“We’ve discovered that Barack Obama was not born in a manger.” (Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader)
“This week in the New Republic we have an article comparing him [Obama) to George McGovern.” (Mike Allen, Politico.com)
John McCain speaking about the anti-Obama ad he asked the NC GOP to withdraw: McCain said the ad was described to him: "I didn't see it, and I hope that I don't see it."
I’m looking forward to writing this week about “The Battle for McCain’s Soul.” I’ve become increasingly convinced that John McCain is not being well-served by some of his advisers. Frankly, they are covered by a veil of illusion about the character of their main opponent, Barack Obama, and the nature of the campaign that will be waged against them.
Some weeks ago, Senator McCain went "across the aisle" to see his presumptive opponent, Barack Obama. McCain reportedly shook Obama’s hand, smiled broadly, and joshed with the Illinois Senator.
At the time on the campaign trail Senator Obama was saying that McCain wanted to continue the Iraq War for perhaps another hundred years. In terms of the economy, Obama, the Democratic Party, and “independent” left-wing groups were portraying McCain as the Second Coming of Herbert Hoover. Somehow, back-slapping and breeze-shooting didn’t seem quite the proper reactions on McCain’s part.
Unfortunately, John seems to regard the U.S. Senate as a gentleman’s club, something it hasn’t been for at least a generation. In the old gentleman’s club, of course, it would have been proper to give “the distinguished gentleman from Illinois” the benefit of the doubt. McCain does that when he claims, on the Chris Matthew’s “Hardball” show that, although Obama’s San Francisco remarks on small-town Americans (of which I’m one) were “elitist,” although he refuses to characterize the Senator himself as an “elitist.” Good grief.
Frankly, an elitist is someone who makes elitist comments. Barack Obama and his wife, who wants to become First Lady, regularly make such statements – as with Mrs. Obama’s “America in 2008 is a mean place.”
As for Obama, he says he “respects Sen. McCain for his [military] service to his country.” Apparently, he has found no other reason to respect the Senator.
In the case of the North Carolina GOP ad, McCain’s actions were not only wrong but irresponsible. He asked the Party to withdraw an ad that was thoroughly appropriate – and he did so without even bothering to see the commercial he was excoriating.Who “described” the ad to McCain – and who asked him to condemn it and call for its withdrawal?
I assume Campaign Manager Rick Davis was involved in the decision. If that’s the case, then McCain should be asking himself if he wouldn’t be better off without Rick Davis.
One of the “narratives” Democrats are going to spin about McCain is that he engages in temper tantrums. Some of the Arizona Senators former colleagues – one being Pennsylvania’s hapless Rick Santorum – are saying that he’s a bully. Heavy-handed actions such as the one directed against the NC GOP reinforce that image.
One other figure in the McCain Campaign is Patrick Hynes, who sends out daily updates about what McCain is doing – and what’s being done to him. Patrick’s updates regularly complains that the national media is “not doing its job” of looking in depth into the Obama campaign. He also notes that Obama is misrepresenting McCain’s stands on the issues.
With all due respect to Patrick, he’s being naïve. In fact, the national media – particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and NBC – see their “job” as advancing the cause of Barack Obama. Seeking fairness from such sources is like Diogenes looking for an honest man.
Is anyone from the above media outlets going to ask the Senator from Illinois if he shares his wife's distaste for and lack of pride in America? Not in this lifetime. Are they going to ask them if his monolithic support from Black people is skewing the primary results? Surely you jest.
The Senator’s hope for basic fairness in coverage lies with the “new media,” such as this blog. If he looks to today’s yellow journalists for support, then he’s looking in all the wrong places. People like Patrick Hynes have to acknowledge that fact and move on.
Also, asking Obama to be more honest in his descriptions of McCain’s issue positions is a request that’s never going to be fulfilled. Obama and his buddies in MoveOn.org look at Senator McCain, an authentic American hero, as a right-wing troglodyte and warmonger. Obama his left-wing supporters are the political heirs of the 1960s radicals who used to chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”
I don’t believe Senator McCain’s advisors are serving him well. They’re apparently not making clear to him the avalanche of slime Obama and friends are beginning to spew.
