OBAMA'S CUBAN FLAG, EMPTY RHETORIC

Picture from NewsBusters (via Race42008) of an Obama campaign office in Houston. Note the Cuban flag with the picture of Communist fanatic Che Guevara superimposed.

NOTE: I'M GETTING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION ON THE FLAG ABOVE. BELOW ARE THE LINKS THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO SEE IT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5700252&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

It [the flag] was on the news in Houston. Above is the video from Fox Houston showing the flag in the background of Obama's office that was linked from Newsbusters at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/d-s-hube/2008/02/11/another-flag-issue-obama

NOTE: THIS IS THE SAME OBAMA WHO REFUSES TO WEAR AN AMERICAN FLAG ON HIS LAPEL AND DOESN'T CHOOSE TO PUT HIS HAND OVER HIS HEART DURING THE PLAYING OF THE NATIONAL ANTHEM. MORE TOMORROW ON OBAMA AND HIS FAR-LEFT RELATIONSHIPS AND FUNDING.

I'll build on this column throughout Tuesday, February 12, 2008 and will be writing the entire week on the two Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I've been writing for nearly a year about how Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. However, I'm much (much, much) less certain of that. Frankly, if Mrs. Clinton doesn't win in Ohio and Texas next month, she probably won't get the nomination.

The numbers are working against her. When she loses all three races today (MD, VA, and DC) in the "Potomac Primaries," that will be TEN losses in a row. When you're on that kind of losing streak, it's hard to see the trend coming to an end. The Democratic Establishment recognizes Obama's limitations, and they don't really want him to be the standard-bearer, but in the end they might not have a choice.

As a speaker, Mrs. Clinton reminds us of the proverbial fingernail scratching on a blackboard (now apparently known as "whiteboards"). In contrast, Barack Obama comes across as the silver-tongued orator. Where he fails is in what Martin Luther King called "the content of his character." His main commitment seems to be bamboozling the American people with pretty words. He relies on feel-good rhetoric to sell himself politically. He talks the talk but he doesn't truly walk the walk.

For example, Obama's stump speech begins with these words: "We are at a defining moment in our history." Some Democrats seem to find that statement to be profound. Actually, it's a clanking cliche that foreshadows presentations light on content and heavy on sanctimony.
Obama drenches his Democratic audiences in rhetorical syrup ("Yes we can!"), and they lap it up. But what do the pretty words actually mean? Do his stirring speeches stand up to any kind of examination?

Yesterday on TV, he said, "Change does not happen from the top down. Change happens from the bottom up."

A cynic (like me) might say, "I guess his belief in generating from the bottom-up is why he's running for a low-level office like President of the United States." His statement certainly doesn't apply to the candidate himself.

He likes to tell us that "Washington is broken," implying that he (and his Party) have little if anything to do with Washington, DC. He forgets to add that he -- and his main political allies -- are charter members of the Beltway Gang. He doesn't delve into how people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are part of the fractured government.

Obama always begins his stump speech with the following words: "We are at a defining moment in our history." Oh, really? A few unsophisticated people might regard that hoary cliche as somehow uplifting. In fact, every generation has heard the same thing from politicians. It's like Macbeth's "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Senator Obama has made himself a very wealthy man by giving speeches and selling books, particularly his The Audacity of Hope, for which he received an advance payment of $1.9 million. However audacious his own hopes, Obama's main characteristic is the emptiness of his rhetoric. Frankly, there's nothing especially "audacious" about hope, a universal human characteristic, but the phrase does have a nice ring.

Granted, he never quite reaches the total inauthenticity of Hillary Clinton, but he comes close.

The more one examines what Obama says, the less content there is. Without specifics, his stock-in-trade concepts like "hope" and "change" have no meaning. He's floating to the top on a stream of vast emptiness.

OBAMA WEARING THE FLIP-FLOPS ON TIME-TABLES:

Team McCain is chuckling over a comment from Barack Obama last night on "60 Minutes": http://cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/60minutes/main3804268_page2.shtml

"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009," [Steve] Kroft remarked.

[Obama said] "Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning."

"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.

"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.

