"Beat the rookie with the Veteran"

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Low-Road Express...

If it wasn't such a serious issue -- especially for an individual such as Sen. McCain where "honor" and "integrity" are what he has literally staked his life on -- this would be so ironic as to be humorous. Instead, it's disgusting.

Today's lead editorial in the New York Times is titled the "Low Road Express" and uses terms to describe Mr. McCain and his campaign as "low-minded", "uncivil", "waving the flag of fear", "sophomoric" and "false".

Let me break this down in two ways. First, the easy one: Consider the Source. The New York Times, since shortly after endorsing Sen. McCain in late January (mostly just to trash the Giuliani campaign if you read the editorial) has used this variety of tactics against Sen. McCain (these are the lowlights... I'm sure you can think of more. Feel free to add in the comments):
  • Smears against Sen. McCain's fidelity. In a front page story on February 25, 2008 titled "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk" the Times through rumors sourced with "several people involved in the campaign" "on the condition of anonymity" accused Mr. McCain of conducting an affair with "an attractive female lobbyist" in 1999. The public editor subsequently apologized for the story, but the Times news divisions or editorial page have NEVER FOLLOWED UP on this story to describe who has been relieved of their duties at the Times for this embarrassment.

  • Failing to defend Sen. McCain in the same way he defended Sen. Kerry. In July, when Wes Clark attempted to start a high-level "Swift Boat" campaign against Sen. McCain by impunging his military service, the Times was silent on the editorial page. In fact, Paul Krugman wrote a column on the 4th of July in the Times titled "Rove's Third Term" (interesting how the Times editorial writers take their talking points directly from the Obama campaign) in which he described Clark's smear thus: "It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous — especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero."

  • Failing to provide Equal Time in a Policy Debate. Finally, just last week, the Times (in what the Chicago Tribune's Dennis Byrne called an episode that "further contribut[ed] to the trashing of what was once an admirable profession.") refused to allow Sen. McCain's campaign equal time to respond to an editorial by the Obama campaign about Iraq policy.

Second, to the substance of this ridiculous editorial. Let me count the "low-minded", "uncivil", "sophomoric", and "false" statements:

  • Waving the flag of falsity: "Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to 'lose' in Iraq)": The operative quote that describes Sen. McCain's line of attack in this vein is described in this passage from his speech last week in Denver.

"Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice."

While this line of attack is harsh, he is not saying Sen. Obama "wants to lose in Iraq", but that even after looking at the facts of budding military and political success in Iraq he refused to acknowledge the policy has succeeded and would still choose to retreat in failure. This is a fair statement of the difference in policy, and Sen. Obama's recent statements.

  • Sophomoric Mischaracterization masquerading as attack: "issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist)"

I listened to the complete video that created this statement, as it was an interview with the Kansas City Star after a town-hall in my hometown. The operative statement is here (courtesy of the WSJ Washington Wire blog):

Later, McCain was asked by the Kansas City Star if he thought Obama was an extremist. He replied: “His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the U.S. Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.” Sanders describes himself as a “democratic socialist” but he ran, and won, as an independent candidate in the 2006 Vermont Senate race with a 33-point margin of victory. He served in the U.S. House for 14 years prior to that.

The Star then asked McCain if he thought Obama was a socialist. “I don’t know,” he replied. “All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”

Here are the National Journal 2007 Senate Voting Rankings, published January 31, 2008: "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate"

I could continue, but this is growing tiresome...

President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post on the "Presumptuous Nominee"

Obama in Berlin... the Video:

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Bringing our country together on National Security...

Pete Hoekstra from Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee explains how we have become divided on national security, and how we can come back together by uniting Congress and the White House.

Obama & Ahmadinejad: Trust But Don’t Verify

Solid analysis from the Intellectual Conservative on Sen. Obama's comparison of Ahmedinejad and Gorbachev. Sen. Obama is no Ronald Reagan...

If Barack Obama really had a Facebook page...

It would look like this...

The delusions grow larger...

Pelosi: 'I'm trying to save the planet'

Holy Cow... please keep your "superhero" delusions to yourself Nancy.

