May 27, 2008
Last week, Obama said this.
Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua.
Tom Bevan points out the problem with this assessment of responsibility for the rise of the Venezuelan strongman -- he came to power in 1998, during the middle of the second Clinton Administration.
Chavez was elected in December 1998 - two years before President Bush took office - running as a Marxist demagogue, and it was clear from the outset what kind of leader he would be. By July 1999 he had forced through a rewriting of the Venezuelan Constitution that restructured the government, vastly expanded his authority, and increased his ability to pack the court system.I remember this period fairly well, because at the time I lived in Miami and worked with a young woman from a well to do family from Venezuela. Her parents, along with the rest of the business class in Venezuela, were petrified by Chavez and were scrambling to try and find ways of sheltering and/or protecting their assets before Chavez seized them - as he'd promised to do.
Again, all of this took place during the Clinton administration in the year and a half preceding George W. Bush's election, and a full four years before the Iraq campaign began. Though Obama would like to argue Chavez is somehow a monster of George Bush's making, the truth is that he was a bad actor from the beginning, and would have remained so regardless of who was occupying the White House.
Now I realize that it is popular among Democrats to blame everything on George W. Bush -- but there is no way that you can blame the then-governor of Texas for the rise of the dictator. For Obama to try do so is indicative of either cluelessness or dishonesty -- each of which he has displayed often in recent weeks.
Wanna bet that the MSM again ignores the Obamessiah's feet of clay?
Posted by: Greg at
10:40 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz.
As I see it, this can only lead us to one of four different conclusions:
My guess? Number four – because he has made historically implausible claims about the his family’s connection with the liberation of concentration camps in the past (Treblinka was also liberated by the Russians), unless his grandfather served in the Soviet Red Army, too.
Oh, yeah – and Obama doesn’t have an uncle on the American side of his family, because his mother was an only child.
Can we finally get the media to cover Barack ObamaÂ’s daily falsehoods, misstatements, and errors like they would any other candidate? After all, he ainÂ’t nothinÂ’ special.
UPDATE: The inevitable "clarification" from the Obama campaign (what you make when the media likes you -- otherwise it is an "apology" or "confession"):
"Senator Obama's family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II –- especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald," spokesman Bill Burton said. "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."
So it appears that the correct option above was number 2. Interestingly enough, Obama's camp didn't tell us who the great uncle was so that the information can be verified.
H/T Malkin, Sister Toldjah
Posted by: Greg at
10:53 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.
May 26, 2008
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
Yes, I recognize that it is simply another one of Barack Obama's stupid comments made off the cuff -- but tell me seriously that we would not be hearing questions about John McCain's age and mental health if he had made such a statement. And for that matter, tell me that an identical statement by George W. Bush would not be taken as another sign of his alleged lack of mental prowess -- which Obama-supporting left-wingers have been claiming for years based upon verbal missteps.
By the way -- why isn't the press giving this gaffe the sort of coverage it gave Hillary Clinton's reference to a historical event last week? Could it be that the MSM is in the tank for the Obamessiah?
Posted by: Greg at
10:14 PM
| Comments (136)
| Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.
P, May 25, 2008
If you refuse to vote for Obama, why are you asking others to sacrifice for your decision?If you're going to help McCain get elected, you need to take responsibility for your actions. This election is bigger than you. It's bigger than Barack Obama. It's bigger than Hillary Clinton. Lives will be saved or lost depending on who is elected in November, and if you're going to willfully help prolong the war, it's time to do the honorable thing and enlist.
Click here to locate a U.S. Army recruiter in your area.
Don't worry, you'll still be able to get election results from Baghdad, and you'll still be able to "sit this one out" under the comfort of a mortar attack. And yes, I'm sure hearing about an Obama defeat will seem all the more sweet when you're laying in the choking aftermath of an IED explosion with a piece of half-melted plastic burning a hole into your intestines. I'm sure you'll be comforted by the knowledge that history had no place for President Obama when you're staring at the empty space where your leg used to be. And certainly, I'm sure the crippling terror of post-traumatic stress disorder will be nowhere as severe as the disingenuous "concern" you'll suffer over debunked Rezko conspiracy theories and the excited ramblings of a liberation theologian. Of course, those already serving will not get the same perverse comfort from their sacrifice, so there's no excuse for not taking on this burden yourself. If you truly believe that Obama should not be president, if you truly believe there is no greater pain than seeing a primary opponent win the general election, then this sacrifice can only be considered a modest price for your convictions.
In other words, refusing to vote for Barack Obama means that you merit death or serious bodily injury -- and military service is a punishment for political crimes against the Obamessiah, not an honorable choice by those who love America.
On the other hand, these scumbags believe that the greatest service you can do for America is vote for an inexperienced, short-tempered, historically ignorant liberal candidate who will give our troops the order to retreat in dishonor and surrender to the enemy so that they can impose an obscurantist seventh-century theology in Iraq and -- eventually -- around the world.
H/T LGF
UPDATE 5/26/2008: Having had a little sunlight shed on them, these cockroaches have scattered for darkness -- and the piece quoted above has been taken down by the KOSsacks.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Pink Flamngo, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
05:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 6 kb.
May 24, 2008
That said, though, Barack Obama has talked a great deal about not "going it alone" in his foreign policy and supporting "multilateralism". But he has enunciated a policy on Iran that violates no fewer than THREE resolutions passed by the UN Security Council!
Before starting his unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that he Islamic Republic president does not like? Or, would Obama act in defiance of the UN, thus further weakening the authority of the Security Council?The preconditions that Ahmadinejad does not like and Obama promises to ignore were not set by President George W Bush.
They were decided after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported the Islamic Republic to be in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and, acting in accordance with its charter, referred the issue to the Security Council.
Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions that Ahmadinejad does not like.
In other words, Barack Obama's proposed policies towards Iran would be "go it alone" foreign policy out of sync with world opinion -- and therefore out of sync with the foreign policy proposals of Barack Obama himself! Indeed, the policy of the current administration towards Iran is the one which has been achieved through multilateral diplomacy and international consensus.
I guess that sort of proves -- for the umpteenth time -- that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is talking about, and is unfit for any the Presidency.
H/T Gateway Pundit
Posted by: Greg at
10:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.
Bobby Kennedy won that primary -- and only minutes after his victory speech to a crowd of cheering supporters, was gunned down by a Palestinian gunman over American policy towards Israel.
Like it or not, that victory and the murder of the charismatic young Senator are forever intertwined in the memories of those who lived at that time -- including those of us who were young children. We cannot conceive of the one without referencing the other.
And so I understand precisely what came out of the mouth of Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday -- and am truly angry at the attempts of many on the Left and the Right to make more of it than it really is.
Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama."My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
Obama's camp immediately fired back.
"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," Obama campaign spokesman said in a statement.
Clinton made her comments at a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader's editorial board while campaigning in South Dakota, where she complained that, "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."
She didn't call for Obama's assassination, she didn't predict Obama's assassination -- she made a very pointed historical reference to a specific historical event. Not only that, she made a reference that Barack Obama, as a member of my generation, should have immediately understood and identified with from his childhood -- except, of course, that he was being raised outside of the country and (as has been repeatedly documented and is attested to in his own autobiography) educated as a Muslim at foreign schools.
