Hey guys, It's OK to be pro-War now

Ok, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, and Maureen Dowd. You can all go home and rest easy. Obama is at the helm, and the way things are looking Guantanomo will NOT be closed, the Iraq mission (the war is over) will be completed and we will not pre-emptively leave before that country's security is in plave. Afghanistan war will continue and will in fact be scaled up. Obama will likely get credit for Iraq's success.

Are you happy? Will you suddenly accept that torturing terrorists for information might be a really good idea? Will you suddenly see the light on Iraq and surmise that in the long run being rid of Saddam and having a democracy in his place was a positive thing and worth fighting for? Will our troops suddenly be heroes to you rather than demented monsters who enjoy killing?

Of course you will, is the answer to all the above questions. But it's not because you ever held clear convictions on those issues, but that you merely hated George Bush.

Next time: things NOT to do

Now that the election is over, the dust is settling, and people are rejoicing, complaining, or looking ahead...it is time to look back at some of our (GOP) mistakes during this cycle.

1) Nominated a legislator instead of an executive.

2) Had a long primary that created unnecessary factions within the GOP voting bloc.

3) Our campaign message was always on the defensive about our platform, with too much explaining. We were also too offensive towards the opposition, with too much explanation. History shows (for better or worse) that the person who wins is always the optimistic candidate. Obama ignored most of the jabs taken against him, and he spent zero time denouncing people on his side who did/said stupid stuff. Why? Because doing so only helps connect the dots from candidate to badstuff. McCain on the other hand spent a good deal of time discussing/worrying about his image as a good guy, and the more he denounced John Hagee, Bill Cunningham, et al, the less it helped him. Why? Because nobody believes a politician trying to distance himself from things percieved as slimy. It's easier often to just ignore it, as Obama did.

4) Allowed Obama to steal the "middle" position. Obama is the most left-wing senator in the senate. That's a record. So was McCain's record of being a REAL centrist. But nobody cares about all that "complicated" stuff if it doesn't jive with what they hear the candidate saying. Obama's phony tax-cut promises made McCain look weak and lukewarm.

5) NEVER NEVER NEVER underestimate your opponent's debating skills. A few bad stump speeches, a couple thousands ums and uhs? All that can change when the debates commence. The Republicans and commentators and John McCain were fooled, which was exactly what the Dems needed us to be as they prepped Obama for some of the most skillful, calm, and level-headed (not to mention disingenuous and dishonest) debate performances ever.

6) Sarah Palin was great, and she helped the ticket with voters who might otherwise have stayed home. In many ways the attacks against her were predictable, but sometimes we gave in to the attacks by responding in the wrong way. 1. Don't mess around with accusing your opponents of sexism. It doesn't work on the Dems. 2. Don't jump at every opportunity to "expose" the meanness of the other side. It might have done more damage to Obama with his "lipstick on a pig" comment if the McCain campaign had ignored it, or laughed at it.

10 Ways Biden MIGHT Help Obama (aka 10 Ways Obama Hoped Biden Might Help Him)

Ok, so enough of the "Biden won't help Obama" talk. While I largely agree with that, and have stated it myself, it is also true that Obama isn't an idiot. This is a guy who RUNS on political calculation, because that's all he has. So why Biden? There have to be logical, cynical, political reasons.

However, these are merely my intuition based on my observance of Obama's campaign. Thus, the word "might" in title of this post.

In no particular order...

1) Obama is African-American. Biden is White, with a Irish/Welsh-Catholic family background. Obama figures that he needs to go with a white male VP to assure voters (whom he percieves as racist voters, of course) that he isn't going to pull any punches by selecting a minority or a female and turn this country into a minority-presidents-only-bonanza (which is probably what Obama thinks these types of voters think.)

2) Biden knows Washington DC workings. He's been there a long time: 36 years. So while it does run counter to his message of being "new" and his intention to do things differently, he still needs a key to the city. This is a practical consideration. Biden is his key. And to be fair to Obama, Hillary hasn't been there as long. Furthermore, even though Bill Clinton was president and would be extremely helpful, Obama and he do not seem to get along. So Obama goes with a different manifestation of the Clinton Years: Biden.

