My apologies to John McCain for my last post. He got it right!
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was my first choice of all of the short and long lists. It's an inspired pick and I give John McCain enormous credit for making it.
Barack Obama last night: great speech - Check.
John McCain today: inspired choice - Checkmate!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Will McCain make a stupid VP pick?
I never underestimate the ability of John McCain to do something stupid. In fact, he revels in being the "maverick" and going against the Republican base.
He needs the base in this election to beat Barack Obama.
That does not mean that he will make a smart selection tomorrow as he announces his pick. I'm steeling myself for him to make a stupid pick.
Picking a pro-choice politician would, for example, be a stupid pick. The abortion question is one that many people in our party care about, and it's an issue where he has Democrats on the ropes.
Obama stuck his foot in his mouth at Saddleback where he declared the issue of when life begins to be "above my pay grade". Really? The most serious social issue of our generation is above your pay grade? Who's pay grade is higher than the office you seek?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi added fuel to the fire when she said on Meet the Press that it's not a settled question in her Catholic faith. Really? Several bishops are stepping up to do a smack-down on madam Pelosi, and it's getting a lot of press play.
So, John McCain has an important issue where he has an advantage and a clear difference with all of the highly-visible Democrats. There is only one way to screw that up and take it off of the table - name a pro-choice running mate.
Which means, of course, that is exactly what he will do.
I'm already steeling myself to say to myself tomorrow "Oh no, he didn't....."
Please let me be wrong.
Friday morning update: Please let it be Sarah Palin! Fingers crossed.....
He needs the base in this election to beat Barack Obama.
That does not mean that he will make a smart selection tomorrow as he announces his pick. I'm steeling myself for him to make a stupid pick.
Picking a pro-choice politician would, for example, be a stupid pick. The abortion question is one that many people in our party care about, and it's an issue where he has Democrats on the ropes.
Obama stuck his foot in his mouth at Saddleback where he declared the issue of when life begins to be "above my pay grade". Really? The most serious social issue of our generation is above your pay grade? Who's pay grade is higher than the office you seek?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi added fuel to the fire when she said on Meet the Press that it's not a settled question in her Catholic faith. Really? Several bishops are stepping up to do a smack-down on madam Pelosi, and it's getting a lot of press play.
So, John McCain has an important issue where he has an advantage and a clear difference with all of the highly-visible Democrats. There is only one way to screw that up and take it off of the table - name a pro-choice running mate.
Which means, of course, that is exactly what he will do.
I'm already steeling myself to say to myself tomorrow "Oh no, he didn't....."
Please let me be wrong.
Friday morning update: Please let it be Sarah Palin! Fingers crossed.....
Democrats Intsitutionalize the Big Lie
Really, Democrats have been propagating many big lies over the last few years in their desperation to win back power. I could give so many examples: "Bush lied, kids died". Bush was responsible for Katrina. The U.S. military has murdered millions in an illegal war in Iraq. It goes on and on.
Now they've gone for broke in the Democratic National Convention. The new big lie is this:
"The Bush-McCain administration"
Almost every speaker at the convention seems required to utter this phrase.
It's a lie. It's a palpable lie. The last 8 years were the Bush-Cheney adminstration. Bush was President. Cheney was Vice-President. McCain was outside the administration as a Senator, and one who was a frequent critic of Bush-Cheney. That's a simple fact.
I understand that it's a political strategy to tie McCain, their opponent, to Bush, an unpopular war-President. I understand completely. It's a smart tactic. I don't begrudge them using it.
There are even acceptable ways to do it. I like Hillary Clinton's take on it in her speech at the convention, when she joked that she understands why the Republicans are meeting in the "Twin Cities, because it's so hard to tell them apart. Very funny. An acceptable partisan take on their opponents. Point scored.
On the other hand, it took Joe Biden exactly one speech, in Springfield Illinois when he was named as the VP pick, to begin using the "Bush-McCain administration" line.
I don't object to the tactic. I object to the lie. It's a big lie. In public. Stop it.
Now they've gone for broke in the Democratic National Convention. The new big lie is this:
"The Bush-McCain administration"
Almost every speaker at the convention seems required to utter this phrase.
It's a lie. It's a palpable lie. The last 8 years were the Bush-Cheney adminstration. Bush was President. Cheney was Vice-President. McCain was outside the administration as a Senator, and one who was a frequent critic of Bush-Cheney. That's a simple fact.