I'm sorry she bothered to apologize for it -- there was nothing there to apologize for. I wish she would have come back and made it quite clear that this is one more example of a hysterical response from a candidate who takes offense at anything that even begins to smack of criticism. It is simply one more example of how Barack Obama is unfit for the presidency.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
07:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 6 kb.
Now she is whining that the bank screwed her by foreclosing!
California Rep. Laura Richardson claimed Friday that her Sacramento home was sold into foreclosure without her knowledge and contrary to an agreement with her lender.She said she is like any other American suffering in the mortgage crisis and wants to testify to Congress about her experience as lawmakers craft a foreclosure-prevention bill.
In a lengthy interview Friday night with The Associated Press, the Southern California Democrat struck back against several days of negative publicity over reports she defaulted on her mortgage, allowing the house to be sold at auction.
What is particularly galling is this line of argument.
"I'm Laura Richardson. I'm an American, I'm a single woman who had four employment changes in less than four months," Richardson said. "I had to figure out just like every other American how I could restructure the obligations that I had with the income I had."
Excuse me, that is a bunch of bullshit! "Four employment changes in four months"? Yeah, by choice so you could run for Congress, which included the choice to stiff everyone except your campaign committee, and then cast a vote in favor of legislation giving irresponsible (and in your case, fraud-inclined) borrowers to renege on the terms of their mortgages so as to get more favorable treatment than those of us who didn't borrow more than we could afford to pay back.
Frankly, I'm appalled by the ethical ugliness of her voting on legislation which would materially impact her financial obligations -- even if it doesn't technically violate House rules, it stinks to high heavens.
This dirty Dem needs to be run out of Congress by her constituents -- too bad she doesn't even have a Republican opponent in the fall.
UPDATE: Holy crap! This dirty Dem defaulted on THREE properties, not just one, so that she could loan her campaign money that was supposed to go to pay her mortgages. Her response when confronted about the fact that she has defaulted on three homes when she makes so much more than the average American?
"The average American is not responsible for maintaining several households."
It really is urgent that the voters of her district arrange for her to need to maintain only one household -- especially since she complains that Congress offers no per diem for living expenses in Washington DC, nor does it pay for moving expenses.
Posted by: Greg at
06:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 4 kb.
Authorities are investigating whether a former executive assistant in the U.S. House misappropriated thousands of dollars to finance a vacation and personal items, as part of a widening effort to determine whether congressional accounts are inadequately monitored, according to two sources familiar with the inquiry.At issue in the ongoing probe by the House inspector general is the role of a former assistant to Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is not yet complete. The aide, whom Sanchez says was dismissed, reimbursed the lawmaker by nearly $10,000 around the same time that her work for Sanchez ended, according to congressional records.
Caroline Valdez made a series of four unusual payments to her boss's office at the end of 2006, according to disbursement books maintained by the clerk of the House. Two of those transactions were labeled "reimb: payment error." Valdez did not respond to several cellphone messages seeking comment.
The reimbursements to Sanchez came during a financial quarter when the lawmaker placed three staffers -- including her scheduler and legislative director -- temporarily on the House payroll of her sister, fellow California Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D), records show.
Now what is really interesting is the little payroll game being played by the Sanchez sisters. It looks pretty dirty to me, just on the face of it. I sure hope the House is looking closely at that series of financial transactions as well -- but they probably aren't, because the Democrats have decided that only Republicans are corrupt and deserving of Ethics Committee action being taken against them. After all, William Jefferson is still sitting there as an honored member of the House, close to Nancy Pelosi and supported by the Congressional Black Racists Caucus.
Oh, by the way -- did you catch the media attention to the bookkeeping scandal involving a staffer for Democrats Harman and Abercrombie, in which a staffer for the pair pleaded guilty to federal crimes AND agreed to cooperate in an investigation of Congressional staffers and payrolls (of Democrats, no doubt) being used to do campaign work on behalf of members? Probably not -- since it involved Democrat Corruption, the press doesn't consider it to be particularly newsworthy and gave it little coverage -- after all, it isn't like we are less than six months from an election in which we the people need to know if our (Democrat) representatives are behaving in an honest, honorable, and ethical fashion.
Posted by: Greg at
02:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.
May 22, 2008
Interesting, isn't it, that the ignorant witch doesn't even know the proper term for what violation of the US Constitution that she is proposing. She just knows that her dictator buddy Hugo Chavez did it in Venezuela, and that we should follow his lead into the glorious world of socialism pioneered by Castro and the USSR!
What she was intent upon ignoring, though, was the essential point being made right before she launched into her stuttering Marxist tirade -- that the problem we are facing comes, in part, from policies that she and her fellow politicians have set that discourage and prohibit the production of domestic oil that we know exists. She'd rather destroy the capitalist decision than see real energy independence in this country -- seeking to repeal the law of supply and demand rather than the laws that hobble domestic oil production.
Let's just say that if she and her cronies attempt to seize the means of production from the hands of private owners, it will be time for the American people to "alter or abolish" the government that tries to do so. And I know just what treatment that those government officials who seek to act in such an outrageously unconstitutional and unAmerican manner will deserve.
Mussolini
Saddam
Ceausescu
Thomas Jefferson
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:44 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 5 kb.
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district."Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason.
You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem.
More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq.
Watch the video below (a transcript follows):
Here's the transcript:
"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
In other words, we lied to you and had no intention of actually stopping the war. You folks are a bunch of ignorant rubes if you believed us -- and we'll screw you again if we get the chance. We'd rather have the war as an issue than solve what we claim is a problem.
Posted by: Greg at
10:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.
Despite his call for the U.S. to win the "hearts and minds of the Islamic world," Sen. John McCain recruited the support of an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ" and Mohammed as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."McCain sought the support of Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio at a critical time in his campaign in February, when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was continuing to draw substantial support from the Christian right.
LetÂ’s just take those two statements quoted above -- bearing in mind that Islam, unlike the other major world religions, began centuries AFTER Christianity and in clear rebuttal/rejection of Christianity..
“Anti-Christ.” I’d argue that the statement is accurate. After all, Islam explicitly rejects the claim of Christianity that Jesus is the eternally pre-existent second person of the Trinity. The Jesus of Islam is not divine, and is instead merely a prophet – in other words, NOT the Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek). If you reject that tenet of Christianity you are anti-Christ, no matter how much respect you claim to “respect and honor” Jesus. Indeed, by Christian standards you have committed blasphemy.
And if Islam does hold this blasphemous, heretical teaching regarding Jesus as an essential and central , there is ample ground for arguing that Islam is a religion based upon a spiritually evil premise – and that as its original exponent, Muhammad is “the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil”. After all, by Christian standards Muhammad is a false prophet – and for a Christian to make a claim like Parsley’s should not be shocking at all. Frankly, I believe we should hear it spoken more frequently from the pulpits of Christian churches.
Now there are other Parsley quotes that appear in the article. I won’t analyze or defend them all – I think my point is made above. This is a tempest in a teapot – and quite different from that created by Jeremiah Wright and his comments that stray well-beyond the bounds of Christian teaching and which are often grounded in outright lies.
