Blush is a shade of red,....as opposed to the usual NY Blue:
HT to Isophrone:
Poll: McCain Winning the New York Jewish Vote
Hat tip: SWAC Girl
I was absolutely shocked to read an article in the New York Post that said that not only had John McCain cut Barack Obama’s lead in New York to five points, but also that McCain was actually polling with a majority of the Jewish vote.
Obama has had a reversal of fortunes among Jewish voters. His support has plummeted 35 points, from a lead of 50-37 to a 54-32 deficit in the new poll.
This must be the first time since before the Great Depression that a majority of the Jewish vote has gone Republican. My guess is that a combination of factors are at work:
1) The New Deal generation (whose who came of voting age in 1932) has pretty much died out
2) Security concerns for the U.S. and Israel greatly influence the vote, and Obama’s weaknesses in this area are hurting him badly
3) Tolerance of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish bigotry within the Democratic Party is finally starting to have negative repercussions
4) The proportion of Orthodox Jewish voters has grown, and like morally conservative Christians, they are pro-life and favor the Republican candidates
5) Like many voters (particularly in high cost of living areas like New York), Jewish voters are concerned about the economy and particularly Obama’s plans to raise taxes on income, investments, and estates.
6) The scandals and mismanagement brought about on the local level by Democrats like Eliot Spitzer and Jon Corzine are also reflecting badly on the national Democrats.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is reporting that Florida Democrats are seeing increasing resistance to Obama among the normally reliably Democratic Jewish elderly. Maybe this explains McCain's expanding lead in Florida as well.
So should the symbol for excited Jewish Republicans should be called the KVELLephant?
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
Comments on (Future) VP Governor Sarah Palin, Part II
Marie drops her Two Cents with:
McCain Pick's Gov. Sarah Palin R-AK, Perfect Choice!
What a perfect choice this is! She's a gun totin Conservative from Alaska who stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere", Lifetime member of the NRA, Has 5 kids and one has down syndrome, Overhalled the Alaska government and got rid of corruption, Has 80% approval rating, and just a great Pick! Kudos Senator McCain!
Daniel Ruwe at Right Minds calls it "a perfect pick"
John McCain was to pick his running mate the day after the convention. To break Obama’s momentum, he needed a perfect pick, and a flawless announcement of that choice.
He got both. Sarah Palin is probably the best pick McCain could have made. She is brilliant—young, articulate, conservative—and female. Almost as importantly, McCain’s announcement of the pick was impeccable—he announced it twelve hours after Obama’s convention speech, pushing Obama’s excellent speech off the front page, ensuring that there will be little media coverage of it.
(snip)
Experience aside, Palin is literally a perfect choice. She is strongly pro-life (she refused to abort her fifth child, even after tests showed that the child would be born with Down Syndrome), pro-gun (how many other politicians have video of themselves firing an M-16?), pro-drilling, and anti-pork (she claims credit for shooting down corrupt Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ infamous Bridge to Nowhere). In addition, she is good-looking and articulate, in stark contrast to Joe “Hair Plugs” Biden, who is seemingly always either shouting or getting ready to shout. (At least when he isn’t making embarrassing racial gaffes). Palin attract a great many conservatives, and will be a perfect counterpoint to Joe Biden.
In fact, most conservatives seem overjoyed at the news. Rush Limbaugh called the selection “a great pick,” while the conservative blogosphere (which was probably Palin’s most enthusiastic base of support) was ecstatic. A great many unenthusiastic conservatives, such as Mark Levin, seem to be coming back to the Republican party. Palin has brought the conservative movement into McCain’s corner.
And finally, Sarah Palin is a woman. A qualification for higher office? No. But will it help McCain a lot? Absolutely. Many former Hillary Clinton are angry that their candidate was never even vetted by Obama, and cannot support Barack Obama. Many more moderate female voters like the idea of voting for one of their sex. And Palin will blunt the idea of “making history” by voting for an African-American. The Republicans have their own “minority” on the ticket—history will be made either way. (Of course, women are not actually minorities—there are actually more women than men).
McCain Pick's Gov. Sarah Palin R-AK, Perfect Choice!
What a perfect choice this is! She's a gun totin Conservative from Alaska who stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere", Lifetime member of the NRA, Has 5 kids and one has down syndrome, Overhalled the Alaska government and got rid of corruption, Has 80% approval rating, and just a great Pick! Kudos Senator McCain!
Daniel Ruwe at Right Minds calls it "a perfect pick"
John McCain was to pick his running mate the day after the convention. To break Obama’s momentum, he needed a perfect pick, and a flawless announcement of that choice.
He got both. Sarah Palin is probably the best pick McCain could have made. She is brilliant—young, articulate, conservative—and female. Almost as importantly, McCain’s announcement of the pick was impeccable—he announced it twelve hours after Obama’s convention speech, pushing Obama’s excellent speech off the front page, ensuring that there will be little media coverage of it.
(snip)
Experience aside, Palin is literally a perfect choice. She is strongly pro-life (she refused to abort her fifth child, even after tests showed that the child would be born with Down Syndrome), pro-gun (how many other politicians have video of themselves firing an M-16?), pro-drilling, and anti-pork (she claims credit for shooting down corrupt Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ infamous Bridge to Nowhere). In addition, she is good-looking and articulate, in stark contrast to Joe “Hair Plugs” Biden, who is seemingly always either shouting or getting ready to shout. (At least when he isn’t making embarrassing racial gaffes). Palin attract a great many conservatives, and will be a perfect counterpoint to Joe Biden.
In fact, most conservatives seem overjoyed at the news. Rush Limbaugh called the selection “a great pick,” while the conservative blogosphere (which was probably Palin’s most enthusiastic base of support) was ecstatic. A great many unenthusiastic conservatives, such as Mark Levin, seem to be coming back to the Republican party. Palin has brought the conservative movement into McCain’s corner.
And finally, Sarah Palin is a woman. A qualification for higher office? No. But will it help McCain a lot? Absolutely. Many former Hillary Clinton are angry that their candidate was never even vetted by Obama, and cannot support Barack Obama. Many more moderate female voters like the idea of voting for one of their sex. And Palin will blunt the idea of “making history” by voting for an African-American. The Republicans have their own “minority” on the ticket—history will be made either way. (Of course, women are not actually minorities—there are actually more women than men).
Comments on (Future) VP Governor Sarah Palin!
Robert at Conservative Commentary says:
Sarah Palin - What I've Been Waiting For!
BB, I tried for some time yesterday to post but for some reason I couldn't get signed in, so here goes:
Let me get this out of the way first: Sarah Palin is HOT...
I awoke yesterday with the rumors that Palin was going to be the GOP ticket for VP. A few hours later it was confirmed, and I was amazed and just outright giddy with the choice. Everyone has heard of her background, and I won't rehash it here except to say that this is the kind of person who was intended to lead our nation. Someone with conviction and purpose. Someone who understands the real world. Someone who has worked and toiled and prefers to serve the country over her personal gain.
As I watched and listened to her acceptance speech, it was the first time in my life, other than Ronald Reagan's speeches, that I felt a politician was being completely sincere and honest. I think with Palin we get what we see - a mother and someone who didn't set out to be a career politician, but someone who has become a leader at various levels and now is prepared to be a maverick like McCain.
