WOW. What A Great McCain Rally

Just got back from attending the McCain/Palin Rally with my daughter. Fred Thompson was there -- he's my daughter's favorite. Palin Rocks. McCain is McCain, but he's hitting a lot of great points that don't irritate us.

He had two women speak first. One was a former Obama supporter who owned a small business -- McCain won her over. The other was a die-hard Democratic Hillary supporter who seemed very upset that the Democrats didn't pander to her gender enough, and so she jumped to McCain because he picked Palin. Hey, a vote is a vote, and she said she'd talk one person a day into voting for McCain.

Fred Thompson of course was his usual great self. He said Obama was the "change" candidate because he kept changing his positions.

Cindy McCain spoke briefly. Todd didn't speak. I wonder if they will ever let him speak.

I don't do crowd estimates. I stopped counting at 100. That was the number of people I saw walking with me down the street to get into the line that seemed to have thousands.

Proof the Media is in the Tank for Obama

If you are so clueless that you still don't believe the media is pulling for Obama, you need to watch this snippet with George Stephanopolis and Barack Obama this morning:



Obama is having to admit that John McCain has never claimed Barack was a Muslim. So he says: "What I was suggesting is, You are absolutely right that John McCain has not, uh, talked about my Muslim faith, and you're absolutely right that is not come....

Then George Stephanopolis, not understanding Barack's statement, and wanting to save his behind, corrects him, saying "your CHRISTIAN FAITH", which momentarily throws off Obama and he repeats, "my Christian faith", before he remembers what he was talking about and notes that "what I am saying is that he has not suggested that I'm, um, that I am a Muslim."

The point being that Stephanopolis THOUGHT Barack had just said he had a Muslim Faith, and realising that this would be bad for Barack, told Barack to fix what he had said, to correct him.

It's clear George would do anything to help Barack, even correct his errors for him, just like he was Barack's Campaign staff or something. Which he really is, just that he's employed by ABC.

BTW, this YouTube is also another GREAT example of how, when you get Barack Obama away from a teleprompter, he is an idiot. But that's really a story for my other blog.

Palin was a Mayor AND a community organizer

Daily Kos, a place I feel dirty to visit, has managed to stumble into a devastating truth while trying to continue to smear Governor Sarah Palin.

Worse, they show what a fake outrage the "attack on community organizers" screaming is. Because while on the one hand they are upset that Sarah "denigrated" the work of community organizers (which of course she did not do, she simply said that people whose previous job was "community organizer" shouldn't denigrate the job of mayor like Barack Obama and other Democrats did.

See, Sarah Palin, before she was mayor (an elected position with executive responsibility), she was also the head of the local PTA -- another position with executive responsibility.

And as DailyKos notes, the head of the local PTA IS a type of community organizer. Not the kind that Barack was, agitating for left-wing political politics, but one that serves the community in a non-partisan fashion, the kind of non-partisanship that McCain has demonstrated, that Palin has demonstrated, and that Barack Obama only pretends to care about.

From their revealing "Sarah Palin was a Community Organizer":

But she was a member of one of the oldest community organizations in the country. Like most community organizations, this one was founded to promote a cause, a cause that its founders felt was being largely ignored at the time. In 1897 when the National Congress of Mothers was formed by Alice McLellan Birney and Phoebe Apperson Hearst, women did not even have the right to vote. The organization these community organizers began on that cold February day in Washington, D.C., would grow from the 2,000 women in attendance then to more than 5 million members in 2007. John McCain has cited Palin's membership in this organization as part of her qualifications to be Vice President.
...
So when Sarah Palin proudly mentions her PTA membership, she is acknowledging the work of community organizers and building upon that work by contributing to the efforts of the organization.

The diarist then delivers a stinging indictment of Barack Obama, although being a left-winger she has no clue she is doing so:

When politicians denigrate community organizers and community organizations, they are really avoiding an admission of failure on their part. Community organizations arise as a result of unresponsive government and social institutions. They form as a response to a need within the community that is not being met.

So, when Barack Obama attacked Palin for "just being a mayor", not only was he denigrating the serious "community organizer" aspect of a mayor's job, he also ignored her job as the head of the PTA, a community organizer position with executive responsibility, moreso than his job in Chicago.

