The Purple People Vote

McCain Endorsed: The Awkward Dance of Religion and Politics

2008-07-04T07:30:00.000-07:00

Senator McCain gained the backing of about 100 Christian leaders in Denver this week,

"Collectively we feel that he will support and advance those moral values that we hold much greater than Obama, who in our view will decimate moral values," said Mat Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal advocacy group, who previously supported Mike Huckabee's candidacy.
A second person who attended the event, but asked not to be named, said that the group was motivated principally by a desire to defeat Barack Obama. "None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn't do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," the participant said. "You've got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That's the perspective. That that's the whole discussion."

This comes in the same week that Senator Obama renewed his attempts to court the evangelical vote. This endorsement not only deflates those efforts, it points out the odd pairing of politics and religion in this presidential campaign. One of Obama's electiblity arguments during the primaries was that he could win over evangelicals, but then Reverend Wright came along. One of the most over-the-top public figures to hit the scene in years has been Obama's pastor and spiritiual advisor for twenty years. So this week Senator Obama announces that he will continue President Bush's faith based initiatives under a new name. This makes a lot of people on both sides of the isle uncomfortable. What sort of religion will Senator Obama be promoting as Chief Executive?

This leads to Senator McCain's awkward dance with Christian conservatives. While this week many concluded to back him fully, in many ways it is due to the serious issues they have with Obama. Senator McCain has shown a reluctance to talk about religion. He is quick to credit his survival as a P.O.W. to faith, but rarely addresses the issue unless asked directly. However, this may be a good thing, or even a very good thing. Certainly it has given him some political difficulties in the Republican party, but promoting a religious doctrine through an elected official can be problematic. The seperation of church and state is an incredibly important part of the consititution, and when a leader either promotes, or appears to promote, a certain brand of religion it gives all those not under that umbrella a very uneasy feeling. Certainly people of faith have every right to question their leaders in any way they see fit. However, there are excellent reasons for a political leader to not market their religion.

Oh Please Obama Surrogates Make This Race About Experience!

2008-07-01T19:18:00.000-07:00

Senator Webb decided to chime in on Wesley Clark's comments about Senator McCain's military experience by saying that McCain should 'calm down' on using his military experience in the campaign. The trouble with that remark is that McCain wasn't the one to bring up his military service; Clark brought it up. McCain's platform isn't 'vote for me me I was a P.O.W.' he simply presents his military service as a part of his resume. However, Senator McCain did have a distinguished military career and retired from the Navy as a captain having been awarded the Silver Star, "Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat “V” and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Art Medal with a combat “V” and two gold stars."*

There is no reason Senator McCain shouldn't be proud of his miltary service, but he has plenty of other qualifications too. He's served in the House and Senate for nearly twenty five years. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Committee for Indian Affairs. He's played a key legislative role in the Senate. He has sponsored bills such as McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform; was a member of the Gang of Fourteen, a bipartisan group that made a deal to keep the Senate rules in tact, and he was the only Republican to call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. He's repeatedly stood up for human rights pushing through anti-torture legislation, and was the only Republican presidential candidate to promise to close Guantanamo Bay when elected.

That's the condensed version of Senator McCain's resume. So please Obama campaign, please make this election about experience because three years in the Senate, and seven years in the state legislature versus twenty years in the Senate and a lifetime of service to this country is what the election should be about.

*McCain Commendations

Blocked Sites and A Recommendation for Google

2008-07-01T16:37:00.000-07:00

First off a confession; I like Google. I've used many of their services over the years and have found that they offer a number of useful free services along with a number of affordable business services that help small businesses. That being said Google has some explaining to do. A series of pro-Hillary or anti-Obama were blocked recently. The authors locked out unable to post and being sent an email saying that spam-bots had determined these sites were spammers. Now, Google has returned service to most of these blogs, but has yet to adequately explain itself. There are two reasons Google should provide the users explanations. First, manners. You shut someone out then you return service with no explanation it's bad form not to provide a reason. Second, rumors. The internet is rumor prone even when there are no mitigating factors. When you combine actions that appear to be intended to silence a particular group of people, with reports that Google employees are among the top Obama donators, then rumors fly. If there was no wrong doing then explain what happened, if there was wrong doing fess-up and fix it. Google has a history of being a good company, don't tarnish that record through poor communication or poor business practices.
From NYT Bits Blog

