About Me

Name:Sean
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Okay Mr. Clark, Who's Really More Qualified?

Posted by Sean on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:09:01 AM

It seems a new coalition -- we’ll call them “Jerks for Obama” -- has chosen to make issue of McCain’s indisputably selfless and heroic service to our nation. And while Obama's surrogates and supporters are doing this, the candidate cleverly gets to play the role of “above-the-fray” saint, speaking against his supporters attacks, yet somehow failing to actually stop them.

Since we are however, looking at who is better qualified to lead as Commander in Chief, a comparison of experiences can't hurt. Here goes:

Barack Obama:
 
Harvard

“community organizer”

Illinois state senator

US Senator for less than 4 years (time mostly spent running for President)

"Brave" anti-war speech delivered to sympathetic anti-war crowd in 2002

Called for “immediate” withdrawal from Iraq during the Democrat primary

Changed to supporting a “gradual” withdrawal from Iraq after winning the nomination

Plans to move to the center on the Iraq issue, further solidifying credentials as a flip-flopper man of “change”

Failed to visit Iraq since 2006 (too busy running for President)

Pledges to visit Iraq, now that the campaign has begun in earnest, out of political necessity
 
Cannot (or will not) stop sleazy attacks on McCain's military service coming from his own surrogates, showing amazing ineffectiveness as a leader
 

John McCain:

Family tradition of military service (a tradition that continues today with the latest generation of McCain’s presently on active duty)

US Naval Academy

US Navy Officer

US Navy Pilot

P.O.W. Vietnam War

17 awards throughout Navy career, including: Silver Star, Navy Commendation, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star

War College

Armed Services Committee Ranking Member

US House

US Senate

Opposed Rumsfeld's flawed strategy very early on

Advocated a counter-insurgency in Iraq years before anyone
 
Turned his primary campaign into the “No Surrender” tour, saying “I’d rather lose an election than a war”, in the face of extemely low public opinion of the war

Supported General Petraeus (Obama supporters MoveOn.org called Gen. Petraeus, Gen. “Betray-us”)

Iraq sees unexpected progress -- McCain was "right all along" (more here, from a group that opposed the war)

Has visited Iraq 8 times

Invited Obama to travel with him to Iraq in a bi-partisan mission to review progress and show united support for the troops (Obama declines, chooses the more partisan action of “considering” a visit this summer)
 
Linked here is another good comparison of the candidates from a College Conservative
 
Obama guy Gen. Wes Clark recently suggested that military service is an unimportant qualifier, yet thought something entirely different in 2004 while supporting Kerry: (from Ham Blog)
"John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He's seen the flash of the tracers. He's lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he's proved his moral courage too.

John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too.

John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief."

So, military service mattered in 2004, but not in 2008? Why the change, Mr. Clark?

Obama may be a new face, but his campaign remains focused on the past. His surrogates seem motivated by “revenge” for the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans campaign against Kerry (condemned at the time by McCain). Leftist Obama supporters in general seem to want revenge for the 2000 race -- something that happened eight years ago! Domestically, Obama has proposed resurrecting the same stifling, economy-wrecking, job-killing, wealth-destroying policies from the seventies in response to an already slowing economy, moves that would weaken our standing in the world.

In spite of the positive new tone he's promised, Barack Obama's campaign continues to rely on phoney pandering, and the same dirty, two-faced politics of the past.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Would DRAFT Baby Alex!!!

Posted by Sean on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:06:03 AM

A while back, the far left group MoveOn.org, supporters Barack Obama, released an ad almost as annoying as their infamous “Petraeus Betray-Us” attack. It featured an adorable, playful toddler and his mother, who flat-out tells John McCain, “you can’t have him.”

Of course, they are implying, totally illogically, that Baby Alex will somehow, someway, end up in Iraq if John McCain is elected.

Sure, in order for that to happen, McCain would have to figure out how to remain in office -- if he’s elected President -- for about ten years past the end of a second term in order for Baby Alex to be of military age. In addition, McCain would have to draft Alex, and McCain opposes a draft. Assuming any of this is even remotely possible, McCain would have to reverse his position -- and maybe even become a liberal Democrat.

