Michelle Obama Trips Stevie Wonder!

Michelle Obama suffers wardrobe malfunction on left as she trips blind singer Stevie Wonder -- she was just checking to make sure he was really sightless. When he told her he supported John McCain, she tripped him again. (I'm not making at least half of that up!). As you know already, the best humorous pictures from the otherwise unfunny Obama Campaign appear here. If you scroll down, I have a picture of Barack leading around his pet camel.

Note: See my McCain-Palin piece below.

McCain Palin Ticket, Texas Revelations

Rush Limbaugh put this graphic up on his web site yesterday. As many of you know, I have been a strong supporter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, often called "the nation's most popular elected official," as the best choice for for V-P on the Republican ticket.

A person of impeccable honor and integrity, Sarah is a dedicated Christian, a fiscal conservative, pro-life and a Life Member of the NRA. Beyond that, she's the mother of four children, the oldest of whom, Track Palin, is an infantryman in the U.S. Army.

If Senator McCain does choose her, it's highly likely that, in either 2012 or 2016, she will become America's first female President.

Here's the link to Limbaugh's homepage: http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Also, the person who, one year ago, launched the Draft Palin for V-P movement is Adam Brickley, an extremely talented college student from Colorado Springs. He has written extensively about why Sarah Heath Palin should be the V-P choice. You can find his outstanding blog at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. I was the second blogger to join Adam's movement.

I have never supported Sarah merely because she's a woman. I support her because I believe she would be a caring, intellectually and politically gifted vice-president and, at a later date, a great President. She's one of those prinicipled conservatives who isn't angry at everybody. She's a great listener, someone who understands that our government is one "by, for, and of the people."

I hope all McCain supporters will urge the Senator to select Sarah Heath Palin, Alaska's favorite daughter, as his vice-presidential running mate. She would be Barack Obama's worst nightmare -- and America's best hope for the future. She's a younger, female version of Ronald Reagan, and she's the most exciting political personality to come along since the "Gipper."

Texas Revelations on March 4 Primary

My friend Sharon Caliendo of Norman, Oklahoma, is one of the finest political operatives in that section of the country. She sent me the following e-mail, which chock full of good information about what's happening in Texas. Later today, I'll put up Sharon's web sites, some of the very best in the blogosphere.

Been in and out of Texas this week but in my spare time I have put up the two blogs.

I would say that McCain will have no problem winning TX no matter who the Dems put up and if it is Obama, you can put TX in the win column before they even vote. Learned that the people fainting are following the campaign around. One of the guys told me that an Obama rally in some areas has been made up of whites and blacks who are on the government take better known as welfare. He was saying they are talking about college students but he thinks they are more like middle school and high school. He was at a rally where the Austin birdcage paper said a lot of UT students were there but he disagreed because he saw very few UT shirts and they always wear them to rallies. He saw kids some getting off buses coming into the area which would not have been UT students.

Huckabee shot himself in the foot today. Gov Perry asked Huckabee to withdraw from the race and Huckster basically asked why he would take advice from someone who had endorsed Rudy when he was wrong about that. Never did get the exact quote as Rick's aide was so mad when he called. Someone from McCain had asked Rick to ask Huckabee to please withdraw from the race and join to defeat the Dem in November but Huckster was too arrogant for that. Set off a firestorm that is not going to end any time soon.

I told our State Chair if Huckabee is the keynote speaker for the OK Convention I am not going to sit and listen to the windbag and will walk out as he starts to speak. He said, "you wouldn't" -- bet me I wouldn't!

Mark and I were complaining the blogs that were anti-Obama were not exactly on McCain's side so we decided to add another one with that in mind. We figured running them as Republicans and McCain supporters would make a difference rather then 'conservative' owners who don't like McCain much better then the Dems in some cases.

Thanks for the info on Iraq -- I am getting people to help me out with the 2nd blog -- they are not big McCain supporters but they detest Obama and Hillary and will definitely support him in November. This gives them a way to get involved and we can all help McCain. [Note, on Iraq, I told Sharon that the Wikipedia site had an excellent article on the links between two terrorist groups, Ansar al Islam and al Qaeda.]

All I need is more hours in my day and everything will work itself out!

Take care!

Sharon

NOTE FROM STEVE: IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT PRECISELY WHO BARACK OBAMA IS, PLEASE READ THE ALARMING -- BUT SCRUPULOUSLY ACCURATE -- STORY BELOW.

OBAMA FAVORS INFANTICIDE: CHILD KILLING

Barack Obama, in Africa, demonstrating his "Yes we can" solution to the problem of high gasoline prices.

In regard to my headline above: unforunately I'm not making it up. The following column which appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer) is by Rick Santorum, who served two terms as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. As many of you know, I disagree with Rick Santorum on a number of issues, but on this matter of "live-birth-abortions," he's right on target. Thanks for visiting. As always, your comments are welcome. I'll write more today on this subject. If you're looking for the photos that tell us most of what we need to know about Obama, please scroll down.

The Elephant in the Room:
Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image

By Rick Santorum

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.

One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record.

The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding.

Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002. That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb.

With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment. The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive.

To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

Obama, however, is another story.

The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.

Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."How could someone possibly justify such a vote?

In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child."

So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions. Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism.

Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

Here's the link to the Santorum Op Ed: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html


Steve says: Hillary Clinton has been making the case that Obama is getting a "free ride" from the media -- that they fail to examine his record carefully and refuse to ask him tough questions. I'm not a big fan of Mrs. Clinton, but on this issue -- as on many others -- the media should be ashamed of themselves. As The Economist magazine recently indicated, Obama is a man associated with soaring rhetoric combined with inaction at times -- and highly questionable activities in other cases.

One question the media need to ask Obama is: why doesn't his support for "universal health care" apply to injured babies gasping for life? His behavior is despicable, but he's apparently acceptable to the hate-American fanatics at MoveOn.org.

