The more days this gets, the worse it is for Obama. Asked about it in Ohio yesterday, Obama had this to say

Well, I don’t think that General Clark had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads that we saw four years ago. I reject that analogy.

Yes, because the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were actually telling the truth, and Wesley Clark is criticizing John McCain based on his saying something that he never said. Think back to John Kerry, who made a satire of his own service because he would bring it up at the drop of a hat. He arrived at the Boston Democratic Convention in a mocked up swift boat, if you remember. This is something that John McCain simply does not do, along with mentioning the present-day Iraq service of his sons.

McCain has never said his military service solely qualified him for the presidency as Clark purposely and wrongly characterized it. It is one aspect, and one aspect alone. If I was advising Obama, I would say to lay off McCain’s qualifications. If those are the terms of battle, Obama will lose in a landslide.

This is an Obama trend, actually. Part of his strategy is creating opponent positions that do not exist, such as his claim that the Republicans were going to mention he was black (you must say it with a whisper), which has not happened, and won’t happen. Or that the GOP was going to spread the rumor he was a Muslim, which has not happened. Indeed, if you wanted to know who thinks Obama might be a Muslim, you should have been with me at the Hillary Clinton rally outside the DNC rules committee meeting last month.*

Obama has adopted a projection tactic, throwing this preconceived vitriol over his head and handing the empty bucket to his opponents. If they are smart, the Republicans ought to smack him back over the head with it.

*Someone remind me to getting around to posting some of the interviews I did.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

This morning on MSNBC, former General Wesley Clark, best known for laying a complete egg in his bid for the 2004 Democrat nomination for president, pronounced that because John McCain had no military command experience, his military credentials are questionably suited for the presidency.

Political junkies all around the world either smacked their foreheads or laughed out loud. I think I did both.

Only then, in an epiphany, did I realize that the military acronym “CO” actually stood for “Community Organizer.”  If it is otherwise, Clark’s screwball standards just damned his preferred candidate’s campaign to oblivion. If McCain’s 5 1/2 years as a POW, coming back to serve another eight years in the Navy, and in all, being a graduate of the Naval Academy, is irrelevant to McCain’s credentials to be president, then Obama ought to pack it up and go back to his comrades in Illinois.

Of course, unless Barack Obama’s executive experience in organizing communities is more substantive than John McCain’s military career. I’ll let the Obama-ites make the case for that one.

What’s worse, however, is Barack Obama’s faux slap-down of Clark, claiming that supporters of both sides should be held accountable for denigrating the other’s military service.

What military service a McCain surrogate would smack down of Obama’s is still entirely unclear at the time of this writing. Perhaps we will learn something new. Maybe his organized community troops called him “sarge” or something. I don’t know.

What we do know for certain is that a) Wesley Clark is an embarrassment to himself, and b) Barack Obama is manipulative and disingenous. These two things are certain, and the latter is starting to manifest itself more as a character trait than an anomaly.

Well, hell if we know.

Last November, Barack Obama thought the Washington, DC handgun ban to be constitutional. This past week, he declared his belief that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms.

Conveniently now in general election mode, Obama looked to the recent history of Al Gore’s 2000 gun problem, and quickly shifted gears.

But since we are told that Barack Obama is different, a change agent, the sacred lamb from God, etc. (monkey or Judeo-Christian, one is now unsure), we must look at this change of position not as that of a politician, but as that of a highly moral, well-trained lawyer, who once held the highest law school student post in the land as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. His legal research skills should be second-to-none. He ought to already have had a well-defined take on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Despite his flipping and flopping about, he does, actually. His real beliefs were exhibited in November, 2007, when he declared he did not believe in the individual right to bear arms. But now, with the new opinion in Heller, and the impending importance of those rural voters he contemptuously tolerates to his electoral chances in November, the tune must change. He has put down the trigger lock and picked up the banjo.

This is an important inconsistency - any time a candidate unequivocally poo-poos an express constitutional right then makes a 180 degree turn it’s news. The bigger story here is that Obama is just another politician.

Except that he is worse, in that his true ideas, which he is daily attempting to mask, are more fit for the socialist democracies of yore than the free capitalistic republic of tomorrow.  He will not run as a proud liberal. He will not tell use what all his proposed “solutions” would really cost the American taxpayer. Some of his more sparkling generalities betray his true intent (like wanting supreme court justices to “feel”, instead of think), but with great determination he is coding every far left policy proposal he would enact once elected. Plus, he’s already playing the race card, blaming the Republicans for doing it last week, when in fact no Republican has the guts to even touch upon the topic.