And yes, I know that McCain today dumped John Hagee -- another fundamentalist preacher whose theology I find disturbing -- over outlandish statements that appear outlandish at first blush. I won't go into an analysis of them here other than to note that there is Old Testament precedent for God making use of the deeds of the wicked (Nebuchadnezzar, for example) in order to carry out his greater purpose. Instead, I will just point to my friend over at JoshuaPundit for a truly inspired defense of Hagee's statements from the perspective of an Israeli Jew a Jewish blogger on the West Coast (I don't know why I thought he was Israeli).
Posted by: Greg at
12:58 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 4 kb.
May 21, 2008
Senator John McCain is planning to meet this weekend with at least three potential Republican running mates at a gathering at his ranch in Arizona, suggesting that he is stepping up his search for a vice president now that the Democratic contest appears basically decided, according to Republicans familiar with Mr. McCainÂ’s plans.Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a one-time rival for the Republican nomination, have all accepted invitations to visit with Mr. McCain at his ranch in Sedona, these Republicans said.
After a week of campaigning, Mr. McCain is heading home on Friday for three days without a public schedule. His campaign described this as a social weekend that would include a number of couples, and — as has been its policy it declined to discuss any aspect of the vice presidential search.
“We don’t talk about the V.P. selection process,” said Steve Schmidt a senior adviser.
In addition to Mr. Crist, Mr. Jindal and Mr. Romney, Mr. McCainÂ’s guest list includes some of top his political counselors, among them Charlie Black, a senior strategist, and Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, his frequent traveling companion and probably his closest colleague in the Senate.
If the gathering does not involve actual interviews, as some of Mr. McCainÂ’s associates said Wednesday, it will provide Mr. McCain with a chance to know some potential running mates in a social context. Mr. McCain is known as a social and gregarious candidate and senator, and his associates said personal chemistry would be a key consideration in his choice.
As I look at the threesome, I find myself ready to reject one out of hand. Bobby Jindal, for all my high regard for him, doesn't strike me as the right choice in 2008. At 38, his youth might be a negative for some voters. In addition, he has been governor for less than a year, and still has many promises to keep in Louisiana -- promises which will leap-frog him to the head of the pack in a future election year if he is successful in carrying them out.
That leaves Crist and Romney. Of the two, I think that Romney is the obvious choice. Crist doesn't help McCain win Florida (I think he has it locked up after the way Democrats have treated the state's voters this year) , so he doesn't have that to support him. Romney, on the other hand, has a national base and the ability to help with fundraising in a way that Crist does not. The only problem with him is that he may have another race to run -- he could conceivably take on John Kerry this fall for US Senate, or take a run for the Kennedy senate seat in a special election if the ailing senator resigns sooner rather than later. Where does he do the GOP the most good.
Two other interesting notes -- it is significant that Mike Huckabee is not at this little gathering. Does this signify he is out of the veepstakes? In addition, the presence of Lindsay Graham is ominous. I don't doubt that he is going to be the go-to person in terms of vetting the eventual selection. Could he be this year's Dick Cheney -- recommending himself for the position? if that happens, it would be a disaster. Graham has seen his stock drop among conservatives in the last couple of years, and his selection would be a poison pill that many could not swallow
Posted by: Greg at
10:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 625 words, total size 4 kb.
May 20, 2008
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumor Tuesday in what could be the grim final chapter in a life marked by exhilarating triumph and shattering tragedy. Some experts gave the liberal lion less than a year to live.Doctors discovered the tumor after the 76-year-old senator and sole surviving son of America's most storied political family suffered a seizure over the weekend. The diagnosis cast a pall over Capitol Hill, where the Massachusetts Democrat has served since 1962, and came as a shock to a family all too accustomed to sudden, calamitous news.
This news calls into question the Senator's political future as well -- the tumor is in a part of the brain that controls motor skills and language. And while this is not the time for political speculation, it is difficult to see how Kennedy can remain an effective force in the Senate for much longer if the prospect are as grim as reported.
Again, I return to my theme from over the weekend -- politics do not even rise to the level of the secondary at this moment. All that any decent individual can do is offer their heart-felt prayers and best wishes to Senator Kennedy and his family at this time, and hope that he is indeed one of those who beats the odds that are facing him.
Posted by: Greg at
08:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.
May 19, 2008
Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.
"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
He called the strategy "low class."
Well, Barack, you and your trashy-ass America-hating wife would certainly know low class.
And as my friend Robbie pointed out on his website, you seem to have spent a lot of time putting topics off-limits for discussion during this campaign in addition to your Michelle.
We’re not allowed to call him Hussein — even though it’s his Allah-given name.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his father.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his mother, or his grandmother either.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his Kenyan cousin.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his terrorist friends.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his shady real-estate dealings.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his ties to the Nation of Islam.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his (lack of) patriotism.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his prior drug use.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his Muslim upbringing in Indonesia.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about the radical Islamic terrorists who support his candidacy.
WeÂ’re not allowed to talk about his white-folk and America hatinÂ’ reverend.
And since Michelle has declared off-limits anything that "doesn't help my children" (read that "anything that doesn't show Senator Obama in the purest Obamessiah light), it seems like there is a lot that the Obamas are afraid to let the American people talk about.
Posted by: Greg at
10:16 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.
May 18, 2008
Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday."I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."
Now let's get really clear what Senator Harkin is saying -- too much military service is a disqualifying factor for the presidency, especially if there is a family tradition of such service! In other words, Obama is more qualified for the presidency because he hasn't served anyone or anything except himself! Community organizing now trumps time as a POW.
Utterly disgusting, Senator -- you should be ashamed of yourself. But you aren't, of course, because you are a Democrat -- and you all loathe the military, though most do a better job of hiding it. So run your never-served candidate against a true American patriot, and try to disqualify that patriot because he devoted much of his life to the defense of the United States -- the American people will see through you and your party.
MORE AT Iowa Independent, Right Wing News, Gateway Pundit, Flopping Aces, Red State, Hot Air, McCain Blogs, Commentary's Contentions, Ace of Spades, Blogs 4 McCain, Big Dogs, Say Anything
Posted by: Greg at
02:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 4 kb.
May 17, 2008
However, I take the position of the great Senator Thomas Hart Benton at this moment -- "When God Almighty lays his hand upon a man, sir, I take mine off, sir."
Such is my approach at this moment.
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, a leading Democrat, was rushed to the hospital Saturday, according to multiple media reports.CNN said Kennedy had the symptoms of a stroke, according to Reuters, but local affiliate WHDH said his illness was not disclosed.
Kennedy, 76, was taken to the hospital by medical air transport. Kennedy is the senateÂ’s second senior member.
The latest word I'm getting off of the television is that Kennedy has had some sort of seizure.
Political considerations and animosities go out the window right now.
The only thing that I have to offer is prayers for his recovery and his family.
Others commenting include Sister Toldjah, Ace, Gateway Pundit, Blogs for Victory
Posted by: Greg at
05:45 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 2 kb.