Obama and the Politics of Personal Deceit

Thursday (tomorrow) and Friday I'll be writing about the strange candidacy of Barack Obama, who is running as something of a Democrat moderate always ready "to reach across the aisle." The main problem is that Barack -- the most left-wing of all Senators -- rarely if ever reaches across the aisle, a point made by Rick Santorum in the piece above. As Santorum suggests, Obama is running as two separate personalities.

Obama, along with his wife, who "not proud" of the country that's given them both so much, is a person of great ambition and little accomplishment. John McCain recently asked the following about Obama: whether America will "risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan." It is an extremely good question.

William F. Buckley: American Original

If you want to see my photo essay about Barack Obama, including one of him in improbable Somali dress, you'll have to scroll down. Today, however, belongs to a man who almost single-handedly created modern American conservatism, William F. Buckley. (See more in the previous column.)

William F. Buckley, Jr. was never guilty of false modesty. He said, "'I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition,' he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. 'I asked myself the other day, Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time? I couldn't think of anyone.'" The funny thing is that he was correct.

"For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television," fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ["Firing Line"] ended. "He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement."

Here's how the CBS News Blog described this man of so many talents: "Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of Firing Line,' arpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor's race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review."

If you want to see a fine photo album of WFB, Jr., please click on the following:

http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/.

More to follow about William F. Buckley, Jr., whom I knew and revered. If you have thoughts on the man and his passing, I hope you'll leave them in the comments. He had a lover's quarrel with the political system, but the key word was love. Now, he is with his beloved wife (and Epispcopalian! Patricia). God bless them both and condolences to their talented son Christopher and the other members of the Buckley clan.

Tomorrow, my column will be about "Obama's Chicago Problem," with emphasis on his links to some very unsavory characters, including his racialist Pastor Jeremiah Wright and "Minister" Louis Farrakhan, the head of the so-called "Nation of Islam," who has enthusiastically endorsed Obama. Please visit.

Condemning Obama, Praising Buckley

Look at previous columns to see the much-discussed photos regarding Barack Obama and another column entitled "The Case for John McCain." See the bottom of his column for my tribute to William F. Buckley, Jr., who passed away today.

Later this afternoon (Wednesday), I'll have another column up regarding my views on what's fair and what's not in John McCain's campaign against the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. I'll also discuss why the revealing photos (see below) regarding Obama are fair. The fact that some of Obama's supporters are far-left fans of Communist fanatic Che Guevara is a matter that deserves attention.

Candidates for President surely recognize that everything they do in public is fair game for photographers and writers. I am interested in Obama's Kenyan roots, which are almost exclusively biological rather than cultural, although he generally seeks to suggest otherwise. In fact, Obama was brought up by a very fine person, his Caucasian mother. Apparently, he only saw his Kenyan father, who deserted the family early in the game, on one occasion. In that sense, Barack Obama is about as "African" or even "Black" as I am (and I am as far as I know completely Caucasian). Obama is doing extremely well in the primaries with Black voters, but he has precious little in common with them. It is not unfair to discuss these points. He's no longer running for the Illinois State Senate, but rather for President of the U.S.

William F. Buckley, Jr.: Rest-in-Peace (1925-2008)

I was lucky enough to know William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of The National Review, a key journal in the history of American conservatism. William and his sister, Priscilla, were important figures in my own writing career, and I'll be writing more about them at some point later today.

The last time I saw Buckley in public was on TV right after the end of Ronald Reagan's funeral. I thought, "Without William F. Buckley, Jr., Ronald Reagan probably never would have been elected President." Buckley had that much influence on his times.

When he founded National Review more than 50 years ago (and to me, it does seem like only yesterday), conservatism looked like a dead philosophy. Prior to World War II, the dominant Republican philosophy on foreign policy was isolationism. In fiscal affairs, Republicans -- well, most of them -- were in favor of a balanced budget, something that was unlikely during World War II and in the subsequent Cold War.

Buckley's conservatism contained a strong element of traditional Roman Catholicism, although with a deep suspicion of Rooseveltian governmental intervention in people's affairs. Most of all, Buckley was opposed to collectivism, the dominant viewpoint underlying Communism, which appeared at the time to be the main competitor for mankind's hearts and minds.

One thing Buckley and his magazine did very well was to encourage young conservative writers, including people like Russell Kirk, author of the important book The Conservative Mind, David Brudnoy, D. Keith Mano, and George Will, among many others. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were very few outlets for conservatives who had something to say, and National Review was a lifeline for writers-on-the-Right.

Ronald Reagan said many times that National Review was his favorite magazine. Buckley gave the lie to the liberal illusion that the only intellectuals in America were on the Left. He debated with -- and usually won convincingly -- against every notable liberal in the U.S., including J. K. Galbraith, Michael Harrington, Gore Vidal, and Norman Mailer. He was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater and, especially, Ronald Reagan. Buckley and his NR cohort supplied much of the intellectual firepower that helped overcome the Soviet Union.

I've used many times one of his favorite sayings: "Self-control is the most exhilarating of pleasures." I've often said I don't know if that's totally correct, but I'm delighted that someone said it.

It's conventional to say of someone who's passed that we will miss him. In Buckley's case, it's absolutely true. There never was anyone quite like him -- and there certainly will never be another WFB, Jr.

Obama Photos Iowa, Houston, Kenya

Top: What's wrong with this picture? Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Harkin's wife, Ruth, during playing of America's National Anthem

Middle: Fox News Photo of Obama Volunteers in Houston. On wall is a picture of a Cuban flag with a superimposed image of Communist fanatic Che Guevara.

Bottom: A photograph of presidential candidate Barack H. Obama (on right) in Kenya in 2006.

