Sunday, June 29, 2008
You know, Erin, this [complaints about Obama supporters] is not going to stop Obama and his bots from being rude. They think it is cute or funny. I've never seen such disrespect in my life and I would expect more from a man 46 years old. I honestly believe it is part of the disrespect of the rap crowd, and remember, one of those preacher asses of Obama's is called the rapper pastor or some idiotic name like that.
Instead of teaching children in that church that putting down white people or Jews is disrespectful and will not be tolerated, they actually laugh. It's not just blacks who do this -- white kids do it too and if their parents are immature like Obama, I suppose they do it too. It's about lack of respect. If parents are not teaching their children not to be that way -- and if the parents are getting """off""" on it which Obama definitely does and his wife seems to be just as bad if not worse, then this is perpetuating this type of behavior.
I remember watching a news program one night when someone said to turn it on (only time I turn on tv news is someone tells me to and I'm usually sorry afterwards) and an older black woman was appalled by Wright and the other preacher. She said that almost worse than what they were saying, and more alarming, were the people in the background standing up and laughing and cheering.
Didn't we see that when Obama did the shoulder cooooooooooooool brush off. It is not cool. It is disrespectful and this started at the very top with Obama himself. Then we see all the idiots (and I do mean IDIOTS) in the background applauding and carrying on like juveniles.
How on earth can a true democrat vote for this type of racist, disrespectful ass?
Even Wright said that white brains and black brains are different. Do you see how this is "IN YOUR FACE" attitude. It's like saying F*** YOU white people -- our brains are different so don't you dare tell our kids to sit in their seats. Never mind, there are all colors of hyperactive kids who need to learn respect and sitting in their seats. He is giving black kids an out to act this way.
Obama has learned well from his racist preachers. God help us.
You see, they are teaching their young to be in our faces rather than learning the value of respect and kindness.
It's abusive. And yet democrats themselves (even ones who were for Hillary) are overlooking this. I DO NOT WANT THIS MAN-CHILD IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I do not want him to be the example to my grandchildren. The anger and the chosen outlet to unleash that anger in very immature and nasty ways worries the hell out of me - and that is what that church teaches, and that is what we see from Obama and his bots.
Here's lifelong despot, tyrant and enemy of freedom Muammar Gaddafi professing his hatred for America and love for Barack Hussien Obama, "our Muslim brother" and falling in with the likes of China, Iran, and other despotic regimes in endorsing Obama.
Go to ClintonsforMcCain (click above) to see the video of Gaddafi endorsing "our Muslim brother" Barack H. Obama. Yikes. Frankly, dicatorships prefer Obama because they assume his personal weakness makes him easy to do business with.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Exactly how much "walking around money" does Barack Obama intend to pour into Philadelphia, Pittsburgh (and don't forget Harrsiburg and Lancaster!)? Since Obama has gone back on his word to accept public financing, he will have perhaps a half-billion dollars (!!!) to play around with. That should make the vote-buyers and street corner "consultants" in urban Pennsylvania very happy. On the question of "how much?" perhaps one of our intrepid PA journalists might ask him? But that may be asking too much.
The rest of this column, about two Pennsylvania representatives who sold out to Barack Obama, Jason Altmire and Patrick Murphy, is on my Pennsylvania blog. I hope you'll visit. (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/)
Friday, June 27, 2008
I never thought I'd spend so much of my adult life trying to woo Hillary Supporters to vote for John McCain. Why do I do it? Because I've done the math. There are 18-plus million Hillary Supporters out there (actually more if you count potential voters in caucus states). If John McCain can get 5 million of those votes -- something that seems achievable -- then, early on Nov. 5, he will be President-elect.
The Hillary Supporters for McCain are just that important. That's not saying some of them can't be irritating and even exasperating.
Clinton Supporters for McCain who are not irritating/exasperating include the organization at http://www.clintons4mccain.com/. This group has 1700 members, is growing rapidly, and attracts roughly 10,000 visitors daily to its site.
Right now Clintons for McCain is engaged in a major fund-raising effort for John McCain. It's asking Hillary Supporters to add 44 cents to their donations (e.g., 44 cents, $5.44, or $100.44) to signify that it comes from Hillary Supporters. I'm going to contribute at McCainNow.com, but don't be surprised if I add 44 cents.
Perhaps an even more important site is http://www.hsfjm.com/. The acronym stands for Hillary Supporters for John McCain. It's been up only since May 31. How many visitors does its site meter show? "Only" 3.3 million (to-die-for numbers for this blogger). It also says it has 35,000-plus signed in members.
Oh, and hsfjm has a McCain PAC. When you visit the site -- and please do -- you'll see a "green rain" (i.e., money) button. If this site is as good as its numbers indicate, it could raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Senator McCain. Note, other Hillary-for-McCain groups are working to organize 527 groups that would independently support McCain.)
On the Yahoo Groups, the ClintonDemsAgainstObama is fascinating. I'd guess about half the people there are fairly solid for McCain. A few of them support Ralph Nader. Another segment insists it will stay home on election day, even though they strongly dislike Obama.