Do I know why the Senator and his key aides are taking the positions they are? Of course. The Senator wants to wage an honest and decent effort, one free of “negative” campaigning. They want to return to a kinder, gentler era – perhaps to the 1950s when Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson waged campaigns where there was nary a “discouraging word.”
When a candidate like Obama has major flaws -- in his policies, character, and associations -- it's not inappropriate to point them out. The McCain Campaign shouldn't have to rely almost exclusively on "Saturday Night Live" and "FOX News" to carry the fight against the Democrats. When Obama is behaving in a haughty manner, it's okay to use the "e-word," elitist.
My own advice to Senator McCain is this: understand the nature of the “enemy.” Recognize that when they make false or defamatory statements about you some members of the voting public are going to believe them.
Yes, the public generally expresses its disapproval of “negative” campaigning, but in fact negative comments – when they are true – are not gratuitous. If you doubt that, check out how Mrs. Clinton did in Pennsylvania. She "went negative" and won by a huge margin.In the battle for Senator McCain’s “soul,” it’s essential that the realists win.
It’s time to put the padlock on yesteryear’s “Gentleman’s Club.” Otherwise, Obama will end up controlling the campaign agenda – and McCain will end up losing the election.
As usual, comments are always welcome.
If any bloggers would like to use all or part of the above material, please be my guests. If you do use it, please give my blog links: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com or http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.
Showing posts with label Patrick Hynes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Hynes. Show all posts
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
McCain's Election Depends on YOU
Note: I have a new site that may win the prize for innovation. It's called: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. It's exactly what its name implies. I hope you'll visit and leave your thoughts.
John McCain's victory -- in your precinct, state, and country -- depends largely on people exactly like you. During the time between now and the General Election (November 4, 2008), I'll discuss ways that average Americans (and above-average Americans) can help ensure that John McCain becomes the next President of the U.S. Here are some basic steps you can take:
Tell your friends and family members that you're strongly backing John McCain -- something that will make them more likely to do so. You can do this face-to-face or through e-mails;
John McCain's victory -- in your precinct, state, and country -- depends largely on people exactly like you. During the time between now and the General Election (November 4, 2008), I'll discuss ways that average Americans (and above-average Americans) can help ensure that John McCain becomes the next President of the U.S. Here are some basic steps you can take:
Tell your friends and family members that you're strongly backing John McCain -- something that will make them more likely to do so. You can do this face-to-face or through e-mails;
- Keep yourself up on what's happening each day in the McCain Campaign -- by e-mailing Patrick Hynes at phynes@calypsocom.com and asking to be on his mailing list;
- Go to the John McCain store at: http://store.johnmccain.com/ to order McCain-related apparel, buttons, stickers, signs, and accessories. If you wear a McCain hat or tee-shirt, you're functioning something like a walking billboard;
- Visit http://johnmccain.com/ to find out the various ways you can back McCain, including making a small donation (or a large one!) to the candidate;
- Join interest or demographic groups for McCain, including O. P. Ditch's http://www.vets4mccain.com/. Col. Ditch is signing up tens of thousands of veterans who back their fellow veteran, John McCain.
- Learn ways you can use your blog to enhance McCain's chance of winning. A great resource is Kathy Morrison's at: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com/.
- Join Bard Marston's exciting new McCain site: McCainNow.com. It's designed to bring our combined power together in a fun and exciting form. Built on the same software platform as Facebook, McCainNow.com allows you to start your own blog, join or start discussions on our forums, and join or start your own group. As Brad explains, "We are already getting ready to roll out Wall posts, Friends Connections and much, much more."
- Make certain all the McCain supporters in your community are registered -- and that they vote on November 4. Explain that every vote truly counts.
- Visit blogs that continue good information and insights about the presidential race, including this blog or its mirror blog. I also blog about Pennsylvania at: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/. And, if my arms don't fall off, I blog at an innovative site called: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/. Although I don't support Hillary Clinton, I hope to work with people who have supported her but now lean toward John McCain.