Did Google use its network of online services to silence critics of Barack Obama? That was the question buzzing on a corner of the blogosphere over the last few days, after several anti-Obama bloggers were unable to update their sites, which are hosted on Google’s Blogger service.
The bloggers in question, most of them supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and all of them opposed to Senator Obama, received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs. “You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog,” the Google e-mail read.

If so, that would be an embarrassment for Google. On its Web page explaining the “flag” feature, Google says that “it can’t be manipulated by angry mobs. Political dissent? Incendiary opinions? Just plain crazy? Bring it on.”

From David Brooks NYT

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

Obama Surrogate's Smear While Obama Cries Foul

2008-07-01T16:32:00.000-07:00

Recent political debate has revolved around the question of whether General Clark's comments about Senator McCain were a greater part offense or greater part idiotic. In the Politico article Who's Smearing Whom they call Senator Obama on his surregates string of oddly similar attacks on McCain's military service. Also noting that the Obama campaign has routinely cried 'smear' or 'about to smear' with no evidence that either the McCain campaign or the Republican party has any intention of playing dirty. The question is; were Wesley Clark's criticism so rediculous and ham-handed that people will start recognizing this pattern of unseamly attacks as more than just a coincidence?

Contrast the absence of smears from the McCain camp with some of the outlandish remarks made by high-ranking Obama supporters. In April, West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV said that because McCain “was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet,” and “was long gone when they hit,” the Arizona senator who spent five and a half years in a Vietcong tiger cage having his arms repeatedly broken didn’t really understand the carnage of war. “What happened when [the missiles] get to the ground?” Rockefeller asked a crowd at an Obama rally. “He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.” That the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller would impugn the wartime experience of John McCain is especially rich, given that the only “battle” Rockefeller has seen is when he hunts wild game at his 80-acre ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Rockefeller’s smear was the first salvo in a pattern of attacks meant to insinuate that McCain’s Vietnam experience not only shouldn’t count as meaningful “experience,” but rendered him psychologically unfit for presidential office. In May, Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin said of McCain, “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.” Over the weekend, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said that McCain is “untested and untried,” and elaborated that, “I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” Clark, you may remember, ran for president in 2004 on his record as a career military officer, so his comment, which he has not retracted, was not just morally offensive but self-discrediting.

The smears didn’t stop there. On Monday, Obama foreign policy adviser Rand Beers unfavorably compared McCain’s POW experience with “the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam,” and who “have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost ... than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War.”

It’s curious how anyone could argue that a man with such visceral understanding of the capacity for what America’s enemies will do to our men and women in uniform doesn’t fully appreciate the cost of war. But even more troubling is the unmistakable pattern of these smears, all of them unsubtly alleging that McCain is an unhinged, mentally unstable warmonger who would deploy soldiers capriciously because he hasn’t truly experienced the horrors of ground battle. Indeed, the claims of these four men — and the short period of time in which they were all uttered — are so similar in tone that one would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility they were coordinated by the Obama campaign.

Muddled Foreign Policy or Clear Foreign Policy

2008-07-01T05:30:00.000-07:00

This clip, which has been posted before as a part of the 'Susan Rice False Statements' story, shows Senator Obama agreeing to meet foreign dictators with no precondidtions; followed by Senator Clinton and Edwards disagreeing with that strategy. The reason why this comes up repeated is that this isn't just about a change in position, it is about knowing your stuff. There is a reality, that despite many people's unhappiness with the current administration's choices, we are a country at war. Picking a leader with experience and understanding of foreign policy matters, and it matters greatly.

This shows Senator McCain's reaction to an Obama change in policy regarding Israel...

