Hi Friends: This blog is only periodically active. However, I write nearly every day on two other blogs: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com and http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com. I hope you'll visit both. The material below was sent out today to my e-mail list, and it mentions both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Again, thanks to those of you who keep coming back here.
Artemis March is a excellent writer with great insight into the "Obama Phenomenon." She's been a staunch defender of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, although I admit her defense of the latter sounds much more plausible to me than her defense of the former. That aside, her pieces on the campaign and post-election period (in places like NoQuarter and The New Agenda) are very worth reading. She truly understands Obama's appeal -- and it scares her to death. She's worth googling. Her insights also contain the core of a strategy for defeating Obama in 2012 when, yes my friends, he will be running for re-election. :"The dog ate my birth certificate."
"Those caught up in his [Obama's] rhetoric feel like they are part of the "we," and that they are going to be part of something big and wonderful together. Others of us get an unsettling sense that even when he says "we," it's all about him, quite singular. We don't sense individuals in a crowd relating to him (as we do, for example, when Hillary Clinton speaks), but a fused entity lost in him. He is not offering to serve them or fight on their behalf. He is proclaiming that they can become part of him. Many of us get an eerie chill because this is the kind of messianic promise made by cult leaders, not politicians.
She says:"And that's just the beginning of the diametrically opposed reactions to Obama that have deeply divided feminists, progressives, and Democrats, and pitted friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, networks, interest group members and officials, former political allies, as well as demographic groups against one another. One of the things that keeps us so divided is that his devotees and even many of his converts seem to know so little about him yet consistently reject information that does not fit with their trusting view of him. Many pour out unprecedented-for "progressives"-nastiness, misinformation, and hatred to demean Hillary Clinton and then Sarah Palin, and to intimidate and even threaten those who don't agree with them. Their bullying has dominated campuses, caucuses, and the convention as well as the blogosphere and media. "Truth squads" aim to silence anything but unqualified admiration. "
"http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/16/anatomy-of-a-divider-part-1a-why-obama-cannot-unify/ [This piece and the related one are very worth reading]
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2009
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Gallup Poll is Misleading
About the new Gallup Poll showing Obama ahead NATIONALLY among likely voters by 2% and ahead by a somewhat higher percentage among registered voters (in the "expanded" model):I'll be writing more about Gallup's so-called "expanded" model, which contains some major flaws. The expanded model looks for a very high turnout among the "new" Democratic voters. We heard the same thing in 2004, where there was high Democratic turnout -- which was offset by extremely high Republican turnout.
We also heard in 2004 (from Gallup and others) that 8 out-of-9 Independent voters were breaking for Kerry, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.
In 2004, Gallup also said Bush would win PA; he didn't; and that Kerry would win OH, which he didn't.The expanded model over-represents votes in a number of states that Obama is already going to win, including DC (not a state), California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan. It doesn't matter in terms of electoral vote whether he wins those states 51-49 or 90-10.
Also, the "expanded" model doesn't include the Bradley Effect, which means Obama polls better than he does on election day (as happened in the PA Primary). Ironically, Obama's own internal polls (showing PA as close) are probably a better model than Gallup's.
On "likely voters": In past elections, between one-in-four and one-in-five "likely voters" did not vote. Among registered voters, the ratio of non-voters is significantly higher. I believe Barack Obama probably will win a majority of the votes cast in the U.S. However, because he's getting a disproportionate number of those votes in states McCain is NOT contesting, the Republican candidate conceivably could win a majority of the electoral votes.
That's a major reason for Obama's panicked return to Pittsburgh, which is the wrong city for him to visit, since he's already going to win the 'Burgh. McCain and Palin are going to the right places (including Beaver County, Hershey, and State College).
Note: If John Kerry had gotten 150,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won a majority of electoral votes. Yet countrywide, Bush still would have won by 2.9 million ballots.
If John McCain wins FL, OH, and PA, he will be the next President of the United States. Keep your eye on Zogby, which hit the 2000 race dead-center.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Palin Superior to Hillary
Mistakes made, lessons learned in the 2008 Campaign . . .
Karen [a friend]: At one point in the JustSayNoDeal atmosphere I gave a ringing endorsement to Sarah Palin. I was told by a Hillaryite that by praising Sarah Palin so highly I had upset her because, by comparison, I'd made HRC look bad. Actually, I said nothing about Hillary Clinton, whom I admit I don't believe is in the same league as Sarah Palin.
Let me be frank: HRC is obviously a Party first person. Sarah Palin is country first. Your comment about the "maverick" (i.e., naive) political participants is accurate. Frankly, the hundreds of thousands of hours spent on "Denver" and on wild flailing at Obama were a gigantic waste of time and money. The time expended on Denver should have been spent organizing -- and raising money -- to defeat Obama.
Sen. Clinton and her husband, both labelled racists (and worse) by Obama, have been out campaigning for their tormentor. The excuse given is that Sen. Clinton "has to do what she has to do." I compare that to Dosteoevsky's comment that, "If God is dead, everything is permitted." As long as someone like HRC is held to no standards, she "lives up" to that just fine.
One reason I like Sarah Palin so much is that she is not -- and will never become -- a Washington insider. She is incorruptible and totally fearless. The Hillary Supporters who have faced up to reality (and it is horrifying to say the least) will be great allies. The ones who remain in fantasy land would be no help to us.
You raise a point that Chris, Katie, and I have not discussed; the crying need for political training -- basically, to acquaint people with what works and what doesn't. Also, we need to inform people about how to build small organizations into large ones.
As for bloggers, they can be great assets. At times, however, we sounded like the second coming of the Tower of Babel. At our worst, we were all trying to produce a "knockout" (one more juicy expose) but generally didn't lay a glove on BHO. The birth-certificate non-issue was a classic case. I doubt 1% of the voters can identify the name "Raila Odinga." Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is of interest to almost no one.
What are Americans interested in? And of even more importance, what are they NOT interested in? I asked people many time to be brutally realistic with themselves, but that message didn't get across to many.
We also need to coalesce around a specific candidate. I've said I hope that will be Sarah Palin, but I'm open to other names (if there are some).
Karen [a friend]: At one point in the JustSayNoDeal atmosphere I gave a ringing endorsement to Sarah Palin. I was told by a Hillaryite that by praising Sarah Palin so highly I had upset her because, by comparison, I'd made HRC look bad. Actually, I said nothing about Hillary Clinton, whom I admit I don't believe is in the same league as Sarah Palin.
Let me be frank: HRC is obviously a Party first person. Sarah Palin is country first. Your comment about the "maverick" (i.e., naive) political participants is accurate. Frankly, the hundreds of thousands of hours spent on "Denver" and on wild flailing at Obama were a gigantic waste of time and money. The time expended on Denver should have been spent organizing -- and raising money -- to defeat Obama.
Sen. Clinton and her husband, both labelled racists (and worse) by Obama, have been out campaigning for their tormentor. The excuse given is that Sen. Clinton "has to do what she has to do." I compare that to Dosteoevsky's comment that, "If God is dead, everything is permitted." As long as someone like HRC is held to no standards, she "lives up" to that just fine.
One reason I like Sarah Palin so much is that she is not -- and will never become -- a Washington insider. She is incorruptible and totally fearless. The Hillary Supporters who have faced up to reality (and it is horrifying to say the least) will be great allies. The ones who remain in fantasy land would be no help to us.
You raise a point that Chris, Katie, and I have not discussed; the crying need for political training -- basically, to acquaint people with what works and what doesn't. Also, we need to inform people about how to build small organizations into large ones.
As for bloggers, they can be great assets. At times, however, we sounded like the second coming of the Tower of Babel. At our worst, we were all trying to produce a "knockout" (one more juicy expose) but generally didn't lay a glove on BHO. The birth-certificate non-issue was a classic case. I doubt 1% of the voters can identify the name "Raila Odinga." Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is of interest to almost no one.
What are Americans interested in? And of even more importance, what are they NOT interested in? I asked people many time to be brutally realistic with themselves, but that message didn't get across to many.