- Here are some quick links you should explore: McCain Now
McCainVictory08
JohnMcCain2008
State Groups
Donate Today
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
MCCAIN: OBAMA'S "AUDACITY OF HYPOCRISY"
Brad (Marston),
I've been writing on my blog about what McCain can expect, not only from Moveon.Org but also from Obama. In fact, Barack Obama is NOT prepared to lead the USA and Sen. McCain should stop saying that he is. I respect John McCain's desire to conduct a "respectful" campaign, but that is not going to be possible, much as it would be desirable.
I told Patrick Hynes (I'll send my comments to you) that I expected Moveon, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama Campaign, to put up ads such as, "McCain: War Hero or Warmonger."
In the 2006 election, Democrat 527s and the Democrat Congressional Committee portrayed my friend Congresswoman Melissa Hart as a thief ("caught redhanded!"). Melissa is one of the most honest and ethical people on God's own green earth.
I recognize that the following material is nearly endless, but it's essential reading for those who want to understand the "character" of Barack Obama. I obtained it from Patrick Hynes, whom you can contact to send daily updates from the McCain Campaign (dhynes@calypsocom.com)
Another big “oops” for Sen. Barack Obama.
This morning on the “Today” Show, Barack Obama continued his dishonest attacks by actually claiming he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq. He actually said “we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.” Well, we did pull those quotes up, and in his own words, they clearly show Barack Obama’s dishonest attacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g
In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama offered this morning.
Note that yesterday morning, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod falsely argued that Obama had never charged that McCain supported 100-year war in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-cXV4Z2Hrg
I guess all that “new kind of politics” stuff was just a slogan.
OBAMA ON 100-YEAR WAR
This Morning, Obama Claimed He Has Not Distorted McCain’s Words On Iraq By Charging That He Supported 100 Years Of War In Iraq -- And Further Extended Dishonest Attack By Charging That McCain Support 100 Year “Occupation” Of Iraq
This Morning, Obama Said He Has Not Made Dishonest Charge That McCain Supported 100 Years Of War In Iraq. MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?” SEN. OBAMA: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)
But As Recently As This Weekend, Obama Has Repeatedly Charged That McCain Wants 100-Year War In Iraq
Obama On Saturday: “[McCain] wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years.” (Fox News Embeds Blog, 4/5/08)
· Obama: “And when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a hundred year war, a hundred years he says, as long as it takes.” (Mike Dorning, “Obama Fires Away At McCain,” Chicago Tribune’s “The Swamp” Blog, www.chicagotribune.com, 2/9/08)
· Obama: “[W]e are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years ...” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
· Obama: “[Sen. McCain] says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq ...” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Primary Results, Houston, TX, 2/19/08)
And Last Week, Obama Acknowledged That McCain Was Speaking About A Post-War Situation Like South Korea, Not A 100-Year War
“At The End Of The Exchange Obama Admitted That He Understands McCain Is Talking About The Korean Style Bases And Not A Hot War Like Iraq …” (Sunlen Miller, “Obama Claims Characterization Of McCain’s Statement On Iraq Is Fair,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, www.abcnews.com, 3/31/08)
· Question: “But I think that [Sen. McCain] talks about it in the spirit of Germany and Japan …” Obama: “And we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years. And he’s used that as an example …” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 3/31/08)
Non-Partisan Fact Check Groups Call Democrats’ Attack On Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment “A Rank Falsehood”
Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On “100 Years” Comment A “Serious Distortion” And “A Rank Falsehood.” “The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. ... There’s little doubt that McCain is less ea ger than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)
Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On “100 Years” Comment “False.” “Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)
Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Sen. McCain’s Position
The New York Times’ Frank Rich: “Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain.” “Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is ‘willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq’ (as Mr. Obama said) or ‘willing to keep this war going for 100 years’ (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where ‘Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.’ See for yourself on YouTube.” (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, “Tet Happened, And No One Cared,” The New York Times, 4/6/08)
Columbia Journalism Review: “Obama Is Seriously Misleading Voters -- If Not Outright Lying To Them -- About Exactly What McCain Said.” “Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s ‘100 years’ notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying to them -- about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it. … To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing. This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)
