Our Allies In Lebanon. Israel's chance for enduring peace with Lebanon depends on a Lebanese government that has a monopoly on authority within its country's borders. We can fully empower our allies – not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal: better schools, hospitals, roads and power generation.

John McCain Will Bring More Attention To The Kidnapping Of Three Young Israelis In 2006. In the summer of 2006, Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped three young Israelis and have held them ever since. John McCain has met with the families and will bring attention to their situation, insist that the Geneva Conventions are observed, and call for the swift release of these men.

Succeeding In Iraq:

Succeeding In Iraq Is Critical To Israeli And American Security. Our troops in Iraq have made hard-won progress under General Petraeus' new strategy. Iraqi political leaders have moved ahead. Sectarian violence has declined. Sunnis are cooperating in the fight against al Qaeda. Shia extremist militias no longer control Basra. Al Qaeda terrorists are on the run.

Senator Obama's Plan To Withdraw Regardless Of The Consequences Will Surely Result In Catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends.

McCain's entire speech, as prepared for delivery can be found this extended post at California Yankee.

The Democrats Don't Learn From History

2008-06-02T07:03:00.000-05:00

Are the Democrats about to repeat 1972?

For those too young to remember, in 1972, George McGovern was defeated by Nixon, 60%-38% in the popular vote and 520 to 17 in the Electoral College. McGovern won only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

Young Hillary

2008-06-01T17:51:00.000-05:00

I got a good chuckle out of this "never before seen footage of a Young Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

Hillary Wins Puerto Rico

2008-06-01T15:15:00.002-05:00

Hillary, as expected, is projected to be the winner in Puerto Rico's Democratic primary by a wide margin.

After the defeat the Rules Committee handed Hillary, winning Puerto Rico hardly matters.

Hillary Supporters Aren't Happy

2008-06-01T14:55:00.000-05:00

Hillary Supporter: “When you tell me that much bad news about someone, I start to panic. Suddenly it's no longer about being a Democrat. It's about being an American. It's about preserving the United States of America.”

Hillary's campaign issued the following statement about the way the Democrats decided to "count every vote" in Michigan:

Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

No, Hillary supporters are not happy:

Hillary Supporter: “I’ll probably vote for McCain first. Actually, I’d vote for George Bush over Obama. He’s [Obama] pretty scary and I think he’d ruin our country. So if Hillary doesn’t get in I’m going to have to really consider who I’m going to vote for.”

The New York Times reported that after the agreement was reached by the rules committee, Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's chief advisers, declared that Hillary’s fight may not be over:

“Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee,” Mr. Ickes said before the final vote, raising the specter of a fight until that committee meets. His words drew cheers from Clinton supporters, including many who yelled, “Denver! Denver! Denver!” — implying that the fight could go all the way to the convention in that city.

Mr. Ickes said the outcome for Michigan was a hijacking of voters’ intent because it assigned delegates to Mr. Obama even though he did not win them as his name was not on the ballot.

No, Hillary Supporters are not happy:

The Way Democrats Count Every Vote

2008-06-01T12:25:00.001-05:00

UPDATED WITH VIDEO.

Based on what the Press is reporting, about the Democrats' great compromise to allow the seating of the previously disenfranchised Florida and Michigan delegations, you may believe you understand that the Democrats reached a reasonable and fair compromise giving each Florida and Michigan delegate half a vote.

According to the press reports, the Democrats will allow each vote to count and still punish Florida and Michigan for violating the Party's rules about how soon primaries could be held.

That is what the Democrats did for Florida, but not Michigan.

No, for Michigan the Democrats decided to do a little of their creative counting of every vote.

According to CNN, Hillary managed to "win" the Michigan Primary:

Clinton - 55%
Uncommitted - 40%
Kucinich - 4%
Dodd - 1%
Gravel - 0%

Based upon the votes, Hillary earned 73 delegates and Obama none. Fifty five delegates should be uncommitted.