To my criticism of that stand, Abbey (one of the moderators and a strong McCain supporter) said: "Look, Steve, these people really are Democrats, and McCain was not their first choice . . . or even their second choice. So, voting for a Republican is difficult for them." Point well made, Abbey.
Some of the people counseling others to stay home -- and just restrict their anti-Obama feelings to steam-blowing -- may not have honorable. Frankly, some of them appear to be Obama-bots who are helping spread the campaign's message of demoralization to Hillary Supporters. (They're not hard to spot.)
Here's what one stay-at-home-Sue (actually, Hope) said on the Against Obama site:"Many people will not vote for McCain. Get used to it."
Here's how "MentistheMagnificent," a frequent poster, replied:"Then, [Hope], you will be one of the people who will help elect NObama, and that is simply the way it is. Who will you vote for, Hope? If you are here because you don't want NObama as president, you MUST consider voting for McCain to keep him [Obama] out. As the past has already taught us more than once Nader doesn't have a shot in hell. Any vote cast for Nader is a wasted vote. This time is it way WAY too important to cast a vote simply to waste it."
Hope is not alone on the ClintonDemsAgainst Obama group-- and thankfully, neither is Mentis. But a day's worth of time spent looking at the various posts -- and they are getting several thousand every week! -- can be emotionally draining. I spend a lot of my time trying to pick out the Obama-bots, and it's not hard to do so. Occasionally, I'd like to contribute a mild criticism of Hillary, which would get me kicked out of the group.
I believe it's important that I spend time at these sites. A lot of the "work" is hand-holding for people who almost never (or just plain "never") vote for Republicans. Some of the people there -- including Abbey and Mentis -- are politically sophisticated and sharp debaters. However, other participants are "yaller dog" Democrats (would vote for a "yellow dog" before a Republican).
A few of them believe a miracle will occur in Denver, and Hillary will get the nomination. As I suggested earlier, some seem poised to spend the next four months complaining loudly -- and then playing golf from dawn-to-dusk on Election Day.
But the Hillary Supporters -- exasperating or otherwise -- are critical to John McCain's chances.
I hope McCain Supporters will back up the many (hundreds?) of sites where people are figuring out what they'll do on Election Day. I know exactly what I'd like them to do!
Have you hugged a Hillary Supporter today?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Two mornings ago you probably heard that the Los Angeles Times poll showed Barack Obama with a national lead over John McCain of 49% to 37%. Time to panic?
Perhaps until you heard Carl Cameron of FOX (one newsman who has a brain) say that the Gallup (Daily) Tracking Poll shows McCain and Obama in a (drum-roll) "statistical dead heat," with both men polling 45%. Gallup, despite a few bumps in its long road, is in fact "the gold standard" of polls.
The LA Times survey is more a political statement than a scientific poll. When it comes to the Times, liberals seem always to "poll" very well. There's only one California poll with a record for accuracy: the Field Poll. But as the Times has disovered, releasing a cockamamie poll is a good way to sell papers.
Should you instead depend on a newsman like the esteemed Chris Wallace? Today, Wallace was speaking about Pennsylvania, where I live, and he said, "Hillary Clinton won it by 20-30%.
Oh really? Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9.2%. Chris Wallace was off by roughtly 11-21 percentage points. Isn't political coverage supposed to be his strong suit?
He may have been confusing PA with WV, where Mrs. Clinton won by 41%. (I guess WV must have a 5,000 truckoads of "bitter" people.)
Chris Wallace also repeated the rumor (it's not much more than that) that Obama is ahead by 12% in the critical state of Pennsylvania. I wondered if the LA Times had conducted a survey here (without my knowledge). Like all states, we have our versions of Mom n Pop polls, which are always wrong.
Trust me, McCain is doing well in Pennsylvania, and he will win this state. As Mrs. Clinton demonstrated in the Primary, Obama is not well-liked here. Our state's animosity toward him mirrors his hostility to us. We're much too busy clinging to our guns and our Bibles to embrace an unarmed man who has Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger confused with Christians.
More about polls later. I love them, but I don't trust them -- except for Gallup, especially when it's in line with my wishes. By the way, McCain being even with Obama, if Gallup is correct, means he almost certainly ahead in electoral votes. Obama is over-performing in three large states, and that skews the polls.
There, didn't I make you feel better about things political?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Barack Obama uses this picture in his campaign commercials, identifying the two relatives as "my white grandparents." In commercials and speeches, he identifies them as mildly heroic figures ("fought in Patton's Army . . . worked in a bomb assembly plant"). In his book Dreams From My Father, he characterizes them as clueless white bumpkins.
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it." (Barack Obama)
"I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." (Barack Obama)
"I found solace [as a young man] in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race." Barack Obama
"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds. One of those tricks I had learned: [White] People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves." Barack Obama
Could a candidate like John McCain (or Hillary Clinton? or any white candidate?) get away with comments like these? The national media, which sees its function as waving pom-poms anytime they hear Obama's baritone, cuts the Illinois Senator an endless amount of slack.