First he's for timetables, then he isn't. As one McCainiac just put it to me, "Shades of John Kerry. We already beat this guy. The last thing we need right now is indecisiveness."

Obama can ask Mitt Romney about how merciless McCain is when it comes to reading into his opponents' words on timetables.

Tomorrow's column on Barack Obama's supposed commitment to "universal health care." Question: if he's for it, why did he vote against mandating physician assistance in the case of "botched" abortions when a child is born alive? I hope it's not "audacious" to ask that obvious question.

BARACK OBAMA: EMPTINESS OF RHETORIC

This column will be up by noon, EST, on Tuesday. Barack Obama has a great voice, good timing (all those pregnant pauses) -- and an almost complete lack of content. If he really was the editor of The Harvard Law Review, it must have been Affirmative Action Year in Cambridge, Mass.

Is Iraq "Hillary Clinton's War?"

Note: In this piece I raise "the great unanswered question of 9/11." Read on.

In terms of her oratorical "style," Mrs. Clinton invariably risks frightening small children. She's the female analogue to Ted Kennedy, an angry, red-faced individual who shouts a lot.

To understand the phoniness of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and of tomorrow's subject, Barack Hussein Obama), it's important to understand their target audience: the far-left Democrats who actually participate in primaries and caucuses. These are Moveon.org types, the 20% of the Democratic Party -- one-in-five -- who tell pollsters that they hope America loses the war in Iraq. To reach such people, rhetorical extremism is an essential ingredient.

Two of my favorite Hillary-isms are as follows: (1) "George Bush doesn't care about people"; and (2) THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR!"

On the notion that GWB "doesn't care" about the people he represents and who elected him twice: Mrs. Clinton offers no evidence that she cares any more about "people" than does President Bush. She's a person who desires to become President, and to that end, she dumps verbal trash on the man who currently holds the office. Thus, she engages in political statements that don't go beyond hurling gratuitous insults -- an apporach her husband and others have called "the politics of personal destruction."

Why would she make such improper statements about Bush -- ones that "rise" to the level only of schoolyard taunts? Because she understands that he's an easy political target -- and because the most important thing in the world to her is winning the nomination. Her target audience, Americans who generally don't like their country very much, wants red meat, so she stuffs it down their throats.

Specifically, what about the "this is George Bush's war" comment? Again, it's a demagogic accusation. Hillary Clinton wants to become commander-in-chief. If as President she has to go to war, does she want many Americans to condemn it as "Hillary Clinton's war?" OrWorld War II "Franklin Roosevelt's War?" Or Korea "Harry Truman's War?" Or Vietnam "Lyndon Johnson's War?"

Some enterprising media type should ask her those questions, although no one will. She might accuse the questioner of being part of "a vast right-wing conspiracy."

Mrs. Clinton has a bad habit of speaking without thinking. Apparently, if she believes some statement will generate votes from left-wingers, the words just fly out of her mouth.However, is the conflict in Iraq really GWB's war, or is perhaps in a sense "Hillary Clinton's War?" One could make the case -- if one were so inclined -- to say that it is.

In October, 2002, Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution. In November, 2003, she also voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation to fund the war. A month later, December, 2003, she said the following: "The fact is we're in Iraq and we're in Afghanistan, and we have no choice but to be successful." For some reason, she's stopped making that important -- and accurate -- point.

In the spring of 2004, Hillary Clinton called Saddam Hussein "a potential threat [to America]." She added that the Iraqi dictator had been "seeking weapons of mass destruction . . . whether or not he actually had them." There's no real debate on this points.

In other words, back in the period from 2002-2004 Iraq was not "George Bush's war." It was America's war -- and hers. She noted correctly that if Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs, he certainly intended to get them at the earliest possible time. Of course, she wasn't a candidate for President then.

Nowadays, of course, her comments on Iraq are much different. She indicates -- falsely -- that the Bush Administration somehow "misled" her about WMDs. What she neglects to say is that the CIA director appointed by her husband -- George Tenet -- had said to President Bush that Saddam's having WMDs was "a slam-dunk." Mrs. Clinton (and her husband) apparently agreed.

