Thursday, February 28, 2008
McCain vs. Obama on Iraq --------- Round One
Republican front-runner and probable nominee John McCain took a shot over the bow of Barak Obama's position on the war on terrorism and the central front of the battle in Iraq. The Washington Post has dispatched two of their writers to frame what will be one of the major, (and most critical) platforms ahead in the general election:
Clash on Iraq Could Be McCain-Obama Preview
By Michael D. Shear and Shailagh MurrayWashington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 28, 2008; Page A01
TYLER, Tex., Feb. 27 -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, signaling that a general-election brawl between the colleagues would center in part on who has the foreign policy experience to lead a country at war.
Despite McCain's war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq.
The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."
"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."
McCain has pledged to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to create stability, form a unified government and defeat terrorist groups. He favors adding more troops, if necessary, to achieve those goals.
Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months........LINK
My first question is:
How many times has John McCain made extensive trips to Iraq and the middle east in the past five years?
How many times has Mr. Obama?
While John McCain understands how the chain of command works and will rely on his commanders on the ground to prosecute a victory with no appearance or resolve to withdraw to signify surrender and defeat, Mr. Obama would drop a bomb on our allies (Pakistan) with out their permission sparking a delicate situation that could jeopardize the stability of a nation with nuclear weapons.
My speculation: if an entire nation (Iraq) has spurned and turned on al Qaeda because of their brutal tactics of blowing up innocent civilians in the name of their jihad, how long will it take Pakistanis to become sick of their "cancer" as well?
Because of the success in Iraq by General Petraeus and the surge, while divisions of our troops have begun to come home with a "mission accomplished" victory proudly labeled on these warriors, does the Taliban and their al Qaeda brethren understand that a few divisions of Marines are heading to the hot spots in Afghanistan to finish the job that NATO forces were incapable of or refused to do?
While one Presidential candidate, (John McCain) has the vision to foresee a total marginalization of terrorist activities throughout the region by the use of military strength first, and then diplomatic reconciliation----the other candidate, (Barak Obama) with virtually no foreign policy experience or the resolve to finish off a weakened and leaderless faction of a scattered and battered enemy, has positioned himself to cater to the anti-war radical left who would rather surrender to our enemies abroad.
While most of Europe is standing/sitting on the sidelines watching the U.S. do the "dirty work" they are incapable of, a grateful and sacrificial nation once again rises to the task of providing other nations to achieve the freedom and individual liberty from the tyranny and oppression of a sick and disillusioned society that preys on the weak-------which is this battle against world-wide terrorism.
Surrender is not an option, and John McCain clearly knows this.
Barak Obama or John McCain? The choice should be crystal clear.
Republican front-runner and probable nominee John McCain took a shot over the bow of Barak Obama's position on the war on terrorism and the central front of the battle in Iraq. The Washington Post has dispatched two of their writers to frame what will be one of the major, (and most critical) platforms ahead in the general election:
Clash on Iraq Could Be McCain-Obama Preview
By Michael D. Shear and Shailagh MurrayWashington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 28, 2008; Page A01
TYLER, Tex., Feb. 27 -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, signaling that a general-election brawl between the colleagues would center in part on who has the foreign policy experience to lead a country at war.
Despite McCain's war-hero status and years of foreign policy experience, Obama made it clear that he will not back down from such a fight, issuing a quick rebuke of McCain that linked him to President Bush and the war in Iraq.
The spat began when McCain seized on a comment by Obama that he would reserve the right to return to Iraq after withdrawing troops "if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."
"I have some news," McCain told voters at a rally here Wednesday morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. . . . they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender."
McCain has pledged to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to create stability, form a unified government and defeat terrorist groups. He favors adding more troops, if necessary, to achieve those goals.
Obama, who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, has said that there is no military solution to the conflict and that he would start bringing troops home after becoming president to force Iraqi factions to resolve their differences. Obama said he would withdraw about one to two combat brigades a month, with the goal of having all of them out within 16 months........LINK
My first question is:
How many times has John McCain made extensive trips to Iraq and the middle east in the past five years?
How many times has Mr. Obama?
While John McCain understands how the chain of command works and will rely on his commanders on the ground to prosecute a victory with no appearance or resolve to withdraw to signify surrender and defeat, Mr. Obama would drop a bomb on our allies (Pakistan) with out their permission sparking a delicate situation that could jeopardize the stability of a nation with nuclear weapons.
My speculation: if an entire nation (Iraq) has spurned and turned on al Qaeda because of their brutal tactics of blowing up innocent civilians in the name of their jihad, how long will it take Pakistanis to become sick of their "cancer" as well?
Because of the success in Iraq by General Petraeus and the surge, while divisions of our troops have begun to come home with a "mission accomplished" victory proudly labeled on these warriors, does the Taliban and their al Qaeda brethren understand that a few divisions of Marines are heading to the hot spots in Afghanistan to finish the job that NATO forces were incapable of or refused to do?
While one Presidential candidate, (John McCain) has the vision to foresee a total marginalization of terrorist activities throughout the region by the use of military strength first, and then diplomatic reconciliation----the other candidate, (Barak Obama) with virtually no foreign policy experience or the resolve to finish off a weakened and leaderless faction of a scattered and battered enemy, has positioned himself to cater to the anti-war radical left who would rather surrender to our enemies abroad.
While most of Europe is standing/sitting on the sidelines watching the U.S. do the "dirty work" they are incapable of, a grateful and sacrificial nation once again rises to the task of providing other nations to achieve the freedom and individual liberty from the tyranny and oppression of a sick and disillusioned society that preys on the weak-------which is this battle against world-wide terrorism.
Surrender is not an option, and John McCain clearly knows this.
Barak Obama or John McCain? The choice should be crystal clear.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
McCain Sets The Goalpost Higher on Rhetoric
John McCain reputiated a popular conservative radio host yesterday claiming his campaign will not engage in the inuendo and name calling:
McCain Repudiates ‘Hussein Obama’ Remarks
CINCINNATI, Ohio—A conservative radio talk show host who helped introduce Senator John McCain before a rally here Tuesday used Senator Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, three times, while disparaging him, prompting Mr. McCain to apologize and repudiate the comments afterward.............LINK
What Mr. Cunningham has forgotten, (just like the Coutlers, Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Ingrahms), is this election is not about them, or their egos, or their ratings. John McCain has chosen to rise above the rhetoric and innuendos and would rather attack Mr. Obama on policy and principal......sounds Presidential to me.
The fact that Cunningham spends his valuable time introducing John McCain and then later (on Hannity and Combs) threatens to endorse Hillary Clinton speaks volumes about his own credibility.
East of Eden posted a similar story about how the conservative talk show "supporters" stand by the party.
Update: Allahpundit at Hot Air has posted the video and commentary on this subject.
Update 2: Allah now has video of Cunningham's tirade at Hannity and Combs.