They do so mainly because he identifies himself (sometimes) as a Black man. Most journalists know they're expected to show deference toward Black politicians -- unless, of course, they happen to be Republicans.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
This is Deborah Travis Honeycutt, M.D., Republican candidate for Congress in GA's 13th district. She's one of the most exciting candidates in the country, and she's already raised $2 million-plus dollars. I'll be writing about her Saturday evening and Sunday morning on my Pennsylvania blog. Could you be America's first Black, female President? I hope so.
What's Barack Obama's solution? He has none. He likes $4 gasoline and probably will love $7 gasoline.
Senator McCain: Be honest, be forthright, and, above all, be shrewd.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The following important column is by my friend and fellow Western Pennsylvanian Jack Kelly, national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Toledo Blade, and other publications. He strongly endorses Gov. Sarah Palin for a place on the McCain ticket. He also strongly backs John McCain but believes the Senator lacks "shrewdness." (Jack Kelly is a former Marine, former Special Forces soldier, and former candidate for Congress.)
JOURNAL PRESS SYNDICATE
545 West End Ave. (Suite 2C)
New York, N.Y. 10024-2713
Tel: (212) 580-8559
Note: If your local newspaper doesn't print Jack Kelly's syndicated column, please call them up today and ask them (nicely but firmly) to start doing so. If they continue not to, keep calling.
BY JACK KELLY
Barack Obama has the lead for the time being. But three sign posts point the way to a McCain landslide in November -- in the unlikely event the Arizona senator has the wit to heed them.
What figures to be by far the most important issue this fall is the skyrocketing price of energy and its deleterious effect on the broader economy and national security.Now that Sen. McCain has flip flopped on drilling off of our coasts, there is a substantial difference between him and Sen. Obama on the issue. Sen. McCain also supports building more nuclear power plants, which Sen. Obama opposes.
Opinion polls indicate a large majority now supports drilling for oil off our coasts and in Alaska. That majority is likely to expand and harden as gas prices rise this summer. But Sen. McCain can't fully capitalize politically on this change in public attitude unless he completes his flip flop, and consents to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Commentary editor John Podhoretz fears Sen. McCain's ego will prevent him from doing what is in his, and his country's interest:"So McCain 2 makes a big speech about offshore drilling and the need for it. Fine. But the message is muted and confused. Why? Because McCain 1 voted against oil exploration and field development in (ANWR) and McCain 2 doesn't want to look like a flip flopper by changing his stand on the matter...In acting out of a combination of holer-than-thou piety and political pique, McCain 1 has made it all but impossible for McCain 2 to run with this issue and go on the offensive with Obama on a matter of central concern to the American people."
I fear Mr. Podhoretz is correct. But few Americans would hold flip flopping against Sen. McCain, because they've flip flopped, too. Soccer moms were happy to genuflect to environmental pieties when gasoline was $2 a gallon. But now that they have to sell their firstborn to fill up their SUVs, their attitude has changed dramatically.
If Sen. McCain were to fly to ANWR and announce his change of heart there, the attendant publicity would make it clear to Americans the sharp difference between himself and Sen. Obama on the issue most important to their pocketbooks. He supports letting Floridians and Californians decide whether there should be drilling off their coasts. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to Alaskans? A large majority favor drilling in ANWR.
The second sign post is Sen. Obama's clumsy embrace of a Sept. 10th attitude toward the war on terror. The law enforcement approach toward fighting it is precisely what led to Sept. 11, 2001.
Fortunately, national security is the one issue Sen. McCain knows something about. The danger for him here is that he'll overemphasize it. The fact that we're winning the war on terror makes most Americans less interested in it, and more focused on economic concerns. Voter anxiety about Sen. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief is a strong subsidiary issue.
But this election will be won or lost at the gas pump.
The third sign post was illuminated by the flap over the receipt by the (now former) head of Barack Obama's vice presidential selection committee and two prominent U.S. senators of below market rate loans from Countrywide Finance, which Sen. Obama has charged is in large part responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. One of those senators, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is trying to push through Congress a bill that would, in effect, bail out Countrywide.This glaring conflict of interest hasn't attracted much attention from the news media, because for most journalists, a scandal isn't really a scandal unless Republicans are involved.
But it's an issue tailor made for Sen. McCain. He has often stupidly (see McCain-Feingold), but always ardently, fought pork barrel spending and corruption. Congress has its lowest approval rating in the history of polling. Replacing the Washington way with the Chicago way is not an improvement. Sen. McCain is the best person to make that case, and Americans are in a mood to hear it.
The sign posts also indicate who Sen. McCain should choose for his running mate. No Republican can better make the case for drilling than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and no governor has fought harder against corruption, especially in her own party.
So go to ANWR, Sen. McCain. Embrace Sarah Palin there. You'll have to eat some crow. But crow doesn't taste so bad when it's served on the White House china.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A liberal reader of mine from eastern PA (I live in western PA) wrote me a long, mostly autobiographical e-mail asking why I -- living in a supposedly semi-distressed area of Beaver County -- believed generally in conservative principles. He (?) also asked me if I voted for GWB and Rick Santorum (our former Republican Senator). I replied at length, focusing mainly on why I oppose Obama and support McCain. In case you've been wondering about similar things, here's my reply:
Did I vote for GWB? Only twice. I think highly of him and his family.