George Bush clearly is a convenient scapegoat for Mrs. Clinton to use in her single-minded quest for the Democratic nomination. However, she fails to note that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she had the same information about WMDs as the President. She cast her war authorization vote with the same knowledge GWB had when he made the decision to go to war.

The approach Mrs. Clinton is taking allows her to be for a war when it's going well -- and against it when it's not. To paraphrase Kyle Smith, it turns politics and elective government into a circular firing squad, where ultimately no one is left standing.

The events of 9/11 were the reason the U.S. went to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fear that Saddam Hussein had -- or was seeking -- WMDs that he wouldn't hesitate using was the main reason the country went to war in Iraq. Of course, Saddam had possessed -- and used -- WMDs against Iran and the Iraqi Kurds.

The catastrophe of 9/11 represented a major failure of intelligence by the CIA, headed by Bill Clinton's appointee. They also reflected a failure on the part of the FBI, headed by Clinton appointee Louis Freeh. (William Mueller, Bush's appointee, had been in his office for only about a week when 9/11 occurred.)

A great unanswered question of that time is this: Why didn't GWB blame the failures of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for 9/11? No one knows the precise answer. However, it appears that Bush -- unlike people such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- didn't want to play the blame game. Instead, he gave Bill Clinton a pass so as not to divide the country.

As we've seen, Mrs. Clinton has no such concerns about dividing the nation, or any real grasp of her husband's role in letting 9/11 occur. Instead, she has the old Democratic strategy of divide the nation -- calling Iraq GWB's war -- in order to conquer as her Party's nominee. The phoniness is as transparent as it is malicious.

A cynic might ask: What else is new?


Tomorrow, I'll be writing on the phoniness of Barack Obama, who never quite reaches the total inauthenticity of Mrs. Clinton but at times comes perilously close. Obama said today, "We are at a defining moment in our history." That's not really profound. Rather, it's in the category known as cliches. He's good at them.

On TV, he just said, "Change does not happen from the top down. Change happens from the bottom up." I guess that's why he's running for President. He wants to start at the bottom. The emptiness of the man's rhetoric is truly awesome.

CONSERVATIVE OPTIMISM: MCCAIN CAN WIN

Put a cork in it, Sean. Nobody cares about your half-baked "opinions."

Conservatives learn to live with McCain
By: David Paul Kuhn
February 10, 2008


Conservatives have already found something to like about John McCain: They think he can win in November. According to interviews with a dozen leading conservatives at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference, movement leaders believe McCain brings significant advantages to the top of the ticket.

“The public who wants change is comfortable with John McCain, whom they view as someone who is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bush administration,” said former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating. The very issues that have estranged McCain from much of the conservative base “have actually strengthened him with moderates,” Keating added.

Part of McCain’s newfound appeal rests on his perceived distance from President Bush. “The unhappiness is with Bush and not the Republican agenda,” said Grover Norquist, a leading fiscal conservative activist. Norquist saw parallels with the 2007 election of conservative French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who followed the administration of fellow conservative Jacques Chirac. “This is Sarkozy saying, ‘I’m not Chirac,’” Norquist said of McCain in the coming race. “I’m the change, and she’s [opponent Segolene Royal] the socialist.”

Of course, McCain still has a ways to go in mending rifts with opponents and rallying an unenthused base. At one conference session, a speaker asked the audience whether Republicans were going in the right direction. Perhaps a dozen raised their hand “yes.” There were thousands sitting in the hall.

When Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading conservative in the House, spoke at the conference on Friday, he rhetorically asked, “What are conservatives supposed to do now?” One man yelled skeptically: “Tell us!” Later, as Pence spoke well of McCain, a woman extended her arm and gave a thumbs-down.

“Republicans believe in markets. We also should believe in political markets,” Pence said after his speech to the convention. “And the market has spoken here. Not the party fathers, not pundits, the American people. Republican voters have given us a soldier, and it just may be what the Republican Party needs to take that hill in 2008.”

Pence said that if a reunion between McCain and the base occurs, “what appeals to independents and moderates is already in the package.”With McCain as the presumptive nominee, many conservatives no longer believe Republicans are fated to lose in November — a shift from last year’s dour outlook. The turmoil within the base, many said, will prove ephemeral.