I think Palin is a breath of fresh air into a party that has become stagnant and weak. I think she can provide some energy, and perhaps change the paradigm of elected politics and make us all look to new faces and new ideas and stop sending people to Washington for 30 years like Joe Biden.
I cant wait to see her in office. Won't it be something for it to be the GOP that provides the first woman in the White House?
Doug V. Gibbs - an early proponent of Palin's trumpets:
Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick for Vice President, a Masterful Stroke That Is No Surprise to This Blog!
The choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain to be his running mate shocked and stunned the mainstream media. They are calling her a relative unknown, and have been saying she may not be the best pick because of her inexperience.
Barack Obama, in response to the McCain VP pick, said, "Inexperience is now off the table."
Thanks, Obama, for finally admitting that you are too inexperienced. Second, she has much more experience than you, is in an executive governmental position of the likes you have never held, and you can't compare her experience to yours anyway because unlike you she is not the leader of the ticket.
What Palin brings to the race, however, is more than shock and awe. She is strong on energy, understanding the issue better than any of the four candidates. Palin is the most popular of all of the nation's state governors, maintaining the highest approval rating throughout her term of office. She understands the military mission we have engaged in as a nation, and her oldest son is currently enlisted in the Army and will soon be in Iraq to serve his nation. There are some questions regarding her position on abortion. Many have her listed as pro-choice, but I ask you this: If she is so staunchly pro-choice, then why didn't she abort her newest child well knowing while she was pregnant that he has down-syndrome?
The most important part of this choice, however, is that she is one of us. She came to politics after serving on the PTA for her children. She slowly moved up doing the things that you and I do - maintaining the household, and taking care of our families. Her husband is a working man. He is a commercial fisherman and oil pipeline worker. She isn't a career politician with lobbyists in her pocket, and corruption in her head from a life-long commitment to Washington. She does, however, have a lot of experience as a leader. She has been the mayor of her small town, and the governor of the great state of Alaska. That is executive leadership that both Biden and Obama lacks.
Some argue that Biden will tear her up in a debate because he is this rabid bulldog, and she is a quiet woman. Will he tear her up? Does she have a chance in a debate with Biden? Those that question her ability to stand tough on the issues and handle the Bidens of the world don't know Palin like I do. The fireworks will be fascinating indeed, and she will handle herself just fine in such a debate.
And the fact that she is a woman adds a lot to the ticket as well. Hillary supporters that are dissatisfied with Obama will now have another reason to consider a McCain Presidency.
When Sarah Palin stood before the American people in Ohio accepting the opportunity to join McCain, her speech was about America. It was about our men and women serving in the military, the importance of drilling for oil domestically (basic economics of supply and demand that the left seems not to understand), about ending corruption and excess spending in Washington, and about pride in the great nation of the United States of America.
When Obama spoke last night, standing there on his Greek palace in Denver, he talked about himself and about how terrible the United States is. He made no mention of the dangerous world we are facing (terrorism, Russia, China. . .). He preferred to continue the "Everything is Bush's Fault" tactic of the Democratic Party (even though Bush is not running for office and most of what they claim is wrong is a straight out lie). One thing he used was saying that all of the jobs are being shipped off to China. Most people forget that NAFTA and other programs that began long before "W" took office was the result of the Democrats ruling Washington for over 40 years, and it wasn't until 1994 when that changed - for a little while - It was the Democrats that created the failed policies, free trade agreements, and entitlement programs that are now falling apart before our eyes.
As an added note, I am not surprised that Sarah Palin was the choice. I indicated a year ago (September 20, 2007) that she would be a fine Vice President of the United States. My first mention of Palin on Political Pistachio was on July 28, 2007.
July 28, 2007 one of the supporters of Sarah Palin, Steve Maloney, came on Political Pistachio Radio to discuss his hopes Palin would become the next President of the United States, or at least Vice President. On October 17th of last year, Adam Brickley of the Palin For V.P. movement joined me to discuss why Sarah Palin should be the Vice President of the United States of America. Both of these gentlemen have been on my show a number of times since to discuss the possibility of Sarah Palin becoming the running mate of the Repubican Presidential Candidate (November 24 of last year, and in 2008 on February 25.
After these interviews I enthusiastically embraced the possibility of Sarah Palin as Vice President.
Sarah Palin - What I've Been Waiting For!
BB, I tried for some time yesterday to post but for some reason I couldn't get signed in, so here goes:
Let me get this out of the way first: Sarah Palin is HOT...
I awoke yesterday with the rumors that Palin was going to be the GOP ticket for VP. A few hours later it was confirmed, and I was amazed and just outright giddy with the choice. Everyone has heard of her background, and I won't rehash it here except to say that this is the kind of person who was intended to lead our nation. Someone with conviction and purpose. Someone who understands the real world. Someone who has worked and toiled and prefers to serve the country over her personal gain.
As I watched and listened to her acceptance speech, it was the first time in my life, other than Ronald Reagan's speeches, that I felt a politician was being completely sincere and honest. I think with Palin we get what we see - a mother and someone who didn't set out to be a career politician, but someone who has become a leader at various levels and now is prepared to be a maverick like McCain.
I think Palin is a breath of fresh air into a party that has become stagnant and weak. I think she can provide some energy, and perhaps change the paradigm of elected politics and make us all look to new faces and new ideas and stop sending people to Washington for 30 years like Joe Biden.
I cant wait to see her in office. Won't it be something for it to be the GOP that provides the first woman in the White House?
Doug V. Gibbs - an early proponent of Palin's trumpets:
Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick for Vice President, a Masterful Stroke That Is No Surprise to This Blog!
The choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain to be his running mate shocked and stunned the mainstream media. They are calling her a relative unknown, and have been saying she may not be the best pick because of her inexperience.
Barack Obama, in response to the McCain VP pick, said, "Inexperience is now off the table."
Thanks, Obama, for finally admitting that you are too inexperienced. Second, she has much more experience than you, is in an executive governmental position of the likes you have never held, and you can't compare her experience to yours anyway because unlike you she is not the leader of the ticket.
What Palin brings to the race, however, is more than shock and awe. She is strong on energy, understanding the issue better than any of the four candidates. Palin is the most popular of all of the nation's state governors, maintaining the highest approval rating throughout her term of office. She understands the military mission we have engaged in as a nation, and her oldest son is currently enlisted in the Army and will soon be in Iraq to serve his nation. There are some questions regarding her position on abortion. Many have her listed as pro-choice, but I ask you this: If she is so staunchly pro-choice, then why didn't she abort her newest child well knowing while she was pregnant that he has down-syndrome?
The most important part of this choice, however, is that she is one of us. She came to politics after serving on the PTA for her children. She slowly moved up doing the things that you and I do - maintaining the household, and taking care of our families. Her husband is a working man. He is a commercial fisherman and oil pipeline worker. She isn't a career politician with lobbyists in her pocket, and corruption in her head from a life-long commitment to Washington. She does, however, have a lot of experience as a leader. She has been the mayor of her small town, and the governor of the great state of Alaska. That is executive leadership that both Biden and Obama lacks.
Some argue that Biden will tear her up in a debate because he is this rabid bulldog, and she is a quiet woman. Will he tear her up? Does she have a chance in a debate with Biden? Those that question her ability to stand tough on the issues and handle the Bidens of the world don't know Palin like I do. The fireworks will be fascinating indeed, and she will handle herself just fine in such a debate.
