Keep America Strong

“Change” – A New Way of Saying “I’m Not The Other Guy”

2008-09-15T08:41:00.004-04:00

Barack Obama has based his entire political campaign on a mantra of “change we can believe in” and “hope for the future”. But a commercial for his campaign has tipped me off that this is a more positive way of saying “I’m not the other guy”. The ad directs people who are starting to question exactly what his plans are to find them at Obama’s website.

John Kerry had the same answer when America wanted to know what his plan was for the problems we faced in Iraq. Look at the website.

My brother is a history teacher. In 2004, when kids in his class were screaming that they wanted Kerry to win, he gave an optional homework assignment. He told them to go to John Kerry’s website and find out what his plan was for Iraq. Not one student completed the assignment.

That is what Obama is banking will be the reaction to this ad: that no one will actually check, but that people will assume that he has a plan. It is rooted in a bit of liberal arrogance, when you think about it: my policies are too detailed to talk about in a commercial; you aren’t smart enough to handle it. As was said about Kerry's plan to ask the French for permission for everything, we won't get the nuance.

For all of his blather about wanting to discuss issues—rather than his audience cheering at the idea that Sarah Palin is a pig—Obama, like Kerry, doesn’t seem to want to advertise what his policies will be. This fits with a voting record that includes over 130 “present” votes that Obama has recorded in the Senate. No one can argue with a position that doesn’t exist.

Obama’s policies include bigger government and higher taxes. They include cutting defense spending in the middle of a war. They include allowing a baby that survives an abortion attempt to die in the trash. I wouldn’t advertise that kind of ideology either.

One of his policy positions that he will advertise is a tax cut for the middle class. Does anyone seriously believe Democrats when they promise to cut taxes any more? I am 40 years old. I have never in my entire life seen a Democrat cut taxes. How in the world can people still believe that it will happen?

Barack Obama is running the same campaign that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Mike Dukakis, and Walter Mondale ran before him: At least I’m not a Republican. He is just dressing it up differently: in an inspiring—and insidiously vapid—message of “change”. Hope for the future.

John Kerry had no policies, no plans, no vision. He offered absolutely nothing on policy that America was ready to support. He ran his entire campaign on “I served in Vietnam” and “I’m not George W. Bush”.

With George W. Bush not even on the ballot anymore, Barack Obama is doing the same thing. Except he doesn’t even have the service bit to offer. Compared to his opponent, he is woefully inferior on that front.

Negative campaigning does work. It was the first excuse out of Michael Dukakis’s mouth when he got creamed in 1988, after it was revealed—in one of those “negative attack ads”—that he let murderers out of jail on weekends in Massachusetts. You can win the left in this country with a negative campaign—conservatives are routinely called “Nazis” by people who would gladly vote for Adolf Hitler if he were running against a pro-life Republican. But at some point, a candidate should have to offer a reason to vote for him or her, and not against their opponent.

That Obama’s people have rallied around “hope” and “change” is a more positive way of saying it, but the Democrat candidate for the highest office in the world is still hiding his actual policy positions.

Let’s ask that dying infant that survived an abortion attempt how she likes Obama’s vision.

Dubya Is Blacker Than Obama

2008-08-07T08:30:00.001-04:00

I’ve been reading the exchange (shared on Rush Limbaugh’s website) between Barack Obama and Jon Ralston, someone who interviewed him and asked about his constantly moving position on drilling. Obama called Ralston “McCain’s proxy” in between nervous dodges of the question. This not long after bleating about being compared to brainless vixens.

I have never met a black person in my life…and I grew up in Willingboro…who acts as arrogant, elitist, and entitled as Barack Obama does.

Remember that Barack Obama is not fully black, like, say, Condoleezza Rice. He is only half black. Or, more correctly, he is black when it suits him, like when it enables him to cry racism on the part of his political opponents, or to tout his political candidacy as historic, or to cite the “black experience” as a defense of his hatemongering preacher.

Obama has probably experienced racism in his life. But I can’t off of the top of my head think of anyone who has benefited more from his race, either. He has gotten within inches of becoming the most powerful person in the world based entirely on the color of his skin.

Any black person can tell you story after story of being pulled over by the police for no reason, or being suspiciously watched in a store, or having your skin color attached to an evaluation of your character. I was friendly with a black co-worker some time ago—one of the finest, nicest people you will ever meet in your life—who shared some of those experiences with me. And it troubled me that someone so friendly had to deal with that.

The main force behind the drive to refer to Bill Clinton as the “first black president” wasn’t his supposed love of education—he didn’t come out for any improvement in our rotting—especially in urban areas—education system at any time in his presidency. It wasn’t his apologies in Africa for slavery—Africa continues slavery in many countries.

Bill Clinton was laughably hailed as understanding the black experience because he was seen as a target, a patsy for old white Republicans. Clinton helped foster this image, running to the blackest church he could find every time he was literally caught with his pants down and comparing himself to Selma.

Clinton tapped into the black experience of being wrongly accused. Except everything Clinton was accused of was true…the extramarital affairs, the sexual harassment, the pardon-selling.

Compare that to our current president. He has been called every name in the book…a liar based on weapons of mass destruction, while it has been conveniently forgotten that everyone from John Kerry to liberals’ holy United Nations was saying the same thing. Nazi. Imperialist. Warmonger. Bush is not even close to any of these things. Would liberals only have had a tenth of the disdain for Saddam.

And let’s not forget being called a moron slightly more than ten billion times by supposed journalists. According to most everyone on the left, there has never been anyone with a lower IQ occupying the White House. Is that not something blacks are perpetually tagged with? Do liberals endlessly defend affirmative action in the assumption that blacks aren’t capable of getting into college on their own?