Instead of agreeing to seat a Michigan delegation based on the actual votes, the Democrats cut a deal to "let every vote count" that "allows" Hillary to have 69 delegates and gives Obama 59 delegates. That's right, even though Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and therefore no one voted for him, the Democrats are giving him 59 delegates.

Watch Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's chief advisers, explain the undemocratic nature of the way the Democrats creatively counted Michigan votes:

The Rules and Bylaws Committee, 30 elite members of the Democrat Party substituted their judgment for 600,000 Michigan Voters and gave Obama four pledged delegates specifically won by Hillary and 55 delegates the voters said should be uncommitted.

Hillary supporters are not happy.

The Democrats' fuzzy math never ceases to amaze me. The way the Democrats decided to count every vote in Michigan reminds me of the way they tried to count Florida votes in 2000.

Obama Finally Quits Wright's Church

2008-05-31T19:53:00.000-05:00

After spending 20 years in a church pastored by the minister of hate, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama finally decided to do what most people of sound judgment would have done much, much sooner -- today Obama resigned as a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ.

If Obama's politically motivated attack of sound judgement wasn't so pathetic, it might be funny.

Obama didn't see fit to resign from this radical church when Wright called on God to "damn America":

"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Obama didn't see fit to resign from this radical church when Wright preached that we support state terrorism against the Palestinians:

After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Obama didn't see fit to resign from this radical church when Wright said we invented HIV:

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lies.

No, what finally caused Obama to exercise the judgment to leave this radical church was a surrogate spiritual mentor preaching a sermon mocking Hillary Clinton.

You can watch the racist sermon in the following video:

Obama's exercises such poor judgment, and has the audacity to hope we won't find it peculiar that he argues he should be president because of his judgment.

Democrats Try To Make Up With Florida And Michigan

2008-05-31T19:52:00.000-05:00

The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet today to undo the Party's disenfranchisement of Florida's and Michigan's Democrats.

Now that Obama leads Hillary by about 200 delegates, the Rules and Bylaws Committee is likely to compromise and, following the Republican Party's example the Democrats should have adopted last year, agree to seat half of the Florida and Michigan delegates.

Hillary is pushing hard to seat all the delegates:

Counting the two states' votes could bring Clinton close enough to Obama's total among pledged delegates which in turn could help persuade the party's "superdelegates" that she is the more electable general election candidate.

The Democrat's fight over the Florida and Michigan Delegates may not be resolved today. In March, Hillary threatened to fight all the way to the Democrat's national convention:

"I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for."

Al-Qaeda Facing Setbacks Globally

2008-05-31T19:50:00.000-05:00

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden says Al-Qaeda essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border:

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

[. . .]

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

Hayden's assessment is certainly good news and further evidence that the strategy President Bush implemented after September 11, -- going on the offense and taking the fight to the terrorists -- is working.

Hayden also warned against complacency and excessive optimism:

Despite the optimistic outlook, he said he is concerned that the progress against al-Qaeda could be halted or reversed because of what he considers growing complacency and a return to the mind-set that existed before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We remain worried, and frankly, I wonder why some other people aren't worried, too," he said. His concern stems in part from improved intelligence-gathering that has bolstered the CIA's understanding of al-Qaeda's intent, he said.

"The fact that we have kept [Americans] safe for pushing seven years now has got them back into the state of mind where 'safe' is normal," he said. "Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours."

"Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours," well said.

Tensed Verbs - McCain Campaign Conference Call

2008-05-31T19:49:00.000-05:00

My esteemed RedState colleague, absentee posted a fine write-up about the ~~conference call~~ fight a bunch of reporters had, on behalf of Obama, with Senator Jon Kyl and McCain's senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann:

The call was regarding a small dust-up with the Obama camp over a statement Senator McCain made on the campaign trail yesterday. "I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks."

The Obama campaign is making this out to be a significant error in the facts.

[. . .]