And the fact that she is a woman adds a lot to the ticket as well. Hillary supporters that are dissatisfied with Obama will now have another reason to consider a McCain Presidency.
When Sarah Palin stood before the American people in Ohio accepting the opportunity to join McCain, her speech was about America. It was about our men and women serving in the military, the importance of drilling for oil domestically (basic economics of supply and demand that the left seems not to understand), about ending corruption and excess spending in Washington, and about pride in the great nation of the United States of America.
When Obama spoke last night, standing there on his Greek palace in Denver, he talked about himself and about how terrible the United States is. He made no mention of the dangerous world we are facing (terrorism, Russia, China. . .). He preferred to continue the "Everything is Bush's Fault" tactic of the Democratic Party (even though Bush is not running for office and most of what they claim is wrong is a straight out lie). One thing he used was saying that all of the jobs are being shipped off to China. Most people forget that NAFTA and other programs that began long before "W" took office was the result of the Democrats ruling Washington for over 40 years, and it wasn't until 1994 when that changed - for a little while - It was the Democrats that created the failed policies, free trade agreements, and entitlement programs that are now falling apart before our eyes.
As an added note, I am not surprised that Sarah Palin was the choice. I indicated a year ago (September 20, 2007) that she would be a fine Vice President of the United States. My first mention of Palin on Political Pistachio was on July 28, 2007.
July 28, 2007 one of the supporters of Sarah Palin, Steve Maloney, came on Political Pistachio Radio to discuss his hopes Palin would become the next President of the United States, or at least Vice President. On October 17th of last year, Adam Brickley of the Palin For V.P. movement joined me to discuss why Sarah Palin should be the Vice President of the United States of America. Both of these gentlemen have been on my show a number of times since to discuss the possibility of Sarah Palin becoming the running mate of the Repubican Presidential Candidate (November 24 of last year, and in 2008 on February 25.
After these interviews I enthusiastically embraced the possibility of Sarah Palin as Vice President.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A Vote for McCain is a Defeat for Obama!
DD2 makes a compelling argument here:
Some Conservatives amaze me in their lack of ability to see what’s really at stake here, to see the real big picture. . Is this election about John McCain’s personalty and his so called "Hot Head" and that he is too old, and his lack of Conservative principals? Even if McCain was 10 years younger
the people that find fault with him now would find something else be whining about.
How is handing the whole country over to a far left liberal like Barack Obama a suitable alternative to McCain? I wish someone would tell me that.
I think that Conservative are fighting the wrong enemy the republicans are not their enemy the liberals are.
There is a vast and serious difference between John McCain and a ultra liberal like Barack Obama or Hillary who is hellbent determined to bring down all your conservative values. Did you ever consider that? They have already told us that they want to put an end to conservative Talk Shows, you know that. They have the determination to stop Rush and Hannity any way they can and Sean Hannity has said so many times.
Obama, is as liberal as they come. They say that he is the number one Liberal in the Senate .
Obama is leading in the polls right now, not by much but he is leading. For the Conservatives to sit home or to foolishly vote for a 3rd party nut case candidate is simply wrong. If that happens and Obama wins, we lose, it as simple as that.
Bickering and insulting our own candidate is dumb, dumb, dumb. That’s the way Hillary and Obama did it and we all laughed at that. Bickering over it again isn’t going to help us but it’s going to hurt us. And if we aren’t careful, they will through this country into third worldism.
There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of radical liberalism We may be facing damage for 4-8-12 years or more to undo. What’s more, who’s to say that it will ever be undone? Staying home on election day allows liberals a Free pass to gain all branches of Government. Don’t our kids deserve better out of us.
I’m not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here that requires that we do everything we can to minimize the damage this election can cause to our great country. The Conservatives are fighting a losing war by fighting with the Republicans
The Left achieved their goal by unity, maybe we can lean by that?
Like they say, I’d rather have 50% to 75% of McCain being Right, than 0% of Obama being Right. . Staying home on election day merely demonstrates that we’re not willing to fight
Give it some thought, friends.
'Not conservative enough'? I guess it's just not popular to be a Republican anymore!
Some Conservatives amaze me in their lack of ability to see what’s really at stake here, to see the real big picture. . Is this election about John McCain’s personalty and his so called "Hot Head" and that he is too old, and his lack of Conservative principals? Even if McCain was 10 years younger
the people that find fault with him now would find something else be whining about.
How is handing the whole country over to a far left liberal like Barack Obama a suitable alternative to McCain? I wish someone would tell me that.
I think that Conservative are fighting the wrong enemy the republicans are not their enemy the liberals are.
There is a vast and serious difference between John McCain and a ultra liberal like Barack Obama or Hillary who is hellbent determined to bring down all your conservative values. Did you ever consider that? They have already told us that they want to put an end to conservative Talk Shows, you know that. They have the determination to stop Rush and Hannity any way they can and Sean Hannity has said so many times.
Obama, is as liberal as they come. They say that he is the number one Liberal in the Senate .
Obama is leading in the polls right now, not by much but he is leading. For the Conservatives to sit home or to foolishly vote for a 3rd party nut case candidate is simply wrong. If that happens and Obama wins, we lose, it as simple as that.
Bickering and insulting our own candidate is dumb, dumb, dumb. That’s the way Hillary and Obama did it and we all laughed at that. Bickering over it again isn’t going to help us but it’s going to hurt us. And if we aren’t careful, they will through this country into third worldism.
There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of radical liberalism We may be facing damage for 4-8-12 years or more to undo. What’s more, who’s to say that it will ever be undone? Staying home on election day allows liberals a Free pass to gain all branches of Government. Don’t our kids deserve better out of us.
I’m not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here that requires that we do everything we can to minimize the damage this election can cause to our great country. The Conservatives are fighting a losing war by fighting with the Republicans
The Left achieved their goal by unity, maybe we can lean by that?
Like they say, I’d rather have 50% to 75% of McCain being Right, than 0% of Obama being Right. . Staying home on election day merely demonstrates that we’re not willing to fight
Give it some thought, friends.
'Not conservative enough'? I guess it's just not popular to be a Republican anymore!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
A McCain Moment
Cross-posting from Is This Life?
Received this by e-mail from the Grand Old Partisan:
On this day in 1967, one hundred and thirty-four men died and sixty-two were wounded in a fire on an aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal. Among the planes waited to take off, a missile misfired and hit another plane, sparking a massive inferno.
As bombs and fuel exploded, Lt. Commander John McCain jumped out of his own plane and ran toward the flames -- yes, toward the flames -- attempting to rescue another pilot. An exploding bomb then injured McCain in the chest and legs.
With his own ship out of commission, McCain volunteered for duty aboard the USS Oriskany. Three months later, he was shot down. He spent five and a half years in a communist prison, much of that time in solitary confinement.
Here is the video on YouTube.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country, showing office-holders, candidates and activists how they would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP from the Republican point of view. Each day, his Grand Old Partisan blog -- http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com -- celebrates 154 years of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.republicanbasics.com for more information.
Received this by e-mail from the Grand Old Partisan:
On this day in 1967, one hundred and thirty-four men died and sixty-two were wounded in a fire on an aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal. Among the planes waited to take off, a missile misfired and hit another plane, sparking a massive inferno.
As bombs and fuel exploded, Lt. Commander John McCain jumped out of his own plane and ran toward the flames -- yes, toward the flames -- attempting to rescue another pilot. An exploding bomb then injured McCain in the chest and legs.