It is clear now. Barack Obama must be the love child of Al Sharpton and John Kerry.

However, Obama is messianic in one way - never before have we witnessed such a charlatan pitching his case so eloquently for ultimate power, while poorly pretending otherwise. The facade is a-crackin’. Let’s everyone grab a hammer.

Bob Corker has signed on to a bill that should garner 100-0 support in the United States Senate

Corker, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he joined more than 40 Republicans signing on to the “Gas Price Reduction Act” and indicated it could be debated in the Senate after the July Fourth recess.

Though it does not include authorization to explore and drill in ANWR, it is a start. The bill would allow for exploration in the Gulf, as well exploitation of shale oil deposits in the American West (the true answer to our energy crisis - read more here).

Alas, it will not pass the Senate, and would certainly die in the House, because Democrats in Congress (and everywhere they reside, for that matter), simply are not serious about energy independence. The proposals of their flag-bearer, the storied Senator from Illinois, are wrought with the ridiculous, focusing on known inefficient petroleum alternatives, such as solar and wind power. On a number of issues, this being chief among them, Barack Obama has shown an incurable penchant for offering childish solutions to adult problems.

Even if we tied solar cells on all our dogs, put mini windmills on their backs, and kept them plugged in all day, we would still not make a dent in energy production.

The real solution is more domestic supply, and at least this bill, though likely doomed to defeat, is a move in the right direction. Remember - our “oil addiction” is only a problem because we must import a disproportionate amount of it from the most backward, unstable places on Earth.  If the vast bulk of our energy came from within our borders, or international waters which we can patrol, all our lives change drastically for the better.

Why this concept is so difficult to comprehend befuddles me. One hundred and ten years of temperature data on a 4.5 billion year old planet, a selection of unreliable core samples, and a love of Arctic Circle wastelands, has birthed a religion that damages American well-being on a daily basis.

America’s greatest asset, which has over two centuries allowed us to do more good than any country ever fathomed, is our historically strong and fast-growing economy and the freedom that comes with it. Our nation’s energy policy and the environmental parishioners who fuel it are putting all that in immediate, and permanent, peril. World demand is increasing, and we are all trying to drink from the same, oligopolic tap.

Sheiks and Marxists are slowly dragging us to our knees, and apparently, some of us seem to really like it.

When speaking at a Planned Parenthood conference last year, Senator Obama said the following about how he would select judges if Americans show amazingly poor judgment in November and elect him to be president:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Yikes!! I’ve heard that Obama went to a pretty good law school. At some point, I’m sure he saw a photo of Lady Justice. Did he miss that all-important detail of her blindfold? Is wasn’t tied around her eyes just to serve as a flashy accessory.

Our justices are not supposed to walk a mile in the shoes of every person who comes before them and then get an emotional vibe on how the law should apply. These robed men and women are supposed to read the Constitution, interpret said document and then apply that interpretation to the question at hand. The decision reached should be the same whether the affected person (people) is black or white, rich or poor, ambulatory or sporting an electric wheelchair, etc.

The nomination of Supreme Court (and other federal) judges is one of the most important responsibilities given to our president, and certainly an important factor for me when I am looking at candidates. I don’t want a president who will let Lady Justice take a little peek every once in a while.

Okay, this is just odd.

Barack Obama is apparently a devout follower of Lord Hanuman, a brass monkey.

Perhaps his campaign song should have a certain Beastie Boys flavor to it.

I mean, if I was to go pagan, I’d probably go get a Zeus idol. Maybe even some Zule for a pop culture effect (and one of the greatest movies of all time).

But no, Obama, according to his Indian spokeswoman Carolyn Sauvage-Mar, has adopted the monkey god, best known for leading a monkey army to fight the demon King Ravana and rescue a kidnapped princess.

And all this time, we though the Trinity United Church of Christ was screwed up beyond belief. They are friggin’ mainstream compared to the leader of the monkey army.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

I am only prompted to write this after having watched MSNBC for the last half hour this morning, and seeing that MoveOn.org “Alex” ad about five times.