Most of the questions on the call related to, and excessively used the phrase "verb tenses." Reporters pressed for an admission of guilt, and the campaign firmly continued to point out that the underlying point Senator McCain made was fundamentally correct: that the surge has worked, and that as a result, surge troops have been assigned to return home.

Scheunemann made the excellent point that Senator Obama claims this kind of politicking is obsolete, that it is more important to focus on the heart of an issue than the superficial tit for tat of campaigns past. Yet here he is, sending out John Kerry (John Kerry, Senator? Seriously?) to latch onto "verb tense" to try and paint McCain as not in possession of the facts about Iraq.

Still, the point was pressed again and again. And again. Verb tenses. Verb Tenses? Verb Tenses! Verb tenses?! Verb. Ten. Ses. The press seems eager to join the Obama campaign's point of view, which basically amounts to "nevermind about the surge, what is today's date?"

At Politico, Ben Smith also covered the call.

I wasn't going to add my two cents to this, but I can't get over my impression of just how far the mainstream media reporters went to support Obama in this ~~conference call~~ fight.

For example, because Kyl and Scheunemann, defended McCain, Michael Dobbs decided to give the campaign three Pinocchios.

I've been on many campaign conference calls during this election and this is the first time that I found any mainstream media reporter to be as disrespectful or as darn right insulting as I did Mr. Dobbs.

Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press was able to ask polite questions and write a balanced article. So did Scott Helman. I don't understand what got into Mr. Dobbs.

I also wonder why it required dogged attention from bloggers, before Mr. Dobbs decided Obama's Auschwitz "error" merited any mainstream media coverage. And why the mainstream media still, after more than five years, says nothing about Obama's Treblinka "error."

I'm fond of referring to the mainstream media as the biased media wing of the Democrat Party, but still.

Campaign Admits Obama Would Ignore Commanders And Facts During Potential Iraq Trip

2008-05-30T11:17:00.001-05:00

I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. -- Obama on Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 4/27/08

Yesterday, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs said that Obama would go to Iraq to see how he can withdraw:

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski: "And, Robert, is your candidate - I mean, just this whole Iraq thing is now being revitalized a bit because of the book. But is your candidate going to go to Iraq? Is that in the plans?"

Gibbs: "Well, as he said yesterday Mika, it's under discussion about going overseas and going to Iraq sometime between now and the campaign.

You know, I don't think we'll be taking that trip with John McCain because as Senator Obama said yesterday, the work that the men and women in our military are doing over there is just far too important for them to be props in some sort of political stunt or photo-op.

You know, what they're doing over there is separated from their families, giving for their country. It's truly, truly amazing, and I think we would want to go over there and talk to them and see what sort of difficulties they're facing and see how it is that we can begin to carefully remove them and carefully bring them back to their families and bring them back to the United States."

You can watch it at the 2:00 mark in this video.

Why has Obama decided not to remain open to facts demonstrating the progress achieved by the revised strategy President Bush adopted in 2007?

In February 2008, Obama told CBS' Harry Smith that the President has to be "mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say:"

CBS' Harry Smith: "If you are to be elected president and your commanders on the ground there and your Secretary of Defense said, 'Hold back; you can't be pulling these people out; we're going to create a civil war and a bloodbath,' what would you do?"

Obama: "My job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. But I firmly believe that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that it is time to withdraw. We will not have a permanent base there. We will not have a permanent occupation there."

Smith: "Even if - "

Obama: "Within those constraints - "

Smith: "Even if it meant the beginning of civil war?"

Obama: "No, no, no. Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility. And obviously I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say." (CBS' "The Early Show," 2/4/08)

Last month, Obama said he would be stupid not to listen to General Petraeus:

I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 4/27/08)

President Bush Loosens Up

2008-05-30T08:56:00.000-05:00

President Bush seems a little more relaxed lately:

Obama Reconsiders Iraq

2008-05-30T07:14:00.001-05:00

"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator's last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.

"He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," the Arizona senator added. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."