Compare that to the treatment Barack Obama, a genuine idiot, is receiving in the mass media today. A brilliant speaker, (or the much-needed “clean” black man, according to Joe Biden, D, Delaware), a radiant, charismatic, compassionate leader. A new kind of politician.

Truthfully, Barack Obama is a mulatto, wealthy, elitist snob who, like rock stars, acts as though everyone around him should be acting like his entourage, never questioning him, never challenging him. All because he can read a teleprompter. At least most rock stars spent time learning an instrument.

When it comes to media coverage, George W. Bush understands the black experience…being wrongly accused, being constantly and unfairly hounded, being considered stupid without dispute. Obama gets one tough question and cries media partisanship. He sees one truthful ad run by his opponent and cries racism.

President Bush and most black people I know are tougher than that.

OJBama

2008-08-01T09:31:00.003-04:00

The party of Abraham Lincoln constantly bends over backwards to avoid looking like racists. The reason for this is that it has been a favorite argument of Democrats and the mainstream media for so long to call us racists, in the absence of a worthwhile defense of the welfare state, that it is simply accepted as conventional wisdom today that conservative = racist. Such is the reason for blacks voting en masse for a political party that has enslaved them to just one acceptable way of thinking. Witness the treatment of Condoleeza Rice, who understands the black experience more than Bill Clinton ever could.

Trent Lott and Chris Dodd are good examples of the pressure Republicans face to constantly toe the line on their words, while Democrats needn’t bother with constant self-policing of their public statements. Lott suggested in 2003 that the country would have been a lot better off if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency when he ran. The media immediately jumped on the statement, pointing out that Thurmond was a segregationist at the time. The outcry was so swift and loud that Lott stepped down as the Senate majority leader after approximately eight dozen apologies to anyone who might have once met a black person.

Not a year after the Lott misadventure, Democratic senator Chris Dodd (whose other claim to fame was a waitress sandwich he made with Ted Kennedy, another Democrat hailed for his empathy to the plight of working women) made the statement that former KKK member Robert Byrd, senator from West Virginia, would have been a great president at any time in this nation’s history, presumably including during the Civil War.

Dodd’s statement was studiously ignored by the media and he suffered no punishment. He has even actually considered a presidential run.

With the media in their pocket, Democrats can continue to play the race card with impunity, knowing that they will never be held to an ideological standard in the arena of race. And already, before even August, Barack Obama has twice attempted to exploit this.

About a month before saying that the Republicans will keep reminding everyone that Obama doesn’t look like other presidents on dollar bills, Obama mythically quoted Republicans as saying “did we mention that he’s black?”

With Republicans constantly on the defensive about being called racists, especially McCain, who shows more fear of the media than he did for his captors in Vietnam, it’s hard to imagine that they would inject race into the campaign. The only person who has consistently injected race into the campaign is Barack Obama. He is the one constantly calling his candidacy historic. He is the one constantly repeating the word “change”.

While the media gets a warm feeling in their legs (which might just be pee) whenever they hear Obama speak, Americans may not be so receptive to this kind of politics. Especially the ones old enough to remember the OJ trial.

O.J. Simpson murdered his wife and her friend in a brutal butchering, and every speck of evidence in the case pointed to him. The only way to keep him from conviction was to convince the jury that he was framed like so many other black men.

Had I been part of the prosecution, I would have told the jury this: “the defendant has committed two vicious murders, and he has no alibi or defense that suggests otherwise. But now he is trying to sell you a larger fight, that you and he are part of a larger struggle, that you must do right by your race and let him walk. Do not let him get away with murder because he is reminding you of your struggles. If you do, it is the likes of him that will be associated with your race, not the likes of people who see past the color of one’s skin to do what is right.”

Today, McCain can state an almost verbatim response to Obama’s blatant use of the race card: “My opponent has no experience or qualifications, and he has no plan for the future or vision beyond “change” that suggests otherwise. But now he is trying to sell you a larger fight, that you and he are part of a larger struggle, that you must do right by your white guilt and elect him. Do not let him become the Commander in Chief because he is reminding you of your struggles. If you do, it is the likes of him that will be associated with America's racism, not the likes of people like you, who can see past the color of one’s skin to do what is right.”

Barack Obama isn’t a murderer (although he advocates it for infants who survive an attempted abortion), but he is using the same tactic O.J. Simpson used to walk on two murders to win election to the highest office in the land. He may be the only Democrat who can get me to vote for John McCain.

Had Bill Clinton Kept It In His Pants, Hillary Would Be The Nominee

2008-06-04T20:17:00.001-04:00

Before Barack Obama and the Drive-By media stopped Hillary’s inevitable juggernaut to the presidency, most thought that the biggest impediment to Hillary’s ascendance to the position would not be the pardons, the policies, or the peevish demeanor. After Hillary sewed up the nomination, it was believed, her biggest problem facing the Republicans was the baggage from her husband and his questionable morals and uncontrollable urges. After all, that kept Al Gore out of the White House in an election where he should have cruised to victory.

The legacy of Bill Clinton’s presidency is dubious at best. He presided over a strong peacetime economy, yes, though his contribution to that was little. He also signed welfare reform into law, which is to his credit even though it was the Republicans who put pressure on him to do so. Clinton could easily have played the compassion card, painted the bill as racist and the media surely would have run with that.

Bill Clinton also passed what is still today the largest tax hike in the nation’s history. It was the immediate tax hike by a brand new president whose popularity was shaky to begin with—he won the presidency with 43% of the vote as 15% of a nation disgusted with George H.W. Bush went for Ross Perot—that put him in a poor political position early in his presidency. The tax hike angered voters who had believed his oft-repeated promise of a middle-class tax cut, and two years later the Republicans owned Congress.

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear that Clinton also did not take terrorism seriously, repeatedly passing up on taking out Osama bin Laden. It’s not known whether that would have prevented 9/11, but it is known that attacks escalated throughout his presidency, up to the USS Cole in 2000, and his lack of a response emboldened the nation’s enemies.