We also need to coalesce around a specific candidate. I've said I hope that will be Sarah Palin, but I'm open to other names (if there are some).
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I sent the following to 1,000-plus of my closest friends:
Dear Friends: I salute all of you who are involved in the Ground Game to ensure the election of John McCain and Sarah Palin. We need to reach out to friends, family, neighbors, and, yes, perfect strangers, to win on November 4.
The closeness of this election has been, at times, emotionally draining. But all of us have made many new friends and allies, some of them coming from unexpected backgrounds and political views. We need to ensure that never again does the U.S. have a presidential candidate like Barack H. Obama: inexperienced, unqualified, untrustworthy, and careless about protecting our country.
We in fact are going to take back this country. The goal of outstanding people like Chris Cook (http://modernconservative.com/), Jacquerie (http://wam98.com/), and Karen Hill (http://dncreform.com/) is to build organizations that will in combination be much bigger and stronger than the extremists' Moveon.org.
I urge all of you to join these groups now..We need to hang together and not demand total agreement on every issue, but rather aim for mutual understanding and unity on shared goals. There will be a lot more about this right after the election.
In her debate with the Washington Windbag Biden, Sarah Palin talked about an America chracterized by "liberty, tolerance/respect, and opportunity." That's a real good starting point.
God bless all of you.
God bless all of you.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Obama: Chicago Corruption, Terrorists
Obama and His Unsavory Political PalsThe steps bloggers and other onliners must take for McCain-Palin to win in November . . . Note, if you'd like to read my pieces on Hillary Clinton as a classic "Abused Woman," please go to http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.
For the most part, I couldn't agree more with Paul Z. -- bloggers need to be coordinated rather than consolidated. I would add that we also need to be more focused, not trying for revelations on 100 different issues. Obama's murky position on Jerusalem is one of those that will take 10,000 hours and get us 100 votes.
In a sense, we need to be brtual with OURSELVES, determining if our "pet" issue is really one that matters outside ur household. We have to know exactly what we're doing and be able to determine if it's going to win us votes. With me, it has been the Rev. Wright issue. Wright is an America-hater, a hater of White People, and a malicious liar. Obama spent 20 years in his Church, pressumably hooting and hollering along with the rest of the congregation.
Frankly, we can't assume that something that may be important to some pro-Isreael voters (Israel-hater Rashid Khalidi, for example) is significant to anyone else. I fear the same is true with Raila Odinga -- almost no one knows who he is. If he lived in Chicago, we'd be fine. When we have to tell people that they "should be interested in this or that," we've lost the battle.
The fact that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (and Biden was the third-most liberal) is clear and easy for people to understand. They are both socialists whose political philosophies are basically to buy votes with other people's money.
i suggest we also, focus on Obama's connections with unsavory characters, primarily Ayers and Wright. I do believe it's also an issue that Obama and his main allies in Congress have been recipients of huge donations from most of the housing and financial services companies connected with the financial crisis.
But again, Obama's "birth certificate" is not going to decide votes, even if it should. Obama's huge donations from Tony Rezko are important as part of his connection with unsavory characters throughout his political lifetime.
Obama's long connections with voter fraud -- ACORN -- could become a major issue. Sean Hannity has a program on it tonight (Sunday) on FOX News. It's already viral on the Internet.
Voter fraud is important because it's a way of stealing the value of honest people's votes.
As bloggers, we have to stop trying for exotic "home runs." We need to focus on a few issues that can determine the election. Obama/Axelrod would dearly love to send us on wild goose chases. We must resist the temptation.
Willie Horton, ONE issue, destroyed the Dukakis candidacy. The Swift Boat allegations, really one issue, destroyed Kerry. I'm sure there were hundreds of other "issues" in those campaigns. None of them amounted to a hill of beans. On the image above: I'd leave out Khalidi and Mansour, except in passing. Ayers and Wright should be the focus.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Ten Reasons Obama Dumps Biden
In Barack Hussein Obama's Own Words . . .
1. Barack: "Joe, when Sarah Palin said you were a "Beltway Insider and a pompous windbag,' the correct response was NOT 'Hey, will you look at the legs on that gal.'"
2. Barack: "Joe, I forgave your remark about my being 'clean' but did you then have to go and sniff me?"
3. Barack: "Joe, when I said 'presidents don't look like me,' you weren't supposed to shout out, 'No, they look like ME!'"
4. Barack: "Joe, when you reported you drew a crowd of 49 adoring voters, you WEREN'T supposed to include the Secret Service detail."
5. Barack: "Joe your 'lipstick on a pig' line about Palin was NOT WELL RECEIVED."
6. Barack: "Joe in the whole vetting process you claim you 'forgot to mention" that Delaware's number of electoral votes is a grand total of THREE?"
7.Barack: "Joe, a gaffe now then is okay, but why did you introduce me as 'our country's first Arab-American President?"
8: Barack: "Joe, I don't think the best way to get on Michelle's good side is with a stream of 'Yo Mama' jokes.
9: Barack, "Joe, I admit it: when you said you got 9,000 votes in the primaries I misheard it as 9 MILLION votes."
10. Barack: "Joe, why did you tell an African-American audience that 'Even though Barack is more than 90% Caucasian and Arab, I can assure you his heart is Black?'
1. Barack: "Joe, when Sarah Palin said you were a "Beltway Insider and a pompous windbag,' the correct response was NOT 'Hey, will you look at the legs on that gal.'"
2. Barack: "Joe, I forgave your remark about my being 'clean' but did you then have to go and sniff me?"
3. Barack: "Joe, when I said 'presidents don't look like me,' you weren't supposed to shout out, 'No, they look like ME!'"
4. Barack: "Joe, when you reported you drew a crowd of 49 adoring voters, you WEREN'T supposed to include the Secret Service detail."
5. Barack: "Joe your 'lipstick on a pig' line about Palin was NOT WELL RECEIVED."
6. Barack: "Joe in the whole vetting process you claim you 'forgot to mention" that Delaware's number of electoral votes is a grand total of THREE?"
7.Barack: "Joe, a gaffe now then is okay, but why did you introduce me as 'our country's first Arab-American President?"
8: Barack: "Joe, I don't think the best way to get on Michelle's good side is with a stream of 'Yo Mama' jokes.
9: Barack, "Joe, I admit it: when you said you got 9,000 votes in the primaries I misheard it as 9 MILLION votes."
10. Barack: "Joe, why did you tell an African-American audience that 'Even though Barack is more than 90% Caucasian and Arab, I can assure you his heart is Black?'
Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama Naming Hillary V-P Candidate
One down (Biden) . . . and two (Barack and Hillary) to go. Sarah the Giant-Slayer . . . who has turned American politics on its pointy head . . .Hillary Clinton to be named Obama's V-P candidate . . . "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton) This piece is NOT copyrighted.
MoveOn.Org on the Move Away from Biden?
Bulletin at 10:30 ET: One of my fact-checkers just provided the following: She's a Hillaryite converted to Sarah Adoration. She's working to verify what she sent. "I just was told that MoveOn.org has pulled their Obama/Biden ads on facebook and replaced them with just a simple "Obama" ad.I can't find the sticker ad on my ad-board, I usually get it."
We have received information from sources high in the Democratic Party that, in a cynical, desperation move, Hillary Rodham Clinton will replace the hapless Joe Biden as V-P candidate on the Obama ticket. I will send out more information on this within the next hours -- and days. Hillary Clinton has said that Barack H. Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Presumably, he hasn't grown any more qualified in the past few weeks. As the saying now goes, "It took a Republican woman [Sarah Palin] to have the Obama Dems name a female to the ticket."
What the new campaign slogan? "I'm propping up an empty suit?" "He can sleep while I stay up till 3 a.m.?"
Scroll down for analysis of this stunning development
"Stand up! Stand up! And fight for what's right" (John McCain)
Much more information to follow later . . . This is the site that first broke the news that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate (scroll down).