Of course, he also ignored her job as Governor. Barack has a history of ignoring things that don't fit into his world view. I'd put up Sarah Palin's time as head of the PTA against Barack Obama's "community agitator" position when it comes to having qualification to be President.

The simple fact is that, even at the level of the PTA, people around Sarah Palin recognized her leadership capability, and put her in charge. And even at the level of "community organizer", nobody really saw Barack Obama as the person to lead the group.

This episode shows a hypocrisy of the left, and the problem with having a left-wing media -- not one that overtly plays politics, but one whose world-view is so much in tune with their left-wing politics that they play the double-standard without noticing.

So, when Barack Obama makes fun of the name of Palin's home town (calling it "Wasilly" instead of "Wasilla"), not one in the media notes that either he is doing so, or asks why he can't get the name right (and we know they notice -- remember when Allen couldn't get a guy's name right?).

And when Barack Obama makes fun of the job of small-town mayor, not one asks any other small-town mayors if they feel put-out by Obama's dismissal of the hard work they do. I'd be interested in hearing what Occoquan Mayor Earnie Porta feels about Barack Obama's attack on him, but frankly I think Porta is too busy doing his job to have time to get outraged.

Plus Earnie is a good, smart man who I'm sure understands that Obama wasn't really attacking all mayors, just making a crass political comment about ONE mayor. Just as I'm sure he and all these people with the fake outrage know that Sarah Palin wasn't denigrating community service, just ridiculing the idea that Obama is ready to be President because of his hard work as a community organizer, work that even he admits he can't really explain.

The simple fact is that, when a person has leadership abilities, those around them recognize that ability. Sarah Palin was not just in the PTA, she was the head. She ran for council, but then was recognized and voted in as the leader of the town as Mayor. Then she was appointed to a state commission, and shortly after was recognized and promoted to be the leader as Governor of Alaska.

Obama was a community organizer but never made the leader of ACORN. Then he was in the state senate but never given a leadership position. He went to the U.S. senate and wasn't given any leadership positions (except for a minor subcommitee that never met).

For a comparison, look at Senator Jim Webb. Read the news articles about him, and you will see that he was a real leader for the one thing he really cared about -- his military reform bill. Everybody who speaks of Webb notes his leadership qualities, and the Senate Leadership actually put Webb out front on military matters, even though he's only been their 2 years.

So the Democrats in the Senate know who real leaders are -- and it isn't Barack Obama. And the people of Alaska know who true leaders are -- and it is Governor Sarah Palin.

Are there Two Joe Bidens running for Vice President?

I ask because here is this video from September 3rd in Florida, where Joe Biden, VP candidate, is clearly seen promising that a Biden/Obama administration will pursue criminal action against the Bush administration officials:



The Guardian picked up the story:

When asked during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, whether he would "pursue the violations that have been made against our Constitution by the present administration", Biden answered in the affirmative.
"We will not be stopped from pursuing any criminal offence that's occurred," he continued, going on to praise congressional committees for the deliberate pace of their inquiries into alleged Bush administration misdeeds.

But then, here is a video of a Fox interview where Biden explicitly denies the Biden/Obama administration will go after Bush (about 5:00 minutes into the video):


"“That’s not true. I don’t know where that report’s coming from,” said Biden.

Joe, it's coming from the other Joe Biden that is running with you for the co-vice-presidency position.

Reid calls Palin "Shrill" -- ever heard a man called "shrill"?

Apparently the guys at CNN haven't. They are actually noting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may just be sexist.

CNN confirmed Senator Reid was personally calling Palin shrill. The whole panel admitted that "shrill" is a smear used against women, not men.

After the break, Paul Begala thought better of it and said that there would only be a problem if they called Sarah Palin a bitch. Needless to say, even Campbell Brown couldn't stand for that.

The problem Palin presents to the Democrats is, how do they attack her? They are so used to just being able to launch offensive personal attacks and get away with it. But everything they do just comes across as sexist and crude. The Hillary voters noted that during the primary, and it's continuing now, and the media which is trying to help Obama out with their own attacks are also falling into the same sexist tripe.