Much of the change in thinking can be traced to the events of the last week. First, Super Tuesday left Democrats preparing for a protracted and heated battle. Second, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s resignation from the race on Thursday effectively sealed McCain’s bid for the nomination. In the view of many conservatives, Romney’s quick withdrawal left time for McCain to unite the party before reaching out to those voters lost in the devastating 2006 midterm elections.

“There is general acceptance of McCain as the nominee and they are thinking, ‘How can we work best together?’” Norquist said.

Few Republicans disagree that the hill ahead is steep. The war in Iraq remains unpopular, though less so of late. Only a quarter of the public thinks the country is heading in the “right direction.” Bush’s approval rating, hovering around 30 percent, is a millstone weighing the party down.

“History tells you that the Republicans shouldn’t be able to win in 2008,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. “But history is made up of exceptional acts. We still have a divided electorate. In the main, on most values issues, the public leans conservative.”

Another conservative House leader, Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-Mich.), said that though he was not an early supporter of McCain, he would nevertheless stand by him in the general election. He added that he also now believes that “this should be a close election.”

Many Republicans believe that the base will come together once the race turns to a “contrast” — to use South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint’s words — between the Republican and Democratic nominee. The alternative to McCain, according to this line of thinking, may be as much of a factor for the GOP as McCain himself.

“Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson or Haley Barbour may all be more conservative than John McCain. But he’s not going to be running against any of us. He’s going to be running against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama,” said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

“In 2004, there’s an enormous premium on uniting and motivating and turning out your base. My opinion is 2008 is going to be much more of an election about persuasion,” Barbour continued. “McCain as our candidate actually benefits from that more than a Haley Barbour would.”

Even longtime conservative activists such as Paul Weyrich, who remains disheartened by the idea of a McCain nomination, believes that the coming general election offers Republicans newfound opportunities.Though Weyrich believes New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “is clearly an easier target because her negatives are so high,” he also argued that Democrats have not considered Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s “weaknesses.”

Most Republicans cite both Democrats’ relative inexperience compared with McCain. But many conservatives interviewed, like Weyrich, said the recent nonpartisan National Journal ranking of Obama as the most liberal senator illustrates a significant vulnerability.

“I think [Democrats] really don’t know what’s coming,” Weyrich said. “In other words, they don’t really understand that his philosophy, his viewpoint, is going to be made an issue. Right now he has been winning on oratory and personality. Both of which are outstanding. But once people begin to understand where he is, and that he is really the same as Hillary on most everything, I think it’s going to be a different story.”

Conservatives also said that they believe an extended contest between Obama and Clinton will further divide Democrats. And many said the Democratic race has exposed weaknesses they did not foresee at the outset of the presidential race.

“Conservatives realize that Hillary Clinton is not a 10-foot giant and the newcomer has got his problems,” Keene said. “They see the Democrats involved in a fight that is going to go on and on and a fight that is going to get more and more bitter. So they are looking at a very different landscape than they did a year or so ago.”

NOTE: MONDAY I'LL HAVE A COLUMN ON THE PHONINESS OF HILLARY CLINTON. ON TUESDAY, IT WILL BE BARACK OBAMA'S TURN. AS PAUL WEYRICH SUGGESTS, BARACK TALKS A GOOD GAME BUT HE PLAYS THE SAME OLD LEFT-WING BROKEN RECORD.

GRASSROOTS: McCain's Key to Victory

LARRY THE CUCUMBER AND "HUCK," A GREAT TEAM IN 2008

Note: My primary blog is accessible at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/. Please read tomorrow's column: "Clinton & Obama: Two Phonies"

I asked Sharon, of Norman, Oklahoma, how she and her political allies were able to generate victories in Oklahoma, a state with a tradition of voting for Democrats. Here's her reply, beginning with the emphasis on giving people T-shirts at football games. Her emphasis, like mine, is on the least expensive and most effective forms of campaigning. Both of us believe that TV ads are too expensive -- and increasingly ineffective.


