The bad news is that, for Blacks, especially poor ones, unemployment is rising while income is falling. But the banks and other companies Obama bailed out with hundreds of billions in taxpayer money are reporting "record profits" and paying big bonuses -- reportedly one hundred million to one energy "trader.' (The energy traders are those who help artificially jack up prices for gasoline and home heating oil.)
Of course, the banks, like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and others are the ones who "donated" all that money to the Obama Campaign. Barack Obama takes care of his "friends." He appreciates Black votes, but isn't about to do anything to earn them.
Might it be time yet to start rubbing the noses of yesterday's Obama supporters in such facts? Gee, the first mixed race president is presiding in the most precipitous drop in the standard of living -- and the quality of life -- for Black people. As Michelle Obama said (althuogh not in the way she meant it), "It's time for Black folks to wake up."
Oh, and Barack's and Michelle's combined income last year was $2.8 milion. Sasha and Malia go to a (mostly white) private school that costs $30,000 a year -- for each of them. At least one guy with some African ancestry is doing very, very well.
Showing posts with label Michelle Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michelle Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Hard Questions for Barack, Michelle
The MSM (mainstream media) delights in asking Sarah Palin loaded questions, but they have no interest in asking Obama anything that might even mildly irritate "The Great One." For example, the Anchorage Daily News (http://www.adn.com/) hates Gov. Palin with a passion and has repeatedly asked her to verify that she is in fact Trig Palin's mother.
NOTE: On Friday evening, I'll be posting a piece on "The MSM's Decline and Fall." It will deal with how the major news networks and publications are drowning in a fetid pool of bias and bile -- and what we can do to accelerate the process of their demise.
Note: On my other blog (on Wednesday) I have a provocative piece about "Michelle Obama: How Many Abortions?" As the saying goes, "Enquiring minds want to know."
I don't recall them asking for such verification by Michelle Obama about the parentage of Malia and Sasha. Why not?
Overall, the media avoid asking any searching questions about Sasha and Malia -- and perhaps on whether Michelle aborted any of her fetuses and, if so, why. When has Michelle been asked why she subjected her children to Rev. Wright's hate-filled sermons denigrating women and white people? Was that a sign of responsible parentage by the Obama's?
And why hasn't she been queried about the real nature of her "community relations" job -- at $300,000 per year -- at the University of Chicago hospital? Reportedly, her job was to increase the hospital's earnings by discouraging poor people from seeking care. If that wasn't her job, then what exactly was her function?
Obama has admitted to using cocaine earlier in his life. When did he stop, if in fact he ever stopped? And, did he ever sell cocaine or heroin or other mind-altering drugs? And if so, to whom? When Michelle indicated that, prior to Obama's triumphs, she had "never been proud of [her] country," was that meant as a slam against the Clinton presidency?
Why hasn't Obama ever been asked if Joe Biden's story was true about his being offered the job of Secretary of State? Or is that just another in Biden's long string of lies about himself? Why doesn't at least one reporter dig into that story?
Also, why hasn't Obama been asked about his two enthusiastic endorsements of Blagojevich? Why did he change his mind about the appointment of machine politician Roland Burris? Why does there appear to be a strong correlation between companies that donated to Obama's last two campaigns (2004 for the U.S. Senate and 2008 for the presidency) and the amount of bailout money they received?
Of course such questions would never be posed to "The Great One" or TGO's angry, sour wife. When Michelle appeared on "The View," she presented the "enquiring" ladies there with a list of questions they were not allowed to ask. Sarah constantly gets asked "no win" questions right out of the "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-spouse?" category.
The media doesn't do contrasts between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, mainly because she has solid executive-style achievements and basically he has none. Why don't we hear more about his signal lack of success as a "community organizer?" Why don't we hear more about his dismal records as an Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator, where he rarely even showed up in DC?
Amazingly, we know a great deal about Sarah Palin and her family. Essentially, however, we know nothing about the Obamas and their lives together. Presumably, there are reasons why they keep their lives such a secret, but if we're waiting for the MSM to help us there, we're almost certainly waiting in vain.
NOTE: On Friday evening, I'll be posting a piece on "The MSM's Decline and Fall." It will deal with how the major news networks and publications are drowning in a fetid pool of bias and bile -- and what we can do to accelerate the process of their demise.
Note: On my other blog (on Wednesday) I have a provocative piece about "Michelle Obama: How Many Abortions?" As the saying goes, "Enquiring minds want to know."
I don't recall them asking for such verification by Michelle Obama about the parentage of Malia and Sasha. Why not?
Overall, the media avoid asking any searching questions about Sasha and Malia -- and perhaps on whether Michelle aborted any of her fetuses and, if so, why. When has Michelle been asked why she subjected her children to Rev. Wright's hate-filled sermons denigrating women and white people? Was that a sign of responsible parentage by the Obama's?
And why hasn't she been queried about the real nature of her "community relations" job -- at $300,000 per year -- at the University of Chicago hospital? Reportedly, her job was to increase the hospital's earnings by discouraging poor people from seeking care. If that wasn't her job, then what exactly was her function?
Obama has admitted to using cocaine earlier in his life. When did he stop, if in fact he ever stopped? And, did he ever sell cocaine or heroin or other mind-altering drugs? And if so, to whom? When Michelle indicated that, prior to Obama's triumphs, she had "never been proud of [her] country," was that meant as a slam against the Clinton presidency?
Why hasn't Obama ever been asked if Joe Biden's story was true about his being offered the job of Secretary of State? Or is that just another in Biden's long string of lies about himself? Why doesn't at least one reporter dig into that story?
Also, why hasn't Obama been asked about his two enthusiastic endorsements of Blagojevich? Why did he change his mind about the appointment of machine politician Roland Burris? Why does there appear to be a strong correlation between companies that donated to Obama's last two campaigns (2004 for the U.S. Senate and 2008 for the presidency) and the amount of bailout money they received?
Of course such questions would never be posed to "The Great One" or TGO's angry, sour wife. When Michelle appeared on "The View," she presented the "enquiring" ladies there with a list of questions they were not allowed to ask. Sarah constantly gets asked "no win" questions right out of the "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-spouse?" category.
The media doesn't do contrasts between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, mainly because she has solid executive-style achievements and basically he has none. Why don't we hear more about his signal lack of success as a "community organizer?" Why don't we hear more about his dismal records as an Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator, where he rarely even showed up in DC?
Amazingly, we know a great deal about Sarah Palin and her family. Essentially, however, we know nothing about the Obamas and their lives together. Presumably, there are reasons why they keep their lives such a secret, but if we're waiting for the MSM to help us there, we're almost certainly waiting in vain.
Friday, March 20, 2009
OBAMA'S CONTEMPT FOR FELLOW AMERICANS
"I swear The One [Obama] knew what he was saying [about Special Olympics] and that it was a slam on Palin." (My friend Cindy's "take")
We need to recognize -- and to communicate to others -- that Obama and those around him are slimeballs, whose endless gaffes and smears are part of their nature. Many of you might remember his offensive statement about Nancy Reagan -- after which, as with the Special Olympics people -- he called to "apologize." In the campaign, he clearly referred to Gov. Palin as a "pig" -- and didn't apologize.
How do elitists like Obama look at the children and young adults in Special Olympics? With contempt, of course. The chances of Michelle Obama ever giving birth to a Down Syndrome child are something less than zero. The embryo would have been aborted without question and thrown out with hospital garbage. To the Obamas and their admirers children who are less than perfect have no right to intrude on their lives.
The Obamas are what the media call "beautiful people." Anybody who is unbeautiful is someone they avoid. People who are handicapped -- or have handicapped children -- are butts of jokes and derision..
Frankly, someone like Sarah Palin and her family -- or like the people reading this -- are incomprehensible to the Obamas. They hate the Palins because they stand for something -- rather than self-absorption. Sarah talks about the need for leaders to have a "servant's heart." To the Obamas, a servant is someone who takes care of their dirty laundry.
How should we react to the narcissistic Obama and his malicious? Give them no quarter. By doing what they do and being who they are they diminish the value of life. Like their admirer John Edwards, they suffer from chronic narcissism and egotism.
[Note: On Sunday, I'll write about solutions to America's education -- and explain why Obama will do no better on education than Bill Clinton did.]
We need to recognize -- and to communicate to others -- that Obama and those around him are slimeballs, whose endless gaffes and smears are part of their nature. Many of you might remember his offensive statement about Nancy Reagan -- after which, as with the Special Olympics people -- he called to "apologize." In the campaign, he clearly referred to Gov. Palin as a "pig" -- and didn't apologize.
How do elitists like Obama look at the children and young adults in Special Olympics? With contempt, of course. The chances of Michelle Obama ever giving birth to a Down Syndrome child are something less than zero. The embryo would have been aborted without question and thrown out with hospital garbage. To the Obamas and their admirers children who are less than perfect have no right to intrude on their lives.
The Obamas are what the media call "beautiful people." Anybody who is unbeautiful is someone they avoid. People who are handicapped -- or have handicapped children -- are butts of jokes and derision..
Frankly, someone like Sarah Palin and her family -- or like the people reading this -- are incomprehensible to the Obamas. They hate the Palins because they stand for something -- rather than self-absorption. Sarah talks about the need for leaders to have a "servant's heart." To the Obamas, a servant is someone who takes care of their dirty laundry.
How should we react to the narcissistic Obama and his malicious? Give them no quarter. By doing what they do and being who they are they diminish the value of life. Like their admirer John Edwards, they suffer from chronic narcissism and egotism.
[Note: On Sunday, I'll write about solutions to America's education -- and explain why Obama will do no better on education than Bill Clinton did.]
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Why Michelle Obama Hates America
won't exactly"Why Barack Obama's angry, Black separatist wife make a great first lady . . . ."
By: Tracy Karol (posted at http://talkstraight.org, where Tracy is the editor. She's an Hispanic activist and a political Indepedent living in Texas.
Talk Straight is dedicated to throwing sand in the gears of the Obama Lie Machine This is the best essay I've seen on who Michelle Obama really is.
"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback," [1] Michelle Obama said so famously in mid-February 2008. Immediately, the mainstream media and the internet were buzzing with the news that presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s wife, who by anyone’s standards has not exactly led a difficult life, was a bitter woman.
She wasn’t proud of the fact that she went to Princeton, a school out of reach for most Americans? Or when she later went to Harvard Law School, where she met her husband? She wasn’t proud of the dream house her family owned? (Possibly not, since it’s been a source of embarrassment to the campaign as it was purchased in a “boneheaded” deal with convicted felon and slumlord Tony Rezko). [2]
Michelle Obama: The Image Michelle Obama can come across as an angry African-American woman, bitter even. Her senior thesis at Princeton, which reporters had a difficult time gaining access to, was rather difficult to follow, but the central theme was race: "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong." [3]
Her statements and history might not be so problematic if Barack Obama were not attempting to present himself as a unifier, someone who was above race. Instead, people in his campaign, including his wife and even himself have consistently “played the race card.” Remember: Michelle Obama sat in the same pew that Barack Obama did for 20 years, listening to the hate-filled sermons of Jeremiah Wright, the rants against whites, the consistent radical Black Liberation Theology.
One writer put it like this: "There is a disconnect there. The allusions of racial transcendence fall on deaf ears when Michelle Obama insists that soon “black America will wake up and get it,” help elect her husband, so she can feel proud of her country 'for the first time in [her] adult life.' Somewhere along the way, for these two Ivy Leaguers, to be American meant to “feel justified in your own ignorance… that’s America.”
Somewhere between growing up middle class, going to Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton, being the benefactors of sweetheart housing deals, grants, and loans, and filing over $1 million in tax returns, [to the Obamas] the United States became “downright mean.” [4]
The Obama campaign, however, was not quick to put a lid on Michelle; rather, it hired a public relations firm to shore up her image and sent her out on interviews. She did The Colbert Report, where she dressed like Jackie Kennedy and said she would like to emulate her. She appeared on The View, where she was treated like an old friend by the hosts.
