They Attack Palin Out Of Fear
Sep 3, 2008 Political
John McCain’s surprise pick of Sarah Palin to round out his ticket has sent shock waves throughout the land of politics. Republicans are energized and Democrats are suddenly fearful. They fear that they might just lose in a year that they should win and do so handily. They fear that Obama made a serious mistake by selecting Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton (a ticket I think would have won). You can tell the Democrats think Palin is the real deal and a threat because of the vicious way that they immediately attacked her and the way they continue to do so.
It started when the Obama campaign failed o acknowledge that she is a Governor and it was compounded by the assertion that she lacked any experience. Who could blame Obama for belittling the executive experience that Palin has as a Mayor and ignoring her executive experience as a Governor? For his campaign to suggest she lacks experience smacks of hypocrisy since she has more leadership experience than any of the Democrats in the race. John McCain has never held an executive position but he was in the military and certainly served as a leader there. However, Palin has more executive experience than he does.
The hits kept on coming when the Democratic Propaganda Outlet (Daily Kos) published an absolutely false story that Palin was actually the grandmother of her youngest child and faked the pregnancy to cover her daughter’s delivery. Some went so far as to suggest that Palin’s husband was the daddy of the daughter’s supposed child.
Now, a writer for a small and insignificant Baltimore paper has said that the selection of Palin is insulting on many levels. Susan Reimer of the Baltimore Sun indicates that it is nothing more than pandering for John McCain to select a woman who is inexperienced and expect people who would have voted for the experienced Hillary to vote for the GOP ticket. Though Hillary is far more experienced than Obama, I fail to see how she is more experienced than Palin. Hillary has about 8 years experience in the Senate. She has never held any other elected office and she has no executive experience. She only got the Senate seat in New York by riding the coattails of her husband. If Bill Clinton had never been president then Hillary would never have been a Senator.
Palin did not ride to office on the coattails of her husband. She is self made and earned her elected positions on her own merit. So the question is, Susan, why would you feminist women support a woman who needed a man to get ahead rather than one who made it on her own? Reimer takes issue with the fact that Palin is pro life, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught next to evolution. I find no reason to be against someone who believes in the sanctity of life and who supports the Second Amendment. I also find it refreshing that someone would offer differing opinions on how we got here. Palin wants children to be given differing points of view whereas Reimer only wants them indoctrinated with an unproven, flawed theory.
People like Reimer will come out in full force to attack Palin because she is strong and she is a real threat to their victory. Adding her to the ticket reinvigorated Republicans and will likely sway some of the Independents and women who feel that Hillary was mistreated by the chauvinistic Obama campaign. She is a real threat and the Democrats do not like it. They were outflanked by John McCain who demonstrated that a little tactical training comes in handy.
These people will make the mistake of underestimating Sarah Barracuda and will regret it. She is bright and fierce and will take them apart. Don’t let her good looks fool you, this woman is the real deal and will fight a tough fight.
The Democrats are in turmoil. Obama got a 6 point bounce from his convention and McCain stole his thunder by announcing the selection of Palin. He and his supporters know they should be way up but they seem unable to close the deal. This is troubling to them and they have a real fear that they could lose this November. Therefore, they are doing the only thing they know how to do and that is to attack with lies. They will continue to do this until the general election because they are afraid. Seriously, if she were a lightweight or someone with whom they need not concern themselves, why are they attacking her so ferociously? The Democrats have even stooped so low as to release Palin’s Social Security number. Seems Chuckie Schumer did this to Michael Steel. Not only illegal, but unethical as well.
Palin gives her convention speech tonight. I expect she will deliver an outstanding speech that will further energize the base and grab the attention of Independents and those who have yet to decide.
After Palin speaks there will be plenty of Democrats losing sleep.
And there will be more unfounded attacks.
Tags: Clinton, experience, libel, McCain, Obama, palin, reimer
Obama Redeemed by a Mistake?
Jul 20, 2008 Political
Jesse Jackson said it was a redemptive campaign. Obama’s foreign policy wisdom has caused great joy in moonbat-ville tonight. Only problem, it is all predicated upon a mistake.
The MSM and the Internet are all atwitter as liberals frolic at the news that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has agreed with the Messiah, Barry Obama. A German publication quoted Maliki as agreeing with the Messiah on a 16 month withdraw plan for US forces. I have been reading the reports of this at ABC’s Political Punch and the liberals are having multiple orgasms. They are thanking Obama and attributing all this to his vast foreign policy experience. The only problem in all this is that Maliki never said that he agreed with Obama. He was either misquoted or his statement was mistranslated.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: experience, Iraq, Obama, peace, rock star, war, withdraw
Obama Withdraws from Withdraw
Jul 3, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has changed his position on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Now, before I continue with this, I know I will get comments from the Obamabots saying this has been his position all along. I would counter by stating that Obama has had about a half a dozen positions (maybe more) on the war depending on what contest he was in and to whom he was speaking. As a matter of fact, one of Obama’s positions included having troops in Iraq until 2013 which is exactly what John McCain said. Of course, McCain was blasted from the left and Obambi never got heat for it. Let’s see how well he does after his latest flip.