Finally, here are parts Senator McCain's speach AIPAC...

Equal Pay for Women Promised by Obama Practiced by McCain

2008-06-30T16:22:00.000-07:00

Criticism of Senator Obama's Unrealistic Promise of Equal Pay has taken on a new irony in that CSN News Network has reported that McCain and Clinton pay their female staff better that Senator Obama. To further the irony, Senator McCain actually pays the women on his staff better than the men, while Senator Clinton pays men and women the same. Both McCain and Clinton hired more female staffers than male staffers; not Obama he has more men on staff than women and they are paid less than the men. According to the AP Senator Obama stated, "I'll continue to stand up for equal pay as president — Senator McCain won't, and that's a real difference in this election." There you have it; the difference in this campaign is rhetoric versus action.

"Non-intern female employees did better working on the Senate staffs of John McCain and Hillary Clinton during the latest public reporting period than they did working for Barack Obama, Cybercast News Service determined through an analysis of payroll data published by the Secretary of the Senate.

Both McCain and Clinton also employed more female than male staffers, while Obama employed more males than females. However, Obama's staff was more balanced between male and female staffers than either McCain's or Clinton's.

Also, McCain and Clinton had more female than male staffers making six-figure salaries, while Obama had more male than female staffers making six-figure salaries.

The data were taken from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007.

Only in the office of McCain, an Arizona Republican and his party's presumptive presidential nominee, was the average salary for women higher than for men."

Hat Tip to Wake Up America for first reporting on this.

McCain’s Growing Net Roots and Donations

2008-06-29T17:01:00.000-07:00

The network of McCain supporter sites is going through a growth spurt, right, left, and center. On July 1st, the anniversary of John McCain’s promotion to Commander of Attack Squadron 174 in 1976, the founders of John McCain 2008 Social Network and McCain Now are launching LetsGetThisRight.com. They have worked tirelessly to launch a site that focuses on supporting Senator McCain and local Republicans across the country. They are looking to raise money for a series of candidates in important races.

On the other side of the spectrum, let me welcome Clinton supporters who now support Senator McCain to the club. The establishment and networking of Clinton supporters not willing to support Senator Obama, has been impressive to say the least. Over 125 sites and blogs have emerged within a few weeks. A list of all (or most) is available at Just Say No Deal. Here are a few that have already established a significant following. Clintons 4 McCain, Savage Politics, Puma Party (which includes the Puma Party forum), Done Dems, Hillary Clinton Forum, and Dems 4 McCain. Certainly, not all who have decided not to vote Obama have committed to voting McCain. However, there is mounting evidence that many Clinton supporters will vote McCain.

Some Hillary supporters have even decided to donate to Senator McCain’s campaign on July 4th. As a show of support, many long time McCain supporters have also agreed to contribute on that day. The request is that Hillary supporters make donations in amounts like $5.44, $25.44, or $125.44 and others donate in whole dollar amounts so Clinton supporters can be differentiated and counted.

Other new Pro-McCain sites include...
Battleground States ‘08 is a contributor based blog giving a state to state perspective on the presidential race.
Local Republicans similarly is a contributor based blog focused on down ticket candidates and state and local Republican candidates.
Grand Old Partisan is an excellent site for those interested in history. It remembers that the GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
also...
Jews for McCain
Conservative Mom in a Liberal World
Its All Dicta
McCain Brigade
McCain Independent
McCain Supporters
Local Republicans
Obama Independent or McCain Independent?
Red Arizona
Right Score
Stop Obama Vote McCain
Democrats and Independents for McCain Social Network

The Trust Candidate V The Change Candidate

2008-06-29T15:52:00.000-07:00

David Jamaal at DoneDems.com, a site for Clinton supporters who are not supporting Obama, makes an excellent point about candidate authenticity. Obama’s monicker of change has weakened as he has shown the willingness to flip his positions on issues such as public financing, gun control, and free trade for political expediency. Conversely, Senator McCain has a history of putting his country and his word before politics, therefor making him the quintessential trust candidate.

