Thursday, July 31, 2008
Dear Blogger or Web Hoster or other onliner committed to just saying "NoBama": Things are really heating up in the united effort to make sure the next President of the U.S. is NOT named Barack H. Obama. In the most recent Gallup Poll pitting BHO against John McCain, the latter came out ahead by four points among likely voters.
Right now in several states there's an urgent need for people who will volunteer to communicate with their fellow voters (including by e-mail and phone). Two states that are winnable with a sustained effort are Nevada (close) and Pennsylvania (the race has tightened significantly). The people now on the ground in those states (and others) truly need your help.
If you prefer to register at another site, I strongly recommend http://www.realdemocratsusa.org/. I work closely with that group, which is a superb one.
(Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia? Their turns are coming soon.)
I hope you will reprint this message on your blog (if you have one) or otherwise communicate it to your political allies, especially those in NV and PA. People in Nevada who want to help beat Obama should contact Angelo, one of the founders of nobamanetwork and nobama mission at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
People west of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania who want to assist in defeating Obama should contact me (Steve Maloney) at: TalkTop65@aol.com In fact, anyone in PA who contacts me will be put in touch with people working in the General Election against the Great Pretender.
Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd disseminate this request as widely as possible -- on your blogs, Yahoo Groups, and through e-mails. It's critical that we start now -- and not wait for Labor Day.
If you're a blogger who'd like to join NoBama Mission bloggers (see the widget on the right), please send me an e-mail with your first name, your blog URL, and your state.
Also to your right you'll see a widget for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. It airs every Saturday at 5 p.m., and I'll be co-hosting through August (and perhaps longer). Anyone interested in NoBama activities will like what they hear
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Betty Jean Kline says in her newsletter:
Is this [the Jay-Z song played at Obama's victory celebration and described below] an example of what we have to look forward to with an Obama executive branch administration? He obviously tolerates this language from people of color. Talk about the dumbing down of America. Perhaps this "ghetto-ization" is what is leading to our moral decay? Why are we as a nation, glamorizing this horrible rhetoric?
Why is Bros before Hos (especially a white ho or bitch) acceptable, but Don Imus' calling a predominately black group of female athletes "nappy headed hos" cause for MSM, cultural and racial uproar? We must join together and speak out that we will not allow these types of attacks. If we continue to remain silent, we will continue to suffer the consequences of that silence. Who is going to rise up and stop anyone from calling women of any color bitches, ho's and cu_ts? Why am I not valued enough to be protected from this type of offensive language aimed my way?Example: Obama condems a new song calling Hillary and "irrelevant Bitch" but not in Jan.08. At Obama's Victory Event, Campaign Played Jay-Z's "99 Problems (But A Bitch Ain't One)"
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama claims to run a clean campaign, but someone in his camp took a swipe at Hillary Clinton through the candidate's theme song. .As Obama and his wife, Michelle, strolled triumphantly into his victory party in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 3, Jay-Z's "99 Problems" was blaring. In it, Jay raps, "I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain't one."Now folks I think you need to click this link and go see ALL the lyrics of the song the presumptuous one chose back in January for his victory song before you decide if I have been too harsh in use of my word "ghetto-ization" above!
That was the song Obama chose to have played at his victory event in Iowa in January. The song is Jay-Z's "99 Problems (But a Bitch Ain't One)." The lyrics include the words fuck, asshole, bitch, hoes, shit, black ass, fuckers, niggaz, motherfuckin, nigga, and pussy - very presidential!!! Why was this NOT in the press in January??? Is anyone paying attention to what is going on?
A SITE TO BEHOLD!
approaching 1 million visitors . . .
1431 memebers . . . site up for less than 3 weeks . . .
"No More Kool-Aid . . . This is not the Obama we know"
Dr. Martin Luther King said -”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character“. We believe Obama is NOT a person with good moral judgment. He lacks the character and integrity to be the president of the greatest nation on the planet.
"We are backing away from Senator Obama because he changed from the positions he ran on during the primary election. It is time to say ENOUGH. Say no to the kool-aid."
Monday, July 28, 2008
Debbie Bartoshevich is a former Democratic delegate from Wisconsin who supported Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and vowed to vote for Sen. John McCain. The Wisconsin Democratic Party took away her convention credentials.
Now she's speaking to the press (watch HERE.)
