Friday, May 30, 2008

Iran Has Succeeded Where US Troops Have Failed

Day after day I think I have heard the most traitorous comment from the Democrats and day after day, I hear something worse. The latest low is from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, CA). She had an interview with her home town paper the San Francisco Chronicle in which she produced this little gem: “”Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish it’s goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.” (as transcribed by Commentary here: You can hear the interview here:

The surge didn’t work. The troops accomplished nothing. General Petraeus and the rest of the military leadership had nothing to do with it. Ambassador Crocker, no part in the success. The fledgling Iraqi government, nothing. It was the Iranians who have quelled the violence. After months and years of the Democrats and their liberal followers attacking the troops, saying they failed, we get this nonsense.

The reality is that the Iranians have been shipping arms to Iraq to be used to kill American troops and she is now thanking them for bringing peace to the country. I honestly don’t know what to say about this. This brings the liberal hatred of our troops to a whole new level. To thank their murderers for killing less of them is beyond incredible.

How our brave men and women get out of bed in the morning and patrol, I don’t know. You sometimes wonder if they would rather stay in Iraq and face the murderous terrorists than come home and face the hatred they get from some of their own fellow citizens.

Basically what this traitorous witch has done is nothing more than spit on the troops. The difference between the troops returning from Vietnam and getting spit on and what’s happening to our troops now is that the liberal scum like Ms Pelosi don’t have them in front of her so she has to spit on them long distance.

As a general rule I have tried to stay civil in this blog. I do not want to mimic what happens at DailyKos, Huffington, and the other hate America sites. With this said, this comment really pisses me off. If we cannot try her for treason, then it is at least time to run this bitch out of town.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Obama Supports The Troops, Really

Brent Bozell wrote a good column here on the Media Research Center website about a steady string of gaffes by Barack Obama. It’s a good column and well worth reading. Mr. Bozell’s point is that Obama has had an incredible string of gaffes and has gotten a pass on them. If it had been Dan Quayle, Mr. Bozell correctly notes, the media would have been all over him. In Obama’s case though, the media is tripping over itself explaining the gaffes away.

As good and well worth reading as this column is, I want to talk about one specific part of it and the ramifications of the statement. One of the statements Mr. Bozell attributed to Obama was "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." This was made in New Mexico on Memorial Day.

The problem here is that “fallen heroes”, by definition, could not have been in front of him. There will be a knee-jerk reaction by the press to excuse this as the result of being tired from a long campaign. This excuse in itself does not hold water. The obvious question here is if he cannot stand the rigors of a campaign and keep his wits, how can he have the ability to withstand the stress of the Presidency.

I don’t believe this is the problem though. Basically this shows the disdain Obama shows for our troops. The misquote wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t being tired. It is a pure and simple lack of interest. I don’t even think there was ill will intended. He simply doesn’t care.

I think we often make this mistake with many Democrats. Attributing a malevolence towards the troops on their part when in reality it is nothing more than a lack of interest. The Democratic party as a whole does not see national security as a major issue. One only has to look back on John Edward’s “bumper sticker slogan” comment. Saying the war on terror was nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan. This was widely agreed upon and defended throughout the Democratic party.

In Obama’s liberal elitist world, military service is looked down upon. It is a calling for people who cannot do better for themselves. John’s Kerry’s “stuck in Iraq” comment about young people not going to college sums up the viewpoint of the leftist elitism.

The left plays heavy lip service to being ‘against the war but for the troops’. The mantra rings hollow though the more they continue talking. Their notion that we are failing in Iraq but the troops are doing a great job is one of the more ridiculous statements one can hear. Part of the reason is because we are not, in fact, failing in Iraq. Violence is down and political progress is up. Obama and most Democratic leaders continue to stick to the tired old party line that we are failing in Iraq (but the troops are doing a great job).

You simply cannot claim failure in Iraq and somehow magically separate the troops from this assessment. The bottom line is that the Generals leading the troops and the troops themselves are doing one hell of a job in Iraq and deserve our respect and gratitude. They deserve credit for the accomplishments they have attained. They deserve credit for doing this incredible job under horrendous conditions, oppressing heat, and reading in the paper and hearing on the news that approximately half of the country thinks they are failing. For them to keep going out everyday and doing their job with the incredible lack of support from home is, quite frankly, heroic.