These were t-shirts which they [the campaigns] picked up very cheap. We had Crimson for OU [Oklahoma University and for OSU [Oklahoma State University] they had Orange. Since our mascot at OU is the Sooner Schooner, they had that on both sides and one had Sooners for Bush-Cheney and the other side had Sooners for Coburn. Then the ones for OSU had their mascot, the Cowboy.

We actually walked doors in a U.S. Senate race [that resulted in the election of Dr. Tom Coburn, who introduced McCain at the CPAC convention]. In fact, in our Governor's race in 2006, we had Bob Sullivan pick out precincts around the state where he walked doors. It made the news on both sides of the state at 10:00 o'clock [note: in OK, the "late" news is at 10 p.m.]. Candidates for statewide races or Congressional seats do not walk doors normally.

It started with Dr. Coburn in 2004 and then in 2006 our Governor/Lt Gov candidates walked some precincts. You cannot buy that kind of publicity. They actually had the media taking pictures and thety appeared in the paper.When we walked our precincts asking for votes for Dr. Coburn, we wore the shirts. We heard more of, "How do we get one of those?" When you wear straight campaign shirts [without the football links], I have never been asked where they can get one.

If you do a TV ad, I would recommend trying to find the one that Senator Don Nickles ran in 1998 -- know it is a long time ago but his ad was about bringing Oklahoma values to DC and he was out in the countryside with a white farm fence. It could be upgraded for today but the central theme of bringing OK values to DC still resonates as Coburn used it in 2004 when he ran for Don's seat.

My State Rep, who was defeated last time, spent $243,000 for his failed campaign and the Dem spent $41,000 but walked the doors and advertised on the radio -- especially sports talk radio while the Republican ignored radio and went to TV. We had so many TV ads before the 2006 election, they were lost in the shuffle.

Congresswoman Mary Fallin wore out several pair of shoes walking her Congressional district in 2006 asking for their vote. She was out all the time as were her Republican opponents for the open seat. She walked the most doors, got in a run-off, walked even more doors, and won. She connected totally with her district and to this day she is so well liked. She made the fair circuit of the counties in her district and was highly visible at our State Fair in [Oklahoma City]. She was on the radio a lot and she used the theme of bringing OK values and ideas to DC. She didn't use robo calls [automated calls] and neither did her opponent, Denise Bode, but several others did and they were not well-received. She had Ed Goeas as her consultant. Grassroots won it for Mary as she had the largest amount of volunteers.

I made calls before the primary election (not even my Congressional district) and the theme was: "Mary Fallin asked me to call today to ask for your vote." The senior citizens were so impressed that they were being asked by a live person. Then we had a cheat sheet to use if they had any questions but we found being short and to the point made the biggest impression.

Dr. Tom's calls were the same -- we were live except for the ones the NRSC paid for that Bush and Cheney taped.For the Rudy campaign, we had people use their cell phones on weekends when there are free minutes. It worked great and you can get a lot more people calling. Phone banks are expensive to set up for such a short period of time. so a lot of our campaigns are going to cell phones with a limited number of phones available for people to make calls during the week but on weekends it is almost all cell phones and same with the evening.

Big money doesn't mean you are going to get elected. You have to connect to the people, something a lot of candidates forget because of consultants who would rather line their pockets have forgotten.

Note from Steve: The emphasis in this blog is not on "borrowing" tidbits of information from news sources. Rather, it concentrates on political fundamentals, the steps necessary to win elections. John McCain is not going to be able to raise as much money as his opponent -- either Clinton or Obama -- and he shouldn't even try. Instead, there should be as much emphasis on person-to-person contact as possible. The emphasis should be on low-cost, high effectiveness forms of campaigning, the kind Sharon outlines above. What worked in Oklahoma will work in any state or congressional district. If John McCain uses these techniques, he will win. If he doesn't, he won't.

NOTE: PLEASE READ JACK KELLY'S COLUMN TODAY!

Please read the column today by Jack Kelly (a real conservative -- one with brains), who writes for the Toledo Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It's accessible at: http://post-gazette.com/forum. One good line: "Every GOP candidate who rose above the asterisk level in the primaries has been called a RINO." He also beats Ann Coulter about the head-and-shoulders.