The fact is, recent attempts to draft people into the military have not come from Republicans, George W. Bush, or John McCain. Instead, they’ve come from a liberal DEMOCRAT!

It was Democrat Charles Rangel who pushed legislation for a draft in 2003, with support from other Democrats, but not McCain or Republicans. Subsequent attempts to enact a draft have come in following years not by McCain, but again by Rangel, the Democrat. (Again, Democrat means “not Republican” for anyone in doubt).

Even in the face of mostly solid recruiting numbers, it is still just a prominent Democrat who seems dead-set on a draft -- and not McCain.

Now, if Baby Alex were to decide for himself one day to serve in our all-volunteer military, he would have my deepest respect and gratitude. While the “mom” in the commercial or MoveOn.org might view Alex as a victim because of his choice -- most Americans would rightly see him as a hero.

If progress continues the way it has recently in Iraq, there is a good possibility that Baby Alex won’t even have to worry about it. Thanks to an effective counterinsurgency implemented by the ingenious General David Petraeus -- and favored years ago by McCain -- Iraq has a real shot at success.

Compare that to the ideas of Obama, driven by political expediency, and the left. Both advocate pulling the rug out from under this progress, with no consideration of the violent aftermath that would follow. McCain -- who was right about the surge -- has suggested that a pull out would lead to an explosion of brutality and chaos that a future generation would have to face with much deadlier results. With that in mind, perhaps Baby Alex’s mom should vote for McCain instead -- and tell Obama and the liberal Democrats, “you can’t have him.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Richardson's Energy Runaround

Posted by Sean on Monday, June 30, 2008 7:06:58 PM

Bill Richardson was hand picked by Barack Obama to deliver the Democrats Radio Address this week, energy being the topic. With gas prices at over $4 a gallon and climbing as a result of bad policy going back years -- including Richardson’s time as Energy Secretary -- the New Mexico governor seems a strange choice.

A smart man like Richardson must realize that: increased reliance on imports, refusal to allow more domestic drilling, and stubborn denial of nuclear power -- all policies he presided over under Clinton -- might not have been such good ideas after all. Richardson also seems committed to the disastrous Obama plan for a windfall profits tax, designed to punish the very folks whose expertise we need for the difficult job of extracting oil.

Said Richardson of Obama: "He'll tax the record profits of oil companies and use the money to help struggling families pay their energy bills."

It’s a little strange that Richardson is so hostile to an industry that -- thanks to the extremely high prices -- have actually saved New Mexico’s wasteful, big-spending budget. “Big Oil” nonetheless remains a much too irresistible, though contrived target, when you’re pretending to be on the side of the people.

When will Republicans, along with the McCain campaign, start showing all Americans what this means for our wallets? The last time our government tried a windfall profits tax, it actually increased our reliance on imports, stifled domestic production, and produced dismally disappointing revenues for our government.

When will Republicans, along with our nominee, start telling middle class voters that what the Democrats are planning amounts to a stealth tax increase on everything we purchase, by making everything we buy more expensive to make?

When will McCain and Republican candidates start to passionately offer both long and short term solutions, and condemn Democrats who continue to only think “short-term?”

Richardson and Democrats attempt to discredit real reform, saying of the new push for drilling that it "will do nothing to provide immediate relief for families struggling with the high cost of gas."

When are Republicans going to respond by saying, “well, it’s been too many years of ‘short-term’ thinking that have landed us in the desperate place we’re at today. Now is not the time for pandering. We must move forward to meet our nations needs -- both long and short term -- starting now.”

And when will the Democrats ever get called on their phoniness, like when Richardson delivers the talking points: "We believe the oil companies should drill on some of the millions of acres of land they already have but aren't using, instead of snapping up new land and putting our natural resources at risk."

It is time for McCain and Republicans to highlight the dishonesty of instructing the oil industry to drill where there’s no oil, while denying the opportunity to drill where there actually is. This backward policy that puts politics first continues to hurt hard working Americans.
 