Analysis of the coming "new" Democratic ticket:
When Sharon (OK), Jean (WA), and I figured out the story of the Sarah choice, I sent out e-mails that said "I hope I'm right . . ." Now, I know I'm right, even though you're not hearing it on CNN or MSNBC. Those people couldn't break an egg. My sources are from central Texas, Washington, DC, and elsewhere, and they are consistent truth-tellers and fact-knowers. Sarah and Jean are NOT the sources of this story, although neither one will be surprised.
One of the key moments in this development was when Joe Biden said in NH that Hillary Clinton would have been a "better" V-P candidate than he. I have been dancing around for days on blogs saying that "Hillary is coming . . ."
However, I believe McCain-Palin is unstoppable at this point, whomever the Dems run against them. There's no reason to disbelieve serious polls that show them 10 or more points ahead.
I feel as good about this story as I did about the Palin choice story two weeks ago. I will not name the people (three in recent days) who told me this is going to happen. I trust them all, and Democratic Party logic indicates that group will stoop to any lengths to try to win this race. After all, what's a few more months of humiliation for Sen. Clinton?
The "rumors" various people at Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission had during the run-up to the Convention that Hillary didn't get the nod because "she asked for too much" were true. (Of course, with the Obama crowd, one wonders if "too much" was a promise that she wouldn't have to make coffee for The Chosen One.)
Right about now, with the Obama Campaign falling like a boulder from the sky, Hillary can get (promises! promises!) just about anything.
Okay, on Biden: the one straw that broke "Joe Camel's" back was the fact that the Palin Effect is going to cost the Democrats many seats in the Congress. The Rassmussen Poll shows that the huge "generic Democrat" lead nationally in congressional races has disappeared. I believe this has been noted (and how!) by the Democrats now likely to lose their seats.
I also believe the "transfer" of V-P roles probably COULD take place as early as Monday, although it could occur somewhat later. Biden -- "health problems," you know -- will not be "sick enough" to drop out of his Senate race. He doesn't look any sicker than usual to me. He does look old and tired. He got 9,000 votes in the presidential primaries, his high-water mark in two decades of running futilely for President.
Yes, Hillary Clinton can endorse Obama, the man who labeled her a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. She can endorse the politician whom her husband claimed "played the race card" against him.
Hey, friends this is today's "Obama Democrats." Nothing lost save honor and integrity.
When I heard from the McCain camp (through the legendary "little birdie") about their "Biden Strategy," I thought it was a good one. Essentially, it said, "Ignore him. He's irrelevant, a windbag who's been wrong on every major issue of our time." Well said. If he makes it to the debate on Oct. 2, Sarah Palin will mop the floor with him.
We have received information from sources high in the Democratic Party that, in a cynical, desperation move, Hillary Rodham Clinton will replace the hapless Joe Biden as V-P candidate on the Obama ticket. I will send out more information on this within the next hours -- and days. Hillary Clinton has said that Barack H. Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Presumably, he hasn't grown any more qualified in the past few weeks. As the saying now goes, "It took a Republican woman [Sarah Palin] to have the Obama Dems name a female to the ticket."
What the new campaign slogan? "I'm propping up an empty suit?" "He can sleep while I stay up till 3 a.m.?"
Scroll down for analysis of this stunning development
"Stand up! Stand up! And fight for what's right" (John McCain)
Much more information to follow later . . . This is the site that first broke the news that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate (scroll down).
Analysis of the coming "new" Democratic ticket:
When Sharon (OK), Jean (WA), and I figured out the story of the Sarah choice, I sent out e-mails that said "I hope I'm right . . ." Now, I know I'm right, even though you're not hearing it on CNN or MSNBC. Those people couldn't break an egg. My sources are from central Texas, Washington, DC, and elsewhere, and they are consistent truth-tellers and fact-knowers. Sarah and Jean are NOT the sources of this story, although neither one will be surprised.
One of the key moments in this development was when Joe Biden said in NH that Hillary Clinton would have been a "better" V-P candidate than he. I have been dancing around for days on blogs saying that "Hillary is coming . . ."
However, I believe McCain-Palin is unstoppable at this point, whomever the Dems run against them. There's no reason to disbelieve serious polls that show them 10 or more points ahead.
I feel as good about this story as I did about the Palin choice story two weeks ago. I will not name the people (three in recent days) who told me this is going to happen. I trust them all, and Democratic Party logic indicates that group will stoop to any lengths to try to win this race. After all, what's a few more months of humiliation for Sen. Clinton?
The "rumors" various people at Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission had during the run-up to the Convention that Hillary didn't get the nod because "she asked for too much" were true. (Of course, with the Obama crowd, one wonders if "too much" was a promise that she wouldn't have to make coffee for The Chosen One.)
Right about now, with the Obama Campaign falling like a boulder from the sky, Hillary can get (promises! promises!) just about anything.
Okay, on Biden: the one straw that broke "Joe Camel's" back was the fact that the Palin Effect is going to cost the Democrats many seats in the Congress. The Rassmussen Poll shows that the huge "generic Democrat" lead nationally in congressional races has disappeared. I believe this has been noted (and how!) by the Democrats now likely to lose their seats.
I also believe the "transfer" of V-P roles probably COULD take place as early as Monday, although it could occur somewhat later. Biden -- "health problems," you know -- will not be "sick enough" to drop out of his Senate race. He doesn't look any sicker than usual to me. He does look old and tired. He got 9,000 votes in the presidential primaries, his high-water mark in two decades of running futilely for President.
Yes, Hillary Clinton can endorse Obama, the man who labeled her a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. She can endorse the politician whom her husband claimed "played the race card" against him.
Hey, friends this is today's "Obama Democrats." Nothing lost save honor and integrity.
When I heard from the McCain camp (through the legendary "little birdie") about their "Biden Strategy," I thought it was a good one. Essentially, it said, "Ignore him. He's irrelevant, a windbag who's been wrong on every major issue of our time." Well said. If he makes it to the debate on Oct. 2, Sarah Palin will mop the floor with him.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Palin More Qualified Than Obama
Sarah Palin is the political "hurricane" from Alaska, and American politics will never be the same. She's the kind of national leader that comes along about once in a century -- and the Democrats believe they're finished if they and their media minions don't destroy her. They will not -- and cannot -- succeed.
In the words of national columnist Jack Kelly, "Journalists last week cast aside the mask of objectivity to reveal they are so deeply in the tank for Mr. Obama [that] most have grown gills." (http://post-gazette.com/forum). Most MSM types hate Sarah Palin. Most Americans love her -- for obvious reasons.
If you scroll down to the post two Fridays ago, you'll see that this blog BROKE the story that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate. Frankly, I beat the MSM by 8 hours, since my story appeared at 2:30 a.m. I've explained how I knew it would happen and why I took the "risk" ("I hope I'm right," I said) of going with it. On that Fateful Friday, I had more blog visitors in ONE DAY than I'd had -- combined -- in the previous year.
In the words of national columnist Jack Kelly, "Journalists last week cast aside the mask of objectivity to reveal they are so deeply in the tank for Mr. Obama [that] most have grown gills." (http://post-gazette.com/forum). Most MSM types hate Sarah Palin. Most Americans love her -- for obvious reasons.
If you scroll down to the post two Fridays ago, you'll see that this blog BROKE the story that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate. Frankly, I beat the MSM by 8 hours, since my story appeared at 2:30 a.m. I've explained how I knew it would happen and why I took the "risk" ("I hope I'm right," I said) of going with it. On that Fateful Friday, I had more blog visitors in ONE DAY than I'd had -- combined -- in the previous year.I sincerely believe that on this blog and my others (stevemaloneygop and hillarysupportersformccain) you're going to find the very best insight and analysis about the McCain-Palin team and their opponents. I've been advocating for 18 months that Sarah Palin get a place on the ticket.
As this week unfolds, I'll be posting about many topics, including: (1) Why the MSM HATES Sarah Palin -- mainly because she's a normal American with tremendous capacity to upset Obama's apple cart; (2) Why voter intimidation by Obama thugs in the Black community is a national disgrace; and, (3) Why the McCain-Palin team has a chance to produce some dramatic -- and highly positive -- changes in American popular culture (briefly, Sarah is the kind of decent, caring person who can help turn around the "sliming of American society."
