As I am blogging from Seattle, a very safe haven for the liberal left, it is an interesting perspective to hear the direct thoughts of the reaction to Palin - most notably that Palin is a great choice for McCain, but a bad choice for the Left.
Why a bad choice for the left?
Anyone who has been reading the blog entries I have posted about Palin knows a little something about her - but the left fears Palin on McCain's ticket for a number of reasons:
1. Youth and Beauty - She is a young and attractive woman, giving breath to the youth in the party - a youth that Obama was supposed to have swooped in and offered to take away to his Utopian America. Palin is two years younger than Obama - and has the ability to attract young independent women away from Obama. She represents something new for conservative women - a change, perhaps?
2. Maverick - A McCain/Palin ticket represents a true reform in the Republican Party. There is NO WAY that democrats are going to be able to pin Bush onto Palin - and Palin's style of Maverick Politics further refutes the "McSame" argument. Palin, who ripped out the guts of the corrupt Alaskan Republican Party, represents reform in the GOP. It scares some in the GOP - but two reformers leading the GOP smells like hope and change to Independents weary of the Good-Ol-Boys network in the GOP... change from the GOP of today to the GOP of the future means a return to Core Republican Values of small government and accountability. Change, indeed.
3. Conservatism - Palin is the true conservative/libertarian vote. She has all the qualifications to pass the "conservative test" with flying colors - family, faith, firearms, freedom. As a mother of 5, she shows her strong commitment to family values, especially for the Right to Life movement (ensuring a wonderful life for Trig, her newborn son who is afflicted with Downs). She is the conservative choice that can re-energize the base of the GOP - and this is what scares the Dems most.
Of course the list goes on. As America comes to know, and love, their next VP, we will see more and more why McCain and Palin are the best choice for America. As for me, I will enjoy reading the headlines stolen away from Obama and his Obamopolis speech, in favor of how McCain has just shaken things up in 2008.
CNN: Palin: Pioneer, Maverick - and now game changer
Seattle Times: Why McCain's VP choice is a Gamble for the GOP
NY Times: Palin, an Outsider who Charms
Fox News: McCain Names Alaska Gov as Running Mate
Democrats are going to attack Palin on experience (Ironic), but Palin, as she stated in her introduction speech, is the Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard. She is the Chief Executive of the State of Alaska. Her political history is in the executive branch - and if Obama is going to state that small town America does not count (as we bitterly cling to our guns and faith), then he is going to have to realize that America IS small town! Where Obama has two years in the Senate, Palin has two years as the Head of the State of Alaska. In my book, two years of Executive experience trumps two years of legislative experience - and one must remember that Palin is number two on the ticket... ready to "be ready to lead"...
Democrats are going to attack Palin on Foreign Policy - however, as the Governor of Alaska, Palin has to work directly with the Russian government, and the Canadian government for affairs that impact her state - such as Fishing and Energy. She has executive experience in dealing directly with foreign heads of state (or their delegates) - which is more than Obama can say. She has been to Iraq to visit HER National Guard troops - not play basket ball with some well troops while shunning the injured troops because no flash photography is allowed. I would argue that she has plenty of foreign policy experience to take the number two spot on the ticket - especially since she has more FP experience than the democrat number one spot!
Democrats are going to attack her on being a pro-life woman. I say let them. If the Democrats want to fight the social conservative fight, the GOP will win every time. History has shown that on social issues, Americans are by and large conservative. If the left intends to paint conservatives as vile (as they tend to try), they are going to see themselves isolated on the left.
John McCain has made the right choice; the choice that should mend ties with Social Conservatives; the choice that should bring the youth vote and the female vote back into play for the GOP.
There will be a LOT of spin out there by the left - CNN has already called her a "Gun Toting Pro-Lifer" - But there is not enough spin out there to spoil the race.
And that is what we have now - A race!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Why McCain MUST Pick Palin
I am heading out on a short vacation to Seattle. I will surely make every attempt to blog from that location, but may only fit one in (in response to McCain's VP pick).
There has been an increased amount of talk about McCain's VP pick - and more and more folks agree that McCain is going to pick a woman... unfortunately, the Liberal MSM continues to float Kay Bailey Hutchinson's name in this 11th hour. She is a fine leader, no doubt, but she is too close to the Bush campaign - and McCain making that selection would only continue the "McSame" feelings. McCain needs to pick a woman - a good conservative... and the liberal MSM is afraid of Palin - so they float KBH.
I received a letter from the general editor of Palin for VP. I would like to share it with you, and once again, fully endorse Sarah Palin, Gov of AK as the only momentum VP nomination.
---------------------------------------
The letter reads:
Sarah Palin is an anomaly in American politics. It's not because she's a
woman, not because of her blue-collar background, and not because of her
ability to juggle the titles of "governor" and "committed mother of
five". Forget about all of that stuff for a moment; it's interesting, but
if Barack Obama has taught us anything, it's that a compelling biography
is not a qualification for leadership. Instead, Palin is unique because
she can claim one of the broadest bases of support of any leader in our
country. Other than the lunatic fringes of Alaska's kleptocratic
political establishment, nobody hates her.
Most politicians rise to power because they represent a certain wing of
their party, and even some of their own partisans detest them. Mike
Huckabee will never resonate with libertarian republicans, social
conservatives cannot support Rudy Giuliani, certain evangelicals will
always have a problem with Mitt Romney, and frankly I doubt that
hard-core conservatives will ever fully embrace John McCain. That doesn't
make them bad candidates; it just means that they face significant
opposition within the Republican Party. Sarah Palin does not have that
problem.
I have been working to draft Gov. Palin as Vice President since February
of 2007, and I can recount first hand how she has united divergent views
among Republicans and is now even gaining Democratic support. The key is
that she offers a combination of qualities that make her a hero to many,
many different groups. For instance, two of our strongest bases of
support have been social conservatives and libertarian republicans, who
are normally at each other's throats.
However, she offered both groups something that they desperately wanted
without compromising any appeal to the other. The SoCons loved her
pro-life, pro-family, and pro-gun positions, while the libertarians and
fiscal conservatives cheered her on as she vetoed hundreds of millions of
dollars of wasteful government spending. Getting those two groups to sing
kum-ba-ya was enough of an accomplishment, but now it appears that a
third group has found what it wants in Gov. Palin: McCainocrats.
For those Democrats who are considering abandoning the Obama ticket
(primarily disillusioned Clinton supporters), Palin represents the final
push into the Republican camp. Not only is she a woman (which, like it or
not, is an issue for some voters), but she also puts a fresh,
future-oriented face on the McCain campaign. By upending Alaska's corrupt
political class, Palin has actually produced the type of change that
Barack Obama can only talk about; and her collar is far bluer than Joe
Biden's ever was. Furthermore, she is arguably the only candidate who has
the necessary expertise to address the single most pressing issue in this
election: gas prices. As Governor of Alaska, Chair of the Interstate Oil
and Gas Compact Commission (America's largest interstate organization),
and a former Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,
Sarah Palin can run rings around almost anyone when it comes to oil.
The last candidate to assemble such a broad coalition of support was a
gentleman by the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan. He not only won the
presidency in two successive landslides, but went on to become one of the
most beloved and effective presidents in recent history. Now, I realize
that it is somewhat presumptuous of me to make this comparison, but I
personally have no doubt that Sarah Palin has the capability to become
the next Reagan. In fact, the only real question that I have heard is
whether we should bring her to the forefront now as a VP candidate or
save her for later as a full-fledged presidential hopeful in 2012. I
personally choose the former, because the latter involves the defeat of
John McCain and the election of President Obama and Vice President Biden.
2008 will be a crucial election year, with the winner being handed the
responsibility for the Iraq war, the gasoline crisis, the Russo-Georgian
conflict, and any number of other issues. The stakes are simply too high
to throw McCain under the bus and bide our time. Likewise, Sen. McCain
should realize that the stakes are too high for him to select a VP
candidate who simply "does no harm" rather than pushing his ticket over
the top.
There is one sure fire solution to this problem, one way to guarantee a
McCain surge, one way to put Obama on the defensive, and one way to
steamroll to victory in November. Her name is Sarah Palin.
There has been an increased amount of talk about McCain's VP pick - and more and more folks agree that McCain is going to pick a woman... unfortunately, the Liberal MSM continues to float Kay Bailey Hutchinson's name in this 11th hour. She is a fine leader, no doubt, but she is too close to the Bush campaign - and McCain making that selection would only continue the "McSame" feelings. McCain needs to pick a woman - a good conservative... and the liberal MSM is afraid of Palin - so they float KBH.
I received a letter from the general editor of Palin for VP. I would like to share it with you, and once again, fully endorse Sarah Palin, Gov of AK as the only momentum VP nomination.
---------------------------------------
The letter reads:
Sarah Palin is an anomaly in American politics. It's not because she's a
woman, not because of her blue-collar background, and not because of her
ability to juggle the titles of "governor" and "committed mother of
five". Forget about all of that stuff for a moment; it's interesting, but
if Barack Obama has taught us anything, it's that a compelling biography
is not a qualification for leadership. Instead, Palin is unique because
she can claim one of the broadest bases of support of any leader in our
country. Other than the lunatic fringes of Alaska's kleptocratic
political establishment, nobody hates her.