"Mr. Obama’s disappointing and persistent inconsistency has destroyed both his own brand and the notion that this is a “change” election. Change is a stale narrative and in Obama’s case, a false one.
This election will turn on trust.
Is there a third party candidate you trust to win and to serve competently?
Do you trust Sen. McCain, who puts country before Party, who has shown bravery in risking bold bipartisan positions , and who is quickly making energy independence central to his campaign while Mr. Obama offers nothing but ‘no’ to every new idea?"

Obama Flips on Guns

2008-06-28T07:26:00.000-07:00

Certainly part of the issue here is Senator Obama's position on gun control, but possibly even more important is the fact that he build a laundry list issues where he's flipped positions to enhance his campaign...

Obama's record on gun control is clear - he's for it. He's supported handgun bans, and even answered a questionaire stating he would support banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Now that he is running for president, and the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun ban, Senator Obama has changed his mind saying that, "The second ammendment does mean something".From Hot Air

From Yahoo/Politico
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns. But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Earned Media Reports
SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The "Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns." Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama's Response: "Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

Clinton Supporters Making A Statement About Not Supporting Obama

2008-06-28T07:23:00.000-07:00

Clinton supporters are making a statement that they are NOT going to unite behind Barack Obama. There are a variety of reasons why; Michigan and Florida, poor treatment of Senator Clinton by the media, disrespectful behavior by Obama supporters, or simply doubts about Senator Obama and his qualifications. For these, or other reasons, many Clinton supporters are actively campaigning for Senator McCain. The site Just Say No Deal lists over 125 sites, many newly started, that agree that they will not be voting Obama in November. Some like Savage Politics are even raising money for Senator McCain. Many are planning to donate to the McCain campaign on July 4th to show their committment. Here are just a few of the numerous sites committed to NOT unifying the Democratic Party.

clintondems.com
hireheels.com
hillarysupporters.com
clintons4mccain.com
riverdaughter
hillaryclintonforum.net
womenforfairpolitics.com
donedems.com
pumaparty.com
savagepolitics
hillarygrassrootscampaign.com
pumapac.org
millionwomenmarch.blogspot.com

Obama's Unrealistic Promise of Equal Pay

2008-06-25T06:29:00.000-07:00

The Obama solution to the pay discrepancy between men and women is lawsuits. His argument that the Supreme Court should not have made it more difficult to sue their employer is fair. However, the idea that there are many women in the position to sue their employer shows a lack of understanding of the real world. First problem, most people need their jobs. Suing an employer will result in a lost job. Even if legislation protects against firings based on litigation, there is reality that is being overlooked. Employers may give another cause for the dismissal, or that job may simply become unbearable. This leaves these sort of lawsuits for only a select few who can afford to be with out a job, and have the time to be tied up with legal matters.

Obama Equates his Public Financing Lie to the Declaration of Independence

2008-06-24T08:06:00.001-07:00

You have to give the Obama campaign points for hutzpah. Granted Obama's decision to bypass public financing after he signed a pledge to take it is probably smart politics. However, his web site is now marketting that broken promise as a declaration of, "Independence from a broken system". I suppose stating 'I lied, but please send me money anyways' would not be that effective a fundraiser, but it certainly would be more honest than pretending that this was some sort of noble decision. Referencing the Declaration of Independence to cover up this old school political maneuver is clever and shady.

Graphic on entry page at BarackObama.com

Broken Contract, Broken Word, No Problem for Obama

2008-06-22T08:48:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama's opt-out of public financing came as no surprise. It was a politically expediant move. However, the switch is disconcerting, not just because he broke his word or changed his mind; it's troubling because he signed a pledge. When most Americans sign a 'pledge' it's considered a legally binding contract. Yet this was a 'pledge' and not a contract? So it should be noted that a pledge from Senator Obama is a non-binding agreement. Signature, no signature, this is different than changing on a position, he promised to do 'x' signed off on it then did 'y'. Politically it was most likely the right thing to do, he will have much more money this way. However, he revealed to the American people in the process that a promise, a pledge, and his word are negotiable.