It started on Sunday, when Senator Lindsey Graham noted Obama's long absence from Iraq and floated the idea that Obama and McCain should go to Iraq together to be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Asked whether he'd be willing to take such a trip, McCain told the AP: "Sure. It would be fine."

Obama's initial reaction was derisive. He called the proposed fact-finding trip "nothing more than a political stunt."

Feeling the heat over the criticism that he is not open to considering the facts which may not support his view, Obama announced yesterday that he is now considering a trip to Iraq.

McCain reacted positively to Obama's changed position, saying he is “confident” a trip to Iraq will convince Obama that victory is possible:

“I certainly was…glad to hear that Senator Obama is now quote ‘considering’ a trip to Iraq. It’s long overdue. It’s been 871 days since he was there,” McCain said at a nearly 30 minute media availability Wednesday afternoon, after slamming Obama on the issue at an earlier town hall in Nevada. “I’m confident that when he goes he will then change his position on the conflict in Iraq because he will see the success that has been achieved on the ground…Presidents have to listen and learn. Presidents have to make judgments no matter how unpopular or popular they may be. So the success in Iraq is undeniable.”

[. . .]

“The facts on the ground, I’m sure would convince any objective observer. That’s why I say that I’m encouraged that he’s going because the facts on the ground are very, very clear. The statistics are there. Facts are facts,” McCain told reporters. “And I’m confident that he would certainly…recognize that this strategy is succeeding, and we have drawn down troops to the pre-surge level and we will come home with honor and victory and there will be stability in the region and that will make for a long term benefit to the United States and our national security interests.”

Millbank Continues The Post's War Against Feith

2008-04-26T06:52:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-23T10:49:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-23T09:58:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-23T08:45:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-21T09:59:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2008-04-19T08:28:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-19T08:27:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-19T08:25:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-17T07:52:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-17T07:51:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-16T22:25:00.000-05:00

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?

2008-04-16T22:24:00.000-05:00

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

McCain Better Able To Manage Economy

2008-04-16T22:22:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-16T13:16:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-16T13:14:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-15T09:55:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-14T21:52:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-14T11:36:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-14T09:57:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-14T01:25:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-12T14:13:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-12T11:26:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-12T07:04:00.001-05:00

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

2008-04-11T06:03:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-10T22:34:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-10T22:33:00.000-05:00

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'

2008-04-10T22:32:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-10T22:30:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-10T22:29:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-10T22:28:00.002-05:00

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.

Clinton Charity Begins At Home

2008-04-10T22:25:00.001-05:00

After earning more than $109 million over eight years, Hillary and Bill took tax write-offs totaling $10.2 million, about 9%, in charitable contributions. Most of that that money went to the Clinton Family Foundation, and a portion was distributed to charitable causes.

This is the same Clinton Family Foundation that Hillary failed to disclose as required by the Ethics in Government Act. The foundation was kept off of Hillary's Senate disclosure forms for 6 years.

The family foundation is based at the Clintons' Chappaqua, N.Y., home. Bill Clinton serves as its president, Hillary Clinton as secretary and treasurer, and daughter Chelsea as a director.

Between 2001 and 2006, the the Clintons put about $6 million into the foundation. The Clintons took a tax write-off for that money even though the foundation only gave away gave away about $2.5 million. foundation to other charities.

The Clinton Family Foundation gave $25,000 to the McGovern Library and Center for Leadership and Public Service in Mitchell, S.D., in early 2007. Did that have anything to do with McGovern's endorsement of Hillary in October? According to the Post, McGovern says no:

It was the furthest thought when I decided to endorse Hillary last October."

Tolerance And Respect

2008-04-10T22:23:00.000-05:00

The McCain campaign is out with anther great video. This one speaks to the need for civil discussion among Americans:

ANNCR: We have our disagreements, we Americans.

We contend regularly and enthusiastically over many questions:

over the size and purposes of our government;

over the social responsibilities we accept in accord with the dictates of our conscience;

over our role in the world and how to defend our security interests and values in places where they are threatened.

These are important questions; worth arguing about.