I know that today John McCain denounced the Cincinnatti talk show host who spoke of Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" and described him "a Chicago political hack . . . out of the Daley machine." I know that the media generally think it's unfair to criticize Obama, but I don't have a problem with the talk show man.

Obama's name is in fact "Barack Hussein Obama." If he doesn't like his name, he can always change it. As far as his being a product of the Daley political macine, that happens to be true. In the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 130 times, often on controversial issues. If that's not the behavior of a hack, I don't know what is.

The national media's "love affair with Obama," whom many of them call a "rock star," will continue. It will be up to the new media, including this blog, to present a more balanced view of Barack Hussein Obama.

Do Barack and Michelle Obama Love Their Country?
If Not, Why Not?

Here's an excerpt from an AP story last week:

"Michelle Obama told an audience in Milwaukee, 'For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.'"

"Cindy McCain, McCain's wife, days later responded by saying, 'I have, and always will be, proud of my country.' Barack Obama has expressed frustration that his wife's remarks had been taken out of context and turned into political fodder — both the Obamas say she was talking about politics in the United States, not the country itself."

My views: Michelle Obama has an undegraduate degree from Princeton University and a law degree from Harvard University. Presumably, she know the distinction between the word "politics" and the word "country." If she didn't mean she has previously disliked or despised her country, she should have made that clear. Her "clarification" of her remarks was full of the same rhetorical fuzziness that her husband has cultivated to an art form.

The lesson too many students at schools like Princeton and Harvard learn is that they should be embarrassed by their country because of its great strength and the opportunity it provides for many people -- including the Obamas -- to become wealthy. It is a great country, Barack and Michelle, and you both need to get to know it better.

The Case for John McCain

The following is today's column The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.

On Eric's show, the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point seemingly was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative.

The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club for Growth gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.

Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.

Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.

Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal.

That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the data show.

John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX recently: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.

Admittedly, McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).

So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.

I told my host Eric that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.

I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.

You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.

John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.

Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source

THE CASE FOR JOHN MCCAIN

The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain.

His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union ratings and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative. The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain.

I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.

Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism. Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.

Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.

The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion.

Rather, it is what the facts show. John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.

McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).

So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them.

Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality. I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong.

When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.

You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.

John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.

Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com)

Steve Maloney on Political Pistachio

Tomorrow (Monday) at 10 p.m. I'll be on Doug Gibbs's Political Pistachio Radio. I'll be joined by my friend Adam Brickley of Colorado Springs, the individuals who started the Draft Sarah Palin for VP Movement. We'll be discussing Gov. Palin's chances, as well as other possibilities for the V-P choices. The subject of Senator John McCain, whom I support strongly, will also come up.http://www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio. This week Doug, a fine gentleman, will have on a very important guest, Kathleen Willey, once a strong Clinton supporter and someone who was molested by President Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. Quite a timely guest. She's written a new book on her experience, and I bet it won't be coffee table material in the Clinton household.

Jack Kelly on Obama

The absolute best conservative columnist in PA is Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. A former Marine, a former Special Forces soldier, and a former (one-time) candidate for Congress, Kelly is one writer who knows what he's talking about.Please read his Sunday column, which you can find at the following: http://post-gazette.com/forum.

The subject is "The Obama Mirage," and the sub-head is: "There's no there there." Kelly is quoting Dame Edith Asquith who, when asked what she thought about Oakland, California, said, "There's no there there.'

Kelly's article begins with these words: "Texas state Senator Kirk Watson had an embarrassing momentthe night the candidate he is supporting for president won the Wisconsin primary. MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked him to name a legislative accomplishment of Sen. Barack Obama."

"'I'm not going to be able to do that tonight,' Mr. Watson replied."

Later, Kelly quotes Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton. "'Barack Obama is no Muhammed Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois state Senate. He took a walk more than 130 times. That's what a shadow boxer does. All the right moves. All the right combinations. All the right footwork. But he never steps into the ring.'"

Buffenbarger then goes on to say: "'I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing trust fund babies crowding in to hear [Obama] speak. This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack-machine.'"

As a card carrying member of said Attack Machine, I hope he's right.

YOUR McCain Support Online

I wrote the following today to people who are playing key roles in the online effort to get John McCain elected President of the U.S. (POTUS). The following is in small part "inside baseball," but it shows the reality of what's going on online.

The big issue is what we can do to get people to reach out to others (and sometimes that will mean reaching out merely to a spouse or to a few neighbors). Right now, many people online are not truly "into" the presidential race. After March 5, that will begin to change rapidly.

Our main goal should be to get onliners to do SOMETHING positive for McCain. There are a few people (Cindy at The Pink Flamingo, Sanity 102, the two Beths, Sharon Caliendo, Greg Alterton) that will accomplish a great deal. I want them to know that they have friends (me and thee, among others) who will do what they can to assist them.

McCain supporters aren’t ready yet to launch a highly systematized organizational effort -- for example, the kind Joe Trippi had for Howard Dean -- on the Net. However, McCain supporters can and will do a lot better than is occurring now.

Where the MV08 effort is going very wrong is in its egotism (lots of titles for people with questionable online skills), its litmus tests (so-and-so is not a "true blue McCain supporter"), its acceptance of stereotypes ("drugged-out college students"), and its overall chuminess. Some people (especially me, as well as Beth 1 and Beth 2 and Sharon) have complained about MV08's being politically tone-deaf and suggesting that some members of the community won't complain but will just tune out the supposed "leaders.".

Who exactly gave a biased, angry individual like Sheridan Folger the "authority" to control the on-line effort? A question that I fear won't ever be answered.

The online effort must be in large part a teaching/learning experience. When bloggers or others ask how they can help John McCain, people who know the answer should tell them -- and do so respectfully As I suggested, we can't ask online volunteers to do more than we can legitimately expect from people who have limited time. Those who are really going to help McCain must proceed with a good dose of humility.