Oops! Obama's Faux Presidential Podium

2008-06-21T08:35:00.000-07:00

At best this is bad form to 'play president' behind a spin off of the presidential seal. At worst it is illegal as laws state,

Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Now I don't think anyone is going to put Obama in the klink for this one, but he and his campaign may be getting a little full of themselves to think it is appropriate to use iconography in this way.

"The Two Obama's" NYT Op-Ed

2008-06-20T08:50:00.000-07:00

David Brook's excellent article The Two Obama's does an excellent job laying out how Senator Obama talks reform and inspiration, but plays old school politics as well as anyone out there...

"God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson..."

"...But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes..."

Brooks goes on to explain Obama's history of old school politics. That he is smart and calculating, and has laid out a path for himself that any old-school Chigago politician would be proud of...

"...Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

Full David Brook's article The Two Obama's

Obama's Honesty Problem

2008-06-19T08:40:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama and his campaign have made numerous misleading or inaccurate statements that call into question the Senator's honesty. First up, NAFTA. Slate reports,

"For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama's sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Now there is an oddly similar report of Senator Obama telling the Iraqi foreign minister not to listen to his campaign rhetoric.
The Union Leader Reported...

"Here is Sen. Obama speaking in Michigan yesterday, explaining what he told Iraq's foreign minister: ". . . an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq ... that we won't act precipitously, but that we will move to end U.S. combat forces in Iraq."

What progress in Iraq? That would be the progress made under Gen. David Petraeus' "surge" strategy, which Sen. Obama opposed. Back when Obama was criticizing the surge and calling for rapid withdrawal from Iraq (aka, surrender), Sen. John McCain was pushing for more troops and a plan for victory. Now that the policy Obama opposed has turned the tables, decimated al-Qaida in Iraq and made victory possible, Obama says he wants to "continue the progress."

Next, are the completely false remarks of Susan Rice a top Obama foreign policy advisor. First, are her remarks that Senator Obama did not say he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions,

"She has been trying over the last few months to walk back Senator Obama's statement that he would meet with dictators of rouge nations in the first year of his presidency without preconditions. The tactic being to confuse people with a debate between 'precondition' and 'preparations'. Yet, Dr. Rice expressly stated, “Nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.” That is false, Senator Obama in a YouTube debate expressly stated he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions, which drew criticism from people on both sides of the isle."

Second, are historically inaccurate remarks she made while on CNN,

"'Thank God he did [Kennedy meet with Krushchev] because if he hadn't we would have not been able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis' [comment made by Susan Rice] is completely false. In fact historians agree that this meeting fueled the Cuban Missile Crisis."

Then there are the claims that Senator Obama was unaware of Reverend Wright's radical teachings after attending his church for twenty years. However, the New York Times reports Senator Obama disinvited Reverend Wright from the his presidential annoucement for this reason,

"Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.”

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

Finally, The Wall Street Journal has reported that Senator Obama will reject public financing and break a previous promise to accept public financing,

"Barack Obama announced today that he will not accept roughly $85 million in public funds for the general election, breaking his earlier pledge to do so if his Republican rival John McCain opted in to the system.

He is the first candidate since the 1970s to forego public financing. McCain has already taken steps to suggest he will opt in to the system in the fall."

Main Stream Media Drops the Ball on Obama Rumors

2008-06-18T06:15:00.000-07:00

Last night on CNN and MSNBC there were commentary segments about 'right wingers' spreading rumors and lies about Barack Obama. This is sloppy journalism. The source of the 'Michelle Tape' rumor, it well known, is Larry Johnson of No Quarter Blog an unabashed Clinton supporter. The emails that suggest Senator Obama is a muslim started before anyone voted in the primaries, making it highly unlikely that Republicans started that rumor either. While the commentators didn't suggest that the rumors are connected with the McCain campaign they do reference 'the far right'. However, if they listened to their own reporting they'd recognize that the 'far right' has not been particularly excited about Senator McCain as a candidate. Yet the media has concluded that 'the far right' is spreading rumors to help a candidate they aren't thrilled about.