We're out here paying $4.00 a gallon for gas... we have substantial domestic supply which most market economists will tell you we can tap to immediately change expectations and prices, and you're putting on your Superhero suit. How did she get to be in charge of the Democrat Party??

Obamanomics - from Today's WSJ

Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession


July 29, 2008

What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?

The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.

To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.

Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.

First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.

The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare
tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!

Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)

On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.

On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.

Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.

Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.

Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Drilling now will lower prices in the short term...

As I cited before, Harvard's Martin Feldstein laid this out about a month ago...

Kevin Hassett provides some additional analysis showing that allowing offshore drilling will affect prices in the short term because of changed expectations:

The economics of natural resources clearly favors the Republican view.

The economics of extracting resources is quite simple and intuitive. If you own property that has oil in the ground, then you have to decide how rapidly you wish to deplete your resource. If prices are low today, and you expect them to be much higher in the future, then you will hold off pumping a lot.

Open Spigot Now

If prices are high today and are expected to be much lower tomorrow, then you would rather open up the spigot now when profits will be higher.

If exploration can be expected to be successful and significantly increase oil production in the future, then it would cause producers to revise downward their estimates for future prices. This would increase the attractiveness of extracting more today. As producers respond with higher production, prices today would drop.

New USA Today/Gallup National Poll...

McCain is up by 4 points...

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The "Political-Theatre" Critic at the New York Times has officially called it...

Maybe in your insular, partisan, elitist, borderline anti-American (and certainly anti-capitalist) world, Frank. But then again, you started as the theatre critic at the Times, so you're more at home at the Tony Awards or a Hollywood Hills House Party then you would be at, say, Ramstein Air Base.

I would venture to say that substantial majorities of our active military, virtually all veteran's groups (this poll is encouraging), and those that are in favor of democratic governments (including in our country... you know, maybe having some respect for the tradition of an election in November before breaking out the Presidential seals and French champagne) disagree with this assessment. The presumptuousness of this Democrat crowd, based in the traditional/old-guard media, the Hollywood elites and the Ivy League universities is Rich.

And this is all before we even get to the conventions, and before the two candidates have had an opportunity to face off in a debate (although Sen. McCain has repeatedly requested head-to-head conversations with voters... "Acting President" Obama reneged on his "Anytime/Anywhere" promise to participate).

Happily, as all of this happens inside the walls of the formerly respected New York Times, the market continues to show the Times that history is passing it by. The best indication is the 5-year chart of NYT common stock:

Finally, the cartoon at the top speaks to the lengths the traditional media is prepared to go to fete our new prince... Notice the entity holding the crown. I think come November, this crown will have angered enough regular Americans that it will not actually result in an electoral college win, but of course we shall see come November 4... and not July 27, the date Mr. Rich called the election.

Stand up for McCain...

Barack Obama knows what leadership is, as shown in this video... and its best exemplar is John McCain. Props to Stand Up for McCain for creating this compelling video:

Barack Obama - Post-Travel Briefing...

Beyond the Photo-Op...

Friday, July 25, 2008

Update on the New York Times Editorial...

The Chicago Tribune provides some analysis...

The Germans have spoken...

and had we lost World War II, this would be definitive. Instead, the citizens of the United States of America get to vote in an election in November... those in Old Europe seem to have forgotten that, based on this opinion piece in Der Spiegel:

No. 44 Has Spoken
By Gerhard Spörl

Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin's Siegessäule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States.

Actual, you know, voters reaction to the SPEECH in Germany...

This election will be won in places like Columbus and Cincinnati... Grand Rapids and Denver. Not Paris and Berlin. The radio in Ohio provides some detail:

Judging from the local drive time radio shows, we bitter, religious pistol-packers here in flyover country remembered only two things from Obama's Berlin visit: the phrase "citizen of the world" and Obama's failure to visit wounded troops at Landstuhl and Ramstein.

This morning the radio fairly crackled with callers incensed at what they perceive as Obama's snub of American warriors while ingratiating himself with people who refuse to send any combat troops to Afghanistan. This was not conservative radio but your typical morning traffic and weather blowtorch. And it was in the bluest part of the state (although callers come from much of northern Ohio).

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

A tale of two flip-floppers...