Recently, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain appealed to their donors to withhold money from these groups, saying they wanted to lift the tone of the fall campaign. They also want that money for themselves; itÂ’s a matter of simple self-interest for any candidate to corner all available donations. However, reining in the smear artists is the only truly convincing way to deliver on the endless vows for a cleaner, more uplifting campaign being heard from all the surviving candidates.
* * * Since the Federal Election Commission has been rendered defunct by Congress, the hope for something better can be delivered only by the nominees themselves. Surely, a candidate for chief executive of the United States can be expected to show enough executive talent to confront and stifle his or her most out-of-control supporters.
Now wait just a minute here -- is it the position of the new York Times that only speech controlled by candidates or government agencies is uplifting or clean? What does that say of, for example, newspaper editorials or smear stories published by mainstream journaistic entities -- like, or instance, the New York Times. Is it possible that the logic of the editorial could require that there be regulation of the press by government and/or control of the press by presidential candidates?
Or might it be better seen as Exhibit A in the case against efforts to limit Americans exercising their rights under the First Amendment?
Posted by: Greg at
02:52 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
May 16, 2008
And back during his “No Surrender” tour, John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq responsibly wants to surrender; he even said later on that he would be ok keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, but yesterday he said our troops could be home by 2013. He offered the promise that America will win a victory, with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war.
LetÂ’s take this one apart it bit by bit.
1. “John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq responsibly wants to surrender” – Well, not really. What he said is that anyone who wants to follow a cut-and-run strategy like has been proposed by most of the Democrats wants to surrender – a perfectly reasonable statement, because following such a policy would have the effect of granting our enemy all of their military aims.
2. “he even said later on that he would be ok keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years” – Well, Obama is sort of telling the truth there. John McCain did outline a scenario in which he could envision US troops being based in Iraq for a century – much like they have been based in Japan and Germany for the last six decades, and under similar circumstances. In other words, while he stated something factual, he presented it in a manner that constitutes a dishonest and deceptive falsehood.
3. “but yesterday he said our troops could be home by 2013.” – Not exactly. He said most of them would be home from Iraq – a statement precisely in line with the actual meaning of the statement that Obama just got done criticizing. In other words, another lie by the extremely junior senator from Illinois.
4. “He offered the promise that America will win a victory,” – True, just as it is true that you have repeatedly offered a promise of defeat and disgrace.
5. “with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war.” – Senator, John McCain has forgotten more about war than you have ever known. And you seem not to have noticed that America’s allies are doing quite well – and that we are seeing day by day that this is not really a civil war, but rather a proxy war being waged against the US and the Iraqi government by the government of Iran. You know, the same Iran that you want to talk to without preconditions, such as an end to their supplying weapons to those who are killing American troops.
Frankly, this speech makes it really clear that Barack Obama has no hesitation about lying to achieve any goal, about libeling an American hero to increase his own chances of political victory, and about surrendering to our nationÂ’s enemies. That should make it clear that he is unfit for any public office, much less the highest elected position in the United States.
By the way -- NRO's Andrew McCarthy asks a great question (H/T Hube>.
Can Somebody Explain to Me ...
... how Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years and managed never to hear anything, but hears 20 seconds of a Bush speech that doesn't mention him and perceives a shameful personal attack?
Especially since the description does, in fact, fit Jimmy Carter so much better.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Kodera's Korner, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Right Voices, OTB Sports, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:46 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 644 words, total size 6 kb.
May 15, 2008
"McAncient" was produced by the Organizing Group, a Democratic consulting firm run by longtime AFL-CIO political operative Steve Rosenthal. It's the same group that produced a video earlier this year on McCain's age and maintains a website called "Younger Than McCain". (Boston-based playwright John J. King is the lyricist and vocalist for the song.)McCain's campaign has been vigilant about seeking to keep discussion of the candidate's age outside of the sphere of acceptable campaign discourse; when Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) recently said that McCain had "lost his bearings" during an interview with CNN, the Arizona senator's campaign immediately released a tart rebuke from senior adviser Mark Salter -- is there any other kind? -- that accused Obama of purposely injecting age into the race.
While Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said his party will not make McCain's age an issue in the campaign, groups like Rosenthal's seem set on doing so.
We want to hear from you. Is McCain's age fair game in the fall campaign? Why or why not?
And here is the reprehensible video seeking to undermine an American hero who has made a lifetime of serving the United States in favor of an unqualified, inexperienced candidate who has spent more time serving himself.
Seem pretty sad that they have to try to make McCain's age an issue because Barack Obama has no accomplishments to trumpet.
Posted by: Greg at
10:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
The fine folks at EmpowerTexans.org offer up this tribute to bureaucrats at their best(?).
Posted by: Greg at
10:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
President Bush made that point in a speech before the Knesset – thought I wish he and the State Department would remember it when insisting that Israel negotiate with the leaders of the Terrorstinian Anarchy.
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: The Obama campaign is taking issue with a comment President Bush made while speaking to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood."Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before.
As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
And true to his thin-skinned nature, Barack Obama and his campaign went ballistic.
Responding with a statement, the Obama campaign seized on Bush's remarks even as it was unclear to whom Bush was referring."It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.
"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
Message for Obama: THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND URANUS!
And showing themselves equally unfit for leadership, several other Democrat unworthies teed off as well.
First, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Rahm Emmanuel.
Democratic House leaders are calling out President Bush for a speech in Israel in which he seemed to suggest that Sen. Barack Obama wants the United States to "negotiate with terrorists."In his speech,~Bush said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
The White House insists that Bush was "referring to a wide range of people, not any single person." But Obama's campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation" at the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary.
Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”
As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”
Interesting, isnÂ’t it, that anyone as associated with Bill Clinton as Rahm Emmanuel was would ever talk about someone having no shame.
And then there is the eloquent response from Joe Biden.
Sen. Joe Biden, piling on to Democratic complaints about President Bush’s speech in Israel today:“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”
So much for lifting the level of our national political dialogue. And I certainly hope that this statement ends any discussion we hear about the temper and language of John McCain.
John Kerry also had some silly, comments about the issue -- but he hasn't had anything to say that merited serious consideration since he confessed to committing war crimes during Vietnam.
And interestingly enough, none of them wishes to consider the fundamental truth of the statement that President made – there are some enemies with whom we should not – and cannot – talk to make matters all better. There are those to whom only military force can make the point.
And the Democrats – with the exception of Joe Lieberman – apparently wish to ignore that point. that George W. Bush was making. It is pretty clear, then, that Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats are doomed to repeat it.
H/T Gateway Pundit
Posted by: Greg at
11:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 910 words, total size 7 kb.
And John McCain has spelled it out in todayÂ’s speech on the issue.
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al-Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it
does not play a direct combat role.The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated. U.S. and NATO forces remain there to help finish the job, and continue operations against the remnants of al Qaeda. The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based. The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. There is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven. Increased cooperation between the United States and its allies in the concerted use of military,
diplomatic, and economic power and reforms in the intelligence capabilities of the United States has disrupted terrorist networks and exposed plots around the world. There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001.The United States and its allies have made great progress in advancing nuclear security. Concerted action by the great democracies of the world has persuaded a reluctant Russia and China to cooperate in pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, and North Korea to discontinue its own. The single greatest threat facing the West — the prospect of nuclear materials in the hands of terrorists — has been vastly diminished.