In talking at length to Sharon last night, she mentioned that activist students at the University of Oklahoma (Norman) and Oklahoma State University (Stillwater) are very much for McCain, perhaps by 2-1 or even 3-1. That’s also true of several colleges in PA (Grove City College being one). We need to have online sites that welcome such students and work with them to maximize their influence.

A few years ago, students in PA played a major role in Club for Growth leader Pat Toomey's challenge to Senator Arlen Specter. A generation ago, conservative college students helped Nixon to bury McGovern (1972). We can't win this election merely with support from suburban males over the age of 40.

I'm hoping that people like Christopher in MI will work with us to bring in younger people. I'm ready to do whatever it takes to get people, young and old, in the McCain camp.

Conservatives: Avoiding a Political Deathwish

Some hard truths for conservatives and other McCain Supporters . . .

A McCain supporter sent out an angry e-mail today that seemed designed to offend most of the groups John McCain needs to win the election. Let me give you one example: I had made the obvious point that Barack Obama has a tremendous online presence, one much greater at present than McCain's. (If you want to check that out for yourself, just Google Obama and then McCain and count the numbers, especially with emphasis on the past year.)

The McCain supporter said the following about Obama's online supporters: "When your core base is a bunch of stoned college kids spending mom and dads money with little else to do than make it to the next beer funnel . . .well you get the picture."

In other words, he's saying Obama's supporters consist mainly (exclusively?) of a bunch of drug-crazed college students "spending mom['s] and dad[']s money." Not exactly a "politic" statement.

Do I believe John McCain shares in any way his supporter's comments? I don't. McCain is a good enough politician to know that he needs support from all groups in America. He especially needs support from moderate-and-conservative young people (usually categorized as those between age the ages of 18 and 29).

McCain does well with people over the age of 45 (a demographic that includes me). But to win, he also has to do well with people under the age of 45.

In fact, McCain's status as a POW/war hero and the father a daughter (Meghan) who graduated recently from college, should give him significant appeal to younger voters. There's no reason he should cede most of the nation's young voters to Obama, whose pretty words eventually will grow thin with all age segments.

In the months past, I've argued with my fellow conservatives about their political shortsightedness. We can't afford to hand over huge segments of the electorate -- including younger voters -- over to the Democrats.

In the mid-1960s, we basically gave the Democrats a big political gift: the nation's Black vote. In more recent times, some conservatives have appeared ready to give up on the Hispanic vote, which comes from the nation's largest -- and fastest-growing -- minority group. (Blacks are the second largest.)

Young people (under 30) aren't a minority group, but if they were they'd be almost as big as the Black and Hispanic minority.

Many conservatives have also given up on the gay and lesbian vote, about 20%-25% of which went to George Bush (according to CNN exists) in 2000 and 2004. In fact, if George Bush hadn't won tens of thousands of G/L votes in Florida eight years ago, well, President Al Gore would be nearing the end of his second term. Thus, in one sense, GWB won Florida because of the gay vote!

Currently, we conservatives also aren't doing well with working women who, in the primaries, are voting by huge majorities in the primaries for the Democratic candidate. For decades, women professionals (lawyers, doctors, teachers, journalists) have been deserting the GOP in droves. We must turn that around.

Again, much as I love older white males, being one myself, they aren't enough by themselves anymore to win elections.We Republicans can't prevail with strong support only from angry white males, such as the McCain supporter cited above.

We don't need to agree with every group on all issues, but we do have to listen to their concerns, treat them with respect -- and ask for their support. We must not stereotype diverse populations and dismiss them as somehow contemptible.

John McCain desperately needs support from every group I've mentioned. If we imply otherwise, we're playing a role in sinking John McCain's heroic effort.

Note: John McCain needs your love and support, but he also needs your money to remain competitive. Obama has raised a whole lot more money than McCain. So, please click on this link and make a contribution


There are a few (blessedly few) people who are supposedly McCain supporters who are doing everything possible to damage John's chance of winning. I sent out the following ABOUT them, although not too them.In regard to some e-mails I sent out today, I always got a kick out of the line in Apocalypse Now that goes, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." I also like the following line, "It smells like victory."The McCain Campaign should take the following as its motto: "We are well behind now, but we are committed to doing everything it takes to prevail." As Churchill once said, "Victory at all costs."I remember in 1967, during Israel's war with ALL the Arab states, my wife nervously asked me, "How is little Israel doing?" I said, "It appears they are fighting on five fronts and winning on all of them." Anyone who wants a good summer read should take a look at (Major and Professor) Michael Oren's book The Six-Day War, especially the part about how the Israelis destroyed the entire (and huge) Egyptian air force in a period of about two hours. (Hosni Mubarak was one of the Egyptian pilots.)Israel likes to wage wars by committee, with a whole bunch of politicans exerting "administrative control" supposedly, conducting endless debates, and taking votes (and usually not taking votes). The way miltary people like Ariel Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin, and Moshe Dayan got around that was by basically ignoring the committee. Since they won, all was forgiven (and they also let the politicians take credit).

Visit Meghan McCain's Web Site

You saw the prediction here first: On March 5, Senator Hillary Clinton will suspend her presidential campaign. That was a white flag she was waving last night.

One web site that's a real pleasure to visit is McCain Blogette.com done by John's and Cindy's daughter, Meghan McCain, with the assistance of her friends, photographer Heather Brand and film and video producer Shannon Brae. Be sure to leave a comment for Meghan, a recent graduate in Art History from Columbia University. (I took two art history courses as an undergraduate at the University of Rochester, and I absolutely loved them.)