"Ann Coulter is so angry with McCain's occasional embrace of Democratic ideas that she says she'll campaign for Democrats if Mr. McCain wins the nomination." Kelly adds, "Ms. Coulter says this kind of thing whenever she feels she's not getting enough attention."

Also, "If Mr. McCain wins despite the objection of the [right-wing] RINOs, he'll owe them nothing, and it is doubtful he will have warm and fuzzy feelings about them."

Kelly concludes, "We're in the midst of a war we can't afford to lose. There is a stark difference between Mr. McCain and the leading Democrats on this and many other issues. Spare me your phony airs of moral superiority, RINOs. To sit out this election would be like sitting out 1944."

GRASSROOTS POLITICS: KEY FOR MCCAIN

NOTE: I HOPE YOU'LL ALL (Y'ALL FOR SOUTHERNERS) WILL VISIT MY MAIN BLOG AT: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. All the main posts will go up there first. Thanks! Your comments are always welcome.

Today on MSNBC, political pundit Roger Simon said the way to win elections in 2008 is to attract a core of people "who go door-to-door . . . friend-to-friend." That's the essence of grassroots politics.

This weekend (Saturday and Sunday) I'll be discussing a political operative, Sharon Caliendo of Norman, Oklahoma, who's an expert in the kind of politics described by Roger Simon. If you scroll down to the previous column, you'll see how Sharon and her friends helped ensure the election of conservative Tom Coburn, in his race for a Senate seat.

In fact, Sharon's effort went one better than the door-to-door approach. She and her co-workers went where the people were: specifically, to the huge crowds that attended University of Oklahoma football games. In Oklahoma, the political activists handed out tee-shirts that promoted both the football team and the candidate. It would be possible to sell such tee-shirts, but it's better (if the campaign can afford it) to hand them out for free -- and encourage people to put them on right away.

She indicates the same approach would work country-wide.

The following are some additional comments by Sharon on the Coburn grassroots effort:

Added some more to the Coburn grassroots. It really needs to be an example for any candidate running a campaign on what they can do to get the grassroots involved.

Dr. Coburn held BBQ's around the state with free hamburgers/chips/drinks to recruit volunteers along with town hall meetings. The guy that did the grilling was a BBQ guru from the Tulsa area who made the best hamburgers. We held one at the OU duck pond and about 75 people turned out to the event and out of the 75, we recruited 63 of them to help and it was repeated around the State and it just kept growing. Most amazing thing I have ever been involved with.

I will never forget when Dr. Tom won our County straw poll and was the only candidate there without a group of paid staffers but we won. I was Coburn rep for counting ballots and will never forget the look on Humphrey's campaign aide's faces when Dr. Tom won -- priceless. I live in the 3rd largest county and that was the beginning of a win for Dr. Tom who has never lost a race. In fact he won his House seat in an area that is heavily Dem and we haven't had a Republican since he left.

Hearing Dr. Tom speak today [at the CPAC convention shere he introduced John McCain] brought back all those great memories from his campaign.

Grassroots Politics & McCain Victory

Here are some of the locations of visitors within the past several hours: Carrizozo, NM; Kenya, Africa, Savannah, GA, Seattle, WA, Midvale, UT, Houston, TX, Lubbock, TX, Bellingham, WA, Seattle, WA, Downingtown, PA, Glenside, PA, as well as many other places. Thanks to all of you for visiting.

If you'd like to see my daily columns, the best place to go is: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Copy that link, paste it into your broswer, and then when you get to the primary site, please bookmark it.

Later today (Friday, February 8, 2008), I'll be writing about the tactics advocated by an Oklahoma activist, Sharon Caliendo, who lives in Norman. Sharon discusses how you can turn your favorite candidate from "someone who came close" to "someone who celebrates a victory on Election Eve."

Sharon, along with Greg Alterton, began the Yahoo Group of Rudy Giuliani supporters. When Rudy dropped out, the Group became "Rudy Supporters for McCain." It was and is one of the largest groups on Yahoo, with approximately 1500 members. It was a factor in John McCain's winning the Oklahoma Primary.