With his own ship out of commission, McCain volunteered for duty aboard the USS Oriskany. Three months later, he was shot down. He spent five and a half years in a communist prison, much of that time in solitary confinement.
Here is the video on YouTube.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country, showing office-holders, candidates and activists how they would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP from the Republican point of view. Each day, his Grand Old Partisan blog -- http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com -- celebrates 154 years of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.republicanbasics.com for more information.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
McCain's Race to Win or Lose
So says DD2 at "Our World As We See It:"
Obama, unsurprisingly, leads among liberals and Democrats, while McCain leads among conservatives and Republicans. Independents are nearly split, with 38 percent backing Obama and 35 percent backing McCain. Nearly one in 5 independents is undecided, and 33 percent of those who have chosen a candidate say they could change their mind.
It's John McCain 's Election To Win Or Lose.
Democratic nominee Barack Obama leads Republican counterpart John McCain 45 percent to 39 percent in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll of registered voters nationwide. The six percentage point spread is unchanged since June, when Obama led McCain 48 percent to 42 percent. But more than 1 in 10 voters now say they are undecided between the candidates - twice as many, percentage-wise, as last month
Ah, but, this is a CBS News/New York Times poll . So you know how much that really means!
So what’s the lesson here? If you want to believe a poll conducted by Crooks and Liars, than you can believe this one.
With all the news coverage for Obama and just about none for McCain and also every magazine cover with pictures and articles of Barry and Michelle the guy should be triple digits ahead of McCain. He's just barely ahead or a dead heat this tells you something!
The truly sad thing about this is that NY Times and CBS and the rest of the liberals would rather the US lose the war then to elect a Republican president.
Obama, unsurprisingly, leads among liberals and Democrats, while McCain leads among conservatives and Republicans. Independents are nearly split, with 38 percent backing Obama and 35 percent backing McCain. Nearly one in 5 independents is undecided, and 33 percent of those who have chosen a candidate say they could change their mind.
It's John McCain 's Election To Win Or Lose.
Democratic nominee Barack Obama leads Republican counterpart John McCain 45 percent to 39 percent in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll of registered voters nationwide. The six percentage point spread is unchanged since June, when Obama led McCain 48 percent to 42 percent. But more than 1 in 10 voters now say they are undecided between the candidates - twice as many, percentage-wise, as last month
Ah, but, this is a CBS News/New York Times poll . So you know how much that really means!
So what’s the lesson here? If you want to believe a poll conducted by Crooks and Liars, than you can believe this one.
With all the news coverage for Obama and just about none for McCain and also every magazine cover with pictures and articles of Barry and Michelle the guy should be triple digits ahead of McCain. He's just barely ahead or a dead heat this tells you something!
The truly sad thing about this is that NY Times and CBS and the rest of the liberals would rather the US lose the war then to elect a Republican president.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Audacity of Barack Obama
Also posted at TrekMedic's "Is This Life?"
Cross-posting from PA's Number 1 blogger, Tony Phyrillas:
No amount of damage control is going to save the Barack Obama campaign over the candidate's latest condescending snipe at "bitter" working-class folks.
Maybe it was the fact that he was surrounded by "his kind of people," the social and economic elite in San Francisco that prompted Sen. Obama to insult so many people with one thoughtless remark. The "bitter" people Sen. Obama referred to includes about 85 percent of Americans who believe in God and the majority of Americans who understand that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms.
A true picture of Sen. Barack Obama is beginning to appear. It's not the color of his skin that is causing people to have second thoughts about Obama, it's the content of his character. Obama is nothing more than a rich, elitist snob who looks down on average Americans.
Three days after the comments, Obama is still claiming that his words were "twisted and mischaracterized." Just as his 20-year association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the American-hating preacher was twisted and mischaracterized? Just as his wife's comment about never being proud of this country until her husband started winning primary elections in 2008 was twisted and mischaracterized?
To borrow a phrase from John Edwards, there are two Americans. The one where liberal elitists like Barack and Michelle Obama live and the one where the rest of us live.
Here's a roundup of commentary compiled by the Republican National Committee about Sen. Obama's most recent misstep.
"A lot of people have been whispering, look this guy is just a charismatic Michael Dukakis. This was always the hit on Dukakis -- that he was always a bit of an elitist. An East Coast elitist who just doesn't relate to the common man very well. … There is that sense sometimes that [Obama] doesn't connect on a personal level to small town America." – Chuck Todd (MSNBC, 4/11/2008)
"The swipe at small-town voters hurts with the former Reagan Democrats, a promising voters group for Obama… Many Americans (especially potential "Obamacans," as he calls his Republican supporters) embrace religion not because they’re bitter but because they believe it, and because it brings them daily purpose and comfort. The comments could prolong the Democratic race as it heads into Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana." – Mike Allen (Politico, 4/12/2008)
"I think it's a big problem for Senator Obama politically. Regardless of what he really meant by it, the idea that you're calling unemployed people bitter does not come off so good. I think that he's going to spend a lot of time on this between now and however long the election goes on." – Jill Zuckman (MSNBC, 4/11/2008)
"But the politics are unquestionably dangerous for a candidate whose appeal depends on him transcending traditional political adjectives like 'liberal' or 'elite.' Despite his working class upbringing, Obama's hyperconfidence sometimes translates as holier-than-thou, elitist, aristocratic, Dukakis-esque." – Marc Ambinder (Atlantic, 4/11/08)
"That sentence will lose him the election. He just announced to rural America: 'I don't like you.' Now you can vote against that guy not because you don't like him. You can vote against him because he doesn't like you." – Grover Norquist (ABC News Sneak Peak, 4/11/2008)
"If he said it, it's bad. He was making some effort to go after union members and working class whites in Pennsylvania. I think this will damage that effort, most certainly." – Mort Kondracke (FOX News, 4/11/2008)
"It drips with condescension. This is latte liberal condescension. … This is incredibly disrespectful and it tells you about his character." – Charles Krauthammer (FOX News, 4/11/2008)
"To count the ways in which this is bad: It sounds condescending. It tells people you want to like you that you think they're "bitter" about their lot. It suggests that guns, which are a huge voting bloc in Pennsylvania, and religion, which is huge everywhere, are manifestations of bitterness." – John Riley (Spin City Blog, 4/11/2008)
"Nobody wants to be called bitter." – Chris Matthews (MSNBC, 4/11/2008)
Condemnations of Obama's comments are coming from the political left, right and center, as it should. Obama is running television ads and making speeches saying he will unite this country. It's hard to take anyone serious as a unity candidate when they show such disrespect for so many Americans.
The TrekMedic appends:
Gentle readers, make no mistake: Obama has clearly lost the moral high ground the MSM crowd has foisted upon him for months. No amount of spin will gain him the respect of middle America again.
The longer this Democratic fiasco drags out, the more likely Sen John McCain will emerge victorious in November!
Cross-posting from PA's Number 1 blogger, Tony Phyrillas:
No amount of damage control is going to save the Barack Obama campaign over the candidate's latest condescending snipe at "bitter" working-class folks.
Maybe it was the fact that he was surrounded by "his kind of people," the social and economic elite in San Francisco that prompted Sen. Obama to insult so many people with one thoughtless remark. The "bitter" people Sen. Obama referred to includes about 85 percent of Americans who believe in God and the majority of Americans who understand that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms.
