This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: John McCain/Sarah Palin

  • Chavez not a McCainiac

    A few weeks ago, we read that the terrorists of FARC were hoping for an Obama victory, yesterday I wrote that a Democrat Congressman turned up in FARC computers as a collaborator with the terrorist organization. Today’s news brings word that Chavez, Venezuela’s terrorist-supporting, anti-American demagogue, announced he’s not supporting a McCain candidacy (Reuters link).

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a socialist and fierce U.S. critic, warned on Tuesday that relations with Washington could worsen if Republican candidate John McCain wins this year’s presidential election.

    Chavez said he hopes the United States and Venezuela can work better together when his ideological foe, U.S. President George W. Bush, leaves the White House next year, but he said McCain seemed “warlike.”

    “Sometimes one says, ‘worse than Bush is impossible,’ but we don’t know,” Chavez told foreign correspondents. “McCain also seems to be a man of war.”

    Chavez — who has called Bush “the devil”, “a donkey” and ‘Mr Danger” — accuses the United States of having imperial designs in Latin America and says the White House has plotted his overthrow.

    I guess Chavez wasn’t paying attention in 2004 when Osama bin Laden came out for a Kerry presidency. American voters don’t like being told by foreigners how we should vote.

    The Jawa Report writes that Chavez is meddling in Peru now, since his revolution isn’t catching on in Venezuela.

  • NY Times; McCain and stuff that doesn’t matter

    While Clinton and Obama are busy duking it out over which of them is more experienced to be president, John McCain is doing all of the things candidates who have their party’s nomination locked up can do – kissing babies, visiting the troops in Iraq, etc. But the New York Times doesn’t want to limit itself to reporting current events. Since John McCain won’t do anything or say anything that reflects poorly on his candidacy, the Times dredges up crap from the past.

    The New York Times thought they had caught John McCain in an affair last month and rushed the story to print before they could complete their research and it back-fired on them. A week or so later, they brought up the fact that McCain had a bout with melanoma back in 2000 under the headline that McCain doesn’t talk about it on the campaign trail.

    Today, the Times drags out the old story that McCain considered leaving the Republican Party four years ago, again using the headline that he doesn’t talk about it on the campaign trail;

    Senator John McCain never fails to call himself a conservative Republican as he campaigns as his party’s presumptive presidential nominee. He often adds that he was a “foot soldier” in the Reagan revolution and that he believes in the bedrock conservative principles of small government, low taxes and the rights of the unborn.

    What Mr. McCain almost never mentions are two extraordinary moments in his political past that are at odds with the candidate of the present: His discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.

    There are wildly divergent versions of both episodes, depending on whether Democrats or Mr. McCain and his advisers are telling the story. The Democrats, including Mr. Kerry, say that not only did Mr. McCain express interest but that it was his camp that initially reached out to them. Mr. McCain and his aides counter that in both cases the Democrats were the suitors and Mr. McCain the unwilling bride.

    So, of course, we’d rather believe the Democrats’ version (because everyone knows Republicans can’t be trusted to answer truthfully) that McCain was ready to defect. But boiled to down it’s significance, we (and the New York Times) should realize that it doesn’t matter either way. He didn’t leave the party, and now he’s the party’s nominee. So who really gives a tiny rat’s ass what happened four years ago? No matter whose version is the correct version.

    Maybe the New York Times should commit the writers that they’ve dedicated to research on McCain into doing a little research into the two Democrats. Republicans have been a little too cautious to choose candidates with any closet skeletons – forcing Democrats and the New York Times to make up their own scandals with no evidence. Perhaps Democrats should be a little more careful about who they choose – well, if the New York Times would do their job and actually help the country root out corrupt Democrats before they get into office.

    Focusing on Democrats might turn out to be more productive for the Times than just throwing McCain’s stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.

  • John Kerry: race trumps experience

    John Kerry, who lost an easy election because he wouldn’t sign his Form 180, advises us to vote for Barak Obama because of the melanin levels in Obama’s skin in this interview with South Coast Today;

    [youtube T71c2FXsbEw nolink]

    ABC News’ Jack Tapper summarizes Kerry’s interview;

    …[H]e’s supporting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is his belief that “it would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people. if we could elect an African-American president, young leader, who is obviously visionary about the ability to inspire people.”