The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us. Long overdue reforms to the way we acquire weapons programs, including fixed price contracts, have created sufficient savings to pay for a larger military. A substantial increase in veterans educational benefits and improvements in their health care has aided recruitment and retention. The strain on the National Guard and reserve forces has been relieved.
After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force, with NATO countries providing logistical and air support, to stop the genocide that had made a mockery of the world’s repeated declaration that we would “never again” tolerant such inhumanity. Encouraged by the success, the League is now occupied with using the economic power and prestige of its member states to end other gross abuses of human rights such as the despicable crime of human trafficking.
The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future. A reduction in the corporate tax rate from the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners; the low rate on capital gains; allowing business to deduct in a single year investments in equipment and technology, while eliminating tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, have spurred innovation and productivity, and encouraged companies to keep their operations and jobs in the United States. The Alternate Minimum Tax is being phased out, with relief provided first to middle income families. Doubling the size of the child exemption has put more disposable income in the hands of taxpayers, further stimulating growth.
Congress has just passed by a single up or down vote a tax reform proposal that offers Americans a choice of continuing to file under the rules of the current complicated and burdensome tax code or use a new, simpler, fairer and flatter tax, with two rates and a generous deduction. Millions of taxpayers are expected to file under the flat tax, and save billions in the cost of preparing their returns.
After exercising my veto several times in my first year in office, Congress has not sent me an appropriations bill containing earmarks for the last three years. A top to bottom review of every federal bureaucracy has yielded great reductions in government spending by identifying programs that serve no important purpose; and instigating far reaching reforms of procurement and operating policies that have for too long extravagantly wasted money for no better purpose than to increase federal payrolls.New free trade agreements have been ratified and led to substantial increases in both exports and imports. The resulting growth in prosperity in countries from South America to Asia to Africa has greatly strengthened AmericaÂ’s security and the global progress of our political ideals. U.S. tariffs on agricultural imports have been eliminated and unneeded farm subsidies are being phased out. The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved.
Americans, who through no fault of their own, lost jobs in the global economy they once believed were theirs for life, are assisted by reformed unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs. Older workers who accept lower paying jobs while they acquire new skills are provided assistance to make up a good part of the income they have lost. Community colleges and technical schools all over the country have developed worker retraining programs suited to the specific economic opportunities available in their communities and are helping millions of workers who have lost a job that wonÂ’t come back find a new one that wonÂ’t go away.
Public education in the United States is much improved thanks to the competition provided by charter and private schools; the increase of quality teachers through incentives like merit pay and terrific programs that attract to the classroom enthusiastic and innovative teachers from many disciplines, like Teach for America and Troops to Teachers. Educational software and online teaching programs endorsed by qualified non profits are much more widely in use, bringing to the smallest classrooms in America some of the greatest math, English, and science teachers in the country. This revolution in teaching methods has especially benefited rural America. Test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country.
Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history. Reforms of the insurance market; putting the choice of health care into the hands of American families rather than exclusively with the government or employers; walk in clinics as alternatives to emergency room care; paying for outcome in the treatment of disease rather than individual procedures; and competition in the prescription drug market have begun to wring out the runaway inflation once endemic in our health care system. More small businesses offer their employees health plans. Schools have greatly improved their emphasis on physical education and nutritional content of meals offered in school cafeterias. Obesity rates among the young and the disease
they engender are stabilized and beginning to decline. The federal government and states have cooperated in establishing backstop insurance pools that provide coverage to people hard pressed to find insurance elsewhere because of pre-existing illness.The reduction in the growth of health care costs has begun to relieve some of the pressure on Medicare; encouraging Congress to act in a bipartisan way to extend its solvency for twenty-five years without increasing taxes and raising premiums only for upper income seniors. Their success encouraged a group of congressional leaders from both parties to work with my administration to fix Social Security as well, without reducing benefits to those near retirement. The reforms include some form of personal retirement accounts in safe and reliable index funds, such as have been available to government employees since their retirement plans were made solvent a quarter century ago.
The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil; progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well. A cap and trade system has been implemented, spurring great innovation in the development of green technologies and alternative energy sources. Clean coal technology has advanced considerably with federal assistance. Construction has begun on twenty new nuclear reactors thanks to improved incentives and a streamlined regulatory process.
Scores of judges have been confirmed to the federal district and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them and make sure they are consistent with the Constitution. They are judges of exceptional character and quality, who enforce and do not make laws, and who respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
Border state governors have certified and the American people recognize that after tremendous improvements to border security infrastructure and increases in the border patrol, and vigorous prosecution of companies that employ illegal aliens, our southern border is now secure. Illegal immigrants who broke our laws after they came here have been arrested and deported. Illegal immigration has been finally brought under control, and the American people accepted the practical necessity to institute a temporary worker program and deal humanely with the millions of immigrants who have been in this country illegally.
Voluntary national service has grown in popularity in part because of the educational benefits used as incentives, as well as frequent appeals from the bully pulpit of the White House, but mostly because the young Americans, no less than earlier generations, understand that true happiness is much greater than the pursuit of pleasure, and can only be found by serving causes greater than self-interest. Scores of accomplished private sector leaders have joined the ranks of my administration for a dollar a year and have instituted some of the most innovative reforms of government programs ever known, often in partnership with willing private sector partners. A sense of community, a kinship of ideals, has invigorated public service again.
Is it perfect? Is it everything I want? No, it isn’t – but it is the best I’m likely to see after the current electoral cycle. That’s why I’m backing John McCain.
H/T MVRWC
Posted by: Greg at
11:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1825 words, total size 12 kb.
May 14, 2008
![080515-gop-20-2[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/080515-gop-20-2[1].jpg)
Sadly, our party leaders have moved away from its values over the last few years. And I agree with Doug Ross that the time has come for us to remind them that we, the grassroots, are the GOP -- and to push for the reestablishment of the party based upon our principles.
The tenets:
STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENSE - increase the size, capability and efficiency of our Armed Forces, bringing back our defense spending to historical levels as percentage of GDP.GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - open up ANWR and the OCS to exploration; aggressively pursue nuclear energy and green technologies; and incent private industry to aggressively pursue clean, renewable energy sources.
SECURE THE BORDERS - build physical barriers immediately as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy. If the boat's sinking, you plug the holes first.
DEATH TO EARMARKS - zero tolerance for earmarks.
DEATH TO CORRUPTION - zero tolerance for corruption.
ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE - national unity requires a national language. That language is English.
IMPLEMENT FLAT TAX OR FAIR TAX - simplify the tax system by eradicating a tax code gone mad.
REDUCE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT - provide "whistleblower-style" awards for reducing the size of government and task the IRS (which will no longer have to worry about enforcing the tax code) with achieving the reduction goals on an annual basis
SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION - Address health-care deficiencies - with competitive, free-market solutions, not Government largesse.
ADDRESS ENTITLEMENTS - engage a bipartisan consortium to create a multi-million dollar competition to incent teams from private industry and academia to create solutions for our social security and Medicare liabilities.