We are now noticing that Obama can not even be bothered to go to Iraq to show his ‘support’ for the troops. The Republican National Committee has put a clock in their website counting the days since Obama has been to Iraq. You can see the clock here. The current count is 872 days since he has been there. This is over 2 years and 4 months. The Obama campaign, in response to the RNC criticism, has said he ‘may go yet this summer’. Now is this overwhelming support or what? Hurry, make this man Commander-in-Chief.

As I said at the beginning, Obama simply doesn’t want to be bothered with the troops. They only cross his mind when he needs them as a political prop to try to woo swing voters. When he is talking in front of a group of liberal followers the discussion is not about his support for the troops but instead an insistence that they are failing. His only focus at these times is ending the war, no matter the cost to the Iraqi people that the fallen heroes he was honoring gave their lives to liberate and defend. The depth of his lack of interest has never been more obvious than his clumsy attempt to honor these war dead. He doesn’t even show the interest to learn that the term ‘fallen hero’ is used to honor someone who is dead and thus incapable of standing in front him at this leftist rally.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Is Obama Really A Sure Thing?

Watching the returns on the Kentucky primary and they are not looking good for Obama. With 90% of precincts in, Obama is only getting approximately 30% of the votes. While this is not a surprise, he wasn’t going to win Kentucky now or in the fall, it does raise questions.

Following a week after his trouncing in West Virginia, a state no Democrat has lost and still won the White House in more than 80 years, the Kentucky loss shows a real weakness with working class whites. While this follows recent polling, it is one thing to see polls and another to see the voting in action.

Further, with Hillary Clinton refusing to quit, the protracted race is causing hard feelings in the Democratic party. Evidence of a fractured Democratic party are abundant. To date we have 2 of the 6 living Democratic Vice Presidential candidates saying they do not support Obama. Joe Leiberman has previously given his support to John McCain. This is a pretty brave move politically by Leiberman. Since his re-election to the Senate last year as an Independent, Leiberman has caucused with the Democrats which has given him committee assignments he would not have gotten as an independent. Supporting McCain is certainly going to cost him his committee assignments. Now today we have Geraldine Ferraro saying she may not vote for Obama in the general election.

Further, in state after state, polling shows a large number of Clinton voters saying they will not vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. We do have to dismiss these numbers to some extent because a lot of the Democrats who say that now will eventually support Obama and vote for him. With this said though, presidential elections have been within a few points in the last few elections. It would not take many Democrats to vote for McCain instead of Obama to swing the election McCain’s way. This election is even more of a risk for the Democrats in that McCain, as a moderate, already draws some Democrats. Having McCain to vote for may make the choice to switch easier for Democrats that are weak for Obama. In the 2004 election, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush, a president who is definitely not popular with Democrats. What will the number be this year with a Republican who has cross-over appeal and a Democrat who has his own party questioning him?

Finally, there is the female vote. While no one is talking about the women’s vote as much they are talking about the white vote, this could be as big of a problem. A lot of feminists truly believed this was Hillary Clinton’s year and some comments have suggested that there is a feeling among this group that Obama has stolen the nomination from Clinton. This could be the group that stays home in November. This would be a significant blow for Obama.

There is one last thing to consider. While I know that this is something that runs counter to conventional wisdom, Obama could cause the Democrats votes in Congress. Everything says this is a Democratic year and they are going to win big. I have even heard projections of Democrats picking up a hundred new seats in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. While I am not predicting the Republicans will retake Congress, Obama may keep this from being a Democratic landslide.

There are two ways the Democrats could lose votes in Congressional races. One is if, with everything listed above, Democrats decide to stay home on election day. This would not only be a missed vote for Obama but also a missed vote for Congressmen, Senators, Governors, etc. Second is with cross-over voters. It is not impossible, although less likely than the first scenario, that McCain can carry some of the cross-over voters to Congressional and Senatorial races.

Before anyone dismisses this idea completely, remember that a lot of the new Democratic Congressmen elected in 2006 were conservatives, not traditional Democrats, and a lot of them won with narrow margins. And, they are all up for re-election. Combine this with the fact that Congress is at an all time low in public opinion and this Congress really has nothing to show for two years in power and this may not be the banner year for Democrats that everybody thinks it will.

One last note is the theory that McCain may be able to “rebrand” the Republican party. A possibly resurgent Republican party along with a weak top of the ticket could be a problem for Democrats.