Did I support Rick Santorum? I supported him when he ran the first time in 1994 against Harris Wofford, who was a man of extremely limited talents. I voted for him when he ran against Ron Klink (2000), but I always had problems with Santorum as a person. I can support individuals of various views -- I might vote for Specter in the primary and general election -- but I do want to see in any candidate signs of real affection for our diverse and sometimes irritating fellow human beings. Over the years, I started to see less and less of that in Santorum (whom I know but not really well).
Senator Bob Casey: I don't believe he is a honest man. If he's so ardently pro-life, which I don't for a minute think he is, why did he support the most pro-abortion candidate in American history: Barack Obama? This is not an issue of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, but rather a question of basic honesty. I didn't like the Santorum-Casey choice, and I wasn't at all surprised when the electorate sent Rick on his way. My wife despises Santorum.
I believe most people can rationalize endlessly when it comes to political choices. I don't do a lot of rationalizing. For example, do you believe Rev. Wright's views really came as a surprise to Barack Obama after he spent 20 years listening to Wright's views? If your answer is "no," then of course you would have trouble voting for Obama (although you might do so).
There, I just screwed up any serenity you might have about voting for Obama. (It's what I do.)
Beaver County: I believe its future over the next generation can be very bright. There is good public transportation in the country and back-and-forth from Pittsburgh. The people here are generally wonderful. I have Black neighbors on both sides of our (modest) house -- we live right across from Ambridge H.S. Everything I need (almost) is within walking distance. It surely isn't suburban, affluent, but for our purposes it's a great place to live.
Members of my family, including two daughters, are like the many people who voted in the Primary, and thus opted for Sen. Clinton. I voted for John McCain in the Republican Primary.
The folks here in small-town Beaver County are not the "bitter" people that Obama described as clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia. (Yes, those are the people whose votes he now covets.) Obama knows nothing about the people in Beaver County or the many similar counties in PA, OH, IN.
His foreign policy adviser (Samantha Power), the one who called Hillary a "monster," also called the people of Ohio (I mean almost all of them) "obsessed." I don't know exactly what she meant, but I think it was a forerunner of the bitter comments.
Generally, I'd call the "race relations" here in this county very good. They are a whole lot better than what exists in Obama's Chicago area, such as Cicero, which MLK described as the worst he ever saw.
Philosophically, my problem with liberalism is that it preaches collective responsibility while denying the existence of individual responsibility. It's a view that makes no sense. How are we to take care of others if we can't take care of ourselves?
People who absolutely can't take care of themselves should receive help from those who can provide it. My wife has been disabled since 1991, but she does a great job of taking care of herself -- with some assistance from me and a daughter and some from Social Security/Medicare.
Many years ago I had a girlfriend in my single days. She told my mother (an artist and writer), "Oh, Mrs. Maloney, Steve and I will always take care of you." My mother said, "C, I think I'd prefer to take care of myself." The girlfriend was something of a legendary Democratic political figure in the Pittsburgh area. We eventually parted ways.
I haven't answered all your questions, but I've tried to be as candid as I can. Of course, I've also been challenging your beliefs, which is the way I conduct my life. As I suggested earlier, several of the members of my immediate family voted either for Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Obama (in various primaries).
The children are a very diverse group, and that's fine with me.
I spend a whole lot of my time "campaigning" (mostly online) for Senator McCain and others in whom I believe. I very much fear an Obama presidency because of his weakness and self-absorption. I read a while back that 20% of Democrats are rooting for the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq. I believe much of Obama's financial support comes from that group -- Moveon.org and Daily Kos types.
I am going to be writing this week about some of the comments in my "Black Conservatives" group. A big issue there is whether Obama's policies would help or hurt the Black community. I may send you one or two of the pieces I'll be using.
Sometimes policies designed to "help" people end up hurting them unintentionally. For example, the welfare policies of the Great Society ended up providing economic incentives for families to splt up. Thus, we now have twice as many single-mother Black families (percentage basis) as we did a generation ago. Obama alluded to this in his Father's Day speech but didn't seem to grasp exactly what had happened.
As bright as he appears sometimes, Obama is generally clueless about his own country.
As for me: To paraphrase Albert Camus' description of Sisyphus, "one must imagine Steve happy." I hope you and yours also are.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Just two years ago, remember the election in 2006? Two years ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; and,3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
However, since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet to historically low levels;
America voted for change in 2006, and we sure got it!
Remember, it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him, and Pelosi, Reid, and their cronies have stripped America's cupboard bare.
Note: The above material (with some distinctive additions) is appearing on all my blogs today, because it's very important. I'll add some more comments today about Dems' role in skyrocketing gas prices. Thanks for visiting.
Monday, June 16, 2008
In fact, Dick Durbin -- and others like him -- ARE the Congress. Durbin has been part of it since 1982, and anything that's wrong with it is frankly his fault. He's not somehow divorced from its failures. They're HIS failures.
