'"WE are the media . . ."
The following message went to the huge number of people associated with the NoBama Network and NoBama Mission. I urge all of you visitors to ally yourselves with both groups.
Anne, I realize all of us are working like 14 dogs and 19 cats, but this information about a database of Obama fanatics is fascinating, and worth putting out to the media. The public doesn't KNOW that there's a horde of Obama fanatics engaged in computer hacking and attempted disruption of NoBama activities.
I will be working with various people over the next 10 days (and some after) putting together a large collection of Bloggers who will support the cause of NobamaMission and/or Clintons4McCain.
I'll also be sending out today and tomorrow the remainder of the material pointing out how Obama's PA commercial shamelessly directed only at "white people." The commercial contains one false or misleading statement after another.
The white grandmother (called in Obama's Dreams From My Father "a typical white person" and described as similar (!) to Rev. Wright in the Philadelphia speech) is not portrayed in the book as part of a "a loving family." The book does NOT portray Obama's family as people who "taught values straight from the Kansas heartland," as the commercial asserts.
In Dreams, the grandparents are essentially portrayed as clueless white people, Midwestern rubes. In his speeches and presumably in future commercials, the grandfather is described as womeone "who served (key word) in [Gen.] Patton's Army."
In Dreams, however, Obama contemptuoulsy dismisses grandpa as someone who "never saw combat." In the the autobiography, Obama talks about how deeply ashamed he was of having a white mother (Anna Dunham). One of this few statements about Kansas is that in the winter the farm boys "stank like pigs."
Of course, his mother, Anna, fled Kansas (and its "heartland values") for Hawaii as if she were leaving the Gateway to Hell. The book makes clear that Ms. Dunham was an atheist and Marxist, something I fear you'll not hear in the commercials talking about the "values" she taught him.
The commercial also talks about Obama's role in "welfare reform." He's talking about some minor reforms at the Illinois state level. I am hearing from reliable people that Barack H. Obama strong opposed welfare reform at the federal level, one of the great achievements of the Clinton presidency. I'll look more deeply into this and get back to you.
In Pennsylvania, the two big daily papers in Pittsburgh (Post-Gazette) and Philadelphia (Inquirer) have no real interest in separating reality from fiction when it comes to Barack Obama. However, it remains very worthwhile to get truthful information out to every media outlet and individual who can put it to good use.
It's not just that Barack Obama is feeding people in PA and elsewhere a pack of lies; rather, it is that he doesn't seem to know (or care) about the difference between truth and fiction.
I'm sending a copy of this to Jack Kelly, a columnist in Pittsburgh and Toledo, who is an absolutely courageous man -- telling the truth in far-left papers. I hope hundreds of thousands of people in the "NoBama" movement come to know Jack's material. (http://post-gazette.com/forum)
I said in the call last night that Barack Obama had made an implied threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The printed text from the AIPAC speech doesn't show that clearly, although The Economist magazine used wording from the actual speech rather than the hand-out. I have the audio of the speech and will pin down his exact wording and get it to you.
Last night I sent to various NoBama people material showing that Obama's commercial directed to white voters had him taking credit for passage of legislation regarding wounded veterans on which he didn't vote. (See below)THE LONG COMMERCIAL IS FALSE IN EVERY PARTICULAR. I hope Cristi and others will put it up on Clintons4mccain and elsewhere.
Obama: inexperienced . . . unqualified . . . deceitful . . . and DANGEROUS.
Obama's Falsehoods About Legislation: From National Review Online (June 23, 2008)
Padding Obama [Yuval Levin]
Barack Obama released his first general election ad on Friday, which seems aimed above all to answer some early concerns about his biography and experience. It’s a well made ad, but it also offers an example of the kind of brazen padding of the resume that Obama will inevitably need to engage in, and which will carry serious risks for him. About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,” and in the usual manner of these political commercials we are given a little citation at the bottom. The citation reads “Public Law 110-181 1/28/08”. That law is the only federal legislation cited in the ad — the other two items mentioned were from the Illinois legislature and referred to other issues raised in the ad. Public Law 110-181 was the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed the Senate by 91 to 3 in January, with six Senators not voting. Among those six absentees was Barack Obama.
Showing posts with label National Review Online. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Review Online. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Blog Change
After February 6, the day after Super Tuesday, I’ll be posting exclusively at my main blog: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Friday evening’s posting is an editorial from the Austin (TX) Statesman endorsing John McCain for President. It’s well done and worth reading.
Steve Maloney
Ambridge, PA
National Co-Chair McCainVictory08
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON MCCAIN FROM NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:
A Different Perspective
Victor Davis Hanson
Three unexpected developments have given Republicans a shot this year at winning once thought impossible, given the normal desire of the electorate for a fresh party after eight years, and worries about Iraq and the economy. All can change, but for now they have a real shot.
The first, of course, is the radical turnabout in Iraq. Had we been seeing over 100 dead a month, the loss of Baghdad, and a failure of the surge, McCain would be finished and his Republican rivals would have carved out a third position between Bush and the Democrats that would have been still rejected by the voters.
Second, no one anticipated the surge of Obama, and the Clintons’ overt and clumsy efforts at personal destruction that turned off even liberals, a development that explains why a McCain in theory could be palatable to disaffected Democrats and Independents.
No one knows whether Thursday night’s [Obama-Clinton] reconciliation will last. But I doubt it, since Obama was figuring his nice guy image gained him ground, while Hillary worried that unleashing Bill and knee-capping her rival lost her percentages. But when it gets down to winning and the race narrows, each will readjust and it will get nasty again. Bill is ungovernable, and growls and gets toothy in periods of quiet and tranquility when he recedes from the news
And third, the unanticipated November implosion of Rudy Giuliani coalesced many moderate Republicans behind one candidate, the once moribund McCain, while base conservatives were never quite energized over either Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, and either diluted their support or never embraced a candidate with real passion.