John McCain reputiated a popular conservative radio host yesterday claiming his campaign will not engage in the inuendo and name calling:
McCain Repudiates ‘Hussein Obama’ Remarks
CINCINNATI, Ohio—A conservative radio talk show host who helped introduce Senator John McCain before a rally here Tuesday used Senator Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, three times, while disparaging him, prompting Mr. McCain to apologize and repudiate the comments afterward.............LINK
What Mr. Cunningham has forgotten, (just like the Coutlers, Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Ingrahms), is this election is not about them, or their egos, or their ratings. John McCain has chosen to rise above the rhetoric and innuendos and would rather attack Mr. Obama on policy and principal......sounds Presidential to me.
The fact that Cunningham spends his valuable time introducing John McCain and then later (on Hannity and Combs) threatens to endorse Hillary Clinton speaks volumes about his own credibility.
East of Eden posted a similar story about how the conservative talk show "supporters" stand by the party.
Update: Allahpundit at Hot Air has posted the video and commentary on this subject.
Update 2: Allah now has video of Cunningham's tirade at Hannity and Combs.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Breaking News-----Captain's Quarters Closing
Ed Morrissey moving to Hot Air
Ed Morrissey moving to Hot Air
Looks like the folks at Hot Air are welcoming Ed with open arms
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Is Limbaugh Better or Worse Than the NYT? Or, Just More of the Same?
by East of Eden
“I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here.” ..........Captain Renault, Casablanca
My mother, Lord bless her, was looking forward to listening to Rush this morning. What, she asked, would he say about the despicable New York Times article.
Well, it didn’t take long, and I suppose it was foreseeable.
First, I consider myself a conservative. Second, I support McCain. Third, I am increasingly impatient with checklist conservatives – Laura Ingraham insists that Romney is a “conservative’s conservative,” but neglects to mention that this is, under any interpretation, a recent development. The likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh clearly hoping that Fred Thompson’s campaign might catch fire, chastising McCain for McCain-Feingold, and neglecting to mention that Thompson was a co-sponsor. (When someone – clearly not a ditto head – asked Limbaugh about this oversight, he sputtered.) But that is old history now. If they think that while Mitt Romney was busy checking all the boxes and returning his application to Talk Radio, Inc., and while John McCain was fighting for legislation to stop the re-institution of the fairness doctrine, that this makes Romney the “true conservative,” then they are just disingenuous.
(It is really tedious to hear them trot out McCain-Feingold, misrepresent what it does, claim that it is the greatest assault ever on free speech, and then chide McCain for using “class warfare rhetoric.” Who could have guessed that conservative talk radio is like the most liberal college campus with its own speech code? What next? Asking someone if you can slash their marginal tax rates before you can date their daughter?)
So be it. Some other day we will argue about how conservatism gets defined.
There are only two questions about the NYT story that need to be asked:
1) Was there sufficient evidence to go forward with it?
2) Do you believe John McCain or the NYT?
My answer to the first is “not by a long shot,” and I believe McCain without a doubt. If this story doesn’t make you think Rathergate, I don’t know what would.
It is thus extremely disappointing that Bill Kristol gave the NYT a pass without answering the simple question – should this story have been published? Similarly, Mort Kondracke thinks the story has legs, but apparently isn’t willing say whether there’s any reason to believe the NYT. And when Alan Colmes says it’s legitimate to ask the question whether McCain did anything inappropriate on behalf of a lobbyist or David Gregory claims that the real story is whether McCain is a hypocrite, this is typical of the worst in liberal character assassination: throw enough out there often enough and maybe people will get confused and believe some part of it. (Or as I heard another in this infinite supply of strategists----that he’s running around with lobbyists and doing favors for them.) But it is simply wrong to raise questions of hypocrisy or inappropriateness unless you have some evidence.
And so now we come to Mr. Limbaugh. Exactly what did he tell us? That he predicted that as soon as the NYT and the drive by media “forced” McCain on the Republicans – as soon as the drive by media picked the Republican nominee for president – that they would turn on McCain. And the only question to be asked was whether John McCain would learn that the NYT and Chris Matthews were “snakes” and whether McCain would come to learn who is real friends were.
Well, there’s a lot here, but we have to start somewhere. So, first – who is it that Limbaugh is actually suggesting are McCain’s real friends? Is Limbaugh asking us to believe that Limbaugh is one of McCain’s real friends? “John, you may not be able trust the NYT, but I’m your friend (just check off these boxes and say what I tell you to say.)” How is McCain supposed to choose between “friends” like these? The NYT who first endorses and then convicts by innuendo? Or Limbaugh who said that he can see no policy differences between Hillary Clinton and John McCain? Who’s more guilty of sloppy reporting … the NYT relying on two unnamed sources? Or Limbaugh, who is apparently unable to tell the difference between Clinton’s and McCain’s positions on the following issues – the war in Iraq, taxes, Second Amendment rights, right to life, health care?
A little more disturbing is Limbaugh’s view that we out here – without him – would be doing impersonations of Capt. Louis Renault. Limbaugh thinks that he has uncovered some great truth that the liberal media would in the end not support a Republican for president. It is as though we out here in ditto-land heard about the endorsement of McCain by the NYT and thought – “Oh, migosh, do you think it’s possible? The NYT might endorse McCain over a Democrat?” And then we read the NYT story, and Limbaugh thinks – were it not for him – we would all be running around saying “I’m shocked, shocked to find out that the NYT is liberal !! I’m shocked, shocked to find out that the NYT would publish a scurrilous piece about a Republican.”
The NYT might endorse a Republican in a presidential general election? We don’t need Rush Limbaugh to answer that. John Wayne from the Searchers will do: “That’ll be the day.”
Limbaugh, however, is too enlightened to be outraged. Why should he be outraged? This is nothing new; it happens all the time with the drive-bys. Why should I be outraged? he asks, rhetorically. What did you expect? This is what they always do. So, by Limbaugh’s Logic, we should not be outraged when Democrats try to raise taxes? After all, this is nothing new. Don’t be outraged when liberals misrepresent a judicial nominee’s record. After all, this is nothing new. Thus, from Limbaugh’s Logic, we infer Limbaugh’s Counsel – only be outraged if you’re surprised.
We have saved the best for last, of course. Limbaugh claims that the liberal, drive by media “picked” the Republican nominee. Now, he’s been saying this for weeks. And the more Romney seemed to lose, the more he seemed to say it. (Indeed, this morning Limbaugh almost seemed to empathize with Romney staffers who lamented that the NYT could not have run this story before New Hampshire or Florida.) Despite his having said it so many times, it’s still hard to figure out what he means.
“The drive-bys picked McCain, forced him on the Republican party.” What could this mean? In a conspiracy greater than anything the left ever imagined about Florida or Ohio, Matthews and Russert and Gregory were stuffing ballot boxes from New Hampshire to Florida to California? Can you imagine? Maureen Dowd went to one of those Americas she’s only read about and voted for McCain. Twice! Is this what Limbaugh means?
Maybe he means that McCain is the clear favorite of Tom Brokaw and Anderson Cooper. (The day after Super Tuesday, Limbaugh played a comment by Brokaw: “The conservative coalition is fractured.” Limbaugh’s response was the more nuanced, “No, they are just going different directions.”) Well, it may be true that Brokaw favors McCain and implies as much in public. But how is that forcing McCain on the Republican Party? Are we supposed to think this: We Republican voters aren’t swayed by Mr. Limbaugh’s daily rants against McCain, but just let Great Tom say the name “McCain” and like Pavlov’s dogs, we start looking for a McCain lever to pull?