Sarah Palin, Clean Slate (Democrat Mike Gravel)

A refreshing take on the Sarah Palin nomination, by Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel. Sarah Palin's Clean Slate:

Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, has been plucked from obscurity and now shares the stage with three other national leaders vying to head the next government of the United States. Sarah is very much of an Alaskan character. Politicos and pundits will have difficulty handling her as she is being tested in the crucible of media scrutiny over the next nine weeks. My guess is, Americans will relate to her and love her story.

I already do. Further in:

Governor Palin has an advantage that her three other national contestants can’t begin to match. I’m not talking about the fact that she has technically more executive experience than all three put together, although Obama has exhibited uncommon competence in managing the slickest and most efficient campaign since Mark Hannah got William McKinley elected president. However, like Hannah, who ran afoul of his corporate interests by selecting Teddy Roosevelt for vice president, Obama may have doomed his prospects by not selecting Hillary as his running mate.

He explains her reformer's experience:

Sarah Palin has a sense of personal outrage over political corruption that plays extremely well with the public, something the others have lost long ago. She has demonstrated the personal courage to publicly confront and overcome Republican Party corruption and has successfully taken on the oil industry over taxation and oil leasing issues. She has publicly stood up to Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young on the “Bridge to Nowhere” and the policy of federal earmarks arguing for a public transparency process.

Sarah has literally come to the national scene without owing anything to any party or corporate interest––not even McCain––he needs her more than she needs him.

And he dismisses the current media frenzy against her:

Sarah has issues. What politician doesn’t? Hers are a product of family loyalty and insufficient knowledge of politics and governance. The Troopergate issue will break in her favor politically. Sarah: the next time you get frustrated with personnel laws and union problems, call and commiserate with Michelle Lee, who heads up the Washington, DC dysfunctional public school system. She has fired more than 100 teachers and school principles and closed more than 20 schools. You will find her counsel helpful.

And in case you are wondering, Gravel isn't a fake democrat who is voting for McCain:

In the interest of full disclosure: I have no intention of voting for McCain. He is too steeped in the use of military power to solve problems and American imperialism—and the wars it creates. At times McCain has been a maverick, but, unfortunately, never that consistently. There are too many temptations in Washington, even for a man born on third base.

McCain did himself proud by flickering back to his gut maverick instincts in throwing a “hail Mary pass” to Sarah Palin.

Jacobsen should learn about his candidate before writing

Today Gary Jaobsen announced that the election was over and Obama had won. Hopefully, the people who read his column will believe him and stay home.

Anyway, he then devoted the bulk of his column to what Obama would do. In some cases he was correct, and hopefully those reading will be scared enough to vote for McCain. But in at least one case he is completely wrong about Obama's position on an issue -- which is kind of embarrassing. After all, when even Obama's ardent supporters have no idea what he has promised, it kind of shows that they aren't really interested in what he will do after all.

From the Potomac News column "Obama's First One Hundred Days":

Disestablish the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Under pressure from religious fundamentalists, Mr. Bush established this office through executive order on Jan. 29, 2001. Its sole purpose has been to aid religious groups in obtaining government contracts to provide a wide range of social services. Many have criticized the OFBCI as an unconstitutional government support of religious activities. President Obama will cancel it with a mere stroke of a pen.

Oops. Here is Obama's REAL position on the Faith-based initiatives, part of Obama's pandering to try to win evangelicals even though he believes in killing babies so his children aren't punished: Obama backs Faith-based Initiatives:

Today, Barack Obama announces that as president he would expand faith-based initiatives started under President Bush.

Or here, where the left-wing Huffington Post has an author who attacks Obama for supporting this program:

I always disliked Karl Rove's Republican patronage system that masqueraded as federal "Faith-Based Initiatives." Barack Obama's apparent embrace of this blurring of the line between Church and State, like his stand on the FISA bill and other moves lately, is a disappointment.
...
Obama's decision to embrace Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives" will also fail.

Usually, Gary gets his facts right and his opinions wrong. This time he was wrong on both.

Democrats Happy Gustav will hit New Orleans

I've come to expect a lot of disgusting things from the democratic leadership. But I've thought they still, in their hearts, cared about the people of this country.

So when Michael Moore got together with Keith Olberman and joked about how great it was that New Orleans was going to be devastated by another Hurricane, I figured the Democrats would have to at least to pretend to distance themselves.