Look, you “3 million” MoveOn.org members (I use quotes, just in case they are using “Million” Man March math), the military is a voluntary entity. And anyway, the Department of Defense hasn’t quite gotten to the point where they send toddlers into battle - that’s the other side, the Muslim extremists, who blow up children in their twisted efforts to advance their religion.

Iraq is not Vietnam. Repeat, Iraq is not Vietnam (rinse, repeat, and repeat again). The only person to propose re-instating conscription is Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat. There are absolutely no similarities to the Vietnam conflict, other than our military is in a foreign land, which is hardly historically remarkable. The gloomy view of the future wrought by MoveOn.org against poor “Alex” is grounded in some alternate, ideologically skewed reality. The force size in Iraq is smaller by multiples than it was in Vietnam. The casuality rate, and the casualties themselves, do not compare. The enemy is not a surrogate for an enemy super power. The enemy has no government, and the desert is a heck of a lot harder to hide in than the Indochina jungle. Thinking of Iraq as Vietnam II requires a certain reliance on anecdotal reasoning. The similarities are immaterial.

Hence, “Alex”’s mother is just not that bright.

Then again, what if all this moot. Say that“Alex” is a patriot, and wants to serve his country when he grows up. Maybe he will be a Marine. In that case, MoveOn.org (or whatever bastardly progeny has taken its place by then) will still have the right to spend millions of dollars saying inane things on cable news.

And for it, they would be able to thank people like Alex.

Technorati tags: John-McCain, Election-2008, war-on-terror, Iraq, Del.icio.us tags: John-McCain, Election-2008, war-on-terror, Iraq, LiveJournal tags: John-McCain, Election-2008, war-on-terror, Iraq

I don’t like to brag, but I’m in pretty tight with a couple of the guys in food service over at MSNBC. Of the many fruits that come to bear out of such a relationship, one is the occasional leak on an important news story.

Apparently, Keith Olberman is facing the inevitable outcome of November’s election and he has already written his childish screed to be yelled on his program the day after we give John McCain the title of President-Elect. He left the draft in the network’s cafeteria atop a half-eaten banana nut muffin (So wasteful, Mr. Olberman Didn’t Messiah Obama tell you we are supposed to start caring about the poor and the hungry now?). I received it by fax late last night, and it is my journalistic privilege to share Olberman’s commentary with you here right now.

My fellow Americans, I am so disgusted with you right now that I can hardly look into the camera that I know brings my face in front of your fat, lazy forms that are molded into the couch. I had hoped that this election would bring a new day in America. I had hoped that the voters of this country would realize that we need socialism because most of you are too stupid to take care of yourselves. Most of all, I hoped that President Obama would invite me over for a slumber party. We would cook s’mores in the Lincoln Bedroom fireplace and he would say something to me like, “Keith, look … uhhh … I’m really not comfortable … with you not wearing … any pants.”

I’m going to sign off now. And tonight I begin a new Countdown Clock. It’s been one day since Americans made the biggest mistake in the history of this country. Good night, and may all of you in flyover country not wake to see the next dawn.

I believe in self-torture. That’s why I watch MSNBC.

Brian Williams, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and Tom Brokaw joined forces, looking all ruddy and sweaty, to celebrate the uber victory of the now presumptive Democrat nominee Barack Obama.

Adjacent to where Walter Mondale announced his defeat in 1984, Barack Obama announced his victory over Hillary Clinton. The response from the Obama cable network was….well, predictable - a sad parade of sycophantic pathetics.

On a personal note, I tire of my previous generation’s unrepentant pining for the fake glory of the 1960s.

In the midst of the excitement, Brian Williams seems to have caught a bit of the Dan Rather bug, SNL style. After a bout of immeasurable fluffery, cogent to only the most gratuitous of forgiving of viewers, Williams concludes comparing the current political climate to that of “Kennedy v. Ike”.

Except, well, John F. Kennedy ran for president against Richard Nixon, after Eisenhower was term limited and waiting to be retired. Ike was playing golf. Kennedy stole Chicago.

Being in a forgiving mood, I will just presume that Williams was still panting over the Obama victory and was grasping to assemble syllables.

Silly. But so is the coverage of the Barack Obama’s campaign. He is a socialist, at best. His compatriots are detestable, at best. He makes good speeches, and promotes either a) nothing, or b) public proposals that consider our constitutional freedoms no more necessary than the add-on suspension option on the about-to-be-discontinued GM Hummer.