3) Joe Biden has a son in the military. While it is uncomfortable and often controversial to bring up this sort of thing in politics, it is nevertheless a consideration that voters take into account. John McCain has a son (or sons?) in Iraq, and all of his supporters know it, but keep it to a whisper. What Biden's son does for Obama is neutralize any possibility for a voter to reason, "Hmm. John McCain walks the walk, because he has a son over in Iraq and still believes we need to win the war, while Obama and [VP] don't."

4) Biden is Catholic. This wasn't a very good reason to pick Biden considering that Kerry was such a failure with the Catholic vote, but it's a reason nonetheless. I'm sure it passed through the minds of the Obama staff when considering Biden.

5) Biden voted for the war. Aha! you may say, but doesn't this run counter to his message (again?!) ? It does indeed. But think of it like this: Biden voted for the war, he now opposes the war, and he's not only a talker because he has a son in the military who is going to Iraq*." And this connnects to the following reason...

[ * NOTE: and God Bless Joe Biden's son for his service, and God keep him safe and all the men and women serving there.]

6) Biden is percieved as a foreign policy wonk. Yes, it's true that Biden is a fool on FP, nevertheless he knows the issues involved and has served on senate committees dealing with foreign policy. And most importantly: whoever McCain chooses as his own VP, Obama hopes to catch him weak in discussing foreign policy with Joe Biden.

7) Biden is close to Hillary...close enough. I don't know why this would work, but Obama still wants to reach out to Hillary Supporters who are mad about him trying to (purportedly) sever the Clinton Arm off the Democratic Party. It's not working (duh), but you Biden is what came closest while qualifying with the above reasons, as well as with these last three...

8) Biden is percieved as moderate (enough). While Biden is clearly pro-Abortion, he has not always been. He did however vote to ban partial-birth abortion. Whose vote you can find here....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

...Also, Biden vote for the Iraq War, and is in many cases hawkish. Enough so that it would comfort moderatet voters who see FP as their prime voting issue.

9) Biden off-sets the "Obama is too young" argument. Now, I don't think there is a problem with Obama's age ( he is 47), I think the problem is with his lack of achievements, lack of good judgement, and the creepy cult of personality he has created. But people who see him on TV (and the same is true of me) are going to see "inexperienced," "too young" written all over his face. With Biden at the one VP depate this Fall, Obama has a chance to show voters that he knows where to look for wisdom: in someone older than he. As Republicans, we understand the comical elements of that reasoning, but nevertheless...

10) Biden is going to be an attack dog against all those Evil Republicans Who Dare Question The Sincerity And Patriotism Of THE ONE. And in Biden, Obama has found someone who is very capable of saying very bluntly foolish things. I'm sure Biden will spare nothing in attacking John McCain and Republicans as racists, homophobes, sexists etc.

And that wraps up my 10 Reasons Biden was picked. However, I do have one runner-up....

11) Biden is a walking commercial for why hair plugs work. And I admit, while the little cow lick at his nape is ridiculous-looking, he looks a heck of a lot better than he was bald.

Also NOTE: Some of the reasons Obama might choose Biden that he percieves as strengths are also weaknesses. For instance: Biden may be a Clinton-Era Democrat, but who is going to notice? What they'll notice is that Biden has said "things" about Obama, and has priased McCain often.

Head fakes and head shakes

Obama-Bayh: Supposedly there are bumper stickers being printed right at this moment, with the Illinois-Indiana team on it.

This is the worst pick at all for Obama. I get the feeling people will like Bayh in general. He IS more moderate than many other Democrats, bu then, he DOES come from Indiana. Not Deleware.

I get the feeling though that Bayh will be a very boring running mate, which is what Obama wants on a personal level (WHO DARES STEAL HIS SPOTLIGHT!) Also, he won't necessarily provide the assurance to undecided voters that Obama is not going to govern radicaclly.

Obama-Kaine: Pathetic. This is one of the best tickets the Republicans can hope for. How on earth is a man as naive--though older--as Obama going to help him? That's the thing with these Democrat governors. They're the same as Senators in personality.