Today, in contrast to his earlier positions, Barack Obama stated that he would wait until his trip to Iraq before he defines his position on it (since he never intended to go to Iraq until he was embarrassed in to it, he cannot have always held this position). Obama stated that he wanted to speak to the commanders before making an assessment and he assured us that this has been his position all along. Except that in a debate he said he would immediately withdraw troops and that included a yes, even if the commanders oppose it, statement. Obambi said he would take their advice under consideration but as Commander in Chief the buck stops with him (as if he has more experience than the commanders). He and Hillary were both pandering to the anti war nuts at the time and they had to be tough. They were playing a game to see who could get the troops out faster.
Obama has changed from immediately, to 16 months, to by the end of 2009, to 2013 to any number of answers. This cannot make the nutroots very happy because they supported him and his “I was opposed to the war from the beginning” meaningless statement and they loved his promises to leave Iraq immediately.
For a list of the different positions Obama has taken go here. The list at the bottom are his quotes on the war and what he will do and includes his 2013 position.
The Obama campaign and the candidate himself have a lot of testicular fortitude when it comes to obvious lies. Obama contends that he has always held this position or that one, when the reality is that he did not. David Axelrod stated that Obama said he would always listen to the advice of commanders and that would factor into his thinking. This is a lie. Obama has repeatedly stated that he would listen to commanders but that he was going to withdraw the troops regardless of what they told him. He even had a second news conference today to address the GOP pointing out his flips and Obama stated that he would listen to the commanders but what they say would not affect his 16 month withdraw plan. Obviously, the commanders will not hold sway with Obama if they think we need to be there longer than 16 months.
Obama is playing a game here and he thinks he can get away with it and to be honest he will with part of the country. He and his campaign believe that if they continue to say things and keep repeating them people will hold them as true. They do this regardless of what Obama has said in the past. Obama has ALWAYS been in favor of gun control and he stated that he felt that guns should be taken away from people. He keeps saying he has always been in favor of it so that people will believe it is true but his record and his statements say something entirely different.
Obama also has another problem with regard to the war thing. He is running against a war hero and a man with a wealth of military experience. Obama has none, nada, zero, nil, experience in this arena. His rise to the top was all predicated on a meaningless opposition to the war and the left’s disgust at Hillary’s vote to authorize it. The left made her pay for voting for war and they love Obambi because he says he will end it and bring our troops home immediately. But that was then. He was running against a Democrat in a Democratic primary. He needed to persuade Democrats to vote for him and the best way to do that was to talk tough about bringing the troops home right away. The left ate that up and they loved him for it.
Now though, Obama will have to appeal to the other half of the country. He will have to appeal to those who do not believe in surrender and who understand that experience matters. Obama is moving toward the center to try and appeal to the moderate Republicans. He knows that most will not appreciate a strategy that means defeat because they remember all too well what happened in Vietnam. Obama also knows that he cannot look naive on this issue because national security is a very important one. By now saying that he might need to refine his plan he is trying to demonstrate that he has experience and good judgment. The problem is, he has made his positions clear a number of times and no matter how many times he says he has ALWAYS believed in his current plan, the fact is, he did not. This is a lie and he knows it is a lie he just hopes that YOU will not know it is a lie.
Consider this, if a candidate has always had the same position on an issue he would not have to keep saying that he has always had that position because people would know it. The very fact that people are pointing out the differences and the fact that he is defending against them shows that he has changed positions. If it was always the same there would be no validity to the attacks (if they would even occur) because people would know. Notice that he never has to say that he has always supported abortion. That is because he has and people know it. There are no other positions on which to compare and there are no other statements to the contrary. People know it, as opposed to his stances on gun control and the war in Iraq on which Obama has had more positions than the Kama Sutra.
Over the next few days Obama will claim he has always been consistent so that his code pinko friends on the left will be led to believe he has not abandoned them. He will also claim that the GOP is distorting his record. Regardless of what this guy says, he is lying.
And if anyone in the MSM had any integrity they would call him on it. Unfortunately, they go along with him. Keith Olberman (definitely not the MSM) is so in love with Obama that if Barry said tomorrow that the war in Iraq is righteous and that we need to go into Iran and have war for 100 years Keith would say how brave Obama is for saying things no one else will. Olberman blasted Bush and all his criminals for wanting to grant immunity to communications companies but when Barry voted for it Olberman said he was showing courage and fawned all over him.
Unfortunately, Olberman is not the only moron in the media that would stand in line to give Obama a Lewinsky. Chris Matthews would get in line several times with a tingle in his legs and there are others who will ignore everything just to help put a Democrat back in the White House.
It is obvious that Obama is trying to swing to the middle and will say anything in order to get elected. Muslims believe that it is perfectly OK to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam. Barry is deliberately lying and deceiving people in order to get elected (as did every Democrat who pretended to be conservative in the last election in order to get into office).