With all of this said, the smart money is still on the Democrats this year. The reality is though that November is a long ways away and this election is not in the bag. Obama and the Democrats have some problems and the good news is that they will not admit it. Obama, once the juggernaut who could not be stopped, is looking less a sure thing everyday.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Bush Hits A Nerve

President Bush spoke before the Knesset, the Israel parliament this week for the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding. During his speech, he ignited a fire storm among the Democratic party when he said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,” Read the rest of the story here:

Though the White House denied that it was an attack against Obama, the Democrats took it as one. So, to show their distaste at what they viewed as a political attack by Bush, they attacked him. One has to wonder if there was genuine outrage or if the reaction was a mix of self-identification and, possibly, fear.

My suspicion is that the remark hit a little too close to home. Obama has said he would meet with Iran, among other terrorist nations, without precondition. During a Democratic debate watched almost entirely by Democrats, this probably seemed like a good idea and was meant to be a criticism of Bush and his foreign policy. With the nomination likely in hand and facing a decided national security disadvantage against McCain in the general election, it is likely that Obama would like to take the policy statement back now. It worked well to score points among liberal Democrats against a President they hate. To the electorate as a whole though, it comes off as naïve and even dangerous.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a nutcase who denies the existence of the Holocaust, has repeatedly called for the destruction of US ally Israel, and is funding the murder of US troops in Iraq. Obama’s policy stance not only will play poorly with the general population but will greatly harm him with a fairly loyal group of Democratic voters, the Jewish.

Ever the word-smith though, Obama has made clear this week that he has always said he would not meet with terrorist groups (too bad he can’t convince Jimmy Carter to follow his lead). Pay attention though because he didn’t say he would not meet with state leaders who support terrorism.

This is where the fear part comes in. The Democrats are going to get pummeled by McCain this year on national security. Their argument against McCain is that he represents more of Bush’s policies. Are these the same policies that have spared us another terrorist attack in almost seven years? Or the one that has greatly reduced the number of countries that sponsor terrorism from the long list that existed during the Clinton administration? Or, maybe the policy that has essentially neutralized al-qaeda, a group that attacked us three separate times with impunity during the Clinton years and was free to plan and lay the ground work for the 9/11 attacks? The same group that was handed to Clinton on a silver platter and he wouldn’t arrest, causing the deaths of 3,00 Americans.

The Democrats have nothing but a failed history of national security (Clinton, Carter) and several ridiculous foreign visits over the last couple of years to show for themselves. One of the first things Nancy Pelosi did upon taking the House speakership was to fly to Syria to meet with Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria and a sponsor of the terrorist group Hamas. Jimmy Carter skipped the sponsor and went right to the terrorist group, meeting with Hamas themselves. Governor Bill Richardson has gone to Venezuela to meet with dictator and all around lunatic Hugo Chavez.
This is why the Democrats keep hammering away at the economy and gas prices (which, if anybody is paying attention, both went to Hell after the Democrats took control of Congress). They are hoping that no one is paying attention to Obama’s national seurity shortcomings. Bush’s statement wasn’t an attack so much as simply reminding us that Emperor Obama has no clothes.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Is The Republican Party Dead Or On Life Support?

The Republican party has lost three consecutive special elections in “safe” districts. This has led many pundits to question whether the Republican party is dead. I'm not sure if the proper question is whether the Republican party is dead but if conservatism is, and the answer is no.

I believe the country is still right of center. The reality is that a large part of the candidates winning for Democrats this year and last, including the winner in Mississippi, are conservatives (or at least their version of one). This gives voters in these districts easier choices. I believe that if the Democrats had ran typical Democratic candidates, they would not have won Congress.

Republicans appear to have lost their way for now. They are not dealing with immigration, they spend money like drunken sailors, and they have been making a mockery of the family values reputation by chasing prostitutes, male pages, etc.

We have actually had some good things happen in the last 7+ years. No terrorist attacks since 9/11. Good economic numbers and strong stock market until the last few months. Improving conditions in Iraq. More equitable taxes. Prescription drug benefits for seniors.

Do Republicans talk about this? No, they spend too much time apologizing for everything. Every time one of them point out a shortcoming of the Democratic party, the Democrats go on the attack and the liberal media lambastes them. The "offending" Republican then apologizes and backs down. On Iraq the Republicans cave to the media and refuse to publicly acknowledge some of the improvements. It is very possible that if some of the Republican politicians would show some backbone and support the successes in the war on terror we wouldn’t have such strong public opinion against the war.