    Kerry said that a President Obama would help the US, in relations with Muslim countries, “in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can’t otherwise.”

    “He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism,” Kerry said. “To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.”

    Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.

    “Because he’s African-American. Because he’s a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country.”

    Now if I’m not mistaken, Obama has asked us to vote for him not because of the color of his skin…and here we have John Kerry telling us that’s the main reason we should consider him as our leader. Obama’s father is from Kenya and his mother is white. He grew up outside of the United States during the Civil Rights movement. So, where is this “place of oppression and repression”? His father’s family, nor his mother’s family, for that matter, were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow…neither was Barak Obama, Jr. either. He has nothing in common with American Blacks.

    Abe Greenwald at Commentary asks the same question;

    Also, where is this “place of oppression and repression” in which Obama has suffered “through the years”? Hawaii? Harvard? The Senate? We should find out immediately and do something about this horrific crisis.

    Kerry goes on to explain that Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq gives him worthwhile experience. Experience in what? He wasn’t in a position to do anything about the war in iraq until just over two years ago. Kerry was in a position to do something about it at the time the decisions were made – oh, that’s right he “was for it before [he] was against it”. That means we made the right decision in 2004 and kept Kerry out of the White House, I suppose, since Kerry voted for the war and Obama knew better than Kerry.

    Kerry just proves he’s a racist – and a hack. I suppose if he was endorsing Clinton instead, he’d say that she could put on a flowery apron and bake cookies for the third world better than anyone else.

    We were supposed to vote for Kerry based solely on his three months in Vietnam because his three months of service gave him some special powers to conduct the war. Based on that criteria, he should be endorsing John McCain. I (don’t really) wonder why he’s not.

    MT at Conservative Blog Therapy sums up Kerry’s interview in one phrase;

    Obama will be a great President because we’re all bad people… and he’s black.

  • Running on a record

    Back in Novemeber 2006, I predicted right before the election that the Republicans would lose in the midterm elections because of their greatest success – preventing further attacks against Americans on our own soil. Nearly two years later, nothing has changed – there have been no further successful attacks. The Left continues to use the Republicans success against them by intimating that there is no threat because there’ve been no attacks. Democrats have successfully diverted the discussion away from security and on to the subject that gets them the most votes – the economy.

    Today, in the Wall Street Journal, the Left’s favorite boogeyman, Karl Rove writes that the left avoids talking about national security because, as we used to say in the infantry, they’re LIW – Lost In the Woods;

    For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they’ll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office — without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America’s security — a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.

    Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn “on a timetable as soon as possible.” And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.

    It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.

    Rove goes on to quotes Democrat Party leaders deep in denial;

    In September, Mrs. Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” This week, she said “we’ll be right back at square one” in Iraq by this summer.

    In December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to admit progress, arguing, “The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals.” He said a month earlier there was “no progress being made in Iraq” and “it is not getting better, it is getting worse.”

    Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Feb. 9 if she was worried that the gains of the last year might be lost, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: “There haven’t been gains . . . This is a failure.” Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told the Associated Press the same month that the surge “has failed.”

    This passionate, persistent unwillingness to admit what more and more Americans are coming to believe is true about Iraq’s changing situation puts Democrats in dangerous political territory. For one thing, they increasingly appear out of touch with reality, a charge they made with some success at the administration’s expense before the surge began changing conditions in Iraq.

    Their one hope is that John McCain keeps repeating his absurd comment that we’ll keep troops in Iraq for 100 years (Examiner link);

    …McCain’s response at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January when he was asked about a comment President Bush had made about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 50 years.

    “Maybe 100,” McCain answered. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

    I know what he meant, my readers know what he meant, but the knee-jerk media (with whom McCain has lost his luster) distorted it to mean that McCain would stay there and fight a war for a hundred years. McCain should have known better.

    But the fact remains that anyone concerned about our security can’t seriously consider the Democrats. Their strategy is to pay off our enemies with perks – and generally ignore the more dangerous. Similar to Jimmy Carter’s strategy that led to the rise of the Islamic Republic (which led to the Iran-Iraq War, the arming of Saddam beyond his security needs and eventually the current war in Iraq), the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which led to the rise of the Taliban eventually).