This should not be a platform. It should be a promise -- an ironclad commitment -- to voters.
Now we can argue and dispute over how best to implement some of these points. And we can even disagree among ourselves about the relative importance of some of them. And yes, some of us may disagree on a point or two, while holding to the overall thrust of this plan of governance. But it is important that we have a clear platform and policy commitment within our party -- much as we did 14 years ago with the Contract With America. That is the recipe for success.
Posted by: Greg at
10:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.
Democrat Barack Obama has won the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy organization that has supported rival Hillary Rodham Clinton throughout her political career.The organization announced the endorsement of its political action committee on Wednesday.
"Pro-choice Americans have been fortunate to have two strong pro-choice candidates in Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, both of whom have inspired millions of new voters to participate in this historic presidential race," NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a statement. "Today, we are proud to put our organization's grass-roots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Senator Obama."
So just remember -- Obama considers those of us who hold fast to our religion, the Second Amendment, and border security to be bad people who are not good Americans -- but those who rip the unborn from the womb as welcome supporters.
Posted by: Greg at
10:29 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
Now, as Obama has things nearly wrapped up but has hit a stumbling block, in rides the Breck Girl with his coveted endorsement to save the day!
Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a move designed to help solidify support for the party's likely presidential nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.Edwards made a surprise appearance with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as the Illinois senator campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.
The endorsement came a day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in the West Virginia primary. The loss highlighted Obama's challenge in winning over the "Hillary Democrats" — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in significant numbers before he exited the race in late January.
Edwards, who received a thunderous ovation when Obama introduced him to a crowd of several thousand, said, "brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats" to defeat McCain. "We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I."
I wonder what Edwards gets out of this. Will he be Attorney General? Or Obama's VP? Or will he be the first ambulance chasing trial lawyer to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, despite his lack of judicial experience or a record of substantive legal scholarship? Here's hoping we never find out.
Posted by: Greg at
10:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.
A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 29 percent of Democrats would support Sen. Hillary Clinton running as an independent in the fall:Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Democratic voters nationwide now believe that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the White House. That's up slightly from 34% in late April, 32% earlier in April and 22% in late March.
p>However, if Clinton does not win the Democratic Party nomination, 29% of Democrats say she should run an Independent campaign for the White House. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats disagree. Clinton supporters are evenly divided on the question.
Surber takes it a bit further with the following analysis.
The main reason she took West Virginia by 41 points is that it is the oldest state in the nation (average age 38.9). You toss in Florida (38.7) and Pennsylvania (3, add her home states of Arkansas and New York, and she starts with 90 Electoral College votes.
She beat Obama by 8 in California, by 9 in Ohio, and by 10 in New Jersey. ThatÂ’s another 90 Electoral College votes.
Clinton would be trouble for McCain in Texas, especially if the Bushes continue to cold-shoulder McCain. That could bring her up to 214.
Without Texas and Florida, McCain is dead.
Without California, Obama is dead.
And with 214 Electoral College votes at the starting gate, an independent run by Clinton is viable.
Running mate? Joe Lieberman.
Let’s be honest – this is a formidable ticket if it were to happen. Given her growth on the campaign trail, some of us on the Right have come to appreciate – if not agree with – Hillary Clinton. And the addition of Joe Lieberman to such a ticket would mollify a great many folks in the Center and on the Right. That could create a situation where we would have a WINNING independent candidate – and a true realignment of America’s politics.
Posted by: Greg at
09:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.
The three major networks, CNN, Fox News and the Associated Press filed a lawsuit yesterday asking a federal judge to strike down a South Dakota law that prevents exit polling within 100 feet of a voting place.The law violates the First Amendment because it restricts the news organizationsÂ’ speech and commentary about the political process and limits their opportunities to gather information about that process, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Sioux Falls, asks that the case be handled quickly because South DakotaÂ’s primary election is June 3, just three weeks away. It seeks a preliminary ruling before the primary to prevent South Dakota officials from barring exit polling within 100 feet of polling places.
Now let’s consider the practical impact of undoing this rule. Pollsters could come up to the door of the polling place, asking questions and soliciting answers to polling questions – leading to voters hearing the answers and, effectively, being subject to electioneering conversations. The distance regulation imposes a minimal restriction upon them, and one that does not burden the exercise of their rights any more than it does the rights of those engaged in political speech to campaign for the candidate of their choice.
As such, the lawsuit should fail.
Posted by: Greg at
09:14 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.
May 13, 2008
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.
I guess I'm struck by the double standard on race that exists in this country. COnsider the much-cited statistics on white voters and race. I'd love to see polling data on the percentage of black voters who said that race was an important factor in their votes -- and the percentage of those black voters who cast a ballot for Barack Obama. I suppose, though, that my asking the question (or even thinking about it) makes me a sheet-wearing Kluxer in the eyes of the Obama campaign, which has gone from being "not about race" to being "all about race" in the last two months -- and in the eyes of the media that has decreed whites who don't vote for or who question Barack Obama as being irredeemably racist.
Then again, this is West Virginia -- consider who the past of their senior senator.
But the Times does note the potential difficulty that Obama's weakness among blue-collar white voters creates for the Democrats.
With Mr. Obama solidly ahead of Mrs. Clinton in the delegate fight, the West Virginia results are unlikely to hurt Mr. ObamaÂ’s chances of winning the nomination. A strong Clinton victory in another general election battleground state like her victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania could raise fresh questions about Mr. ObamaÂ’s ability to carry swing states in a contest against Senator John McCain.
In other words, the election may be much closer than those proclaiming Obama's election a lock are willing to recognize.
Posted by: Greg at
10:25 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.
For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces.They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.
The contrast between the large, adoring crowds Obama draws at public events and the gritty street-level work to win votes is stark. The candidate is largely insulated from the mean-spiritedness that some of his foot soldiers deal with away from the media spotlight.
Now please remember – these folks are not visiting or calling random citizens. Campaigns today have gotten sophisticated enough that they try are only going to call or knock on the door of registered members of their party – to do otherwise is a waste of time. So when we hear about the encounters with racism, this is what you are getting from Democrats – ideas akin to what you would have heard when Senator Robert Byrd was still recruiting for the Klan. Maybe Obama can pick him for Vice President – that will wrap up both West Virginia and the DemoKluxer vote!
On the other hand, if they were calling Republican voters, they would have not gotten such a response. After all, the GOP was founded upon and has always supported the equality of all Americans, regardless of race. That commitment hasnÂ’t changed.
UPDATE: Looks like Ed Morrissey drew the same conclusion I did.
Who were these volunteers contacting? Fellow Democrats. They wanted to mobilize the registered Democrats to get them to vote in the closed primary, and received very ugly responses for their trouble.
Posted by: Greg at
10:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin endorsed Barack Obama for president today, giving the Illinois Democrat another superdelegate in his battle for the Democratic nomination."Since the immediate days following the storm, I have been traveling to our nation's capitol to advocate for policies that aid our rebuilding effort," Nagin said in a statement released by the Obama campaign. "I know first hand, we desperately need the leadership of someone committed to changing the system in Washington that can hold us back from moving forward."