This crisis presents an ideal opportunity for some forceful -- and long overdue -- “Straight-Talk".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Assaults McCain’s Integrity at NALEO

Posted by Sean on Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:10:19 AM

For someone as non-committal as Barack Obama is to his own pledges and promises, he sure had a thing or two to say about keeping your word to John McCain. Following McCain at the NALEO Conference (National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials) Obama had the stunning audacity to say this of his opponent:

“Now, one place where Senator McCain used to offer change was on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party’s nomination, he walked away from that commitment and he’s said he wouldn’t even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote.” (emphasis mine)

Criticize McCain’s blocked Immigration Bill all you like, but any fair observer can easily recognize that McCain’s stance on that issue caused enormous damage to his campaign, drove it to near total collapse, and almost prevented his nomination altogether. It may be the one single reason he never completely won over those in the Republican Party who consider themselves “very conservative.” Even many Democrats, like Obama supporter Bill Richardson, and former Clinton supporter Ed Rendell, have openly complimented McCain for his political courage on that issue.

Still, that’s not enough to convince the saintly Obama, who continued:

“We can't vacillate. We can't shift."

These are stunning words from a candidate who made multiple promises over the course of a year to work with his opponent on a publicly financed campaign -- but immediately dropped that pledge when it became financially advantageous to do so. This, from a man who said in front of AIPAC that Jerusalem "must remain undivided” -- then backtracked within a mere 24 hours from being perceived more hawkish than Israel's government, or even President Bush. As evidenced by his condemnation of FISA during the primary -- and subsequent support for the legislation in the general campaign -- Obama is someone who will say anything to please whatever audience he happens to need applause from at the time.

Contrast this with McCain, who has endured the punishment that often befalls a true non-partisan, and proven tough enough to survive. To this day, McCain offers his unfailing support to the extremely unpopular Iraq war. He criticized Rumsfeld early while supporting a change to what we now call "The Surge” -- years before it became popular with Republicans -- and long before anyone knew that the strategy would drastically reduce violence.

Barack Obama, in the meantime, not only hardly ever talks about Iraq anymore, but hasn’t even bothered to visit in the past 2 years. Perhaps he's been too busy running for President since 2006? 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform was a risky issue McCain was willing to tackle. McCain led a heroic bi-partisan effort, enjoying cooperation from Conservatives like John Kyl, all the way to staunch liberals like Ted Kennedy. The most that can be said of Obama at the time is that he may have worked to add so many overtly partisan provisions to the bill that it became unworkable, guaranteeing failure, and leaving us with the status-quo we have today.

If Obama truly hopes to lift politics to a higher level of discourse as he says, he would do well to avoid questioning the integrity of John McCain, and perhaps work instead to clarify his own specific vision for America.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From Hope to Huh?

Posted by Sean on Friday, June 27, 2008 8:08:34 AM
The reason Barack Obama chickened out on the 10 joint Town Halls proposed by McCain could be that Obama -- candidate of change that he is -- would prove unable to hold any given position long enough to last the entire challenge.
 
Let's imagine how it might have gone anyway.

At the 1st Town Hall meeting, Obama would be against NAFTA --- but for it come the 2nd meeting.

The 3rd Town Hall would reveal an Obama against FISA --- but supporting it by the 4th event.

During the 5th Town Hall, Obama would pledge to use public campaign financing --- only to abandon this pledge come Town Hall # 6.

Town Hall # 7 might present an Obama ridiculing the idea of the “tiny country” Iran posing a serious threat --- then calling it a “grave threat” at Town Hall # 8.

At Town Hall # 9, he would voice support for an “undivided Jerusalem”, but then --- even before the next Town Hall could take place --- say something else as soon as he leaves the building.

Finally, at Town Hall # 10, Obama would support the Supreme Court ruling saying DC’s handgun ban is unconstitutional. Challenged by an audience member, Obama then blows off his previous and contradictory statements as “inartful”.

The idea behind John McCain’s Joint Town Halls was to offer a historic opportunity to get to know the candidates without having to rely on “the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections.”

McCain’s proposal could have offered a chance to see the real Obama, but judging from recent inconsistencies, maybe it really doesn't matter. If Obama were to act at the Town Halls the way he does in his normal campaign, voters would still remain completely confused.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Did Obama Have to Call Me a Racist?