We should contend over them with one another.

It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, we fight among ourselves for the things we believe in.

It is not just our right, but our civic and moral obligation.

But we deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other's respect, whether we think each other right or wrong in our views, as long as our character and sincerity merit respect, and as long as we share, for all our differences, for all the noisy debates that enliven our politics, a mutual devotion to the sublime idea that this nation was conceived in -- that freedom is the inalienable right of mankind, and in accord with the laws of nature and nature's Creator.

Let us exercise our responsibilities as free people.

But let us remember, we are not enemies.

We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy.

We have nothing to fear from each other.

We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals.

It should remain an argument among friends;

each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands;

each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other.

Terrific! Watch the video:

If we could just get Obama on board so we can get on with a civil debate and be done with Chicago-style politics as usual and old-school deceive-and-distort politics.

There He Goes Again

2008-04-10T22:21:00.002-05:00

Why can't we just have a civilized debate about important issues, such as the war Islamic extremists continue to wage against us?

The Democrats just won't do it. During the 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry started the negative campaign. In 2008 Obama seems determined to stick with his liberal Chicago-style politics as usual, instead of his promised "new kind of politics"

As I posted before, Obama's new politics amounts to nothing more than "distortion to the point of rank falsehood" and "seriously misleading voter -- if not outright lying to them."

Last night, Obama's opening up act, liberal talk show host Ed Schultz, called Senator McCain a 'warmonger.' This just days after Senator McCain's remarkable speech on foreign affairs, during which he shared views on the depravity of war:

I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.

How did Obama and his new politics respond to the hateful language Schultz used to describe John McCain? Obama didn't renounce the name calling. No, Obama thanked Schultz and called him the “voice of progressive radio.”

When Bill Cunningham, made a personal attack on Obama, prior to McCain’s arrival at a town hall meeting,
After McCain learned about Cunningham’s comments, McCain condemned the remarks and dissociated himself with the talk show host. McCain continues to run a “respectful” race and campaign, why can't Obama?

Obama owes McCain and America an apology, more than one actually. One for Obama's misrepresentations about McCain's comments about residual troops remaining in Iraq, and one for Schultz's hate filled and inflammatory language.

Dishonesty, Inexperience, Iraq

2008-04-10T22:21:00.001-05:00

Gallup finds an important difference in the negative perceptions voters hold of the three remaining presidential candidates -- and its good news for McCain:

The most prevalent criticisms leveled against Obama and Clinton are all personal in nature: trustworthiness, likability, experience, and family connections. By contrast, the top criticisms of McCain are all more policy oriented: Iraq, associations with Bush, and being a Republican.

Gallup Poll Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, summarizes why Americans don't want a particular candidate elected president in the following video:

Hillary: Don't Trust Her, Reservations About Bill, and Likability

The most prominent reason given by those opposed to Clinton being elected president is not trusting her -- mentioned by 24%. However, the 18% saying they don't want Bill Clinton back in the White House and the 16% saying they don't like Hillary Clinton rank a fairly close second and third, respectively.

Obama: "Not Qualified"

Nearly 4 in 10 of those who least want to see Obama elected (39%) say they believe he is "inexperienced" or "not qualified" to be president. All other explanations are much less frequently mentioned. The reason cited second most frequently is trustworthiness, mentioned by 15% of those opposed to his becoming president. However, nearly as prevalent (12%) as an explanation for not wanting Obama elected is the belief that he is a Muslim.

McCain: Iraq, Bush, and the GOP

Those who least want to see McCain elected president are most likely to cite his position on the Iraq war (27%), his similarity with President Bush (25%), or the fact that he is a Republican (23%). In line with these policy-oriented reasons for opposing him, an additional 8% say they "disagree with his views on most issues."

Like President Reagan, people might disagree with McCain on specific issues, but they like and trust him.