But now a new YouTube video has surfaced. This isn't a couple of far-left hate-mongers like Moore and Olberman. This is current Congressman Jack Spratt, a leader of the Democratic Party, and Don Fowler, the former head of the DNC.

And in this video, we hear the two laughing -- about the Hurricane which is certainly going to kill people. They are laughing because it will do so during the Republican convention. Fowler sickenly says "this proves that God is on our side", as if God would send a Hurricane to kill people in order to help the Democrats.

Sorry -- if there is a supernatural force that would use death and destruction to help a political party, it isn't Heavenly, it is from the depths of hell itself -- which at this moment is where I think these two DNC operatives can go for their evil thoughts and statements.

Here's the video:



Here's the Transcript, as best I can do it:

"The Hurricane's going to hit (chuckle) New Orleans about the time....

The Timing, at least as it appears now, is that it will be there (chuckle), ...

that just demonstrates that God is on our side.

...
Everything's Cool"

I wait for the DNC to denounce these men for their hate-filled comments.

The Olympics Start

I didn't do this picture, but it sums up the olympics this year:

Welcome to the Congressional Dictatorship

When the democrats were trying to hoodwink the electorate into putting them into power back in 2006, one of their standard complaints was that the Republicans kept using the rules to keep the Democrats from winning votes on their proposals.

The most famous of those complaints was when the Republicans kept a vote open for 3 hours to convince enough of their party to vote for the Medicare Prescription Drug program (a vote I wish we had lost -- funny that the democrats complain about that one).

Well, the Democrats have found a better way to make sure the Republicans don't win votes -- don't ever allow them to vote.

The Democrats have just shut down for "summer vacation" (I presume the Senate is wasting money pretending to be open just so more important executive appointments go unfilled). They haven't passed a budget, they haven't passed a single appropriations bill, they have essentially accomplished nothing.

One major reason is that all of those votes would require allowing the Republicans to have a vote on oil drilling. Not that it would cause them to win the vote, just that Republicans would make the democrats DO a vote.

And the Democrats seem to know that, if a vote was held, they would lose -- or if they managed to force their members to vote against it, those votes would lose them elections.

So the Democrats cancel committee markups, bring every bill to the house floor under a "suspension of rules" which requires 2/3rds majority but doesn't allow amendments. And in their latest move, they simply adjourned in the middle of the energy debate rather than allow a vote on oil drilling.

In the Senate, they similarly are blocking any vote. How are they doing this?

Well, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have assumed the role of dictators, in a way the Republican leadership never came close to trying. Pelosi simply uses her power as leader to prevent votes. Reid similarly uses the senate calendar and the 1-man-veto of the senate to keep anything the Republicans want off the floor.

They can do this because the media is, by and large, ignoring the destruction of democracy which is the hallmark of the Democratic "new tone". In fact, typical liberal media will actually blame Republicans for wanting to have votes instead of "going along" with the democrats.

In a typical example, the republicans were blamed for a bill failing to pass when it couldn't get the 2/3rds vote it needed. Note that it was a bill that many Republicans would have supported if they simply were allowed to offer some amendments for a vote (many which would have passed and made the bill palatable).

We aren't talking about "poison pill" amendments -- those used by the Democrats, who tried to get amendments put on bills that the Democrats still had no intention of voting on, just to strip enough Republican support to kill the bill. We are talking about good-faith efforts by Republicans to address real problems with the bills, most of which aren't going through committee (where they might be modified by republican measures), and are being written by Pelosi's staff or other staff members instead. We are talking about amendments that would easily pass.

A typical example is the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Bill (LIHEAP). Judd Gregg (R) is a co-sponsor of the bill. But the Democrats attacked him for "voting against" his bill. The Union-Leader explains it best in their article "The LIHEAP lie: Harry Reid's Slick Trick":

On Tuesday, Republicans voted with Democrats to open debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act. To avoid a vote on offshore drilling, Reid refused to allow any amendments to the bill. Republicans, holding out for amendments, offered to allow a vote on the LIHEAP bill if Reid allowed amendments to the speculation bill. Reid said no.

Then on Saturday, Reid tried to call a vote on the LIHEAP bill without allowing amendments to it, either. Had the Senate approved that procedural move, every attempt to address high oil and gas prices would have been removed from consideration indefinitely. The bill addressing those issues would be off the floor, and only Reid could bring it back.