I do not want a replay of the 1960s, which is what seems to be the goal of Obama’s media benefactors. America deserves better than a retread. No matter how good he sounds, that is exactly all that Barack Obama is.

Imagine my inner delight when I learned that the same weekend I was to visit my in-laws with Sarah and dear little Catherine, the Democrat National Committee was to hold their meeting to determine the fate of the Michigan and Florida delegates at a downtown DC Marriott.

So, like any good political blogger and conniving Republican amateur-operative, I decided to infiltrate, conduct some interviews, and get some video.

I should have most of it posted by tomorrow. I’ll try to get some up tonight. Be on the lookout for Hillary supporters dancing, chanting “Gays for McCain! Gays for McCain!”, a vocal black Hillary supporter claiming Barack Obama is the next Walter Mondale, and the time honored classic chant “DNC does not care! DNC does not care!”, which I thought clever for a variety of reasons, and was timely enough to witness the start of.

Almost no one said they would vote for Obama. Some, like the woman with the NOW hat, said they would vote for McCain. One woman I interviewed from Florida said she would write in Hillary’s name. If the people I talked to are even a sliver semblance of the mindset of Hillary’s supporters, Obama is in deep, deep trouble.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

When Barack Obama says it, of course.

Whether it’s 57 states, the wrong Nazi concentration camp, or complimenting the “many fallen soldiers here with us today”, the very junior senator from Illinois has apparently acquired a lifetime pass. He is the messiah, ergo he cannot be wrong. He should watch the 57 states, though. If Hillary Clinton finds out where any of those other seven are, this primary will go well into December.

Have you not heard of one of those? Count me as unshocked.

If John McCain had said any of this, he would be derided as too old and his mental health questioned. If Hillary Clinton had said any of this, she would have been decimated by media attacks - in fact, she already has, over the Medvedev answer in the 1,623rd debate, and over her poorly constructed comments about the 1968 Democrat primary.

I am of the opinion that we are too hard on our candidates - campaigning for any office, if you are doing it right, is a life-lesson in exhaustion. The race for the presidency is that times ten. Minor verbal slips should be instantly forgiven. However, those are not the rules, and if the rules say there is always something invidious behind every verbal gaffe, that presumption should be applied to everyone, no matter the state of the mainstream media’s adolescent infatuation.

Obama messed up the state of the union, history, and the concept of mortality. Can’t we get a couple days out of this?

Technorati tags: politics, msm, barack obama, Del.icio.us tags: politics, msm, barack obama, LiveJournal tags: politics, msm, barack obama

Related posts: Bush on Appeasement: Barack Chamberlain Snaps Back, Should We Kick West Virginia Out of the Union?, Taxing Crazy, The Top Nonstory of the Day: The Tennessean Parades the Irrelevant, Rosalind, Oh Rosalind, Obama, Testy - Hillary, Feisty

The Tennessee GOP has come under fire for its video critical of Michelle Obama.

Senator Obama responded with the following:

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said, with his wife sitting next to him. “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family….

Michelle Obama is out on the campaign trail every day as a representative for her husband. If the campaign asks you to step and front up a podium and speak for its candidate, regardless of whether or not you picked out china patterns with the politician in question, your words are open to criticism.

How many bloggers/pundits/”journalists”/etc. (often rightfully) shared their outrage at Bill Clinton’s antics in South Carolina? Ummm … I believe there were plenty. And more. And more.

Bill Clinton is now a spouse out stumping for his wife. Every comment he has made has been considered fair game by the media and Obama supporters (that’s redundant, isn’t it?). I haven’t heard anyone say, “Hey … that’s off limits! You can criticize Hillary’s comments and policies all day, but don’t mess with her family! Bill’s injection of race has nothing to do with Hillary’s candidacy. His shouting at random hecklers should not be allowed to reflect on Hillary’s great run for the highest office in the land. Lay off, you meanies!”

What’s the difference? Bill is out working for Hillary, Michelle is out working for Barack. Don’t give me the “he’s disgracing his position as a former president and a statesman” reasoning. First of all, he did that a long time ago. Secondly, I don’t care if Bill Clinton is a former president, plumber or painter (or any other profession that starts with a “p”). In this instance, he is the spouse of a person running to be the President of the United States. So is Michelle Obama.