    The Democrats’ vocal base won’t let them talk about real national security; Code Pink is holding common sense hostage while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid prevent discussion and passage of essential national security legislation. Our national security is dependent on a tiny group of shrieking drag queens.

    Just wait till they run both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

  • I think NYTimes is after McCain

    Well, maybe it’s just a bit of paranoia.

    First, as soon as he became the nominee of the party, they ran their story about his “affair” which turned to be nothing.

    Then Friday, they got bent all out of shape over the interview he gave in regards to the talks McCain had with Kerry back in 2004. The video and transcript is at Politico. It turns out that the reporter was just plain rude, and the New York Times is fixated on stuff that happened a longtime ago and usually is a molehill. This time they want all to remember he has a famous temper (which makes him unstable, apparently).

    Now this morning they run an article that asks why no one is asking him about his melanoma problems back eight years ago with a headline like this; “On the Campaign Trail, Few Mentions of McCain’s Bout With Melanoma” – so he might die right after we elect him is their point, I suppose.

    Maybe it’s just me, but I’m getting the impression that maybe John McCain isn’t the New York Times’ choice for President in November. I wonder when they’re going to run an article on Hillary’s 35 years of experience, or on Obama’s land deals?

    Updated: Bloodthirsty Liberal reminds me that the NY Times endorsed McCain so they must support his candidacy. Turns out, it’s just me after all.

  • Doing McCain’s work for him

    I mentioned yesterday that the two Democrat candidates will spend the next several months hammering away at each other and today we get some good examples of how well they’re doing the heavy lifting for John McCain.

    From American Pundit, Hillary tells us that John McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the job of President;

    [youtube zMVOT-IH8sg nolink]

    She can’t seem to say it enough; John McCain brings a lifetime of experience. She brings a lifetime of experience, too – but we all know what her experience has been, don’t we? Oh, and Barack Obama brings a speech he made six years ago.

    But, then, from Ace of Spades, it gets even better. Susan Rice one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors tells MSNBC that neither Hillary nor Obama are ready for that 3 AM phone call;

    [youtube TumIz2bajus nolink]

    A transcription from Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs;

    In it, Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Barack Obama, discusses the foreign policy credentials of both Democrats against the tableau of Mrs. Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call advertisement about who would be best prepared for an international crisis. (While your children are safely asleep.)

    “Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready,’’ Ms. Rice said. “They’re both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call.”

    In a word… awesome.

    Get that – neither are ready.

    Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard quotes some Obama staff going for Clinton’s throat;

    Well, the Obama campaign appears to have gone green. They’re recycling all the old viciousness the left has been using on George Bush for years now and applying it to Hillary Clinton. Today, it’s prying the Most Secretive® label off Bush and attempting to slap it onto Clinton.

    The Obama campaign is stepping up the rhetoric. Campaign Manager David Plouffe went so far as to call Hillary Clinton the “most secretive politician in America today.”

    The tough talk underscored not only the negative shift in tone of the Obama campaign in the past 24 hours, but just how contentious this fight for the nomination is becoming.

    This cartoon from Baldilocks;

    mud wrestling

    I hope the McCain campaign is getting all of this.

  • Bush/McCain lunch today

    whitehouse_el_20080305123034.jpg

    Photo from Associated Press

    From Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire;

    Perino said Bush thanked the former candidates for setting a good tone for the race and raising interest in the Republican field. She said Bush has a “very favorable view” of McCain and plans to campaign on his behalf. “President Bush has never forgotten how hard Sen. McCain worked to re-elect him in 2004,” Perino said.

    Still, the men fought bitterly for the Republican nomination in 2000 and have disagreed on a number of high-profile issues, including the administration’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, climate change and interrogation tactics used in the war on terror.

    “I’m not going to argue that they haven’t had their disagreements,” Perino said, noting that they agree on basic national security principles and the need for “pro-growth” economic policies.