(Sadly, Barbara Walters would later say in an interview with Jon Stewart that she asked Barack Obama to come on her show, and he responded that he had; she said she was sorry she wasn’t there that day; he said she was – she said she was certain she would never be invited to the White House if he was ever elected, and they joked that his famous charisma was maybe not present so much in person).
The Early Days Early on, Michelle Obama showed herself to be a strong woman who will not fade into the background, much like Hillary Clinton herself. So one would think Michelle would befriend Hillary Clinton, but that hasn’t seemed to be the case. Antipathy between the two campaigns remains, especially with the selection of Joseph Biden as Barack Obama’s running mate.
But what about the early days, before Michelle put her foot in her mouth and got a makeover? What does the American public know about this woman, who has been such a strong influence on Barack Obama that he said he would turn to her first for advice in a crisis if he were president?
We know that she was deeply involved in the sweetheart, “boneheaded” deal with Tony Rezko that enabled the Obamas to buy their mansion. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. We know that when Barack Obama was a state senator, working with his mentor Emil Jones, he steered a $4.5 million earmark for the Muntu Dance Theater so it could build a cultural center. At the time, Michelle sat on the group’s board. [5]
We know that in 2007, serving in the US Senate, Obama earmarked $1 million for the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Michelle Obama worked and had received a pay raise of nearly $200,000 soon after Obama was elected to the Senate. She had no trouble accepting the money. [6]
She later, along with David Axelrod’s company and others, formed the Urban Health Initiative, which has been widely accused of dumping poor, mostly black patients from Chicago’s South Side on other health-care institutions. [7]
We know that on February 17, 2004, she e-mailed supporters asking for donations on her husband’s behalf, using the “pro-choice” catch, even though it was largely fictional in this case. Why? She was “fear-mongering” women that Roe v Wade would be overturned because of the ban Congress passed on partial-birth abortions in 2003 – the same procedure pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once called “as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon…”
Fear-mongering is a tactic the Obama campaign has constantly accused the McCain camp of doing. [8]
Who is the Real Michelle Obama? What do these things tell Americans about Michelle Obama? Is she the strong, working mother who stands beside her man, hip, fist-bumping him when he wins elections, a new kind of first lady? She was certainly quick to criticize Hillary Clinton, saying that, “If you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House. You can’t do it.” [9]
That statement probably hasn’t gone over too well with Elizabeth Edwards, whose husband so enthusiastically endorsed hers before his affair became public knowledge. She also doesn’t portray the type of classiness she seems to crave, ala Jackie Kennedy.
But then, her husband is no JFK, RFK, or MLK, either. He’s more of a Malcolm X follower, so her rage is understandable, as it fits well with black liberation theology, with the teachings of her church, with the hatred spewed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No wonder she has never been proud of her country.
Most Americans, if they knew the REAL Michelle Obama – the privileged Michelle Obama who may have grown up on the South Side of Chicago but certainly got away from it in a hurry with opportunities few regular Americans ever get – would not be proud of her words or her actions.
And no wonder Michelle and Barack Obama make such a good team: neither she nor her husband has ever met an earmark they don’t love or couldn't work to their advantage. So the “introduction” Michelle Obama gives at the DNC convention and the story of their marriage is just that – a story, carefully fabricated by David Axelrod, who himself has played an intricate part in much of their lives.
[1] http://www.newsweek.com/id/123024
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/26/politics/uwire/main3881166.shtml
[4] http://www.globalpolitician.com/25010-obama-elections-black-nationalism
[5] “State pork to Obama’s district included allies, donors,” Chicago Tribune, May 3, 2007
[6] Mike Dorning, “Employer: Michelle Obama’s raise well-earned,” Chicago Tribune, September 27, 2006
[7] http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article
[8] E-mail from Obama for Illinois, “A Message from Michelle Obama,” February 17, 2004
[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc
For more information on this and other topics, please visit TalkStraight.org
By: Tracy Karol (posted at http://talkstraight.org, where Tracy is the editor. She's an Hispanic activist and a political Indepedent living in Texas.
Talk Straight is dedicated to throwing sand in the gears of the Obama Lie Machine This is the best essay I've seen on who Michelle Obama really is.
"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback," [1] Michelle Obama said so famously in mid-February 2008. Immediately, the mainstream media and the internet were buzzing with the news that presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s wife, who by anyone’s standards has not exactly led a difficult life, was a bitter woman.
She wasn’t proud of the fact that she went to Princeton, a school out of reach for most Americans? Or when she later went to Harvard Law School, where she met her husband? She wasn’t proud of the dream house her family owned? (Possibly not, since it’s been a source of embarrassment to the campaign as it was purchased in a “boneheaded” deal with convicted felon and slumlord Tony Rezko). [2]
Michelle Obama: The Image Michelle Obama can come across as an angry African-American woman, bitter even. Her senior thesis at Princeton, which reporters had a difficult time gaining access to, was rather difficult to follow, but the central theme was race: "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong." [3]
Her statements and history might not be so problematic if Barack Obama were not attempting to present himself as a unifier, someone who was above race. Instead, people in his campaign, including his wife and even himself have consistently “played the race card.” Remember: Michelle Obama sat in the same pew that Barack Obama did for 20 years, listening to the hate-filled sermons of Jeremiah Wright, the rants against whites, the consistent radical Black Liberation Theology.
One writer put it like this: "There is a disconnect there. The allusions of racial transcendence fall on deaf ears when Michelle Obama insists that soon “black America will wake up and get it,” help elect her husband, so she can feel proud of her country 'for the first time in [her] adult life.' Somewhere along the way, for these two Ivy Leaguers, to be American meant to “feel justified in your own ignorance… that’s America.”
Somewhere between growing up middle class, going to Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton, being the benefactors of sweetheart housing deals, grants, and loans, and filing over $1 million in tax returns, [to the Obamas] the United States became “downright mean.” [4]
The Obama campaign, however, was not quick to put a lid on Michelle; rather, it hired a public relations firm to shore up her image and sent her out on interviews. She did The Colbert Report, where she dressed like Jackie Kennedy and said she would like to emulate her. She appeared on The View, where she was treated like an old friend by the hosts.
(Sadly, Barbara Walters would later say in an interview with Jon Stewart that she asked Barack Obama to come on her show, and he responded that he had; she said she was sorry she wasn’t there that day; he said she was – she said she was certain she would never be invited to the White House if he was ever elected, and they joked that his famous charisma was maybe not present so much in person).
The Early Days Early on, Michelle Obama showed herself to be a strong woman who will not fade into the background, much like Hillary Clinton herself. So one would think Michelle would befriend Hillary Clinton, but that hasn’t seemed to be the case. Antipathy between the two campaigns remains, especially with the selection of Joseph Biden as Barack Obama’s running mate.
But what about the early days, before Michelle put her foot in her mouth and got a makeover? What does the American public know about this woman, who has been such a strong influence on Barack Obama that he said he would turn to her first for advice in a crisis if he were president?
We know that she was deeply involved in the sweetheart, “boneheaded” deal with Tony Rezko that enabled the Obamas to buy their mansion. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. We know that when Barack Obama was a state senator, working with his mentor Emil Jones, he steered a $4.5 million earmark for the Muntu Dance Theater so it could build a cultural center. At the time, Michelle sat on the group’s board. [5]
We know that in 2007, serving in the US Senate, Obama earmarked $1 million for the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Michelle Obama worked and had received a pay raise of nearly $200,000 soon after Obama was elected to the Senate. She had no trouble accepting the money. [6]
She later, along with David Axelrod’s company and others, formed the Urban Health Initiative, which has been widely accused of dumping poor, mostly black patients from Chicago’s South Side on other health-care institutions. [7]
We know that on February 17, 2004, she e-mailed supporters asking for donations on her husband’s behalf, using the “pro-choice” catch, even though it was largely fictional in this case. Why? She was “fear-mongering” women that Roe v Wade would be overturned because of the ban Congress passed on partial-birth abortions in 2003 – the same procedure pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once called “as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon…”
Fear-mongering is a tactic the Obama campaign has constantly accused the McCain camp of doing. [8]
Who is the Real Michelle Obama? What do these things tell Americans about Michelle Obama? Is she the strong, working mother who stands beside her man, hip, fist-bumping him when he wins elections, a new kind of first lady? She was certainly quick to criticize Hillary Clinton, saying that, “If you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House. You can’t do it.” [9]
That statement probably hasn’t gone over too well with Elizabeth Edwards, whose husband so enthusiastically endorsed hers before his affair became public knowledge. She also doesn’t portray the type of classiness she seems to crave, ala Jackie Kennedy.
But then, her husband is no JFK, RFK, or MLK, either. He’s more of a Malcolm X follower, so her rage is understandable, as it fits well with black liberation theology, with the teachings of her church, with the hatred spewed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No wonder she has never been proud of her country.
Most Americans, if they knew the REAL Michelle Obama – the privileged Michelle Obama who may have grown up on the South Side of Chicago but certainly got away from it in a hurry with opportunities few regular Americans ever get – would not be proud of her words or her actions.
And no wonder Michelle and Barack Obama make such a good team: neither she nor her husband has ever met an earmark they don’t love or couldn't work to their advantage. So the “introduction” Michelle Obama gives at the DNC convention and the story of their marriage is just that – a story, carefully fabricated by David Axelrod, who himself has played an intricate part in much of their lives.
[1] http://www.newsweek.com/id/123024
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/26/politics/uwire/main3881166.shtml
[4] http://www.globalpolitician.com/25010-obama-elections-black-nationalism
[5] “State pork to Obama’s district included allies, donors,” Chicago Tribune, May 3, 2007
[6] Mike Dorning, “Employer: Michelle Obama’s raise well-earned,” Chicago Tribune, September 27, 2006
[7] http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article
[8] E-mail from Obama for Illinois, “A Message from Michelle Obama,” February 17, 2004
[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc
For more information on this and other topics, please visit TalkStraight.org
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tortured Iranian Student in America
[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the column, where you'll find a code that will connect you to the Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio program. I'll be on it this Saturday at 5 p.m. and every other Sat. through August. Please come and visit!]
"Your hands will never touch me again." (Ahmad Batebi)
America means the same things to me as it does to Ahmad Batebi, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. I wish there were some evidence it meant at least some of those things to Barack and Michelle Obama.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11707464
NINE years ago, Ahmad Batebi appeared on the cover of The Economist. He was a 21-year-old student, one of thousands who protested against Iran’s government that summer. He was photographed holding aloft a T-shirt bespattered with the blood of a fellow protester. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and shown our issue of July 17th 1999. “With this”, he was told, “you have signed your death warrant.”
During his interrogation he was blindfolded and beaten with cables until he passed out. His captors rubbed salt into his wounds to wake him up, so they could torture him more. They held his head in a drain full of sewage until he inhaled it. He recalls yearning for a swift death to end the pain. He was played recordings of what he was told was his mother being tortured. His captors wanted him to betray his fellow students, to implicate them in various crimes and to say on television that the blood on that T-shirt was only red paint. He says he refused.
He was sentenced to death for “creating street unrest”. But after a global outcry, the sentence was commuted to 15 years in jail. He speculates that his high profile made it hard to kill him without attracting negative publicity. For two years, he was kept in solitary confinement, in a cell that was little more than a toilet hole with a wooden board on top. He was tortured constantly. Only when he was allowed to mingle with other prisoners again did he begin to overcome his despair.
He suffered a partial stroke that left the right side of his body without feeling. He needed medical attention. The regime did not want to be blamed for him dying behind bars, he says, so he was allowed out for treatment. Three months ago, on the day of the Persian new year, he escaped into Iraq. On June 24th he arrived in America.