By the way, I think children are completely off-limits. Jokes, criticisms, intrusive photographing, etc. involving candidates’ children are all completely disgusting and unacceptable … unless that child is an adult and chooses to make public statements on behalf of his or her parent. Then, once again, fair game.

Barack Obama is unqualified to lead our nation’s foreign policy. His world is a much safer place than actually exists.

He will speak to the most despicable heads of state without qualification. He believes that Iran is not the USSR, so therefore, we should have tea.

Well, the Soviets were the biggest of enemies. Relatively speaking, just because the Soviet Union no longer exists, it does not follow that we should put Iran in their place. The policy of an American president ought not be to promote distasteful regimes to points of prominence because there is no one worse. The Soviets had an aura of self preservation about them – Islamic fundamentalists suffer no such illusions. Islamists’ place is an eternity that cares not if major Western cities are nuked. Barack Obama wants to chat, at the highest level, making the presidency of our country no more valuable than a wannabe caliphate that makes its women wear head scarves in the 110 degree heat. He will kick sand and ride a camel, and in the process, embarrass us all.

Obama is a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen. He claims he will not speak to Hamas until they denounce their stance on Israel’s destruction. Even then, he should not be the one talking to them. He doesn’t get that.

Here is what he actually is. He is a senator that defeated Alan Keyes, imported from Maryland, to take the place of a governor candidate disqualified because he wanted to have kinky sex with his wife. Barack Obama is qualified to be a community leader in northern Illinois, most unprepared for anything much more than that. His mentor hates America, and his wife on only likes her country if her husband is elected to lead it. He hasn’t disagreed with any of it, any more than required by the punditry (which is deficient enough, if you ask me).

For all the Democrats’ pronouncements on the purposes of diplomacy, their current standard bearer seems to have zero understanding as to the world as it exists today. The American people are smarter than this. Barack Obama’s beliefs run counter to those that founded our country. His foreign policy would violate every studied and established rule of negotiation diplomacy ever established. He is dangerous. He must not win.

President Bush chides Democrats for their unconditional surrender stance on the war in Iraq, comparing it to the appeasement of the Nazis. Obama strikes back, calling Bush’s comment the “politics of fear.”

How… trite.

George W. Bush is right

Speaking before the Knesset, Bush said that “some people” believe the United States “should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Understandably, Barack Obama doesn’t like his policies being aptly compared to one of the largest strategic blunders in world history. But then, the truth often hurts. If Obama has a better description of his Iraq withdrawal plan, based in reality and not fueled by hopeful irrationality, I would sure like to hear it. The sadness is that there is no other accurate description of it. One certainly cannot say he strongly opposes the terrorist forces in Iraq while advocating that we cease confronting them. Instead, he wants to “talk” with those who are uninterested in reason. With Obama, it’s as if that “positive parenting” nonsense would become our foreign policy.

Anyhow, not to say Obama supports Hamas, but there are certainly good reasons Hamas supports him.

Technorati tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq, Del.icio.us tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq, LiveJournal tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq

UPDATE More Democrats act indignant

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.

…

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

Both are peculiar things to say, especially from leaders of the legislature, which remains significantly less popular than the president. If anyone knows what it means to be “beneath the dignity of the office”, it would be Nancy Pelosi, the most incompetent House speaker in recent memory, whose recent field trip to Syria makes her seem more than just a little bit ridiculous. Second to all that, I am sure that Congressman Emanuel realizes that the president is the commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. Encouraging one of our staunchest allies of his commitment to the region, and his hatred of appeasement, can only be a good thing. If that makes you feel bad, tough luck.

All the same, I find this amusing. When wimps are called out for being wimps, they get mad. Certainly they can find a way to channel that rage, and in the process, stop being wimps. These Democrats are rightly noted for their appeasement tendencies and they feign the most comical of outrage. You wanted to leave Iraq yesterday? That is called surrender. Or the redeployment of courage, or whatever euphemism you can concoct to hide the bitter tasting truth that today’s Democrats haven’t the stomach to fight for much of anything.

Related posts: Should We Kick West Virginia Out of the Union?, Taxing Crazy, Not-So-Great Expectations, Rosalind, Oh Rosalind, Obama, Testy - Hillary, Feisty