As I mentioned previously, Adam Brickley, a Colorado State student and founder of the Draft Sarah Palin Movement, and I will be on Douglas Gibbs's Blog Talk Radio show, Political Pistachio, on Monday at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. We'll be discussing Gov. Palin's chances of getting the VP nomination as well as matters related to John McCain and Barack Obama. Both Adam and I believe Mrs. Clinton's campaign is on life-support. If you'd like, you can call in.

If you're looking for columns about John McCain's strengths and Barack Obama's deficiencies, scroll down and you'll find a garden of earthly delights.


This weekend (Saturday and Sunday) I'm going to write about the "Obama Phenomenon." I've been quoting an extreme left-wing law professor at Harvard named Lawrence Tribe. He believes Supreme Court justices should look at the Constitution as an Etch-a-Sketch on which they transcribe their fondest (left-wing) hopes and dreams. He says Barack Obama is "brilliant," which I fear means Obama agrees in all relevant matters with Prof. Tribe.

On my side, I've described Obama as a combination of rhetorical genius and an intellectual simpleton. I doubt there's a way Prof. Tribe and I can resolve our differences.

If you wish, take a quick trip to Wikipedia.com and look up the movie "Being There," one of Peter Sellers' last films. The protagonist is a man (mis-) named Chauncey Gardiner, whose simple platitudes impress people to the point that they see him as a future President. Barack Obama, meet Chauncey Gardiner. Can we really say that? "Yes, we can!"

New York Times Disgrace, "Obamanomics"

New York Times: Disgraceful Behavior

Michael Schuyler, who administers McCain Victory 08, which, if you're a blogger, you should join today, wrote the following letter to the New York Times regarding its smear-campaign against Senator John McCain.

Well, it's painfully obvious Jayson Blair [the reporter who made up many stories and whose activities resulted in the firing of the Times’ executive editor and the managing editor} is still working for the New York Times, a venerable name in American newspaper history that has fallen to the depths of the National Enquirer with unsubstantiated, sensationalistic stories such as the one today on John McCain. As they say: "You got nothin'!" and the fact that they ran such a story shows to what depths of journalistic malfeasance the Times has fallen.

It's no secret that newspapers have fallen on hard times as the Internet sucks advertising revenue and readership away from printed paper. Not only is Craig's List cheaper, it's more effective. The number of laid off news and support staff from newspapers around the country is nothing short of alarming. Unfortunately, newspaper management resorts to sensationalism to gain back readers by making every two-sentence tidbit in Police Blotter into a 'front page' story. Newspapers have done it to themselves by reacting this way, and by making up stories as the Times has done today.

The New York Times has become an institution without honor, without integrity. It's sad to see this happen, but the Times is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is no longer the case that any thinking person looks to the Times as a source of unbiased information. The Times, it seems, can no longer be trusted.

Read The Economist Instead of the Times

Michael, an excellent letter. I may be one of the few people in the nation (even the liberals are holding their noses) that isn't "disappointed" by the Times. But that's because my expectations for the paper are extremely low. It’s little more than a propaganda sheet.

A year ago, I started subscribing to The (London) Economist, which is far superior to anything I see in the U.S. Oh, in 2000, The Economist endorsed John McCain for President, and in 2008 they're getting ready to do so again. They see him as an honorable man who doesn't share the foreign policy fantasies of, say, Barack Obama. I keep quoting The Economist in my blog, hoping to influence a few other people to shell out $99 a year for it.

The Economist recently had a story discussing the fact that many things 40-45 years ago were a lot better than they are now. For example, we had one-third the rate of teen suicides. The divorce rate was much, much lower. The population in the penitentiaries was about 40% of today’s number of inhabitants in the lock-up. The rates of murders and violent crimes generally were a fraction of what they are today -- as were the number of abortions.

Someone like Barack Obama can't handle such facts, which they are of course. i doesn't lead to audience chanting, Hare Krishna style, "Yes, we can." An Obama can't -- while a McCain can -- say, you know, we used to do a lot of things better than we do them now -- or will perhaps do them in the future.

I hear the commercial with the far-left Harvard Law professor, Lawrence Tribe, talking about Obama's "brilliance." I don't see it. I see a person demanding that we redistribute more income and concentrate less on securing this nation from people who hate us.

Stephen Moore has an article in Friday's Wall Street Journal about Obama’s disastrous economic policies. Last night on the Glenn Beck show, More said that "Yes, we can" means, among other things, yes we can raise the effective tax rate for people in NJ, NY, and CA to 60%. See, the government gets sixty cents, and the people working their butts off get 40 cents. "Yes, we can?" But "No, we absolutely should not.” Call it Obamanomics.

Those of us who strongly support John McCain have a lot of work to do. And it's critically important that we begin today!

ME LIVE ON POLITICAL PISTACHIO

On Monday, February 25, I'll be on blog talk radio with Adam Brickley, who has engineered the highly successful Draft Sarah Palin (Alaska Governor) for VP movement. We'll be on Douglas Gibbs's Political Pistachio program at 7 p.m. Eastern time, and I hope you'll tune in. Also, call in if you'd like. Here's the link: http://blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio.

Doug has a great show, and one of his guests next week will be Kathleen Willey, who claims (credibly) that President Bill Clinton molested her in the Oval Office. Ms. Willey joins a long list of women (Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and many who remain nameless) whose relationships with former President Clinton have not been fruitful, to say the least.

On Monday, Adam and I will be discussing possible vice-presidential choices for Senator McCain. If you'd like to see Adam's site, something of a shrine to Gov. Palin (pronounced PALE-in), go to: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com.

Even if Sarah doesn't get the nomination, she is a GOP political superstar-in-the-making. She reminds me a lot of my Washington County, PA friend Diana Lynn Irey, who ran a heroic campaign in 2006 against the evil John Murtha.

This weekend I'll be writing about the Washington County, PA GOP and its web site.