I still think Obama's BEST pick would have been Phil Bredesen. But I think we're going to see Obama-Sebelius. This Bayh bumper sticker thing could be another head fake. I think the Dems are smart enough to calculate the best way to use the media coverage of a Veep choice is to do something out of the box: thus a woman veep, BUT NOT HILLARY. And Sebelius is the best way to do that.

ROMNEY NEWS & I'M BACK!

1. Evangelicals and Romney talk, from The Boston Globe. Here...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/evangelicals_an.html

I don't get it. They say the anti-Romney movement isn't about his mormonism; that it's really about his change of position on abortion. If that's so, then why haven't Evangelical Leaders said anything about Tom Ridge? In any case, Romney is no longer pro-choice. Tom Ridge is. See the difference, folks?

You may have heard Mike Huckabee's recent dagger move at Romney as well, saying in an interview that Romney is unacceptable as VP, BUT NOT BECAUSE HE'S MORMON!

Yeah. Riiiiiight.


Not that anyone really cares, but this is my first blog post here in quite some time. My excuse is that I've been working, trying to get my car in tip-top shape for this coming semester, and quite forgot that my blog even existed. In any case, the VP race is heating back up as each presidential candidate is sizing up his fellow pols for the Veepship. I've noticed that Romney and Pawlenty are back as the most mentioned names for McCain, and Jindal is not. Neither is Palin or Steele, which is a shame. I liked both.

Time Kaine for Obama? That would be GREAT. Time Kaine is well-intentioned Democrat, somewhat moderate whose greatest strength (in Republican terms) is that he would make absolutely no impact on whether Obama got less or more votes. Will he be the Veep? WE WISH!

There's also talk of John Kerry. Frankly, that would be an extremely unsavvy pick for Obama. If he's trying to out-Vietnam Vet McCain, he can do better (though not as well). In any case Kerry is not seen as a Vietnam WAr hero. He's seen as a jerk who slimed American troops, who threw away his medal, and who joined the "we hate America at any cost"/Jane Fonda brigade. And then there's the fact that George Bush (who isn't supposed to be popular) beat John Kerry in 2004 by a nifty margin. So will he be the Veep? WE WISH!

Quote of the Election!

From Jonah Goldberg's column: "July 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.""

Why the Obama/Clinton ticket is inevitable

These past months have seen Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton go from friendly rivals to bitter ones. And their respective supporters are almost as partisan. Half of Hillary's bloc say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and a good portion of Obama's say the same. Add to that the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton have estranged African-American voters with their various [percieved] insinuations about his race.

What's happened is the near tearing-apart of the Democratic Party's most important voting blocs. This is the fault mostly of the Democrats' political theology. They held that a person's race or sex was a determining factor in that person's political value. Women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Everyone else will vote for her so it can be a symbol for overcoming sexism. People will vote for Barack Obama as a symbol for overcoming racism etc.

Both are noble thoughts, of course. The problem is that it translates very harshly in politics when the "first woman" and "first black" candidates have to endure the same kind of scrutiny that George W. Bush or John Kerry (*cough*) did.

America DOES need to elect a "first" [fill in blank], but American voters should not change the rules when it comes to qualifications for those candidates. The lesson that Democrats need to learn with this year's two Democrat candidates is: race and sex must take a backseat to policy ideas. It is the focus on victimization that is tearing Democrats apart. Finally they've been hoisted on their own petard: Hillary Clinton knows what it is like to be accused of racism when she is clearly not racist. Barack Obama knows the dangers that come with critisizing a female, even if those criticisms are legitimate.

Will they learn? That's the question. My answer is: no, they won't. But what they will realize before November is that they must pull the coalition together to win against John McCain. And to do that, Obama will need Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. The reasons are numerous.

First, no other white candidate --male (Strickland, Warner) or female (Sebelius, Napolitano)--will do. Hillary has legitimized herself. She's winning 48% of the Democratic vote in the primaries. By this time the frontrunner has the nomination wrapped up, yet Obama has weakened not strengthened, over time. His problems with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright have alienated southern white voters, the moderate types who would vote for Bill Clinton or George Bush. Hillary Clinton is Obama's only chance of winning this bloc. Conversely, if Hillary were capable of winning the nomination, she would need Obama because of the alienation that occured between African-American voters and the Clintons.