Most politicians rise to power because they represent a certain wing of
their party, and even some of their own partisans detest them. Mike
Huckabee will never resonate with libertarian republicans, social
conservatives cannot support Rudy Giuliani, certain evangelicals will
always have a problem with Mitt Romney, and frankly I doubt that
hard-core conservatives will ever fully embrace John McCain. That doesn't
make them bad candidates; it just means that they face significant
opposition within the Republican Party. Sarah Palin does not have that
problem.
I have been working to draft Gov. Palin as Vice President since February
of 2007, and I can recount first hand how she has united divergent views
among Republicans and is now even gaining Democratic support. The key is
that she offers a combination of qualities that make her a hero to many,
many different groups. For instance, two of our strongest bases of
support have been social conservatives and libertarian republicans, who
are normally at each other's throats.
However, she offered both groups something that they desperately wanted
without compromising any appeal to the other. The SoCons loved her
pro-life, pro-family, and pro-gun positions, while the libertarians and
fiscal conservatives cheered her on as she vetoed hundreds of millions of
dollars of wasteful government spending. Getting those two groups to sing
kum-ba-ya was enough of an accomplishment, but now it appears that a
third group has found what it wants in Gov. Palin: McCainocrats.
For those Democrats who are considering abandoning the Obama ticket
(primarily disillusioned Clinton supporters), Palin represents the final
push into the Republican camp. Not only is she a woman (which, like it or
not, is an issue for some voters), but she also puts a fresh,
future-oriented face on the McCain campaign. By upending Alaska's corrupt
political class, Palin has actually produced the type of change that
Barack Obama can only talk about; and her collar is far bluer than Joe
Biden's ever was. Furthermore, she is arguably the only candidate who has
the necessary expertise to address the single most pressing issue in this
election: gas prices. As Governor of Alaska, Chair of the Interstate Oil
and Gas Compact Commission (America's largest interstate organization),
and a former Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,
Sarah Palin can run rings around almost anyone when it comes to oil.
The last candidate to assemble such a broad coalition of support was a
gentleman by the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan. He not only won the
presidency in two successive landslides, but went on to become one of the
most beloved and effective presidents in recent history. Now, I realize
that it is somewhat presumptuous of me to make this comparison, but I
personally have no doubt that Sarah Palin has the capability to become
the next Reagan. In fact, the only real question that I have heard is
whether we should bring her to the forefront now as a VP candidate or
save her for later as a full-fledged presidential hopeful in 2012. I
personally choose the former, because the latter involves the defeat of
John McCain and the election of President Obama and Vice President Biden.
2008 will be a crucial election year, with the winner being handed the
responsibility for the Iraq war, the gasoline crisis, the Russo-Georgian
conflict, and any number of other issues. The stakes are simply too high
to throw McCain under the bus and bide our time. Likewise, Sen. McCain
should realize that the stakes are too high for him to select a VP
candidate who simply "does no harm" rather than pushing his ticket over
the top.
There is one sure fire solution to this problem, one way to guarantee a
McCain surge, one way to put Obama on the defensive, and one way to
steamroll to victory in November. Her name is Sarah Palin.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
McCain's Ad Strategy - a Gem!
John McCain's team is 100% effective at hitting Barry Obama where it hurts - his ego. He has effectively used an ad campaign telling a story of an Obama so sure that he is the chosen one that he doesn't have to have any actual experience or substance at all.
In fact, his team is effectively doing so with the words, not of Republicans, but of angry democrats - including Biden and Clinton.
Here is the latest ad - in which Hillary Clinton admits that McCain has life experience, while Obama has a speech in 2002.
The barrage of ads against Obama have given rise to "Obama Doubt" - not necessarily amongst the Obamanites (who would surely drink the Kool-Aid for Obama in order to catch the UFO Comet) - but rather amongst Independents who are undecided. The tactic makes experience the issue, makes Obama the issue. It asks, literally, what the experts think about Obama's ability to lead...
The answer throughout the primaries, and now into the general election is simple: Obama is inexperienced.
This gem of an ad campaign has worked to pull McCain and Obama to a dead tie - 47% - 47% in the latest CNN poll - and that was AFTER Obama's VP bump...
More importantly, McCain has hyped up a huge bump for Obama after the convention - which if it does not occur further tarnishes Obama's perception (or deception) of perfection.
And to round out the new McCain ads - a Hillary supporter and delegate officially and publically defects to McCain - stating that "it's OK - really" to vote for McCain if you are a democrat. Like I said - a gem!
In fact, his team is effectively doing so with the words, not of Republicans, but of angry democrats - including Biden and Clinton.
Here is the latest ad - in which Hillary Clinton admits that McCain has life experience, while Obama has a speech in 2002.
The barrage of ads against Obama have given rise to "Obama Doubt" - not necessarily amongst the Obamanites (who would surely drink the Kool-Aid for Obama in order to catch the UFO Comet) - but rather amongst Independents who are undecided. The tactic makes experience the issue, makes Obama the issue. It asks, literally, what the experts think about Obama's ability to lead...
The answer throughout the primaries, and now into the general election is simple: Obama is inexperienced.
This gem of an ad campaign has worked to pull McCain and Obama to a dead tie - 47% - 47% in the latest CNN poll - and that was AFTER Obama's VP bump...
More importantly, McCain has hyped up a huge bump for Obama after the convention - which if it does not occur further tarnishes Obama's perception (or deception) of perfection.
And to round out the new McCain ads - a Hillary supporter and delegate officially and publically defects to McCain - stating that "it's OK - really" to vote for McCain if you are a democrat. Like I said - a gem!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Illegal Mexican Immigrants Returning to Mexico in Record Numbers
An interesting report out of Dallas indicates that the solution to stopping illegal Mexican immigration into America was as easy as tanking the economy!Fox News Reported on Friday that Illegal Immigrants are Returning to Mexico in Record Numbers.
The Mexican Consulate's office in Dallas is seeing increasing numbers of Mexican nationals requesting paperwork to go home for good, especially parents who want to know what documentation they'll need to enroll their children in Mexican schools.
The report suggests that more than 1.3 million illegal Mexican immigrants have returned to their homeland in search of permanent establishment.
Mexico's government is bracing for the strain on it's own social services, and the decrease in wages once the Mexican market is flooded with new laborers - the same strains America was facing during the on-slaught of Mexican government aided illegal immigration.
With this reverse flux of immigrants, America has an obligation to ensure that the border is secure, and that any return by these immigrants is done in a legal manner.
The report did not indicate if violent offenders were also fleeing the United States of America, or if the flow of homeward bound migrants were of the upstanding variety. Unfortunately, logic would dictate that the criminal elements will remain, driving a deeper hatred for migrants in America, and possibly shaping migration policy. I digress.
Call it a small step for the rule of law.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Obama/Biden - Disaster for Democrats
How better to start this blog than with a new ad that McCain had prepared in case Biden was the VP pick:
Joe Biden openly admits, and stands by his words, that Obama is not ready to lead - playing directly into John McCain's ad campaign attacking his readiness to lead:
Obama could not have made this easier for the GOP. An Obama/Biden ticket is not a unity ticket. There is nothing of interest to conservative voters, nor centrist voters. This is a radical left ticket aimed at putting the nails in the coffin of conservatism - a maneuver that is sure to isolate the Democratic voting block to the far left.
Let's let Biden and Obama explain, in their own words, America as they see it:
2nd Amendment Rights:
Joe Biden accuses a gun owner of being mentally unqualified to own a weapon because he chooses to own a semi-automatic rifle.
Obama supports gun laws that would restrict any private owner of possessing a weapon, for any reason - as he supports the DC gun ban. (It is hard to get that message through the double speak - but listen closely)
Healthcare:
Joe Biden believes that government run healthcare is the only answer, supporting any democratic plan, and suggesting that government is an asset - not a problem - in getting involved with personal health planning
Obama is pushing a more stringent government run Hillary-care plan, asserting that government funding for healthcare is the goal for his socialist America - and clearly states that Abortion Rights are at the heart of his plan
General Feelings Toward America:
Obama believes that America is an inferior country, politically , socially, and structurally - and he will take every chance he can to share his thoughts on America's inferiority
Joe Biden is generally an idiot who believes that it is appropriate to compliment the Indian community by comparing them to the Simpon's Abu
The Democrats are going to have an uphill battle - with Obama slipping in the polls, Biden was not the pick to give him the bump necessary to wing the election in his favor.
Biden represents liberalism, and politics as usual (as one of the most senior senators for the Democrats) - this is not change - this is more of the same.
John McCain is now free to wow the press with a selection of Sarah Palin, bumping the "eh" factor of Biden with the "wow" factor of a true Maverick ticket for the GOP.
Joe Biden openly admits, and stands by his words, that Obama is not ready to lead - playing directly into John McCain's ad campaign attacking his readiness to lead:
"I think he can be ready but right now, I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training"As I wrote earlier this week: Joe Biden would be a closer fit for the TRUE Obama - a radical leftist liberal in favor of socializing the US. Biden would bring foreign policy experience to the ticket, but selecting Biden would isolate Centrist Democrats, possibly giving them directly to McCain.
Obama could not have made this easier for the GOP. An Obama/Biden ticket is not a unity ticket. There is nothing of interest to conservative voters, nor centrist voters. This is a radical left ticket aimed at putting the nails in the coffin of conservatism - a maneuver that is sure to isolate the Democratic voting block to the far left.