During Durbin's tenure in Congress, gasoline prices have more than tripled! (See http://moveondickdurbin.org). What did Durbin do to prevent the gas price catastrophe? Nothing. What did he do to warn the American people? Nothing. What can we expect from a future Congress full of Durbins? Would you believe gasoline at $6-$7 a gallon?
What is Durbin's plan to prevent such an economy-destroying development? He has none. In fact, his approach is to ensure the U.S. produces LESS oil -- presumably so we can become more dependent on the Hugo Chavezes of the world.
Illinois Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Steve Sauerberg with his wife and daughter.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Many of my non-U.S. visitors want to support John McCain, and I get asked if they can make contributions to http://johnmccain.com/. For example, I got the following comment from a French Canadian, Tym, who blogs at: http://tymachine.blogspot.com/.:
Stephen:"Is it legal for Canadians and people from other countries to financially contribute to the John McCain campaign?"I see that Barack has managed to gather 3 times more money than John did. Does that do him any good to his [Obama's] tarnished image?"
The short answer to Tym's question about people from outside the U.S. contributing directly (key word) to McCain is: No. It's against U.S. law for non-U.S. citizens to donate to political campaigns (key phrase) under the control of candidates.
However, if a committee or group is outside the control of a presidential candidate, foreign national can contribute. Such donations would be similar to ones made, for example, to the American Red Cross or a U.S. church.In my previous column, I strongly urged all people supportive of John McCain -- Republicans, Democrats, Independents, foreign nationals, and U.S. citizens -- to join one of the (many) groups of Hillary Clinton Supporters for McCain. I specifically mentioned http://clintons4mccain.com/. That's a group (nearly 1300 members and growing fast) that opposes the election of Barack Obama -- and backs the election of John McCain.
Why can foreign nationals send contributions to Clintons for McCain? Because it's a group not under the control of McCain's "official" campaign, donating to that group (which I urge you to do) would be no different than contributing to me (which I urge you NOT to do).Clintons for McCain is not a group fixated on debating the pros-and-cons of Mrs. Clinton's views. In fact, it's a group where most members -- although not all -- agree with Sen. Clinton on her political positions.
Instead, Clintons for McCain is dedicated to preventing the election of Barack Obama and encouraging the election of John McCain.
Thus, I urge what we call "foreign nationals" to contribute as much as they can to such groups. I'm sure a $10 contribution (which I've made) would be welcome. I bet larger contributions might be even more welcome.CNN noted today (what took them so long?) that there's tremendous interest outside the U.S. in this country's presidential election.
I hope a lot of that interest will be translated into contributions to organizations supportive of McCain -- but not under the control of his campaign. Clintons for McCain would be a great place to start.
Friday, June 13, 2008
I'm also going to ask you to contribute $10 or more. I did.
The site now has about 1250 registered members (including me). That's a lot for a web site, but it shows every sign of continuing to grow rapidly.What exactly is Clintons for McCain? It's a site for MAHHS ("Mad as Heck Hillary Supporters). They are now committed to supporting John McCain for President. To overtures from the Democrats' presumptive nominee, they say: "NoBama!"
They think Obama used race and gender improperly to win the nomination. They also believe the national media dumped endless truckloads of garbage on Sen. Clinton.
I agree with them. But even if you don't agree, go and join (and contribute a few bucks!) anyway. If you're not an American national, you can still contribute, because Clintons for McCain is an independent group not subject to FEC regulations. Heck, send them a tiny chunk of your stimulus check. (And if you're in generous mood, do the same for John McCain.)
No, it isn't a site where you should argue the fine points of the abortion issue -- or the merits and demerits of Mrs. Clinton's health care plan. It's a place to be respectful and supportive of people with the same primary goal as yours: Remember, joining this group does not mean you need to "worship at the altar of Hillary."
Will you feel welcome there? Yes, because here's their basic message: "Welcome to the official website of the Clintons for McCain movement. We're still working on it and it will always be a work in progress. We welcome contributions and suggestions, and of course volunteer help!Please create an account and participate in our forum. Unlike what we have seen with the DNC and the Democratic party of late, we welcome all and no one's disenfranchised. Join us and help stop the home-grown terrorist sleeper cell Obama and help instead elect an honorable, trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office."
Bingo, there's the link -- the common thread: the election of a "trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office.I've asked three trustworthy and honest congressional candidates from Pennsylvania -- Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats -- to join Clintons4McCain.
After these three Republican women get over the initial shock, I think they will all join. I also asked them -- as I am you -- to make a small contribution to the group. The women cited here CAN win their congressional races, but they can't do it by appealing only to Republicans. (I write regularly about the Hart, Gilhooley, and Kats races on my Pennsylvania for John McCain blog.)
For just about any Republican -- from John McCain on down -- to win this year will require boldness and imagination. It will also offering a hand of friendship to Democrats profoundly dissatisfied with their Party.
The people of Clintons4McCain already are receiving a stream of vitriol from Moveon.org and the Daily Kos, both pillars of the "Hate America" movement. The Clintonites want nothing to do with those unsavory groups.