Gregg voted with most other Republicans against bumping the LIHEAP bill ahead of the speculation bill.

The LIHEAP bill could have passed easily if Reid wanted it to, but instead he just wanted to play tricks to make it look like it was the Republicans, rather than his own fascist leadership policy, that was making a mockery of the Senate processes:

The Senate schedule reveals the truth. The LIHEAP bill was introduced on June 24. The speculation bill was introduced on July 15. If the LIHEAP bill is so urgently needed, as Democrats claim, why did Reid wait more than a month to schedule it for a vote? And why did he schedule the speculation bill -- introduced 21 days later -- for a vote before it?

Clearly, Reid timed these votes for political effect. It was a slick trick to make Republicans appear opposed to LIHEAP, and The New York Times, among others, fell for it. On Monday, The New York Times' editorial board asked, "What's the matter with New Hampshire?"

Of course the New York Times "fell for it", although I think they knew EXACTLY what happened and just lied to their readers to help the Democrats (probably why they are losing money and have to lay off people).

Anyway, that is just one example of how Reid and Pelosi have suspended democracy. Pelosi explains that she won't allow any votes on drilling because she is trying to save the planet. Apparently she thinks that nobody else in the house, Democrat OR Republican, can be trusted to vote correctly.

Pelosi won't take calls or e-mails from anybody who doesn't live in her district. But she has taken away the rights of OUR representatives to vote. If she is going to run a one-vote House, she should at least let us all communicate to our "supreme leader" to express our dissatisfaction with how she is voting for all of us.

Of course, she could not get away with this if the rest of the Democrats in the house didn't let her. So for those of you in the 8th district, you can thank Jim Moran for allowing Pelosi to steal your representation. He'd rather support Pelosi than represent you by voting for your interests.

And those in the 11th district -- don't expect Connally to be any different. If we want to actually have a voice in how the government operates, we need to elect Keith Fimian.

Obama Links

Some old stuff about Obama:

Obama to Rob America.

Obama opposes mental health abortions -- no he supports them

Obama Acknowledges Troops importance in Iraq -- still wants to surrender

Barack Obama forgets what Senate Committee he's on

Maybe if he showed up for work, he'd know what committees he is assigned to.

Obama honors monument to German militarism.

(was: Obama honors Hitler Monument to Nazi victories. As a commenter noted, the comparison drawn by the article was not accurate, and I should not have used it as a headline. Hitler admired the monument enough to have it moved and to make a big speech there. Hitler saw it as a symbol of what Germany could be, and used it as a symbol to his country as he prepared to conquer Europe. My new headline "monument to German Militarism", I stole from George Will)

Oops.

In a never-ending string of mis-steps showing that Barack Obama isn't ready to be President, he has chosen to give a major campaign speech at a monument set up by Hitler to symbolize German dominance over Europe, a monument that celebrated Prussian victories over other European countries.

From "Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?":

Still, even as the issue of his speech's location has now been settled, a number of politicians in Berlin are still dissatisfied with the site. The Siegessäule -- or Victory Column -- was erected in memory of Prussia's victories over Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870/71). The column originally stood in front of the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building, but was moved by Adolf Hitler to its current location in 1939 to make way for his planned transformation of Berlin into the Nazi capital "Germania."
...
"The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France," the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag.

Obama previously was going to campaign at the Bradenburg gate, forcing the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to "dissuade" him (another of Obama's many acts which put our allies in a bad situation). Apparently he didn't think it important to actually LEARN the history of the countries he is visiting.

Obama Supports McCain's Surge for Afghanistan

While Obama still pretends the Surge in Iraq didn't work, he has decided to endorse McCain's plan to move troops from Iraq into Afghanistan, rather than "bring them home" as Obama has previously insisted.

The funny thing is, a "surge" may not actually be the answer in Afghanistan. The Bush administration is working out the forward plan for Afghanistan, as was reported yesterday:

U.S. intelligence officials summoned top Afghanistan experts to Virginia, including ex-ground commander Army Lt. Gen. David Barno, to chart a plan for victory, the Daily News has learned.