A true picture of Sen. Barack Obama is beginning to appear. It's not the color of his skin that is causing people to have second thoughts about Obama, it's the content of his character. Obama is nothing more than a rich, elitist snob who looks down on average Americans.
Three days after the comments, Obama is still claiming that his words were "twisted and mischaracterized." Just as his 20-year association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the American-hating preacher was twisted and mischaracterized? Just as his wife's comment about never being proud of this country until her husband started winning primary elections in 2008 was twisted and mischaracterized?
To borrow a phrase from John Edwards, there are two Americans. The one where liberal elitists like Barack and Michelle Obama live and the one where the rest of us live.
Here's a roundup of commentary compiled by the Republican National Committee about Sen. Obama's most recent misstep.
"A lot of people have been whispering, look this guy is just a charismatic Michael Dukakis. This was always the hit on Dukakis -- that he was always a bit of an elitist. An East Coast elitist who just doesn't relate to the common man very well. … There is that sense sometimes that [Obama] doesn't connect on a personal level to small town America." – Chuck Todd (MSNBC, 4/11/2008)
"The swipe at small-town voters hurts with the former Reagan Democrats, a promising voters group for Obama… Many Americans (especially potential "Obamacans," as he calls his Republican supporters) embrace religion not because they’re bitter but because they believe it, and because it brings them daily purpose and comfort. The comments could prolong the Democratic race as it heads into Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana." – Mike Allen (Politico, 4/12/2008)
"I think it's a big problem for Senator Obama politically. Regardless of what he really meant by it, the idea that you're calling unemployed people bitter does not come off so good. I think that he's going to spend a lot of time on this between now and however long the election goes on." – Jill Zuckman (MSNBC, 4/11/2008)
"But the politics are unquestionably dangerous for a candidate whose appeal depends on him transcending traditional political adjectives like 'liberal' or 'elite.' Despite his working class upbringing, Obama's hyperconfidence sometimes translates as holier-than-thou, elitist, aristocratic, Dukakis-esque." – Marc Ambinder (Atlantic, 4/11/08)
"That sentence will lose him the election. He just announced to rural America: 'I don't like you.' Now you can vote against that guy not because you don't like him. You can vote against him because he doesn't like you." – Grover Norquist (ABC News Sneak Peak, 4/11/2008)
"If he said it, it's bad. He was making some effort to go after union members and working class whites in Pennsylvania. I think this will damage that effort, most certainly." – Mort Kondracke (FOX News, 4/11/2008)
"It drips with condescension. This is latte liberal condescension. … This is incredibly disrespectful and it tells you about his character." – Charles Krauthammer (FOX News, 4/11/2008)
"To count the ways in which this is bad: It sounds condescending. It tells people you want to like you that you think they're "bitter" about their lot. It suggests that guns, which are a huge voting bloc in Pennsylvania, and religion, which is huge everywhere, are manifestations of bitterness." – John Riley (Spin City Blog, 4/11/2008)
"Nobody wants to be called bitter." – Chris Matthews (MSNBC, 4/11/2008)
Condemnations of Obama's comments are coming from the political left, right and center, as it should. Obama is running television ads and making speeches saying he will unite this country. It's hard to take anyone serious as a unity candidate when they show such disrespect for so many Americans.
The TrekMedic appends:
Gentle readers, make no mistake: Obama has clearly lost the moral high ground the MSM crowd has foisted upon him for months. No amount of spin will gain him the respect of middle America again.
The longer this Democratic fiasco drags out, the more likely Sen John McCain will emerge victorious in November!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Good News for McCain in Pennsylvania!
HT to Tony Phyrillas!
This is being cross-posted to the Red November 2008 blog, as well.
A new poll comes out every day, but the news is not good for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Rasmussen Reports – Sen. McCain continues to lead both potential Democrat opponents
McCain = 51%
Obama = 41%
McCain = 50%
Clinton = 43%
To read the full poll, click here.
And the longer the Democrats battle for the nomination, the bigger the split within the party.
Rasmussen Reports – Twenty-two percent of Democrats say Clinton or Obama should drop out
Democrats who believe Clinton should drop out = 22%
Democrats who believe Obama should drop out = 22%
Democrats who aren’t ready for the race to end = 62%
To read the full poll, click here.
Another polls finds 48 percent of voters have a negative image of Hillary Clinton. How do you win the presidency with just 42 percent of the vote?
Democrats appear to have done it to themselves again: Snatch defeat from the mouth of victory.
The TrekMedic adds:
A bit of Hill-arious schadenfreude here, huh? From the party that rails against the stereotypical "rich, white businessman" of the Republican Party, comes representatives from the two major Democratic demographics (a black man and a woman, in case people like Will Bunch or the Philly Progressives don't get it,..) and,..THEY STILL CAN'T GET IT RIGHT!!
This is being cross-posted to the Red November 2008 blog, as well.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
That sinking feeling ... for Democrats
That sinking feeling ... for Democrats
A new poll comes out every day, but the news is not good for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Rasmussen Reports – Sen. McCain continues to lead both potential Democrat opponents
McCain = 51%
Obama = 41%
McCain = 50%
Clinton = 43%
To read the full poll, click here.
And the longer the Democrats battle for the nomination, the bigger the split within the party.
Rasmussen Reports – Twenty-two percent of Democrats say Clinton or Obama should drop out
Democrats who believe Clinton should drop out = 22%
Democrats who believe Obama should drop out = 22%
Democrats who aren’t ready for the race to end = 62%
To read the full poll, click here.
Another polls finds 48 percent of voters have a negative image of Hillary Clinton. How do you win the presidency with just 42 percent of the vote?
Democrats appear to have done it to themselves again: Snatch defeat from the mouth of victory.
The TrekMedic adds:
A bit of Hill-arious schadenfreude here, huh? From the party that rails against the stereotypical "rich, white businessman" of the Republican Party, comes representatives from the two major Democratic demographics (a black man and a woman, in case people like Will Bunch or the Philly Progressives don't get it,..) and,..THEY STILL CAN'T GET IT RIGHT!!
Friday, March 7, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
McCain on Healthcare
Daniel Ruwe posts this opinion on McCain's healthcare platform:
Healthcare is one the major issues of this presidential campaign. Most people believe that health insurance is a problem—and they are right. According to Consumer Affairs magazine, America has the most expensive health care in the world. Some people (mostly conservatives) claim that America has the best healthcare in the world. Sadly, they are deluding themselves. The United States spends $5,300 per person on health care. In contrast, Canada spends around $2000 per person, Switzerland $3500 person, and Japan around $2000 per person. Even if we assume that America’s healthcare service is better than that of other countries, the amount of money spent is ridiculous.
Granted, conservatives aren’t the only ones deluding themselves about health care. Liberals do as well. They relentlessly repeat the statistic that “47 million Americans are without health insurance”. They don’t mention that many of those Americans can afford health insurance, but they simply don’t buy it because they do not believe that costs equal the benefits.