Let's let Biden and Obama explain, in their own words, America as they see it:
2nd Amendment Rights:
Joe Biden accuses a gun owner of being mentally unqualified to own a weapon because he chooses to own a semi-automatic rifle.
Obama supports gun laws that would restrict any private owner of possessing a weapon, for any reason - as he supports the DC gun ban. (It is hard to get that message through the double speak - but listen closely)
Healthcare:
Joe Biden believes that government run healthcare is the only answer, supporting any democratic plan, and suggesting that government is an asset - not a problem - in getting involved with personal health planning
Obama is pushing a more stringent government run Hillary-care plan, asserting that government funding for healthcare is the goal for his socialist America - and clearly states that Abortion Rights are at the heart of his plan
General Feelings Toward America:
Obama believes that America is an inferior country, politically , socially, and structurally - and he will take every chance he can to share his thoughts on America's inferiority
Joe Biden is generally an idiot who believes that it is appropriate to compliment the Indian community by comparing them to the Simpon's Abu
The Democrats are going to have an uphill battle - with Obama slipping in the polls, Biden was not the pick to give him the bump necessary to wing the election in his favor.
Biden represents liberalism, and politics as usual (as one of the most senior senators for the Democrats) - this is not change - this is more of the same.
John McCain is now free to wow the press with a selection of Sarah Palin, bumping the "eh" factor of Biden with the "wow" factor of a true Maverick ticket for the GOP.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
RNC Speaker List hints at VP?
Fox News Reports that the speaking line-up at the RNC is another veil of secrecy regarding the Republican VP pick. Of those on the short list, 7 most common names are speakers at the RNC - in speaking slots that do nothing to hint at McCain's favorites.
Should speculators consider that Romney and Jindal, slated to speak on the third night already, are the top two choices, or that their listing on the third night indicates that they will merely be introducing the VP nominee? Jindal has indicated that he is not interested in VP, so that would leave Romney.
Or should we consider the second night as an introduction of the nominee? This leaves Ridge and Palin. Ridge has already come under increased attacks by the conservatives, fueled by Limbaugh, basically eliminating him from the nomination. That would leave Palin as the spotlight speaker, introducing herself to the nation as the new face of the conservative movement - ready to retake the stage the following night to thunderous applause.
Or could we be thrown off the scent of Pawlenty and Crist because of their third night listing?
As a Palin supporter, I am strongly encouraged that she will have a chance to introduce herself on the national stage, and I know that Republicans will love what they see! If she is not the nominee for VP, I am sure that we will see Palin in 2012.
To read more about Palin, visit the Draft Sarah for VP website. There is a great post by a guest blogger today about why Palin should be McCain's VP - excerpt below:
The convention line-up, which will be held in St. Paul, Minn., from Sept. 1-4, features Connecticut Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman on the first night; former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge and Alaska Gov. Sara Palin on the second night; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on the third night; and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist on the last night.Though the speaker list has been released, with the schedule, the name associated with the VP segment remains unfilled. It seems that McCain and the RNC selected anyone ever hinted at the 2nd spot to give a speech before the convention, making no hint as to any one individual considered more favorable than the others.
The third night is the night the vice presidential nominee will give his acceptance speech. Other speakers that night include Cindy McCain, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.
Should speculators consider that Romney and Jindal, slated to speak on the third night already, are the top two choices, or that their listing on the third night indicates that they will merely be introducing the VP nominee? Jindal has indicated that he is not interested in VP, so that would leave Romney.
Or should we consider the second night as an introduction of the nominee? This leaves Ridge and Palin. Ridge has already come under increased attacks by the conservatives, fueled by Limbaugh, basically eliminating him from the nomination. That would leave Palin as the spotlight speaker, introducing herself to the nation as the new face of the conservative movement - ready to retake the stage the following night to thunderous applause.
Or could we be thrown off the scent of Pawlenty and Crist because of their third night listing?
As a Palin supporter, I am strongly encouraged that she will have a chance to introduce herself on the national stage, and I know that Republicans will love what they see! If she is not the nominee for VP, I am sure that we will see Palin in 2012.
To read more about Palin, visit the Draft Sarah for VP website. There is a great post by a guest blogger today about why Palin should be McCain's VP - excerpt below:
In all probability, John McCain is going to be the next President. For him to choose Sarah as his running mate would be both bold and wise.
Of course, we Republicans aren't exactly noted for boldness. Like Claude Rains in "Casablanca," our tendency is to "round up the usual suspects." At this time in history, the usual suspects -- say, a Mitt Romney or a Mike Huckabee or a Tom Ridge -- are not good enough. Such people are the "Ghosts of the GOP Past." They do not represent the future of the Republican Party or or of the country.
Sarah Palin does represent that future. To be fair, there are other potential candidates, such as Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, and Eric Cantor, who will be part of that future. But McCain can't do better than Sarah, an individual synonymous with toughness, courage, integrity, and consistency. Sarah Palin is the quintessential Amrican.
The program of events is as follows:
Monday, Sept. 1
Service
"Love of country, my friends, is another way of saying love of your fellow countryman."
--Sen. John McCain
John McCain’s commitment to his fellow Americans, a commitment forged in service to his country, is one of the defining hallmarks of his life. Monday’s events will highlight John McCain’s record of service and sacrifice and reflect his commitment to serving a cause greater than one’s own self-interest.
Speakers will include:
*U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.)
*Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Calif.)
*Vice President Richard B. Cheney
*First Lady Laura Bush
*President George W. Bush
Tuesday, Sept. 2
Reform
"If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you are disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and correct them."
--Sen. John McCain
John McCain’s life is a testament to the fundamental truth that every American can be a force for change. A restless reformer who has dedicated his career to taking on special interests and the status quo, John McCain will deliver the right kind of change and reform to meet the great challenges of our time. On Tuesday, the convention program will underscore his vision of a government that is transparent, principled and worthy of the American people it serves.
Speakers will include:
*Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani
*Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.)
*Former Gov. Tom Ridge (Pa.)
*Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska)
*Gov. Jon Huntsman (Utah)
*Rosario Marin, California Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency and former Treasurer of the United States
*Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.)
*Gov. Linda Lingle (Hawaii)
*Former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (Md.)
Wednesday, Sept. 3
Prosperity
"America’s best days are still to come."
--Sen. John McCain
The American story is one of perseverance. Even in the face of tough times, the ingenuity and spirit of the American people has ushered in a new era of prosperity. Wednesday’s program will focus on John McCain’s plans to get our economy back on track and continue our long tradition of meeting the challenges we face and using our prosperity to help others. The day will conclude with an address by the vice presidential nominee.
Speakers will include:
*U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.)
*Meg Whitman, National Co-Chair for McCain 2008 and former President and CEO of eBay
*Carly Fiorina, Victory ‘08 Chairman for the Republican National Committee and former Chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co.
*Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)
*Mrs. Cindy McCain
*Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.)
*Republican Party’s Vice Presidential Nominee
Thursday, Sept. 4
Peace
"Our next president will have a mandate to build an enduring global peace on the foundations of freedom, security, opportunity, prosperity, and hope."
--Sen. John McCain
John McCain understands the challenges that America faces in the world and the sacrifice necessary to defend our freedom in a way that few others can fathom. Thursday’s events will reflect his vision of an America in pursuit of peace and seen as a beacon of goodwill and hope throughout the world. The evening will close with John McCain accepting the Republican Party’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States.
Speakers will include:
*Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.)
*Gov. Charlie Crist (Fla.)
*U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.)
*U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
*John McCain
In the coming days, the 2008 Republican National Convention will announce additional speakers and program details.
It is going to be a Long Cold (war) Winter
During the cold war, Soviet and US planes routinely escorted one another along the outskirts of one another's airspace, with the pilot's fingers surely on the trigger. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was considered over, and the Russian planes ceased their flights around US territory.
That was 1992 - This is now.
Russian bombers began flying off the coast of Alaska last year - a direct threat to US oil supply. This was the first real show of force from Russia towards the United States in nearly two decades. It adds to the increased tensions between the two nations, and may be pushing a direct threat in the face of the Georgian conflict.
Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, warned Moscow that they are playing a dangerous game by pushing the US into Cold War relations with the country.
Russia's resurgence has been made possible by the income gained from energy resources and their respective high prices. Europe's dependence on Russia for energy has given Moscow influence over the continent that the Soviets could have only dreamed of. And now that the once broken Russian government is being strengthened with Cold Hard Cash, and they sense an air of anti-Americanism throughout the world, Russia is looking beyond the Soviet era and into the beginnings of a new Russian Empire.
As this BBC report states, Russia is clearly back after the chaos from the Soviet collapse:
With the war coming to a general close in Iraq, tensions are rising as the US and Russia assert their influence - Cold War style. China is not yet a major player, militarily, though they have been a nuisance to US naval operations - shadowing US fleets and interrupting training exercises in deep waters. The US is faced with Georgia's situation, Iran's Russian backed Nuke plan, tensions due to Polish missile defense systems, Ukrainian pleas for help after Russia's claim to their territory (similar to Georgia), Russia's announcement that it plans to use a 1960's style tactic of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, China's relationship with Taiwan and Japan, and the list goes on.
From where I stand, the 21st century is shaping up to look a lot like the 20th century. It would appear that we may have been witness to a false spring... and the Bitterly Cold Winter of War between Russia and the US is still simmering.
That was 1992 - This is now.