Karl Rove in Thursday's WSJ:

A Tale of Two Flip-Floppers

By KARL ROVE July 24, 2008

John McCain and Barack Obama have both changed positions in this campaign. That's OK. Voters understand that politicians can and, sometimes, should change their views. After all, voters do. Witness the wide swings in their answers to opinion polls.

But before accepting the changes, voters typically ask themselves three questions: Does the candidate admit he's shifting? What's the new information that altered his thinking? Does the change seem reasonable and not calculating?

Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it. Of course, Mr. McCain doesn't explain why prices at the pump haven't also forced him to re-evaluate his opposition to drilling on 2000 acres in the 19.2-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But, then, what politician is always consistent?

Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.

At least Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes. Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.

Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.

By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.

It's dizzying. Yet, Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."

Compounding all this is Mr. Obama's stubborn refusal to admit the surge was right and that he was wrong to oppose it. On MSNBC in January 2007, he said more U.S. troops would not "solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Later that month he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." In fact, the surge has done far more than its advocates hoped in a much shorter period.

Yet Mr. Obama told ABC's Terry Moran this week that even in retrospect, he would oppose the surge. He also told CBS's Katie Couric that he had "no idea what would have happened" without the new strategy. And he still declares, in the New York Times last week, "The same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true." Given all that has happened, it's hard to understand how Mr. Obama can say, as he did Tuesday in a story on NBC Nightly News, that "I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face."

Americans have seen both candidates flip-flop. Mr. McCain at least has a record of being a gutsy leader willing to take unpopular stands who admits his shifts and explains the new information that caused them.

Mr. Obama has detached himself from past positions at record speed. And in doing so he runs the risk of being seen as a cynical politician, not an inspiring leader. If this happens, voters in large numbers may ask -- despite his rhetorical acrobatics -- if he is the change they've been waiting for.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

When it comes to media bias follow the money...

Media donations favor Democrats 100-1. I like this graphic:

Faking it...

Symbolism over substance... which one wins says a lot about the state of our nation...

McCain with 10 point lead in Ohio...

Latest Rasmussen poll has it:

52 McCain

42 Obama

Obama Campaign Posters in German...


And after this exchange, you'd wonder if he already thinks he's the President:

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Barack Obama's Excellent Adventure...

Jennifer Rubin reports on the trip...

To say the trip was “stage managed,” as one liberal blogger let on, would be a gross understatement. For all intents and purposes Obama was play-acting the role of a traveling statesman, eating meals and smiling but doing and saying nothing of consequence with what veteran network correspondent Andrea Mitchell described on “Hardball” as an unprecedented level of press restriction and manipulation.

This is Andrea Mitchell from Hardball last night:

Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

VP Watch...

Pick to come this week...

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Obama: Ready to Listen in Afghanistan...

Interesting... in the United States, Sen. Obama has no town hall meetings and takes almost no questions from Americans.

Now that he's in Afghanistan he says “I’m more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking.”

Thursday, July 17, 2008

On confrontational art...

pushing the limits of free speech... and they say those on the right are touchy about artistic freedom.

Sen. McCain will be in my hometown today...

John McCain will be in Kansas City today holding a town hall at Union Station (if you'd like to attend, please RSVP at missouri@johnmccain.com) Doors open at 9:30AM. As I understand it, the event will start a bit after 11AM Central Time, and should be over about 12:30PM.

It is actually the building where I held my Kansas City wedding reception... I also heard from my hometown mayor Carson Ross that he will be meeting Sen. McCain at the airport. Hope to have some pictures to share later this week.

That choking feeling is beginning to form in the back of Democrats' throats...

Susan Estrich, a loyal Democrat, shows the fear...

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

From the "Rewriting History" Department...

This is so Orwellian it's a bit scary...

Morefrom the LA Times...

A bit more in video form about the attempt to rewrite history. Sen. Obama, you can't do this, because we've been listening...

John McCain's economic plan...

As the economy continues to face rough sledding, John McCain has a complete economic plan to create jobs, provide energy security and restore confidence to the markets and the banking sector.

Unlike his opponent's plan, it does not include massive tax increases and hundreds of billions in new government spending.