Posted by Sean on Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:07:18 PM
Barack Obama has suggested that anyone who doesn't vote for him is a racist. This is annoying, because the real reasons most people reject Obama have to do with a difference of opinion on foreign policy, energy, economics, qualifications, etc.

Dennis Miller has responded, capturing the frustration all of us feel who are not racist, but have nonetheless been dismissively labeled as such by Barack Obama.
 
On "The O'Reilley Factor", Miller explained:
 
"I was a guy who liked him, but wasn't going to vote for him. Now I'm a guy who's not voting for him -- and starting not to like him."
 
 
That pretty much nails it for those of us who -- while opposed to Obama's views -- nonetheless admire his historic campaign, and were looking forward to a different type of election that was a little more honest and civil than past ones. Instead, it's become politics-as-usual, bogus charges-of-racism-as-usual, and stifled debate. The blame for this sadly rests with Barack Obama, "Mr. Hope & Change" himself.
 
While Obama might suggest that any critic of his is ultimately a closet racist, Dennis Miller -- and John McCain for that matter -- have gone out of their way to avoid any hint of racist rhetoric. Even when Obama's lunatic pastor of 20 years nearly derailed his nomination, Miller went easy on him, blowing off Rev. Wright's remarks as schtick. Miller hilariously labeled him Rev. "Jeremiah Dice-Clay".
 
There has, in fact, been an element of racism in this campaign, but it has not come from Republicans or John McCain. Shockingly, it has come from the Democratic Party, Rev.Wright, and now, sadly, Barack Obama himself.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy Reform vs. Rhetoric

Posted by Sean on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:08:29 AM
Further complicating Barack Obama's attempt to attract working-class voters is his lame response to the high price of gas. The price shocks and public outrage have come so fast that not even his slick political machine has had time to convincingly pretend to care. Instead of the expected soaring oratory from Obama, we've heard mainly clumsy, incomplete, ill-informed statements on this issue.
 
First, Obama blamed hurting American consumers for using too much, explaining on CNBC that "we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite." Obama continued by stating "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment" -- confirming that $4 a gallon is cool with him. 
 
Obama's lack of genuine sympathy aside, what is his actual position on oil? Something bold, innovative, and fitting a candidate of the future, perhaps?
 
Not exactly. For whatever reason, Obama has chosen to demonize oil companies, oppose increased domestic drilling, and call for bringing back a quarter-century old failed tax policy that increased dependence on foreign oil, while passing extra cost to consumers.
 
But while Obama's emotional, deceptive rhetoric runs dry, an opportunity emerges for genuine reform to triumph. This is an opportunity McCain must seize to win votes, and that the Republican Party can use to repair it's image.
 
The energy debate particularly suits McCain, since it hits on the two biggest themes of this election: the economy and national security. While speaking about this issue, McCain can offer real reform, an economic ray of hope for all Americans, and simultaneously remind voters about national security, naturally his best issue. At a recent townhall, McCain did just that with the following words:
 
"America imports about one third of its oil from Canada and Mexico and no one need worry about a reliance on friendly, stable neighbors, and partners in NAFTA. The Middle East and Venezuela are a different story. We import roughly a quarter of our oil from them, and they have a disproportionate impact on world prices. When we buy foreign oil from these and other sources, there are many consequences -- all of them far-reaching and none of them good. Worst of all, by relying on foreign oil, we enrich bad actors in the world, some of whom finance terrorists.

Some in Washington seem to think that we can still persuade OPEC to lower prices -- as if reason or cajolery had never been tried before. Others have even suggested suing OPEC -- as if we can litigate our way to energy security. But America is not going to meet this great challenge as a supplicant or a plaintiff. We are not going to meet it with words at all -- we are going to meet it with action. We're going to produce more, conserve more, and invent more. And to a large extent, this strategy hinges on innovations in the cars and trucks we drive."

For conservatives, the fact that McCain has acted quickly on this issue should be encouraging. It shows that he can forcefully take up a cause conservatives are passionate about. Even on ANWR, McCain recently showed an open-mindedness with these comments:
 
“If people have new information or want me to review policies…no matter what those policies are, I’d be glad to review them,” he said. “People have said to me, ‘I’m going to bring you new information about ANWR, how environmentally we can make it safe.’ I’ll be glad to accept new information but my position has not changed.”
 