Regardless, at the time the media was in the tank for Clinton, and so his presidency was repeatedly hailed as a triumph. So Republicans, eager to take the president down a notch, went after him on Whitewater, Travelgate, cattle futures, and a host of other numerous ethical lapses. None of that interested the American public, so the extramarital affairs, particularly the one with the 21-year-old intern, were amplified. It seemed to be the only way America would take a look.

Imagine if Republicans did not have the red meat of Monica, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and many others. No one would pay attention to Whitewater…it was too boring and complicated. Travelgate would have died down. Clinton’s presidency would be hailed for the nation’s economy and anything else that the media could think of (they made a point to cheer the bald eagle being taken off the endangered species list).

But the public couldn’t get enough of Monica, at least until she finally opened her mouth and told her story to Barbara Walters, at which point America promptly decided enough was enough.

Had Bill Clinton stayed faithful to Hillary (certainly a difficult concept to grasp, but bear with me), his popularity may have been enough not only to put Al Gore in the White House, but to have Hillary be the nominee today.

I’ve read comment after comment about Hillary that she and her lowlife dog of a husband need to go home and get the hell out of politics.

That Hillary continued to stay with her relentlessly cheating man was, to the public, very revealing. Think about it. Besides her personality obviously, what is it that makes people see Hillary as shamelessly, unquenchably thirsting for power, or that she seemed to think it was owed to her? Anyone who looked at the Clinton’s marriage for more than two seconds could not help but be mystified at its continued existence. Why did she stay? Why did she enable him? What could be any woman’s motivation for allowing herself to be humiliated so often and so brutally?

Human nature being what it is, people on both sides of the aisle speculated. Not being mind-readers of Scott McClellan’s caliber, most of us concluded that she needed her charming, highly politically skilled husband to counterpoint her tough demeanor and make her the perfect candidate for the most powerful person in the world.

After all, the only other obvious reason would be massive insecurity, and on the surface at least, Hillary doesn’t seem to suffer from that.

If Hillary were married to a loyal husband, she would have been seen as tough-minded instead of power-mad, happy and stable in her strong marriage instead of blindly consumed by political ambition. Her hard-nosed attributes, instead of working for her, ended up working against her, thanks to her philandering life partner. And if Hillary had been married to a loyal husband, there would have been far less baggage—no Monica, no Gennifer, no Kathleen, no Juanita—and far fewer reasons for major Democrat figures to kick her to the curb.

As difficult as it can be for Republicans, especially given that the slighted heiress made her own bed with Bill, there is actually reason to feel sorry for Mrs. Clinton today. Imagine all those years of very public humiliation for nothing. She might as well keep the bastard and continue to suffer his adultery…it does her no good to get rid of him now.

Remember that when they once again say it’s “just about sex”.

Scott McClellan’s Book Makes The Case For Bush

2008-05-29T20:26:00.003-04:00

I haven’t read Scott McClellan’s book. Unlike Scott, I cannot read minds, so I’m not sure exactly what his motivation was for writing it. But I will venture a guess that it was money. The guy was, after all, unemployed for a while.

Any prominent conservative will tell you that the world is offered to them if they would just change their political affiliation. Power, publicity, money, women (although they’re not attractive women like Rebecca Hagelin or Ann Coulter, more likely they’re hags like Barbra Streisand), all of it is theirs for the taking if they go liberal. It’s helped Arianna Huffington launch one of the most popular left-wing websites in America. It worked with David Brock until he stopped selling books…now no one knows who he is anymore. No less a staunch conservative as Rush Limbaugh has told many times of the left trying to tempt him. It seriously looks like they’ve gotten to McClellan.

So far, the astounding revelations in McClellan’s book are:

- Bush misled America to sell the war in Iraq.

Yawn. Tell us something we don’t know, Scott. While the Drive-By media template is always “Bush lied”, even many middle-of-the-roaders have accepted it as conventional wisdom that the Bush administration “sexed up” or “cherry-picked” the intelligence on Saddam. The liberal wall of sound repeating these assertions has allowed Americans to forget that all of the congressional investigations could find no evidence of this.

That a Bush insider is now saying so does not change that, unless he will reveal overwhelming evidence that Bush could not have honestly ignored. My guess is that the media and the Democrats would have done that by now.

It bears continual repeating: if Bush was lying, then either an entire Democratic party was lying with him, or the entire Democratic party didn’t bother to look at any of the intelligence at all. Read the quotes : Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, they’re all there.

See, what we neo-con right wing warmongers just refuse to accept is that Saddam wasn’t this horrible dictator that some of those Bible-thumpers say he is. He was just this struggling leader trying to run his far weaker country, victimized by Bush administration propaganda. All of the torture, rape, the mass graves, the atrocities against the Kuwaitis, the gassing of the Kurds (by the way, that sounds like a weapon of mass destruction), all of that was part of a Bush-media campaign forced on the public by those stupid old right-wingers who just want to take away a woman’s right to choose.

- Bush governs in a bubble and does not give weight to anything that contradicts what he believes.

Straight out of Time magazine, who actually did run a front cover of the president in a bubble. Scott isn’t even original.

When one looks at Bush’s policies, it’s hard to imagine that he’s even a Republican but for his firm stance on fighting terrorism. He let Ted Kennedy, the mortal enemy of Bush’s base, write an education bill that rewarded failing schools with even more billions. Kennedy thanked him by leading the movement to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito. He signed a prescription drug bill into law that could well bankrupt this nation to appease the AARP—who returned the favor by putting all of their members’ money and resources into defeating his plan to reform Social Security. It is doubtful that he could have more of a left-wing view of illegal immigration.