It is understandable to lament the absence of conservative purity, but ahistorical to suggest that any recent Republican president would have met any of the litmus tests now demanded, given the dependency of the middle class on entitlements and its touchy-feely worldview.
Reagan, and Bush I and II all adjusted to that unfortunate reality. A Democrat did not appoint Souter, O’Connor, or Kennedy, nor raise payroll and gas taxes in the 1980s, nor sign amnesty and de facto open-border legislation in 1986, nor, later, increase federal spending well past the rate of inflation, or offer amnesty again in 2007. Tax cuts were great, but without caps on spending they were unfairly slurred as revenue reducers once deficits soared. Recent Republican congressional scandals mirror-imaged some of the Clinton-era roguery.
Reagan’s pragmatism on taxes, amnesty, new federal programs and government expansion, was continued by both Bush I and II. In that regard, McCain seems a continuum, not an abject disconnect. His problem is mostly temperament, as when he strayed he was blunt about what he was doing and sometimes gratuitously offended his base in a way that neither Reagan nor the Bushes dared. That is a legitimate concern of tactical aptitude, but not one so much of ideology.
He also never was a conservative idealist that voiced conservative themes on the campaign trail which he could not enact once elected. But in terms of judicial appointments, foreign policy and the war, and federal spending, he is not much different from any of the prior three Republican presidents, and might well prove tougher, given his age and occasional contrarianism. We worry over his immigration stance, but his former mistaken position was Reaganite to the core and reflected the Bush consensus. His new stance of closing the borders first would be a radical departure, and a conservative remedy.
In short, anyone who saw the Democratic debate Thursday night can envision the new future on their horizon: identity politics and self-congratulation over race and gender; tax increases (back to estate tax hikes, income tax rates go up, payroll tax caps lifted, etc); internationalism for the sake of internationalism (defer to the U.N., E.U., apologies for past conduct, contextualizing terrorism), more government (teachers, the poor, the middle class, etc. all need new government programs to add to those we have), and legislating judges (more Ginsburgs and Breyers).
Given all of the above, I don’t think it’s in the interest of conservatives for much longer to worry about McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in.
Steve Maloney
Ambridge, PA
National Co-Chair McCainVictory08
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON MCCAIN FROM NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:
A Different Perspective
Victor Davis Hanson
Three unexpected developments have given Republicans a shot this year at winning once thought impossible, given the normal desire of the electorate for a fresh party after eight years, and worries about Iraq and the economy. All can change, but for now they have a real shot.
The first, of course, is the radical turnabout in Iraq. Had we been seeing over 100 dead a month, the loss of Baghdad, and a failure of the surge, McCain would be finished and his Republican rivals would have carved out a third position between Bush and the Democrats that would have been still rejected by the voters.
Second, no one anticipated the surge of Obama, and the Clintons’ overt and clumsy efforts at personal destruction that turned off even liberals, a development that explains why a McCain in theory could be palatable to disaffected Democrats and Independents.
No one knows whether Thursday night’s [Obama-Clinton] reconciliation will last. But I doubt it, since Obama was figuring his nice guy image gained him ground, while Hillary worried that unleashing Bill and knee-capping her rival lost her percentages. But when it gets down to winning and the race narrows, each will readjust and it will get nasty again. Bill is ungovernable, and growls and gets toothy in periods of quiet and tranquility when he recedes from the news
And third, the unanticipated November implosion of Rudy Giuliani coalesced many moderate Republicans behind one candidate, the once moribund McCain, while base conservatives were never quite energized over either Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, and either diluted their support or never embraced a candidate with real passion.
It is understandable to lament the absence of conservative purity, but ahistorical to suggest that any recent Republican president would have met any of the litmus tests now demanded, given the dependency of the middle class on entitlements and its touchy-feely worldview.
Reagan, and Bush I and II all adjusted to that unfortunate reality. A Democrat did not appoint Souter, O’Connor, or Kennedy, nor raise payroll and gas taxes in the 1980s, nor sign amnesty and de facto open-border legislation in 1986, nor, later, increase federal spending well past the rate of inflation, or offer amnesty again in 2007. Tax cuts were great, but without caps on spending they were unfairly slurred as revenue reducers once deficits soared. Recent Republican congressional scandals mirror-imaged some of the Clinton-era roguery.
Reagan’s pragmatism on taxes, amnesty, new federal programs and government expansion, was continued by both Bush I and II. In that regard, McCain seems a continuum, not an abject disconnect. His problem is mostly temperament, as when he strayed he was blunt about what he was doing and sometimes gratuitously offended his base in a way that neither Reagan nor the Bushes dared. That is a legitimate concern of tactical aptitude, but not one so much of ideology.
He also never was a conservative idealist that voiced conservative themes on the campaign trail which he could not enact once elected. But in terms of judicial appointments, foreign policy and the war, and federal spending, he is not much different from any of the prior three Republican presidents, and might well prove tougher, given his age and occasional contrarianism. We worry over his immigration stance, but his former mistaken position was Reaganite to the core and reflected the Bush consensus. His new stance of closing the borders first would be a radical departure, and a conservative remedy.
In short, anyone who saw the Democratic debate Thursday night can envision the new future on their horizon: identity politics and self-congratulation over race and gender; tax increases (back to estate tax hikes, income tax rates go up, payroll tax caps lifted, etc); internationalism for the sake of internationalism (defer to the U.N., E.U., apologies for past conduct, contextualizing terrorism), more government (teachers, the poor, the middle class, etc. all need new government programs to add to those we have), and legislating judges (more Ginsburgs and Breyers).
Given all of the above, I don’t think it’s in the interest of conservatives for much longer to worry about McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