Please see below about how you can contribute the campaign of an American hero, Senator John McCain.

Your Role in McCain's Winning

One important thing all admirers of John McCain can do is to contribute to his campaign. If you can donate $250, please do so. Or, if you can contribute $25, please do it. The Democrat's presumptive nominee, Obama, has been raising huge amounts of money from Moveon.org types, and it's essential that we help put John McCain on a more level financial footing. You can contribute by clicking on the Contribute to John McCain link to your right (at the top) or by going to the McCain web site and clicking on the "contribute" button. Thanks for your generous help.


Note: If you're from Pennsylvania, please go here to see my blog dedicated to the Keystone State. If you're from Ohio or New Jersey, please click on those links to find blogs dedicated to the McCain effort in those states. If you're from Oklahoma or New Mexico, click on those sites. In time, there will be blogs from each of the 50 states (listed as http://[statename]forjohnmccain.blogspot.com.

There's a need for volunteers to manage state blogs that are "waiting" for someone to take over. If you do assume that responsibility, you will receive all the help you need.

As a rough guess, there are about 35 million voters out there who are (or soon will be) strongly for John McCain. If each one who solidly backs McCain "teaches one," McCain would get 70 million votes, which would make him a winner. Frankly, everyone has a family member, or friend, or neighbor who can be brought into the McCain camp. It's that simple.

If people know you strongly support the Senator, then they're more likely to follow your lead.

(More to come Thursday afternoon. Please read the columns below about John McCain and this probable opponent, Barack Obama, in the general election.)

On The NYT's Smear Campaign Against McCain

From: [Political Analyst] Aaron Rizzio, Subject: Gloves off at NYT

[Reporter] Jim Rutenberg had been shopping this story around furiously to the New Republic and Drudge Report since late last year after the NYT initially refused to run with it. Drudge, apparently on the Romney payroll at the time, ran a teaser item on it on 12-20. What precisely has been developed since [NYT Editor] Keller spiked the apparent dead-end story last year is a question he should be prepared to answer. What we have are 2 apparently disgruntled anonymous former McCain staffers (who are they? were they terminated? who are they working for now?). This could end up being a good thing for several reasons 1.) if it ultimately goes nowhere and Keller takes institutional flak for running such a smarmy and sloppy hit piece on McCain he is effectively immunized against such weakly sourced rumor and innuendo going forward. 2.) It wakes team McCain up to the reality that indeed the NYT is not their friend and they cannot rely on the institutional "msm" to carry water for them here on out for the duration of the campaign. 3.) The NYT has really, really, lowered the bar for future hit pieces on Obama in this campaign cycle (from what promises to be a cornucopia of potential source material); although I wouldn't count on the NYT running any anonymously sourced hearsay accusations of Barack Obama smoking crack behind garbage dumpsters anytime soon. I like this line "even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee". You mean like Tom Daschle former Senate Maj Leader (and Obama backer) who's wife lobbyed against secured airline cockpit bulkheads prior to 9/11? That kind of thing?http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0201.mencimer.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS "LIVE BIRTH" ABORTIONS

I wrote the following to a Yahoo Group of Black Conservatives (I desegregated the group) today regarding Mark McKinnon, who said he would leave his position as an advertising consultant in the McCain Campaign if Obama is the nominee:

I have heard (on MSNBC) that Mark McKinnon is basically a hired gun -- and a Democrat. If he disagrees with Obama on "several fundamental issues," as he says, then he would seem to have a moral obligation as an American to oppose Obama. That's what the political process is (supposedly) about. Thus, McKinnon seems to be cultivating his 15-minutes-of-fame.

I've been accused of launching attacks on Barack Obama. Let me be clear on that point.I have attackedObama on my blog and elsewhere on what are basically character issues. I agree with John McCain that there are many signs that Barack -- a words-man -- is not a man of his word. McCain was talking about Obama's on-again, off-again pledge to accept public financing in the general election.

In January, 2006, Obama said the following to Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I will serve out my full fix-year term [in the Senate]." That was his commitment to the people of Illinois. When Russert asked him again if he would run for President or Vice-President, he said, "I will not." For him, words are air.

Earlier, however, in December, 2006, he had made a visit to New Hampshire, where he told a crowd he "would participate in the process," by which he meant the presidential election process. (You can find this information on p. 542 of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics. For his New Hampshire remarks, google Obama + New Hampshire + December, 2006, as I did.)

I've attacked Michelle Obama for words she said (about never being proud of her country until very recently). On MSNBC at this moment (4 p.m. ET), Michelle Obama is supposedly "clarifying her remarks." She is not clarifying anything. She says, "We've overcome diversities that we should all be proud of." Whatever that means. I thought we were in favor of diversity. We'd better be!

She's not suffering from gratuitous attacks. They're not based on thin air. They're reflective of positions Obama and his wife have taken. They need to be less careless with words, which are supposed to be their strong points.

Be clear on this: I will never intentionally say anything about them that's untrue. But if they want to assume the nation's highest positions, they shouldn't spew out nonsense.

One area where we won't hear any ringing words from Obama is on the subject of abortion.Barack Obama has voted against providing medical care in the case of so-called "live birth abortions." That happens (rarely) when an abortion is botched and the embryo is born alive, thus becoming a child (and an American citizen). This is the same Obama who is for "universal health care" -- except, of course, in the case of a child gasping for life.

(Barone's words on this follow: "He voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who surived abortions . . . ). That's not exactly a position which is going to "bring the nation together," as Obama claims is his goal. When he and Michelle talk about their concern for America's children, we need to press them on exactly which children get excluded.

They preach unity, but they practice the worst forms of division. Yes, Obama, the political preacher man, has a 'dream." But with many of his extreme views, the question is how he can sleep at night.