He spoke to The Economist on July 7th. Looking at the picture that sparked his ordeal, he says that another man in his place might be angry, but he is not. Mr Batebi is a photographer himself. He says he understands what journalism involves. Had we not published the picture, he says, another paper might have. Looking at the same picture, his lawyer, interpreter and friend Lily Mazahery says she is close to tears: in it, the young Mr Batebi’s pale arms are as yet unscarred by torture.
The protests Mr Batebi took part in nine years ago frightened Iran’s rulers. The students were angry about censorship, the persecution of intellectuals and the thugs who beat up any student overheard disparaging the regime. Mr Batebi thinks Iran could well turn solidly democratic some day. In neighbouring states, religious extremism is popular. In Iran, he says, the government is religiously extreme, but the people are not.
He is cagey about how exactly he escaped. But he says he used a cellphone camera to record virtually every step of his journey, and will soon go public with the pictures and his commentary. Meanwhile, he seems to be enjoying America. He praises the way “people have the opportunity to become who they want to be”. Shortly after he arrived, he posted a picture of himself in front of the Capitol on his Farsi-language blog, with the caption: “Your hands will never touch me again.”
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
"Your hands will never touch me again." (Ahmad Batebi)
America means the same things to me as it does to Ahmad Batebi, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. I wish there were some evidence it meant at least some of those things to Barack and Michelle Obama.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11707464
NINE years ago, Ahmad Batebi appeared on the cover of The Economist. He was a 21-year-old student, one of thousands who protested against Iran’s government that summer. He was photographed holding aloft a T-shirt bespattered with the blood of a fellow protester. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and shown our issue of July 17th 1999. “With this”, he was told, “you have signed your death warrant.”
During his interrogation he was blindfolded and beaten with cables until he passed out. His captors rubbed salt into his wounds to wake him up, so they could torture him more. They held his head in a drain full of sewage until he inhaled it. He recalls yearning for a swift death to end the pain. He was played recordings of what he was told was his mother being tortured. His captors wanted him to betray his fellow students, to implicate them in various crimes and to say on television that the blood on that T-shirt was only red paint. He says he refused.
He was sentenced to death for “creating street unrest”. But after a global outcry, the sentence was commuted to 15 years in jail. He speculates that his high profile made it hard to kill him without attracting negative publicity. For two years, he was kept in solitary confinement, in a cell that was little more than a toilet hole with a wooden board on top. He was tortured constantly. Only when he was allowed to mingle with other prisoners again did he begin to overcome his despair.
He suffered a partial stroke that left the right side of his body without feeling. He needed medical attention. The regime did not want to be blamed for him dying behind bars, he says, so he was allowed out for treatment. Three months ago, on the day of the Persian new year, he escaped into Iraq. On June 24th he arrived in America.
He spoke to The Economist on July 7th. Looking at the picture that sparked his ordeal, he says that another man in his place might be angry, but he is not. Mr Batebi is a photographer himself. He says he understands what journalism involves. Had we not published the picture, he says, another paper might have. Looking at the same picture, his lawyer, interpreter and friend Lily Mazahery says she is close to tears: in it, the young Mr Batebi’s pale arms are as yet unscarred by torture.
The protests Mr Batebi took part in nine years ago frightened Iran’s rulers. The students were angry about censorship, the persecution of intellectuals and the thugs who beat up any student overheard disparaging the regime. Mr Batebi thinks Iran could well turn solidly democratic some day. In neighbouring states, religious extremism is popular. In Iran, he says, the government is religiously extreme, but the people are not.
He is cagey about how exactly he escaped. But he says he used a cellphone camera to record virtually every step of his journey, and will soon go public with the pictures and his commentary. Meanwhile, he seems to be enjoying America. He praises the way “people have the opportunity to become who they want to be”. Shortly after he arrived, he posted a picture of himself in front of the Capitol on his Farsi-language blog, with the caption: “Your hands will never touch me again.”
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Michelle AK-47, Barack Turban
Barack and Michelle caught together in an unguarded, candid moment as they do their signature fist-bump . . .The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to the diligent Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”
Obama (shrugs incredulously): “I have no response to that.”
Remember Sen. George Allen's "Macaca Moment?" It cost him his Senate Seat in VA (he lost by 9,000 votes out of millions cast). Many of the images of Obama and Michelle are harmful to his campaign, which doesn't make me the least bit unhappy. The photos (National Anthem and many others) capture people in a way our finely crafted arguments never will. the New Yorker cover is NOT good news for Barack.
Is it fair? As JFK said, "Life is unfair."
Are we engaged in the politics of fear, as the New Yorker story suggests? It was not us who advocating invading Pakistan (an ally of sorts that has nuclear weapons); it was not us eho suggested re-invading Iraq; it was not us who said we would do "everything . . . EVERYTHING" to prevent Iran from building a nuke. If Barack is really running for GWB's third term, as the WSJ said, he's off to a great start.
Rranklin Roosevelt said we should avoid "nameless, unreasoning fear." Our has a name (BHO) and it is not unreasonable.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Republicans: Good Investments, Bad Investments
Question: Is it possible that, as 54% of the American people believe, that Barack Obama shared a least some views with Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
Answer: My greatest fear is that he shares many such views. Michelle Obama has said, "In 2008 America is a mean place" and that she has only become "proud of [her] country" as her husband has become successful in the primaries. Frankly, does Obama agree with his wife? Who knows? Right now, Obama looks dispirted and unelectable.
Since this is a national blog -- one that talks a lot about the presidential race -- why have I been discussing congressional races in Pennsylvania? I'm doing so because it's essential that McCain, if he wins on Nov. 4, have enough Republicans in Congress to keep him from having a failed presidency. If he has to depend on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, then God save the republic.
As you've been hearing for some time, Pennsylvania, where I live, will be a crucial battleground in this year's election. If John McCain wins the Keystone State, it's probable he will be the next President.
For McCain to win, the Republican Party must get out the vote. That will require a lot of organization at the district (congressional), county, and local levels. Right now, the organizational capacity is questionable. The Party in Pennsylvania -- and other states -- is still reeling from the heavy losses in 2006. The stench from the Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney scandals has not yet fully abated.
I've been supporting several Republican candidates between I believe they and John McCain can build upon one another's strength. If those candidates flounder, it will hurt the Republican cause in general and our presidential hopes in particular.
The candidates I've endorsed include Melissa Hart (in the 4th district -- where I reside -- opposing Democrat incumbent Jason Altmire); Marina Kats (in the 13th district, opposing Democrat incumbent Allyson Schwartz); Toni Gilhooley (in the 17th district, opposing Democrat incumbent Tim Holden); and Michael Livingston (in the 2d district, opposing Democrat incumbent Chaka Fattah).
If I can read the national Republican Party's mind -- and, in this single case, I believe I can -- they believe Melissa Hart almost certainly will win. Frankly, Melissa's loss in 2006 was a fluke, a result of a temporary anti-Republican tidal wave.
What does the national GOP think about the prospects for the other candidates, Kats, Gilhooley, and Livingston? They probably believe all three will lose. They might be right in all three instances, but -- at the beginning of May -- there's no certainly about next November's results.
Yes, Kats and Gilhooley are currently big underdogs in their races. But I've told them both that I believe, if they do just about everything right, they can win. I'm not stupid, and I know the odds, but Gilhooley and Kats are going build great support in their districts. Both of them, especially Gilhooley, are going to benefit from McCain's strong showing in the state. As for Kats, her youth ntelligence, and patriotism are going to contrast sharply with Schwartz, who has none of those qualities
As for Michael Livingston, he will gains tens of thousands of votes more than any Republican has in his district. He's not waging what is known as a "starter campaign," but he is establishing a foundation that the GOP has never had in the the 2d district. Livingston, a tax attorney and law professor, is a great candidate -- while his opponent, Fattah, is an awful one.
Right now (and again, this is my belief), the national Republican Party, which has millions on hand, is preparing to give Livingston, Kats, and Gilhooley a grand total of zero dollars and zero cents. Why? Because they don't believe they can win.
It's something like the old line about getting a loan from the bank. If you really need the money, the bank won't give it to you. If you don't need it, they'll give you all you ask for.
In 2006, my friend and political ally Diana Lynn Irey ran against John Murtha. In the election, Diana got nearly 80,000 votes in a district where Republicans were lucky to get 40,000. She raised $856,000. She had more individual contributors (7,000) than Murtha. She brought many people -- a lot of them young -- into Republican politics.
What did Diana get from the national Republicans -- and for that matter, from the state Republicans? Basically, she got their best wishes. But as for the check, well, it was never in the mail.
Contrast Diana's situation with that of Rep. Tom Reynolds, a member of the Republican leadership and congressman from a "safe" Republican district in upstate New York (Buffalo suburbs to Rochester suburbs). Historically, it's a district where it's nearly impossible for a Republican to lose. Reynolds, unfortunately, almost accomplished the impossible.
He won 52% to 48% in a district where a Republican should win by at least 60% to 40%. How much did it cost him to win? Almost $5.3 million dollars, an almost unimaginable sum. A good chunk of his campaign war chest came from the national Republican Party.
Look at it this way: Reynold got 30,000 more votes in his district than Irey got in hers. He spent nearly $50 per vote. In contrast, Irey spent about $11 per vote. (Just FYI, Murtha spent roughly $28 per vote.) If Diana had been able to spend, say, $22 a vote guess who might just have won the election against Murtha?
As for the Tom Reynolds of the world, they have access to huge amounts of campaign cash. If they need lots of cash from the national Party, then they're bad investments. Money sent to them is a form of political CPR.
I'm recommending that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) give Gilhooley and Kats at least $10,000 up front. I'm recommending that they give Livingston, more of a longshot, $5,000. When the three candidates use the money to build strong organizations -- and thus go up in the polls -- the NRCC should give them more money. In politics as in life, money begets money.
In its support of candidates, the NRCC doesn't seem to favor organizational development. Instead, it seems to favor having candidates in trouble spend hundreds of thousands on TV ads. Generally, at least in recent months, those candidates seem to lose.
In politics, that's not a great way to run -- or to build -- a Party
Here's a bulletin to national Republicans: TV ads, while helpful with name recognition, don't work nearly as well as they once did. In support of that position, I point to one Barack Obama. In the Pennsylvania primary, Obama broke all records for television commercials. He spent $10 million, and had a total of nearly 7,000 ads in the state. For all that, he lost to Mrs. Clinton by 9.2%.
There are reasons TV ads don't work as well now as they did a decade ago, but I'll save that subject for another day.
Frankly, the next election does not, if we lose, signify the end of the world as we know it. When we have great candidates -- as we do with Gilhooley, Kats, and Livingston, we need to support them.
In 1974 and 1976, novice candidate Newt Gingrich lost his first two races for Congress. In 1978, he finally won. Sixteen years later he was Speaker of the House.
The future of the Republican Party rests with great candidates like Irey, Hart, Kats, Gilhooley, and Livingston. I fully expect more than one of them to win on November 4. And remember, I'm the one who called Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania win -- almost down to the precise decimal point.
Note: If you want to contribute to or otherwise support the Republican candidates I've noted, click on the links above. The exception is Marina Kats, whom you can support by clicking on her link, but whose contributions should go via snail mail to:
Kats For Congress
PO Box 91
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Answer: My greatest fear is that he shares many such views. Michelle Obama has said, "In 2008 America is a mean place" and that she has only become "proud of [her] country" as her husband has become successful in the primaries. Frankly, does Obama agree with his wife? Who knows? Right now, Obama looks dispirted and unelectable.
Since this is a national blog -- one that talks a lot about the presidential race -- why have I been discussing congressional races in Pennsylvania? I'm doing so because it's essential that McCain, if he wins on Nov. 4, have enough Republicans in Congress to keep him from having a failed presidency. If he has to depend on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, then God save the republic.
As you've been hearing for some time, Pennsylvania, where I live, will be a crucial battleground in this year's election. If John McCain wins the Keystone State, it's probable he will be the next President.