Bush has reached across the aisle more than any president I can think of, no matter how many times his arm gets bitten off by the Democrats. Hardly sounds like someone unwilling to listen to opposing views, even from people who trash him on an hourly basis. It’s hard to imagine how the man could be more open-minded.

And I might add, thus far in his political career, Barack Obama has shown no evidence that he thinks in any way but through the left-wing prism. Obama can show McClellan how governing from a bubble is really done.

- Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and “possibly” Dick Cheney were complicit in revealing Valerie Plame’s “secret” identity, and they lied to McClellan about it.

I hardly know where to start with this one. His evidence of this, according to the news stories I have read, is secret meetings between Rove and Libby that McClellan was not a part of. Did he hold a glass to the wall and listen in?

The Valerie Plame story will not die, despite that no “outing” was committed, and the only thing Scooter Libby was convicted of was a poor memory, for which he was nailed by “independent prosecutor” Patrick Fitzgerald . So apparently Rove and Libby didn’t reveal the name of a covert agent after all. The only thing that has been covert in all of the reporting about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame has been the fact that Plame wasn’t a covert agent.

Somehow no one is questioning why Plame’s secret identity didn’t prevent the Wilsons from appearing on TV shows and on the cover of magazines everywhere, even speculating who would play them in the movie. There’s no way Valerie Plame could ever be successful as a covert agent given her and her husband’s love of the spotlight.

- Bush’s real motivation for going into Iraq was to help bring peace to a long-troubled region.

Here is one of the few points where McClellan doesn’t quite exactly sound like a left-wing blogger, as Karl Rove so precisely and accurately put it. McClellan still thinks Bush is a liar, but that his intentions were good. Only a Washington insider of so many years could damn with such faint praise.

But for all the libs that are going to rely on McClellan for further proof of Bush as Satan, just remember: it wasn’t for oil, it wasn’t for Cheney’s buddies at Halliburton, it wasn’t to expressly kill Muslims and force Christianity on the Iraqi people, and it certainly wasn’t the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

McClellan’s evidence of this (and again, I haven’t read the book) is, well, I don’t really know. That seems a very odd assertion to make without being able to read another person’s mind.

Coming after 9/11, I’m not sure that is even a flawed motivation for removing a brutal dictator. The region’s violence had now extended to our shores. What exactly…and I have asked this a million times and still not heard a viable answer from Democrats…would liberals have had us do in response to this?

- The president ran a perpetual campaign throughout the first term of his presidency.

This is also surprising, since his poll numbers were low enough in 2004 that a phony gigolo who helped us lose in Vietnam was actually able to give him a run for his money. Bush knew what brought his poll numbers up: more air bombing in Iraq. I would think someone trying to drive up his poll numbers would be running a shock and awe show every week.

- Bush was in a state of paralysis during Katrina.

Well, he wasn’t the only one. New Orleans mayor Ray “School Bus” Nagin (D) got himself out of there in a hurry, leaving over 1,000 school buses that could have been used to evacuate people idle. Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco (D) ignored the phone call from (surprise!) the president himself, warning her that she should be evacuating the people of New Orleans. By the way, the president declared a state of emergency two days before the hurricane hit. Which didn’t stop her from blaming the whole tragedy on him.

Not to mention Michael Moore, Kanye West and every Democrat alive immediately pouncing on the disaster to score political points against the president, some even blaming global warming for the hurricane. None of them seemed interested in helping the people that were in great need. Guess they don’t care about black people.

While the Democrats were piling on, the president put aside partisanship and called on his father and former president Clinton to join together to request help for the region, once again showing more maturity in his pinky finger than in the entire Democratic party.

And don’t forget William Jefferson (D), the local congressman who sent the National Guard in to get the bribe money out of his freezer. At least he wasn’t sleeping.

- Condoleeza Rice excels at PR and deftly manages her image.

As opposed to the genuine humanist Scott McClellan, who was relieved of his press secretary duties and wrote a book trashing the president, claiming his whole presidency is a bunch of lies, while he himself was just an innocent dupe of the president and his advisors. Certainly, image or fame is not McClellan’s motivation. He desires only to bring the truth of what he learned reading the president’s mind to light.

Condi Rice excelling at protecting her image is news to me…she hasn’t been able to stave off her “image” as a puppet, a token, a shill, or the president’s “brown sugar” (Garry Trudeau’s words, not mine). Perhaps one thing she could do to improve her image with the media is write a book trashing Bush.

---------

McClellan’s book, at least from what has been revealed about it so far, contains no new revelations, no smoking gun, no inside scoop on the Bush administration’s so-called lies about Iraq. He simply regurgitates the same left wing talking points as the Huffington Post, except he occasionally compliments Bush on his sincerity.

But because McClellan played for the conservative team for so long, liberals will of course shout from the rooftops that McClellan has been confirming what they have been saying all along, except for the sincerity part.

But McClellan hasn’t “confirmed” the left wing’s rants…he has only parroted them. The left and the media has succeeded in casting Bush as a liar through amplification, rather than through hard evidence. One would think an insider to the Bush administration would have something new to chew on for a political movement hell-bent on destroying his presidency. That he says nothing new confirms only that liberals will throw anything at Bush.

There is still no evidence whatsoever that the Bush administration was cherry picking or sexing up the intelligence leading to the Iraq invasion, which is the left’s chief motivation for calling the president a liar. Saddam WAS seeking uranium from Niger, and that was the focus of the “Bush Lied” crowd for an entire year.

The more the left cherry-picks tiny bits of evidence that weapons of mass destruction was a Bush lie, the more they make his case. The media runs with every little questionable detail to destroy the entire case against removing Saddam Hussein. Did these people buy the “Mark Fuhrman said the N-word, so O.J. was framed” argument?

And Barack Hussein Obama, who is strongly opposed to divisive personal attacks, immediately jumped on the microphone and said in his unifying, bipartisan way that McClellan “confirmed what many of us suspected all along”. By the way, if you question HIS foreign policy, you're part of the divisiveness that poisons the nation's soul.