Her emphasis is on grassroots politics -- basically on political activists (like you) recruiting other activists. Of course, we each have ONE vote, but if we act wisely we can leverage our vote into many votes. It's something like a snowball rolling down a hill. By the time it reaches the bottom it has turned into a huge mass.

To win on November 4, 2008, John McCain will need approximately 70-75 million votes. Sharon's analysis explains how McCain can accumulate enough support to win. I hope you return to see what she says.

________________________________

RICH GALEN ON WHY YOU SHOULD BE SUPPORTING JOHN MCCAIN:


Rush, Sean, and Laura
By Rich Galen
Friday, February 8, 2008

With the exit of Gov. Mitt Romney there is no doubt that Sen. John McCain will be the Republican nominee.

The Popular Press is running around in tiny circles, eyes wide, arms waving, mouths agape selling themselves on the theory that McCain's impending nomination will signal the end of the Republican Party.

The Main Stream Media has a vision of the GOP which is that Republicans are a bunch of narrow-minded, widely-condemning, high-handed, low-opinioned, under-educated, over-critical brutes who subscribe to a political orthodoxy which brooks no deviation from a belief set laid down by disciples of Aimee Semple McPherson

Not all. But many.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the others are doing the work of the New York Times and the rest of the popular press by railing against McCain all day, every day.

It appears on the surface that their goal is to make Conservatives stay home next November 4 and hand the White House to Hillary or Barack.

But the reality is they are doing it because it means good ratings. When their listeners get tired of hearing them beat up on McCain, they'll switch to something else.

If they were to ask for my advice (which they most assuredly will not) I would suggest they take on the issue of the Democrats in the Senate holding up - according to the Wall Street Journal - 208 nominees: 180 nominees to executive branch positions and 28 nominees to the Federal bench.

If Rush, Sean, Laura and the rest wanted to really do a favor for America, they would get their tens of millions of listeners amped up about the nominees who are being held up - some for as long as two years - by Senate Democrats who will not allow the President to govern and will not allow the Judicial Branch to function.

But, I digress.

It is not a surprise that Mitt Romney got out of the race yesterday. After spending some $40-50 million of his own money and perhaps $100 million overall, he needed be able to have said more than "I did somewhat better than Mike Huckabee" after Super Tuesday.

Huckabee would never have gotten out of the race as long as Romney stayed in, so Romney found himself in an untenable political corner in which he was boxed in by McCain on his left and Huckabee on his right.

Huckabee will likely stay in at least until next Tuesday (the "Potomac Primary" - Virginia, DC, and Maryland) to see how he fares without having to share the right side of the ballot with either Romney or, as in South Carolina, Fred Thompson. After that Huckabee will get out leaving the field clear for McCain.

I don't have any idea that this has actually happened, but I would be surprised if surrogates for Charlie Black (McCain) and Ed Rollins (Huckabee) haven't been on the phone laying down the ground rules for a discussion about what role Huckabee will have in the campaign and what role his delegates will have at the Republican National Convention.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday, John McCain showed confidence and courage by standing before the very group which Rush, Sean, Laura and the rest have been attempting to agitate like a washing machine on steroids against him.

Watching the speech on television - first on Fox then on CNN - it appeared those in attendance appreciated McCain showing up, his willingness to openly speak about their differences, and his recitation of his Conservative creds.

It did not hurt that former Sen. George Allen stood with McCain as he was introduced, thus demonstrating that a favorite of core Conservatives - Allen - was pronouncing McCain satisfactory, acceptable, and … OK by him.

John McCain has nearly nine months to consolidate Republican support behind him. He will, with the aid of other Conservatives, do that.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to be duking it out until at least April and maybe all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August - leaving the nominee only a couple of months to accomplish that feat on the Dem side.

The Talk Show Set should get on board and stop doing the work of the New York & Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek and Time.



Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. He currently is a senior adviser to Fred Thompson's presidential campaign and writes at Mullings.com

Be the first to read Rich Galen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichGalen/2008/02/08/rush,_sean,_and_laura