For McCain to win, the Republican Party must get out the vote. That will require a lot of organization at the district (congressional), county, and local levels. Right now, the organizational capacity is questionable. The Party in Pennsylvania -- and other states -- is still reeling from the heavy losses in 2006. The stench from the Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney scandals has not yet fully abated.
I've been supporting several Republican candidates between I believe they and John McCain can build upon one another's strength. If those candidates flounder, it will hurt the Republican cause in general and our presidential hopes in particular.
The candidates I've endorsed include Melissa Hart (in the 4th district -- where I reside -- opposing Democrat incumbent Jason Altmire); Marina Kats (in the 13th district, opposing Democrat incumbent Allyson Schwartz); Toni Gilhooley (in the 17th district, opposing Democrat incumbent Tim Holden); and Michael Livingston (in the 2d district, opposing Democrat incumbent Chaka Fattah).
If I can read the national Republican Party's mind -- and, in this single case, I believe I can -- they believe Melissa Hart almost certainly will win. Frankly, Melissa's loss in 2006 was a fluke, a result of a temporary anti-Republican tidal wave.
What does the national GOP think about the prospects for the other candidates, Kats, Gilhooley, and Livingston? They probably believe all three will lose. They might be right in all three instances, but -- at the beginning of May -- there's no certainly about next November's results.
Yes, Kats and Gilhooley are currently big underdogs in their races. But I've told them both that I believe, if they do just about everything right, they can win. I'm not stupid, and I know the odds, but Gilhooley and Kats are going build great support in their districts. Both of them, especially Gilhooley, are going to benefit from McCain's strong showing in the state. As for Kats, her youth ntelligence, and patriotism are going to contrast sharply with Schwartz, who has none of those qualities
As for Michael Livingston, he will gains tens of thousands of votes more than any Republican has in his district. He's not waging what is known as a "starter campaign," but he is establishing a foundation that the GOP has never had in the the 2d district. Livingston, a tax attorney and law professor, is a great candidate -- while his opponent, Fattah, is an awful one.
Right now (and again, this is my belief), the national Republican Party, which has millions on hand, is preparing to give Livingston, Kats, and Gilhooley a grand total of zero dollars and zero cents. Why? Because they don't believe they can win.
It's something like the old line about getting a loan from the bank. If you really need the money, the bank won't give it to you. If you don't need it, they'll give you all you ask for.
In 2006, my friend and political ally Diana Lynn Irey ran against John Murtha. In the election, Diana got nearly 80,000 votes in a district where Republicans were lucky to get 40,000. She raised $856,000. She had more individual contributors (7,000) than Murtha. She brought many people -- a lot of them young -- into Republican politics.
What did Diana get from the national Republicans -- and for that matter, from the state Republicans? Basically, she got their best wishes. But as for the check, well, it was never in the mail.
Contrast Diana's situation with that of Rep. Tom Reynolds, a member of the Republican leadership and congressman from a "safe" Republican district in upstate New York (Buffalo suburbs to Rochester suburbs). Historically, it's a district where it's nearly impossible for a Republican to lose. Reynolds, unfortunately, almost accomplished the impossible.
He won 52% to 48% in a district where a Republican should win by at least 60% to 40%. How much did it cost him to win? Almost $5.3 million dollars, an almost unimaginable sum. A good chunk of his campaign war chest came from the national Republican Party.
Look at it this way: Reynold got 30,000 more votes in his district than Irey got in hers. He spent nearly $50 per vote. In contrast, Irey spent about $11 per vote. (Just FYI, Murtha spent roughly $28 per vote.) If Diana had been able to spend, say, $22 a vote guess who might just have won the election against Murtha?
As for the Tom Reynolds of the world, they have access to huge amounts of campaign cash. If they need lots of cash from the national Party, then they're bad investments. Money sent to them is a form of political CPR.
I'm recommending that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) give Gilhooley and Kats at least $10,000 up front. I'm recommending that they give Livingston, more of a longshot, $5,000. When the three candidates use the money to build strong organizations -- and thus go up in the polls -- the NRCC should give them more money. In politics as in life, money begets money.
In its support of candidates, the NRCC doesn't seem to favor organizational development. Instead, it seems to favor having candidates in trouble spend hundreds of thousands on TV ads. Generally, at least in recent months, those candidates seem to lose.
In politics, that's not a great way to run -- or to build -- a Party
Here's a bulletin to national Republicans: TV ads, while helpful with name recognition, don't work nearly as well as they once did. In support of that position, I point to one Barack Obama. In the Pennsylvania primary, Obama broke all records for television commercials. He spent $10 million, and had a total of nearly 7,000 ads in the state. For all that, he lost to Mrs. Clinton by 9.2%.
There are reasons TV ads don't work as well now as they did a decade ago, but I'll save that subject for another day.
Frankly, the next election does not, if we lose, signify the end of the world as we know it. When we have great candidates -- as we do with Gilhooley, Kats, and Livingston, we need to support them.
In 1974 and 1976, novice candidate Newt Gingrich lost his first two races for Congress. In 1978, he finally won. Sixteen years later he was Speaker of the House.
The future of the Republican Party rests with great candidates like Irey, Hart, Kats, Gilhooley, and Livingston. I fully expect more than one of them to win on November 4. And remember, I'm the one who called Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania win -- almost down to the precise decimal point.
Note: If you want to contribute to or otherwise support the Republican candidates I've noted, click on the links above. The exception is Marina Kats, whom you can support by clicking on her link, but whose contributions should go via snail mail to:
Kats For Congress
PO Box 91
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Sunday, April 27, 2008
THE BATTLE FOR MCCAIN'S SOUL
“We’ve discovered that Barack Obama was not born in a manger.” (Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader)
“This week in the New Republic we have an article comparing him [Obama) to George McGovern.” (Mike Allen, Politico.com)
John McCain speaking about the anti-Obama ad he asked the NC GOP to withdraw: McCain said the ad was described to him: "I didn't see it, and I hope that I don't see it."
I’m looking forward to writing this week about “The Battle for McCain’s Soul.” I’ve become increasingly convinced that John McCain is not being well-served by some of his advisers. Frankly, they are covered by a veil of illusion about the character of their main opponent, Barack Obama, and the nature of the campaign that will be waged against them.
Some weeks ago, Senator McCain went across the aisle to see his presumptive opponent, Barack Obama. McCain reportedly shook Obama’s hand, smiled broadly, and joshed animatedly with the Illinois Senator.
At the time on the campaign trail Senator Obama was saying that McCain wanted to continue the Iraq War for perhaps another hundred years. In terms of the economy, Obama, the Democratic Party, and “independent” left-wing groups were portraying McCain as the Second Coming of Herbert Hoover. Somehow, back-slapping and breeze-shooting didn’t seem quite the proper reactions on McCain’s part.
Unfortunately, John seems to regard the U.S. Senate as a gentleman’s club, something it hasn’t been for at least a generation. In the old gentleman’s club, of course, it would have been proper to give “the distinguished gentleman from Illinois” the benefit of the doubt. McCain does that when he claims, on the Chris Matthew’s “Hardball” show that, although Obama’s San Francisco remarks on small-town Americans (of which I’m one) were “elitist,” although he refuses to characterize the Senator himself as an “elitist.” Good grief.
Frankly, an elitist is someone who makes elitist comments. Barack Obama and his wife, who wants to become First Lady, regularly make such statements – as with Mrs. Obama’s “America in 2008 is a mean place.” As for Obama, he says he “respects Sen. McCain for his [military] service to his country.” Apparently, he has found no other reason to respect the Senator.
In the case of the North Carolina GOP ad, McCain’s actions were not only wrong but irresponsible. He asked the Party to withdraw an ad that was thoroughly appropriate – and he did so without even bothering to see the commercial he was excoriating.
Who “described” the ad to McCain – and who asked him to condemn it and call for its withdrawal? I assume Campaign Manager Rick Davis was involved in the decision. If that’s the case, then McCain should be asking himself if he wouldn’t be better off without Rick Davis.
One of the “narratives” Democrats are going to spin about McCain is that he engages in temper tantrums. Some of the Arizona Senators former colleagues – one being Pennsylvania’s hapless Rick Santorum – are saying that he’s a bully. Heavy-handed actions such as the one directed against the NC GOP reinforce that image.
One other figure in the McCain Campaign is Patrick Hynes, who sends out daily updates about what McCain is doing – and what’s being done to him. Patrick’s updates regularly complains that the national media is “not doing its job” of looking in depth into the Obama campaign. He also notes that Obama is misrepresenting McCain’s stands on the issues.
With all due respect to Patrick, he’s being naïve. In fact, the national media – particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and NBC – see their “job” as advancing the cause of Barack Obama. Seeking fairness from such sources is like Diogenes looking for an honest man.
Is anyone from the above media outlets going to ask the Senator from Illinois if he shares his wife's distaste for and lack of pride in America? Not in this lifetime. Are they going to ask them if his monolithic support from Black people is skewing the primary results? Surely you jest.
The Senator’s hope for basic fairness in coverage lies with the “new media,” such as this blog. If he looks to today’s yellow journalists for support, then he’s looking in all the wrong places. People like Patrick Hynes have to acknowledge that fact and move on.
Also, asking Obama to be more honest in his descriptions of McCain’s issue positions is a request that’s never going to be fulfilled. Obama and his buddies in MoveOn.org look at Senator McCain, an authentic American hero, as a right-wing troglodyte and warmonger. Obama his left-wing supporters are the political heirs of the 1960s radicals who used to chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.”
I don’t believe Senator McCain’s advisors are serving him well. They’re apparently not making clear to him the avalanche of slime Obama and friends are beginning to spew.
Do I know why the Senator and his key aides are taking the positions they are? Of course. The Senator wants to wage an honest and decent effort, one free of “negative” campaigning. They want to return to a kinder, gentler era – perhaps to the 1950s when Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson waged campaigns where there was nary a “discouraging word.”
When a candidate like Obama has major flaws -- in his policies, character, and associations -- it's not inappropriate to point them out. The McCain Campaign shouldn't have to rely almost exclusively on "Saturday Night Live" and "FOX News" to carry the fight against the Democrats. When Obama is behaving in a haughty manner, it's okay to use the "e-word," elitist.
My own advice to Senator McCain is this: understand the nature of the “enemy.” Recognize that when they make false or defamatory statements about you some members of the voting public are going to believe them. Yes, the public generally expresses its disapproval of “negative” campaigning, but in fact negative comments – when they are true – are not gratuitous. If you doubt that, check out how Mrs. Clinton did in Pennsylvania. She "went negative" and won by a huge margin.
In the battle for Senator McCain’s “soul,” it’s essential that the realists win. It’s time to put the padlock on yesteryear’s “Gentleman’s Club.” Otherwise, Obama will end up controlling the campaign agenda – and McCain will end up losing the election.
As usual, comments are always welcome. If any bloggers would like to use all or part of the above material, please be my guests. If you do use it, please give my blog links: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com or http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.
“This week in the New Republic we have an article comparing him [Obama) to George McGovern.” (Mike Allen, Politico.com)
John McCain speaking about the anti-Obama ad he asked the NC GOP to withdraw: McCain said the ad was described to him: "I didn't see it, and I hope that I don't see it."
I’m looking forward to writing this week about “The Battle for McCain’s Soul.” I’ve become increasingly convinced that John McCain is not being well-served by some of his advisers. Frankly, they are covered by a veil of illusion about the character of their main opponent, Barack Obama, and the nature of the campaign that will be waged against them.
Some weeks ago, Senator McCain went across the aisle to see his presumptive opponent, Barack Obama. McCain reportedly shook Obama’s hand, smiled broadly, and joshed animatedly with the Illinois Senator.