They would get a lot more of my respect if they would, for once, stand up and say 'that is what I said and dammit, I meant it'. The Republicans were driving me nuts in the 2006 elections. I just wanted them to fight back. One example is the Mark Foley male page scandal. Obviously he was a despicable person. But the GOP let the Democrats completely control the dialogue. The Republicans should have immediately thrown him under the bus (he was a dirt bag) and then when the Democrats began attacking, reply with 'let's talk about Gerry Stubbs'. Gerry Stubbs was a Democratic congressman who had an affair with a male page. He did not resign, as Mark Foley did, he was censured by the Democratic controlled Congress and was allowed to continue serving several more years. I was practically screaming at the TV for the Republicans to fight back. Instead they caved to the media and fell over themselves to make amends.

I realize that voters get turned off by the constant fighting between the parties. I believe though that I am not the only conservative that is tired of the Republicans rolling over and playing dead. There is, and has been for awhile, an incredible lack of leadership in the Republican party. Dennis Hastert was a weak leader in the House. He at least did the honorable thing and fell on his sword and retired. Maybe we need to hand out a few more swords in Congress and get fresh new leadership.
They need to do it fast though, the party is on life support and someone just tripped over the cord.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Democratic Superdelegates Sitting Squarely On The Fence

Watching the Democratic nominating process, one has to wonder if maybe members of the party are not quite as sold on their choice of candidates as they publicly proclaim. Conventional wisdom says the race is effectively over and Barrack Obama has the nomination. So why aren’t the superdelegates rushing to endorse him?

There have been some explanations, some can be found here and this article makes some sense. One reason mentioned is that many superdelegates are elected officials facing re-election this year and are afraid of alienating half of their voters. That is legitimate, maybe pathetic and weak-kneed, but valid. Also, there is the risk that one of the candidates could screw up and embarrass the superdelegate facing re-election (think snipergate). With the two main Democratic candidates this year, this is definitely a legitimate concern.

I think the main problem though is that Obama simply has not sealed the deal. It’s pretty hard to argue that the superdelegates secretly pine for Hillary Clinton, this is unlikely. It is likely that a lot of the superdelegates are concerned about Obama’s ever increasing baggage. Obama had an air of inevitability for awhile (didn’t Hillary have this at one time too?). Obama was new, he was “change”. I have been saying all along though that change isn’t always good, it’s just different. With Obama’s nut parade following him, he is starting to look like his chances of winning are diminishing.

At the top of the list we have the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This man redefines the term lunatic fringe and he is not going away. He is getting his fifteen minutes and he is liking it. Obama has been put in a no win situation. If he did not disavow his reverend, he was going to be drug down by him. By disavowing him though, the reverend has become unglued and has no constraints holding him in. I believe we haven’t heard anything yet. I believe this reverend is far crazier than we are giving him credit for and he is going to make a real idiot of himself over the summer. The reality for Obama though is that he is not going to be able to shake the man because he cannot explain why he listened to him for 20 years and did not leave the church.

Hillary Clinton and her team has been skirting the Jeremiah Wright issue for fear of being branded a racist. John McCain has insisted on staying above the fray and not resort to personal attacks. He doesn’t have to though because the bloggers on the right are not going to show the same restraint. The main stream media may ignore the story but it will stay alive through the summer online.

Then we have William Ayers from the Weathermen Underground. This man has admitted to participating in bombing federal buildings and Obama has been soft on his explanation of their relationship. I don’t know about other people but my relationship with terrorists who attack American interests is very, very clear. They can spend the rest of their lives in prison and then when they are done go straight to hell. The fact that Obama does not outright condemn this man worries me a lot.

Finally we have Tony Rezko, criminal. Mr. Rezko is standing trial on federal corruption charges. He is yet another “acquaintance” of Obama’s. The connection between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama has been a little hazy but I suspect as the general campaign gets underway and opposition groups start digging, the story is not going to be favorable to Obama.
With all of these questionable acquaintances and with the real risk that there is yet more embarrassing information about Obama to come, I think there is a real strong sense of hesitation on the part of superdelegates. Obama may not be the gift from God Democrats had convinced themselves he was. He may not only get beat in the general election by John McCain, he may have the potential to take some of the rest of the party with him.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

This Just In From The New York Times…

The New York Times is providing us with yet more breaking news. It seems that the Rev. John Hagee endorsed John McCain for President, on February 27th. As seen here: It’s not just they’re liberal, sometimes manufactured, news that is costing them subscribers. If this is what they call a scoop then maybe that could be part of the problem.