"I have a right to vote for anybody I want to vote for," she says. "I'm putting my country before my party...I'm finished with the party, the Democrat party."
Clearly, the DNC has forgotten what country this is. Ms. Bartoshevich is right to leave the Party, which actually left her and other normal Americans long ago. The Party is now in complete control of the extremists who financed and supported Barack H. Obama.
It's frankly time for Democrats and patriots to wake up from the nightmare that their Party has become. Ms. Bartoshevich has recognized that the Party is broken, and it's not likely to get fixed anytime soon.
"McCain, not Hussein . . . country BEFORE Party."
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Any residents of PA, NJ, or NY that want to offer their support to John McCain should e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Tell me where you live, and I'll put you in touch (as quickly as possible) with campaign organizers in your area.
As for those who live in the NYC/NJ area, the critical message to get across to Hillary Supporters (and they total in the millions) is that the DNC doesn't like them or respect them. They do, however, want their votes. The woman in WI was duly elected and there is no reason for the DNC to dump her. There is at least one McCain delegate who appeared in a pro-Obama commercial. I haven't heard anybody saying he should be thrown up the bus.
The McCain Campaign intends to win New York and New Jersey . . . states that went strongly for Sen. Clinton in the primaries but are being taken for granted by Barack H. Obama.
That "loud bang" we all just heard was the beginning of the General Election.
I urge all Hillary Supporters in PA NOT to vote for Jason Altmire (4th CD), Patrick Murphy (8th CD), or Tim Holden (17th CD). All of them went against their constituents and stabbed Sen. Clinton in the back. Vote instead for Melissa Hart, Tom Manion, and Toni Gilhooley, all of whom are honorable and courageous people. They need your support.
As for Allyson Schwartz (13th CD), Paul Kanjorski (11th CD), and Joe Sestak (7th CD), they're all now apparently supporting Barack H. Obama. He's the same man who called Pennsylvanians "bitter" people "clinging" to guns and God. Obama has no grasp of who Pennsylvanians are -- and frankly, neither do the Congressmen I've cited. It makes no sense to vote for people who destroyed Mrs. Clinton's chances to win the nomination.
If you want to know who such people are in your state, go the following: http://dncreform.com.
There are much better candidates, including Marina Kats, Lou Barletta, and Craig Williams. They deserve the backing of Hillary Supporters all others seeking to bring integrity to Pennsylvania politics.
Journalists shouldn't be seeking "unity," which in this case is another name for groupthink. Journalists should be seeking honesty, candor, and, yes, objectivity. Frankly, minority journalists -- and even the MSM -- have broken next-to-nothing of value about Barack Obama, his wife, or his life. Barack Obama remains to many people "the man no one knows," or, as he described himself, "a blank screen." Journalists, minority or otherwise, are supposed to fill in that screen. From the [following] story about the people attending the "unity" event, they should not be carrying pads, pens, and laptops, but rather poms poms to wave at "St. Barack." I've taught many journalists in my lifetime, and I doubt many of them would be comfortable acting like cheerleaders. Many of the minority journalists, including Chicago's Leonard Pitts, should be seeking honest work. In his comments, Pitts suggests that members of minority groups can't be serious journalists. His remarks are shameful, but I doubt he will ever grasp that.
Following is the story referred to in the preceding paragraph:
Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?
Jul 26, 1:53 PM (ET) By JESSE WASHINGTON
CHICAGO (AP) - When Barack Obama ascends the stage Sunday at the Unity journalism convention, fresh from an exhaustively chronicled overseas tour, he will face a surprisingly divided audience.Not on the subject of whether Obama should be president - members of the four minority organizations that comprise Unity are largely Democratic.
But many at the quadrennial gathering differ on whether the underlying current of enthusiasm for Obama's historic candidacy should be constrained or allowed to spill forth on live television.In addition to race, the issue boils down to questions of human emotion, empathy versus ethics, and whether a group that has experienced its own share of prejudice can resist responding to Obama's powerful oratory and potent symbolism.
"This is not a pep rally," said Tonju Francois, a producer for CNN en Espanol and board member of the National Association of Black Journalists. "I don't want to say it's offensive, but the idea that just because he's a black candidate, somehow our journalistic ethics would go out the window ... I think we need to behave."