    We all remember the bitter Bush vs. McCain campaigns in 2000. John McCain lost me as a supporter when in South Carolina he called the proposed Bush tax-cuts “tax cuts for the rich”. True to his character, John McCain continued to oppose President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. But John McCain stood by the President in the 2004 campaign against John Kerry and he’s stood by the President on nearly every aspect of the war against terror.

    John McCain has disappointed nearly every Conservative at some point in his career, as I’ve written already, I include myself in that number. I’ve read through out the Conservative blogs how “we’re screwed” because John McCain is our candidate. Some have said that they’ll support Hillary or Obama before they’d vote for McCain. Many people I otherwise respect and admire have declared that they’ll stay home before they vote for John McCain – I probably said the same thing about your candidate at some point, too.

    Well, that’s just silly, actually. It’s called cutting off your nose to spite your face. No candidate can be completely everything every voter wants. John McCain has an 80% conservative rating compared to two candidates that have 98% leftist ratings. Four years or even two years of Democrats on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue could impact this country in ways that we’ll never be able to repair.

    Jimmy Carter walked the length of Pennsylvania Avenue as every President before him had – after four years of Jimmy Carter’s weak-kneed foreign policy, no President has been able to make that one-mile walk safely since.

    We have an extraordinary advantage here. Given that we’re battling against the media as well as the Democrats here, we need every advantage we can grasp. While Clinton and Obama are still battering each other with verbal sledgehammers and dirty politics (as illustrated by Invincible Armor), John McCain can stay above it all and get his message out – our message.

    To borrow a quote from my battle buddy Crotchety Old Bastard; I love my country more than I dislike John McCain.

    If President Bush and Senator McCain can set aside their differences for the party and the country, so should we.

    Back to the Washington Wire;

    Awaiting McCain, who was scheduled to arrive at noon, Bush walked out on the White House’s North Portico at around 11:35 a.m. After joking with reporters and performing an impromptu dance similar to his footwork in Ghana last month, the president returned to the White House only to reappear a moment later as McCain’s Cadillac pulled into the driveway.

  • “Little Mac”; McCain’s military service doesn’t count

    “Little Mac” Wesley Clark reportedly had an IVAW moment today – by that I mean that no one’s military service counts except what I (Clark, DeWald, Clifton Hicks, Adam Kokesh, et al.) say counts. With a hat tip to Hot Air, National Review’s Byron York recounts the conversation;

    Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.

    If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she’s the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.

    Allah Pundit writes;

    Hey, remember four years ago how we needed a vet at the top of the ticket since only people who’d seen the horrors of war could appreciate the human cost of sending men into battle? Late-breaking caveat: Having seen the horrors of war isn’t quite as valuable experience-wise as picking out White House china patterns.

    Ed Morrisey writes;

    Hillary Clinton has five years on the Armed Services Committee, less than a quarter of the tenure of John McCain, who has been on the panel since 1987. Not only has she never served in the military, neither did her husband, on whose administration she supposedly soaked up all of this military readiness. In terms of strategic experience, which is what the ASC addresses, McCain runs laps around Hillary Clinton.

    Furthermore, it’s not as if John McCain sat silently in the Senate on foreign policy and national security issues. As he notes sometimes ad nauseam, McCain came out early to demand a change in post-invasion strategy and tactics in Iraq. He understood that the nature of the conflict had changed to a counterinsurgency and foresaw the strategy necessary to conduct it.

    Funny how military experience during a war isn’t as important now as it was four years ago when the Democrats were trying to undermine a US victory in Iraq with the head chickenshit from our last war. Wesley Clark didn’t mention that his experience wasn’t worth squat while he was running for the Democrat nominee, either.

    Visiting 80 countries on your own private jet, with your own private staff isn’t leadership experience. Leadership experience is a vocation in which you make split-second decisions that involves the lives of tens, maybe hundreds of people you know intimately. Being First Lady or one voice in a crowd of a hundred people doesn’t give you leadership experience – it gives you the power of bullshit.

    For Wes Clark and those other flag officer puds on the conference call to demean themselves is one thing, but to demean the hundreds of thousands of the rest of us who are running our own corners of this nation based on our experience as military leaders is downright shameful. They all need to go back to their Myrtle Beach (or is it Hilton Head, now) country clubs, put on their high-waisted polyester trousers and their white loafers and STFU.