While Democrats would no doubt accuse McCain of flip-flopping, he could easily deflect that. McCain could say that he's open minded enough to have reconsidered new solutions that put the best interests of the United States first. Technology has advanced to the point that ANWR drilling can be done in an environmentally sound way, and our country has always celebrated innovation. McCain has never been one to put politics or ideology before the needs of the country, and advances in technology insure that drilling in ANWR can be done while still protecting the environment. As such, this is about getting serious, and moving forward with a real plan to become energy independent.
 
Also hugely impressive is McCain's idea to offer a prize for whoever comes up with the most innovative battery concept, the most creative idea put forth in the campaign thus far:
 
"I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. -- a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency -- and should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs."
 
Whether McCain gets onboard with ANWR or not, the choice is still crystal clear. McCain wants agressive reform by way of additional drilling, conservation, and bold innovation. Obama wants to tax innovation, increase reliance on foreign oil, and offer zero hope of a drop in pump prices -- all wrapped up in a neat package of partisan rhetoric. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Much Will Obama Make You Pay?

Posted by Sean on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:11:14 AM
Shame on you, small business owners, poor people, investors, entrepreneurs, married people, parents, survivors of the deceased, and companies providing and creating jobs.
 
Barack Obama thinks you're taxes aren't high enough, and it's high time you pay up!
 
Actually, he may have a point. Should the country suffer the consequences of an Obama win in November, there's no doubt a Washington DC controlled entirely by Democrats will run up quite a tab. Americans for Tax Reform has a chart to show just how much:
 
                                                                              McCain vs. Obama on Taxes
                                                                         Which April 15 would you rather have?

 

 

Current Law

 

McCain

 

Obama

Top Tax Rate

35%

35%

39.6%

Lowest Tax Rate

10%

10%

15%

Capital Gains Rate

15%

15%

20%

Dividends Rate

15%

15%

39.6%

Death Tax

0% by 2010
(Repealed)

15%/$10 million

55%/$1 million

Marriage Penalty

None Under
$150,000

None Under $150,000

Full from Dollar One

Child Tax Credit

$1000

$1000

$500

AMT Rate

28%

0% (Repealed)

28%

Self-Employment Rate

37.9%

37.9%

54.9%

Corporate Income Tax

35%

25%

35%

Business Infrastructure

Long and Complex Depreciation

Full Expensing

Long and Complex Depreciation
 
It's clear that under Obama, just about everybody suffers a needlessly punitive tax hike. Even if you're lucky enough to not see yourself on this list, you'll still be paying. In fact, it's almost worse for the "middle class" with Obama's plan, because those hikes will be hidden in the form of higher prices for the stuff you buy, the denied raise you were expecting and probably deserve, or the layoff you or someone in your family may endure as the result of a severe recession. Surely a man as suspicious of corporations as Obama is realizes that corporations don't pay taxes. He can hike their taxes all he wants, but it still only means higher prices for all of us who need to buy stuff from these companies.
 
As the lessons of The Great Depression clearly demonstrate, the last thing you want to do in response to a weak economy is raise taxes and get all protectionist on trade -- yet that's exactly what Obama proposes, like Hoover did in '32, and in direct contrast to his forward campaign message.
 
And John McCain? Well, he gets it. McCain's policy is much more in line with his slogan "Reform, Prosperity, Peace". 
 
With Obama, all we can do is hope that he changes his policy to one we can believe in.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homemade Barack Baloney

Posted by Sean on Monday, June 23, 2008 7:47:29 AM
The "homemade" signs you see at Obama rallies are as phoney as his promise of post-partisan change.
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Worst Person in the World: Barack Obama

Posted by Sean on Friday, June 20, 2008 11:32:57 PM
Keith Olbermann makes his living on the pathetically low-rated MSNBC cable network attacking Conservatives for any perceived hypocrisy, often putting them on his "Worst Person in the World" list. Most Conservatives making the list usually take it as a compliment, Olbermann being the cartoonish, far-left blowhard clown nothing that he is. 

But pretend for a moment that Keith's list is non-partisan and honest, and a perfect candidate for that list would be none other than Mr. Barack Obama.