As elements of the McCain Campaign, let's give them our praise and support. Join now. Contribute now. I did, and it made me feel very good.
It also helps for the elected Democrats to ignore -- as best they can -- that the state massivley favored Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Right now, Democratic politicians in this state are twisting themselves into cortortions to back Obama, a candidate whose views are totally at variance with most Pennsylvanians. It's quite a spectacle.
BREAKING NEWS? AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE IS WHAT MIGHT (KEY WORD) BE VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S BIRTH RECORDS.
Some of Pennsylvania's most prominent Hillary haters -- including Bob Casey, Jr., Rep. Patrick Murphy, and Rep. Jason Altmire -- are backing Obama. So too is Cong. Tim Holden, who alternately claims to be undecided or undeclared. Actually, he's just unaware. I write about such people today (Friday) on my Pennsylvania blog, and I urge you to visit. Pennsylvania went massively in the Primary for Hillary Clinton.
So why are some PA elected officials drooling over Obama? Answer: Because they obviously believe the voters in the Keystone State are a bunch of nitwits.
Why on earth should Pennsylvania politics matter to you? Because most observers believe that if John McCain wins the state, he will be President-elect. And because many Republican challengers of Democrat incumbents (including Murphy, Altmire, and Holden) conceivably could win their races.
Those challengers are outstanding human being who deserve your support. Please visit their web sites: Tom Manion, Melissa Hart, and Toni Gilhooley. If you make even a small contribution (say, $10 or $15), you will have struck a real blow for political integrity.
It's true that "freedom isn't free," but if we lose it, we have lost everything.
Cindy Reidhead of http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com has been searching Hawaii records to determine that Barack Obama was in fact born in the U.S. (Hawaii). Here's the bulletin Cindy sent out Friday afternoon. (She's located in Hobbs, NM and was a protege of Republican political genius Lee Atwater.)
"It is entirely possible I have found something rather interesting. I chucked out money to locate Barack Obama's birth certificate in Hawaii. From what I found, there is no such record. It is entirely possible that I am completely wrong, and probably am - but here is what I found. Knowing the secrecy of Hawaiian records, I probably am wrong,. But - it's a for what it is worth. it is possible . . . "
Here is the URL"
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The material below this italicized section is from Jean Avery of Moms for McCain. A resident of Seattle, Washington, Jean is one of the most important political operatives "you've never heard about." She's an absolute VIP when it comes to understanding women voters -- and attracting them to the cause of John McCain. Her comments on "what do women want?" apply not only to the presidential election, but also to every race for the House and Senate. Thus, this is a high stakes discussion.
On my Pennsylvania blog today, I discuss how candidates in the Keystone State can pick up major support -- including financial contributions -- from voters who were committed to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Come visit!
Jean Avery's comments follow: "Last week, Howard Dean and friends gave delegates to someone who wasn't even on the ballot and took half the delegates from a candidate who was. And, by the way, she was also the first woman with a serious shot at the Presidency. Suddenly millions of American women who hung their hopes on Hillary are the Desirable Voting Bloc. (Sure, Hillary had male supporters, but because many women's motives differed, their response to her rejection may differ too.)
So, what happens now for Hillary's women? Do they ride what one disgruntled Mom called the "unity pony"? Do they stay home to 'send a message'? Or do they rise up like the poetic Scorned Women of yore, uniting as "PUMAs for McCain" (party unity my....well....you can figure it out).
Gloria Steinem and friends are confident (too confident?) that the same women screwed over by their own party will come home to roost because a lefty novelist thought he heard a nasty remark or because McCain refused to pander on an 'equal pay' lawsuit bill. But I believe women voters are smart enough to look at what the remaining men have to offer as President, and can judge them on that basis. So what DOES McCain have to offer women? Here are a few thoughts.
More money in your pocket(book). Despite humorous greeting cards to the contrary, most women I know are very careful with their money. We work hard for it and when we spend and save we have priorities in mind. We are more likely to drive the gas-guzzling minivan and buy the overpriced groceries. A McCain presidency maintains tax cuts which put more money into the pockets, purses, and bank accounts of the vast majority of Americans. This is not a vague promise, this is a specific, concrete commitment from both candidates - one of them will take more of your money than the other. Figure out your family's costs under Obama here.
More safety for your country. If Obama is elected, regardless of what is happening on the ground, he has to uphold his devil's bargain with the anti-war lobby and retreat from Iraq - even if maintaining a presence makes logistical and strategic sense. John McCain's positions on the war are shaped by a lifetime of personal investment - including heroic suffering, family sacrifice, and yes, logistical hands-on experience. Hillary said it best herself, when the phone rings at 3 am, I want someone answering it who has not only experience, but is unfettered by political fears and promises when making those split-second life-and-death decisions
.Hillary herself observed that McCain was much better qualified choice than Obama on national security issues. If she can see it, so should her supporters.