I understand that it's a political strategy to tie McCain, their opponent, to Bush, an unpopular war-President. I understand completely. It's a smart tactic. I don't begrudge them using it.
There are even acceptable ways to do it. I like Hillary Clinton's take on it in her speech at the convention, when she joked that she understands why the Republicans are meeting in the "Twin Cities, because it's so hard to tell them apart. Very funny. An acceptable partisan take on their opponents. Point scored.
On the other hand, it took Joe Biden exactly one speech, in Springfield Illinois when he was named as the VP pick, to begin using the "Bush-McCain administration" line.
I don't object to the tactic. I object to the lie. It's a big lie. In public. Stop it.
A Flawed Historic Candidate
History was made in America last night. It was the first time in our history that a black man was nominated to be the candidate for President by a major party. An African-American, no less - truly for once: the son of a Kenyan father of an American mother.
I want to share the excitement of this historic moment. It does say something about America that this is possible. It's not possible in most of the nations in the world, including in Europe, which harbors a superior attitude about America.
I want to be excited about this historic candidacy, but I'm not. I'm appalled instead.
It's not because Obama is a black man. I would be happy to share in the history of electing a black man, just not this particular black man.
It's because Obama's a socialist. A marxist. Adopting the views of his first mentor "Frank" ( according to his own autobiography), who turns out to be Frank Marshall Davis - a communist party member calling for revolution.
It's because Obama's a radical leftist. Adopting the views of his mentor Saul Alinsky, who authored the radical leftist treatise "Rules for Radicals". Alinsky taught his disciples, and influenced Obama, to achieve "change" from the inside by getting elected to office and then ushering in communist revolution.
It's because Obama is comfortable with terrorists. Including Bill Ayers, a 60's anti-war protester who bombed federal buildings back then and is unrepentant now. Despite Obama's protestations that he's "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood", they in fact served for years together on boards of foundations doling out millions to leftist groups. And, have you heard Obama say anything at all about the threat we face from radical Islam?
It's because Obama was groomed by a corrupt political machine in Chicago. Particulary, by Tony Rezko - a corrupt real estate "developer" who took millions in Illinois grants to rehab buildings for public housing and never fixed any of them up. Grants that were sought on his behalf by a Chicago law firm - and a lawyer on their staff named Barack Obama. Grants that became political contributions for the Senate campaigns of a lawyer namend Barack Obama. Grants that eventually became entwined in a corrupt deal to get Barack Obama his mansion in Chicago.
It's because Obama marinated for 20 years in the hate America/hate white people rantings of Jeremiah Wright at Trinity church, and the Black Liberation Theology on which it was founded. An "afrocentric" church that regularly denigrates America in the harshest terms in keeping with it's perceived prophetic mission. A preacher who regularly denigrates whites from the pulpit. And a congregant who saw nothing wrong with that for 20 years until he started taking heat on the campaign trail.
Barack Obama is a seriously flawed man, and a flawed candidate. Unfortunately he's a candidate in whom so many have invested historic hopes. He will let them down.
I want to share the excitement of this historic moment. It does say something about America that this is possible. It's not possible in most of the nations in the world, including in Europe, which harbors a superior attitude about America.
I want to be excited about this historic candidacy, but I'm not. I'm appalled instead.
It's not because Obama is a black man. I would be happy to share in the history of electing a black man, just not this particular black man.
It's because Obama's a socialist. A marxist. Adopting the views of his first mentor "Frank" ( according to his own autobiography), who turns out to be Frank Marshall Davis - a communist party member calling for revolution.
It's because Obama's a radical leftist. Adopting the views of his mentor Saul Alinsky, who authored the radical leftist treatise "Rules for Radicals". Alinsky taught his disciples, and influenced Obama, to achieve "change" from the inside by getting elected to office and then ushering in communist revolution.
It's because Obama is comfortable with terrorists. Including Bill Ayers, a 60's anti-war protester who bombed federal buildings back then and is unrepentant now. Despite Obama's protestations that he's "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood", they in fact served for years together on boards of foundations doling out millions to leftist groups. And, have you heard Obama say anything at all about the threat we face from radical Islam?
It's because Obama was groomed by a corrupt political machine in Chicago. Particulary, by Tony Rezko - a corrupt real estate "developer" who took millions in Illinois grants to rehab buildings for public housing and never fixed any of them up. Grants that were sought on his behalf by a Chicago law firm - and a lawyer on their staff named Barack Obama. Grants that became political contributions for the Senate campaigns of a lawyer namend Barack Obama. Grants that eventually became entwined in a corrupt deal to get Barack Obama his mansion in Chicago.