More importantly, the reason for an Obama/Hillary ticket is to keep all the regular Democrat votes voting Democrat. As I pointed out above, a large section of each candidate's constituency are threatening to jump to McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. If this were to happen, McCain would be riding the train to a more probable victory.

Here's why it won't happen: the Democrats are realizing this as the Denver convention approaches. Obama has recently given a rationale for putting Hillary on the ticket, and there have been rumors that Bill Clinton has been pushing his wife for the VP slot behind the scenes. Whatever water may have passed under the bridge, the idea of possible defeat in November is a stronger drink than personal hatred.

That means McCain needs to gear up. He has to hope that the college vote gets too drunk to vote, he has to hope his hand-extensions to Union workers and African-Americans will add to his constituency. He has to hope, above all, that not a single person who voted for George W. Bush stays home. God Help Us All.

The terrorist vote vs. the racist vote

When a prominent Obama campaign spokesperson said in essence that racists were all voting for McCain, there was no media firestorm. It is accepted at this point that the Republican Party holds the "racist vote" spellbound. Of course this is supposed to scare us into thinking that the Republican Party is somehow encouraging to racists, or is racist itself. This is the kind of crap that Democraps--er, Democrats--use to try and keep African-American voters voting for them. Everyone believes the slander except for Republicans themselves.

Of course saying that McCain holds the "racist vote" is only talk. Nobody who is a prominent figure who is racist, not anyone, has come out and said, "thanks McCain for being the only white guy to vote for!"

But the Democrats have a problem with their own electorate---or at least, an 'electorate' that would vote in the United States election for President if it could. The Democrats have a strong hold of the terrorist vote. No, I don't mean Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn--those two are actually American citizens. The terrorist force of Hamas has expressed preference for a Barack Obama presidency. When John McCain pointed this out, Obama's campaign responded that it was a smear. As if saying McCain had a hold of the racist vote wasn't a smear.

So instead of assuring the American electorate that Hamas has plenty to fear from him, Obama and his campaign assure us that McCain has a lot to fear--Don't make them call you a racist! Because they will if McCain persists in pointing to Hamas' preference for Obama.

It is fair to ask what McCain is implying when he points out this telling fact: is he saying Obama and Hamas are pals? Well, that's how Democrats would like to paint it; McCain is trying to say Obama is a Hamas-friendly terrorist.

But what McCain is doing is simply pointing to the fact that dictators and terrorists have a preference for Democrat foreign policy ideals. Obama has promised to sit with Ahmadinejahd, Castro (the dead wax figure version) and Raul, Kimmie Jong-Il et al. How could Hamas NOT like Obama? He is the second-coming of the Democrat Messiah: Jimmy Carter!

It is interesting that Obama is so often compared to JFK. As history well knows, JFK wasn't exactly a Castro fan. It is hard to imagine JFK sitting down with Castro. Even to mock a dead, waxed version sitting in a rocking chair.

What McCain wants to point out---and what we should all realize---is that an Obama presidency is more likely to see friendly-relations with terrorist and dictatorial states, thus reversing years of tough-love American rejection. Democrats are big fans of talking and making empty gestures. Somehow talking to Ahmadinejad is supposed to persuade him not to pursue his theologically-driven plan to annihilate Israel. Somehow boycotting the Beijing Olympics will make China rethink their human rights policies...IF ONLY we could insult and abandon all our athletes, China would change! UN resolutions one after the other do nothing to make Iran and other such countries see the light.

This has veered from my original point, so let me wrap it up by relating this to McCain, Obama, the election and the "racist" vote vs, the terrorist vote.

The Democrats take offense when something true is pointed out; namely that their foreign policy ideals are comforting to terrorists and dictators. Meanwhile they feel no remorse in painting the Republican Party as racist--something that is, we can agree, at least debatable, not factual.

One thing for sure, terrorists are a lot more dangerous than racists. While the age of dangerous and violent racism has passed and a strand of silliness remains, the age of terrorism dawned. The Republicans should reject racism of course. How could they not? The Democrats' case for the Republican Party as racist relies on the fact that they reject affirmative action--which is, to paraphrade the great Martin Luther King jr--a policy that judges on the color of skin rather than character. The Democrats also base their reasoning on the fact that African-Americans overwhelmingly support them. Nevermind the fact that Republicans so have very prominent and capable leaders among them that are African-American: Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas in the governmental and judicial sphere and Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Walter Williams in the punditry sphere.