Wright Is Wrong And So Is Obama

2008-03-18T14:20:00.001-05:00

Obama gave a speech today, touted as an effort to bridge the Democrats' widening racial divide, and an obvious attempt to control the damage resulting from the hate-filled speech of Obama's long time spiritual adviser, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Gallup finds race is the issue that divides the Democratic electorate more than any other:

In an aggregate of 6,721 interviews Gallup has conducted between March 1 and March 16, 80% of black Democrats support Obama while only 15% support Hillary Clinton. Non-Hispanic whites split 53% for Clinton and 38% for Obama, while white Hispanics are even stronger for Clinton, 59% to 37%.

In his speech, Obama says Reverend Wright’s comments aren’t simply controversial, Wright's preachings are a "profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

The following video is a sampling of the "profoundly distorted" preachings of Obama's minister of hate:

Wright's "profoundly distorted" views are reminiscent of the maniacal rants spouted by radical Islam clerics, and just as wrong.

Wright is wrong when he calls on God to "damn America":

"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Wright is wrong when he preaches that we support state terrorism against the Palestinians:

After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright is wrong when he says we invented HIV:

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lies.

Obama is just as wrong when he refuses to disassociate himself from Wright:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

[. . .]

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Obama's refusal to dissociate himself from this preacher of "profoundly distorted" views is no different than the failure of Muslims to condemn the terrorism used by the Islamic extremists in the war they continue to wage against us.

The "profoundly distorted" views of reverend Wright, like those of the Islamic extremists, will not be overcome until the people of their own community disassociate themselves from the hate mongers.

Obama's speech might have been masterfully delivered by a great orator, but because of Obama's refusal to dissociate himself from the minister of hate, it was a speech that fails to help bridge the Democrat's racial devide.

You can read Obama's speech here or watch it here.

McCain Favorability Surges

2008-03-18T14:19:00.000-05:00

John McCain's 67% favorable rating is the highest of any of the three major candidates running for president.

McCain's favorable rating has surged 26 percent since last summer, and 11percent since he won enough delegates to ensure his nomination.

Hillary's 53% favorable rating, 53%, is significantly lower than those of the other two candidates.

McCain also gets an extraordinary 52% favorable from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, while Obama gets a 39% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners, and Hillary receives only a 20% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners.

Gallup Poll Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, analyzes the ratings in the following video report:

McCain In Iraq

2008-03-16T13:28:00.001-05:00

Senator McCain, the Republican's presidential candidate to be, is in Iraq meeting with U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh and General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.

McCain is also scheduled to visit London, Paris, Jordan, and Israel this week, where he will meet with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Jordan's King Abdullah and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In London, McCain also plans to meet with Stavros Dimas, the European Union's commissioner for the environment, a leading advocate of combating global warming.

Visiting Iraq and world leaders allows McCain to highlight his foreign policy credentials while Hillary and Obama continue their nasty battle of political oneupmanship fighting for the Democratic nomination.

"For McCain, the visual of being seen with world leaders, talking about the great issues facing us while Obama and Clinton are pounding each other in Altoona and Wilkes Barre is great," said independent analyst Charlie Cook, publisher of the Cook Political Report, referring to two cities in Pennsylvania, which holds a presidential primary on April 22.

McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is accompanied on the fact-finding trip by Connecticut's Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. McCain will reimburse the federal government for the political aspects of the trip, including his airfare back to the U.S.

Photo credit: Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway/U.S. Air Force, via Associated Press.

Obama Wins Iowa Again

2008-03-16T11:29:00.000-05:00

Obama expanded his delegate lead over Hillary on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.

With all the Iowa delegates now picked, Democratic Party projections indicate Obama increased his number of Iowa delegates by nine to a total of 25 compared with 14 for Hillary and six for Edwards. More than half the 14 Edwards delegates switched to Obama. Iowa also has 12 superdelegates. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Hillary three, and the rest remain uncommitted.

Obama also closed the gap in California as that state's Democratic Party finalized the delegate counts from the February 5 primary. Obama gained five more pledged delegates, while Hillary only picked up two.