First the conclusion, then the fact-finding...

Sen. Obama has now published his "Plan on Iraq" in the New York Times. In addition, he'll give an interview today to Gwen Ifill on PBS on his "Plan on Iraq". Then, next week he'll head to Iraq on a "fact finding mission" to speak with Gen. Petraeus for the first time about strategy and facts on the ground. We are truly through the looking glass.

Sen. McCain points out the obvious here:

“Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.”

Monday, July 7, 2008

Al Qaeda in Iraq is on its way to defeat...

We owe historic thanks for this victory to Gen. Petraeus, the American troops in Iraq and those in Washington that stood against surrender and retreat, and stood up to Al Qaeda and said "there will be no Civil War!"... that is leadership.

UPDATE: The Belmont Club provides more detail, including an angle on Syrian involvement with Al Qaeda.

UPDATE #2: USA Today, to their credit, made this story a priority. Gen. Jack Keane, a key architect of the surge strategy along with Gen. Petraeus, stated that "I believe the momentum we have is not reversible," and stated that significant reductions in troops would likely happen in 2009, because of the progress made in the country.

Isn't it substantially preferable to have troop reductions after achieving the tough objectives and leaving with the job done, rather than retreating under fire? I believe this should be a question asked of the Presidential candidates.

Sen. McCain's "Jobs for America" Economic Speech...

from Denver earlier today.

Why two Democrats are backing McCain...

Jim McConaha and Valery Mitchell of New Hampshire Democrats for McCain describe their reasons in the Concord Monitor today...

Sunday, July 6, 2008

The New York Times continues to beclown itself...

In the next episode of the Times series called "The Long Run", the New York Times has another paid advertisement for the Barack Obama campaign on its front page today. This paragraph is particularly entertaining in the middle of the Times soft focus piece on their favorite symbolic candidate (my emphasis):

Mr. Obama wrote that a minister suggested it would be helpful if he belonged to a church, and he joined the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.’s congregation after hearing a sermon about faith’s power to inspire underdogs. Mr. Wright’s sermons have been an issue in the campaign.

Really? I hadn't heard?? Was Jeremiah Wright an "issue in the campaign"??? That is possibly the understatement of the entire campaign. How about:

"Mr. Wright's sermons nearly derailed Sen. Obama's campaign, and caused many Americans to question Sen. Obama's judgment when videos emerged of Rev. Wright's fiery sermons including suggesting that 'God Damn America' on the Sunday after the September 11th attacks and claims that the American government had created the AIDS virus to kill black people. Many questions still remain about how close a relationship Sen. Obama had with Rev. Wright over the 20 plus years he was an active member of his congregation, and what claims he heard Rev. Wright make while in attendance or in conversation with the Reverend."

Remember, "The Long Run" series is the same Times series that featured this embarrassment to all employees of the Times in late February (For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk). In this article, the Times -- with no direct evidence -- accused Sen. McCain of conducting an affair with an attractive young lobbyist with clients having business in front of the Commerce Committee, which he chaired at the time. Of course, the Times has not followed up on this embarrassment since then, because, well... it's a lie. Following up on facts embarrassing to Sen. Obama, such as what his response was to Rev. Wright when he claimed the American government created AIDS seems not to be in the reporting coverage of "All the News That's Fit to Print"...

Why Barack Obama may be "Lonely" as he travels the world this summer...

From abandoning Iraqis, to moving far to the left of most European countries on tax policy, many of Sen. Obama's ideas are discredited around the world.

Doug Saunders from the Toronto Globe and Mail notes that the world is looking for conservative leaders who are flexible with creative ideas and solutions. That sounds like a definition of John McCain.

Friday, July 4, 2008

Courage under Fire on National Security...

One Presidential candidate exemplified Courage and Leadership by supporting a new strategy even when it was unpopular, and Harry Reid called the war "Lost". Here's an interview from August 2007:

The other candidate advocated surrender and abandonment. He refused to meet with Gen. Petraeus, and even refused to condemn the far-left Moveon.org when they suggested Petraeus was betraying his country.