Is that what Limbaugh thinks? We can resist the entreaties of Coulter and Ingraham, of Hannity and Limbaugh, but just let a Matt Lauer say, “Ooo, boy, that McCain’s got integrity,” and we are jello in the hands of the drive-bys?
Maybe he means that since the drive-bys wanted McCain, they gave disproportionately favorable coverage to McCain and ignored the grand conservative, Romney. And who would have guessed that the drive-bys would have the epic literary sense to let McCain plummet to single digits in the polls, carry his own bags through airports, throwing everyone off the track of their real choice, before rescuing the McCain candidacy from oblivion. And I’m sure if we asked Limbaugh to go through it slowly for us, he could and would. He could tell us exactly which Matthews show, exactly which report by Russert on the Nightly News, and exactly which E. J. Dionne column pushed McCain over the top in the Republican presidential primary contest. Sounds kind of silly doesn’t it?
Maybe he means this. There are of course true conservatives who voted. (And despite evidence to the contrary, Limbaugh, Hannity and others still insist that had Huckabee just gotten out of the race, all those true conservative votes would have gone to Romney.) You know the ones. The 3.6% of the electorate that matters. And then we have all the others. You know the type. Moderates. Republican riff raff. Conservatives who are only somewhat conservative….yeah, you know the type – Republican trailer trash. I can barely say it…jello molds – you know, Republican liberals. And worse…people from the wrong side of the tracks. Yeah, you know the ones. Independents. What are they doing voting in our election? So, ok, all these jello molds voted in way disproportionate numbers. (And darn that Guiliani for that silly strategy; he could have been in New Hampshire taking votes from McCain.) But what did the drive-bys have to do with this? Did Paul Krugman go to the local McCain headquarters and offer to drive Republican riff raff and trailer trash to the polls?
But then what does Limbaugh mean? Well, relying on the same sort of evidence that Limbaugh relies on, here’s a stab at what he might mean. Since we didn’t vote for the “very conservative” candidates in the race, since we didn’t follow Rush’s “non-recommendation” recommendation, we must have somehow been not exactly misled, but shall we say, possessed, by the drive-bys. Yes, the devil made us do it.
But Limbaugh can’t be as bad as this sort of NYT yellow journalism. Innuendo. Tsk-tsking. Instead Limbaugh insists that this is now a struggle between the NYT and McCain, and one of them must lose. And Limbaugh’s analogy for this struggle – yes, Gary Hart. During the Florida election, Limbaugh approvingly read George Will’s column, describing McCain’s comments about Romney and time tables “Clintonesque.” But let us not suggest that Limbaugh comparing this situation in any way to the case of Gary Hart and Donna Rice is Clintonesque. Instead, let’s just say it’s “NY Timesesque.” Because that’s what it is. It is exactly what liberals do. Let’s just throw it all out there and see if any of it will stick.
Limbaugh’s distaste for McCain certainly appears visceral. And until he gives some plausible explanation, some evidence for his great narrative of this Republican primary season – that the liberal media “picked” McCain, that they forced McCain on the Republican party – he would seem no better than the NYT.
East of Eden
(editors note: East of Eden is a guest poster here at RovinsWorld that prefers to remain anonymous. Respectfully, I will honor this request. Additionally, the only editing I preformed in this piece was to format the text-----no other changes were made)
by East of Eden
“I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here.” ..........Captain Renault, Casablanca
My mother, Lord bless her, was looking forward to listening to Rush this morning. What, she asked, would he say about the despicable New York Times article.
Well, it didn’t take long, and I suppose it was foreseeable.
First, I consider myself a conservative. Second, I support McCain. Third, I am increasingly impatient with checklist conservatives – Laura Ingraham insists that Romney is a “conservative’s conservative,” but neglects to mention that this is, under any interpretation, a recent development. The likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh clearly hoping that Fred Thompson’s campaign might catch fire, chastising McCain for McCain-Feingold, and neglecting to mention that Thompson was a co-sponsor. (When someone – clearly not a ditto head – asked Limbaugh about this oversight, he sputtered.) But that is old history now. If they think that while Mitt Romney was busy checking all the boxes and returning his application to Talk Radio, Inc., and while John McCain was fighting for legislation to stop the re-institution of the fairness doctrine, that this makes Romney the “true conservative,” then they are just disingenuous.
(It is really tedious to hear them trot out McCain-Feingold, misrepresent what it does, claim that it is the greatest assault ever on free speech, and then chide McCain for using “class warfare rhetoric.” Who could have guessed that conservative talk radio is like the most liberal college campus with its own speech code? What next? Asking someone if you can slash their marginal tax rates before you can date their daughter?)
So be it. Some other day we will argue about how conservatism gets defined.
There are only two questions about the NYT story that need to be asked:
1) Was there sufficient evidence to go forward with it?
2) Do you believe John McCain or the NYT?
My answer to the first is “not by a long shot,” and I believe McCain without a doubt. If this story doesn’t make you think Rathergate, I don’t know what would.
It is thus extremely disappointing that Bill Kristol gave the NYT a pass without answering the simple question – should this story have been published? Similarly, Mort Kondracke thinks the story has legs, but apparently isn’t willing say whether there’s any reason to believe the NYT. And when Alan Colmes says it’s legitimate to ask the question whether McCain did anything inappropriate on behalf of a lobbyist or David Gregory claims that the real story is whether McCain is a hypocrite, this is typical of the worst in liberal character assassination: throw enough out there often enough and maybe people will get confused and believe some part of it. (Or as I heard another in this infinite supply of strategists----that he’s running around with lobbyists and doing favors for them.) But it is simply wrong to raise questions of hypocrisy or inappropriateness unless you have some evidence.
And so now we come to Mr. Limbaugh. Exactly what did he tell us? That he predicted that as soon as the NYT and the drive by media “forced” McCain on the Republicans – as soon as the drive by media picked the Republican nominee for president – that they would turn on McCain. And the only question to be asked was whether John McCain would learn that the NYT and Chris Matthews were “snakes” and whether McCain would come to learn who is real friends were.
Well, there’s a lot here, but we have to start somewhere. So, first – who is it that Limbaugh is actually suggesting are McCain’s real friends? Is Limbaugh asking us to believe that Limbaugh is one of McCain’s real friends? “John, you may not be able trust the NYT, but I’m your friend (just check off these boxes and say what I tell you to say.)” How is McCain supposed to choose between “friends” like these? The NYT who first endorses and then convicts by innuendo? Or Limbaugh who said that he can see no policy differences between Hillary Clinton and John McCain? Who’s more guilty of sloppy reporting … the NYT relying on two unnamed sources? Or Limbaugh, who is apparently unable to tell the difference between Clinton’s and McCain’s positions on the following issues – the war in Iraq, taxes, Second Amendment rights, right to life, health care?