Another myth perpetuated by liberals is the idea that a lack of health insurance equals a lack of health care. Certainly, there are cases where Americans die due to a lack of health care. Just not very many. The cases Democrats use as examples of our desperate need for universal health insurance aren’t exactly cases of desperate need. Take, for example, John Edwards’ oft-repeated tale of a man with a cleft palate who couldn’t talk until he got an operation at age fifty. A sad story, certainly, and I do feel sorry for that individual. But it is not a life threatening illness. We are not turning dreadfully ill people away from hospitals en masse. Health insurance is a financial crisis for many. Health care is not. Most people, regardless of their financial position, receive some measure of health care when ill.
So both liberals and conservatives have erroneous views of our healthcare system. Which presidential candidate has the best grasp of health care?
Barack Obama supports the standard liberal solution of government provided universal healthcare. He will implement a national health plan that features guaranteed eligibility, affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles, and quality and efficiency.
He does not say how he will pay for all of this, but it is obvious that he will do say through tax hikes on the rich and on the middle class. His plan will also give the government massive control of our health care system. It will require employers who do not contribute to the healthcare of their workers to contribute a percentage of their payroll towards the national plan, would require that children have insurance coverage, and would control insurance price increases. Obama’s healthcare plan is European-style socialized medicine.
(On a slightly unrelated note, some of the claims made on Obama’s website seem a little suspect. Do 133 million Americans really suffer from a chronic disease? And does mental illness affect one in five American families? Those claims, in particular, sound unrealistic.)
On the Republican side, the “conservative” candidate, Mitt Romney, proposed a health care plan similar to the one he implemented in Massachutsets. He pushed employers to provide healthcare, expanded the ranks of Medicaid, and some subsities. (He figured out the need for subsities through an “econometric model” of the population, which sounds very much like a phrase Romney would use). Perhaps these innovations were not particularly conservative, but they were not completely intolerable either.
However, health insurance mandates, which Romney also proposed, are completely intolerable. The state should not have the right to force people to buy health insurance. One’s health should be a private matter, and one that the state should not micromanage. This idea is totally contrary to conservative principles.
John McCain’s healthcare plan is fairly good, which is surprising, given his rather liberal record. He focuses on promoting competition in the healthcare system by permitting providers to practice nationwide across state lines, and by letting people purchase health insurance through any organization they choose, whether it be through employers, individual purchases, churches, or any other organization. He would provide everyone with a $2,500 tax credit for insurance coverage to eliminate the bias towards employer coverage. He would also attempt to limit frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards. There are, thankfully, no individual mandates in McCain’s plan.
McCain’s plan is far from perfect—it does expand the role of the federal government beyond what most libertarians consider proper. However, it is incalculably better than Barack Obama’s plan. It is also sounder than Mitt Romney’s (considered by Ann Coulter, among others, to be “manifestly the best candidate”) proposal. John McCain is weak on many issues—but healthcare is not one of them.
Healthcare is one the major issues of this presidential campaign. Most people believe that health insurance is a problem—and they are right. According to Consumer Affairs magazine, America has the most expensive health care in the world. Some people (mostly conservatives) claim that America has the best healthcare in the world. Sadly, they are deluding themselves. The United States spends $5,300 per person on health care. In contrast, Canada spends around $2000 per person, Switzerland $3500 person, and Japan around $2000 per person. Even if we assume that America’s healthcare service is better than that of other countries, the amount of money spent is ridiculous.
Granted, conservatives aren’t the only ones deluding themselves about health care. Liberals do as well. They relentlessly repeat the statistic that “47 million Americans are without health insurance”. They don’t mention that many of those Americans can afford health insurance, but they simply don’t buy it because they do not believe that costs equal the benefits.
Another myth perpetuated by liberals is the idea that a lack of health insurance equals a lack of health care. Certainly, there are cases where Americans die due to a lack of health care. Just not very many. The cases Democrats use as examples of our desperate need for universal health insurance aren’t exactly cases of desperate need. Take, for example, John Edwards’ oft-repeated tale of a man with a cleft palate who couldn’t talk until he got an operation at age fifty. A sad story, certainly, and I do feel sorry for that individual. But it is not a life threatening illness. We are not turning dreadfully ill people away from hospitals en masse. Health insurance is a financial crisis for many. Health care is not. Most people, regardless of their financial position, receive some measure of health care when ill.
So both liberals and conservatives have erroneous views of our healthcare system. Which presidential candidate has the best grasp of health care?
Barack Obama supports the standard liberal solution of government provided universal healthcare. He will implement a national health plan that features guaranteed eligibility, affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles, and quality and efficiency.
He does not say how he will pay for all of this, but it is obvious that he will do say through tax hikes on the rich and on the middle class. His plan will also give the government massive control of our health care system. It will require employers who do not contribute to the healthcare of their workers to contribute a percentage of their payroll towards the national plan, would require that children have insurance coverage, and would control insurance price increases. Obama’s healthcare plan is European-style socialized medicine.
(On a slightly unrelated note, some of the claims made on Obama’s website seem a little suspect. Do 133 million Americans really suffer from a chronic disease? And does mental illness affect one in five American families? Those claims, in particular, sound unrealistic.)
On the Republican side, the “conservative” candidate, Mitt Romney, proposed a health care plan similar to the one he implemented in Massachutsets. He pushed employers to provide healthcare, expanded the ranks of Medicaid, and some subsities. (He figured out the need for subsities through an “econometric model” of the population, which sounds very much like a phrase Romney would use). Perhaps these innovations were not particularly conservative, but they were not completely intolerable either.
However, health insurance mandates, which Romney also proposed, are completely intolerable. The state should not have the right to force people to buy health insurance. One’s health should be a private matter, and one that the state should not micromanage. This idea is totally contrary to conservative principles.
John McCain’s healthcare plan is fairly good, which is surprising, given his rather liberal record. He focuses on promoting competition in the healthcare system by permitting providers to practice nationwide across state lines, and by letting people purchase health insurance through any organization they choose, whether it be through employers, individual purchases, churches, or any other organization. He would provide everyone with a $2,500 tax credit for insurance coverage to eliminate the bias towards employer coverage. He would also attempt to limit frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards. There are, thankfully, no individual mandates in McCain’s plan.
McCain’s plan is far from perfect—it does expand the role of the federal government beyond what most libertarians consider proper. However, it is incalculably better than Barack Obama’s plan. It is also sounder than Mitt Romney’s (considered by Ann Coulter, among others, to be “manifestly the best candidate”) proposal. John McCain is weak on many issues—but healthcare is not one of them.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Better Red Than Dead!
Cross-posted from the TrekMedic's blog:
In a perfect world, Obama's inexperience would trump his erudition and articulation,...
In a perfect world, Billary's Machiavellian politics would've landed both of them in Leavenworth a long time ago,....
In a perfect world, the Thompson/Romney ticket would've garnered 90% of the electoral college vote.
But we don't live in a perfect world, do we?
The TrekMedic started this Red November campaign supporting Fred Thompson; but, he was too slow and his momentum came too late.
Then the TrekMedic threw his support behind Mitt Romney; but, he was blind-sided by the two-pronged McCain/Huckabee attack.
And so now we are left with McCain and two extreme leftists as our choices.
We already know what the White House will be like if Shrillary or Obama win,..we've seen it under the aegis of Empress Nancy and her Senatorial lapdog, Harry Reid.
People fear that John McCain is too much of a RINO. Given his actions with Sen. Feingold and the Gang of Fourteen, those suspicions are quite valid.
But we don't know what the future holds, do we?