Education and healthcare. The only thing worse than having a seriously sick child in the middle of the night is getting an administrative run-around at the emergency room when you bring them in. Hillary made government-led 'universal healthcare' a cornerstone of her First Ladyship and her campaign. I personally dislike any system that takes money from your pocket and your paycheck FIRST and THEN you (hopefully) have a procedure they approved done by a provider they choose in a location they deem affordable and appropriate. But for those Hillary supporters whose hearts were set on health care solutions, consider the viable, easily-implemented alternatives McCain proposes, including tax credits, drug price management, and increased portability of coverage.
Life and moral issues. Despite bellyaching to the contrary, a majority of Americans - including women - are against partial-birth abortion (sucking a baby's brains out), government funding of abortion at home and abroad, and other frightening policies espoused by Obama [like the hideous "live-birth abortion"]. If you're pro-life, McCain is your ONLY choice. But even if you're pro-choice, you should ask yourself if this is how you want your tax dollars being spent - and if you're willing to put your country in a rookie's hands over this issue. Hillary herself knew it in her heart - John McCain will make a better President than Barack Obama.
You'll note that I have fought the (substantial) urge to rant about crazy pastors, terrorist friends, etc. - because all those distractions put together are less important than what each candidate will actually DO in office.I believe women are smart voters, I believe we are capable of identifying good and bad judgment when we see it, and I believe we understand what is best for our families and for our country. To all women who are politically 'homeless,' take some time to get to know John McCain. You'll like what you see.
Steve adds: McCain needs to sell his proposals on pocketbook issues, family and community security, and moral issues in simple, compelling ways. He needs to distinguish between his straight-talk and Obama's endless blasts of hot air. He also need to attack Obama on the change issue, outlining how the Senator from Illinois is offering big government solutions that just don't work.
Overall, he must emphasize how he advocates positive change, while Obama relies exclusively on -- in McCain's word -- "platitudes."
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Thursday a.m. (about 10:30 a.m.) on my Pennsylvania blog I'll attempt an answer to an overwhelming question: How exactly do Republican candidates for federal office -- including John McCain -- go about getting the votes -- and financial support -- of the Hillary backers?
I can imagine Republican congressional candidates, some of them very dear to me, saying, "Hey, I don't agree with Hillary on much, so how can I can her supporters to back me?"
The first thing is to understand that Hillary Supporters aren't from another planet. As our fellow Americans, they share a lot more with us than we -- or they -- might imagine. For instance, the vast majority of Hillary backers do support our American soldiers. In fact, Hillary's voters are a lot more likely to KNOW -- or to have in their family -- one or more American soldiers.
The same is not true of Obama-philes. To them, soldiers are somebody they see on TV. Twenty percent of Democrats say they hope the U.S. loses the war in Iraq. Very few of them -- almost none, I'd guess -- voted for Hillary Clinton in the Dem Primaries.
Even though I have one wife and five daughters and various grand-daughters, I don't claim to be an expert on women. Even Dr. Freud (not a big favorite with feminists) felt called upon once to ask, "But what does a woman want?" In coming up with an answer to that, I'm going to rely on my long-distance friend, Jean Avery, from Seattle, Washington. She's as good as it gets on understanding the hopes, fears, and thoughts of female voters. Jean blogs at http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com.
She's the one who brought to my attention the avalanche of angry generated by Mrs. Clinton's loss of the nomination. I wrote about that on Tuesday on my Hillary Supporters for McCain site. I also provided the very long list of web sites for Hillary-ites who now intend to vote for McCain.
Caution: Jean, a mom herself, is also a Princeton grad (perhaps one of the few things she shares with Michelle Obama). However, she's promised me not to use too many big words. (When people found out I had been a college English teacher, they used to worry about their grammar!
I think it cost me invitations to parties.)
Anyway, after I do the Pennsylvania piece, I'll steal some bits and pieces and add them to this site. As always, thanks for visiting. If you have comments, please either use the "comments" section or send them to me via e-mail at TalkTop65@aol.com.
Last Democrat Superdelegate holdout warily eyes Barack Obama. This is the first in my "Odd Picture" series, which will appear daily. You send me an odd pic, and I supply the caption. Send to: TalkTop65@aol.com.
"I would rather lose an election than lose a war." (John McCain, uttering words you'll never hear from the John Murtha or Patrick Murphys of the world)
Why is PA Republican congressional candidate Tom Manion (8th district) smiling these days?
Monday, June 9, 2008
the main Palin web site: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com
the Moms4McCain site: http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com
the Bev Perlson military moms site: http://thebandofmothers.com
the Tom Manion web site: http://votemanion.com.
the primary McCain discussion site: http://mccainnow.com.
If you have any questions, e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Thanks!
You will read things here that the national media will start covering next month. On my Hillary Supporters site and on my PA site, I talk about a national group of Hillary supporters who are targeting for defeat "SuperDelegates" who gave Sen. Clinton the shaft (voting for Obama against the wishes of their constituents. Such individuals include John Kerry of MA and Jay Rockefeller of WV, among many others.
Can't go to bed tonight (Monday) without asking you to check out my Hillary Supporters for McCain site. It contains information about the most amazing political movement I've sene in my lifetime: Hillary Supporters who "mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore." Fascinating . . . I will be on Sirius Radio from NY at 5:30 p.m. (ET) on Tuesday.