According to the Associated Press, counting Saturday's new figures from Iowa and California, Obama now leads the delegate tally 1,617 delegates to 1,498.

Neither Obama nor Clinton can win the 2,025 delegates required for nomination without some combination of elected delegates and superdelegates (party and elected officials who are automatic delegates to the Democrats' Denver convention this summer). About 800 of the approximately 4,000 delegates are superdelegates and several hundred of them remain uncommitted to either candidate.

Given the remaining contests, Obama's existing hundred-plus delegate lead, and the rules by which Democrats apportion delegates, it is a political and practical, if not mathematical, certainty that Obama will have an elected delegate lead at the end of the nomination contests. Hillary's only hope of winning the nomination is to overtake Obama's elected delegate lead by winning the bulk of the remaining superdelegates.

McCain's Journey to Freedom

2008-03-15T13:48:00.000-05:00

On March 15, 1973, John McCain was released as a POW from the "Hanoi Hilton," having survived life-threatening and disabling injuries, along with the brutality of the POW experience. While a prisoner, McCain steadfastly resisted the North Vietnamese efforts to exploit him and his fellow POWs during his more than five years of captivity. The McCain campaign produced the following video to honor the 35-year anniversary his release:

The country is truly blesed to continue to be served by those with the character exhibited by John McCain.

Obama On The Democrats Deam Team

2008-03-15T13:43:00.000-05:00

Obama takes apart the Clintons' suggestion he should be Hillary's Vice President.

According to Obama, the Clintons are trying to "hoodwink" and "bamboozle" Democrats into thinking they don't have to make a choice between the two candidate.

Watch the video:

That is a phenomenal rebuttal to Hillary's charge that Obama is not ready to be Commander-In-Chief. It was also very clever to refer back to Hillary's doublespeak.

Wait, We've Changed Our Minds

2008-03-15T13:39:00.001-05:00

Saturday Night Live continues its series of opening skits making fun of Obama to Hillary's benefit. This week, the show's skit focused on Hillary's infamous ad featuing the 3:00 a.m. phone call. The skit ends with Hillary impersonator Amy Poehler encouraging voters to call the Democratic National Committee to tell them "Wait, we've changed our minds . . . . It's not too late, we can still turn this around. Yes we can."

Watch the following video:

Voters Want McCain to Answer The Call

2008-03-15T13:33:00.000-05:00

Rasmussen Reports finds most voters said John McCain is the person they’d most want to answer the phone in the White House when a foreign policy crisis arrived.

Which candidate would be best President to answer a foreign policy crisis call?
John McCain - 42%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
Barack Obama - 25%

This is why Hillary's "experience" argument makes no sense. Senator McCain is by far the most experienced candidate, and the voters know it:

Among Republicans, 79% named McCain while neither Democrat reached double digits.

Among unaffiliated voters, 39% said McCain would be their top choice to handle such a crisis. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of unaffiliateds said they thought Obama was the best to handle the call while 18% named Clinton.

Among men, 51% preferred McCain, 21% Obama, and 19% Clinton. Women were evenly divided—33% for McCain and 30% for each of the Democrats.

Even Obama's senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice, said that neither Democrat was prepared to take that 3:00 a.m. call. Watch the following Video:

Only Democrats prefer that Hillary answer the call - 46% said they’d like Hillary to take that call, while 36% prefer Obama.

McCain's New Ad

2008-03-07T11:08:00.001-05:00

Senator McCain's new ad "Man In the Arena" is terrific.

McCain Wins Two More

2008-02-24T09:59:00.000-05:00

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee won two more nominating contests.

The nine delegates to a national Republican convention from the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas will all be supporting McCain.

The American Samoa Republican Party announced Saturday that all nine of the delegates of the American Samoa Republican Party will also support John McCain.

The delegates from American Samoa and the Northern Marianas give McCain 976 of the 1,191 delegates required to secure the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee remains far behind with 254 delegates.

Huckabee continues to reject calls that he drop out of the race.