At the time on the campaign trail Senator Obama was saying that McCain wanted to continue the Iraq War for perhaps another hundred years. In terms of the economy, Obama, the Democratic Party, and “independent” left-wing groups were portraying McCain as the Second Coming of Herbert Hoover. Somehow, back-slapping and breeze-shooting didn’t seem quite the proper reactions on McCain’s part.
Unfortunately, John seems to regard the U.S. Senate as a gentleman’s club, something it hasn’t been for at least a generation. In the old gentleman’s club, of course, it would have been proper to give “the distinguished gentleman from Illinois” the benefit of the doubt. McCain does that when he claims, on the Chris Matthew’s “Hardball” show that, although Obama’s San Francisco remarks on small-town Americans (of which I’m one) were “elitist,” although he refuses to characterize the Senator himself as an “elitist.” Good grief.
Frankly, an elitist is someone who makes elitist comments. Barack Obama and his wife, who wants to become First Lady, regularly make such statements – as with Mrs. Obama’s “America in 2008 is a mean place.” As for Obama, he says he “respects Sen. McCain for his [military] service to his country.” Apparently, he has found no other reason to respect the Senator.
In the case of the North Carolina GOP ad, McCain’s actions were not only wrong but irresponsible. He asked the Party to withdraw an ad that was thoroughly appropriate – and he did so without even bothering to see the commercial he was excoriating.
Who “described” the ad to McCain – and who asked him to condemn it and call for its withdrawal? I assume Campaign Manager Rick Davis was involved in the decision. If that’s the case, then McCain should be asking himself if he wouldn’t be better off without Rick Davis.
One of the “narratives” Democrats are going to spin about McCain is that he engages in temper tantrums. Some of the Arizona Senators former colleagues – one being Pennsylvania’s hapless Rick Santorum – are saying that he’s a bully. Heavy-handed actions such as the one directed against the NC GOP reinforce that image.
One other figure in the McCain Campaign is Patrick Hynes, who sends out daily updates about what McCain is doing – and what’s being done to him. Patrick’s updates regularly complains that the national media is “not doing its job” of looking in depth into the Obama campaign. He also notes that Obama is misrepresenting McCain’s stands on the issues.
With all due respect to Patrick, he’s being naïve. In fact, the national media – particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and NBC – see their “job” as advancing the cause of Barack Obama. Seeking fairness from such sources is like Diogenes looking for an honest man.
Is anyone from the above media outlets going to ask the Senator from Illinois if he shares his wife's distaste for and lack of pride in America? Not in this lifetime. Are they going to ask them if his monolithic support from Black people is skewing the primary results? Surely you jest.
The Senator’s hope for basic fairness in coverage lies with the “new media,” such as this blog. If he looks to today’s yellow journalists for support, then he’s looking in all the wrong places. People like Patrick Hynes have to acknowledge that fact and move on.
Also, asking Obama to be more honest in his descriptions of McCain’s issue positions is a request that’s never going to be fulfilled. Obama and his buddies in MoveOn.org look at Senator McCain, an authentic American hero, as a right-wing troglodyte and warmonger. Obama his left-wing supporters are the political heirs of the 1960s radicals who used to chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.”
I don’t believe Senator McCain’s advisors are serving him well. They’re apparently not making clear to him the avalanche of slime Obama and friends are beginning to spew.
Do I know why the Senator and his key aides are taking the positions they are? Of course. The Senator wants to wage an honest and decent effort, one free of “negative” campaigning. They want to return to a kinder, gentler era – perhaps to the 1950s when Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson waged campaigns where there was nary a “discouraging word.”
When a candidate like Obama has major flaws -- in his policies, character, and associations -- it's not inappropriate to point them out. The McCain Campaign shouldn't have to rely almost exclusively on "Saturday Night Live" and "FOX News" to carry the fight against the Democrats. When Obama is behaving in a haughty manner, it's okay to use the "e-word," elitist.
My own advice to Senator McCain is this: understand the nature of the “enemy.” Recognize that when they make false or defamatory statements about you some members of the voting public are going to believe them. Yes, the public generally expresses its disapproval of “negative” campaigning, but in fact negative comments – when they are true – are not gratuitous. If you doubt that, check out how Mrs. Clinton did in Pennsylvania. She "went negative" and won by a huge margin.
In the battle for Senator McCain’s “soul,” it’s essential that the realists win. It’s time to put the padlock on yesteryear’s “Gentleman’s Club.” Otherwise, Obama will end up controlling the campaign agenda – and McCain will end up losing the election.
As usual, comments are always welcome. If any bloggers would like to use all or part of the above material, please be my guests. If you do use it, please give my blog links: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com or http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
OBAMA: More White People Needed
"Get me more white people!" -- Said by an Obama campaign coordinator looking for Caucasians to put behind Michelle Obama at a rally at Carnegie Mellon Univeristy (CMU) in Pittsburgh (as reported by CNN).
"America in 2008 is a mean country." (Michelle Obama, a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate who makes $300,000-plus annually working in "community outreach" at a Chicago hospital)
"A typical white person." (Obama in Dreams From My Father talking about his white grandmother)
Note: Tomorrow (Friday) I'll have a column (mildly) critical of John McCain for asking North Carolina Republicans to withdraw a commercial critical of the Obama/Wright connection and the pro-Obama Democratic gubernatorial candidates in NC. I know John McCain is a thoroughly decent and honorable man, but sometimes I wonder if he fully grasps the kind of opposition he's up against. Also, I don't believe he's in position to tell a state party how to conduct its campaigns -- any more than they are to give him instructions. I hope you'll visit.
Here's what a friend said about my forthcoming criticism of John McCain: "I'll be very interested to read it. I personally think that mild (or at times heavy) criticism of McCain is a good thing. Leaders should be open to advice from supporters, and supporters who view their candidate as perfect (see: Obamamania) are kidding themselves, proving a lack of intellectual compotence, and doing a disservice to their candidate by not offering advice. in short, supporters who are able to criticize their leader are far more useful and productive than those who are not."
"America in 2008 is a mean country." (Michelle Obama, a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate who makes $300,000-plus annually working in "community outreach" at a Chicago hospital)
"A typical white person." (Obama in Dreams From My Father talking about his white grandmother)
Note: Tomorrow (Friday) I'll have a column (mildly) critical of John McCain for asking North Carolina Republicans to withdraw a commercial critical of the Obama/Wright connection and the pro-Obama Democratic gubernatorial candidates in NC. I know John McCain is a thoroughly decent and honorable man, but sometimes I wonder if he fully grasps the kind of opposition he's up against. Also, I don't believe he's in position to tell a state party how to conduct its campaigns -- any more than they are to give him instructions. I hope you'll visit.
Here's what a friend said about my forthcoming criticism of John McCain: "I'll be very interested to read it. I personally think that mild (or at times heavy) criticism of McCain is a good thing. Leaders should be open to advice from supporters, and supporters who view their candidate as perfect (see: Obamamania) are kidding themselves, proving a lack of intellectual compotence, and doing a disservice to their candidate by not offering advice. in short, supporters who are able to criticize their leader are far more useful and productive than those who are not."
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Melissa Hart: Beating Jason Altmire
"American in 2008 is a mean place." (Michelle Obama, who apparently would like to become First Lady of this "mean place")
As you'll notice, my views about a Melissa Hart victory over Jason Altmire are not all that different from what McCain has to do to win over Obama in Pennsylvania. It's important to understand that Jason Altmire, who's one of Nancy Pelosi's and John Murtha's "pets" in Washington, will try to portray himself -- falsely -- as a centrist.
Also, as the campaign goes on, he and his surrogates and financial backers will try the same approach they relied on in 2006: to use their slime buckets in an attempt to heap mud on Melissa. Since Altmire will say anything and do anything to win, it's important that voters know exactly why so many observers describe him as a political guttersnipe
I'm working to get bloggers and other onliners to "link" (technically, emotionally, and politically) to Melissa's site -- and to keep going there. I also ask them to make small contributions (I mention $20 to $50) on the theory that if they make one, they'll make more. The 4th congressional district (north and west of Pittsburgh) is not a household term in, say, Texas or Oregon, but if it gets portrayed accurately as the most important congressional race in the country (and one that's critical to McCain's future), then it should get people's attention.
It's important to keep reminding people that Altmire called Murtha his "campaign manager" because, outside the 12th congressional district Murtha is as unpopular as it gets. I also link Altmire's name with that of Pelosi, on the basis that Altmire voted for her as Speaker and regularly votes with her on critical issues. On insignificant issues, Pelosi occasionally allows him to vote in accord with the wishes of voters in the 4th.
Also, on the Obama comments: he portrayed Pennsylvanians as a bunch of Bible-thumping, gun-toting rubes who take out their economic frustrations on immigrants and people who are "different" from Obama's supporters. Altmire apparently agrees on that point.
Finally, there's the issue of Altmire's radical donors, as revealed on www.opensecrets.org (go there and type in Altmire's name). He apparently believes he can accept huge amounts of money from radical left-wingers -- and somehow continue to portray himself as a centrist. In fact, Altmire is getting his "donations" from the same people who cheered Obama's sneering comments about Pennsylvanians and other average Americans. The contributors are people who believe in economic protectionism and in waging the War on Terror with rhetoric and platitudes rather than effective actions.
The America-haters of Moveon.org play as big a role in financing Altmire's campaign as they do in Obama's. (I'm going to write extensively in coming days about Altmire's money-men.) It's eminently fair to use Altmire's radical donors against him, because they're the ones who call the tune he dances to.
What's more, he needs to explain why he's taking money from union dues paid under duress by union bosses from members who support Melissa Hart. Because of his actions, Altmire should always be on the defensive -- right through November 4.
Overall, it's critical for people in the 4th who vote for John McCain to support Melissa Hart. She will back McCain's practical, yet often visionary, policies. Altmire would not.
In the 4th, the numbers look good. McCain will win the district by tens of thousands of votes (perhaps as many as 40,000 -- Bush having won in 2004 by 30,000). Thus, McCain should be putting wind in Melssa's sails.
Despite the vast amounts of money the far-Left is pouring into Altmire's campaign, Melissa Hart is looking more and more like a winner. Please visit her informative web site.
Bloggers who would like to reprint any of my material, including this column, are cordially invited to do so.
NOTE: ON MY OHIO AND NEW JERSEY SITES, WHICH I HOPE YOU'LL VISIT, I HAVE A SHORT PIECE TODAY ON BARACK OBAMA AS "AMERICA'S PET ROCK." Those sites are at: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com and http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. In general, those sites focus on the particular states, although on occasion I cross-post. I have yet another site (yikes): http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Its emphasis is on the relationship between the McCain Campaign and efforts by Republicans to take or hold congressional seats. I'm looking to hand off the Ohio and New Jersey sites to willing bloggers from those states.Your comments are always welcome.
As you'll notice, my views about a Melissa Hart victory over Jason Altmire are not all that different from what McCain has to do to win over Obama in Pennsylvania. It's important to understand that Jason Altmire, who's one of Nancy Pelosi's and John Murtha's "pets" in Washington, will try to portray himself -- falsely -- as a centrist.
Also, as the campaign goes on, he and his surrogates and financial backers will try the same approach they relied on in 2006: to use their slime buckets in an attempt to heap mud on Melissa. Since Altmire will say anything and do anything to win, it's important that voters know exactly why so many observers describe him as a political guttersnipe
I'm working to get bloggers and other onliners to "link" (technically, emotionally, and politically) to Melissa's site -- and to keep going there. I also ask them to make small contributions (I mention $20 to $50) on the theory that if they make one, they'll make more. The 4th congressional district (north and west of Pittsburgh) is not a household term in, say, Texas or Oregon, but if it gets portrayed accurately as the most important congressional race in the country (and one that's critical to McCain's future), then it should get people's attention.
It's important to keep reminding people that Altmire called Murtha his "campaign manager" because, outside the 12th congressional district Murtha is as unpopular as it gets. I also link Altmire's name with that of Pelosi, on the basis that Altmire voted for her as Speaker and regularly votes with her on critical issues. On insignificant issues, Pelosi occasionally allows him to vote in accord with the wishes of voters in the 4th.