Obama said he shares Nagin's commitment to "renewing the great city of New Orleans." He also called the restoration of the city "one of the great national challenges of our time."
"I look forward to working with him and all New Orleanians to prepare for the storms that may come while advancing opportunity and prosperity for the people of the great American city," Obama said.
Given his superb handling of his city during Hurricane Katrina, IÂ’m certain that we now know what we have to look forward to under an Obama Administration.
Gun-grabbing from the law-abiding.
Sky-rocketing homicide rate.
Utter incompetence from a political neophyte.
After all, look what Nagin has given to Chocolate City!
Posted by: Greg at
09:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.
Marietta tavern owner Mike Norman says the T-shirts he's peddling, featuring cartoon chimp Curious George peeling a banana, with "Obama in '08" scrolled underneath, are "cute." But to a coalition of critics, the shirts are an insulting exploitation of racial stereotypes from generations past."It's time to put an end to this," said Rich Pellegrino, a Mableton resident and director of the Cobb-Cherokee Immigrant Alliance. It was among the organizations planning to gather outside Mulligan's Bar and Grill Tuesday afternoon to protest the "racist and highly offensive" shirts.
"There's no place for these views, not in this day and age," he said.
![image_7049147[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/image_7049147[1].jpg)
"No place for these views in this day and age?" I wonder where they were when these images were produced by various and sundry liberals -- images I find a whole hell of a lot more offensive than the t-shirt design above.
Oh, I get it now – it is only a bad thing to compare the Obamessiah to a monkey. I keep forgetting the double standard that applies to the Anointed One.
UPDATE: I guess some liberals don't have a problem with Curious George commentary -- but only if it is directed at the President. Hypocrites! H/T Protein Wisdom
Posted by: Greg at
09:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
May 12, 2008
The outcome of West Virginia's primary Tuesday may best be foretold by where Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama plan to spend the day.Clinton is expected to be in Charleston, West Virginia, to celebrate what should be her large victory.
Obama has no plans Tuesday night, but he is spending the late afternoon at a campaign event in Missouri. That state has already voted this primary season but is considered a swing state that Democrats and Republicans have in their sights this November.
Clinton, it seems, is concentrating on the present; Obama is looking to the future.
Polling places in West Virginia opened at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday.
Clinton, from New York, is ahead in West Virginia by an average of 40 points in the most recent public opinion polls.
Now let's be honest here -- a challenger's 40 point spread over a near-certain nominee is telling of that nominee's weakness. But some Clintonoids are suggesting an even a bigger gap.
Political campaigns usually look to lower expectations – but one of Hillary Clinton’s supporters took the opposite tack Monday, setting the bar for a West Virginia primary win at an unprecedented high at an enthusiastic campaign event.“You think this crowd’s noisy?” said West Virginia Senate Majority Leader Harry Truman Chafin. “Just wait ‘til we win like 80-20.”
“We’ve got to give her a vote tomorrow of 80-20 or 90-10,” he added moments later.
A campaign spokesman quickly tried to downplay Chafin’s remaks, saying “We appreciate his exuberance, but we're pretty sure this race is going to be much closer than that.”
Yeah, that's a case of campaign train hyperbole. But what if Clinton can pull out a win of greater than 40 points -- perhaps as many as 50? Does that change the calculus of who the Dem nominee ought to be? Does it change the VP calculus?
We'll know later tonight if those are just idle questions, or if they are issues that the Demccrats need to deal with for real.
Posted by: Greg at
10:42 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and defeated contender for the GOP presidential nomination, is currently at the top of John McCain's short list for a running mate. At least that's the word from a top McCain fundraiser and longtime Republican moneyman who has spoken to McCain's inner circle. The fundraiser is less than thrilled with the idea of Huckabee as the vice presidential nominee, and many economic conservatives—turned off by the populist tone of Huckabee's campaign and his tax record as governor—are likely to share that marked lack of enthusiasm.
I am definitely among the naysayers, for some of the same reasons as the economic conservatives. But beyond that, I don't want to play into the stereotype of the GOP as beholden to conservative religious voters -- and selecting pastor Huckabee would do precisely that.
Indeed, i don't think that either Huckabee or Romney is the best choice at this point -- McCain needs to pick someone other than those two former rivals to vill the VP slot on the ticket. A governor, yes -- but one that will help him carry a state in play, something that neither of these two men do.
Posted by: Greg at
10:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.
After all, the Constitution doesn't count the national totals for anything. It is the Electoral College totals that determine the outcome of the election -- and polls show something very interesting there, according to the analysis by this blogger.
Click the map to get the supporting data that this is based upon the latest polling data. McCain leads Obama in a whole lot of states -- mirroring the red state/blue state dichotomy we have seen over the two elections. Even where there is not enough polling data, we can infer which way certain states are trending -- some for McCain, some for Obama.
The result of these projections rather strikingly place McCain ahead 249-237 electoral votes, with the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Mexico being toss-ups. Victories in any two of the Midwestern states would give John McCain the electoral victory, while Obama would have to win do one of the following:
- win Michigan, and Ohio.
- win Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Mexico.
That's it. Nothing else does it if the other states remain static, which is unlikely to happen over the next 25 ½ weeks.
Questions that need to be asked at this point are as follows:
- Will Obama pick Bill Richardson as VP in order to secure those five electoral votes in New Mexico -- and if he doesn't will the perceived slight swing the state towards the Republican nominee from Arizona, since he is regarded as friendly by the large Hispanic voting bloc there.
- Does Obama hurt himself by picking a running mate from one of the three Midwestern states, given that his home state is Illinois? Can McCain help himself by doing so -- especially an Ohioan?
There is a lot of calculus that needs to go on between now and the conventions -- and the conventions and election day. My guess is that it will likely swirl around how to win in Ohio -- the critical prize this fall.
There also remains one other possibility. All other things remaining equal, we could end up with an electoral vote tie if McCain wins Ohio and Obama wins the other three states. Quite frankly, I don't dare predict what would happen in that case without knowing the exact composition of the House of Representatives at the start of the new Congress in January -- and the political implications of the election going to the House of Representatives so soon after the craziness of the 2000 election absolutely boggles the mind.
I know I'm going to check back at Brian's Electoral Projection website regularly to see how the numbers crunch. I suggest that you do, too, since this election will probably be a squeaker!
UPDATE: Allahpundit discusses the same topic at Hot Air, looking at Marc Ambinder's projections at The Atlantic. They've got it pegged at 245-221, with 72 electoral votes in play. And they do raise the 269-269 scenario.
Posted by: Greg at
11:28 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 4 kb.
That said, IÂ’m opposed to any law that will take away that secret ballot.
What’s the Employee Free Choice Act? If you aren’t a lobbyist in Washington, a union worker, or an employer nervously trying to prevent your staff from organizing, you might not have followed the twisty history of the latest attempt to increase private-sector unionization. “Card check,” as it is usually known, would allow employees at a company to bypass secret-ballot elections and declare their intent to unionize by simply signing cards. If adopted, it could portend the most revolutionary change to labor law since the 1940s.