George W. Bush ran on a campaign of "compassionate conservativism" against cries from the left of religious zealotry. And "W's" compassion went by the wayside on September 11, 2001, courtesy of a few religious zealots we didn't see coming.
There are those who would defer to the Dems in the hopes that things will get so bad, the only choice in 2012 would be going back to the Republicans.
We cannot afford the blood of 3000 more innocents to occur before that happens!
And there are some who would rather sit this election out on principal. That's not only hypocritical, but a black eye to not only our Constitution, but to those who dabbed the fingers in pots of ink to exercise the same rights for the first time in generations.
Marie offers her Two Cents on this subject as well:
A Message To My Republican/Conservative Party
Sitting out this election just because McCain is going to be our nominee is sheer stupidity! We still have the House and Senate to think of among other things.
Besides if the word's "President Elect-Clinton" or "President Elect-Obama" dont scare the absolute hell out of you, YOU have something wrong with YOU!
Staying home will be a Vote for Hillary, or Obama and God know's who in the House and Senate.
I am and alway's will be a FredHead, but he left me, then Romney left me, but did I leave the Republican Reservation? Hell No!! A True Republican/Conservative does'nt leave the reservation just because they didnt get thier perfect candidate!
McCain has done alot of things we ALL didnt approve of and we flat out called him out on and when it came to Amnesty, we got it stopped! ALL OF US.
He said in his speech (See Post Below) that he has heard us. And he swears he will consult with his own Republicans and Conservatives that will be surrounding him that know what WE want and how pissed off WE will get if HE does'nt listen to us.
And then there's the SCOTUS. He will appoint Conservative Judges, if Obama and/or Hillary are elected, they wont.
And then there is the War on Terror. Do we want to go back to a police action? Do we want to be atttacked repeatedly? Instead of confronting those that want to kill us and keep them busy somewhere else than here at home? Well Clinton nor Obama will, they will withdraw and Al-Qaeda will be able to set up a safe haven in Iraq and our Soldiers will have died in vein.
Does anybody really want that?
I'm just saying, I would rather have some kind of Conservative then none!
DeMint Calls on Conservatives to Back McCain
McCain Sends Chill Down Spine, Reid Says
Anyone that send's chills down Harry Reid's spine has got to be doing something right lol
Conservatives Ready to Support McCain
And that, gentle readers, is it. We must put aside our differences and unite to save this country from the slippery slope of Socialism. We MUST vote in November and we MUST vote for John McCain!
In a perfect world, Obama's inexperience would trump his erudition and articulation,...
In a perfect world, Billary's Machiavellian politics would've landed both of them in Leavenworth a long time ago,....
In a perfect world, the Thompson/Romney ticket would've garnered 90% of the electoral college vote.
But we don't live in a perfect world, do we?
The TrekMedic started this Red November campaign supporting Fred Thompson; but, he was too slow and his momentum came too late.
Then the TrekMedic threw his support behind Mitt Romney; but, he was blind-sided by the two-pronged McCain/Huckabee attack.
And so now we are left with McCain and two extreme leftists as our choices.
We already know what the White House will be like if Shrillary or Obama win,..we've seen it under the aegis of Empress Nancy and her Senatorial lapdog, Harry Reid.
People fear that John McCain is too much of a RINO. Given his actions with Sen. Feingold and the Gang of Fourteen, those suspicions are quite valid.
But we don't know what the future holds, do we?
George W. Bush ran on a campaign of "compassionate conservativism" against cries from the left of religious zealotry. And "W's" compassion went by the wayside on September 11, 2001, courtesy of a few religious zealots we didn't see coming.
There are those who would defer to the Dems in the hopes that things will get so bad, the only choice in 2012 would be going back to the Republicans.
We cannot afford the blood of 3000 more innocents to occur before that happens!
And there are some who would rather sit this election out on principal. That's not only hypocritical, but a black eye to not only our Constitution, but to those who dabbed the fingers in pots of ink to exercise the same rights for the first time in generations.
Marie offers her Two Cents on this subject as well:
A Message To My Republican/Conservative Party
Do NOT Sit Out This Election Just Because McCain Is Going To Be Our Nominee!!
Sitting out this election just because McCain is going to be our nominee is sheer stupidity! We still have the House and Senate to think of among other things.
Besides if the word's "President Elect-Clinton" or "President Elect-Obama" dont scare the absolute hell out of you, YOU have something wrong with YOU!
Staying home will be a Vote for Hillary, or Obama and God know's who in the House and Senate.
I am and alway's will be a FredHead, but he left me, then Romney left me, but did I leave the Republican Reservation? Hell No!! A True Republican/Conservative does'nt leave the reservation just because they didnt get thier perfect candidate!
McCain has done alot of things we ALL didnt approve of and we flat out called him out on and when it came to Amnesty, we got it stopped! ALL OF US.
He said in his speech (See Post Below) that he has heard us. And he swears he will consult with his own Republicans and Conservatives that will be surrounding him that know what WE want and how pissed off WE will get if HE does'nt listen to us.
And then there's the SCOTUS. He will appoint Conservative Judges, if Obama and/or Hillary are elected, they wont.
And then there is the War on Terror. Do we want to go back to a police action? Do we want to be atttacked repeatedly? Instead of confronting those that want to kill us and keep them busy somewhere else than here at home? Well Clinton nor Obama will, they will withdraw and Al-Qaeda will be able to set up a safe haven in Iraq and our Soldiers will have died in vein.
Does anybody really want that?
I'm just saying, I would rather have some kind of Conservative then none!
DeMint Calls on Conservatives to Back McCain
McCain Sends Chill Down Spine, Reid Says
Anyone that send's chills down Harry Reid's spine has got to be doing something right lol
Conservatives Ready to Support McCain
And that, gentle readers, is it. We must put aside our differences and unite to save this country from the slippery slope of Socialism. We MUST vote in November and we MUST vote for John McCain!
Friday, February 1, 2008
More Thoughts on Who's Left,....
Daniel Ruwe weighs in with a rumination on the Republican front runners:
John McCain-Disaster?
There seems to be a great deal of angst among conservatives regarding the probability that John McCain will be the GOP nominee. They feel as though the Reagan coalition has been irreparably (at least this year) sundered, and that the GOP is basically doomed. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to say that he would consider withholding his support for McCain even into the general election, which is more or less unprecedented for him. Many other prominent conservatives have expressed much the same sentiments.
Of course, maybe McCain wouldn’t be getting so much support if so many conservatives hadn’t thrown their support to Rudy Giuliani early on. Values voters are perhaps the Republican Party’s strongest supporters—did anybody think that they would support the unapologetically pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani?
In any case, John McCain isn’t much worse than conservative favorite Mitt Romney. McCain is weak on taxes. Romney’s health care plan mandated health care for everybody. McCain supports amnesty. So did Romney, till he noticed the polls. McCain believes in global warming. Romney supports stringent gun control laws.
Such a list could go on for a long time. The main difference between the two candidates is: Mitt Romney cares about conservatives enough to pander to them. John McCain won’t even do that. In McCain’s favor, he probably has a better chance of winning a general election than Romney does.
Take your pick—a probable loser who will pander to conservatives, or one who has a real chance who seems to enjoy antagonizing us. There are no good choices.
John McCain-Disaster?