So does Unity. In an e-mail sent to the 6,800 conference attendees,the organization advised that "every effort should be made to maintain professional decorum during the event, especially since it will be broadcast to millions of people."
Yet the same diversity embodied by Unity itself can blur the definition of decorum."People don't view (attending Obama's speech) as work," said Connie Llanos, a reporter for the Los Angeles Daily News and member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. "We're not going to write about it, so you're allowed to voice your emotion or feeling."
Still, "people shouldn't be throwing underwear," said Veronica Garcia,a NAHJ board member and copy editor who spent 17 years at the Los Angeles Times. "We're journalists. We should strive to be a little objective."Conservatives have spent years decrying a liberal media bias;Democrats fought over how Hillary Clinton's primary coverage compared with Obama's.
This week, the campaign of John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, sniped at the media constellation chasing Obama on his excursion through the Middle East and Europe. And questions of personal politics have plagued journalists of all backgrounds.
But even against this backdrop, the Unity journalists face some unique pressures. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry inspired a standing ovation;President Bush got a few boos during his speech, which disturbed some of the journalists present.
This year, McCain declined an invitation to appear at Unity, citing scheduling conflicts.Barbara Ciara, president of NABJ and the anchor/managing editor at WTKR in Norfolk, Va., said it would be inappropriate "to show enthusiasm on any level" on Sunday because of a perception that minority journalists' coverage is slanted by their ethnicity."Maybe I'm a little bit old school, but I do believe there's a trust we have to achieve with our audience of viewers, listeners and readers," she said.
"In order to trust you, they have to believe you're going to act dispassionately. You can't start jumping around like a little bumblebee just because a bee that looks like you is in the room."Leonard Pitts, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Miami Herald, believes that media objectivity is "a fairy tale we're supposed to pledge allegiance to." As one of the panelists who will question Obama on Sunday, he's more concerned with being fair to both sides, and he isn't bothered by the prospect of a few extra cheers.
"It's asking a little bit much to ask a room full of African-American journalists, or a room full of journalists of color, who have seen people like them and probably seem themselves excluded many times on the basis of color, not to have some sort of emotional reaction to the success of the person who may arguably become the first African-American president," said Pitts, who is black.The fear at the convention, especially among veterans, is that emotions will run amok given the many young journalists, public relations professionals and sponsors in attendance.
"Taking pictures afterward, asking for autographs, acting like groupies," said Alfredo Araiza, a photographer for the Arizona Daily Star. He and Ramon Chavez, a University of Oklahoma journalism professor and member of the Native American Journalists Association,led a student seminar at Unity on how to act professionally at news conferences."I have the feeling the exact opposite will happen here," said Chavez.
So does Nicole Newsum, a 27-year-old public relations executive who described herself as "obsessed" with the candidate. "I'll be screaming," she said.
Said Luz Villarreal, an associate producer for "Dateline NBC": "I don't think it's such a bad thing if for 15 minutes you take off your reporter hat and respond to (Obama) as a human being at an event where you're surrounded by people of color and you're here for a united cause."In the new media world of attack blogs, pundit power and felled newspapers, perhaps Obama's candidacy is marking yet another milestone.
"Barack Obama is the Jackie Robinson of our era," said Pitts, the columnist. "There's no getting around that, there's no asking people not to respond to that. ... Journalists are recruited from the human race. And as long as they're recruited from the human race they're going to have emotions, and they're going to have feelings."
Friday, July 25, 2008
Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama
By SHELBY STEELE
July 22, 2008
A few weeks ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made something of a fool of himself. There he was -- a historical figure in his own right -- threatening the castration of Barack Obama. It was sad to see.
If I have often criticized Mr. Jackson, I have also, reservedly, admired him. He is a late 20th century outcropping of a profoundly American archetype: the self-invented man who comes from nothing and, out of sheer force of personality, imposes himself on the American consciousness. If he never reached the greatness to which he aspired, he nevertheless did honor to the enduring American tradition of bold and unapologetic opportunism.
But now -- not looking old so much as a bit lost within the new Obama aura -- it is clear that Jesse Jackson has come to a kind of dénouement. Some force that once buoyed him up now seems spent.
Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.
Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.
They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites.
And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.
Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.
So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.
And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.
And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.
Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly.
Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.
Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?
I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.
But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.
So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.