Is Sarah Palin qualified for very high office? To determine the answer, please read the following opinion piece from the Miami Herald:
The following is from the Miami Herald and titled, "Candidate Obama is not qualified"
Now that Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate and John McCain has tapped Sarah Palin as his, we know five definitive things about all four distinguished candidates:Three are qualified to be vice president; two as president;and one for neither position.
One: Obama picked Biden because of what he is not: white and experienced.
Two: McCain picked Palin because of who is he not: a woman.
Three: Biden is more qualified to be president than either Obama or McCain.
Four: Palin is more qualified to be vice president or president than Obama.
Five: Biden has been a senator for 35 years, chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees. McCain spent four years as a U.S. House member and the past 22 years as a senator, also chairing the Senate Commerce Committee.
Palin was a city council member and chairwoman for four years, mayor for six years, ethics commissioner for four years and governor for two years. Combined she has 16 years of experience.
Obama has been a state senator in Illinois for seven years and a U.S. senator for the past 3 ½ years, two of which have been spent running for president.
If anyone doesn't belong in the Oval Office, it is Barack Obama.
DON GREGORIOS, Fort Lauderdale
Friday, August 22, 2008
Barack Obama Hates Cristi Adkins
Cristi Adkins is mad as hell at Barack Obama, and she isn't going to take it -- his narcissistic, thuggish, dishonest campaign -- anymore.
[On Sunday, I'll reveal "Obama's VP Text-Message Scam." Was Obama really sending out 3 a.m. messages on his Biden choice? Of course not. He was deceiving people with an "information grab," gathering cell phone numbers from individuals he'll contact many times -- perhaps even at 3 a.m.]
Cristi is one of the most effective "Hillary Supporters", a woman who's working 14-hour-days to ensure the defeat on Nov. 4 of the man she calls "Hussein." She calls him that because she believes -- correctly -- that he has only a tangential connection to American values. His history demonstrates that he's much more at home in Kenya than in mainstream America, which is too "bitter" for his rarified tastes.
Obama and his sycophants despise what Cristi, a co-founder of Clintons4McCain and NobamaMission, is doing, and they've responded by initiating a campaign of hatred and innuendo against her.
Cristi is a mom (two teenagers and a three-year-old), a wife, a veteran (former MP), and a nurse. The father of her two teenagers just came home from a combat tour in Afghanistan. In short, she's the kind of American with whom Obama and his fellow elitists have nothing in common.
Why does she bug Obams so much? Mainly because she's frequent guest on shows hosted by people by Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon. She's even been on the "Daily Show." Right now, she's headed to Denver to "Just Say No Deal" to Barack H. Obama. She's a force in contemporary politics.
For that reason, she's been the target of absurd attacks by bloggers who serve as cheerleaders for BHO. Many of the people reading this blog. Were you aware that Obama PAYS his bloggers? Most of them get roughly $7 an hour, and some apparently receive much more. That would come as news to people who visit their sites and believe they're getting something approximating "straight talk." In fact, those bloggers are presenting all the "news" that fits with the Obama agenda.
In our own NoBama Mission Bloggers, a brainchild of Cristi Adkins and others in the NoBama Mission effort, we will have 200 blogs by the end of this day. How many of them are paid by anyone? A grand total of zero. They are all volunteers -- just like me, just like Cristi, just like the other tens of thousand of people who center their lives around the NoBama effort.
One thing Cristi is asked is why she works with non-Democrats. Well, DUH! She founded Clintons4McCain. She didn't found Clintons4Nobody, or Clintons4theheckuvait. If you're against Obama with us, you're among friends.
The NoBama effort is perhaps the most diverse coalition in American history. It consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even a stray Libertarian or two. In that effort, there are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. There are no far-left crazies or America-haters, unlike Obama's own scary group.
What binds our people of so many different views together is a commitment to the following statement: "Barack Obama is too inexperienced, too unqualified, too untrustworthy, and too dangerous to be POTUS." Anyone who shares that view is welcome in our coalition.
The hate campaign by Obama, his staffers, and his bought-and-paid for bloggers against Cristi is similar to the effort they waged against Hillary Clinton. Of course, she has been one of the more liberal members of the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate. Many Black members of Congress backed her bid for the presidency. Those who did so are now being punished by Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Charlie Rangel, one of the most important members of the House and a Clinton backer, has NOT been invited to speak.
For her efforts on behalf of civil rights and liberal causes, Hillary Clinton was branded by Obama and his surrogates as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. Geraldine Ferraro, also a long-time proponent of civil rights, was also labeled a racist, as was President Bill Clinton.
Given this background by Obama and his minions, it's no surprise that Cristi Adkins is under attack. Of course, she isn't being defamed for her statements about Obama, all of which are factual. Instead, they're trying to bleed her to death with a thousand pinpricks. She's accused of saying this (maybe) once, or of knowing this person or someone else, or of advocating this-or-that.
Does Cristi head right to the front-lines, where the chances of taking political shrapnel are the greatest? If you've ever seen her in action, you know she does. Also, she "pushs the envelope." She takes after "Hussein" in creative, imaginative ways. Most of these efforts work, and some don't, which is par for the course with risk-takers.
The main "charge" against Cristi is that she once was in a business venture that didn't work out. Big deal. There are probably 150 million Americans, including this one, who are in the same boat.
In fact, Cristi -- my friend and political ally -- is one of the single most effective spokeswomen in America against Obama. As long as that remains the case -- and it will through November 4 -- Obama and his meanspirited, robotic followers will try to destroy her. In other words, they will try to "Hillary-boat" her, just as they did the junior Senator from New York.
I have news for the man Cristi calls "Hussein." You will not succeed. You will not win this election. You are up against people who will not rest until John McCain send you back to the Chicago political machine that spawned you.
What can the readers of this piece do in support of Cristi Adkins, American? You can go to Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission and sign up as members of those organizations. Many thousands of people have already done. Please do it for Cristi -- and do it for America. Now.
Note: Below is the link to the Jim Bohannen show on which Cristi Adkins appeared. It's very much worth listening to.
http://search.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&index=8&col=en-all-public-ep&e=20600582&il=en&format=xml&num=10&scol=pod&mc=en-all&start=0&q=networks&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=1
[On Sunday, I'll reveal "Obama's VP Text-Message Scam." Was Obama really sending out 3 a.m. messages on his Biden choice? Of course not. He was deceiving people with an "information grab," gathering cell phone numbers from individuals he'll contact many times -- perhaps even at 3 a.m.]
Cristi is one of the most effective "Hillary Supporters", a woman who's working 14-hour-days to ensure the defeat on Nov. 4 of the man she calls "Hussein." She calls him that because she believes -- correctly -- that he has only a tangential connection to American values. His history demonstrates that he's much more at home in Kenya than in mainstream America, which is too "bitter" for his rarified tastes.
Obama and his sycophants despise what Cristi, a co-founder of Clintons4McCain and NobamaMission, is doing, and they've responded by initiating a campaign of hatred and innuendo against her.
Cristi is a mom (two teenagers and a three-year-old), a wife, a veteran (former MP), and a nurse. The father of her two teenagers just came home from a combat tour in Afghanistan. In short, she's the kind of American with whom Obama and his fellow elitists have nothing in common.
Why does she bug Obams so much? Mainly because she's frequent guest on shows hosted by people by Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon. She's even been on the "Daily Show." Right now, she's headed to Denver to "Just Say No Deal" to Barack H. Obama. She's a force in contemporary politics.
For that reason, she's been the target of absurd attacks by bloggers who serve as cheerleaders for BHO. Many of the people reading this blog. Were you aware that Obama PAYS his bloggers? Most of them get roughly $7 an hour, and some apparently receive much more. That would come as news to people who visit their sites and believe they're getting something approximating "straight talk." In fact, those bloggers are presenting all the "news" that fits with the Obama agenda.