Also, on the Obama comments: he portrayed Pennsylvanians as a bunch of Bible-thumping, gun-toting rubes who take out their economic frustrations on immigrants and people who are "different" from Obama's supporters. Altmire apparently agrees on that point.
Finally, there's the issue of Altmire's radical donors, as revealed on www.opensecrets.org (go there and type in Altmire's name). He apparently believes he can accept huge amounts of money from radical left-wingers -- and somehow continue to portray himself as a centrist. In fact, Altmire is getting his "donations" from the same people who cheered Obama's sneering comments about Pennsylvanians and other average Americans. The contributors are people who believe in economic protectionism and in waging the War on Terror with rhetoric and platitudes rather than effective actions.
The America-haters of Moveon.org play as big a role in financing Altmire's campaign as they do in Obama's. (I'm going to write extensively in coming days about Altmire's money-men.) It's eminently fair to use Altmire's radical donors against him, because they're the ones who call the tune he dances to.
What's more, he needs to explain why he's taking money from union dues paid under duress by union bosses from members who support Melissa Hart. Because of his actions, Altmire should always be on the defensive -- right through November 4.
Overall, it's critical for people in the 4th who vote for John McCain to support Melissa Hart. She will back McCain's practical, yet often visionary, policies. Altmire would not.
In the 4th, the numbers look good. McCain will win the district by tens of thousands of votes (perhaps as many as 40,000 -- Bush having won in 2004 by 30,000). Thus, McCain should be putting wind in Melssa's sails.
Despite the vast amounts of money the far-Left is pouring into Altmire's campaign, Melissa Hart is looking more and more like a winner. Please visit her informative web site.
Bloggers who would like to reprint any of my material, including this column, are cordially invited to do so.
NOTE: ON MY OHIO AND NEW JERSEY SITES, WHICH I HOPE YOU'LL VISIT, I HAVE A SHORT PIECE TODAY ON BARACK OBAMA AS "AMERICA'S PET ROCK." Those sites are at: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com and http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. In general, those sites focus on the particular states, although on occasion I cross-post. I have yet another site (yikes): http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Its emphasis is on the relationship between the McCain Campaign and efforts by Republicans to take or hold congressional seats. I'm looking to hand off the Ohio and New Jersey sites to willing bloggers from those states.Your comments are always welcome.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Melissa Hart Blasts Altmire, Obama
"America in 2008 is a mean place." (Michelle Obama, who wants to be First Lady)
The most important and fiercely contested congressional race in the nation is taking place in the 4th District of Pennsylvania. It pits conservative Melissa Hart against liberal Jason Altmire, one of Nancy Pelosi's favorites. The following is a press release issued today by Ms. Hart.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 14, 2008 CONTACT: Alicia Collins
724-779-4750 office
724-612-9490 cell
HART QUESTIONS JASON ALTMIRE’S SILENCE ON OBAMA’S ‘BITTER’ PENNSYLVANIA REMARKS
Cranberry Township, PA – Former Congresswoman Melissa Hart questions why Jason Altmire refuses to condemn Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s comments disparaging Pennsylvanians.
For weeks, Congressman Jason Altmire has basked in the attention from media and other politicians as an a “uncommitted” delegate, fawning over Barack Obama and regularly appearing at Obama's side while stopping just enough short of using the word “endorse” to allow him to continue to play both sides.
“Altmire's fellow liberal Obama displayed his true feelings about the communities of the Fourth Congressional District this week with a sneering reference to small towns in Pennsylvania,” said former Congresswoman Melissa Hart.
While speaking to a group of San Francisco donors Barack Obama said, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And it’s not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
“Our country faces many challenges in the years ahead,” said Melissa Hart, “but among them are not the facts that many people in this part of the country attend church or temple services, cherish their hunting and sportsmen traditions, and are concerned about illegal immigration and the impact of free trade on the local economy. If Altmire were really the centrist Democrat he claims to be, he would have called on Obama to apologize immediately.”
“With each passing day, it becomes more clear that Jason Altmire pays more attention to his national political profile than his constituents concerns. Governor Rendell and other top Democrats have rightly criticized Obama’s remarks; I wonder why Jason Altmire remains silent on these demeaning comments.”
Yesterday, in the Washington Post the only thing Altmire had to say about Obama is "I have been really happy with the way that this has played out for western Pennsylvania," and "the more people get to know him, the more they like him."
“The reality is that the radical groups bankrolling Altmire share Obama's contempt for the people of this region and their values. Every day, it is becoming more apparent that these special interest groups are who Altmire really represents, not the people of New Castle, Beaver Falls, Cheswick or the other communities of western Pennsylvania,” said Hart.
Note from Steve: Jason Altmire is claiming to be a "conservative Democrat." In fact, Altmire described John Murtha as his "campaign manager" and voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Altmire voted for the "Iraq timetable" after claiming in his campaign that he would not. He also claims to be "pro-life" but voted to provide federal funding (your tax dollars) to destroy viable embryos for stem cell research. He is also backing proposals (elimination of the President's tax cuts) that would increase taxes by 50% on those in the lowest-tax bracket. Candidate Hart speaks in her release about the radical groups supporting Altmire. You can analyze Altmire's contributors by going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and typing in the name "Altmire." Hart's campaign is financed by thousands of individual donors, including the author of this blog. If you'd like to find out more about Melissa Hart (and hopefully, contribute to her grassroots campaign) please go to her web site at: http://peoplewithhart.com/. Thanks.If you'd like to reprint the material above, please do so.
The most important and fiercely contested congressional race in the nation is taking place in the 4th District of Pennsylvania. It pits conservative Melissa Hart against liberal Jason Altmire, one of Nancy Pelosi's favorites. The following is a press release issued today by Ms. Hart.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 14, 2008 CONTACT: Alicia Collins
724-779-4750 office
724-612-9490 cell
HART QUESTIONS JASON ALTMIRE’S SILENCE ON OBAMA’S ‘BITTER’ PENNSYLVANIA REMARKS
Cranberry Township, PA – Former Congresswoman Melissa Hart questions why Jason Altmire refuses to condemn Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s comments disparaging Pennsylvanians.
For weeks, Congressman Jason Altmire has basked in the attention from media and other politicians as an a “uncommitted” delegate, fawning over Barack Obama and regularly appearing at Obama's side while stopping just enough short of using the word “endorse” to allow him to continue to play both sides.
“Altmire's fellow liberal Obama displayed his true feelings about the communities of the Fourth Congressional District this week with a sneering reference to small towns in Pennsylvania,” said former Congresswoman Melissa Hart.
While speaking to a group of San Francisco donors Barack Obama said, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And it’s not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
“Our country faces many challenges in the years ahead,” said Melissa Hart, “but among them are not the facts that many people in this part of the country attend church or temple services, cherish their hunting and sportsmen traditions, and are concerned about illegal immigration and the impact of free trade on the local economy. If Altmire were really the centrist Democrat he claims to be, he would have called on Obama to apologize immediately.”
“With each passing day, it becomes more clear that Jason Altmire pays more attention to his national political profile than his constituents concerns. Governor Rendell and other top Democrats have rightly criticized Obama’s remarks; I wonder why Jason Altmire remains silent on these demeaning comments.”
Yesterday, in the Washington Post the only thing Altmire had to say about Obama is "I have been really happy with the way that this has played out for western Pennsylvania," and "the more people get to know him, the more they like him."
“The reality is that the radical groups bankrolling Altmire share Obama's contempt for the people of this region and their values. Every day, it is becoming more apparent that these special interest groups are who Altmire really represents, not the people of New Castle, Beaver Falls, Cheswick or the other communities of western Pennsylvania,” said Hart.
Note from Steve: Jason Altmire is claiming to be a "conservative Democrat." In fact, Altmire described John Murtha as his "campaign manager" and voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Altmire voted for the "Iraq timetable" after claiming in his campaign that he would not. He also claims to be "pro-life" but voted to provide federal funding (your tax dollars) to destroy viable embryos for stem cell research. He is also backing proposals (elimination of the President's tax cuts) that would increase taxes by 50% on those in the lowest-tax bracket. Candidate Hart speaks in her release about the radical groups supporting Altmire. You can analyze Altmire's contributors by going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and typing in the name "Altmire." Hart's campaign is financed by thousands of individual donors, including the author of this blog. If you'd like to find out more about Melissa Hart (and hopefully, contribute to her grassroots campaign) please go to her web site at: http://peoplewithhart.com/. Thanks.If you'd like to reprint the material above, please do so.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Barack Obama: The Invisible Man
Note: Todat on another site (http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com), I have an important piece called "Can McCain Win New Jersey?" NJ is the ninth-largest state. If McCain can win New Jersey (and Pennsylvania, the sixth largest state), he should have no trouble winning the election.
Here's what I wrote prior to Obama's Tuesday remarks on race: I expect the usual "deep baritone filibuster," loaded with self-serving rhetoric. Rev. Wright's anti-American statements are similar to many Obama heard -- and probably internalized -- in his years at Harvard (where Michelle also attended). He will talk about his "love" for America, but I fear the country he loves is one most of us wouldn't recognize.
He will discuss how he "profoundly disagrees" with some of Wright's comments, but he won't discuss exactly which ones or why precisely he dissents.
Also, I wrote the following yesterday to an important Black conservative, Lloyd Marcus, whom you'll hear a lot more about on this site:
I believe in his speech Obama is going to do what he called recently the "okie dokie," an exercise in deception. In his first book, he talks basically about being ashamed of his (white) mother, whom he should be portraying as the heroine of his life story. Brought up by a white mother and white grandparents, he will somehow proclaim his expertise about the "Black experience in America." In short, he'll talk out of both sides of his mouth.
The notion that Obama "had no idea" what America-hating Rev. Wright was up to is the candidate's version of "the dog ate my homework." He's a little bit like novelist Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man." We don't know him -- or know what he believes. We fear he may share many more beliefs with Wright than he lets on.
His wife Michelle, who apparently has spent her entire adult life being ashamed of her country, is a typical Princeton/Harvard graduate, convinced of her superiority to her countrymen and countrywomen. Her point seems to be: How can she be proud of a country which isn't run by people (Ivy-League graduates) like them? The general view is: "America is a terrible place, but if I ran it, the country would be a much better one."
Here's how Shelby Steele, of Stanford's Hoover Institution describes the "Obama phenomenon":
"No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His [Obama's] is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself."
What Shelby Steele means by "bargaining" is that Obama is making a trade with white people: in exchange for their votes and money, he'll enable them to feel good about themselves. Basically, he'll allow them to assuage their guilt over past racial sins by a single act: supporting his candidacy.
Obama is now engaged in a desperate balancing act: his long-time minister and his wife both despise their native land, America. Whether Obama disagrees with them remains uncertain.
Again, he's the Invisible Man, someone we'll never be able to pin down on his beliefs. He will "disagree" with Rev. Wright, the man who claims the U.S. government "invented HIV" to kill Blacks, but he will not disown him, as he should. The most liberal member of the Senate, Obama claims to have a special ability -- one never demonstrated -- to reach across the aisle and bridge political divides. On every issue, Obama is a programmatic liberal.
Again, we don't know Barack Obama -- and we probably never will. That's the real message of Tuesday's speech.
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on the situation in Tibet:
Photo: Obama, Not Totally Happy to See Jesse Jackson
"Words crack and break . . . will not stay in place." (T. S. Eliot)
Here's what I wrote prior to Obama's Tuesday remarks on race: I expect the usual "deep baritone filibuster," loaded with self-serving rhetoric. Rev. Wright's anti-American statements are similar to many Obama heard -- and probably internalized -- in his years at Harvard (where Michelle also attended). He will talk about his "love" for America, but I fear the country he loves is one most of us wouldn't recognize.