This, no doubt, is what Barack Obama means by "change." He promises to reconfigure our exhausted cultural arrangement.
But here lies his essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office.
To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.
Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him?
His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.
John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.
Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.
He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.
Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).
Obama Group puts up campaign posters at sacred place in Jerusalem
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'>
Thursday, July 24, 2008
By Steven Thomma McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Throw the flag against: Barack Obama.
Call: Intentional grounding.
What happened: Obama on Wednesday was speaking to reporters in Israel when he tried to boast about what he'd done to protect Israel.
"Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon," Obama said.
Why that's wrong: Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
Ironically, a man who traveled with Obama to the Mideast this week, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., is a member of the committee. He was one of the "no" votes when the committee passed the bill July 17 on a vote of 19-2.
Penalty: Perhaps Obama was thinking that as the presumptive leader of his party, all of the Senate committees are his, as President Lyndon Johnson once quipped, when told he was heading toward the wrong military helicopter, that they all were his. Obama's Johnsonian hubris sets his credibility back 10 yards, and he loses a down in this offensive series.
ON THE WEB
See Obama make his claim:
This is the linnk to see who is REALLY on the Committee!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Hard to Be Humble
July 22, 2008
Posted by TOM BEVAN
For a while now, one of the strongest narratives working against Barack Obama has been the notion that he is an elitist and too full of himself. Hillary Clinton exploited this angle to the best of her ability in the primaries, and the narrative has only strengthened in the general election as the Obama campaign has made move after move that display varying degrees of arrogance: the faux seal, the move to Invesco stadium, the aborted attempt to speak at Brandenburg Gate, etc.
Knowing that Americans tend not to like candidates who are too full of themselves, you would think Obama and his surrogates would be focused on trying to muster at least a modicum of humility in their dealings with the public and the press. But apparently not.
Jim Geraghty highlights another small but telling example of the Obama campaign's self regard, this time by foreign policy advisor Susan Rice in an interview with Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: "Critics say the trip is nothing but a PR stunt to strengthen his foreign-policy credentials and that he has only rarely been to Europe before.
Rice: Senator Obama has travelled to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia many times before. He lived in Asia. He bows to nobody in his understanding of this world."
Intentional or not, the phrase "he bows to nobody" is the kind of tone deaf rhetoric that reinforces the narrative about Obama's arrogance.Far more telling than what a surrogate says publicly, however, is what the candidate himself says privately. And the Der Spiegel item reminded me of this post by Netscape founder and internet wunderkind Marc Andreessen. The post is dated March 3, 2008, but in it Andreessen recounts a conversation he had with Senator Obama in early 2007 as he was gearing up to run for President.
Near the end, Andreessen asked Obama directly about his lack of foreign policy experience, and this is how Obama responded:We then asked, well, what about foreign policy -- should we be concerned that you just don't have much experience there?
He said, directly, two things.First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.
Just who is Obama comparing himself to with this remark? Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who would fit the description of "widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy" include Joe Biden (34 years on the Committee), Dick Lugar (28 years), Chris Dodd (26 years), and Chuck Hagel (10 years). Together those gentlemen have nearly 100 years worth of experience on the Foreign Relations Committee, compared to Obama's three.
Notice that Obama didn't say "I'm a quick study" or "I have real world foreign policy experience," or any of the hundreds of other things he might have said to impart to Andreessen that he was a smart, capable guy when it came to foreign affairs while still maintaining some humility.
The second half of Obama's response to Andreessen was equally telling:He said -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.Put another way,
Obama responded to a question about concerns over his lack of foreign policy experience by saying, "it's not what I've done but who I am that matters."
Taken together, this response smacks of an unusually high self regard. As Charles Krauthammer wrote on Friday, "For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?"
Humility is a virtue not always consistent with running for President. It is one thing to be confident in one's abilities, and another thing to be overbearing to the point of arrogance. This is one of the traits that many of George W. Bush's critics find most grating.
But Obama and his campaign appear to be deliberately taking things to a whole new level. Given his defeat of Hillary in the primary and his current small but steady lead over McCain, you have to say it's a strategy that has worked well for them on balance thus far. Whether the same attitude and approach continues to help or begins to hurt between now and November remains to be seen.
Barack's Senate Experience a Little Thin . . .
Obama’s Senate Experience: 143 days
Barack Obama logged exactly 143 days of experience in the U.S. Senate before setting his sights on winning the White House.