But what the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is this: even if Republicans have a lock on the racist vote, a much dirtier horse than racism resides in their own stable: terrorism. They don't want to address this fact, they just want to paint a picture of Republicans as accusing them of being terrorist-friendly. But that's not the problem. Of course Democrats don't endorse or agree with terrorists. The problem is that terrorists agree with them.

What Obama Deserves

In the beginning, there was Bill and Hillary Clinton. They were all that for the Democratic party, until one day, a youth by the name of Barack Obama came to steal the show.

Many convservative pundits made a big mistake in this year's primaries. They adulated Obama, merely because he was not Hillary Clinton. The narrative was "Hillary is inevitable, and she is dangerous, and she's a liar." All true. BUT, less true about Obama? Not only did Democrats fall at Obama's feet when he uttered "new politics" "hope" and "change," but so did many conservatives. Not that they would vote for him, but he was better than Hillary. I was one such observer.

But as the recent weeks have shown, Barack Obama is anything but new politics. He is connected to the corrupt Tony Rezko. Another money-connected pol. He is anything but hope, with friends like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who in addition to being anti-white, is anti-semitic (pals around with the infamous Louis Farrakhan). He is anything but change, because he advocates the usual quasi-socialis economic policies of old.

Barack Obama was a winning narrative: a Kenyan father, a white American mother, and a childhood in Indonesia and Hawaii. Private schools to the Harvard Law Review. But as his recent phraseology has shown, he views guns and God as refuges that people (Pennsylvanians) cling to because they are irrational minds.

Two months ago, as Guy Benson recounts in his most recent column: ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/04/13/obamas_buddy_list ), Obama has said things that are self-damning. He wants to condemn John McCain for his associates--but Obama's buddies are far more reprehensible.

What Obama Deserves. What he deserves is an ad from McCain's campaign, calling him out exactly on the point above. What he deserves is to be called out on his lack of congressional leadership. While Barack Obama calls for bi-partisanship, we know that nobody was more partisanly far-left than he has been so far in his first senate term. What Barack Obama deserves is to be called out on the lack of back-up on his claims. John McCain can do such a calling-out, because unlike Barack Obama, McCain truly has been bi-partisan---to the chagrin of many fellow Republicans. Nobody has reached across the aisle as much as McCain, and evidence is his good friendship with Sen. Joe Lieberman, his co-sponsored bills with Senators Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold.

The bills aren't legacies he should be proud of, but the point is that McCain--NOT OBAMA--is the bi-partisan one.

Barack Obama doesn't have the record to run for president. He hasn't brought anyone together. What he has done is puff up his rhetoric, his resume, and attempt to hide some of the friends he's not so proud of.

What Barack Obama deserves is for his bubble to be burst, and for his posturing to be revealed as empty.

Delegate Wars

I guess "The Saga Begins" was a little premature, but nevertheless, a very amusing post I made with photoshop.

Obama's Version of The Lord's Prayer

""Our Government, who art in Washington, hallowed be thy name. Thy (socialist) kingdom come, our (socialist agenda) be done, in America, as it is in Venezuela. And give us this day, our daily bread, and everything else we need. And forgive us our trespasses, like owning guns and believing in God. And lead us into utopia, but deliver us from reality. For thine is this country, and power, and glory...for ever and ever, AMEN.""

Near-midnight News Roundup

1. This is very interesting. A piece from Computerworld.com. It's tells of "cybersquatting," a form of hacking that allows hackers to intercept incoming and outgoing emails. It's complicated, but very interesting. The important part is that this hacking method was pulled on the websites of Hillary, Barack, and Mitt.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=13&articleId=9077198&intsrc=hm_topic

2. Via the Pasadena Star-News, an article about candidates who may vie Gov Schwarzneggar's spot when he leaves office. Among the Republican side, Meg Whitman, outgoing executive of eBay. While campaigning for Romney, she got interested in the process etc, and we should all expect her to seek office.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_8895779