Soon Bush will be out of office. And the left will be too consumed with either destroying McCain’s presidency or propping up Obama’s to waste their bile on Dubya anymore. Then the evaluation of his presidency will be up to historians. And if they are honest, they’ll look at the results, not the opinions. And we’ll see whether he’s the worst ever after all, or maybe that his predecessor might have done a better job noticing terrorism.

In the meantime, Bush will continue to do such a great job as president that American citizens like Scott McClellan are still alive to call him a liar.

What Happened to Obama’s “Game”?

2008-05-23T11:17:00.002-04:00

For someone who has been following the mess that is the Democrat primary, it’s incredible to think about how people once called Barack Obama charismatic. Today he seems to be nothing of the kind. He’s about as charismatic as B.O., appropriate given that those are his initials.

It’s a common occurrence with liberals. They are hailed as brilliant, charming, sexy, everything Americans everywhere could ever want in our candidate. Then people who don’t hate Republicans from dawn till dusk get a good look at them, and they find that not only is the Democrat du jour human, but in fact often embodies none of the qualities that have been ascribed to them. We’re still trying to get the “nuance” of John Kerry’s plan for Iraq.

In a way, Barack Obama has become a victim of the fawning press he had been (and still is) receiving for so long. If the truth had been told about him from the beginning, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee by now, and while Hillary is hardly known for her devotion to scruples, at least no one believes she is a messiah anyway, so she wouldn’t be crashing down to earth.

I remember having a discussion with a friend who loved Reagan but hates Bush, and she told me why she was voting for Obama over Hillary: “He’s got game”. Which I thought was not only funny, but true at the time. Everyone in the media was talking about what a great speaker he was. The same people who proclaimed Al Gore to be a man of staggering intellect. I never learn.

Take the teleprompter away from Obama and he’s not so spellbinding. He says that he’s campaigned in 57 states. That’s even beyond misspelling “potato”. He claimed that a tornado killed 10,000 people in Kansas, as opposed to 12. Best of all, he says Iran doesn’t pose a threat, because it’s a “tiny country”. Apparently geographical size is the key to a country having an imposing military, with perhaps Canada and Greenland being exceptions. Turns out this guy’s not very brainy.

He stated his refusal to disown his hateful preacher of 20 years and then disowned him just one month later. He doesn’t understand what the big deal is about his association with a known terrorist. He called people who don’t support him religious nutcase racists. This is a uniter?

In response to President Bush’s “appeaser” speech, indirectly regarding Jimmy Carter’s desire to give Hamas everything they need to destroy Israel, Obama went ballistic thinking it was directed at him. He claimed that this was exactly the kind of personal attack that was why this country was so divided.

This statement is nothing if not brazenly hypocritical. Has Barry listened to any of the nonstop bile coming from his own party for the last eight years? Apparently calling the president every possible euphemism for stupid or fascist in every imaginable book is not divisive, but criticizing Obama—which Bush wasn’t even doing—is precisely what is poisoning the nation’s soul.

If Obama can’t handle Republicans…or Fox News…he can’t handle Al-Qaeda. He needs to man the hell up.

And in keeping with his charismatic tradition, Obama and his supporters have now handed us a list of things we can’t say about him. We can’t talk about his middle name “Hussein”. We can’t call him a liberal. The latest is that we can’t talk about his wife now, even as she gets on the stump and trashes the very country where she and her husband (not to mention their devoutly anti-American pastor) are millionaires.

Unaware of how many states are in the union. Dangerously clueless on foreign policy. Elitist and snobbish about rural Christians. A crybaby who whines about “divisiveness” when the idiotic foreign policy of him and his peers is criticized, and who childishly demands that we play by his rules. Shut up and let him eat his waffle, bro.

That’s “charismatic” for a liberal.

The Fairness Doctrine - Balancing High Ratings With Low Ratings

2008-05-21T18:47:00.001-04:00

Liberals and Democrats are furious that people like Rush Limbaugh are allowed to speak. They have tried for years to shut them up, from painting them as racists or fascists or drug addicts to downplaying their impact at every opportunity.

Now Democrats are eager to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”, requiring that any radio station that features a conservative radio show that people listen to must also feature a liberal radio show that people do not listen to. The Fairness Doctrine, in addition to being unenforceable, is designed to get conservatives off the air.

The law of course will not apply to television news, newspapers, college campuses, public schools, or movie studios, all of which are more dominated by liberals than talk radio is by conservatives. The goal of the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fairness.

Rush Limbaugh first appeared on the Philadelphia radio dial on 96.5 FM WWDB. WWDB had existed for years as a talk radio station, featuring views from all sides. But the conservatives were on late in the evening, while the liberals and just outright obnoxious screamers like Irv Homer were on at prime time.

Rush’s time slot on WWDB was noon to 3PM, as it still is today. Back then WWDB insisted on “balancing” his program with the likes of Susan Bray before and Irv Homer after his show, and during Rush’s show, WWDB would run commercials saying “for a different point of view, listen to (someone no one was listening to)”. It clearly pained them to carry Rush Limbaugh, but liberals never turn away the money.

WWDB is no more. Susan Bray, Irv Homer, and everyone else I could think of on WWDB is no longer employed in Philadelphia radio as far as I know…and even if they are, if I don’t know about it, they’re not setting the city on fire wherever they are.

Rush, on the other hand, immediately found a new home on the Philadelphia radio dial, at WPHT 1210-AM. WPHT hasn’t bothered to try and balance him, also carrying Michael Smerconish (a middle-of-the-road local host who leans conservative), Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. After Rush, Hannity is the second most listened-to radio show in the country. Beck is third.