Obama and the Politics of Fantasy

It's absolutey critical to "introduce" the American people to Barack Obama, and John McCain and Cindy McCain were doing just that yesterday. Among other things, McCain said something quite fascinating, that Obama is advocating "a holiday from history." I don't advocate that as a campaign slogan, but it demonstrates that McCain has Obama's number. He's saying that Obama's "soaring rhetoric' has left the stratosphere and totally detached itself from reality. He is making promises he has no chance of keeping.

Unfortunately, some people will remain forever bamboozled, including the college freshman types mindlessly chanting "Yes, we can!" No, in many cases, you can't, as most two-year-olds learn when they turn 3.

Obama is talking about our society's supposed failures in regard to children. This from the guy who voted to deny medical assistance to children born alive in botched abortions. I guess "universal health care" has its limitations.

In terms of education, Obama's "plan," like Bill Clinton's is to do nothing other than pay of the Teacher's Union. Parental choice? He doesn't have that "dream." Merit pay for excellent teachers? Not during his watch.

Health care? That means more patients, the same number of providers, and somehow lots of imaginary "savings."

As for the War on Terror, his goal seems to be to leave Iraq to al Qaeda and, at the same time, invade Pakistan.

He quotes JFK, but very selectively, missing the famous line about: "We will pay any price, bear any burden to ensure the survival of liberty." Perhaps Caroline Kennedy can remind her new hero about that one.

It's vitally important to defeat this snake-oil-salesman, the man-of-words who turns out (as with campaign finance) not to be a man-of-HIS-word.

AMERICA'S BARACK OBAMA PROBLEM

"America is not deceived by an eloquent -- but empty -- call for change." (John McCain, Tuesday night in Columbus, Ohio)

Pennsylvania's (and America's) Obama Problem is that the candidate -- and his wife -- don't think very highly of America. Apparently, Obama believes the country is seriously deficient and must undergo radical change to become acceptable to the Moveon.org types -- people who despise their own country -- who back him.

What does his wife, Michelle Obama, think about her country? She recently said, "[F]or the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction."

That from a Black woman who received her undergraduate education at Princeton -- and then got a law degree from Harvard University. Many years ago a conservative writer produced a book entitled Why Harvard Hates America. He didn't use Michelle and Barack Obama as examples of the university's distaste for the U.S., but he could have.

It's improbable that the country is ready for a "First Lady" who doesn't like America very much -- except when her husband happens to be a serious candidate for President. This isn't Mrs. Obama's first gaffe -- nor will it be her last. Every once in awhile, she will tell us what she really thinks, and those will not be pleasant experiences for her fellow citizens, most of whom didn't get basically "free rides" through Princeton and Harvard.

In my case, I went to the University of Rochester in my home town. I lived at home to save money. I worked during the day and attended the University's night school, because it was cheaper to do so. Finally, I ended up with a Ph.d. and a good-sized obligation in the form of student loans.

Yet I don't believe there has been a day -- or an hour -- when I didn't love my country. Everything that is good in my life derives mainly from my being an American citizen infused with this nation's values and opportunities. To me, America means "not less than everything." I'm very uncomfortable with Americans who don't feel that way.

Obama has based much of his campaign on his belief that the U.S. erred by invading Iraq and overthrowing the genocidal Saddam Hussein. However, lest we think Obama is a pacifist, he has said that we should invade Pakistan (of all places!) without that country's permission, a bizarre and even childish statement.

In the second Democratic debate, Obam said, in essence, that if terrorists hit two American cities, his response would be to have a commission determine why the intelligence system failed. In other words, he'd go looking for scapegoats, rather than respond decisively to the attack. He and his fellow Democrats, who have worked so hard to hamstring our intelligence effort, would accept no responsibility for the CIA's and FBI's limitations. His view of "change" when it comes to the intelligence community is to weaken it -- and then blame it for failings whenever that's politically expedient.

John McCain said last night, "America will not be deceived by eloquent but empty calls for change." I hope he's right. Obama will continue blowing smoke and some people will inhale it as if it's nectar from the gods.In his rhetoric -- his words -- Obama often echoes his wife's comments about not liking much about the U.S.

However, there's no evidence that a country run by an Obama-type would in any substantive way be superior to one where people basically run their own lives. He's asking us to change a free society into one dominated by cynics like Barack and Michelle Obama.

John and Cindy McCain understand what's really at stake in this election. Unfortunately, Barack (and Michelle) Obama don't.

OBAMA WILL BE THE OPPONENT

"It's time for Hillary Clinton to replace her speechwriter." Donna Brazille (Democratic Super-Delegate) on CNN speaking about how Mrs. Clinton had recently fired her campaign manager and her deputy campaign manager

"She [Mrs. Clinton] hasn't found her voice. She hasn't found her message. The Clinton Campaign should be fined for malpractice. . . This has become Barack Obama's to lose." David Gergen on CNN

Imagine that, all those years we spent hoping and praying Hillary Clinton would be the nominee and now we have been deprived of the "honor" of running against her. Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, will be John McCain's opponent in November. Of course, John McCain is one of the more conservative members of the Senate, an important fact lost on dimwits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter ("the crocodilian one").

At this moment in history, it's time we conservatives grow up and face political reality. Talk show simplisms about "amnesty" and "the Gang of 14" are little more than forms of malevolence. Choose ye this day, my friend: McCain or the Other Guy (Obama)?

Right now, Barack Obama is the Pied Piper leading all those multitudes chanting "Yes we can!" (do something or other all the way to the voting booth in November. Frankly, Obama is looking a lot like a winner, something I'm prepared to do my best to prevent.

I hope you'll join me. Will you?

CAN MCCAIN WIN "BATTLEGROUND" STATES?