For some time now, the Obama campaign has promoted "change", "hope", "unity", and "a new type of politics". These are nice words, none of them backed up by actions.

In fact, every opportunity Obama has had to offer change, he has refused. He has refused to answer questions from ordinary voters in joint Town Halls with John McCain, preferring the media-elite controlled, carefully choreographed status-quo instead.

When speaking in front of AIPAC, Obama boldly proclaimed "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Then, no longer needing the applause of the audience, and just 24 hours later, Obama reversed his stated position.

Of course, all politicians shift positions based on political need. McCain has emphasized border security first, in contrast to his previous hard push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. McCain has suddenly become more open-minded about drilling, even now "considering" ANWR. But these particular changes benefit more than just the politician, as they have the best interests of the American people in mind. We absolutely need border security, and struggling Americans need reasonable energy prices and alternatives. 

In contrast, Obama's flip-flops are based more on the needs of his campaign than the needs of the American people. Furthermore, they come swiftly at the first hint that it might benefit his political machine. 

The latest, sleaziest example includes his refusal to stand by his word, and accept public financing. Instead, Obama has opted for the much more financially advantageous private option, the first candidate to do so since Nixon. This breaks several previous pledges to work in a bi-partisan spirit on an agreement to publicly finance. Obama further proves the worthlessness of his word since he had put this now broken promise in writing. Obama then goes on to shift blame for his own moral failure to McCain, dishonestly accusing his opponent of using 527's that Obama supposedly needs to defend against. The problem is, Obama fails to name exactly which groups he's referring to, maybe because they don't exist. In fact, the only outside group attacking any national candidate right now is MoveOn.org, and they're attacking McCain. Funny how Obama conveniently excuses them from criticism.

So, for displaying that your word means absolutely nothing, Barack Obama is --- cue phoney, Keith Olbermann-style pretentious broadcast announcer voice --- THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!  
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Offers Change, and Obama Refuses

Posted by Sean on Friday, June 13, 2008 4:08:28 PM
The Obama Campaign has rejected John McCain's proposed Town Hall meetings for some really lame reasons. Instead of accepting the offer to take questions from regular voters in the intimate, free-wheeling sessions, Obama has instead chosen to place a priority on political "campaigning".
 
This rejection from Obama comes on a Friday, the day every typical politician or corporation uses to sweep issues they don't want to face under the rug.
 
Then the doulble-talk from Obama's campaign manager:
 
Plouffe tried to place the blame on McCain for refusing to agree, saying five joint appearances "would have been the most of any presidential campaign in the modern era, offering a broad range of formats and representing a historic commitment to openness and transparency."
 
If you take Plouffe's statement seriously, all this proves is that McCain is more transparent, more open than any other candidate in history, since he's offered 10 meetings to their proposed 5 -- with only one of theirs being the non-traditional Town Hall debate. The Obama campaign proposed the single Town Hall event take place on the 4th of July holiday -- when nobody is paying attention.
 
For a candidate who says he wants change, Barack Obama has a strange affinity for old-style structured debates, old-style controlled, choreographed campaign appearances, old-style rhetoric, pandering, and tactics, and a near Nixonian aversion to transparency and criticism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Letterman Gets a Long Overdue Lecture

Posted by Sean on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:36:29 PM
I count myself among the shrinking number people who actually still watch David Letterman. Having missed last night's show, I was glad to see the replay of a brief segment on O'Reilley and H & C, in which former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw set the record straight on a few things. 
 