Unfortunately, as anyone who has followed the union movement for any length of time knows, the card check is subject to serious abuse. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of union thugs (I won’t dignify them with the title of “organizers”) harassing employees until they give up their resistance – sometimes using implicit (or explicit) threats against the employees and their families. Only the secret ballot has enabled such workers to truly vote their conscience free from fear – and now Democrats in Congress are prepared to take that protection away in order to curry favor with union bosses who direct large sums of money to aid Democrats seeking election and reelection to office.
But as bad as that is, there is the possibility that certain public sector employees will have even less freedom when Congress gets done.
Unions keep losing membership as a share of the national workforce, which explains why organized labor's main political focus is changing the rules to force more workers into unions. Witness a bill that Senate Democrats are pushing this week to require that hundreds of thousands of local police and firemen submit to collective bargaining.Under current law, every state has the ability to set policies that govern its public workforce. In some states, police, firefighters and paramedics belong to unions that collectively bargain for their contracts. In others, unions representing public-security workers can bargain over pay, but not over benefits or work rules. And in some others, these workers can choose not to belong to a union.
Democrats want to change this for the entire country. A bill that passed the House last year would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people. They would also have the authority to bargain for everything -- pay, benefits and work rules. The goal is to give labor the whip hand with local governments, and further coerce nonunion members to join the dues-paying ranks.
Set aside the fact that 16 states have voted down such legislation in the last 12 years. Set aside the fact that the legislation would effectively strip these public safety employees – those doing the most dangerous jobs outside the military – of the protection of right-to-work laws on the books in many states. This legislation would deny them the right to reject such representation as not in their best interest, giving them fewer rights than private sector employees. While many raise the 10th Amendment question of Congress exceeding its authority by trampling the rights of the state, I want to raise the First Amendment question that exists in forcing public employees into association with these corrupt organizations!
There is, of course, only one legitimate position for Americans to take on unions, especially those that purport to represent the interests of public employees. That position is that they must be voluntary – not only in terms of membership, but also in terms of paying union “bargaining fees” for services that employees do not want. After all, unions are private organizations, and government has no more legitimate interest in forcing employees into the union fold than it does in requiring all public school students to join the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts.
But then again, does government have any legitimate interest in making it easier for unions to coerce the membership of any employee – public or private sector?
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT McCain Blogs, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Kodera's Korner, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
09:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 6 kb.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's Rose Law Firm billing records, found in the White House residence in January 1996 two years after they had been subpoenaed by government regulators, disappeared shortly after the first lady was warned that the firm's billing problems were "very serious" and the then-ongoing Whitewater investigation could result in criminal charges, newly obtained records show.More than 1,100 pages of grand jury testimony, investigative reports, memos, charging documents, chronologies, narratives and draft indictments, previously undisclosed but now being "processed" at the Library of Congress, say Mrs. Clinton knew considerably more about the firm's billing problems and their potential ramifications than she publicly acknowledged at the time.
According to the documents, given to the Library of Congress by the estate of Sam Dash, former ethics adviser to Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, Mrs. Clinton also knew that her former Rose partner Webster L. Hubbell was both the focus of the firm's billing concerns and a federal conflict-of-interest investigation, in which he was suspected of lying in a sworn statement to regulators about the firm's representation of a failed Arkansas savings and loan.
While Mrs. Clinton told the public at the time that Mr. Hubbell's March 14, 1994, resignation as associate attorney general involved an "internal billing dispute" with his Rose partners that "likely would be resolved," three months earlier she had been advised by another Rose partner, Allen Bird, that the "billing problems were very serious," according to the newly disclosed records.
A Clinton spokescritter calls it “a baseless accusation which was looked into over a decade ago in an investigation that took $71.5 million and eight years to determine there was no case” – but do the contemporaneous documents of what went on within the Special Prosecutor’s office lie? Could it be that the deal that kept Bill Clinton from facing criminal charges also shielded Hillary from charges – and set up this year’s bruising nomination fight?
Posted by: Greg at
09:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.
"When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver -- that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip," Beshear said. Cheney accidentally shot fellow quail hunter Harry Whittington in Texas in 2006.
Mind you, this is one of the much-vaunted Democrat superdelegates, so he has a big influence on the outcome of the nomination battle.
But suppose I had written something similar in some other context – you know, like this:
I can think of one Republican who can be a problem solver -- that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take Barack on a hunting trip.
Or this:
I can think of one Republican who can be a problem solver -- that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take Hillary on a hunting trip.
The local Democrats would rev up into high gear and restart their effort to get my school district to fire me for being a Republican. They’d demand that I be dumped or resign from my position as a precinct chair, and insist that the Harris County GOP censure me at their next available opportunity. They would also likely be insisting that I should be arrested – or at least brought in for questioning by the Secret Service.
But then again, I guess the quote and the relative lack of outrage would be par for the course – after all, it is just another liberal fantasizing about the killing of a Republican president.
H/T Malkin
Posted by: Greg at
09:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.
![questioning-obama[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/questioning-obama[1].jpg)
And I’d like to remind you folks that if he wins, I immediately become unquestionably more patriotic than you at 12:01 PM EST on January 20, 2009 – because I will be dissenting constantly.
Posted by: Greg at
08:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
May 11, 2008
With her campaign falling ever deeper into debt, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a rainy Mother's Day seeking votes ahead of Tuesday's primary here, turning a deaf ear to calls for her to leave a Democratic presidential contest she has little hope of winning.Clinton aides continued to insist that she will remain in the race even while confirming that she is $20 million in debt. "The voters are going to decide this," senior adviser Howard Wolfson said on "Fox News Sunday," acknowledging the $20 million figure. "There is no reason for her not to continue this process." Wolfson said he has seen "no evidence of her interest" in pursuing the second-place spot on the Democratic ticket, contrary to rumors that she is staying in the race to leverage a bid for the vice presidential nomination.
That much debt does raise some serious issues for her -- and does almost require her to stay in until the end, hoping to get the vice presidential nod. After all, that might make it easier to pay off the other creditors, and see some of the money she loaned the campaign make its way back into her bank account.
Posted by: Greg at
10:43 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.
However, I also pointed out that there is reason to wonder about the Illinois Senator's upbringing and whether or not he was, in his childhood and youth, at least nominally a Muslim -- and the impact upon US relations with Muslim countries. After all, given his father's faith and that upbringing, he might well be seen as a apostate Muslim.
Today, the New York Times offers up a column that raises that issue -- including some implications that I didn't consider when I wrote those earlier posts.
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his motherÂ’s Christian background is irrelevant.Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)
* * * Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
Thus, we have an entirely different question from that of whether Barack Obama is a crypto-Muslim who will betray America to his supposed co-religionists. Rather, as i have said before, we are facing serious questions of whether Obama's religious conversion will have a deleterious impact on our relations with the Muslim world. And while I agree with Luttwack that it should not be the end-all and be-all of the campaign, I think it is a factor worth considering.
More At Hot Air, Because I'm Right, OTB, Gina Cobb
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT McCain Blogs, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Kodera's Korner, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:40 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 708 words, total size 6 kb.
69 queries taking 0.4243 seconds, 475 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