Obama was sworn in as a senator on Jan. 4, 2005, and he announced that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee on Jan. 16, 2007. In that interval, the Senate was in session and working for 143 days, according to GOPUSA’s blog The Loft.
That’s the equivalent of less than 21 seven-day weeks.
“After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be commander in chief, leader of the free world, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan,” Cheri Jacobus writes on the blog.
In contrast, presidential rival John McCain’s resume includes 26 years in Congress and 22 years of military service, including his 1,966 days as a POW in Vietnam.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
If you listened to Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) on the campaign trail, you heard some scary things. They portray “too many Americans’ as one step away from economic and social disaster. They see as people badly in need of major assistance – their assistance.
John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It’s the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can’t disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man’s being.
Even Bill Clinton has said of McCain: “He’s given everything he has to his country – except his life.” President Clinton has never spoken truer words.In contrast to McCain, Obama essentially portrays America as something resembling Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach,” where “ignorant armies clash by night.”
As “Lexington" in The Economist describes Obama’s world-view, America is “a coalition of groups that define themselves as victims of social and economic forces, and . . . [where] its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved . . .”If Obama becomes President, we would become a society of “victims,” all of us clamoring for the government to bail us out of our misery. That would be a disaster not only for libertarians, but for all Americans.
I hope all libertarians do the right thing: voting for John McCain. Also, ask your friends and family members to do the same thing.
The future of liberty in this society depends on free people standing up and supporting a man who has devoted his entire life to defending American values and liberties. John McCain is the right man for our cause.
Friday, July 18, 2008
With all due respect, my response when I read Cynthia's words above was as follows: Have these friends sought professional help? Sometimes the Democratic candidate is far superior to the Democratic. AND SOMETIMES THE REVERSE IS TRUE. I don't regard that statement as profound, but instead obvious.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
As an "objective observer" (well, sorta), the cable news coverage of the primaries was truly pathetic. People like Donna Brazile and, yes, Hillary-backer Paul Begala, and some of the other advocates for one candidate or another struck me as creepy. They were robotic and profoundly uninformative.
If cable wanted to present a clear picture of what was going on, why have people -- and Donna was the worst, followed closely by Paul -- who are shills for one or another candidate? People reciting campaign talking points are not going to provide us any useful information.
"We [the NoBama Movement] are the media," because the people we thought were the media were just reciting canned material in support of their favorite candidate. What useful information can come out of that? If Candy Crowley and Chris Matthews had never existed, would we have lost anything? The more we see them, the less we truly know.
One time Amy Holmes -- a true journalistic superstar -- asked a "Democratic strategist" (an Obama supporter, a pretty but somewhat vacant looking woman) to put on another cap and tell what she would advise McCain. The woman said not one word about the issue Amy raised, incapable of seeing the political issues from another perspective, and she blathered on about how wonderful Obama was. It was embarrassing.
One of the most interesting things going on -- and relax, you'll never hear this discussed -- is how many moderate and liberal people have a newfound admiration of FOX News. They don't have any Edward R. Murrows there, but they are in fact at least trying to present a "fair and balanced" view. That's something unheard of at CNN or MSNBC, which have failed their listeners miserably.
Right now, FOX is by far the most informative and honest of the cable outlets. Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfsohn, two very good people, have said as much. Howard is a brilliant guy, but the only place he could get a job was on FOX. That says a lot.
One of the fascinating things about O'Reilly's interview with Hillary is not that the two battled (what else is new?) but that they both enjoyed the fight. The interview helped Hillary re-inforce her image as self-confident, fast on her feet, and a battler. It reinforced Bill's image as a smart, but crabby, guy.
Donna Brazile? Mainly an evil, manipulative person, someone who chooses candidates based on the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character. She exemplifies why the Democratic Party has become almost completely dysfunctional.
On my national blog, I have up "The 72 Lies of Barack Obama." He should be up to 100 well before the end of the week.
(Read below for another current column.)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The one thing good about being "not young" anymore is that one has the complete right to tell the truth. Every member of the Clinton family, right down to Chelsea has been a champion of racial justice in America. GWB said as much when the Clinton pictures were unveiled at the White House.Like me, Bill has reached the age where he can utter inconvenient truths. If Bill is ever forced to hug Obama, I hope he pulls a Hannibal Lector and bites off his nose.In the Democratic Primaries, Hillary Clinton used the phrase “white people” ONCE to describe those who were voting for her in Pennsylvania and other late primaries. She was wildly castigated for it, even though: (1) it was true; and (2) Barack Obama was getting 90% of the African-American vote.