New Hampshire Union Leader: “It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It.” “You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it.” (Editorial, “McCain’s ‘100 Years’: The Democrats’ War On The Truth,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/6/08)
The New York Times: Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment. “But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3 …” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/08)
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: Obama’s “100-Year War” Attack “Is Simply Not What McCain Said.” ““[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)
The Associated Press: “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq.” “[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/08)
Fox News’ Carl Cameron: “[M]cCain Has Never Said He Wants War And Never Advocated 100 More Years Of War-Making In Iraq.” “[M]cCain has never said he wants war and never advocated 100 more years of war-making in Iraq. In January, he indicated at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that maintaining a postwar presence in Iraq would be fine...” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)
USA Today: McCain’s Comments Being “Distorted.” “[Sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or wounded)...” (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/08)
Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke: “The Charge That McCain Wants To Carry On The War For 100 Years Is A Total Canard.” “Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. ... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)
The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer: “A Serious Argument Is Not What Democrats Are Seeking.” “But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)
· Krauthammer: “As Lenin is said to have said, ‘A lie told often enough becomes truth.’ And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it ...” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Democrats’ “Hyperventilating Criticism Suggests They Either Did Not Read His Words Or Deliberately Are Distorting Them.” “Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)
National Review: “This Is So Obvious A Distortion That It Must Backfire Against Democrats Over Time …” “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse...” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)
National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: “This Favorite Talking Point Of The Two Democrats Presidential Candidates Is Bogus.” “Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)
On Obama: he has continued to falsify Sen. McCain's remarks about the "100 years" in Iraq. McCain made a mistake in giving Obama this kind of opening, and it demonstrates that John McCain overestimates the character of Barack Obama. Read Obama's "Dreams From My Father." The man makes comments about white people, including his mother and grandparents, that are right out of Rev. Wright's playbook.
Since Obama basically has no legislative record, he is running a race based on "character" and "judgment." On Obama's judgment, Sen. McCain has talked about the "audacity of hypocrisy." A man who is a hypocrite does not have a good character, and Sen. McCain needs to acknowledge this -- at least in his own mind if he doesn't state it publicly.
Some weeks ago, Senator McCain went "across the aisle" to say hello to Barack Obama. Apparently, Sen. McCain was all smiles, joshing with Obama and patting him on the back. Yes, this is reflective of the Senator's human decency, but it may show some naivete about Obama's character, which I believe is largely non-existent.
Brad, you have an access to the McCain Campaign that I don't, so I hope you'll present my views. I'm not trying to turn John McCain into a political rottweiler, but I do hope he will recognize some sobering truths about his opponent.
Right now, I'm watching the Patraeus/Crocker hearings on TV. I see Democratic Senators, including Mrs. Clinton, who are willing to endanger American soldiers -- and the American people -- in order to advance their political ambitions. I think Sen. McCain knows this is the case, but he is reluctant to admit it. He doesn't have to make these facts the centerpiece of his speeches, but he does need to understand them.
God bless all those working for the election of John McCain.
I've been writing on my blog about what McCain can expect, not only from Moveon.Org but also from Obama. In fact, Barack Obama is NOT prepared to lead the USA and Sen. McCain should stop saying that he is. I respect John McCain's desire to conduct a "respectful" campaign, but that is not going to be possible, much as it would be desirable.
I told Patrick Hynes (I'll send my comments to you) that I expected Moveon, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama Campaign, to put up ads such as, "McCain: War Hero or Warmonger."
In the 2006 election, Democrat 527s and the Democrat Congressional Committee portrayed my friend Congresswoman Melissa Hart as a thief ("caught redhanded!"). Melissa is one of the most honest and ethical people on God's own green earth.
I recognize that the following material is nearly endless, but it's essential reading for those who want to understand the "character" of Barack Obama. I obtained it from Patrick Hynes, whom you can contact to send daily updates from the McCain Campaign (dhynes@calypsocom.com)
Another big “oops” for Sen. Barack Obama.