In our own NoBama Mission Bloggers, a brainchild of Cristi Adkins and others in the NoBama Mission effort, we will have 200 blogs by the end of this day. How many of them are paid by anyone? A grand total of zero. They are all volunteers -- just like me, just like Cristi, just like the other tens of thousand of people who center their lives around the NoBama effort.
One thing Cristi is asked is why she works with non-Democrats. Well, DUH! She founded Clintons4McCain. She didn't found Clintons4Nobody, or Clintons4theheckuvait. If you're against Obama with us, you're among friends.
The NoBama effort is perhaps the most diverse coalition in American history. It consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even a stray Libertarian or two. In that effort, there are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. There are no far-left crazies or America-haters, unlike Obama's own scary group.
What binds our people of so many different views together is a commitment to the following statement: "Barack Obama is too inexperienced, too unqualified, too untrustworthy, and too dangerous to be POTUS." Anyone who shares that view is welcome in our coalition.
The hate campaign by Obama, his staffers, and his bought-and-paid for bloggers against Cristi is similar to the effort they waged against Hillary Clinton. Of course, she has been one of the more liberal members of the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate. Many Black members of Congress backed her bid for the presidency. Those who did so are now being punished by Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Charlie Rangel, one of the most important members of the House and a Clinton backer, has NOT been invited to speak.
For her efforts on behalf of civil rights and liberal causes, Hillary Clinton was branded by Obama and his surrogates as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. Geraldine Ferraro, also a long-time proponent of civil rights, was also labeled a racist, as was President Bill Clinton.
Given this background by Obama and his minions, it's no surprise that Cristi Adkins is under attack. Of course, she isn't being defamed for her statements about Obama, all of which are factual. Instead, they're trying to bleed her to death with a thousand pinpricks. She's accused of saying this (maybe) once, or of knowing this person or someone else, or of advocating this-or-that.
Does Cristi head right to the front-lines, where the chances of taking political shrapnel are the greatest? If you've ever seen her in action, you know she does. Also, she "pushs the envelope." She takes after "Hussein" in creative, imaginative ways. Most of these efforts work, and some don't, which is par for the course with risk-takers.
The main "charge" against Cristi is that she once was in a business venture that didn't work out. Big deal. There are probably 150 million Americans, including this one, who are in the same boat.
In fact, Cristi -- my friend and political ally -- is one of the single most effective spokeswomen in America against Obama. As long as that remains the case -- and it will through November 4 -- Obama and his meanspirited, robotic followers will try to destroy her. In other words, they will try to "Hillary-boat" her, just as they did the junior Senator from New York.
I have news for the man Cristi calls "Hussein." You will not succeed. You will not win this election. You are up against people who will not rest until John McCain send you back to the Chicago political machine that spawned you.
What can the readers of this piece do in support of Cristi Adkins, American? You can go to Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission and sign up as members of those organizations. Many thousands of people have already done. Please do it for Cristi -- and do it for America. Now.
Note: Below is the link to the Jim Bohannen show on which Cristi Adkins appeared. It's very much worth listening to.
http://search.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&index=8&col=en-all-public-ep&e=20600582&il=en&format=xml&num=10&scol=pod&mc=en-all&start=0&q=networks&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=1
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Is Obama an American Citizen?
Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?
With less than 90 days to go, Team Obama has not yet released the following fairly routine requests for documents. Surely we. the People have the right to know who we are going to entrust with our country before we give him the keys.
1.Certified Copy of original Birth certificate
2.Columbia College records
3.Columbia Thesis paper
4.Certification of Live Birth showing where born
5.Harvard College records
6.Illinois State Senate records
7.Illinois State Senate schedule
8.Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9.Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
10Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11.Occidental College records
12.Parent's Marriage Certificate
13.Record of baptism
14.Selective Service Registration
15.Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16.Scholarly articles17.Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
And finally, Senator Obama, the People would like to meet your maternal grandmother. Why wont you allow anyone to go near her in Hawaii. She can hardly say something that could be fatal to your run for the President. Can she?
With less than 90 days to go, Team Obama has not yet released the following fairly routine requests for documents. Surely we. the People have the right to know who we are going to entrust with our country before we give him the keys.
1.Certified Copy of original Birth certificate
2.Columbia College records
3.Columbia Thesis paper
4.Certification of Live Birth showing where born
5.Harvard College records
6.Illinois State Senate records
7.Illinois State Senate schedule
8.Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9.Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
10Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11.Occidental College records
12.Parent's Marriage Certificate
13.Record of baptism
14.Selective Service Registration
15.Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16.Scholarly articles17.Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
And finally, Senator Obama, the People would like to meet your maternal grandmother. Why wont you allow anyone to go near her in Hawaii. She can hardly say something that could be fatal to your run for the President. Can she?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Will Bill Clinton Support McCain?
Note: On my HillarySupportersforMccain site, I have an essay entitled, "Why The Democratic Party Doesn't Exist Anymore." I hope you'll visit.
See also the following links re: Bill Clinton
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/does-obama-need-bill-
http://nounity.blogspot.com/
Bill Clinton has said that Obama -- and the Obama Campaign -- used the "race card" against him. He's also suggested they used it against his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In that assessment, the former President is right on target. Obama is now obviously trying to use race against John McCain -- the remarks about his [Black] face on the currency being the latest example. The Obama Campaign has long been trying to spread the idea that a vote against him is a vote for racism -- something they believe will scare Democrats into voting for Party rather than country.
It's time -- and it's almost past time -- for Bill and Hillary to step up to the plate. They need to renounce Barack Obama before the Denver Convention. Bill has said he'll be ready to speak out on November 5.
That may be too late. Bill needs to speak NOW from his heart and head.
Bulletin: Rasmussen: McCain Trusted More Than Obama On 9 Out of 14 Electoral Issues
I have a report from a credible source that Bill Clinton at the end of the Democratic primaries was talking enthusiastically about "President McCain." I'm trying to get permission to reprint the material I received. The problem is that it could possibly compromise a political operative who is working hard to defeat Obama -- but who earlier was working for HRC's nomination. That's all I can say right now, but I'm sure there will be more later.See also the following links re: Bill Clinton
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/does-obama-need-bill-
http://nounity.blogspot.com/
Bill Clinton has said that Obama -- and the Obama Campaign -- used the "race card" against him. He's also suggested they used it against his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In that assessment, the former President is right on target. Obama is now obviously trying to use race against John McCain -- the remarks about his [Black] face on the currency being the latest example. The Obama Campaign has long been trying to spread the idea that a vote against him is a vote for racism -- something they believe will scare Democrats into voting for Party rather than country.
It's time -- and it's almost past time -- for Bill and Hillary to step up to the plate. They need to renounce Barack Obama before the Denver Convention. Bill has said he'll be ready to speak out on November 5.
That may be too late. Bill needs to speak NOW from his heart and head.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Warning: Be Skeptical of Pollsters!
Sharon Caliendo, formerly from Ohio, now in Oklahoma and a Republican activist there, sent me the following link from YouTube -- it's an Ohio GOP ad, and Sharon says it makes her proud of her home state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkytVjgn-Uc Other states, please take notice . . .
Bulletin: There's growing evidence that Bill Clinton is NOT going to back Barack Obama. See my Monday column on: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. I've titled the column, "Bill, Hillary MUST Denounce Obama." See also the following link: http://purplepeoplevote.com/2008/08/04/clinton-remarks-bolster-mccains-claims-that-the-race-card-was-played/
"Don't always take at face value what pollsters tell you."
"A lot of people have gone broke betting that the pollsters are right."
One point to remember about Barack Hussein Obama is that he "polls" better (usually by 3 points or more) than he does on the day of the balloting. In contrast, McCain tends to do BETTER than he polls.
You may (vaguely) remember that in the Pennsylvania Primary (balloting on April 22) the MSM was saying that the race was tightening, and they even used their favorite phrase "too close to call." I predicted just before the Primary that Sen. Clinton would win by about 10%. She carried PA by 9.2% -- actually by a margin of nearly 15% outside Philadelphia County.