On my Pennsylvania blog I've received an important request from Tom Manion, Republican congressional candidate in PA's 8th district. It deals with an important online poll. Manion, a Marine Corps veteran, lost his son Travis in the Iraq War. Please visit the site for information. http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Sarah Palin sorrounded by veterans of the Vietnam War. Sarah's son, Track, age 18, is an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army. She's widely regarded as the frontrunner for the GOP's V-P nomination.
"Sarah is not an ordinary mortal. She truly has no downside."
I proclaimed to the world yesterday that prominent national security writer Jack Kelly (who writes for major newspapers in Pennsylvania and Ohio) has strongly endorsed Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska for the GOP ticket. Kelly is an unusual combination - a former Marine, a former Special Forces soldier and a former candidate for Congress (he lost, alas).
In his column, Jack Kelly says "most [presidential candidates] will settle for a veep who isn't a drag on the ticket, as Dan Quayle was for the first President Bush." He might have added, "Or, as Dick Cheney apparently was on the second President Bush."
Kelly adds, "The potential [McCain] running mates most often discussed have downsides nearly as great as their upsides."
He adds, "Gov. Tim Pawlenty helps only in Minnesota, and not enough, according to current polls, to make a difference there. Mr. McCain's friend, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, would bring in some moderate Democrats but could further antagonize conservatives already suspicious of Mr. McCain.
"Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts would have little appeal to working-class whites unhappy with Sen. Barack Obama, and evangelicals fret about that Mormon thing. A Mike Huckabee nomination would irritate economic . . . conservatives as much as it would please evangelicals. Louisiana Gov.
Bobby Jindal is a rising star. But he's only 36, and he's been governor for less than a year."
The men - key word - Kelly mentions are all people of talent. One of them (Jindal?) may end up as President someday. But Jack Kelly is right about their downsides.
According to pundit lore, Pawlenty could help McCain win the "battleground" (sorta) state of Minnesota. However, he won re-election there by only 21,000 votes out of 2.3 million cast. He was lucky to carry Minnesota himself. Bulletin to John McCain: you aren't going to carry Minnesota with or without Pawlenty.
Mitt's Romney's problem is that he strikes many people as inauthentic. They don't believe his latter-day conversion to pro-life and anti-illegals views. They see him as ambitious to a fault. Also, in the primaries, he seemed to win only states either dominated by Mormons (Utah) or characterized by the fact Mitt Romney grew up there (Michigan).
Bobby Jindal is a mixture of ability and oddness. A few months ago he was interviewed on CNN, and the questioner couldn't get him to say whether he endorsed John McCain . . . or Barack Obama. With Jindal around, McCain might need a food taster.
As Kelly implies, Joe Lieberman - a fine man and a patriot - would be an awful choice. He came close to losing his seat in Connecticut. Most Democrats despise him, and most Republicans would rather see someone else on the ticket.
Mike Huckabee is a candidate whose campaign was almost as tenacious as Hillary Clinton's He's chronically underestimated by the national media. However, it's hard to see what he could bring to the ticket that Sarah Palin can't.
She's just as "Christian" as Mike, but has less of a tendency to wear it on her sleeve. Also, she has pro-life credentials (having opted to give birth to a Down Syndrome child) that no other politician can match.
What works against Sarah is tradition - specifically, the Republican tradition of making very bad choices for Vice President. Barry Goldwater chose William Miller, an obscure (and deservedly so) Congressman from Lockport, New York. Nixon chose Spiro Agnew specifically to help him carry Maryland - which didn't happen - but lack of popularity turned out to be the least of Agnew's faults.
George H. W. Bush famously chose Quayle, who struck most people as a simpleton. Bob Dole chose Jack Kempt, but the wretched Republican campaign could have been won if Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were on the ticket.
George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney, supposedly a "solid" pick. In fact, Cheney - holed up mainly in his "undisclosed location" (the Bat Cave?), turned out to be the Darth Vader of contemporary politics.
The only "problem" with Sarah Palin is that she's such an obvious choice. As my friend in Boston puts it, she's a no-brainer. Some people invent shortcomings, such as the fact that she's beautiful and was - and is - a great athlete, the kind of person who runs - and finishes - marathons.
In my previous column I listed the groups for whom Sarah has great appeal: young people, military families, working mothers, women professionals, pro-lifers, hunters, working-class voters (her husband being one), fitness and health advocates, and ethics-in-government people. I didn't add Alaskans, where Sarah's approval ratings hover around 90%.
She's also a ferocious campaigner. In her race for Governor, she first unseated the incumbent Republican, Frank Murkowski. Then, she in the general, she beat a popular former Governor (and Democrat) Tony Knowles. That was in 2006, which was generally a very bad year for Republicans.
If John McCain doesn't choose Sarah Palin, he might have to plead temporary insanity. As I've said, "Sarah Palin is no ordinary mortal." I've also said that she's "Mt. Rushmore material." I certainly hope John McCain takes the first major step in proving me right.
Link to Jack Kelly's column: http://post-gazette.com/forum