A little more disturbing is Limbaugh’s view that we out here – without him – would be doing impersonations of Capt. Louis Renault. Limbaugh thinks that he has uncovered some great truth that the liberal media would in the end not support a Republican for president. It is as though we out here in ditto-land heard about the endorsement of McCain by the NYT and thought – “Oh, migosh, do you think it’s possible? The NYT might endorse McCain over a Democrat?” And then we read the NYT story, and Limbaugh thinks – were it not for him – we would all be running around saying “I’m shocked, shocked to find out that the NYT is liberal !! I’m shocked, shocked to find out that the NYT would publish a scurrilous piece about a Republican.”
The NYT might endorse a Republican in a presidential general election? We don’t need Rush Limbaugh to answer that. John Wayne from the Searchers will do: “That’ll be the day.”
Limbaugh, however, is too enlightened to be outraged. Why should he be outraged? This is nothing new; it happens all the time with the drive-bys. Why should I be outraged? he asks, rhetorically. What did you expect? This is what they always do. So, by Limbaugh’s Logic, we should not be outraged when Democrats try to raise taxes? After all, this is nothing new. Don’t be outraged when liberals misrepresent a judicial nominee’s record. After all, this is nothing new. Thus, from Limbaugh’s Logic, we infer Limbaugh’s Counsel – only be outraged if you’re surprised.
We have saved the best for last, of course. Limbaugh claims that the liberal, drive by media “picked” the Republican nominee. Now, he’s been saying this for weeks. And the more Romney seemed to lose, the more he seemed to say it. (Indeed, this morning Limbaugh almost seemed to empathize with Romney staffers who lamented that the NYT could not have run this story before New Hampshire or Florida.) Despite his having said it so many times, it’s still hard to figure out what he means.
“The drive-bys picked McCain, forced him on the Republican party.” What could this mean? In a conspiracy greater than anything the left ever imagined about Florida or Ohio, Matthews and Russert and Gregory were stuffing ballot boxes from New Hampshire to Florida to California? Can you imagine? Maureen Dowd went to one of those Americas she’s only read about and voted for McCain. Twice! Is this what Limbaugh means?
Maybe he means that McCain is the clear favorite of Tom Brokaw and Anderson Cooper. (The day after Super Tuesday, Limbaugh played a comment by Brokaw: “The conservative coalition is fractured.” Limbaugh’s response was the more nuanced, “No, they are just going different directions.”) Well, it may be true that Brokaw favors McCain and implies as much in public. But how is that forcing McCain on the Republican Party? Are we supposed to think this: We Republican voters aren’t swayed by Mr. Limbaugh’s daily rants against McCain, but just let Great Tom say the name “McCain” and like Pavlov’s dogs, we start looking for a McCain lever to pull?
Is that what Limbaugh thinks? We can resist the entreaties of Coulter and Ingraham, of Hannity and Limbaugh, but just let a Matt Lauer say, “Ooo, boy, that McCain’s got integrity,” and we are jello in the hands of the drive-bys?
Maybe he means that since the drive-bys wanted McCain, they gave disproportionately favorable coverage to McCain and ignored the grand conservative, Romney. And who would have guessed that the drive-bys would have the epic literary sense to let McCain plummet to single digits in the polls, carry his own bags through airports, throwing everyone off the track of their real choice, before rescuing the McCain candidacy from oblivion. And I’m sure if we asked Limbaugh to go through it slowly for us, he could and would. He could tell us exactly which Matthews show, exactly which report by Russert on the Nightly News, and exactly which E. J. Dionne column pushed McCain over the top in the Republican presidential primary contest. Sounds kind of silly doesn’t it?
Maybe he means this. There are of course true conservatives who voted. (And despite evidence to the contrary, Limbaugh, Hannity and others still insist that had Huckabee just gotten out of the race, all those true conservative votes would have gone to Romney.) You know the ones. The 3.6% of the electorate that matters. And then we have all the others. You know the type. Moderates. Republican riff raff. Conservatives who are only somewhat conservative….yeah, you know the type – Republican trailer trash. I can barely say it…jello molds – you know, Republican liberals. And worse…people from the wrong side of the tracks. Yeah, you know the ones. Independents. What are they doing voting in our election? So, ok, all these jello molds voted in way disproportionate numbers. (And darn that Guiliani for that silly strategy; he could have been in New Hampshire taking votes from McCain.) But what did the drive-bys have to do with this? Did Paul Krugman go to the local McCain headquarters and offer to drive Republican riff raff and trailer trash to the polls?
But then what does Limbaugh mean? Well, relying on the same sort of evidence that Limbaugh relies on, here’s a stab at what he might mean. Since we didn’t vote for the “very conservative” candidates in the race, since we didn’t follow Rush’s “non-recommendation” recommendation, we must have somehow been not exactly misled, but shall we say, possessed, by the drive-bys. Yes, the devil made us do it.
But Limbaugh can’t be as bad as this sort of NYT yellow journalism. Innuendo. Tsk-tsking. Instead Limbaugh insists that this is now a struggle between the NYT and McCain, and one of them must lose. And Limbaugh’s analogy for this struggle – yes, Gary Hart. During the Florida election, Limbaugh approvingly read George Will’s column, describing McCain’s comments about Romney and time tables “Clintonesque.” But let us not suggest that Limbaugh comparing this situation in any way to the case of Gary Hart and Donna Rice is Clintonesque. Instead, let’s just say it’s “NY Timesesque.” Because that’s what it is. It is exactly what liberals do. Let’s just throw it all out there and see if any of it will stick.
Limbaugh’s distaste for McCain certainly appears visceral. And until he gives some plausible explanation, some evidence for his great narrative of this Republican primary season – that the liberal media “picked” McCain, that they forced McCain on the Republican party – he would seem no better than the NYT.
East of Eden
(editors note: East of Eden is a guest poster here at RovinsWorld that prefers to remain anonymous. Respectfully, I will honor this request. Additionally, the only editing I preformed in this piece was to format the text-----no other changes were made)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Should Experience Count?
As Barak Obama appears to have gained the "front-runner" status in the Democratic race for POTUS, should we look to see how much experience Senator Obama has in his run for "hope and change"? Curt at Flopping Aces manages to frame the Obama Phenoma in a Nutshell, (with a little help from (of all people) Chris Matthews:
Former Austin mayor and current Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson, a prominent Barack Obama supporter, is completely stumped when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asks him to list Sen. Obama’s legislative accomplishments.
Classic! Here is Chris Matthews, the same man who gets all jiggly in his pants when he thinks of Obama, asking the State Senator of Texas, Kirk Watson, what some of Obama’s accomplishments are:
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?”
State Sen. Watson: “I am. Yes, I am.”
Matthews: “Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments tonight if you can.”
State Sen. Watson: “Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now.”
Matthews: “No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You’ve supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir.”
State Sen. Watson: “Well, I’m not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments.”
Matthews: “Can you name any? Can you name anything he’s accomplished as a Congressman?”
State Sen. Watson: “No, I’m not going to be able to do that tonight.”
Matthews: “Well, that is a problem isn’t it?”