It's because Obama marinated for 20 years in the hate America/hate white people rantings of Jeremiah Wright at Trinity church, and the Black Liberation Theology on which it was founded. An "afrocentric" church that regularly denigrates America in the harshest terms in keeping with it's perceived prophetic mission. A preacher who regularly denigrates whites from the pulpit. And a congregant who saw nothing wrong with that for 20 years until he started taking heat on the campaign trail.
Barack Obama is a seriously flawed man, and a flawed candidate. Unfortunately he's a candidate in whom so many have invested historic hopes. He will let them down.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Famous for being Famous
It's the ad that has made the presumptive presidential coronation of Barack Obama into a horse race again.
I'm talking about John McCain's new ad featuring Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the media's annointed one himself Senator Barack Obama?
What do these three have in common?
The answer to that question is kind of a Rohrshach test for journalists, and they are failing it badly. It's been amusing to listen to the pundits trip over themselves trying to interpret it.
They call it silly. What do they have in common? For the life of them, they cannot figure it out.
They call it negative.
They call it racist. After all, it features two blondes and a black man so it must be outrageously racist! Say what? I can't follow that logic, but a lot of pundits on MSNBC and the nightly news shows apparently are enthralled with the brilliance of that argument.
I was listening to a morning drive time radio host this morning who has apparently been getting the Democrat talking points memos. She referred to it as the "blonde ad". "I don't get it", she said. What do the blondes have to do with Barack Obama.
It's simple really. The ad means what it says. It's about "celebrity". The first line of the ad says - as it is showing our three celebrities - that "Barack Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world".
Why is the ad pointing that out? Why is that bad? What do these three have in common?
What they have in common is celebrity at it's worst: being famous only for being famous. Having no real accomplishments that justify you being famous. It's that simple.
What is Paris Hilton famous for? What has she accomplished to justify her relentless celebrity?
What has Britney Spears accomplished in the last few years to justify weekly covers on magazines?
What has Barack Obama accomplished to justify being the presumptive nominee and media annointed one to be President. He had one term in the Illinois Senate, where he sponsored no bills and voted "present" more than 130 times. He served one year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for President. He passed no major legislation. He didn't even chair any hearings on the committee he headed.
Paris - famous, no accomplishments. Britney - famous, no accomplishments. Barack - famous, no accomplishements. It's the perfect visual analogy.
Not only is it a dead-on accurate visual campaign ad, but people outside of the elite punditry get it. It's effective. McCain has erased Obama's lead since the ad came out.
It's an effective ad from McCain, and it's about time!
I'm talking about John McCain's new ad featuring Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the media's annointed one himself Senator Barack Obama?
What do these three have in common?
The answer to that question is kind of a Rohrshach test for journalists, and they are failing it badly. It's been amusing to listen to the pundits trip over themselves trying to interpret it.
They call it silly. What do they have in common? For the life of them, they cannot figure it out.
They call it negative.
They call it racist. After all, it features two blondes and a black man so it must be outrageously racist! Say what? I can't follow that logic, but a lot of pundits on MSNBC and the nightly news shows apparently are enthralled with the brilliance of that argument.
I was listening to a morning drive time radio host this morning who has apparently been getting the Democrat talking points memos. She referred to it as the "blonde ad". "I don't get it", she said. What do the blondes have to do with Barack Obama.
It's simple really. The ad means what it says. It's about "celebrity". The first line of the ad says - as it is showing our three celebrities - that "Barack Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world".
Why is the ad pointing that out? Why is that bad? What do these three have in common?
What they have in common is celebrity at it's worst: being famous only for being famous. Having no real accomplishments that justify you being famous. It's that simple.
What is Paris Hilton famous for? What has she accomplished to justify her relentless celebrity?
What has Britney Spears accomplished in the last few years to justify weekly covers on magazines?
What has Barack Obama accomplished to justify being the presumptive nominee and media annointed one to be President. He had one term in the Illinois Senate, where he sponsored no bills and voted "present" more than 130 times. He served one year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for President. He passed no major legislation. He didn't even chair any hearings on the committee he headed.
Paris - famous, no accomplishments. Britney - famous, no accomplishments. Barack - famous, no accomplishements. It's the perfect visual analogy.
Not only is it a dead-on accurate visual campaign ad, but people outside of the elite punditry get it. It's effective. McCain has erased Obama's lead since the ad came out.
It's an effective ad from McCain, and it's about time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)