This morning on the “Today” Show, Barack Obama continued his dishonest attacks by actually claiming he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq. He actually said “we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.” Well, we did pull those quotes up, and in his own words, they clearly show Barack Obama’s dishonest attacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g
In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama offered this morning.
Note that yesterday morning, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod falsely argued that Obama had never charged that McCain supported 100-year war in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-cXV4Z2Hrg
I guess all that “new kind of politics” stuff was just a slogan.
OBAMA ON 100-YEAR WAR
This Morning, Obama Claimed He Has Not Distorted McCain’s Words On Iraq By Charging That He Supported 100 Years Of War In Iraq -- And Further Extended Dishonest Attack By Charging That McCain Support 100 Year “Occupation” Of Iraq
This Morning, Obama Said He Has Not Made Dishonest Charge That McCain Supported 100 Years Of War In Iraq. MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?” SEN. OBAMA: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)
But As Recently As This Weekend, Obama Has Repeatedly Charged That McCain Wants 100-Year War In Iraq
Obama On Saturday: “[McCain] wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years.” (Fox News Embeds Blog, 4/5/08)
· Obama: “And when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a hundred year war, a hundred years he says, as long as it takes.” (Mike Dorning, “Obama Fires Away At McCain,” Chicago Tribune’s “The Swamp” Blog, www.chicagotribune.com, 2/9/08)
· Obama: “[W]e are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years ...” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
· Obama: “[Sen. McCain] says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq ...” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Primary Results, Houston, TX, 2/19/08)
And Last Week, Obama Acknowledged That McCain Was Speaking About A Post-War Situation Like South Korea, Not A 100-Year War
“At The End Of The Exchange Obama Admitted That He Understands McCain Is Talking About The Korean Style Bases And Not A Hot War Like Iraq …” (Sunlen Miller, “Obama Claims Characterization Of McCain’s Statement On Iraq Is Fair,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, www.abcnews.com, 3/31/08)
· Question: “But I think that [Sen. McCain] talks about it in the spirit of Germany and Japan …” Obama: “And we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years. And he’s used that as an example …” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 3/31/08)
Non-Partisan Fact Check Groups Call Democrats’ Attack On Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment “A Rank Falsehood”
Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On “100 Years” Comment A “Serious Distortion” And “A Rank Falsehood.” “The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. ... There’s little doubt that McCain is less ea ger than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)
Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On “100 Years” Comment “False.” “Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)
Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Sen. McCain’s Position
The New York Times’ Frank Rich: “Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain.” “Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is ‘willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq’ (as Mr. Obama said) or ‘willing to keep this war going for 100 years’ (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where ‘Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.’ See for yourself on YouTube.” (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, “Tet Happened, And No One Cared,” The New York Times, 4/6/08)
Columbia Journalism Review: “Obama Is Seriously Misleading Voters -- If Not Outright Lying To Them -- About Exactly What McCain Said.” “Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s ‘100 years’ notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying to them -- about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it. … To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing. This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)
New Hampshire Union Leader: “It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It.” “You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it.” (Editorial, “McCain’s ‘100 Years’: The Democrats’ War On The Truth,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/6/08)
The New York Times: Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment. “But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3 …” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/08)
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: Obama’s “100-Year War” Attack “Is Simply Not What McCain Said.” ““[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)
The Associated Press: “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq.” “[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/08)
Fox News’ Carl Cameron: “[M]cCain Has Never Said He Wants War And Never Advocated 100 More Years Of War-Making In Iraq.” “[M]cCain has never said he wants war and never advocated 100 more years of war-making in Iraq. In January, he indicated at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that maintaining a postwar presence in Iraq would be fine...” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)
USA Today: McCain’s Comments Being “Distorted.” “[Sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or wounded)...” (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/08)
Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke: “The Charge That McCain Wants To Carry On The War For 100 Years Is A Total Canard.” “Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. ... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)
The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer: “A Serious Argument Is Not What Democrats Are Seeking.” “But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)
· Krauthammer: “As Lenin is said to have said, ‘A lie told often enough becomes truth.’ And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it ...” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Democrats’ “Hyperventilating Criticism Suggests They Either Did Not Read His Words Or Deliberately Are Distorting Them.” “Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)
National Review: “This Is So Obvious A Distortion That It Must Backfire Against Democrats Over Time …” “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse...” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)
National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: “This Favorite Talking Point Of The Two Democrats Presidential Candidates Is Bogus.” “Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)
On Obama: he has continued to falsify Sen. McCain's remarks about the "100 years" in Iraq. McCain made a mistake in giving Obama this kind of opening, and it demonstrates that John McCain overestimates the character of Barack Obama. Read Obama's "Dreams From My Father." The man makes comments about white people, including his mother and grandparents, that are right out of Rev. Wright's playbook.