The results were similar in Ohio, where we were also told the Clinton-Obama race was "too close to call" and that Obama "was closing strong." Actually, he almost NEVER closes strongly. The undecided and the unsure (at least those who vote) almost always go for Obama's opponent.
The real situation in an election depends on the Likely Voters (those who vote with some regularity in elections). Obama tends to do well with "registered voters," a good portion of whom do NOT vote. (In fact, a significant portion of Likely Voters also don't vote -- about two out of ten or more -- but that's another story.)
Almost everywhere, voters who are -- or lean -- Republican are more likely to vote than Democrats. Also, on election day there are "exit polls" that tend to be presented as Gospel, but that can be very misleading. If you doubt that, just ask "President Kerry," who won all the (early) exit polls on election day in 2004.
Why does that happen? Because voters favoring the Republican candidate in a national (or other other federal) election tend to vote LATER than those favoring the Democratic candidate. That situation happens always -- in every election.
Also in 2004, some national polls (Zogby was one) said that last-minute-deciding Independents were "break eight-to-one" for Kerry. Again, "President Kerry" could only have wished that were true, which it was not. GWB won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, and the Independents generally vote for Bush. Pollsters are really bad at determining what late-deciding Independents are doing.
In 2004, Gallup responded to public pressures (from the MSM and Democrats) that accused it of including too many Republicans in their surveys. Gallup in fact changed its "gold-standard" polling template. It ended up predicting that Bush would carry PA -- and Kerry would carry Ohio. I said at the time that Gallup seemed to have mixed up the two states. In fact, Bush carried OH narrowly -- and Kerry did the same in PA.
Gallup also suggested that Kerry might win FL. In fact, he lost it by 300,000-plus votes.
Independents are less likely to vote than either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, some people who claim to be "Independents" are in fact uninterested in politics. "Independents" in that category rarely vote.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Why YOU Know Obama's Dangerous
Tracy Karol is an Hispanic political activist in the Southwest. I'm proud to call her a friend . . .
By: Tracy Karol
It might be a subtle uneasy feeling…you’re not quite sure what it is about him, but you know something about Barack Obama is a bit, well, frightening. Dangerous, even.
It could be that you aren’t sure if he has socialist tendencies (witness his recent wild popularity in European countries with socialist leanings), or Muslim sympathies (he has received funds and endorsements from Muslim groups and even terrorists). The two positions are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so you don’t really know what to believe about Barack Obama.
You might think Obama is dangerous because he doesn’t seem to think before he speaks, unless it is a carefully crafted speech, of course, and those are often blatantly stolen from speeches of the past. When he does speak off the cuff, his remarks show his inexperience, like his comments about invading Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons – and again after he has oft said he wants to pull out of Iraq. Where does he stand on war? Who truly knows, since he will never admit when he is wrong.
You might think Barack Obama is dangerous because he never seems to tell the truth. He has changed positions so many times – flip-flopped, if you will – whispering to one audience what it wants to hear and another what it prefers, while the media turns a blind eye, so you truly have no idea what his policies are. In fact, he doesn’t seem to have any policies, other than “hope and change,” which are mere words that sound pretty but actually don’t mean anything.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because you have, by now, probably heard of his past associations (or not truly past; just tossed under the bus, for the time being): With Tony Rezco, the developer and criminal who helped him get his start in Chicago politics and was a close personal friend to both Barack and Michelle Obama, buying the empty lot next to their house so they could buy their home. He’s now in jail. Or with Louis Farrakhan, whom he helped organize the Million Man March, and who is known as the “black Hitler.”
And of course there is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for 20 years at his radical church, whose rants about AIDS were blatantly racist, who damned America and said our country deserved the 9/11 attacks, while Obama sat in the pews listening and later brought Wright on as an advisor to his campaign. And certainly with William Ayers, the terrorist who blew up buildings and also held fundraisers for Barack Obama. These are just a few of his associates…there are plenty more from where they come.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because he is inexperienced, he is a proven liar, he is radically to the left on the issues (witness his stance on abortion – going further than even NARAL would in voting against legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois, and his record as the most liberal Senator, a title he took away from Ted Kennedy), and if you’ve studied his tax plan you know that no matter what your income level, you will pay significantly more in taxes under his leadership than you would under John McCain’s.
Yet even with his radical plans, he is still against gay marriage, something most in the homosexual community don’t even know – so they support him, assuming he will back that cause when in fact he is only in favor of civil unions, the same as John McCain. While his healthcare plan would not only leave millions still uninsured, it would drive up taxes so high that those who most needed it would be pushed into poverty. Dangerous, indeed.
You know Barack Obama is dangerous for this country, and you know he is dangerous for you personally. There are many reasons why. He’s a study in contradictions. It’s impossible to point to just one, as it’s impossible to pin him down on any one thing. But one thing is clear: You know Obama, a dangerous man, is the wrong choice for America.
By: Tracy Karol
It might be a subtle uneasy feeling…you’re not quite sure what it is about him, but you know something about Barack Obama is a bit, well, frightening. Dangerous, even.
It could be that you aren’t sure if he has socialist tendencies (witness his recent wild popularity in European countries with socialist leanings), or Muslim sympathies (he has received funds and endorsements from Muslim groups and even terrorists). The two positions are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so you don’t really know what to believe about Barack Obama.
You might think Obama is dangerous because he doesn’t seem to think before he speaks, unless it is a carefully crafted speech, of course, and those are often blatantly stolen from speeches of the past. When he does speak off the cuff, his remarks show his inexperience, like his comments about invading Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons – and again after he has oft said he wants to pull out of Iraq. Where does he stand on war? Who truly knows, since he will never admit when he is wrong.
You might think Barack Obama is dangerous because he never seems to tell the truth. He has changed positions so many times – flip-flopped, if you will – whispering to one audience what it wants to hear and another what it prefers, while the media turns a blind eye, so you truly have no idea what his policies are. In fact, he doesn’t seem to have any policies, other than “hope and change,” which are mere words that sound pretty but actually don’t mean anything.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because you have, by now, probably heard of his past associations (or not truly past; just tossed under the bus, for the time being): With Tony Rezco, the developer and criminal who helped him get his start in Chicago politics and was a close personal friend to both Barack and Michelle Obama, buying the empty lot next to their house so they could buy their home. He’s now in jail. Or with Louis Farrakhan, whom he helped organize the Million Man March, and who is known as the “black Hitler.”
And of course there is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for 20 years at his radical church, whose rants about AIDS were blatantly racist, who damned America and said our country deserved the 9/11 attacks, while Obama sat in the pews listening and later brought Wright on as an advisor to his campaign. And certainly with William Ayers, the terrorist who blew up buildings and also held fundraisers for Barack Obama. These are just a few of his associates…there are plenty more from where they come.
You think Barack Obama is dangerous because he is inexperienced, he is a proven liar, he is radically to the left on the issues (witness his stance on abortion – going further than even NARAL would in voting against legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois, and his record as the most liberal Senator, a title he took away from Ted Kennedy), and if you’ve studied his tax plan you know that no matter what your income level, you will pay significantly more in taxes under his leadership than you would under John McCain’s.
Yet even with his radical plans, he is still against gay marriage, something most in the homosexual community don’t even know – so they support him, assuming he will back that cause when in fact he is only in favor of civil unions, the same as John McCain. While his healthcare plan would not only leave millions still uninsured, it would drive up taxes so high that those who most needed it would be pushed into poverty. Dangerous, indeed.
You know Barack Obama is dangerous for this country, and you know he is dangerous for you personally. There are many reasons why. He’s a study in contradictions. It’s impossible to point to just one, as it’s impossible to pin him down on any one thing. But one thing is clear: You know Obama, a dangerous man, is the wrong choice for America.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Obama Plays Racial Identity Politics
I've been writing a lot about Barack Obama's "politics of racial identity." As I explained, I've approached the stage of my life where I can live dangerously and -- I believe -- speak the truth about race. The other day a fellow leader in the Mission NoBama Movement talked about the psychology of Obama's appeal, where he appeals to deep longing and nostalgia in the American people. Ronald Reagan did some similar things, although not at the level of sophistication used by Obama.