Russian bombers began flying off the coast of Alaska last year - a direct threat to US oil supply. This was the first real show of force from Russia towards the United States in nearly two decades. It adds to the increased tensions between the two nations, and may be pushing a direct threat in the face of the Georgian conflict.
Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, warned Moscow that they are playing a dangerous game by pushing the US into Cold War relations with the country.
Russia's resurgence has been made possible by the income gained from energy resources and their respective high prices. Europe's dependence on Russia for energy has given Moscow influence over the continent that the Soviets could have only dreamed of. And now that the once broken Russian government is being strengthened with Cold Hard Cash, and they sense an air of anti-Americanism throughout the world, Russia is looking beyond the Soviet era and into the beginnings of a new Russian Empire.
As this BBC report states, Russia is clearly back after the chaos from the Soviet collapse:
With the war coming to a general close in Iraq, tensions are rising as the US and Russia assert their influence - Cold War style. China is not yet a major player, militarily, though they have been a nuisance to US naval operations - shadowing US fleets and interrupting training exercises in deep waters. The US is faced with Georgia's situation, Iran's Russian backed Nuke plan, tensions due to Polish missile defense systems, Ukrainian pleas for help after Russia's claim to their territory (similar to Georgia), Russia's announcement that it plans to use a 1960's style tactic of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, China's relationship with Taiwan and Japan, and the list goes on.
From where I stand, the 21st century is shaping up to look a lot like the 20th century. It would appear that we may have been witness to a false spring... and the Bitterly Cold Winter of War between Russia and the US is still simmering.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
It's Veep Time!
Presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has scheduled his VP announcement for Friday August 22nd. John McCain has stated that he plans to make his announcement on August 29th, the day after the Democratic Convention.
Fox News reports on Obama:
I agree that it is highly unlikely that Obama selects Clinton as his running mate. Not only did they have a bitter dispute for the nomination, but selecting Clinton would be a sign that he is lacking Washington experience. Not to mention it would be the epitome of putting a fox in the hen-house.
As well, Obama is unlikely to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. The Democrats in support of Clinton would be up in arms over a no-name woman VP candidate cutting in line in front of their woman candidate. Obama is limited, then, to selecting a male candidate - Kaine, Biden, or Bayh from the list above. (of course there may be someone else, but I am tending to side with speculators in the know)
Bayh would be a selection of necessity for executive experience on the ticket. He served as Secretary of State, Governor and currently Senator for Indiana. An Obama-Bayh ticket would prove difficult to overcome in the Great Lakes states, but may not fair so well in southern states, though it would mark a decisive lurch towards the center for Obama.
Kaine is another choice representing the need for executive experience on the ticket. The Virginian Governor accepting the nomination would turn Virginia over to a Republican Lt. Governor, Bill Bolling. This would make Virginia a hot race in 2009 as Democrats would have to double their efforts to uproot an incumbent Republican.
Joe Biden would be a closer fit for the TRUE Obama - a radical leftist liberal in favor of socializing the US. Biden would bring foreign policy experience to the ticket, but selecting Biden would isolate Centrist Democrats, possibly giving them directly to McCain.
No doubt, the announcement of Obama's Veep announcement is timed to change headlines from his horrific showing over the weekend on the political forum, in which he is being slammed very hard for a number of lies and an inability to shake the "Not Ready To Lead" stigma, as he came across very inexperienced.
McCain's selection will be discussed further at a later time - however, picking a reformist woman such as Gov Palin would lock the conservative voters and pull Clinton voters in who were looking for casting a feminist vote. More to come as this develops.
Fox News reports on Obama:
Obama was believed to have narrowed his list to Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine,
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Kansas Gov. Kathleen
Sebelius. While it seemed increasingly unlikely that he would choose his
vanquished rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, some Democrats
speculated Monday that he could pull a surprise and pick her.
I agree that it is highly unlikely that Obama selects Clinton as his running mate. Not only did they have a bitter dispute for the nomination, but selecting Clinton would be a sign that he is lacking Washington experience. Not to mention it would be the epitome of putting a fox in the hen-house.
As well, Obama is unlikely to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. The Democrats in support of Clinton would be up in arms over a no-name woman VP candidate cutting in line in front of their woman candidate. Obama is limited, then, to selecting a male candidate - Kaine, Biden, or Bayh from the list above. (of course there may be someone else, but I am tending to side with speculators in the know)
Bayh would be a selection of necessity for executive experience on the ticket. He served as Secretary of State, Governor and currently Senator for Indiana. An Obama-Bayh ticket would prove difficult to overcome in the Great Lakes states, but may not fair so well in southern states, though it would mark a decisive lurch towards the center for Obama.
Kaine is another choice representing the need for executive experience on the ticket. The Virginian Governor accepting the nomination would turn Virginia over to a Republican Lt. Governor, Bill Bolling. This would make Virginia a hot race in 2009 as Democrats would have to double their efforts to uproot an incumbent Republican.
Joe Biden would be a closer fit for the TRUE Obama - a radical leftist liberal in favor of socializing the US. Biden would bring foreign policy experience to the ticket, but selecting Biden would isolate Centrist Democrats, possibly giving them directly to McCain.
No doubt, the announcement of Obama's Veep announcement is timed to change headlines from his horrific showing over the weekend on the political forum, in which he is being slammed very hard for a number of lies and an inability to shake the "Not Ready To Lead" stigma, as he came across very inexperienced.
McCain's selection will be discussed further at a later time - however, picking a reformist woman such as Gov Palin would lock the conservative voters and pull Clinton voters in who were looking for casting a feminist vote. More to come as this develops.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Enough Benefit of the Doubt – Russia’s Intentions are Clear
Earlier this week, I posted back-to-back blogs regarding the situation in Georgia. Initially I wrote about Russia’s Soviet style authoritarian tendencies percolating back up to the surface in their handling of the Georgian conflict, but then revisited the article with an attempt to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. Based on the assumptions I made in that article, Russia may have had good intentions in protecting civilian life in South Ossetia.
Unfortunately, the time for Russian action and the tone of their leaders have shown their true colors, and my initial instincts were proven correct.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated earlier this week that Georgia had been “punished enough”, indicating that it was not their intention to cease hostilities against Russian peacekeepers, but destroy Georgia’s ability to defend herself entirely.
Now Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a bold statement clearly showing the intentions of Russia – stating that the world can forget about Georgia's territorial integrity.
If Russia intents to absorb these provinces, there may be a greater issue. If Russia intends to liberate these provinces to a free and independent state, we may be looking at a different story. Unfortunately, all signs are pointing to Russia's intention of absorbing Georgian territory, beyond the disputed regions.
It is clear that we may be fastly approaching a new war with Russia – Cold or otherwise. What would that war look like?
Russia was defeated in the Cold War by a United States who was strong, resolute, and had growing influence around the world.
Russia is now facing off against a United States whose people are pacifists, materialists, “Capitalist Pigs”… actually, scratch that. We are no more capitalist pigs than Karl Marx – especially when 45% of Americans are supporting a Socialist candidate promising to use force to take earned profit from an industry to distribute cash to the masses. The United States is going the way of weak and socialized Europe, and Russia smells the fear. Russia used the early days of the Georgia conflict to test the resolve of the United States and the European Union (as well as the United Nations). When it was clear that the EU was at the whims of Russia’s energy supply, the UN Security Council was little more than a group of spineless talking heads, it left the United States on the podium alone.
The United State’s first response was to send 2000 Georgian troops home, by way of US aircraft, to defend the Georgian capitol. Russian Prime Minister Putin showed his outrage by stating that the US was interfering with the resolution of this conflict (which to Putin means crushing Georgia and rolling it back into Russian territory).
Then the United States began delivering humanitarian aid to the Georgian capitol, ensuring that the people have the food and medical supplies to survive the invasion, while at the same time demanding that Russia adhere to the agreed upon cease fire.
Russia has broken the cease fire, and now threatens that they will stay in Georgia proper indefinately. The time to act is now. Lest we concede that the US has become worse than Europe, we need to use a show of force in Georgia.
The United States has over 100,000 troops, who are battle hardened, in the region. An immediate troop movement of 5,000 US servicemen from Iraq to T’bilisi, with anti-tank helicopter support, Air-force fighter jet sorties over the country to ensure air superiority, and a definitive line in the sand needs to be enacted. The United States needs to show the Russians that we are willing to defend our allies. We may not need to fire on the Russians, just assert ourselves by way of our presence - then let Russia decide which path we go down.
It is not just a show of force to the Russians, but to our allies in other countries who are under increasing pressure from Moscow (such as the Ukraine). We need to become the America of the 80’s… not the Post Cold-War wienies we have become. The United States fought back authoritarian Russia once before… We can do it again.
I have seen Rocky IV – I know how it ends… Let’s just hope the Millennials (Generation Y) paid attention in their history class and understand the reason behind the cold war. The situation may slightly different, but the foe is the same.
Unfortunately, the time for Russian action and the tone of their leaders have shown their true colors, and my initial instincts were proven correct.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated earlier this week that Georgia had been “punished enough”, indicating that it was not their intention to cease hostilities against Russian peacekeepers, but destroy Georgia’s ability to defend herself entirely.
Now Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a bold statement clearly showing the intentions of Russia – stating that the world can forget about Georgia's territorial integrity.
"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I
believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with
the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Lavrov told
reporters.