Curt has video and much more..........
(editors note: I'll be adding more commetary here after work)
As Barak Obama appears to have gained the "front-runner" status in the Democratic race for POTUS, should we look to see how much experience Senator Obama has in his run for "hope and change"? Curt at Flopping Aces manages to frame the Obama Phenoma in a Nutshell, (with a little help from (of all people) Chris Matthews:
Former Austin mayor and current Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson, a prominent Barack Obama supporter, is completely stumped when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asks him to list Sen. Obama’s legislative accomplishments.
Classic! Here is Chris Matthews, the same man who gets all jiggly in his pants when he thinks of Obama, asking the State Senator of Texas, Kirk Watson, what some of Obama’s accomplishments are:
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?”
State Sen. Watson: “I am. Yes, I am.”
Matthews: “Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments tonight if you can.”
State Sen. Watson: “Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now.”
Matthews: “No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You’ve supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir.”
State Sen. Watson: “Well, I’m not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments.”
Matthews: “Can you name any? Can you name anything he’s accomplished as a Congressman?”
State Sen. Watson: “No, I’m not going to be able to do that tonight.”
Matthews: “Well, that is a problem isn’t it?”
Curt has video and much more..........
(editors note: I'll be adding more commetary here after work)
Monday, February 18, 2008
National Security vs Democrats Funded by Trial Lawyers
The Democrats (and Republicans) took a recess from their toils with out passing a FISA measure that would have passed in the house and already had passed in the Senate. The measure would have provided immunity for telecom companies who provide vital information to our intelligence community when they monitor terrorist activities around the world. Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has the embarrassing answer (via Robert Novak) to why this important legislation has not become law:
Robert Novak pulls together the politics of the Democratic refusal to call the Senate's bipartisan FISA reform bill to the House floor last week. Instead of taking a vote that Blue Dog Democrats has assured her would pass on that bill, Pelosi tried embarrassing the White House by voting for a 21-day extension to the current reform bill -- and that failed, with some Blue Dogs opposing it along with the Republicans, as well as some hard-Left Representatives that oppose FISA reform outright.......... Link
What else has Nancy Pelosi and her band of far left wing nutbags have in store for our national security? President Bush and the White House have called Pelosi on the carpet with this partisan plan that could put our nation’s security in jeopardy. When the reason for the motives behind the Democratic Party's agenda, it's best to just "follow the money".
Bush 41 endorses John McCain-----biased liberal media ask typical dumb questions.
George H.W. Bush stood shoulder to shoulder with John McCain on Monday, offering an endorsement to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Mathematically, statistically, symbolically and politically, McCain is just inches from winning the nomination, and the former president’s endorsement offers a signal that the Republican powerhouse family is coalescing around the candidate. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has already endorsed McCain for president.
“I did not come here to tell any other candidate what to do, a very wise man once said influence is something you always have until you actually try to exert it,” Bush said from the Houston Hobby Airport in Texas, where he was joined by his wife, Barbara.
“Now is the right time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad base coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall. His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt, but most importantly he has the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment,” said the former president...........Link
Directly following McCain's comments he open question up to the reporters. Dumb and divisive, but McCain handled them well.
The Democrats (and Republicans) took a recess from their toils with out passing a FISA measure that would have passed in the house and already had passed in the Senate. The measure would have provided immunity for telecom companies who provide vital information to our intelligence community when they monitor terrorist activities around the world. Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has the embarrassing answer (via Robert Novak) to why this important legislation has not become law:
Robert Novak pulls together the politics of the Democratic refusal to call the Senate's bipartisan FISA reform bill to the House floor last week. Instead of taking a vote that Blue Dog Democrats has assured her would pass on that bill, Pelosi tried embarrassing the White House by voting for a 21-day extension to the current reform bill -- and that failed, with some Blue Dogs opposing it along with the Republicans, as well as some hard-Left Representatives that oppose FISA reform outright.......... Link
What else has Nancy Pelosi and her band of far left wing nutbags have in store for our national security? President Bush and the White House have called Pelosi on the carpet with this partisan plan that could put our nation’s security in jeopardy. When the reason for the motives behind the Democratic Party's agenda, it's best to just "follow the money".
Bush 41 endorses John McCain-----biased liberal media ask typical dumb questions.
George H.W. Bush stood shoulder to shoulder with John McCain on Monday, offering an endorsement to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Mathematically, statistically, symbolically and politically, McCain is just inches from winning the nomination, and the former president’s endorsement offers a signal that the Republican powerhouse family is coalescing around the candidate. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has already endorsed McCain for president.
“I did not come here to tell any other candidate what to do, a very wise man once said influence is something you always have until you actually try to exert it,” Bush said from the Houston Hobby Airport in Texas, where he was joined by his wife, Barbara.
“Now is the right time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad base coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall. His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt, but most importantly he has the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment,” said the former president...........Link
Directly following McCain's comments he open question up to the reporters. Dumb and divisive, but McCain handled them well.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The Media and The Respect of Authority
The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
This morning (Feb 13th, 2008) most of the "tabloid tv news media" focused their attention on a couple of incidents where authorities stepped over the line. With both stories armed with video, the first one shows an officer literally dumping a paraplegic out of his wheel-chair onto the ground to initiate a search. The other story shows an officer wrestling a skateboard away from its 14 year old owner who was obviously skateboarding in a restricted area. The video also shows the kid refusing to release the skateboard when the officer grabbed hold of it.
While both of these incidents depict situations where authorities have crossed the line in performing their duties, I have to ask-----when was the last time you saw a video or news report that specifically showed the amount of disrespect the public displays for our authorities that have sworn to "protect and serve"? Has a portion of civil disobedience also "crossed the line"? Does the level of respect for most of those who put their lives on the line daily really deserve to be put in the same light as a few who made the wrong judgment in their actions? I would submit that for every officer that may have abused his or her authority; there are thousands who go about performing their daily jobs in a commendable and exemplary fashion. People are human and at times make mistakes when going about their daily lives. Most of these people also try to learn from their mistakes while attempting to not repeat them.
Even the vile narration written daily by the new media, (blogosphere), and at times the mainstream media, reflects the loss of an unwritten rule of respect we used to show for our leadership. The Colorado college paper that last year printed and published “Fuck Bush” on their front page is a perfect example of the gutter journalism our society has decided to tolerate. From the President of the United States on down to local leaders, the decay of the respect for authority at most all levels has become acceptable to the reader. While there are many in our government that may differentiate from each others ideologies, what are we teaching the generation behind us when it comes to respecting authority?
While dumping a disabled person from his wheelchair was despicable and required immediate discipline, I’m more worried about the generation of “skateboarders” that display their total lack of respect for authority and the mentality that they don’t have to display that respect when confronted. The frustration in the officers’ demeanor reflected this new and dangerous level our society has accepted as “normal dissention”. As a son of a United States Marine who fought at Guadalcanal, there was certainly a different level of respect that was demanded when addressing my elders or any authoritative figure. Most questions or request were followed by a “yes sir” or on rare occasions “no sir”, but there were few other options acceptable in the conversation. Even explanations were short and to the point. A derogatory remark was usually met with immediate discipline or repercussion. As I grew up, this level of respect was met with admiration and mutual respect from my peers and authorities alike. Even the occasional infraction where discipline was required, I know there were times where the level of discipline was reduced or diminished because of my upbringing. My concern is the breakdown in the level of discipline we tolerate in our society today, and what the ramifications will be tomorrow.