He will discuss how he "profoundly disagrees" with some of Wright's comments, but he won't discuss exactly which ones or why precisely he dissents.
Also, I wrote the following yesterday to an important Black conservative, Lloyd Marcus, whom you'll hear a lot more about on this site:
I believe in his speech Obama is going to do what he called recently the "okie dokie," an exercise in deception. In his first book, he talks basically about being ashamed of his (white) mother, whom he should be portraying as the heroine of his life story. Brought up by a white mother and white grandparents, he will somehow proclaim his expertise about the "Black experience in America." In short, he'll talk out of both sides of his mouth.
The notion that Obama "had no idea" what America-hating Rev. Wright was up to is the candidate's version of "the dog ate my homework." He's a little bit like novelist Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man." We don't know him -- or know what he believes. We fear he may share many more beliefs with Wright than he lets on.
His wife Michelle, who apparently has spent her entire adult life being ashamed of her country, is a typical Princeton/Harvard graduate, convinced of her superiority to her countrymen and countrywomen. Her point seems to be: How can she be proud of a country which isn't run by people (Ivy-League graduates) like them? The general view is: "America is a terrible place, but if I ran it, the country would be a much better one."
Here's how Shelby Steele, of Stanford's Hoover Institution describes the "Obama phenomenon":
". . . Now, the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.
"No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His [Obama's] is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself."
Steele is suggesting that one reason we don't know Obama is that he doesn't know himself. Coming from faith and community traditions of Black separatism, he claims to be the man who can transcend racial polarities. He wants to become President of a country that his pastor and his fellow congregants abhor. It makes no sense.
What Shelby Steele means by "bargaining" is that Obama is making a trade with white people: in exchange for their votes and money, he'll enable them to feel good about themselves. Basically, he'll allow them to assuage their guilt over past racial sins by a single act: supporting his candidacy.
Obama is now engaged in a desperate balancing act: his long-time minister and his wife both despise their native land, America. Whether Obama disagrees with them remains uncertain.
Again, he's the Invisible Man, someone we'll never be able to pin down on his beliefs. He will "disagree" with Rev. Wright, the man who claims the U.S. government "invented HIV" to kill Blacks, but he will not disown him, as he should. The most liberal member of the Senate, Obama claims to have a special ability -- one never demonstrated -- to reach across the aisle and bridge political divides. On every issue, Obama is a programmatic liberal.
Is he just lying to us? Or is he truly uncertain of the contrast between what he says and what he does?
Again, we don't know Barack Obama -- and we probably never will. That's the real message of Tuesday's speech.
STATEMENT BY JOHN MCCAIN ON TIBET
For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
703-650-5550
For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
703-650-5550
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on the situation in Tibet:
"The unfolding tragedy in Tibet should draw the attention of the entire world. I deplore the violent crackdown by Chinese authorities and the continuing oppression in Tibet of those merely wishing to practice their faith and preserve their culture and heritage. I have listened carefully to the Dalai Lama and am convinced he is a man of peace who reflects the hopes and aspirations of Tibetans.
I urge the government of the People's Republic of China to address the root causes of unrest in Tibet by opening a genuine dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Reports of shutting down YouTube and confiscation of SIM cards are disturbing and reports of multiple deaths are far more so, especially in a year when China is preparing to host the Olympic Games.
I urge the Chinese authorities to ensure peaceful protest is not met with violence, to release monks and others detained for peacefully expressing their views and to allow full outside access to Tibet."
Note: If you'd like to get up-to-minute releases and news from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Obama: A Radical Black Separatist?
I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks
"The [U.S.] government lied about INVENTING the HIV virus . . . " (Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Obama's pastor at Chicago's Trinity Church)
Is Barack Obama, a serious candidate for President of the U.S., a closet believer in radical Black separatism? I fear the answer to that question just may be "yes."
I have recommended recently that Obama, because of his close ties to Pastor Wright, should suspend his campaign. Pastor Wright is scum, a man driven by deep hatred for white people. In one recent sermon, he said the following about the Clintons: "Bill [Clinton] did us [Black people] just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin' [us] dirty . . . ."
Apparently on a preacherly roll, Wright then added the following: "God damn America." A Christian minister, Black, White, or otherwise, doesn't say such things. And a congregation that hears such verbal slime doesn't whoop and holler in approval, as the attendees (was one of them Obama?) did at Trinity Church. That group of Yahoos is the one Obama called his "faith community."
Obama has called some of Wright's statements -- somehow, he doesn't specify which ones -- "unacceptable." He seems to feel such tepid comments on his part will distance him sufficiently from the man he now calls his "former preacher." (Wright retired last month as Trinity's pastor, although he retains the title "emeritus.")
In fact, Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He's the man Obama called his "spiritual advisor" and his "sounding board," and his metaphorical "uncle." Famously, he provided the title ("The Audacity of Hope") for the book that made Obama a multi-millionaire.
If John McCain's long-time preacher -- or Hillary Clinton's -- had made such hateful statements over many years, they would no longer be serious candidates for the presidency. Wright's remarks are racist and separatist, and for Obama to pretend he was unaware of his pastor's views is totally disingenuous.
If you look closely at Obama's speaking style, you can see he's learned a great deal from Jeremiah Wright. Like the pastor, the Illinois Senator can work a crowd into an emotional lather. Where Wright denounces white people, Obama does the same with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he calls his "cousin." The notion of Wright's being a man's "uncle" and Cheney his "cousin" is a scary thought.
Michelle Obama has talked about being ashamed of her country -- until, of course, her husband started winning primaries and caucuses (often in states that are mostly populated by white people) -- and one wonders how her husband feels about America. Of course, we know how Wright feels -- he despises his native land.
To what degree does Obama agree with him? Is he really just another cynical politician looking out for "number 1?" Is he someone, totally unlike this pastor and mentor, who seeks to bring us together? Or he merely an egomaniac committed mainly to advancing himself through carefully crafted rhetoric?
Can Obama really drop out of the presidential race? "Yes, he can!" And yes, he should.
"The [U.S.] government lied about INVENTING the HIV virus . . . " (Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Obama's pastor at Chicago's Trinity Church)
Is Barack Obama, a serious candidate for President of the U.S., a closet believer in radical Black separatism? I fear the answer to that question just may be "yes."
I have recommended recently that Obama, because of his close ties to Pastor Wright, should suspend his campaign. Pastor Wright is scum, a man driven by deep hatred for white people. In one recent sermon, he said the following about the Clintons: "Bill [Clinton] did us [Black people] just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin' [us] dirty . . . ."
Apparently on a preacherly roll, Wright then added the following: "God damn America." A Christian minister, Black, White, or otherwise, doesn't say such things. And a congregation that hears such verbal slime doesn't whoop and holler in approval, as the attendees (was one of them Obama?) did at Trinity Church. That group of Yahoos is the one Obama called his "faith community."
Obama has called some of Wright's statements -- somehow, he doesn't specify which ones -- "unacceptable." He seems to feel such tepid comments on his part will distance him sufficiently from the man he now calls his "former preacher." (Wright retired last month as Trinity's pastor, although he retains the title "emeritus.")
In fact, Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He's the man Obama called his "spiritual advisor" and his "sounding board," and his metaphorical "uncle." Famously, he provided the title ("The Audacity of Hope") for the book that made Obama a multi-millionaire.
If John McCain's long-time preacher -- or Hillary Clinton's -- had made such hateful statements over many years, they would no longer be serious candidates for the presidency. Wright's remarks are racist and separatist, and for Obama to pretend he was unaware of his pastor's views is totally disingenuous.
If you look closely at Obama's speaking style, you can see he's learned a great deal from Jeremiah Wright. Like the pastor, the Illinois Senator can work a crowd into an emotional lather. Where Wright denounces white people, Obama does the same with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he calls his "cousin." The notion of Wright's being a man's "uncle" and Cheney his "cousin" is a scary thought.
Michelle Obama has talked about being ashamed of her country -- until, of course, her husband started winning primaries and caucuses (often in states that are mostly populated by white people) -- and one wonders how her husband feels about America. Of course, we know how Wright feels -- he despises his native land.
To what degree does Obama agree with him? Is he really just another cynical politician looking out for "number 1?" Is he someone, totally unlike this pastor and mentor, who seeks to bring us together? Or he merely an egomaniac committed mainly to advancing himself through carefully crafted rhetoric?
Can Obama really drop out of the presidential race? "Yes, he can!" And yes, he should.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Obama's Pastor: His "Willie Horton?"
I've heard that Friday night Barack Obama will be on with Anderson Cooper regarding the disgraceful comments by Pastor Jeremiah Wright. I can't even bear to watch it. Anderson, like several other people at CNN, clearly supports Obama, so he's a terrible person to interview the Senator. Anderson Cooper will throw Obama one softball after another. He won't ask Obama why he doesn't leave a racist Church, one where his "spiritual advisor" blames America for 9/11. On CNN, as with some other outlets, asking Obama hard questions is regarded as sign of latent racism. Trust me, you'll learn a lot more about political reality than you would by watching CNN 24/7. Barack Obama should not be running for POTUS. He should not even have run for the U.S. Senate. If he didn't have an ego as large as the Sears Tower, he would leave us in peace. If I were the Republican National Committee, I would run only one commercial in the general election: the one where "Rev." Wright blames "Italians" for Jesus' death. Barack, be glad it's Anderson Cooper interviewing you -- and not me.
Barack Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, noted race-baiter. In a recent sermon, Wright blamed the death of Jesus on "Italians!" (You can hear that for yourself by going to the Politico.com link below and accessing the YouTube video.)
Barack Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, noted race-baiter. In a recent sermon, Wright blamed the death of Jesus on "Italians!" (You can hear that for yourself by going to the Politico.com link below and accessing the YouTube video.)"It's hard to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan [Washington, DC]." (John McCain speaking about the failure of the Senate to do anything to the stop the flood of pork-barrel spending.)
The Reverend (Irreverent?) Jeremiah A. Wright is Barack Obama's Willie Horton.
Wright, whom Obama describes alternately as his "spiritual advisor" and his "uncle," is a race-baiting hate-monger. Some "uncle." He might singlehandedly do something the Clinton Machine couldn't: destroy the Obama campaign.
Here's the link to the video of Wright doing everything but foam at the mouth: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_on_film.html
The following is the Politico.com's Ben Smith giving his initial reaction to Wright's fulminations:
"Sure does feel like we're plunging into the abyss tonight."
"Fox just posted a big Jeremiah Wright story, and the video is pretty gripping, and deeply racially confrontational. He begins by describing the Romans, who crucified Jesus, as Italians, and thus white, and more or less goes from there."
“'Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright says."
"'Hillary ain't never been called a nigger,' he says at the climax."
Steve adds: I'll have much more to say about this situation tomorrow (Friday). It could be the beginning of the end for the Obama Campaign. It certainly raises the question of what Obama (and his wife) really believe about America -- and Caucasians.
It's not enough for Barack Obama to give limp comments about how he "disagrees" (with no specifics) about some of Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and anti-Caucasian statements. Obama has been a member of Wright's church for 20 years, and we need to know how many times he was one of those hooting and hollering in support of Wright's disgusting messages. This is a church whose members have named anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan as "Man of the Year."
The media needs to do more than wave pom-poms anytime Obama clears his throat. The media need to stop giving the Illinois Senator a free-pass that no other candidate would receive.
In his stump speech, Obama notes that he got the title for his autobigraphy ("The Audacity of Hope") from his friend, mentor, and minister Wright. In fact, Pastor Wright is not audacious. He's a disgusting racist, an inconvenient truth that Obama chooses to ignore.
Recently, Michelle Obama noted that, as an adult, she'd been ashamed of her country (one that educated her at Harvard and gave her a $250,000 a year salary as a hospital executive). Is Barack Obama ashamed of his country? I fear the answer to that question s is yes, although I doubt we'll hear it from the candidate's mouth. If that's the case, then what on earth is he doing running for President?