Since Obama basically has no legislative record, he is running a race based on "character" and "judgment." On Obama's judgment, Sen. McCain has talked about the "audacity of hypocrisy." A man who is a hypocrite does not have a good character, and Sen. McCain needs to acknowledge this -- at least in his own mind if he doesn't state it publicly.
Some weeks ago, Senator McCain went "across the aisle" to say hello to Barack Obama. Apparently, Sen. McCain was all smiles, joshing with Obama and patting him on the back. Yes, this is reflective of the Senator's human decency, but it may show some naivete about Obama's character, which I believe is largely non-existent.
Brad, you have an access to the McCain Campaign that I don't, so I hope you'll present my views. I'm not trying to turn John McCain into a political rottweiler, but I do hope he will recognize some sobering truths about his opponent.
Right now, I'm watching the Patraeus/Crocker hearings on TV. I see Democratic Senators, including Mrs. Clinton, who are willing to endanger American soldiers -- and the American people -- in order to advance their political ambitions. I think Sen. McCain knows this is the case, but he is reluctant to admit it. He doesn't have to make these facts the centerpiece of his speeches, but he does need to understand them.
God bless all those working for the election of John McCain.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
OBAMA: NOT AN 'HONORABLE" MAN
Patrick Hynes of the McCain Campaign sent me two e-mails today, one about Barack Obama's false, malicious statement that McCain wants to continue the Iraq War "for 100 years," and another about the Obama supporter who called McCain a "warmonger." I sent Patrick two responses, both of them making the point that McCain is being much too nice to Obama.
Response one: Patrick: Thanks for the piece on "Mr. New Politics.' I'm not sure that Senator McCain is aware what kind of campaign the Democrats will wage in the general election -- and are already beginning. John McCain seems to believe that Barack is a good man -- and even an honorable one. In those assessments, he is dead wrong. Obama is a Chicago pol whose main financial backing comes from Moveon.org types, and he's only too willing to do their bidding. It's time to start hitting back -- hard and often.
Response two: Patrick: I agree that bloggers should react to the Ed Schultz remarks (calling McCain a "warmonger") and the tepid comment by Obama's "spokeswoman." But that's not enough. John McCain has to step up to the plate and question the honesty and character of Barack Obama and his campaign.
He cannot proceed under the illusion that Barack is "one of the guys in the Senate," somebody to go across the aisle to, pat on the back, and josh with (as McCain did two weeks ago). Obama will interpret actions like those as a sign of weakness.
Steve adds: If I believe Barack Obama was an honorable man who loved his country I'd probably be voting for him.
After reading what Obama has written and what his "spiritual advisor" has taught him, I believe no such things about him. Patrick Hynes has provided a great deal of information about the McCain family's remarkable record of serving their country. The McCain family must be a mystifying group to someone like Barack Obama, whose life demonstrates service not to our nation, but to himself.
If you want to receive daily updates from Patrick Hynes with the McCain Campaign, you can do so by e-mailing him at: phynes@calypsocom.com. If you want to contribute to the McCain effort -- and I hope you do -- go to: http://johnmccain.com/ and click on the contribute button. McCain needs your vote, your vocal support, and your donations.
Note: Patrick was kind enough to reply to my comments above, and I responded to him:
Here's Patrick reply to me: Stephen: I appreciate the note. However, it would be a mistake and out of character for Sen. McCain to personally question Sen. Obama’s character. But we have already called Sen. Obama’s remarks on “100 years” dishonest and McCain criticized Obama himself:Here's my reply: Thanks, Patrick.