The issue with the endorsement, in the view of the NYT, is that Mr. Hagee has said some quite controversial things. As an example, he has called the Catholic Church whores. This is what you call a gotcha moment. The NYT is comparing this to the Barrack Obama-Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue. Nice try. This comparison is ridiculous even by the NYT standards.

John Hagee is a Reverend that endorsed McCain. Jeremiah Wright is a Reverend that Obama sat and listened to for 20 years. Part of this time his children sat with him listening to the man’s hate speech. He married Obama and his wife. Obama has called him his spiritual adviser. The NYT has come up with some whoppers before but this one is good.

The most interesting part of this is that it happened over two months ago. While I realize that due to declining sales the NYT has had to cut staff but you think it wouldn’t take two months to put together a story. In the old movies reporters were shown trying to rush to get a story in before deadline, frantically looking for a phone to call the story in. This story could have been sent by pony express, lost, found again, rewritten and still been posted in less than a month.

Is it possible that this wasn’t really news until after the Wright story became an issue and was obviously beginning to hurt Obama? If people were to be paying attention, it would be incredibly clear that this is all of a sudden becoming a story. Democrats have been mentioning it. I have seen it mentioned on liberal sites. If I hadn’t thought that the NYT had really high journalistic standards, I would think that maybe they were trying to coordinate this with the Democratic party.
I think what has happened is that the whore remark by Reverend Hagee hit a little too close to home. Because at the end of the day the New York Times, like the rest of the liberal media, is nothing more than a whore for the Democratic party.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Fighting For The Right To Break The Law

Today is May Day, or, “bring your illegal to a protest” day. There was a weak series of marches around the country today to protest for rights for illegal immigrants. The activists speaking at the marches were decrying raids against illegals, deportations, and lack of social services. One can only assume that these protesters are confused over the definition of illegal.

I have considerable respect for the Hispanic culture. In my city we have a fairly large and growing Hispanic population.

My sons used to go to an inner city school that was roughly half Hispanic. I found several things to be true of these children. They were often more polite than non-Hispanic children and by their appearance they were clearly better cared for by their parents. The school was in an area of mixed income, middle and lower class. A lot of the children would come to school in the winter without coats, I would see children coming to school in the morning eating a Popsicle (I honestly believe this was their breakfast), and I would see children unwashed and disheveled. This was almost entirely unseen in the Hispanic children. When my wife and I would go to a school function or parent-teacher conferences, it was usually the Hispanic parents that would show up to see their children.

I work at an inner city Catholic hospital that tends to get a high proportion of the Hispanic population. I see the same things at work. The children have a tendency to be more respectful and the parents appear to be more attentive and caring of their children’s well-being.

Clearly I understand that we have to use caution in generalizations. Obviously there are bad Hispanic parents just as there are bad parents of every race and culture. I see this were I work, I am not trying to romanticize the culture. The point is that what I take from these experiences is that Hispanics appear in general to have a stronger family orientation than a lot of their Caucasian counterparts. This is something I respect greatly.

With this said though, we still cannot tolerate illegal immigration. The protesters are not fighting for the rights of Hispanics as a whole. They are advocating the suspension of laws and special treatment for a race. This is not acceptable. I believe we should welcome all law-abiding citizens to our country. I support the emigration of Hispanics because I do believe that they have something to contribute to our culture. I just feel they should be expected to do so legally.

Furthermore, we cannot suspend the laws for the illegals solely on the basis that they may be good people. One argument is that some of the illegals being caught have been here for years and even decades and have made a life here. So what? The analogy is that of a murderer who has managed to evade capture, build a new life and family, and expect to be absolved of their past crime because they have led a good life since. We would not let them go without answering for their crime anymore than we should allow an illegal immigrant to remain because they have avoided detection and have been a productive member of society. They came illegally and therefore have been a criminal the entire time they are in the country.

Another argument is that we would split their family apart. One of the more outdated principles in the US is granting citizenship to a person solely for being born on American soil. This likely made sense when the country was new but has outlived it’s usefulness. The argument then by illegals is that their children are born here, are US citizens and can remain here legally, therefore if we send the parents home, we are separating them from their children. Again, so what? This is a conscious and often deliberate choice made by these parents and they must live with the consequences.
As with any group of people, Hispanics have many legitimate issues to protest against. People of all races and cultures face a lot of the same issues from crime in their neighborhoods, to better schools for their children, to affordable health care, there are plenty of reasons to fight for change. I just have to believe that their time and energy could be put to better use than fighting for non-existent rights for what are essentially criminals.