The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
This morning (Feb 13th, 2008) most of the "tabloid tv news media" focused their attention on a couple of incidents where authorities stepped over the line. With both stories armed with video, the first one shows an officer literally dumping a paraplegic out of his wheel-chair onto the ground to initiate a search. The other story shows an officer wrestling a skateboard away from its 14 year old owner who was obviously skateboarding in a restricted area. The video also shows the kid refusing to release the skateboard when the officer grabbed hold of it.
While both of these incidents depict situations where authorities have crossed the line in performing their duties, I have to ask-----when was the last time you saw a video or news report that specifically showed the amount of disrespect the public displays for our authorities that have sworn to "protect and serve"? Has a portion of civil disobedience also "crossed the line"? Does the level of respect for most of those who put their lives on the line daily really deserve to be put in the same light as a few who made the wrong judgment in their actions? I would submit that for every officer that may have abused his or her authority; there are thousands who go about performing their daily jobs in a commendable and exemplary fashion. People are human and at times make mistakes when going about their daily lives. Most of these people also try to learn from their mistakes while attempting to not repeat them.
Even the vile narration written daily by the new media, (blogosphere), and at times the mainstream media, reflects the loss of an unwritten rule of respect we used to show for our leadership. The Colorado college paper that last year printed and published “Fuck Bush” on their front page is a perfect example of the gutter journalism our society has decided to tolerate. From the President of the United States on down to local leaders, the decay of the respect for authority at most all levels has become acceptable to the reader. While there are many in our government that may differentiate from each others ideologies, what are we teaching the generation behind us when it comes to respecting authority?
While dumping a disabled person from his wheelchair was despicable and required immediate discipline, I’m more worried about the generation of “skateboarders” that display their total lack of respect for authority and the mentality that they don’t have to display that respect when confronted. The frustration in the officers’ demeanor reflected this new and dangerous level our society has accepted as “normal dissention”. As a son of a United States Marine who fought at Guadalcanal, there was certainly a different level of respect that was demanded when addressing my elders or any authoritative figure. Most questions or request were followed by a “yes sir” or on rare occasions “no sir”, but there were few other options acceptable in the conversation. Even explanations were short and to the point. A derogatory remark was usually met with immediate discipline or repercussion. As I grew up, this level of respect was met with admiration and mutual respect from my peers and authorities alike. Even the occasional infraction where discipline was required, I know there were times where the level of discipline was reduced or diminished because of my upbringing. My concern is the breakdown in the level of discipline we tolerate in our society today, and what the ramifications will be tomorrow.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Dateline 2152
It's being reported that the great-grandson of an early 1990's President, William Jefferson Clinton, has rallied a community of 30 to revive a liberal institution called the Democratic Party that disintegrated in 2008 when President Clinton's wife attempted to steal a nomination by claiming the suffrage of white women took precedence over the will of a growing black electorate. Historians wrote that during one of the final debates between Mrs. Clinton and a young upstart, Barak Obama, Clinton pull out from under her podium a meat cleaver and a stick of salami. The audience was aghast as Clinton whacked the "member" into two pieces and declared "this race is over". Her opponent fell over and died instantly of a heart attack, and Clinton was hauled away to a newly constructed sanatorium called the Kennedy-Kerry Convalescent Home for Wayward Liberals. The Democratic Party never recovered and was replaced by the current party called Centrocrats.
(Side note: it was reported that the Convalescent Home was fully funded by the global-warming scam artist Albert Gore who died in prison years later for bilking millions from what historians called the scandal of the century.)
In other news------as temperatures dropped into the minus 20’s for the eleventh consecutive month, the fence at the Canadian border is breaking down and the Alaskan Polar Bears that migrated south in the first part of the century due to overpopulation are finding their way across and exterminating entire townships along the border. While many scientists thought it would be generations before the carnivores would tire of Canadian meat, it seem this is not the case.
It's being reported that the great-grandson of an early 1990's President, William Jefferson Clinton, has rallied a community of 30 to revive a liberal institution called the Democratic Party that disintegrated in 2008 when President Clinton's wife attempted to steal a nomination by claiming the suffrage of white women took precedence over the will of a growing black electorate. Historians wrote that during one of the final debates between Mrs. Clinton and a young upstart, Barak Obama, Clinton pull out from under her podium a meat cleaver and a stick of salami. The audience was aghast as Clinton whacked the "member" into two pieces and declared "this race is over". Her opponent fell over and died instantly of a heart attack, and Clinton was hauled away to a newly constructed sanatorium called the Kennedy-Kerry Convalescent Home for Wayward Liberals. The Democratic Party never recovered and was replaced by the current party called Centrocrats.
(Side note: it was reported that the Convalescent Home was fully funded by the global-warming scam artist Albert Gore who died in prison years later for bilking millions from what historians called the scandal of the century.)
In other news------as temperatures dropped into the minus 20’s for the eleventh consecutive month, the fence at the Canadian border is breaking down and the Alaskan Polar Bears that migrated south in the first part of the century due to overpopulation are finding their way across and exterminating entire townships along the border. While many scientists thought it would be generations before the carnivores would tire of Canadian meat, it seem this is not the case.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Hillary's Firewall May Be Crumbling
The Hillary and Bill Show may get a rude cancellation notice soon if Mrs. Clinton does not firm up her "firewall" according to party insiders that have spoken with the New York Times anonymously:
“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment.
“The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.
“They are looking way too much at Florida, Michigan and McCain, because all three won’t matter if she doesn’t blow Obama away in Texas and Ohio,” said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment of campaign strategy. “Obama has momentum that has to be stopped by March 4.” LINK (open candid assessments can be hazardous to one's health)
Mrs. Clintons message on her health care program is finally out in the open to the laymen’s who realize this is just another socialized taxpayer funded government program that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. But promising the world to their electorate is nothing new to the Democratic Party when it comes to buying votes. The idea of fiscal responsibility just never occurs to them. What Mrs. Clinton does not understand is it's her message that is failing while her competitor continues to ride his message of "hope and change" with little or no substance. Barak Obama has (at this point) the distinct advantage of not having to articulate his message as the national press offers no challenges to Obama to define any of his policies. As long as the media allows Obama to skate on his thin ice of mirages, Hillary's firewall remains vulnerable.
The Hillary and Bill Show may get a rude cancellation notice soon if Mrs. Clinton does not firm up her "firewall" according to party insiders that have spoken with the New York Times anonymously:
“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment.
“The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.