Questions of patriotism stem mainly from a picture/video of Senator Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Obama's apparent refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin, and Michelle Obama making a statement that 'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country'. Certainly, there is plenty of cause to question the fairness of these 'un-patriotic' claims, but blaming it on the right doesn't hold water.

An anonomous blogger can say just about anything without consequences, creating a rumor prone environment. Have right-wing bloggers spread rumors? Probably, but they are not alone, and they aren't the source of the previously mentioned rumors. If the MSM wants to hold onto any credibility they need to do their homework, and not just guess.

Energy: Supply & Demand Ignored

2008-06-16T09:00:00.000-07:00

With gas prices rising there is a growing frustration with Congress because of their lack of action. What would help reduce energy prices? Production - basic supply and demand dictates that if supply increases then prices drop. There is debate about where drilling is appropriate, but cutting off all sources of new drilling makes the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil. The Democratic Congress has essentially blocked new drilling or delivery on new sources of oil. Even if Anwar and the Everglades are taken off the table due to environmental concerns, blocking all new drilling clearly restricts supply and increases prices.

Energy production could also be assisted with the use of alternate energy sources. Ethanol has promise, and Brazil has a large supply available for export at reasonable prices. However, ethanol subsidies take this form of alternative energy off the table. The rules stating that ethanol must be corn based limits ethanol's potential. From grasses to sugar, ethanol can be developed from numerous natural sources. It has even been argued that deforestation could be reduced if tree based ethanol was a vaible product. However, ethanol subsidies create a myopic focus on corn, ignoring the potential for alternatives, and manipulating the market in a way that ensures ethanol's failure. Secondly, the high tax on Brazil's ethanol prevents a less expensive energy source from entering this country cutting off another valuable energy supply.

Finally, nuclear has potential as a clean fuel source. Several environmental groups are starting to view nuclear as the energy of the future. While some have safety concerns, it is clean and nuclear plants have made advancements over the years and can be run safely.

So why the frustration with Congress? Because they are ignoring these sources of energy. The Democrats are against drilling and against nuclear energy, and they support corn based ethanol subsidies and the ethanol import taxes. The trouble in the economy has been caused mainly by high energy costs, and the Democrats are more interested in a windfall profits tax, which has not been proven effective, and ignore the need for supply. The increased enery costs hurt the middle and working class the most, as it acts essentially as a tax increase. The Democrats say these are the people they are most interested in looking out for, but that is not reflected in their energy policy.

Tim Russert Passed Away

2008-06-13T12:45:00.000-07:00

"WASHINGTON - Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday, NBC News said. He was 58.

No further details were immediately available.

Russert, the recipient of 48 honorary doctorates, took over the helm of “Meet the Press” in December 1991. Now in its 60th year, “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program in the history of television."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/

Such sad news. What a wonderful journalist, he will be soarly missed.

Obama Campaign: Old School Politics or Ignorance?

2008-06-12T08:27:00.000-07:00

Susan Rice's false statement about the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting leaves open two questions. Are Obama foreign policy advisors up to snuff to guide a candidate and potential president? Are Obama advisors making misleading or false statements in order to win votes? First, Dr. Susan Rice is a Rhodes Scholar, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and has worked on the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns. It seems hard to believe that she would have thought that the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting really resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. If she did, it is a troubling gap in knowledge for such an accomplished international relations scholar.

Consequently, that raises the second question of whether this is a tactic to sway votes by misleading people. Was Susan Rice trying to cash in on the popularity of JFK by assuming most people would not know their history well enough to challenge her? This isn't Rice's first misstatement. She has been trying over the last few months to walk back Senator Obama's statement that he would meet with dictators of rouge nations in the first year of his presidency without preconditions. The tactic being to confuse people with a debate between 'precondition' and 'preparations'. Yet, Dr. Rice expressly stated, “Nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.” That is false, Senator Obama in a YouTube debate expressly stated he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions, which drew criticism from people on both sides of the isle. This begs the question is this a bumbling foreign policy, or old school politics. A decission to say anything regardless of its veracity to put your candidate in office.