One point several of the experts agreed on: Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are clueless about the seven-year war, because each wants a troop surge. "Both candidates putting so much emphasis on troop numbers in Afghanistan have illustrated they have not grasped what the problem is," said New York University scholar Barnett Rubin, who attended the brainstorming summit.

I certainly don't know who is right here. But one thing I'm sure of -- Obama's "me-too" following McCain's lead on Afghanistan is not something you can count on him supporting in a month or two -- because after all, he is the candidate of "change" -- change you can count on.

Obama Can't Count?

A few months ago, Barack Obama told how he had visited 57 states during his primary run. While this was humorous, and was just one of many stupid things Barack has said, it seemed nothing more than a simple mis-statement.

But now there is additional evidence that Obama just doesn't know how to count, from Jake Tapper:

Read more over at "All About Obama", "Obama Can't Count".

Political Reconciliation in Iraq

In the latest victory related to McCain's plan for the Surge in Iraq (which Obama opposed), the Sunnis have rejoined the government:

This is inconvenient for Barack Obama, to say the least, and once again demonstrates how he's really not ready for any responsible leadership position, as he is so clearly irresponsible. In thie case, Obama made the rookie mistake of preparing and presenting the "results" of his "fact-finding" tour before he actually took the tour. He published those "results" on July 14th in the New York Times. If he had waited, he wouldn't have looked so clueless. From Obama's July 14th Op-Ed:

Obama: "Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

From today's news, while Obama is off on his junket, Iraq's Sunni Arab bloc rejoins government :

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's main Sunni Arab bloc rejoined the Shi'ite-led government on Saturday in a breakthrough for national reconciliation after parliament approved its candidates for several vacant ministerial posts.

Pretty much whenever Obama speaks with any specificity, he is shown to be wrong shortly after. I don't know what is worse for Obama -- feeling bad about good news because it goes against his philosophy of defeat and surrender, or watching as his rival's plan for Iraq, which he denounced, WINS the war that Obama was so sure was lost and would lead to his victory in November.

Yet Another example of why Obama is not Presidential Material

Just about every day, Barack Obama demonstrates how he's barely qualified to be a U.S. Senator, much less President of the United States.

In today's misstep, Obama jumped on a mis-quote from a foreign paper to claim an endorsement of his policies by the Iraqi leader. As a candidate, this put our ally in a tough position of having to clearly clarify his remark and correct the error. If Obama was President, this would have been an international incident.

Any reasonably intelligent person would have known better than to believe everything you read in the papers. And while a LOT of bloggers and even some reporters jumped on the mis-reported information, we expect the leader of the free world to be more circumspect, to fully evaluate information before jumping to conclusions, and to NOT publicly humiliate other foreign leaders who are our allies in the war on terror.

First, from Fox News, Obama stepping in it:

The apparent endorsement of a cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy drew swift praise from the Obama camp. But the White House stressed that any timelines are contingent on “security gains” in the region.
...
Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of U.S combat brigades,” Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said in a statement Saturday. “This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”

This forced Maliki to publicly dispute the report, which most certainly wasn't helpful for his leadership, but was necessary before Obama made any more stupid statements and really damaged our relationship. Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan:

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

In the magazine interview, Al-Maliki said his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.

This of course is what we all want, and what the President has been working for, and what McCain's position is -- that we will stop fighting when the war is won, that we will as quickly as we can get our troops out of harms way.

This is NOT what Obama wants. In fact Obama wanted all of our troops out by March of 2008. That's 5 months ago, before the surge had finished working, before the gains became so entrenched that we reasonably can say the war is over. Under Obama's plan, we never had the surge, we pulled out while Sadr's troops controlled the south, while Iran still ran all over the country, while the government was in disarray, and the Iraqi military unable to control the violence.

Obama's plan was to leave an Iraq embroiled in a civil war run by Iran, turning the country into an enemy of the United States, threatening the entire Mideast supply of oil, and causing terrible harm to the war on terror.

Obama has stubbornly stuck to his plan, even as Iraq met goal after goal related to the Surge. In fact, even now Obama is claiming there is no political process -- while Iraq announces that the Sunnis have rejoined the government. It is like a sad parody, almost any time Obama speaks anything of substance, he is proven wrong within the news cycle.