If Russia intents to absorb these provinces, there may be a greater issue. If Russia intends to liberate these provinces to a free and independent state, we may be looking at a different story. Unfortunately, all signs are pointing to Russia's intention of absorbing Georgian territory, beyond the disputed regions.
It is clear that we may be fastly approaching a new war with Russia – Cold or otherwise. What would that war look like?
Russia was defeated in the Cold War by a United States who was strong, resolute, and had growing influence around the world.
Russia is now facing off against a United States whose people are pacifists, materialists, “Capitalist Pigs”… actually, scratch that. We are no more capitalist pigs than Karl Marx – especially when 45% of Americans are supporting a Socialist candidate promising to use force to take earned profit from an industry to distribute cash to the masses. The United States is going the way of weak and socialized Europe, and Russia smells the fear. Russia used the early days of the Georgia conflict to test the resolve of the United States and the European Union (as well as the United Nations). When it was clear that the EU was at the whims of Russia’s energy supply, the UN Security Council was little more than a group of spineless talking heads, it left the United States on the podium alone.
The United State’s first response was to send 2000 Georgian troops home, by way of US aircraft, to defend the Georgian capitol. Russian Prime Minister Putin showed his outrage by stating that the US was interfering with the resolution of this conflict (which to Putin means crushing Georgia and rolling it back into Russian territory).
Then the United States began delivering humanitarian aid to the Georgian capitol, ensuring that the people have the food and medical supplies to survive the invasion, while at the same time demanding that Russia adhere to the agreed upon cease fire.
Russia has broken the cease fire, and now threatens that they will stay in Georgia proper indefinately. The time to act is now. Lest we concede that the US has become worse than Europe, we need to use a show of force in Georgia.
The United States has over 100,000 troops, who are battle hardened, in the region. An immediate troop movement of 5,000 US servicemen from Iraq to T’bilisi, with anti-tank helicopter support, Air-force fighter jet sorties over the country to ensure air superiority, and a definitive line in the sand needs to be enacted. The United States needs to show the Russians that we are willing to defend our allies. We may not need to fire on the Russians, just assert ourselves by way of our presence - then let Russia decide which path we go down.
It is not just a show of force to the Russians, but to our allies in other countries who are under increasing pressure from Moscow (such as the Ukraine). We need to become the America of the 80’s… not the Post Cold-War wienies we have become. The United States fought back authoritarian Russia once before… We can do it again.I have seen Rocky IV – I know how it ends… Let’s just hope the Millennials (Generation Y) paid attention in their history class and understand the reason behind the cold war. The situation may slightly different, but the foe is the same.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
CO - CD6: Where were the votes?
With 100% of precincts reporting in Douglas County, the results of CD-6 are clear - voters did not turn out! Douglas County is home to about 61,000 registered Republican voters - all of whom should have been well informed that August 12th was an election day (else we in the county party are not doing our job). Yet the results of Douglas County, shown on the County Clerk and Recorder's website, indicates that the actual voter turnout was closer to 25,000 Republicans. That is an embarrassing 40% voter turnout by Republicans in my county.
It would not be so embarrassing, considering that usual voter turnout county wide is no more than 22,000 (R and D), if voters better understood that in this area Republican Primary races are the general election. What is even worse is that 53,000 mail-in ballots were sent out, and total voter turnout in the county was under 35,000. Assuming all votes were mail-in, there is a 20,000 vote gap in Douglas County. I voted in a booth yesterday morning, so we can most likely assume that a majority of mail-in ballots (paid for by taxpayer dollars) ended up untouched on the kitchen counter, or worse, in the trash.
What is the source of complacency in American Voting? Now that Americans have the right to vote, why do 60-70% of us choose not to vote? Is there a sense of non-urgency that surrounds primary elections?
This also begs a few more questions:
1. Do we want everyone voting?
2. What is the deal with the Assembly Candidates?
To answer the first question, I simply state thusly: Ideals do not win elections, votes do. This means that he who gets the votes gets the victory. So it is up to the candidates to inspire voters to the polls - be it by leadership, vision, or even promises of handing out money from the treasury of private individuals and corporations (via windfall profit taxes). It is the responsibility of the voter to educate themselves, so they are making educated decisions at the voting booth (or on the absentee ballot). So though everyone should be voting, perhaps it is better that those uninformed are not taking part in these freedoms. However, this brings me back to the complacency argument - what drives 60-70% of the US to not care enough to arm themselves with education and use their knowledge to vote?
Secondly, I had discussed this in July - whether or not the Colorado Assembly process was worth the investment. In CD-6, two candidates petitioned onto the primary ballot, while three went through the assembly process (one did not make the 10% required to petition on to the Primary ballot from the Assembly). The two assembly candidates, Ted Harvey and Steve Ward, put in a large amount of effort with the delegates, whipping up a lot of support during the assembly time frame - but neither inspired beyond the assembly - leaving the CD6 seat, yet again, taken by a petition candidate (Tancredo was also a petition candidate). The county party invests a large amount of money into the assembly process to nominate a candidate that the party leadership (including delegates and district/precinct captains) should rally behind... however, there is a trend that the CD6 assembly is not in tune with the CD6 voters.
Should the county partys consider refusing to fund the assembly, in favor of an all petition primary for higher level offices? Absolutely - especially if this is a trend that is going to continue.
I digress. The point at hand is that the primary election has come and gone, our party nominees have been selected, and it is now our goal to turn out the Republican vote on November 4th... and turn out the Democratic vote on November 5th :)
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Nuclear Saudi Arabia?
The IAEA and Saudi Arabia are moving forward with approving civilian nuclear power plants in the Kingdom. This plan outlines Saudi Arabia's plans for oil needs in the future, suggesting that they will be nuclear for all internal energy needs, and use oil strictly as an export.The increased needs for power around the world are showing a resurgence of pro-nuclear supporters worldwide - often without consideration of waste or weaponizing.
Iran, for instance, is building their first nuclear power plant, but are researching nuclear weapons in parallel, with the voiced purpose of annihilating Israel.
Can Saudi Arabia, a country whose population vehemently hates Western influence (a majority of the attackers on 9/11 were from the Kingdom), move forward with a peaceful nuclear program - or are we left to wonder if a weapons program will also be in the future for the Arab peninsula?
What is more disturbing is that the United States supports the nuclearization of the Arabian Kingdom. On one hand we pressure Iran to cease nuclear ambitions for fear that it would drive further nuclear development in the greater middle east, while on the other hand we are supporting (and most likely sharing technology) the Saudi nuclear ambition. The following map shows the status of all countries around the world regarding their nuclear ambitions:
The problem that the United States is failing to recognize is that the spread of nuclear technology is the forbidden fruit. Once you get the taste, it is natural progression to push the limits - with weapons. Don't believe me? Consider India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.
Can the world move forward in a nuclear future of peace? Or does this latest spread of nuclear technology suggest another wrong turn for safety worldwide?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Cold War Bias Towards Russia?
After writing my previous blog, I began reading more about the conflict in Georgia. I refreshed my history of the region, the Soviet rule of the area, the wars in the region after the Soviet collapse, and the rise of the current government.
Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.
1. Is Russia's response adequate?
2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?
3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?
Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.
3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.
By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.
Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.
2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.
3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.
It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.
However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.
Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, theUSSR Russians are the the sleeping bear. Intervention in these conflicts could, as I hinted in the last post, lead to another conflict between the two world super powers.
It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.
Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.
So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?
Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.
1. Is Russia's response adequate?
2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?
3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?
Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.
3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.
By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.
Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.
2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.
3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.
It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.
However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.
Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, the
It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.
Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.
So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?
Old Habits Die Hard – Russian Empire in Georgia
Michael Phelps wins his second gold medal, the US and China continue to lead the medal count… and in page A14 news Russia invades some country.
In fact, that “some country” is Georgia.
Now before you Southerners lock and load your rifles in defense of your Southern Brothers, rest assured the Ruskies are not in the Peach Orchard…
Georgia is a country south of the Russian Chechnya region which is an ex-Soviet Republic. Georgia is also the United States’ biggest ally in the war in Iraq, second only to Great Britain.
Georgia is also a NATO Promissory – recently promised membership into the military defense treaty of NATO. Such promise of defense should guarantee instant reaction from the President of the United States:
Even after this attention, the Russians continue to attack regions of the Sovereign Georgia territory, in defiance of the United States’ call for cessation of violence.
Unfortunately for Georgia, this is not the limit of Russian involvement. In many regions of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has been aiding the separatist movement in Georgia, including an ethnic cleansing campaign in the early 1990’s in certain regions of the country. Georgia’s increasing reliance on Washington is cause for great concern from Moscow, who has made attempts in recent months to show greater influence in the ex-Soviet region – especially after missile defense platforms have been agreed upon for regions of Eastern Europe.
What should Washington’s response be when one of her most trusted and most reliable allies is invaded and pummeled by Russian bombs?
If we do nothing, our allies in the fledgling democracies will be increasingly hesitant to rely on the US for security in their separation from the Soviet Union (Now the Russian Federation… but led by the same groups of folks). If we do nothing, violence and murder will befall our most trusted friend in Iraq.
If we act, it may lead to war with Russia… the doomsday clock moves closer to midnight. The US has mended relations with Russia, but an act of aggression in defense of an ally could lead to a resurgence of the Cold War – this time, however, the Russians have the backing of a huge anti-US sentiment worldwide… something that was absent for so many years after the US helped lead the world to victory in WWII.