Obama Advisor Susan Rice's Major Historical/Foreign Policy Error

2008-06-11T07:05:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, Susan Rice's statement regarding the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, "Thank God he did because if he hadn't we would have not been able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis" is completely false. In fact historians agree that this meeting fueled the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Weekly Standand, in detailing the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting, quotes NYT columnist James Reston who interviewed President Kennedy right after his meeting with Khrushchev,

"Reston reported that Kennedy said just enough for Reston to conclude that Khrushchev "had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs" and that he had "decided that he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed." Kennedy said to Reston that Khrushchev had "just beat [the] hell out of me" and that he had presented Kennedy with a terrible problem: "If he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts, until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him. So we have to act."

Kennedy responded to the meeting with a congressional request for a dramatic increase in defense spending, and a significant increase in the size of the military. Khrushchev responded to Kennedy's actions with above ground nuclear testing and erecting the Berlin Wall. The tensions between the US and Soviet Union dramatically increased due to the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting; the Cuban Missile Crisis followed.

Susan Rice's statement is simply false. There is no historical record of the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting being at all helpful in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis and actually the exact opposite true that an inexperienced leader was bullied into an arms race.

Obama Criticizes Clinton Countrywide Connections

2008-06-10T10:54:00.000-07:00

Here Senator Obama critizes Countrywide Financial prior to finding out Jim Johnson the head of his VP search committee received preferential treatment by that same company. Apparently, Clinton staffers need to pass a different standard than Obama staffers.

ABC NEWS questions Senator Obama on this hypocrisy...

ABC News' Sunlen Miller today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, how he could "rail against Countrywide Financial Corp as an example of insiders and today's economy while your VP search is headed by someone who got questionable loans from Countrywide?" (This is an issue we wrote about earlier today.)

"And in addition," Miller continued, "another person on that same VP search team – Eric Holder -- has also been involved in the Marc Rich scandal."

"Well, look," Obama said, "the, the, I mean - first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages, so you’re gong to have to direct -- "

Full ABC Article

McCain Links

2008-06-04T07:49:00.000-07:00

New sites supporting Senator McCain are appearing regularly. Here are a few that are worth a look.

McCain Independents
Bush McCain
Battleground States 08
Wiki Obama
Local Republicans
Obama Independents
Who Do I Vote For?
McCain Online Volunteer
Rabid Blue Dog Democrat
New Hampshire 4 McCain
McCain Democrats
Iraqi 4 McCain
Politico Mafioso - McCain Arizona
Red State Blue
McCain Jewish Vote
Vietnam Veterans for McCain

Ironic McCain Defends Clinton but Obama Doesn't Bother

2008-05-31T06:47:00.000-07:00

Seems ironic that Senator McCain comes to Senator Clinton's defense and Senator Obama doesn't. The statements out of the Obama camp adds doubt to Senator Obama's claim that he's a uniter. Senator Obama's statement expressed disappointment at the divisive remarks, but what about rebutting the content of the statement? The Clinton's have been criticized for decades, but even the most strident Clinton-hater has never suggested that Senator Clinton is a white supremist. This is really nasty stuff. Candidates I'm sure realize that when they decide to run they'll be criticized, be the but of jokes, and even be attacked (possibly unjustly) for things they do or say. However, this statement is slander and it's odd that the media and the Obama campaign aren't treating it as such. Senator Clinton has done nothing to warrant claims of racism/white entitlement/white supremacy. What she is entitled to at minimum, is an appology beyond the 'it you were offended, I'm sorry' drivel that Pastor Pfleger put out. This is the type of politics people are sick of; the I can say anything about the opposition to gain votes strategy.

Pastor Pfleger's Rant

Senator McCain's Reaction...

Bush Impersonator - Global Warming

2008-05-25T09:33:00.000-07:00