This is a campaign about character (McCain's) versus charisma (Obama's). In this campaign, NONE OF THE ISSUES TRULY MATTER.
If you want to read a brilliant analysis of what's really going on, read Shelby Steele's superb essay on Black moral leverage and white guilt as practiced by Jesse Jackson and Shelby Steele. I reprinted it recently on my: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.)
I hope everyone will think back to a commercial from many years ago, the one inviting tourists to "come to Jamaica." Actually, the key line was to "come BACK to Jamaica." In the deepest part of our being all of us want to go back to a kinder, gentler (imaginary) time, usually our childhoods. The people who most admire Obama are invariably the most childlike.
A guy in the liberal New Republic analyzed the commercial and why it might have been the most brilliant ad of all time. The whole "come back" leitmotif touched the common chord in American that things used to be "better." The idea exploited was that American was a fallen angel, that we would perhaps never be as good as we once were (except, of course, unless we went to Jamaica).
The commercial was full of happy white people and smiling Blacks.The surface message was to go take a vacation in Jamaica. The New Republic writer said the underlying message was this: "Come back to Jamaica . . . where Black people are still nice!" In that time, like our own, some inconvenient truths rarely got articulated. But the New Republic author broke the code. He told us truths that we in fact knew at some level, but that we pretended we didn't comprehend.
In Shelby Steele's great essay, he notes that John McCain is obviously a man of "character" and "principle." He then adds, "Poor guy!" Of course, the character and principle work against him in politics, where an Obama can easily become all things to all people/voters, Black and white.
Mrs. Clinton and her campaign got chopped up by the Obama buzzsaw -- and the deep psychological messages. One hopes the same doesn't happen to John McCain.
This is a campaign about character (McCain's) versus charisma (Obama's). In this campaign, NONE OF THE ISSUES TRULY MATTER.
If you want to read a brilliant analysis of what's really going on, read Shelby Steele's superb essay on Black moral leverage and white guilt as practiced by Jesse Jackson and Shelby Steele. I reprinted it recently on my: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.)
I hope everyone will think back to a commercial from many years ago, the one inviting tourists to "come to Jamaica." Actually, the key line was to "come BACK to Jamaica." In the deepest part of our being all of us want to go back to a kinder, gentler (imaginary) time, usually our childhoods. The people who most admire Obama are invariably the most childlike.
A guy in the liberal New Republic analyzed the commercial and why it might have been the most brilliant ad of all time. The whole "come back" leitmotif touched the common chord in American that things used to be "better." The idea exploited was that American was a fallen angel, that we would perhaps never be as good as we once were (except, of course, unless we went to Jamaica).
The commercial was full of happy white people and smiling Blacks.The surface message was to go take a vacation in Jamaica. The New Republic writer said the underlying message was this: "Come back to Jamaica . . . where Black people are still nice!" In that time, like our own, some inconvenient truths rarely got articulated. But the New Republic author broke the code. He told us truths that we in fact knew at some level, but that we pretended we didn't comprehend.
In Shelby Steele's great essay, he notes that John McCain is obviously a man of "character" and "principle." He then adds, "Poor guy!" Of course, the character and principle work against him in politics, where an Obama can easily become all things to all people/voters, Black and white.
Mrs. Clinton and her campaign got chopped up by the Obama buzzsaw -- and the deep psychological messages. One hopes the same doesn't happen to John McCain.
OBAMA: BLACK LEVERAGE, WHITE GUILT
Note: The blistering attack by African-American scholar Shelby Steele on Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama is reprinted in full on my following site: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. It appeared originally in The Wall Street Journal. Below: "The entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt . . . ."
Mr. [Jesse] Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.
Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.
They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.
Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.
So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.
And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.
And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.
Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly. Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.
Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?
I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.
But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.
So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)
It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.
John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.
Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.
He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
Mr. [Jesse] Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.
Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.
They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.
Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.
So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.
And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.
And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.
Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly. Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.
Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?
I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.
But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.
So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)
It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.
John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.
Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.
He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Health Care: The Wal-Mart Example
If Wal-Mart ran U.S. health care, service would be better and the cost lower. We should be so lucky . . .
[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the coolum, where you can copy and paste the code for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. I'll be on the show this Saturday (5 p.m. ET) and all throughout August. Hope you visit!]
This is Part III of my series on health care . . . and why the Democrats' plans will be a disaster. The problem with health care in America is not that we don't Democratic plans that make us all increasingly dependent on government for how and where we get medical treatment. The problem is that health care (for reasons described in the columns below) has become separated from the private enterprise system, from capitalism.
Look at it this way: In a time of economic downturn, companies like Wal-Mart and Target are reporting sharp increases in revenues, while high-end department stores are floundering. Why is that? Obviously, people are fulfilling their retail needs at discount stores. They're voting with their pocketbooks. They're choosing to be more careful with their dollars. That's a choice we have in retail stores.
Where are the health care equivalents of Wal-Mart and Target? They don't exist. When it comes to medical care, it's Saks Fifth Avenue or nothing. My brother went into a hospital three years ago with a very minor ailment -- syncope, faintness -- and when he walked out 30 hours later, the bill was $22,600. He had no insurance, so various entities paid for it, one of which was you as a taxpayer.
We have no real choices in health care. In my area (Pittsburgh/Beaver County, western PA) all the doctors charge basically the same price, and the same is true of hospitals. When it comes to choice, customers -- patients -- have very little of it.
Beyond that, patients have very little knowledge of which caregivers are good -- and which are mediocre. We have less knowledge about health care providers than we do about choices in underwear.Also, if we're covered by insurance -- or by government payouts -- we have almost no incentive to shop around.
If we need a wart removed -- or an appendix -- we go where we go.Since we're not paying for it, at least directly, the service is basically free. Why should we care how much it costs?The health plans proposed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't deal with the problem -- and it's a whopper -- that I outline.The Democrats' plans talk about cost controls, but that's all it is -- talk. Those plans are recipes to drive costs up -- and services down.
Some people are mystified by John McCain's health care proposals. Basically, they're simple. He wants to bring the private enterprise system into play. He wants people to be able to choose their own insurers and level of coverage. He also wants them to be able to choose the quality of services and even negotiate the price of the services they purchase.
It's a very good idea. It won't work out perfectly, but it will begin the process of driving health costs down, increasing choice, and -- ultimately -- improving care.
The Democrats' proposals? They'll have the opposite effect, leading to all the bad results found in universal health care programs in Canada, Britain, and similar countries.
If Obama becomes President, prepare to wait in long lines . . . and receive indifferent care. That's what happens in Canada, and it's exactly what eventually will happen here.
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the coolum, where you can copy and paste the code for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. I'll be on the show this Saturday (5 p.m. ET) and all throughout August. Hope you visit!]
This is Part III of my series on health care . . . and why the Democrats' plans will be a disaster. The problem with health care in America is not that we don't Democratic plans that make us all increasingly dependent on government for how and where we get medical treatment. The problem is that health care (for reasons described in the columns below) has become separated from the private enterprise system, from capitalism.
Look at it this way: In a time of economic downturn, companies like Wal-Mart and Target are reporting sharp increases in revenues, while high-end department stores are floundering. Why is that? Obviously, people are fulfilling their retail needs at discount stores. They're voting with their pocketbooks. They're choosing to be more careful with their dollars. That's a choice we have in retail stores.
Where are the health care equivalents of Wal-Mart and Target? They don't exist. When it comes to medical care, it's Saks Fifth Avenue or nothing. My brother went into a hospital three years ago with a very minor ailment -- syncope, faintness -- and when he walked out 30 hours later, the bill was $22,600. He had no insurance, so various entities paid for it, one of which was you as a taxpayer.
We have no real choices in health care. In my area (Pittsburgh/Beaver County, western PA) all the doctors charge basically the same price, and the same is true of hospitals. When it comes to choice, customers -- patients -- have very little of it.