The ultimate question is this: does a country have the right to enforce rule of law within their own borders, assuming rule of law includes retention of sovereign lands from secessionist forces backed by a foreign country?
If this is the definition of a Civil War, then what role should the US take in defending an ally in their civil war if Russia becomes involved on the side of the antagonist separatists? What is the price of freedom and sovereignty?
=====Update=====
The United States has begun assisting Georgian Soldiers back to their country from Iraq, to the cry of "foul" from Russia's Putin, who said that the US presence would hamper efforts for Russia to resolve the conflict. The resolution Russia is looking for is victory, and the claiming of the territory for their own. The presence of the US means that this outcome will likely not be the case... Yes... hampering their outcome.
In fact, that “some country” is Georgia.
Now before you Southerners lock and load your rifles in defense of your Southern Brothers, rest assured the Ruskies are not in the Peach Orchard…
Georgia is a country south of the Russian Chechnya region which is an ex-Soviet Republic. Georgia is also the United States’ biggest ally in the war in Iraq, second only to Great Britain.
Georgia is also a NATO Promissory – recently promised membership into the military defense treaty of NATO. Such promise of defense should guarantee instant reaction from the President of the United States:
Even after this attention, the Russians continue to attack regions of the Sovereign Georgia territory, in defiance of the United States’ call for cessation of violence.
Unfortunately for Georgia, this is not the limit of Russian involvement. In many regions of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has been aiding the separatist movement in Georgia, including an ethnic cleansing campaign in the early 1990’s in certain regions of the country. Georgia’s increasing reliance on Washington is cause for great concern from Moscow, who has made attempts in recent months to show greater influence in the ex-Soviet region – especially after missile defense platforms have been agreed upon for regions of Eastern Europe.
What should Washington’s response be when one of her most trusted and most reliable allies is invaded and pummeled by Russian bombs?
If we do nothing, our allies in the fledgling democracies will be increasingly hesitant to rely on the US for security in their separation from the Soviet Union (Now the Russian Federation… but led by the same groups of folks). If we do nothing, violence and murder will befall our most trusted friend in Iraq.
If we act, it may lead to war with Russia… the doomsday clock moves closer to midnight. The US has mended relations with Russia, but an act of aggression in defense of an ally could lead to a resurgence of the Cold War – this time, however, the Russians have the backing of a huge anti-US sentiment worldwide… something that was absent for so many years after the US helped lead the world to victory in WWII.
The ultimate question is this: does a country have the right to enforce rule of law within their own borders, assuming rule of law includes retention of sovereign lands from secessionist forces backed by a foreign country?
If this is the definition of a Civil War, then what role should the US take in defending an ally in their civil war if Russia becomes involved on the side of the antagonist separatists? What is the price of freedom and sovereignty?
=====Update=====
The United States has begun assisting Georgian Soldiers back to their country from Iraq, to the cry of "foul" from Russia's Putin, who said that the US presence would hamper efforts for Russia to resolve the conflict. The resolution Russia is looking for is victory, and the claiming of the territory for their own. The presence of the US means that this outcome will likely not be the case... Yes... hampering their outcome.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
You heard it here first! I predicted Clinton Tactic.
On June 2nd, I wrote an article describing the tactic I believe Clinton was going to use - forcing a brokered convention, and taking the nomination from Obama. FoxNews, yesterday, began showing a video from Hillary where she is now stating to her supporters that she is pushing for an innocent role-call count of supporters in order to show her need to be on the ticket. (Perhaps Obama informed her that she was not his VP pick)
If Clinton gets an actual vote and the first round is undecided (because of unelectability, Super delegates may still decide to switch leaving a contest), the second round frees the delegates to vote however they so choose. If Clinton has enough delegates personally pledged, she can take the convention, and the nomination from Obama.
Clinton is moving forward with her supporters as a tactic of unity, but the truth is that she is taking advantage of Obama's falling numbers and series of gaffes in recent weeks on the campaign trail. She states that she is organizing the protest to make the vote go smoothly, but you and I both know that she is really hoping for that vote to go in her favor - she denies it, but this tactic was foreseen.
Obama's campaign is beginning to bend under the pressure of the political machine. His overall poll numbers are up, but the most recent polls indicated that an overwhelming majority do not believe that Obama is ready to lead in areas of national security, and there is a virtual tie on areas of economy (a democratic stronghold). These poor numbers this early in the season are Obama's soft underbelly - and it is something he cannot "Hope" his way out of.
Let us suppose that Clinton takes the nomination. The Republican Party has a battle plan to Tackle the Cackle. They are going to hit her hard on her experience, on her health plan, etc. The problem is that Obama was so far left, and has been moving to adopt all of Hillary's positions in the center, that voters may say that Hillary is the acceptable alternative to Obama, instead of McCain who is increasingly being tied to Bush's Third Term. If Clinton does steal the nomination, however, the Obamanites will likely rally around a Green Party candidate as a protest to the Clinton Empire tactic.
How can McCain steady the GOP ship in the case of a Democratic shake-up? Here are my suggestions:
1. Pick a running mate now. Choose Sarah Palin as "the future of the party". She is a young, attractive, energy wise woman with McCain's gusto for anti-corruption in the party. Choosing her now states that the GOP is solid and ready to take on whomever the Dems throw their way. This is a strong move... waiting until our convention is reactionary and a weakness.
2. Adopt Palin's position of drilling in ANWR. McCain needs to let it be known that it is the GOP willing to work on gas prices, while Obama's tactic of Flopping is empty political words with no intention of action (with Pelosi as his leader)
3. Play up the Picken's Plan future of energy - natural gas, and the fact that Palin just succeeded in passing the Trans-Canadian pipeline for natural gas to be delivered to the lower 48 states from Alaska - a key to the future of America's energy!
4. Release a series of TV ads showing that McCain and Palin have been working toward a plan to re-energize the US economy, have won a battle to bring more supplies of energy to the lower US states, and are committed to moving forward on alternative energy not to reach a Utopian oil-free future, but to ensure an America-first energy independence plan.
The key to victory is Energy... that means Palin.
If Clinton gets an actual vote and the first round is undecided (because of unelectability, Super delegates may still decide to switch leaving a contest), the second round frees the delegates to vote however they so choose. If Clinton has enough delegates personally pledged, she can take the convention, and the nomination from Obama.
"The former first lady did not rule out the possibility of having her name
placed into nomination at the convention, being held Aug. 25-28 in Denver. But
she also said no decisions had been made." reports the AP.
Clinton is moving forward with her supporters as a tactic of unity, but the truth is that she is taking advantage of Obama's falling numbers and series of gaffes in recent weeks on the campaign trail. She states that she is organizing the protest to make the vote go smoothly, but you and I both know that she is really hoping for that vote to go in her favor - she denies it, but this tactic was foreseen.
Obama's campaign is beginning to bend under the pressure of the political machine. His overall poll numbers are up, but the most recent polls indicated that an overwhelming majority do not believe that Obama is ready to lead in areas of national security, and there is a virtual tie on areas of economy (a democratic stronghold). These poor numbers this early in the season are Obama's soft underbelly - and it is something he cannot "Hope" his way out of.
Let us suppose that Clinton takes the nomination. The Republican Party has a battle plan to Tackle the Cackle. They are going to hit her hard on her experience, on her health plan, etc. The problem is that Obama was so far left, and has been moving to adopt all of Hillary's positions in the center, that voters may say that Hillary is the acceptable alternative to Obama, instead of McCain who is increasingly being tied to Bush's Third Term. If Clinton does steal the nomination, however, the Obamanites will likely rally around a Green Party candidate as a protest to the Clinton Empire tactic.
How can McCain steady the GOP ship in the case of a Democratic shake-up? Here are my suggestions:
1. Pick a running mate now. Choose Sarah Palin as "the future of the party". She is a young, attractive, energy wise woman with McCain's gusto for anti-corruption in the party. Choosing her now states that the GOP is solid and ready to take on whomever the Dems throw their way. This is a strong move... waiting until our convention is reactionary and a weakness.
2. Adopt Palin's position of drilling in ANWR. McCain needs to let it be known that it is the GOP willing to work on gas prices, while Obama's tactic of Flopping is empty political words with no intention of action (with Pelosi as his leader)
3. Play up the Picken's Plan future of energy - natural gas, and the fact that Palin just succeeded in passing the Trans-Canadian pipeline for natural gas to be delivered to the lower 48 states from Alaska - a key to the future of America's energy!
4. Release a series of TV ads showing that McCain and Palin have been working toward a plan to re-energize the US economy, have won a battle to bring more supplies of energy to the lower US states, and are committed to moving forward on alternative energy not to reach a Utopian oil-free future, but to ensure an America-first energy independence plan.
The key to victory is Energy... that means Palin.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
OBAMA a FLOP: Say Anything to Get Elected
In yet another dramatic flip-flop on his original policy, Barack Hussein Obama now says he is in favor of fully funding the space program – a program which was to be on the chopping block for his proposed budget so as to support his socialized federal education plan.
This is another prime example of why Obama is unfit to lead this country – he is so unsure as to his own beliefs and his own direction, that he is constantly changing policy at the whims of the masses. This is a guy willing to say anything to get an applause… which further begs the Question: Who the Hell is this guy, anyway?