“They are looking way too much at Florida, Michigan and McCain, because all three won’t matter if she doesn’t blow Obama away in Texas and Ohio,” said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment of campaign strategy. “Obama has momentum that has to be stopped by March 4.” LINK (open candid assessments can be hazardous to one's health)
Mrs. Clintons message on her health care program is finally out in the open to the laymen’s who realize this is just another socialized taxpayer funded government program that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. But promising the world to their electorate is nothing new to the Democratic Party when it comes to buying votes. The idea of fiscal responsibility just never occurs to them. What Mrs. Clinton does not understand is it's her message that is failing while her competitor continues to ride his message of "hope and change" with little or no substance. Barak Obama has (at this point) the distinct advantage of not having to articulate his message as the national press offers no challenges to Obama to define any of his policies. As long as the media allows Obama to skate on his thin ice of mirages, Hillary's firewall remains vulnerable.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Obama's Plight Could Get Rocky
Sooner or later his "hope and change" will require some substance and clarity.
There will come a time soon where Mr. Obama will have to articulate on his proclamations of "hope and change". So far, Obama has managed to ride his dog and pony show wowing his audience with his smooth rhetoric and charismatic delivery. Avoiding specifics of his plan to convert "hope and change" into a new way business is conducted in Washington seems to sit well with his followers. How long Obama's parade can last is another question.
Still looming is how the actual Democratic nomination process will play out in months ahead leading up to their convention in Denver, (August 25th - 28th). With Obama's sweep of primaries this past weekend and his potential victories ahead that could propel him enough to receive the label of "front-runner", what the "Clinton Machine" does to slow this momentum will be under a microscope of "journalist" and pundits. The change of campaign managers by Mrs. Clinton could be a sign of desperation or just an infusion of new blood which is desperately needed.
There are few choices the Clintons, (Hillary and Bill) can make when it comes to attacking Obama's perceived policies without alienating a strong portion of her own base. Both candidates are competing over who can promise to bring the most amount of troops home while calling on little or no advice from our commanders on the ground. Clinton has promised troop withdrawals with in sixty days after her coronation and Obama's plan is to remove two divisions a month until there are no longer combat troops on the ground. Both plans are folly and potentially could undo the substantial progress General Petraeus and our fighting military have accomplished in bringing real stability to the region. While al Qaeda and the foreign insurgents are in total disarray and getting forced into tighter corners of Iraq, an un-necessary and premature pull-out for the sake of the anti-war vote could create years of devastation for the Iraqi people and a fragile region just when we are in a brink of a solid victory over the radical jihad that has sworn to exterminate the west. And these two claim they are better suited to protecting our national security than John McCain? In their dreams.
While the Democratic pundits are attempting to call Mike Huckabee a fracturing function of the Republican Party, it seems looking in the mirror at their own potential meltdowns would be better advice. Just like the college and pro football seasons that just concluded, no one can predict with certainty who will come out on top. And the second half has just begun.
Sooner or later his "hope and change" will require some substance and clarity.
There will come a time soon where Mr. Obama will have to articulate on his proclamations of "hope and change". So far, Obama has managed to ride his dog and pony show wowing his audience with his smooth rhetoric and charismatic delivery. Avoiding specifics of his plan to convert "hope and change" into a new way business is conducted in Washington seems to sit well with his followers. How long Obama's parade can last is another question.
Still looming is how the actual Democratic nomination process will play out in months ahead leading up to their convention in Denver, (August 25th - 28th). With Obama's sweep of primaries this past weekend and his potential victories ahead that could propel him enough to receive the label of "front-runner", what the "Clinton Machine" does to slow this momentum will be under a microscope of "journalist" and pundits. The change of campaign managers by Mrs. Clinton could be a sign of desperation or just an infusion of new blood which is desperately needed.
There are few choices the Clintons, (Hillary and Bill) can make when it comes to attacking Obama's perceived policies without alienating a strong portion of her own base. Both candidates are competing over who can promise to bring the most amount of troops home while calling on little or no advice from our commanders on the ground. Clinton has promised troop withdrawals with in sixty days after her coronation and Obama's plan is to remove two divisions a month until there are no longer combat troops on the ground. Both plans are folly and potentially could undo the substantial progress General Petraeus and our fighting military have accomplished in bringing real stability to the region. While al Qaeda and the foreign insurgents are in total disarray and getting forced into tighter corners of Iraq, an un-necessary and premature pull-out for the sake of the anti-war vote could create years of devastation for the Iraqi people and a fragile region just when we are in a brink of a solid victory over the radical jihad that has sworn to exterminate the west. And these two claim they are better suited to protecting our national security than John McCain? In their dreams.
While the Democratic pundits are attempting to call Mike Huckabee a fracturing function of the Republican Party, it seems looking in the mirror at their own potential meltdowns would be better advice. Just like the college and pro football seasons that just concluded, no one can predict with certainty who will come out on top. And the second half has just begun.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Media Bias ------ Part 673892
Saturdays primary race results were published this morning, (Sunday) with the "who's surprised" bias our mainstream media presents with their left wing liberal agenda. They, (the MSM) no longer even attempt to show a semblance of balance while the Democratic Party heads for a long drawn out battle to choose their nominee. While Hillary Clinton was swept in this weekends primarys, according to our MSM it is John McCain that "deserved" the ugly side of their stories:
Obama Sweeps Clinton in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington
By Eric Pianin
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) swept to solid victories over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y) in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state yesterday, an impressive showing that left the two Democrats in a virtual tie for national delegates but with Obama gaining momentum.
On the Republican side, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee delivered two humiliating defeats to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the Kansas Republican presidential caucuses and the Louisiana primary, but barely lost to McCain in Washington state, according to an Associated Press projection.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/02/clinton_obama_resume_tough_del.html?hpid=topnews
Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 10, 2008
Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday, giving him an impressive sweep going into a month when the Democratic nominating contests are expected to favor him.
The successes come just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money, providing important fuel for the nominating contests ahead. Still, the results were expected to do little to settle the muddle in the delegate race that resulted after the wave of contests last Tuesday in which the two candidates split up states from coast to coast.
In Republican contests on Saturday, Mike Huckabee won in Kansas, an embarrassing setback for Senator John McCain as he tries to rally the party around him as the nominee. The candidates were battling in Louisiana and Washington, where the results were too close to call. The Associated Press called the Louisiana race for Mr. Huckabee and the Washington race for Mr. McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10primary.html?hp
MSNBC
The Democratic race moved into a new, post-Super Tuesday phase as McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting. He lost the Kansas caucuses to Mike Huckabee, gaining less than 24 percent of the vote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23068044/
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Many voters in Saturday's Republican contests showed they're not yet ready to support Sen. John McCain as their party's nominee while Sen. Barack Obama cut into Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for Democratic delegates.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/09/feb.9.contests/index.html
LA TIMES
The Democrat sweeps Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins. Huckabee takes Kansas and Louisiana.
By Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 10, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama narrowed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the fight for Democratic presidential delegates Saturday, sweeping three states, while Sen. John McCain hit a detour on his march to the Republican nomination.Obama won Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, and McCain won a tight race in Washington.
Clinton and Obama remain locked in a showdown that might not be settled until the August convention in Denver, and each sought to make the case on the trail Saturday that each is better situated to defeat McCain.