There seems to be a great deal of angst among conservatives regarding the probability that John McCain will be the GOP nominee. They feel as though the Reagan coalition has been irreparably (at least this year) sundered, and that the GOP is basically doomed. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to say that he would consider withholding his support for McCain even into the general election, which is more or less unprecedented for him. Many other prominent conservatives have expressed much the same sentiments.
Of course, maybe McCain wouldn’t be getting so much support if so many conservatives hadn’t thrown their support to Rudy Giuliani early on. Values voters are perhaps the Republican Party’s strongest supporters—did anybody think that they would support the unapologetically pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani?
In any case, John McCain isn’t much worse than conservative favorite Mitt Romney. McCain is weak on taxes. Romney’s health care plan mandated health care for everybody. McCain supports amnesty. So did Romney, till he noticed the polls. McCain believes in global warming. Romney supports stringent gun control laws.
Such a list could go on for a long time. The main difference between the two candidates is: Mitt Romney cares about conservatives enough to pander to them. John McCain won’t even do that. In McCain’s favor, he probably has a better chance of winning a general election than Romney does.
Take your pick—a probable loser who will pander to conservatives, or one who has a real chance who seems to enjoy antagonizing us. There are no good choices.
Friday, January 11, 2008
John McCain: GOP Frontrunner?
So asks Daniel Ruwe at Right Minds:
Monday, I wrote that the media should consider the fates of other presumptive Presidential nominees before anointing Barack Obama the Democrat nominee after his impressive Iowa caucus victory. I pointed out that there have been many candidates who win a surprise victory, build up momentum, and are crowned their party’s nominee. Usually, they ultimately lose their momentum, and then their Presidential bid.
I pointed out the examples of John McCain and Howard Dean, among others. And as it turned out, Obama’s drive for the nomination was seriously impeded by his amazing loss in the New Hampshire primary. Before the votes were counted, the only question among literally all political observers was the question of how badly Hillary would be defeated. She came away with a victory. For a week, pundits on both the left and right predicted the fall of the Clintons, and the ascendancy of Barack Obama. They were dead wrong.
One such mistake is explicable. However, the very same pundits and media figures who were so wrong about Obama are now making the precise, identical error yet again.
It involves the other party, but the principle is the same. John McCain is now seen as the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. It is undeniable that his New Hampshire win gave him a great deal of momentum, and that the polls do look good for him. However, a quick look back at the last two months show an amazing degree of votality in the Republican race.
After Rudy Giuliani’s campaign started to fizzle, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner. Then came the “Huckaboom”, the rise of Mike Huckabee. Then the “Huckabust”, which came after his series of bizarre gaffes—such as his anti-Mormon innuendo, his foreign policy blunders, and the strange episode in which he aired an attack ad against Mitt Romney while simultaneously sanctimoniously declaring his abstinence from that sort of thing.
However, Huckabee’s fall existed only in the minds of over analyzing pundits. He won Iowa easily, and became the new frontrunner. Then, of course, came McCain’s win in New Hampshire, giving him the frontrunner title, and naming him the probable nominee.
With wild momentum shifts like those noted above, it is foolish to declare anyone the inevitable nominee. However, it is not as if this is a first time this has happened. In 2000, McCain won New Hampshire, and was hailed, while possibly not as the frontrunner, certainly as a very serious challenge for Bush. When the South Carolina primary came around, McCain sank.
It is hard to see where all of McCain’s support for the nomination will come from. Most hardcore conservatives see him as a moderate and a sell-out, and have never trusted him. In addition, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens will also seriously damage his campaign. He does not have the natural base the other candidates have—Thompson and Romney are going after the conservative vote, Giuliani is trying to parlay his post-9/11 performance into a nomination (nothing wrong with that, by the way. He has every right to be proud of his performance on 9/11), and Huckabee is looking for the evangelical vote. McCain will get some votes from those concerned about nation security, but all the candidates (with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee) can look for votes from that group, as their foreign policies are all fairly homogenous.
Even factoring in the above obstacles, John McCain does have a good shot at the nomination. It is simply that his nomination is not inevitable, or anything like it. The media’s insistence on crowning a new nominee after every minute shift in public opinion is absurd. I doubt whether it has any effect on voting trends—in didn’t in New Hampshire. It just makes the media look silly. John McCain may end up winning the GOP nomination. However, if he does, it will come after a few more ups and downs for his campaign, and in spite of the media’s arguments for his “inevitability”, not because of them.
Monday, I wrote that the media should consider the fates of other presumptive Presidential nominees before anointing Barack Obama the Democrat nominee after his impressive Iowa caucus victory. I pointed out that there have been many candidates who win a surprise victory, build up momentum, and are crowned their party’s nominee. Usually, they ultimately lose their momentum, and then their Presidential bid.
I pointed out the examples of John McCain and Howard Dean, among others. And as it turned out, Obama’s drive for the nomination was seriously impeded by his amazing loss in the New Hampshire primary. Before the votes were counted, the only question among literally all political observers was the question of how badly Hillary would be defeated. She came away with a victory. For a week, pundits on both the left and right predicted the fall of the Clintons, and the ascendancy of Barack Obama. They were dead wrong.
One such mistake is explicable. However, the very same pundits and media figures who were so wrong about Obama are now making the precise, identical error yet again.
It involves the other party, but the principle is the same. John McCain is now seen as the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. It is undeniable that his New Hampshire win gave him a great deal of momentum, and that the polls do look good for him. However, a quick look back at the last two months show an amazing degree of votality in the Republican race.
After Rudy Giuliani’s campaign started to fizzle, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner. Then came the “Huckaboom”, the rise of Mike Huckabee. Then the “Huckabust”, which came after his series of bizarre gaffes—such as his anti-Mormon innuendo, his foreign policy blunders, and the strange episode in which he aired an attack ad against Mitt Romney while simultaneously sanctimoniously declaring his abstinence from that sort of thing.
However, Huckabee’s fall existed only in the minds of over analyzing pundits. He won Iowa easily, and became the new frontrunner. Then, of course, came McCain’s win in New Hampshire, giving him the frontrunner title, and naming him the probable nominee.
With wild momentum shifts like those noted above, it is foolish to declare anyone the inevitable nominee. However, it is not as if this is a first time this has happened. In 2000, McCain won New Hampshire, and was hailed, while possibly not as the frontrunner, certainly as a very serious challenge for Bush. When the South Carolina primary came around, McCain sank.
It is hard to see where all of McCain’s support for the nomination will come from. Most hardcore conservatives see him as a moderate and a sell-out, and have never trusted him. In addition, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens will also seriously damage his campaign. He does not have the natural base the other candidates have—Thompson and Romney are going after the conservative vote, Giuliani is trying to parlay his post-9/11 performance into a nomination (nothing wrong with that, by the way. He has every right to be proud of his performance on 9/11), and Huckabee is looking for the evangelical vote. McCain will get some votes from those concerned about nation security, but all the candidates (with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee) can look for votes from that group, as their foreign policies are all fairly homogenous.
Even factoring in the above obstacles, John McCain does have a good shot at the nomination. It is simply that his nomination is not inevitable, or anything like it. The media’s insistence on crowning a new nominee after every minute shift in public opinion is absurd. I doubt whether it has any effect on voting trends—in didn’t in New Hampshire. It just makes the media look silly. John McCain may end up winning the GOP nomination. However, if he does, it will come after a few more ups and downs for his campaign, and in spite of the media’s arguments for his “inevitability”, not because of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