There have no doubt been similar instances in radio stations across the country. Conservative talk radio sells not because it is ideologically to the right by itself, but because it is the only institution of information dissemination—with the possible exception of the Internet—that isn’t forcibly driven ideologically to the left. Conservative talk radio succeeds largely because it is the only counterpoint to an enormous liberal echo chamber that includes almost every nightly newscast and nearly every newspaper in America.

There is nothing currently stopping liberals from participating in talk radio, and heaven knows they have tried. Their only real outlet is NPR, which is forced onto, and paid for by, the taxpaying public no matter how low their ratings. Air America, the liberal radio venture, was given more press and financial backing than all of the conservatives in the history of radio combined, and it was one of the biggest failures in the history of media. The only thing stopping liberals from succeeding in radio is that damned free market that they hate. They don’t sell, period.

It is telling that when liberals are in an arena where they don’t hold a monopoly, they cannot hold an audience worth a squat. Ultimately what that should betray is that Americans have no taste for liberalism. So how, one wonders, do Democrats win elections?

There are a multitude of reasons, and Republicans of late do not have excuses. But one very big one is the media mouthpiece that Democrats have. Remember that Bill Clinton’s crimes were far worse than Richard Nixon’s. It was the power of the media that ousted Nixon and saved Clinton. In 2004, Katie Couric devoted three whole “Today” shows to Michael Moore and his pathologically deceptive and cowardly movie, in the interest of defeating President Bush. The media is currently breaking its back laughably trying to make a radical left-wing America hater like Barack Obama into a palatable uniter.

The media must sell liberalism by passing it off as objective journalism, more evidence of just how unpopular liberalism really is.

Only talk radio stands in their way. And liberals can’t stand it…and once again, they show their maturity level, not by competing, but by whining that it isn’t fair.

President Bush – The “Worst Ever”, Until Compared to Every Democrat Hopeful

2008-04-30T18:47:00.011-04:00

It’s not an uncommon left wing screech to call Bush the worst president ever. They generally don’t go into detail, because to do so would require thinking and extremists on the left are often too emotional—or too lazy—to think. The proof is rooted in bumper sticker statements like “Bush lied, kids died”, “No war for oil”, or something that contains the words “impeach”, “Hitler” or “Nazi”.

Since many of these moonbats actually run major newspapers and television newsrooms (like Pinch Sulzberger and Ted Turner), they have managed, through a daily public media pounding of this president since he announced his candidacy in 2000, to cast his presidency as a failure, a disaster, and a catalyst for America becoming universally despised by the rest of the world.

Then the Democrats put up the likes of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, and people realize that Bush hasn’t been so bad after all.

Howard Dean’s popularity soared as he campaigned on the Internet…then he started making appearances and his popularity dropped almost as quickly as people saw what a maniac he was. Until his days became preoccupied with trying to end the current Democrat infighting…at which he is failing miserably…he could not open his mouth without bilious vitriol towards anything Republican pouring out of it.

Screaming things like “We want our country back!” at the top of his lungs was a trademark of Dean’s campaign. It wasn’t hard to find photos of him looking enraged. And he was the Democratic frontrunner in 2004…because much of the American left sees Bush and Republicans as the enemy, not Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. And Dean made no bones about sharing such views. He even once said that bin Laden was “innocent until proven guilty”…an allusion to the popular belief among the conspiratorial left that it was Bush that was responsible for 9/11.

Once Dean’s perpetually enraged public persona became better known and his screech after his Iowa loss rendered him unelectable (and by the way, what did Vermont see in him?), John Kerry rose to the front runner spot on the strength of his having served in Vietnam. And Kerry ran into the typical problems of appealing to both the hardcore left and then to actual Americans.

Initially, Kerry’s problem was having supported military action in Iraq. Plenty of weapons of mass destruction quotes could be found with his name next to them. So in response to Dean’s rising popularity with the anti-anything-Bush-ever-did left, Kerry then voted against funding for armor and weapons for the soldiers that he voted to send into combat. This helped him win the support of the left, but it tied him in knots in the general election, driving him to his now-famous words “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”

That quote, combined with efforts of the Swift Boat Veterans, sunk John Kerry. Having served in Vietnam and then coming back and opposing the war in Congress might have been admirable had he not trashed his fellow soldiers, calling them rapists and vicious murderers. John McCain may have spent some extra time in the Hanoi Hilton courtesy of John Kerry. Once America got a good look at the real candidate and not the projected “war hero” in 2004, they decided to stick with the “worst president ever” by a 3% margin in the popular vote, 2 percentage points larger than the margin of his father's defeat in 1992.

It says something about Democrats that of the four presidential hopefuls mentioned here, the woman is the bravest politically. Maybe not publicly…she has never had to actually dodge sniper fire or anything…but at least she will take on her political opponents in no-holds-barred fashion, which made her extremely popular with the left until she started taking swings at Barack Obama. Had Hillary been running against a Republican, the sniper fire lie would have been instantly washed down the memory hole.

But despite, and partly because of, her political determination, Hillary is also by far the least charismatic of the four. She comes across as a power-mad, undeterred, scowling witch whose husband can’t cheat on her enough. Her rare laughs are obviously phony, her tears even more so. People on the right are well aware that she and her more charming husband will have their people steamroll anyone who stands in their way…and people on her own side, like Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, and Paula Jones, also knew this very well.

It is also revealing that the Democrats’ best chance this fall is someone as pathologically dishonest as Clinton, who is plagued by more scandals just from her husband’s administration than the rest of the candidates combined in their entire political careers.

Besides the perjury and obstruction of justice, besides the sexual harassment and credible rape charges—all of which turned out to be true and against which this hardcore feminist defended her beyond-chauvinistic husband—there were the despicable pardon sales to raise money for her Senate campaign. Terrorists now know that they can blow buildings up in America, so long as they have the cash to contribute to Hillary’s political aspirations.