On CNN (3:40 ET on Tuesday) Carl Berstein just said that the Clinton Campaign is portraying Obama as "an empty suit with great lungs." In this regard, John McCain can learn from Hillary -- and vice versa. Obama's "message of Hope" is a bumper sticker, not a vision for the country. Mrs. Clinton's strategy is to establish Obama not as a JFK-style visionary but rather as a windbag.


The example of New Jersey . . .

On the state blogs for McCain front, I'm managing the Pennsylvania site -- and I'd very much like so co-managers. It's not a lot of work, but it is a great deal of fun -- and it's for a very good cause, ensuring the election of John McCain. I'm TEMPORARILY managing the Ohio and New Jersey sites until we can find full-time managers for those sites.

If you'd like to volunteer or recommend someone, please do so either in the comments section or by e-mailing me at: TalkTop65@aol.com.

On the Garden State site today, I asked a fundamental question: Can McCain actually win a state like New Jersey? McCain has said he wants to pursue a 50-state strategy, competing in every one of them. I'm very much in favor of that approach.

New Jersey is a fascinating case. In 2000, George W. Bush got skunked there by Al Gore. The latter got 56% of the vote and GWB got 40%. In 2004, Kerry won the state, but only by 53% to 46%. In politics, 45% or more are the magic numbers, meaning that in a future race a state might just be winnable.

The following are excerpts from what I told the New Jerseyites:

New Jersey for McCain? Here! (link to the entire piece)

Can John McCain actually win New Jersey? I sure hope so. As some of you will remember from the 2004 election, George Bush started to get close to Kerry -- to the point that the Vice President paid a late visit to Jersey.

To win in NJ, a candidate must draw many votes from Independents -- and some votes from Democrats. The registration figures suggest that a strong Republican candidate with great appeal to Independents and Democrats -- that is, McCain -- can in fact prevail in New Jersey.

Yes, there are 1,150,000 registered Democrats to just 890,000 Republicans (according to The Almanac of American Politics). However, there's an amazing 2.8 million "others," 56% of the total. (The registration percentages in New Hampshire are similar.)

If Senator McCain can win a good majority of those "others," he can carry the state. McCain is not going to be able to outspend his Democratic opponent (probably Barack Obama, but possibly Hillary Clinton). However, as his campaign so far shows, he will outwork them.

To win, he needs a massive number of voluteers around the country. You can be one of those volunteers by taking over this blog. As the old saying goes, "If you not, who? If not now, when?"

If you're interested in volunteering [for NJ or another state] or would like to suggest a name, please e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com -- or leave a message in the comments section. Thanks for visiting!

Note: I hope you'll visit the operating state blogs, including Oklahoma and New Mexico. Please leave comments. John McCain will win because of efforts of people who are just like you.

Note: If you live in Wisconsin or Washington State, please vote today for John McCain! (We need blog volunteers from both states.)

See Christopher's comment on what states may be winnable. Christopher's fine blog is here.

State Blogs: Million-Vote Project

Why "independent" state blogs? Because people operating independently can accomplish a lot more than official sites, especially in the earlier stages of a campaign. The state blogs mentioned are not under the administrative or ideological control of the offical McCain effort (which you're also encouraged to join) or of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

These blogs should be places where all McCain supporters -- Republicans, conservatives, moderates, and, especially, Independents and Democrats, feel comfortable. That's often not the case when the RNC exerts control.

Also, independents can accomplish more than people who are part of an official structure. I mentioned the independent Democrat, a college student, who started the Obama MySpace site. He ended up, working with other students, getting 160,000 "friends" for Obama. Those people were a crucial element in Obama's wildly successful online fundraising.

The people volunteering to manage or otherwise participate in the state blogs are capable of similar achievements, and the only instruction they will receive is the suggestion that they "go for it." Use your own creativity and imagination to make sure your state goes for McCain.

(I'll say more about this subject, but for now, I urge you to read the column(s) below.)



Note: I put the following post up today on http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/. Click on that link and you'll find some additional information about the Pennsylvania effort. The state blogs and "The Million Vote Project" began this past weekend and is progressing nicely. We now have blog managers at
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/;
http://newmexicoforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/;
http://oklahomaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/;
http://texasforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.

You're cordially invited to visit all of them.

Within the next week, there should be several more states represented. Clearly, we need you and others like you to volunteer to manage (or co-manage) these state blogs for McCain. If you'd like to volunteer or suggest a name of someone who would like to do so, please either use the comments section or e-mail me: TalkTop65@aol.com.

Serving as a manager (or co-manager) should not be too much of a burden on your time, and doing so will be a major help to the McCain Campaign.We're especially interested in getting blog managers from New York, New Jersey, Florida, Illinois, Colorado, California, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, and New Hampshire. I have regular visitors from all these states (and others), and I hope people will step up to the plate.

All those blogs currently exist (with the state name followed by "for John McCain"), so you can see what they look like. (For example, http://hawaiiforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.)

Then, the next step is for you to volunteer as a manager. If you need help with the process, don't hesitate to ask me at TalkTop65@aol.com. The sites are all on blogspot.com, because it's relatively easy to use. The "look" of each state site will be the same, but the managers will all take different approaches on their blogs. Hopefully, each manager will reach out to all members of the online communities in their various states.

We're calling this "The Million Vote Project," because that's the minimum number of votes these United States blogs can influence in the direction of John McCain. Please volunteer today.

In regard to Pennsylvania, I'll be working this week to inform PA Republicans about the existence of this blog. I'll put up links to perhaps 100 blogs and ask the people to do the same for this blog. Soon, there will be a blogroll listing the 50 state blogs (plus a general one at: http://americanforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.

The Pennsylvania state blog will be a gathering place for supporters of John McCain, a site where people can share information and ideas. Senator McCain can win Pennsylvania in November.

But for that to happen, all his supporters must leverage their influence. This blog will help toward that end. Thanks for your help!