On the terrible state of the nation, Letterman contended “everything...has gone so lousy in the last eight years” so “things are horrible in ways they shouldn't be horrible.” Brokaw pointed to his book about 1968, and delivered a friendly lecture:
Let me remind you that forty years ago this year, Doctor King was killed, Bobby Kennedy was killed, we had the Chicago riots, 16,000 people were killed in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for re-election, the Kerner Commission said we are two societies -- one white, one black, separate and unequal -- we had urban riots and in the fall we had as cantankerous and as contentious and in many way as mentally violent an election as we've ever had...
Similarly assuming the present is the worst ever, Letterman complained: “People are all talking about, 'okay we're going to change the emissions by 2035, by 2020.' That's too late. I mean, it's a hundred degrees now!” Letterman pleaded: “It's got to come from the government. They have to lead us.” Brokaw agreed, but then made the host uncomfortable:
BROKAW: The government has to lead and those of us who drive -- uhh uhh -- big carbon-emitting vehicles or fly in airplanes that have only two passengers on them-
LETTERMAN: Alright, alright, that's fine Tom.
If you watch Letterman regularly, it is apparent that he suffers badly from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Also obvious is the completely dishonest and transparent pass he gives Obama. I watch a little bit of Letterman nearly every night, and I have yet to see anything ridiculing Obama. McCain and his age? Hillary and her pantsuits? All fair game. But Obama alluding to not just 50 -- but 57 states? Not a peep. In fact, there is an ever-growing list of material Letterman's writers could use to make jokes about Obama -- John Fund documents a few in WSJ -- but so far, the Letterman staff refuse. Does Letterman do this because he is in the tank for Obama? That would make him disingenuous to his trade as a comic, and not very funny. Does he do it because Obama is African American? That means the host is racist -- and really, really not funny. So what's the deal?
 
Good for Tom Brokaw standing up to this overpaid, over-the-hill has-been. Letterman is a crybaby millionaire who felt he was simply entitled to host "The Tonight Show." When NBC wisely chose the more deserving, hard-working, appreciative, and likable Jay Leno -- Letterman threw a tantrum, played the victim, and sought justice at CBS. Unfortunately for Letterman, Leno proved his superiority, as his dedication and tenacity lead to consistently dominant ratings. Letterman's bitterness about all of it often seems just under the surface. Though occasionally still funny, today's Letterman is mostly just a pseudo-intellectual tool for the left, Dick Cavett wannabe loser. His self-deprication is forced and contrived. More obvious is his belief that America somehow owes him better ratings, that he's the real heir to the late-night throne, and that his show is relevant. Dave is as phoney as the applause-on-cue TV phoniness he built a career mocking. Once cutting-edge, Letterman is now a tired act.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I'm a McCain Apologist

Posted by Sean on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:47:44 PM
John McCain has annoyed me for the first time this election season. His recent "throwing-under-the-bus" of Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley is wrong. These are flawed, but decent men who are far less offensive than Obama's ignorant lunatic of a pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. Furthermore, McCain is not a member of Hagee's or Parsley's church, making the need for a controversy comparable to Obama's situation ridiculous. So, it drives me nuts that McCain caved on this one.

But I'm over it -- and here's why: Hagee will now (hopefully) be spared an unfair, one-sided, smear job by vicious, Obama-cult-worshipping, left-wing media types. McCain will be spared the distraction of having to explain these guys -- who he barely knows anything about anyway -- to a completely un-reasonable media. McCain can now focus on his key winning issues: national security and fighting government waste.

McCain is still great in 2008. He was right on Iraq strategy. I doubt that McCain would have put up with Rumsfeld's crap for so long, had he been President instead of Bush. Had the administration listened to McCain's call to change course four years ago -- maybe Iraq would be successfully finished by now. 

I also believe McCain when he says he will take a hard line against earmarks, saying he will not sign a bill containing them, and pledging to make the pork-authors famous. The joke of the recent farm bill, which he courageously opposed, (and "Mr. Change Obama" supported), is a preview of what we might get with McCain and a veto pen.

McCain also has a solid record of never voting to raise taxes. That is why he supports continuing the Bush Tax Cuts. Since letting them expire -- as Obama and the Democrat majority clearly want -- would mean a large increase for every taxpayer, McCain is firmly against letting that happen. 

These are "the big things" McCain is right about. It's also nice to be able to vote for a genuine American hero. Read "Faith of My Fathers", and try not to tear up at least once, overwhelmed with pride in our country and the peolple who serve it. There is no better advocate for American victory than McCain right now, and no better voice to heed when encouraged to "serve a cause greater than yourself."

McCain's optimistic vision of American greatness and victory -- economic, militarily, and diplomatically -- are far more inspiring than the opposition's bleak view of weakness, failure, and victimhood.        
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Late Night with John McCain

Posted by Sean on Monday, May 19, 2008 11:58:20 PM