This is another story that is not going to get picked up by the MSM… another flop that will be ignored… and ultimately Obama’s plan for space will be heralded by the MSM as innovative and forward thinking… Never mind that his core belief is that the US does not need a space program as much as it needs federalized education! In fact, as we speak the records of Obama’s plans for space and education are being scrubbed from all websites and news reports… typical of Orwellian tyrants – changing history to always appear on the right.
Unfortunately for the power hungry elites, such as Obama, the masses have the resolve to educate and communicate. We will work at our level to ensure the truth is never erased.
Let’s take a closer look at Obama’s notable flops:
The Washington Post reported on Feb 25th, 2008 their top 5 flops from Obama –
1. Special Interests – regarding donations accepted from Unions (a point he used to tople John Edwards’ campaign)
2. Public Financing – which he has now completely flopped on, taking millions in untracked small donations (less than $20 does not need to be tracked – a loophole that can allow a single entity to untrack multiple $20 donations to the sums of millions – which technically is very illegal)
3. The Cuba embargo – in 2004 he declared that it was a failed policy, but in 2007 talking to voters in Miami he declared that it was an effective tool – to the cheers of the masses.
4. Illegal immigration – he was first opposed to going after employers, then in a 2008 debate he was for going after employers, a complete reversal
5. Decriminalization of Marijuana – while speaking to college students he opposed laws making pot illegal, but flopped during his presidential bid stating that he supported laws making pot illegal.
Since that article, Obama has begun flip-flopping on so many issues it is hard to keep track of. Three major flops that represent a sprint to the middle:
Offshore Drilling – since Pelosi turned out the lights on Republicans, and polls began to show that the GOP was in the right to get the vote on exploratory drilling, Obama has now changed his position to line up with the polls, supporting the Republican mantra of “Drill here, drill now”.
Iraq/Afghanistan – vehemently opposed to the war, Obama now is stating that he will take the advice of the generals on the ground to ensure victory in Iraq, and he is calling for a massive troop build-up in Afghanistan to end the violence in that country (so much for being the anti-war candidate)
Space Exploration – while addressing voters in the space state, Florida, Obama made his most recent flop stating that he will now fully fund NASA, and will not push to mothball the Constellation Moon program of Bush.
The Associated Press adds to the list:
Campaign promises that are in direct conflict with his core beliefs… Obama is on a series stumps where he is going on the record, publicly flip-flopping… where John Kerry was labelled a flip-flop for the smallest changes, Obama takes the game to a whole new level.
The carelessness and ease in these policy changes should be a warning flag to anyone considering voting in the 2008 presidential election. A candidate with no strong core beliefs, with no values, with nothing more than popular polls guiding his every decision is a candidate who will do nothing to bring change to the nation.
Barack Obama is a sham candidate – completely unprepared to take an executive post – completely unprepared to take a stand and defend it on principle. He has no principles, he stands for nothing.
This is another prime example of why Obama is unfit to lead this country – he is so unsure as to his own beliefs and his own direction, that he is constantly changing policy at the whims of the masses. This is a guy willing to say anything to get an applause… which further begs the Question: Who the Hell is this guy, anyway?This is another story that is not going to get picked up by the MSM… another flop that will be ignored… and ultimately Obama’s plan for space will be heralded by the MSM as innovative and forward thinking… Never mind that his core belief is that the US does not need a space program as much as it needs federalized education! In fact, as we speak the records of Obama’s plans for space and education are being scrubbed from all websites and news reports… typical of Orwellian tyrants – changing history to always appear on the right.
Unfortunately for the power hungry elites, such as Obama, the masses have the resolve to educate and communicate. We will work at our level to ensure the truth is never erased.
Let’s take a closer look at Obama’s notable flops:
The Washington Post reported on Feb 25th, 2008 their top 5 flops from Obama –
1. Special Interests – regarding donations accepted from Unions (a point he used to tople John Edwards’ campaign)
2. Public Financing – which he has now completely flopped on, taking millions in untracked small donations (less than $20 does not need to be tracked – a loophole that can allow a single entity to untrack multiple $20 donations to the sums of millions – which technically is very illegal)
3. The Cuba embargo – in 2004 he declared that it was a failed policy, but in 2007 talking to voters in Miami he declared that it was an effective tool – to the cheers of the masses.
4. Illegal immigration – he was first opposed to going after employers, then in a 2008 debate he was for going after employers, a complete reversal
5. Decriminalization of Marijuana – while speaking to college students he opposed laws making pot illegal, but flopped during his presidential bid stating that he supported laws making pot illegal.
Since that article, Obama has begun flip-flopping on so many issues it is hard to keep track of. Three major flops that represent a sprint to the middle:
Offshore Drilling – since Pelosi turned out the lights on Republicans, and polls began to show that the GOP was in the right to get the vote on exploratory drilling, Obama has now changed his position to line up with the polls, supporting the Republican mantra of “Drill here, drill now”.
Iraq/Afghanistan – vehemently opposed to the war, Obama now is stating that he will take the advice of the generals on the ground to ensure victory in Iraq, and he is calling for a massive troop build-up in Afghanistan to end the violence in that country (so much for being the anti-war candidate)
Space Exploration – while addressing voters in the space state, Florida, Obama made his most recent flop stating that he will now fully fund NASA, and will not push to mothball the Constellation Moon program of Bush.
The Associated Press adds to the list:
On Iraq, Obama said Thursday that his upcoming trip there might lead him to refine his promise to quickly remove U.S. troops from the war.
He now supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, after opposing a similar bill last year.
After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, the handgun-control proponent said he favors both an individual's right to own a gun as well as government's right to regulate ownership.
Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.
He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush's program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.
He objected to the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, even though he has been anti-capital punishment.
Obama also said "mental distress" should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying "it has to be a serious physical issue," addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists.
Campaign promises that are in direct conflict with his core beliefs… Obama is on a series stumps where he is going on the record, publicly flip-flopping… where John Kerry was labelled a flip-flop for the smallest changes, Obama takes the game to a whole new level.
The carelessness and ease in these policy changes should be a warning flag to anyone considering voting in the 2008 presidential election. A candidate with no strong core beliefs, with no values, with nothing more than popular polls guiding his every decision is a candidate who will do nothing to bring change to the nation.
Barack Obama is a sham candidate – completely unprepared to take an executive post – completely unprepared to take a stand and defend it on principle. He has no principles, he stands for nothing.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Democrats Angry Over McCain Tactic - Exposing Obama
In talking with Democrats and Independents who are starting to take notice of the presidential campaign, there is a general sense of unease regarding "the same old political moves" - which is how Obama is countering McCain's attacks.
But is McCain attacking, or using satire to finally get people talking about Barack? Obama has been given a free pass by the MSM News Corps who have been unwilling and unwanting to question Obama's ability to lead, his political gaffes, his personal acquaintances, the things he says, the things his wife says, etc etc. There has been no debate of substance... only a pre-anointing.
Also, whereas Obama refuses to meet McCain one-on-one to discuss the issues in a town-hall style debate, McCain is forced to bring the debate to Obama. And this tactic is working. Obama has lost a major lead in the national polls (see daily tracking graph), and Rasmussen's daily poll is showing McCain leading Obama 47% to 46% (including those "leaners" who are yet undecided).
McCain is attempting to show how bizarre the love relationship is with Obama and the media, and Obama with himself. Watching this McCain ad, titled "The One", shows a series of Obama speeches in which he declares himself the savior of the nation and the savior of the world. Someone who believes that he does no wrong, and can do no wrong is someone we should all fear as a leader of this nation.
Specifically, Obama and his supporters are outraged that McCain would release an ad suggesting that Obama is responsible for inflated fuel prices. The ad asks who is responsible, then a chanting crowd yelling "Obama... Obama" with Barack's picture comes up... The question is not if Obama is directly responsible... it is the politics of him and his party... the very party willing to let gas prices reach $10 a gallon without any action to allow the free market to provide supply in an attempt to stabilize speculation. Obamanites don't see that Obama is wrong on energy - taxing "windfall profits" for distribution to the people. This plan will increase fuel prices - taking money away from oil companies who need profit to expand production, and distribute the money in the form of a rebate - ultimately making it impossible for the oil companies to increase production in the US.
Look - I have not been a huge fan of George W. Bush recently, setting a precedent for "rebate entitlements"... giving money where no money is earned... and doing nothing to curb spending in DC or to minimize the growth of government. He has dropped the flag of the Republican Party, and forgotten the marching orders of limited government and lower taxes. But where Bush stops, Obama is going to continue... using big government ideas (and the battle-cry of entitlements) to solve the problems in this nation. Never have I witnessed the government solving a problem better than the innovative free market... It is impossible... Unless that task is to tax and regulate thought and action through taxation.
So if McCain is forced to bring Obama out of the media shadows and into the light by using satire and controversial methods... so be it. The tactic is working. Americans are starting to educate themselves, and they are noticing that the textbook of Obama is clearly lacking content!
(Take a look at some of the other McCain ads currently being released)
and finally, my favorite:
But is McCain attacking, or using satire to finally get people talking about Barack? Obama has been given a free pass by the MSM News Corps who have been unwilling and unwanting to question Obama's ability to lead, his political gaffes, his personal acquaintances, the things he says, the things his wife says, etc etc. There has been no debate of substance... only a pre-anointing.