Now that much heavy political lifting has been completed by Sen. McCain, Lieberman and Graham, Sen. Obama has started to waver on his surrender strategy. He's like the guy that shows up at the end of a long day of work and seeks to receive the credit:

I'm sorry Sen. Obama... you stand with Sen. Reid:

A man of Seasonal Principles...

Charles Krauthammer on the hologram...

Thursday, July 3, 2008

This trash is now on Obama's website...

Dishonest and dishonorable...

it's the change you can believe in...
(h/t Instapundit)

"Open Source" is one thing, but when you countenance this bull*hit on your website you deserve to be called on the carpet. Hey VFW... hey Marine Corps... look what Sen. Obama's website allows during 4th of July week. It's a whole other type of patriotism... although it's the same type that they tried with the Weatherman. I think before this is over, they may try to "Recreate '68" in Denver...

Steve Schmidt's letter to the McCain troops...

We just kicked it in to a new gear folks...

On Obama the shape shifter... or the Tortoise and the Hare...

Victor Davis Hanson describes the race thus far, with boxing analogies and fables...

Keith Stansell's story...

from hostage to meeting his children for the first time in the last 24 hours (and his wife to be)... this should make you really appreciate your life as an American on this 4th of July.

More on the small donor myth...

Obama Picks Up Fund-Raising Pace: I think it must be altruism that causes people to give $30,000. I'm sure they're not interested in access or influence on policy...

Now, with his schedule freed up and faced with the need to raise more than $200 million for the general election, Mr. Obama’s major fund-raisers are eager to have him back to headline events that require attendees at the highest echelons to contribute more than $30,000 a person to a joint fund-raising committee for the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Iraq has met 15 of 18 "Benchmarks"...

More concrete evidence that "We are Winning In Iraq"...

Remember that the Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid called this war "lost" in April 2007, and Sen. Obama (when he'll actually make a clear statement) has been calling for the abandonment of this country and the people that have put their lives on the line to ally with America. Courage Under Fire does not describe this group.

Bipartisanship marks McCain's Senate tenure...

The AP reports...

Rescue in Colombia...

In what looks like a rescue for the ages, Ingrid Betancourt (a French-Colombian politician captured while running for President of Colombia) and 3 Americans, Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, and Thomas Howes were freed by a Colombian military rescue operation today.

The Americans were taken hostage in February 2003 after their drug reconnaisance plane crashed. We celebrate with their families today.

Sen. McCain remembered them and urged the Colombian government to continue to work for their release just yesterday...

UPDATE: Apparently, Sen. McCain was informed of this rescue operation last night. Here is his statement on the operation:

Statement by John McCain on Today's Hostage Rescue in Colombia

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement on today's hostage rescue in Colombia: "Today, I spoke by phone to President Uribe. He told me some of the details of the dramatic rescue of the people who were held hostage. Three Americans are now free and Ingrid Betancourt is now in good condition. I'm pleased with the success of this very high-risk operation. Sometimes in the past, the FARC has killed the hostages rather than let them be rescued.

"So I congratulate President Uribe, the military and the nation of Colombia. It is great news. Now we must renew our efforts to free all of the other innocent people held hostage. With regard to the three Americans and Ingrid Betancourt -- they had been held many years, as many as six years.

"Last night, President Uribe and the defense minister did brief us that the operation was going to take place today."

UPDATE #2: Counterterrorism Blog with more on the operation.

UPDATE #3: New York Times: Hostage Rescue Is Happy Coincidence for McCain in Colombia :

"Although the timing of the rescue was a coincidence and Mr. McCain’s trip to Colombia had nothing to do with it, the event nonetheless put him in the middle of classified talks about covert operations with the head of another government.

Mr. McCain said that he and his traveling companions -- Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut – had been informed by Mr. Uribe on Tuesday evening in Cartagena that the Colombian government planned to try on Wednesday to rescue a number of hostages, including the Americans, Thomas Howes, Marc Gonsalves and Keith Stansell. All three were military contractors who were abducted in 2003 in Colombia when their plane went down.

The talks about the planned rescue, which Mr. Lieberman described as detailed, delayed the start of a news conference on Tuesday that Mr. McCain held with Mr. Uribe outside the presidential retreat in Cartagena. In the news conference, Mr. McCain gave no hint of what he had just learned, although he mentioned the American hostages and praised Mr. Uribe’s efforts to battle FARC."