But remember -- at some time, Obama will be "right", because at some time it will be time to withdraw. At some time, it will be 16 months until we are done. It's quite possible that time is today -- things are going well after all.

But after saying for 17 months that we needed to pull out our troops, Obama can no longer rationally claim to be "right" when that day finally comes, any more than the guy who every day plays the same lottery ticket is somehow a "prognosticator" if one day he hits some of his numbers.

No NASCAR for Obama's Campaign

In keeping with his campaign's "Change Constantly" message, Obama has rejected his idea to sponsor a NASCAR team.

Obama is gaining experience in flip-flopping with each new change. This one took only two days.

Presidential candidate Obama to sponsor Cup car at Pocono race, Sports Illustrated, July 11, 2008:

A BAM spokesperson has revealed the team will hold a press conference July 23 in Miami to reveal the partnership, currently a proposed one-race deal with an option to continue. Obama will be at the briefing, which will be tied to the "Get Out The Vote" campaign message he spread throughout the 2008 primary season.

That was Friday. Today, Obama Passes on potential NASCAR sponsorship, Miami Herald:

Late Friday, the Obama campaign said there would be no sponsorship.
"The Obama campaign will not be sponsoring a car in the Sprint Cup series, though we will continue to look for ways to reach out to voters and convey Senator Obama's message of change." said Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman

Why? When it was first announced, people generally took the news positively, as an example of how Obama was in fact willing to reach out beyond his narrow constituency of elitists, liberals and African-Americans.

As David Knowles noted in "Obama, NASCAR Sponsor?" on AOL news:

Shrewd. What I like is that, as with evangelicals, Obama is not content to cede the playing filed to the Republican nominee. John Kerry was pretty hopeless on that score back in '04. The potential downside of such a maneauver? The charge of callous vote mongering. Still, it's a preemptive strike. We can only wait for McCain to announce his sponsorship of a wind-surfing team in retaliation.

But maybe with all his other flip-flops, he needed to send a message to his rich white liberal supporters that he really was part of their crowd.

Obama "Anytime, Anywhere" more like "Not no-how, not no-where"

IN the movie "Wizard of Oz", the Cowardly Lion talks tough until people stand up to him, and then he cowers. Obama is like that. He said he would debate McCain "Anytime, Anywhere" (Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2008):

McCain thought it was a good idea, and invited Obama to a series of town hall meetings. The New York Times reports thatObama, like the Cowardly Lion, has chickened out:

Obama Won’t Commit to Event at Military Base: “I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq.

Read more at "Obama like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz", over at All About Obama.

Obama Drags Jeremiah Wright out from under the bus

Obama has made a name for himself throwing people under his campaign bus, even long-time close personal friends like Jeremiah Wright, his pastor and mentor for 20 years.

However, when he is targeting specific audiences, he sometimes like to drag people out from under the bus.

In an interview in April with the gay magazine "The Advocate", Barack attacked black Christian churches, and praised his former advisor:

I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities.

Remember, this is a supposedly intelligent man who attended a church for 20 years and doesn't remember a single instance of racist comments from his own pastor. But he apparently is very much in tune with the "homophobic" message from black Christians who apparently are hung up on traditional scripture, and an acceptance of homphobia because too many people in the AA community are "churched".

He continues:

I mean, ironically, my biggest … the biggest political news surrounding me over the last three weeks has been Reverend Wright, who offended a whole huge constituency with some of his statements but has been very good on gay and lesbian issues. I mean he’s one of the leaders in the African-American community of embracing, speaking out against homophobia, and talking about the importance of AIDS.

Apparently Obama thinks there is a constituency of his that was offended by Wright's racism, but that Wright's pro-gay religious views were "very good".

BTW, in keeping with my previous post, in this interview Barack essentially says he supports gay marriage but won't actually SAY it himself (he has since as I noted below), and he also is opposed to the Defense of Marriage act, and supports including "gender identity" in a bill forcing employees to accept alternative lifestyles:

I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated.
...
I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law. ... I have been clear about my interest in including gender identity in legislation, but I’ve also been honest with the groups that I’ve met with that it is a heavy lift through Congress.
...
Absolutely, and I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA.
...
So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating.

IN other words, I'm for gay marraige, but I might not get elected if I say it.