In a sane world that should have been the last nail in her coffin in politics. But with the help of the media, she fights Republicans, who are considered the true evil, so Democrats not only tolerate her but revere her.

Hillary’s 2008 chances now are much improved with Barack Obama’s campaign deflating like a popped balloon. This spectacle might not be so ugly to watch had Obama not been cast as a sparkling, messianic beacon of “hope” for America, but idolatry always results in disappointment. Now that his pastor Jeremiah Wright has openly and very publicly reiterated his “God d--- America” ideology without an ounce of reservation, Obama has been forced to denounce his pastor of 20 years, the same pastor that less than a month before Obama said he could no more disown than he could disown the black community.

Conservatives have rightly pounced on this. Newt Gingrich asked on Sean Hannity’s show when Obama is going to make his statement disowning the black community, now that he has disowned Reverend Wright. Rush Limbaugh has stated that Obama’s speech is an insult to America’s intelligence.

For Obama to suddenly say that Reverend Wright does not represent how he thinks, now that his campaign is being destroyed by the good pastor, is such an obviously political and disingenuous statement that it demolishes any credibility he had as a new kind of anti-politics politician. It is patently clear that only now when Wright is sinking Obama’s campaign, after twenty years of his attending Wright’s parish, does Obama see fit to denounce him.

It is doubtful that people are buying this. You don’t get married by, and have your kids baptized by, and call a spiritual mentor, someone whose views you call appalling and contradictory to everything you’ve ever done in your life. Reverend Wright brings to mind the joke about two men approaching each other on the street in Harlem. One says “Good morning, motherf---er!” and the other responds “Good morning, Reverend.”

Obama’s denouncing Wright is not likely to be a big help. Not only has he disowned the black community by his own standard, but the shine has now been fully removed from his aura. Not just by Reverend Wright, although he’s done quite a job of it, but by his association with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon in the past and is now (surprise!) a professor teaching students how to be radicals. Obama has yet to disown Ayers, but he may have to when the issue comes up again.

And Obama's wife Michelle is not as adept at hiding her anger (not black anger, but liberal anger) with a country that has allowed her to make $300,000 a year after her husband was elected to the Senate. America, shockingly, hasn’t been too bad to the Obamas.

This my fellow Americans is your Democratic Party today. That Clinton and Obama are the best the Democrats can put up in an election that they are strongly expected to win betrays a glaring problem in their party. John McCain may yet defeat one of them in a year where the country is going strongly Democrat and with little support from his Republican base.

Richard Nixon once said that “you run to the right to win the nomination, and then you run to the center to win the election”. Ronald Reagan believed no such thing and no politician ever ran to the right of him. Both won huge electoral victories, partly because they were running against the likes of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale (and let’s not forget Mike Dukakis…a candidate so weak Reagan’s legacy was enough to beat him). So maybe the key to winning a presidential election in America could just be “don’t go anywhere near the left.” Take heed Republicans.

The Democrats will certainly, in the coming election campaign, paint a McCain presidency as “four more years of Bush”.

Given that we’ve not been attacked since 9/11, the economy has for the most part been roaring, the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s ever been in this country, home ownership even with the foreclosures of late is still very high, for the first time in many years Americans aren’t working for the government until June every year, and most of all that he refuses to back down in a fight against the most hideous thugs that this world can offer, despite constant wailing from caterwauling idiots—so that 4,000-plus of the greatest Americans shall not have died in vain—“four more years of Bush” would be a gigantic leap better than anything the Democrats can offer.

For all the cries about Bush’s handling of Iraq and everything else, no one…no one…has offered up any better ideas. And that goes with most of the issues relevant to Americans, from Social Security to taxes. Even as awful as Bush and McCain both are on illegal immigration, the Democrats still won’t offer a viable alternative.

And until they do, the left’s gnashing of teeth about the “worst president ever” still sounds like kicking and screaming from reactionaries who behave as if power was owed to them.

Operation Chaos – Utter Political and Broadcasting Brilliance

2008-04-26T08:27:00.003-04:00

In my early twenties, I had the fears that many people had about the environment. I was reading the stories about our being on the edge of an apocalypse just as we were finally achieving peace with the Russians (which, as I now know, was actually the victory of America and Ronald Reagan over the suddenly hapless Soviet Union). And I believed all of it.

And then, for the first time, I starting hearing a compelling guy on the radio whose show was exploding in popularity, explaining the whole environmental movement and what it was about. I couldn’t believe how much wasn’t being reported about things like acid rain and tree destruction. I have been a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh ever since.

People can say what they want about Rush. He has become possibly the most powerful figure in American politics of the last fifty years. Because of Rush Limbaugh, there is Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, the Drudge Report, Townhall, Fox News. It took one radio host to show broadcasting and publishing businesses everywhere that there was a big market of people disgusted with left-wing media bias. That bias still exists with the large majority of newspapers and networks in a huge way, but it is growing smaller by the day. The New York Times is preparing for huge layoffs for the first time ever.

When Democrats like Harry “The War Is Lost” Reid tried to take Rush’s “phony soldiers” comment out of context to actually demand that his stations reprimand him…after Reid himself had just called our fighting men and women losers…Rush took Reid’s letter, signed by most all the Democrats in Congress, and sold it on ebay for $2 million. He took the money, matched it himself, and donated the $4 million to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. He also asked Harry Reid to put in a contribution of his own, which Reid refused to do (despite having the financial ability to do so thanks to his slimy land deals while senator). Rush turned a government attack on a private citizen into a complete and utter embarrassment for a shamefully behaving political party.

Similarly, since the media gleefully pronounced Rush’s irrelevance after moderate John McCain secured the Republican presidential nomination, Rush has begun Operation Chaos…and he has landed such devastating blows on the left wing media and the Democratic Party that they still don’t know what has hit them. I have been watching Operation Chaos unfold and I don’t think I have ever had more fun following politics.