However, the standards for Obama in terms of his constant “racial politics” appear to be much lower.
Obama and his surrogates, such as Rev. Wright, constantly accused Sen. Clinton of racism. That occurred, even though Sen. Clinton has a history of practicing racial tolerance and encouraging legislation beneficial to Black people. Obama, by the way, has no such record.
Let’s consider the e-mails, article, and comments accusing the 70 million people who will vote for John McCain of racism. There has been no candidate since the days of George Wallace in 1968 who manipulates race for political gain with the intensity of Barack H. Obama.
One key manifestation of racism is the use of generalizations/stereotypes designed to diminish/denigrate racial (or sometimes ethnic) groups. Obama does this repeatedly in his book Dreams from My Father.
The most famous example is his grandmother (currently used in commercials to display Obama's "white side") as "a typical white person." As you'll recall, in his "Philadelphia" speech on race, which contained not one memorable or honest line, he compared his grandmother (a saint by most accounts) to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a race-baiting, America-hating "preacher."
Barack Obama sat in Wright's church listening to such nonsense for 20 years -- without raising a peep. He exposed his wife and children to Wright's vile message.
Obama's racism also extends to his recent statements on "responsibility." As Rev. Manning pointed out, Obama -- a child of privilege -- has no real understanding of Black life in America. At the NAACP speech, Obama accused Blacks (many? most?) of being irresponsible and lacking good parenting skills.
Can anyone imagine Obama would ever make a similar speech to groups consisting mainly of Whites? In fact, white people are also known to be irresponsible and practice bad parenting. Most disturbingly, Obama’s criticisms of Blacks appear to be aimed at impressing some whites, particularly those who hold what are supposedly "enlightened" views of Black people.
In Obama's commercials in PA and elsewhere, several white people appear (his grandparents and mother). The only Black (actually, multi-racial) shown is Barack Obama himself. The commercials establish no connections whatsoever to the Black community. The positive statements he makes about his family are at variance with what he says in Dreams.
For the Obama campaign and its surrogates to accuse others of racism is laughable -- and par for the course for the Senator from Illinois -- never to be confused with another Illinois Senator, Abraham Lincoln.
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are.
The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people." McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats.
I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world. He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.
Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers.
So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Here's her comment in italics):
> From: "darlajames84":
I joined this group to voice my concerns about Obama and his political>views. But it has become very apparent that some of the members are> blinded by their hatred of blacks in general. They can't even> respond to a subject without injecting disparaging remarks aimed at blacks. Where are the discussions about Obama's stand on gun> control, abortion, or the economy? How do we derail his bid for the> oval office? These are the issues we should be addressing.
Here's my response (part of it) to Darla and the Group:
Obama's views on the issues are pretty much standard fare for far-left Democrats. He believes in raising taxes dramatically and then passing out the funds to people who vote for him. In 2007, he was noted by the National Journal, a bipartisan publication, as the most liberal member of Congress, significantly more liberal than Mrs. Clinton.
If you value very liberal politics, mainly involving taking from some and distributing it to others, then Obama's your man.
My point has always been that there are much more serious issues involved here than just complaining about Obama's contempt for everyone in general. Of course, he's changing his position on many issues. Does this really surprise anyone?
As for his stand on abortion, he believes it should be allowed to take place in any and all instances, right up until the ninth month of pregnancy. He opposed in Illinois The Live Birth Infant Protection Act. That means he wanted to deny medical care to infants born alive as result of botched abortions. His view apparently was that nurse and physicians should be allowed to pretend the live infant was in fact dead.
In short, he not only believes in just about any and all abortions, but he also seemingly believes in infanticide. Those who are "pro-choice" in the extreme will vote for Barack H. Obama. Those who believe in protecting the lives of all infants born alive will vote for John McCain.
I have pointed out that the most liberal groups in our country -- including Moveon.org and the Daily Kos -- support Obama strongly -- and hate Hillary with a passion. Am I somehow wrong on this?
In Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, the Democratic Party got exactly what it deserved: an inexperienced, unqualified, dishonest, and dangerous candidate.
http://www.clintons4mccain.com/ BLOG TALK RADIO: YOU'LL LOVE IT
July 19, 2008 5:00 PM EST
Must Hear: Clintons4McCain Radio
"Is Winnie the Pooh's Birth Certificate more Authentic than Obama's?"
Join us July 19, 2008 as Clintons4McCain radio invites special guest, Judi McLead with the Canada Free Press to discuss her article, Winnie the Pooh Birth Certificate more authentic than Obama's. Find how the Canadian part of the world is taking this 2008 primary season and how they feel about Obama.
Was there rampant fraud in Iowa or Texas? Can we prove it?
Clintons4mccain radio will also feature Dr. Lynette Long to discusses the Caucus Fraud and the work she is doing on collecting facts about the rampant fraud in 2008 Democratic primaries.
Cecilia Hickey also joins the conversation as she Attempts to "Clean Up" the Democratic Party. Celica will discuss the letter she received from Howard Dean (2007) and email from Hillary Clinton (2005) asking for money to clean up the voting process and make every vote count. Did every vote really count this primary season? Cecilia says, "Clean up your act DNC Leaders!"
Join us every Saturday at 5 PM EST via computer from anywhere in the world at www.blogtalkradio.com/clintons4mccain
Contact Cristi Adkins at email@example.com for show ideas, questions or guest suggestions.
Registration for BlogTalkRadio is easy, just go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/register.aspx.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton: New Best Friends?
Abbey, I disagree with you on the debt issue. It's not that I don't like Hillary, because I do. I wrote until my arms fell off about her courageous and ferocious campaign and how superior a candidate she was to Obama. Lately, however, my estimation of her has been going down like a boulder in the ocean.
People who try to defend Sen. Clinton's recent cozying up to Obama portray it all as something beyond her control. I'm told, "She had to do it to preserve her career." Her career!?!? What about preserving and protecting her country? Obama portrayed her as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. Does any of that matter to her? Exactly, what does this career protection say about her character?
John McCain once said, "I'd rather lose the presidency than lose a war." I'd like to find even ONE Democrat, including HIllary, who says anything roughly comparable. When John McCain spent five years in the "Hanoi Hilton," I don't believe he thought much about career opportunities. In this regard, some Hillary defenders sound more like her indicters.
I'm not trying to be insulting...just telling it like it is. This is a matter of national importance, and personal feelings may have to take a back seat. I guarantee that anyone who hates the GOP, or McCain will end up hating Obama more if he becomes President...which he will if enough people stay home, or write in, or vote for a third party/candidate.
Obama speaking before the adoring multitudes at Invesco Field, Denver. What do Obama and the Reichsfuhrer have in common?
I've been writing -- and others have also -- about the similarities between the Obama approach to campaigning and the events in Germany in the 1930s. Film buffs among our group will be aware of the of the brilliant (and evil) Nazi filmmaker, Leni Riefensthal, who did the film (we've all seen it) called "Triumph of the Will," featuring everybody's favorite Reichsfuhrer, Adolph Hitter, and masses of cheering, chanting Germans (although not of course Jewish Germans).
It's perhaps the greatest propaganda flick of all-time.
In his acceptance speech, Obama will "make love" to the audience, which will be adulatory. He will recite all the slogans David Axelrod provided him -- and the audience will respond as the world's largest collection of cheerleaders. Only the cynics among us will have flashbacks to the old films of Mussolini and Hitler (and perhaps the videos of Rev. Wright?).
Leni Riefenstahl, although long dead, will be smiling. The speech will be as rhetorically powerful, albeit empty of any meaningful political and social content, as anything we've ever heard.
The call (demand? order?) of all young Americans to "National Service" should not, of course, be confused with "the Hitler Youth," although admittedly, I do share that "confusion."
The most partisan member of the U.S. Senate will call us once again to "post-partisanship." The most racially divisive figure of our time will order us to go "beyond race." The man who called his grandmother "a typical white person" will point lovingly to her in the crowd. The man who sat for 20 years in Rev. Wright's church will tell us about the depth and breadth of his judgment. The man who has absolutely no connection to the U.S. military will assert that he's ready to be commander-in-chief.I don't know about "y'all," but I can't wait!