Beyond that, patients have very little knowledge of which caregivers are good -- and which are mediocre. We have less knowledge about health care providers than we do about choices in underwear.Also, if we're covered by insurance -- or by government payouts -- we have almost no incentive to shop around.
If we need a wart removed -- or an appendix -- we go where we go.Since we're not paying for it, at least directly, the service is basically free. Why should we care how much it costs?The health plans proposed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't deal with the problem -- and it's a whopper -- that I outline.The Democrats' plans talk about cost controls, but that's all it is -- talk. Those plans are recipes to drive costs up -- and services down.
Some people are mystified by John McCain's health care proposals. Basically, they're simple. He wants to bring the private enterprise system into play. He wants people to be able to choose their own insurers and level of coverage. He also wants them to be able to choose the quality of services and even negotiate the price of the services they purchase.
It's a very good idea. It won't work out perfectly, but it will begin the process of driving health costs down, increasing choice, and -- ultimately -- improving care.
The Democrats' proposals? They'll have the opposite effect, leading to all the bad results found in universal health care programs in Canada, Britain, and similar countries.
If Obama becomes President, prepare to wait in long lines . . . and receive indifferent care. That's what happens in Canada, and it's exactly what eventually will happen here.
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
Friday, July 18, 2008
Barack Obama: America's Smiling Stalin?
The newest blogger on NobamaMission Bloggers is: http://hickeysite.blogspot.com. This is a little-known blog that is often one of the best going. Its author is Pat Hickey, of Chicago, Illinois. Pat writes a lot about the dark side of Chicago politics (hint, hint). He also writes about the classic Chicagoans, ones who spend 40 hours a week (more or less) at work, then 40 hours at the local pubs (mostly near Wrigley Field it seems). Another 40 hours are spent getting chewed out by the spouse. Pat writes about Chicago writers (many of them patrons of the aforementioned pubs), who are not cited much by the national press because they, well, "dislike Barack."
Pat Hickey is a keeper. He writes in the Jimmy Breslin tradition.
On his July 19 blog post, he has information about Obama's "National Security Force," which should serve to keep people like Hillary backers and Republicans in line. Pat is not making this stuff up. He also has a great picture of Obama (see above) dressed in something that looks like one of Joseph Stalin's own military outfits. In keeping with Irish tradition, Pat is not restrained when it comes to free speech.
The point of the spear in the battle against Obama is the following site: http://clintons4mccain.com. It has great news and greater opinion pieces. If you want to join the fight to keep Barack in his Stalin outfit -- and out of the White House -- please join Clintons for McCain. If you're a blogger, please e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com to join NoBama Mission Bloggers.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
HILLARY CLINTON'S TIME OF TESTING
Dolores Bernal, a heavy-duty liberal columnist wrote an article about "How Hillary Could Still Ger the Nomination." I don't for a minute believe that will happen. Ms. Bernal's problem with Obama is that he "moving toward the center" and is not a real "progressive," whereas Hillary might be. Blah, blah, blah. I wrote the following response to a NoBama Group:
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world.
He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers.
So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama, become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world.
He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers.
So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama, become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
Boone Pickens & Bonehead Obama
In a message dated 7/10/2008 8:04:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, julia.ruhsam@yahoo.com writes:
Interesting, Steve; have you heard T. Boone Pickens' new TV commercials? They're running on the network national news shows. $700 BILLION of our U.S. money is transferred EVERY YEAR to foreign countries, the largest wealth transfer in history. We HAVE to develop our own energy resources, whether shale oil, coal gasification, wind power, hydrogen or some other alternative source.
Julia
It's interesting to see how much BETTER the Pickens ads are than either of the candidates' commercials! Pickens want to move toward natural gas -- bet he has a lot of it -- to power vehicles, and I can't disagree with him. I don't mind people getting rich if they do so in a way that benefits the country (e.g. Steve Jobs). Oil is a transitional fuel, but it's one we can't live without for the next 20-30 years (at which point I'll be safely dead).
I think Obama's panicked attack commercial on McCain -- waving around the name of "Bush" (rather than "President Bush") -- shows the uncouth man has no plan. Under President Obama, the price of gas will go to perhaps $10 a gallon and our economy will be destroyed. All those "good-paying jobs" candidate Clinton and candidate Obama talked about will have disappeared. I’m sure President Obama will figure out some way to blame “George Bush!”
Nuclear energy, which Obama and most Democrats oppose, emits NO greenhouse gases, but we can't have that. The House energy bill, supported by Pelosi, doesn't even mention coal, an important transitional fuel. Conservation of energy does not mean making fuel so expensive no one can afford it, but explain that to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats beloved to a small number of people.
I have up on my blogs the image of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. I mention that Carter's "energy plan" was for us all to wear thick sweaters and two pair of socks. Do I hear three pairs of socks, Barack?
Frankly, I'm almost serene about the strong possibility of an Obama presidency. It will be such an immediate disaster that he will be gone in four years. I hope the country will still be around. Hillary Clinton may well be his V-P, and she would go down with him. As for T. Boone Pickens, I never underestimate the man.
Interesting, Steve; have you heard T. Boone Pickens' new TV commercials? They're running on the network national news shows. $700 BILLION of our U.S. money is transferred EVERY YEAR to foreign countries, the largest wealth transfer in history. We HAVE to develop our own energy resources, whether shale oil, coal gasification, wind power, hydrogen or some other alternative source.
Julia
It's interesting to see how much BETTER the Pickens ads are than either of the candidates' commercials! Pickens want to move toward natural gas -- bet he has a lot of it -- to power vehicles, and I can't disagree with him. I don't mind people getting rich if they do so in a way that benefits the country (e.g. Steve Jobs). Oil is a transitional fuel, but it's one we can't live without for the next 20-30 years (at which point I'll be safely dead).
I think Obama's panicked attack commercial on McCain -- waving around the name of "Bush" (rather than "President Bush") -- shows the uncouth man has no plan. Under President Obama, the price of gas will go to perhaps $10 a gallon and our economy will be destroyed. All those "good-paying jobs" candidate Clinton and candidate Obama talked about will have disappeared. I’m sure President Obama will figure out some way to blame “George Bush!”
Nuclear energy, which Obama and most Democrats oppose, emits NO greenhouse gases, but we can't have that. The House energy bill, supported by Pelosi, doesn't even mention coal, an important transitional fuel. Conservation of energy does not mean making fuel so expensive no one can afford it, but explain that to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats beloved to a small number of people.
I have up on my blogs the image of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. I mention that Carter's "energy plan" was for us all to wear thick sweaters and two pair of socks. Do I hear three pairs of socks, Barack?
Frankly, I'm almost serene about the strong possibility of an Obama presidency. It will be such an immediate disaster that he will be gone in four years. I hope the country will still be around. Hillary Clinton may well be his V-P, and she would go down with him. As for T. Boone Pickens, I never underestimate the man.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
New York Captures Barack, Michelle
Barack and Michelle caught by New Yorker in a candid, unguarded moment as they do their signature "fist-bump . .
The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to the diligent Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”
Obama (shrugs incredulously): “I have no response to that.”
Remember Sen. George Allen's "Macaca Moment?" It cost him his Senate Seat in VA (he lost by 9,000 votes out of millions cast). Many of the images of Obama and Michelle are harmful to his campaign, which doesn't make me the least bit unhappy. The photos (National Anthem and many others) capture people in a way our finely crafted arguments never will. the New Yorker cover is NOT good news for Barack.
Is it fair? As JFK said, "Life is unfair."
Are we engaged in the politics of fear, as the New Yorker story suggests? It was not us who advocating invading Pakistan (an ally of sorts that has nuclear weapons); it was not us eho suggested re-invading Iraq; it was not us who said we would do "everything . . . EVERYTHING" to prevent Iran from building a nuke. If Barack is really running for GWB's third term, as the WSJ said, he's off to a great start.
Rranklin Roosevelt said we should avoid "nameless, unreasoning fear." Ours has a name (BHO) and it is not unreasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