Rush is encouraging conservatives who won’t be voting in the meaningless Republican primaries to cross over and vote for Hillary. This will keep her in the race, thus continuing the battle between the two, encouraging the Clintons to “bloody up” Obama politically, since the Republicans are too wimpy to do it. It will also expose Democrat racism, drain them of cash, and cause utter chaos within the party up to the convention in Denver.

I was at first annoyed that Rush was discouraging his audience from putting Hillary away for good. But I was so, so wrong. It has been a phenomenal success. More and more, Obama is now seen not as a charismatic, uniting leader, but as an extreme left wing radical with, to say the least, disturbing associations. The “Drive By” media is desperately trying to get Hillary out of the race, knowing it will slow down criticism of Obama. Howard Dean is actually looking like the relatively sane voice in his party, which is no small achievement. And Obama himself is showing his true colors, calling rural Pennsylvanians who don’t support him God-clinging, gun-toting morons as only an elitist liberal can.

Obama spent triple the money in the battleground commonwealth of Pennsylvania and not only lost to Hillary but got creamed. And more and more he is being seen as unelectable. There is no way any of this could have happened had he locked up the nomination by now. The media would be studiously ignoring Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Cling-gate--dismissing them as overblown attacks from the right-wing hate machine--were none of them in the tank for Hillary, or at least someone who stands a better chance against John McCain.

The greatest part of all is watching Rush taunt them. He isn’t doing any of this behind the scenes. He is open, honest, and clearly describing what is going on. Rush sometimes even informs the liberal operatives listening to his show what he’s going to do next. Like he always says, he knows these people like every square inch of his glorious naked body. And with Operation Chaos, he is proving it. He is demonstrating, with media sound clips every single day, how the left would rather choke on cement than give him credit for having so much influence.

He has even openly advised the Obama campaign that they could put a stop to all of it simply by acknowledging Operation Chaos. And Obama and the Democrats continue to cut off their nose. Rush knows full well that their egos and arrogance won’t ever, ever, EVER allow them to admit that he has gotten the best of them.

It is brilliant politics, and historic radio.

It has to be the most fun he could ever have been having in his whole career. For years the "tolerant" and "understanding" left wing media and Democratic Party have attacked him mercilessly, genuinely attempting to destroy his life for not falling in line with them. Now he is shoving it up their arrogant, elitist asses so hard that liberals are struck dumb not knowing what to do.

Don’t mess with Rush.

God Bless you Mr. Limbaugh. You have made politics an absolute blast lately.

What Is “Keep America Strong”?

2008-04-25T15:46:00.002-04:00

I grew up in a Republican household. My father believes that Rush Limbaugh is too liberal, and my mother remains mildly conservative despite remaining a subscriber to the Philadelphia Inquirer (for which I, her pain-in-the-butt political son, frequently give her a hard time). I won’t say I had such values drilled into me, even though I was raised Catholic and subsequently pro-life.

I remember once as a kid complaining to my older brother about having to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. My brother was rightly concerned by my saying this, and informed my father, who gave me a lecture on why we said the Pledge. He didn’t get angry with me, he simply gave me a history lesson.

I don’t remember what he said. I wish I did, and I will ask him, because I sometimes questioned whether it is right to force a child to swear allegiance to a religion or to a country. America, it seems to me, was founded on principles that would appear on the surface to reject such indoctrination, for lack of a better word.

As I have gotten older and considered having children of my own, I appreciate that I was forced to do certain things like attending church and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I stopped going to church for about fifteen years when I no longer had to. But I returned.

It wasn’t that I missed it or that I felt guilty about not going. What happened was that I was reading a Norman Vincent Peale book and he talked about things that helped people to live longer, and going to church was one of those things. Because of that, I now go to church every Sunday.

Even if you are forcing yourself to spend an hour a week in church, you are sitting in God’s home. You are taught that you are a sinner but that Jesus loves you anyway, and that he took the beatings so you wouldn’t have to. You can look at the figure of the man who allowed himself to be crucified and confess your shortcomings. It teaches humility. It teaches you to understand something bigger than yourself. It surrounds you with people of the same mindset, people that want to be better.

You know that, for the most part, if you needed help, you are with people who would be there.

Similarly, I am grateful that I was taught to appreciate the greatness of the country that I live in. My fourth grade teacher, Miss Meany, was tough and I didn’t always like that. But she also told us realities of the Soviet Union and what happened to parents of children who told government agents that they had been complaining about not having enough food. It is hard to imagine a teacher teaching the ugly realities of life in Middle Eastern dictatorships today. More often, children are taught to have nightmares of what will happen to the world if their parents continue to drive SUVs.

Like Tom Brokaw, I would rather it not be about left and right and would rather it be about solutions. But unlike Tom, I see the left vs. right as being about perpetuating problems vs. finding solutions.

Ann Coulter recently pointed out that Republicans used to run on the strength of fighting the Cold War; now that the Cold War has been won, Republicans have lost it as an issue. George W. Bush won the 2004 election on fighting terrorism; he has done such a great job that the Republicans have, for now, lost that as an issue as well. Democrats run on poverty and education; having been in charge of both for over 40 years and having made both problems worse, they can continue to run successfully on the issue. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Republicans may never win again.

Liberals look at America and see what is wrong, apologize for it, and give anyone afflicted other people’s money to make up for it. Conservatives look at what’s right with America, never apologize for her, and encourage their afflicted fellow countrymen that they are in the best place in the world to fix their own problems. And that they should be happy to have the government out of their lives rather than in them.

I’d rather be on the side of solutions, and on thinking positive for my country. And doing my part to ensure that this country remains great as it has always been in my lifetime.

More to come. And God Bless the United States of America.