The results show that despite McCain's commanding lead for the Republican nomination, social conservatives are still willing to back someone else. And they reflect the continuing divide within the party.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-vote10feb10,0,7024993.story
So, while Hillary gets swept in all three states, it's John McCain that is humiliated, embarrassing, and flunked while his party is continuing to be divided.
Can some one (any of these news outlets) please explain to me why Hillary Clinton was not embarrassed and humiliated while she flunked every test this weekend? And whose party will be more divided when the Democrats gather in Denver this spring?
(Note to media outlets: You all flunked this weekend......again)
Update: Even while Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters is a confirmed conservative, at least his post remains balanced enough to keep his bias in check. Something our dear media friends have no intention of doing.
Saturdays primary race results were published this morning, (Sunday) with the "who's surprised" bias our mainstream media presents with their left wing liberal agenda. They, (the MSM) no longer even attempt to show a semblance of balance while the Democratic Party heads for a long drawn out battle to choose their nominee. While Hillary Clinton was swept in this weekends primarys, according to our MSM it is John McCain that "deserved" the ugly side of their stories:
Obama Sweeps Clinton in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington
By Eric Pianin
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) swept to solid victories over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y) in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state yesterday, an impressive showing that left the two Democrats in a virtual tie for national delegates but with Obama gaining momentum.
On the Republican side, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee delivered two humiliating defeats to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the Kansas Republican presidential caucuses and the Louisiana primary, but barely lost to McCain in Washington state, according to an Associated Press projection.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/02/clinton_obama_resume_tough_del.html?hpid=topnews
Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 10, 2008
Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday, giving him an impressive sweep going into a month when the Democratic nominating contests are expected to favor him.
The successes come just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money, providing important fuel for the nominating contests ahead. Still, the results were expected to do little to settle the muddle in the delegate race that resulted after the wave of contests last Tuesday in which the two candidates split up states from coast to coast.
In Republican contests on Saturday, Mike Huckabee won in Kansas, an embarrassing setback for Senator John McCain as he tries to rally the party around him as the nominee. The candidates were battling in Louisiana and Washington, where the results were too close to call. The Associated Press called the Louisiana race for Mr. Huckabee and the Washington race for Mr. McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10primary.html?hp
MSNBC
The Democratic race moved into a new, post-Super Tuesday phase as McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting. He lost the Kansas caucuses to Mike Huckabee, gaining less than 24 percent of the vote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23068044/
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Many voters in Saturday's Republican contests showed they're not yet ready to support Sen. John McCain as their party's nominee while Sen. Barack Obama cut into Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead in the race for Democratic delegates.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/09/feb.9.contests/index.html
LA TIMES
The Democrat sweeps Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins. Huckabee takes Kansas and Louisiana.
By Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 10, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama narrowed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the fight for Democratic presidential delegates Saturday, sweeping three states, while Sen. John McCain hit a detour on his march to the Republican nomination.Obama won Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, and McCain won a tight race in Washington.
Clinton and Obama remain locked in a showdown that might not be settled until the August convention in Denver, and each sought to make the case on the trail Saturday that each is better situated to defeat McCain.
The results show that despite McCain's commanding lead for the Republican nomination, social conservatives are still willing to back someone else. And they reflect the continuing divide within the party.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-vote10feb10,0,7024993.story
So, while Hillary gets swept in all three states, it's John McCain that is humiliated, embarrassing, and flunked while his party is continuing to be divided.
Can some one (any of these news outlets) please explain to me why Hillary Clinton was not embarrassed and humiliated while she flunked every test this weekend? And whose party will be more divided when the Democrats gather in Denver this spring?
(Note to media outlets: You all flunked this weekend......again)
Update: Even while Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters is a confirmed conservative, at least his post remains balanced enough to keep his bias in check. Something our dear media friends have no intention of doing.
Friday, February 08, 2008
A Class Act
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been about me," he said. "I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I now have to stand aside."...........Mitt Romney
Text of Romney's speech:
Mitt wrote this speech the night before his address at CPAC. In my opinion, it was one of his finest.
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been about me," he said. "I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I now have to stand aside."...........Mitt Romney
Text of Romney's speech:
Mitt wrote this speech the night before his address at CPAC. In my opinion, it was one of his finest.
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Crucifiction of John McCain
It's the Last Day to witness the CRUCIFICTION OF JOHN McCAIN by the "puritan conservatives". Be sure to step up to the cross and heave a spit on the old man that some here are claiming Hillary is more conservative than McCain------what a load of horse manure.
With the Superbowl taking over the media frenzy and silencing the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et all, maybe rational heads will come down from their "Pontius Pilot" thrones and realize there is NO POLL showing that Romney can defeat Hillary or Obama, (in fact he is losing by double digits to both of them in most polls), while the same polls show McCain defeating either Democrat by 9-15 points. Take McCain and the points and re-focus on the BIG GAME, which is defeating the Democratic nominee.
Or do "conservatives" really want to gamble with putting Hillary and Bill back on the throne?
Latest Gallop national tracking poll: McCain 37% Romney 22%
Disclaimer: Yes, I do have many issues with McCain of great concern that does not please me as much as others here. Neither of the two remaining viable candidates fit into the mold of the pure principals of conservatism. The "my party has left me" faction have valid points. But fracturing the party to the point that allows another eight years of a Clinton Dynasty would be the ultimate sin. Eight years of higher taxes, entitlements ballooning, and maybe up to three liberal Supreme Court justices appointed ------- roll the dice------but please remember, everything's in the pot, including your children and grandchildren's future.
Oh, and I like the Giants + the points.
Update: Lorie Byrd at Wizbang focus's on our MAIN PRIORITY HERE.
It's the Last Day to witness the CRUCIFICTION OF JOHN McCAIN by the "puritan conservatives". Be sure to step up to the cross and heave a spit on the old man that some here are claiming Hillary is more conservative than McCain------what a load of horse manure.
With the Superbowl taking over the media frenzy and silencing the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et all, maybe rational heads will come down from their "Pontius Pilot" thrones and realize there is NO POLL showing that Romney can defeat Hillary or Obama, (in fact he is losing by double digits to both of them in most polls), while the same polls show McCain defeating either Democrat by 9-15 points. Take McCain and the points and re-focus on the BIG GAME, which is defeating the Democratic nominee.
Or do "conservatives" really want to gamble with putting Hillary and Bill back on the throne?
Latest Gallop national tracking poll: McCain 37% Romney 22%
Disclaimer: Yes, I do have many issues with McCain of great concern that does not please me as much as others here. Neither of the two remaining viable candidates fit into the mold of the pure principals of conservatism. The "my party has left me" faction have valid points. But fracturing the party to the point that allows another eight years of a Clinton Dynasty would be the ultimate sin. Eight years of higher taxes, entitlements ballooning, and maybe up to three liberal Supreme Court justices appointed ------- roll the dice------but please remember, everything's in the pot, including your children and grandchildren's future.
Oh, and I like the Giants + the points.
Update: Lorie Byrd at Wizbang focus's on our MAIN PRIORITY HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)