Here's my response: If a man makes dishonest statements -- even Hillary Clinton says Obama is "mischaracterizing" the 100 years comment -- then he defines his character himself. Obama is saying that McCain wants to continue the Iraq War ("live on CNN!") for 100 years -- and he will continue saying it. If he doesn't get challenged ferociously, then voters will believe it. If Sen. McCain thought South Carolina in 2000 was nasty, he hasn't seen anything yet.
Response one: Patrick: Thanks for the piece on "Mr. New Politics.' I'm not sure that Senator McCain is aware what kind of campaign the Democrats will wage in the general election -- and are already beginning. John McCain seems to believe that Barack is a good man -- and even an honorable one. In those assessments, he is dead wrong. Obama is a Chicago pol whose main financial backing comes from Moveon.org types, and he's only too willing to do their bidding. It's time to start hitting back -- hard and often.
Response two: Patrick: I agree that bloggers should react to the Ed Schultz remarks (calling McCain a "warmonger") and the tepid comment by Obama's "spokeswoman." But that's not enough. John McCain has to step up to the plate and question the honesty and character of Barack Obama and his campaign.
He cannot proceed under the illusion that Barack is "one of the guys in the Senate," somebody to go across the aisle to, pat on the back, and josh with (as McCain did two weeks ago). Obama will interpret actions like those as a sign of weakness.
Steve adds: If I believe Barack Obama was an honorable man who loved his country I'd probably be voting for him.
After reading what Obama has written and what his "spiritual advisor" has taught him, I believe no such things about him. Patrick Hynes has provided a great deal of information about the McCain family's remarkable record of serving their country. The McCain family must be a mystifying group to someone like Barack Obama, whose life demonstrates service not to our nation, but to himself.
If you want to receive daily updates from Patrick Hynes with the McCain Campaign, you can do so by e-mailing him at: phynes@calypsocom.com. If you want to contribute to the McCain effort -- and I hope you do -- go to: http://johnmccain.com/ and click on the contribute button. McCain needs your vote, your vocal support, and your donations.
Note: Patrick was kind enough to reply to my comments above, and I responded to him:
Here's Patrick reply to me: Stephen: I appreciate the note. However, it would be a mistake and out of character for Sen. McCain to personally question Sen. Obama’s character. But we have already called Sen. Obama’s remarks on “100 years” dishonest and McCain criticized Obama himself:Here's my reply: Thanks, Patrick.
Here's my response: If a man makes dishonest statements -- even Hillary Clinton says Obama is "mischaracterizing" the 100 years comment -- then he defines his character himself. Obama is saying that McCain wants to continue the Iraq War ("live on CNN!") for 100 years -- and he will continue saying it. If he doesn't get challenged ferociously, then voters will believe it. If Sen. McCain thought South Carolina in 2000 was nasty, he hasn't seen anything yet.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
McCain: Use Clintons in Commercials
If you scroll down one column, you'll see that I recommended John McCain "make nice with Hillary Clinton." My point is that many Hillary voters -- millions of them -- are there for the taking. I'd like now to go further -- and recommend that McCain develop commercials featuring Bill and Hillary Clinton. He could use them in the general election.
The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
I hope all of you will get on Patrick's e-mail list, which you can do by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
I hope all of you will get on Patrick's e-mail list, which you can do by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
A great resource for McCain bloggers and other supporters is Kathy's site at: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com. Please visit it.
Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:
Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%
“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.
Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.
The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.
Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.
Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.
If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:
Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%
“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.
Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.
The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.
Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.
Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.
If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Nationally: McCain Building Huge Lead
Note: I put the following material up on three state pages (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey). It applies mainly to Pennsylvania, but it's also applicable to just about every other state in the union. It's very, very good news. If you want to get up-to-the-minute information from the McCain Campaign, you can do so by e-mailing Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. In politics, Patrick is as good as it gets.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/keystone-democr.html
ABC News’ Political Punch Blog: Keystone Democrats Set To Defect
By Jake Tapper
In the new Franklin & Marshall College Poll (read it HERE) some good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and some troubling news for Democrats.
Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 51% to 35% -- increasing her lead from February, when she was up 44% to 37%. She leads among young voters, wealthier voters...voters in virtually every demographic group, with the exceptions of Philly voters and non-whites.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
Grim.
Note: I'll comment later today (Friday) on the above poll results.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/keystone-democr.html
ABC News’ Political Punch Blog: Keystone Democrats Set To Defect
By Jake Tapper
In the new Franklin & Marshall College Poll (read it HERE) some good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and some troubling news for Democrats.
Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 51% to 35% -- increasing her lead from February, when she was up 44% to 37%. She leads among young voters, wealthier voters...voters in virtually every demographic group, with the exceptions of Philly voters and non-whites.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.
Grim.
Note: I'll comment later today (Friday) on the above poll results.
Monday, March 17, 2008
You Can Join Team McCain!
Tomorrow morning (Tuesday) I'll give my thoughts on what I think Barack Obama will say in his "major speech" in Philadelphia about race in America. Short form: I expect the usual "deep baritone filibuster," loaded with self-serving rhetoric. Rev. Wright's anti-American statements are similar to many Obama heard -- and probably internalized -- in his years at Harvard (where Michelle also attended). He will talk about his "love" for America, but I fear the country he loves is one most of us wouldn't recognize.
If you'd like to get up-to-minute statements from the McCain Campaign, you can do by e-mailing your own e-mail address to: phynes@calypsocom.com. Patrick Hynes is one of John McCain's most important political operatives and a very fine human being. If you have a blog or groups (or an e-mail list), please tell people how they can contact Patrick to get the latest words from the McCain effort. Thanks.
I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, every dimes of which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks.
As national polls suggest, John McCain can win the election in November, 2008. However, to ensure victory McCain is going to need a massive effort online. That's where you come in. If you have a blog, or are a member of a mail Group (Yahoo or Google), or have an email list of friends and associates, you can influence the political decisions of others.
If people know you strongly support John McCain, they're more likely to do so themselves. In short, don't hide your political allegiances! Tell others exactly where you stand.
Obviously, John McCain is a great campaigner -- in good times and in bad. But the results of the 2008 election will depend on his getting support from his millions of admirers, that is, people like you and me. McCain has devoted his entire adult life to serving his country, and we can surely devote a relative few hours of time to returning the favor -- and making John the President of the U.S. Godspeed John!
(Tomorrow, I'll have an important essay about simplifying the Republican message in ways that will make it compelling to voters. Your comments are always welcome.)
By the way, you're cordially invited to vist my other blog, one committed to discussing the political situation in my home state of Pennsylvania. Go to: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
If you'd like to get up-to-minute statements from the McCain Campaign, you can do by e-mailing your own e-mail address to: phynes@calypsocom.com. Patrick Hynes is one of John McCain's most important political operatives and a very fine human being. If you have a blog or groups (or an e-mail list), please tell people how they can contact Patrick to get the latest words from the McCain effort. Thanks.
I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, every dimes of which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks.
As national polls suggest, John McCain can win the election in November, 2008. However, to ensure victory McCain is going to need a massive effort online. That's where you come in. If you have a blog, or are a member of a mail Group (Yahoo or Google), or have an email list of friends and associates, you can influence the political decisions of others.
If people know you strongly support John McCain, they're more likely to do so themselves. In short, don't hide your political allegiances! Tell others exactly where you stand.
Obviously, John McCain is a great campaigner -- in good times and in bad. But the results of the 2008 election will depend on his getting support from his millions of admirers, that is, people like you and me. McCain has devoted his entire adult life to serving his country, and we can surely devote a relative few hours of time to returning the favor -- and making John the President of the U.S. Godspeed John!
(Tomorrow, I'll have an important essay about simplifying the Republican message in ways that will make it compelling to voters. Your comments are always welcome.)
By the way, you're cordially invited to vist my other blog, one committed to discussing the political situation in my home state of Pennsylvania. Go to: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