Wonder if it is a coincidence that both entities believe in the same things…
Related items:
US News and World Report
CNN
Stop the ACLU
Tags: deceit, experience, flip flop, lies, McCain, Obama, war plan
The Hypocrisy of Wesley Clark
Jul 1, 2008 Political
Right from the start let me say that I am not into denigrating the military service of veterans who served honorably. Wesley Clark served this country honorably and I do not intend to attack that service. However, his recent attack on the service of John McCain leaves open some questions about the ability of Clark to make reasoned decisions and to think cogently about an issue. To recap, Wesley Clark stated:
Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents, and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility.
We will not get into the fact that if McCain’s military credentials do not qualify him to be the Commander in Chief or to serve as President in general then Obama’s sickly resume hardly qualifies him to be the guy who directs traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue. Besides, Clark already stated that Obama has judgment and character and that those items are qualifications for the job. Let us just look instead at the hypocrisy of Wesley Clark.
Four years ago Wesley Clark and John Kerry were running for the Democratic nomination which Kerry eventually won. Wesley Clark backed John Kerry. To Clark, Kerry’s three month stint in Vietnam qualified him to be Commander in Chief as opposed to McCain’s meager service. Or, as Clark might say [if Kerry were a Republican], getting a few splinters and leaving early hardly qualifies as executive responsibility.
But the heart of the matter is Clark himself. He ran for president which means he believed that he possessed experience that demonstrated executive responsibility. How did his service qualify him any more than John McCain’s? Clark led a company in Vietnam for exactly one month before he was wounded and sent to Fort Knox where he commanded a company of wounded soldiers. There are two other shots that Clark took at McCain and they are important:
“That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded – that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”
~snip~
“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,”
Clark served as a commander for one month before he was shot and sent home. I hardly think serving one month as getting shot qualifies him any more than getting shot down in an airplane but that never entered his mind when he ran. As for command time, what does Clark have besides that one month? He was commander of the Allied forces in Kosovo so one could debate whether that service qualifies him as a wartime commander. Even if it does (and I believe it did), what about being relieved of his command qualifies as executive responsibility?
Like I said, I am not into dishonoring anyone’s service and that is not my intent here. I am pointing out that Wesley Clark is dismissing the service of John McCain when he had no problem with Kerry’s thin military resume (but very think traitor credentials) and Clark never felt as if his own military experience was less than qualifying for the job when he ran. This in spite of the fact that the very issues Clark brought up with regard to McCain very easily apply to Clark.
The bigger issue here is why Clark is doing it. He is trying to diminish a few of McCain’s strongest attributes, his vast military experience and his foreign policy credentials. The left is trying to negate this as an item that can be used as a comparison to Obama because Obama cannot win that match up. By reducing the importance of the issue they hope to even the playing field and have voters believe that McCain has as little experience as Obambi. Clark did this out of fear.
I predict this will backfire. Regardless of what people think about the war, a great number of them support the troops. Our military has higher approval ratings than the president and the Congress combined (and probably twice the combined total). Attacking a veteran is an unwise move.
General Clark might have handed McCain the White House on a platter.
Tags: experience, McCain, Military, Obama, war, wesley clark
Hillary and Her Experience
Feb 23, 2008 Political
When it comes to experience, Hillary Clinton is happy to claim it all. She says that she has 35 years of experience making change and she says that eight of those years were during her husband’s time in office. Hillary likes to lay claim to the good things that happened then but kind of forget the bad ones. She does not want credit for any event that could make her look bad but she is very happy to lay claim to the good events.
Hillary is quite upset at an Obama mailer that trashes her health care plan by stating she would force people to buy it. She says it is inaccurate but she specifically said that the government would garnish wages to force compliance which sounds like people would be forced. There is one other thing Hillary is a bit upset about. B. Hussein O-BOMB-us has taken Hillary to task for NAFTA. That (so called) free trade agreement was signed by her husband and it has been a problem for folks who believe they lost jobs because of it (though lost jobs is due to many dynamics). Hillary has distanced herself from this whole ordeal by stating:
“I am fighting to change NAFTA,” she insisted. “Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other.”
So in this instance, she lays no claim to the experience her husband gained while president. If NAFTA was a big hit Hillary would be claiming that she helped push Bill to sign it. She is all about the us when it suits her cause but, as we see here, she disavows any involvement in the problematic items from their co-presidency.
I also find it interesting that she says neither of them were in the Senate therefore neither of them voted for it as a way to deflect criticism of the agreement but, she and her hubby called Obama’s position on the Iraq war a Fairy Tale because he was not in office to vote for or against it. In other words, it is OK for her to say she was not in the Senate when asked about a particular item but it is NOT OK for Obama to do that. For the record, I have maintained that his position on the war is irrelevant because he was not a member of the Senate so we will never know how he would have voted. Since we have seen both of them wait until the other voted on legislation before voting, it is not beyond reason that he would have gone along so as not to look weak on national security. Frankly, his word on the matter is not good enough for me.
As for Hillary, she wants it both ways (and I am not talking about her love life). She wants credit for the good things that happened and to stay away from the bad things. Either her eight years were experience or they were not. Since she has claimed they were and has taken credit for items from that time, she is responsible for NAFTA.
Hillary, release your records from the eight years and while you are at it, release your tax records…
An experienced politician would have thought about this before running for the presidency.
Tags: Clinton, experience, fairy tale, nafta, Obama