Please watch the shameful video of Jeremiah Wright (clicking on the link above) -- and the reactions to his hate-speech by the supposed Christians in his church. Is that the kind of minister we want advising a President of the U.S.?
Bulletin: CNN has just announced that John McCain is leading in polls in Michigan -- a "Blue" state -- and it is now rated as a toss-up for the general election. Yesterday, the WSJ poll showed McCain leading both Clinton and Obama in another "Blue" state: Pennsylvania.
The Reverend (Irreverent?) Jeremiah A. Wright is Barack Obama's Willie Horton.
Wright, whom Obama describes alternately as his "spiritual advisor" and his "uncle," is a race-baiting hate-monger. Some "uncle." He might singlehandedly do something the Clinton Machine couldn't: destroy the Obama campaign.
Here's the link to the video of Wright doing everything but foam at the mouth: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_on_film.html
The following is the Politico.com's Ben Smith giving his initial reaction to Wright's fulminations:
"Sure does feel like we're plunging into the abyss tonight."
"Fox just posted a big Jeremiah Wright story, and the video is pretty gripping, and deeply racially confrontational. He begins by describing the Romans, who crucified Jesus, as Italians, and thus white, and more or less goes from there."
“'Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright says."
"'Hillary ain't never been called a nigger,' he says at the climax."
Steve adds: I'll have much more to say about this situation tomorrow (Friday). It could be the beginning of the end for the Obama Campaign. It certainly raises the question of what Obama (and his wife) really believe about America -- and Caucasians.
It's not enough for Barack Obama to give limp comments about how he "disagrees" (with no specifics) about some of Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and anti-Caucasian statements. Obama has been a member of Wright's church for 20 years, and we need to know how many times he was one of those hooting and hollering in support of Wright's disgusting messages. This is a church whose members have named anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan as "Man of the Year."
The media needs to do more than wave pom-poms anytime Obama clears his throat. The media need to stop giving the Illinois Senator a free-pass that no other candidate would receive.
In his stump speech, Obama notes that he got the title for his autobigraphy ("The Audacity of Hope") from his friend, mentor, and minister Wright. In fact, Pastor Wright is not audacious. He's a disgusting racist, an inconvenient truth that Obama chooses to ignore.
Recently, Michelle Obama noted that, as an adult, she'd been ashamed of her country (one that educated her at Harvard and gave her a $250,000 a year salary as a hospital executive). Is Barack Obama ashamed of his country? I fear the answer to that question s is yes, although I doubt we'll hear it from the candidate's mouth. If that's the case, then what on earth is he doing running for President?
Please watch the shameful video of Jeremiah Wright (clicking on the link above) -- and the reactions to his hate-speech by the supposed Christians in his church. Is that the kind of minister we want advising a President of the U.S.?
Bulletin: CNN has just announced that John McCain is leading in polls in Michigan -- a "Blue" state -- and it is now rated as a toss-up for the general election. Yesterday, the WSJ poll showed McCain leading both Clinton and Obama in another "Blue" state: Pennsylvania.
Additions . . .
Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal story on Obama's hateful "minister":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Here's a YouTube version of the McCain campaign’s new Web video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypn76M0Wm-k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypn76M0Wm-k
Monday, February 25, 2008
Obama Photos in Iowa, Houston, Kenya
Top: What's wrong with this picture? Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Harkin's wife, Ruth, during playing of America's National Anthem
Middle: Fox News Photo of Obama Volunteers in Houston. On wall is a picture of a Cuban flag with a superimposed image of Communist fanatic Che Guevara.
Bottom: A photograph of presidential candidate Barack H. Obama (on right) in Kenya in 2006
In the previous day's column, you can read "The Case for John McCain"
I know that today John McCain denounced the Cincinnatti talk show host who spoke of Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" and described him "a Chicago political hack . . . out of the Daley machine." I know that the media generally think it's unfair to criticize Obama, but I don't have a problem with the talk show man.
Obama's name is in fact "Barack Hussein Obama." If he doesn't like his name, he can always change it. As far as his being a product of the Daley political macine, that happens to be true. In the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 130 times, often on controversial issues. If that's not the behavior of a hack, I don't know what is.
The national media's "love affair with Obama," whom many of them call a "rock star," will continue. It will be up to the new media, including this blog, to present a more balanced view of the real nature of Barack Hussein Obama.
Do Barack and Michelle Obama Love Their Country?
If Not, Why Not?
Here's an excerpt from an AP story last week:
"Michelle Obama told an audience in Milwaukee, 'For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.'"
"Cindy McCain, McCain's wife, days later responded by saying, 'I have, and always will be, proud of my country.' Barack Obama has expressed frustration that his wife's remarks had been taken out of context and turned into political fodder — both the Obamas say she was talking about politics in the United States, not the country itself."
My views: Michelle Obama has an undegraduate degree from Princeton University and a law degree from Harvard University. Presumably, she know the distinction between the word "politics" and the word "country." If she didn't mean she has previously disliked or despised her country, she should have made that clear. Her "clarification" of her remarks was full of the same rhetorical fuzziness that her husband has cultivated to an art form.
The lesson too many students at schools like Princeton and Harvard learn is that they should be embarrassed by their country because of its great strength and the opportunity it provides for many people -- including the Obamas -- to become wealthy. It is a great country, Barack and Michelle, and you both need to get to know it better.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
OBAMA SUPPORTS "LIVE BIRTH" ABORTION
I wrote the following to a Yahoo Group of Black Conservatives (I desegregated the group) today regarding Mark McKinnon, who said he would leave his position as an advertising consultant in the McCain Campaign if Obama is the nominee:
I have heard (on MSNBC) that Mark McKinnon is basically a hired gun -- and a Democrat. If he disagrees with Obama on "several fundamental issues," as he says, then he would seem to have a moral obligation as an American to oppose Obama. That's what the political process is (supposedly) about. Thus, McKinnon seems to be cultivating his 15-minutes-of-fame.
I've been accused of launching attacks on Barack Obama. Let me be clear on that point.I have attackedObama on my blog and elsewhere on what are basically character issues. I agree with John McCain that there are many signs that Barack -- a words-man -- is not a man of his word. McCain was talking about Obama's on-again, off-again pledge to accept public financing in the general election.
In January, 2006, Obama said the following to Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I will serve out my full fix-year term [in the Senate]." That was his commitment to the people of Illinois. When Russert asked him again if he would run for President or Vice-President, he said, "I will not."
Earlier, however, in December, 2006, he had made a visit to New Hampshire, where he told a crowd he "would participate in the process," by which he meant the presidential election process. (You can find this information on p. 542 of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics. For his New Hampshire remarks, google Obama + New Hampshire + December, 2006, as I did.)
I've attacked Michelle Obama for words she said (about never being proud of her country until very recently). On MSNBC at this moment (4 p.m. ET), Michelle Obama is supposedly "clarifying her remarks." She is not clarifying anything. She says, "We've overcome diversities that we should all be proud of." Whatever that means. I thought we were in favor of diversity. We'd better be!
She's not suffering from gratuitous attacks. They're not based on thin air. They're reflective of positions Obama and his wife have taken. They need to be less careless with words, which are supposed to be their strong points.
Be clear on this: I will never intentionally say anything about them that's untrue. But if they want to assume the nation's highest positions, they shouldn't spew out nonsense.
One area where we won't hear any ringing words from Obama is on the subject of abortion.Barack Obama has voted against providing medical care in the case of so-called "live birth abortions." That happens (rarely) when an abortion is botched and the embryo is born alive, thus becoming a child (and an American citizen). This is the same Obama who is for "universal health care" -- except, of course, in the case of a child gasping for life.
(Barone's words on this follow: "He voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who surived abortions . . . ). That's not exactly a position which is going to "bring the nation together," as Obama claims is his goal. When he and Michelle talk about their concern for America's children, we need to press them on exactly which children get excluded.
They preach unity, but they practice the worst forms of division. Yes, Obama, the political preacher man, has a 'dream." But with many of his extreme views, the question is how he can sleep at night.
I have heard (on MSNBC) that Mark McKinnon is basically a hired gun -- and a Democrat. If he disagrees with Obama on "several fundamental issues," as he says, then he would seem to have a moral obligation as an American to oppose Obama. That's what the political process is (supposedly) about. Thus, McKinnon seems to be cultivating his 15-minutes-of-fame.
I've been accused of launching attacks on Barack Obama. Let me be clear on that point.I have attackedObama on my blog and elsewhere on what are basically character issues. I agree with John McCain that there are many signs that Barack -- a words-man -- is not a man of his word. McCain was talking about Obama's on-again, off-again pledge to accept public financing in the general election.
In January, 2006, Obama said the following to Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I will serve out my full fix-year term [in the Senate]." That was his commitment to the people of Illinois. When Russert asked him again if he would run for President or Vice-President, he said, "I will not."
Earlier, however, in December, 2006, he had made a visit to New Hampshire, where he told a crowd he "would participate in the process," by which he meant the presidential election process. (You can find this information on p. 542 of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics. For his New Hampshire remarks, google Obama + New Hampshire + December, 2006, as I did.)
I've attacked Michelle Obama for words she said (about never being proud of her country until very recently). On MSNBC at this moment (4 p.m. ET), Michelle Obama is supposedly "clarifying her remarks." She is not clarifying anything. She says, "We've overcome diversities that we should all be proud of." Whatever that means. I thought we were in favor of diversity. We'd better be!
She's not suffering from gratuitous attacks. They're not based on thin air. They're reflective of positions Obama and his wife have taken. They need to be less careless with words, which are supposed to be their strong points.
Be clear on this: I will never intentionally say anything about them that's untrue. But if they want to assume the nation's highest positions, they shouldn't spew out nonsense.
One area where we won't hear any ringing words from Obama is on the subject of abortion.Barack Obama has voted against providing medical care in the case of so-called "live birth abortions." That happens (rarely) when an abortion is botched and the embryo is born alive, thus becoming a child (and an American citizen). This is the same Obama who is for "universal health care" -- except, of course, in the case of a child gasping for life.
(Barone's words on this follow: "He voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who surived abortions . . . ). That's not exactly a position which is going to "bring the nation together," as Obama claims is his goal. When he and Michelle talk about their concern for America's children, we need to press them on exactly which children get excluded.
They preach unity, but they practice the worst forms of division. Yes, Obama, the political preacher man, has a 'dream." But with many of his extreme views, the question is how he can sleep at night.
Obama and the Political Smoke Machine
It's absolutey critical to "introduce" the American people to Barack Obama, and John McCain and Cindy McCain were doing just that yesterday. Among other things, McCain said something quite fascinating, that Obama is advocating "a holiday from history." I don't advocate that as a campaign slogan, but it demonstrates that McCain has Obama's number. He's saying that Obama's "soaring rhetoric' has left the stratosphere and totally detached itself from reality. Unfortunately, some people will remain forever bamboozled, including the college freshman types minlessly chanting "Yes, we can!" No, you can't, as most two-year-olds learn when they turn 3.
Obama is talking about our society's supposed failures in regard to children. This from the guy who voted to deny medical assistance to children born alive in botched abortions. I guess "universal health care" has its limitations.
In terms of education, Obama's "plan," like Bill Clinton's is to do nothing other than pay of the Teacher's Union. Parental choice? He doesn't have that "dream." Merit pay for excellent teachers? Not during his watch.
Health care? That means more patients, the same number of providers, and somehow lots of imaginary "savings."
As for the War on Terror, his goal seems to be to leave Iraq to al Qaeda and, at the same time, invade Pakistan.
He quotes JFK, but very selectively, missing the famous line about: "We will pay any price, bear any burden to ensure the survival of liberty." Perhaps Caroline Kennedy can remind her new hero about that one. It is vitally important to defeat this snake-oil-salesman, the man-of-words who turns out (as with campaign finance) not to be a man-of-HIS-word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