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Dissension in the ranks??

The Obama cult members begin to ask questions about their dear leader... hopefully they'll realize the mistake they've made by November. We're here to help at NYFORMCCAIN...

"Dishonest and Dishonorable"

The McCain campaign officially calls it... it's a coordinated attack... the Democrats have been called to the floor on this one, and should be.

Sen. McCain called it what it was in 2004 when Bush tried to attack Kerry's military service, and it is exactly the same this time as well: "Dishonest and dishonorable..."

Where are you Sen. Kerry??

I've been following this, and called a coordinated attack back on May 23: here

Wesley Clark continues to play hatchet man...

continuing to be despicable... did Barack Obama get a graduate degree from the Mayor Daley school of politics??

“Obama strikes me as a hologram: what you want to see in him is what you find. It’s like looking into an abyss, and not seeing anything but darkness"

Wow... this is a quote from someone who just completed a degree at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel about Sen. Obama... From the pool report at Sen. McCain's fundraiser in Pennsylvania.

The whole section from the pool report:

While it remains unclear whether McCain will carry Pennsylvania, the Mainline Republicans who came out in force tonight said they were firmly supportive of his candidacy. One of the attendees, Marilyn Stern, said she was backing McCain because she saw stark differences between him and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), especially in terms of foreign policy. Stern, who recently completed an executive degree at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel, said the list of foreign policy advisers Obama had recruited made her worry the U.S. would pressure Israel if he was elected president.

“It doesn’t bode well,” she said, adding that many voters are simply uniformed about the two candidates. “Obama strikes me as a hologram: what you want to see in him is what you find. It’s like looking into an abyss, and not seeing anything but darkness.”

Tim Brown for State Senate...

I saw our Republican candidate for State Senate for the east side of Manhattan this morning gathering signatures at 86th and Lexington. This guy has an impressive resume...

Why John McCain is right on energy policy in today's environment...

Professor Martin Feldstein of Harvard in today's WSJ:

Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today's price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future.

For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today. (See John McCain's $300M battery prize, and support for conservation).

Similarly, increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today's price. (See John McCain's support for increased development of US oil resources). That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories.

Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demand for oil in the U.S. or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices and increased consumption today.

So it appears that John McCain's team paid attention in economics classes, while Barack Obama's team (including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried) just take their talking points from the anti-capitalist environmental lobby and "Oil Conspiracy Theorists"...

McCain's opportunity for a JFK moment in Latin America...

WSJ's William McGurn reminds us what JFK said and did with regard to Latin America:

One presidential candidate says our Latin American neighbors are "drifting away" because we do not support our democratic friends. That "our failure to help the people of Latin America to achieve their economic aspirations" is a moral and strategic tragedy. And that we need to confront those who are "exploiting domestic distress and unrest, encouraging growing dislike of the United States, working to impose Communist rule."

No, the words are not John McCain's. They are John F. Kennedy's. But on the day that Sen. McCain leaves for a quick trip to Colombia and Mexico, they present him with an opportunity: The chance to remind American voters that his opponent has more in common with the party of Ted Kennedy than the party of John Kennedy.

JFK spoke the words quoted above on the steps of a Tampa, Fla., courthouse during the 1960 campaign. As president, he would transform those words into a new Latin American policy. Though it covered many parts, the gist was that only freedom could transform Latin America, and that both our interests and our ideals compelled us to support those making brave stands for freedom.

If these words have more of a Republican ring to them, it's probably because it has been some time since any Democratic Party leader has offered such muscular language – especially with regard to trade and opportunity and American purpose. To the contrary, JFK would have a hard time reconciling his outward and optimistic vision with the crabbed protectionism the Democratic Party now stands for. And there's no better example than the way House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to schedule a vote on a U.S. trade agreement with Colombia.

More on the small donor myth...

David Brooks column explains that the core of Barack Obama's support is from lawyers, finance (Goldman Sachs especially), and large city elites.

This is not a bunch of college students giving $50 donations. Obama donors are looking for access and changes in policy that will further their interests.