Also, whereas Obama refuses to meet McCain one-on-one to discuss the issues in a town-hall style debate, McCain is forced to bring the debate to Obama. And this tactic is working. Obama has lost a major lead in the national polls (see daily tracking graph), and Rasmussen's daily poll is showing McCain leading Obama 47% to 46% (including those "leaners" who are yet undecided).McCain is attempting to show how bizarre the love relationship is with Obama and the media, and Obama with himself. Watching this McCain ad, titled "The One", shows a series of Obama speeches in which he declares himself the savior of the nation and the savior of the world. Someone who believes that he does no wrong, and can do no wrong is someone we should all fear as a leader of this nation.
Specifically, Obama and his supporters are outraged that McCain would release an ad suggesting that Obama is responsible for inflated fuel prices. The ad asks who is responsible, then a chanting crowd yelling "Obama... Obama" with Barack's picture comes up... The question is not if Obama is directly responsible... it is the politics of him and his party... the very party willing to let gas prices reach $10 a gallon without any action to allow the free market to provide supply in an attempt to stabilize speculation. Obamanites don't see that Obama is wrong on energy - taxing "windfall profits" for distribution to the people. This plan will increase fuel prices - taking money away from oil companies who need profit to expand production, and distribute the money in the form of a rebate - ultimately making it impossible for the oil companies to increase production in the US.
Look - I have not been a huge fan of George W. Bush recently, setting a precedent for "rebate entitlements"... giving money where no money is earned... and doing nothing to curb spending in DC or to minimize the growth of government. He has dropped the flag of the Republican Party, and forgotten the marching orders of limited government and lower taxes. But where Bush stops, Obama is going to continue... using big government ideas (and the battle-cry of entitlements) to solve the problems in this nation. Never have I witnessed the government solving a problem better than the innovative free market... It is impossible... Unless that task is to tax and regulate thought and action through taxation.
So if McCain is forced to bring Obama out of the media shadows and into the light by using satire and controversial methods... so be it. The tactic is working. Americans are starting to educate themselves, and they are noticing that the textbook of Obama is clearly lacking content!
(Take a look at some of the other McCain ads currently being released)
and finally, my favorite:
Friday, August 1, 2008
Salazar, Obama, Pelosi, and Democrats - WRONG for America!
The Democrats have a vision for America... an America that is free from oil, free from carbon emissions, free from pollution of any kind. As I tend to agree that it should be our goal to explore alternative means of producing energy in the United States, there is no way that it can be done entirely before 15-20 years.
Attempting to force a change in the source of energy by purposefully limiting the supply of oil, by restricting access to oil exploration - shale or offshore reserves - is directly responsible for high gas prices, high oil prices, and increased speculation in the oil market.
Based on a recent study, the US will empty all currently tapped wells in the next 40-60 years... Imagine the sound of the last well sucking up the last drop of oil - like a kid sucking at a straw in an empty cup... slurp - and the oil era is over.
But what the democrats fail to realize is that the average citizen cannot continue to be self sufficient, cannot support their family or their way of life, cannot live freely without allowing the market to explore and provide a need. The Democrat plan is to cause an economic tragedy in America in order to move their Green agenda forward - progress at all costs! But while standing at the edge of a cliff, a step forward is NOT progress! It is suicide.
And suicide is exactly what the "citizens of the word" party are hoping that America commits. They believe it is our destiny... and only the worthy Prius-ites and wealthy elites deserve to come out on the other side.
The United States holds more oil in Shale Oil than the entire Saudi Oil Reserve... We have untold masses of the black gold in offshore reserves... We can have a dual agenda - sustain our economy while planning for the future... however, democrats are unwilling to save our economy.
How unwilling? Watch this short clip between Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar. Republican Senator McConnell is attempting to add a trigger to an offshore exploration bill - attempting to define an Economic Emergency.
He states $4.50 a gallon is an economic emergency... Salazar objects...
He states $5.00 is therefore an economic emergency... Salazar objects, suggesting that drilling for oil supply is a phantom solution to oil shortage...
He states $7.50 must, then, be considered an economic emergency... Salazar objects...
He states $10.00 HAS to be considered an economic emergency, allowing drilling exploration to occur in order to provide supply to the citizens of the United States in need of relief... Salazar objects...
Salazar, representing the unity voice of the Democratic Party, their ideals and beliefs going into the 2008 election, states clearly that drilling for oil is a phantom solution to meeting demand for oil. They believe that increasing supply is not the means to meet demand...
The democrats would rather see Americans poor and penniless, unable to even drive to work, than add any longevity to the oil era in the US.
Democratic Senator Ken Salazar suggests that the best option for Americans is to suffer through $10 a gallon gasoline in order to realize his vision. No duality. No parallel development... only obscene poverty and economic destruction.
Watch this video two or three times. Listen to the words used by Salazar and the "We know better than you" elitist Democrats... Do nothing, even at $10 a gallon. This is the party that we MUST defeat in 2008.
Mark Udall is MORE LIBERAL than Salazar. Udall would have possibly suggested objections at $20 or $25 a gallon gasoline. Mark Udall must lose to Bob Schaffer.
Barack Obama is MORE LIBERAL than Mark Udall. Barack Obama would suggest checking the air pressure in your tires as a solution - stating that it would save as much oil as these oil exploration plans are suggesting they would bring in (watch this video) - ignorant and false - but not discussed by the MSM swooners.
The win in 2008 is going to come to the GOP if they can clearly get the message out. Stick the oil prices where they rightly belong - on the shoulders of the Democrats. Democrats are obstructing the ability for the free market to increase supply, homeland supply, and are directly responsible for two things:
1. $4.00 a gallon (or higher if they get their way) gasoline
2. Trillions of dollars being shipped to the middle east, where they are not afraid to supply - or to fund radical ideology aimed at the destruction of the US.
This final video is the message that needs to be seen in every household, shown at every polling place, seen by every voter... The GOP attempting to make it stick - the Pelosi Premium.
The three videos here are enough to clearly show the intent and will of the Democratic party. They clearly intend to do irreparable damage to the US economy in order to push their agenda. There is never compromise... there is never good will towards the citizens. It is simply there way or thehighway... er... bike-lane?
Attempting to force a change in the source of energy by purposefully limiting the supply of oil, by restricting access to oil exploration - shale or offshore reserves - is directly responsible for high gas prices, high oil prices, and increased speculation in the oil market.
Based on a recent study, the US will empty all currently tapped wells in the next 40-60 years... Imagine the sound of the last well sucking up the last drop of oil - like a kid sucking at a straw in an empty cup... slurp - and the oil era is over.
But what the democrats fail to realize is that the average citizen cannot continue to be self sufficient, cannot support their family or their way of life, cannot live freely without allowing the market to explore and provide a need. The Democrat plan is to cause an economic tragedy in America in order to move their Green agenda forward - progress at all costs! But while standing at the edge of a cliff, a step forward is NOT progress! It is suicide.
And suicide is exactly what the "citizens of the word" party are hoping that America commits. They believe it is our destiny... and only the worthy Prius-ites and wealthy elites deserve to come out on the other side.
The United States holds more oil in Shale Oil than the entire Saudi Oil Reserve... We have untold masses of the black gold in offshore reserves... We can have a dual agenda - sustain our economy while planning for the future... however, democrats are unwilling to save our economy.
How unwilling? Watch this short clip between Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar. Republican Senator McConnell is attempting to add a trigger to an offshore exploration bill - attempting to define an Economic Emergency.
He states $4.50 a gallon is an economic emergency... Salazar objects...
He states $5.00 is therefore an economic emergency... Salazar objects, suggesting that drilling for oil supply is a phantom solution to oil shortage...
He states $7.50 must, then, be considered an economic emergency... Salazar objects...
He states $10.00 HAS to be considered an economic emergency, allowing drilling exploration to occur in order to provide supply to the citizens of the United States in need of relief... Salazar objects...
Salazar, representing the unity voice of the Democratic Party, their ideals and beliefs going into the 2008 election, states clearly that drilling for oil is a phantom solution to meeting demand for oil. They believe that increasing supply is not the means to meet demand...
The democrats would rather see Americans poor and penniless, unable to even drive to work, than add any longevity to the oil era in the US.
Democratic Senator Ken Salazar suggests that the best option for Americans is to suffer through $10 a gallon gasoline in order to realize his vision. No duality. No parallel development... only obscene poverty and economic destruction.
Watch this video two or three times. Listen to the words used by Salazar and the "We know better than you" elitist Democrats... Do nothing, even at $10 a gallon. This is the party that we MUST defeat in 2008.
Mark Udall is MORE LIBERAL than Salazar. Udall would have possibly suggested objections at $20 or $25 a gallon gasoline. Mark Udall must lose to Bob Schaffer.
Barack Obama is MORE LIBERAL than Mark Udall. Barack Obama would suggest checking the air pressure in your tires as a solution - stating that it would save as much oil as these oil exploration plans are suggesting they would bring in (watch this video) - ignorant and false - but not discussed by the MSM swooners.
The win in 2008 is going to come to the GOP if they can clearly get the message out. Stick the oil prices where they rightly belong - on the shoulders of the Democrats. Democrats are obstructing the ability for the free market to increase supply, homeland supply, and are directly responsible for two things:
1. $4.00 a gallon (or higher if they get their way) gasoline
2. Trillions of dollars being shipped to the middle east, where they are not afraid to supply - or to fund radical ideology aimed at the destruction of the US.
This final video is the message that needs to be seen in every household, shown at every polling place, seen by every voter... The GOP attempting to make it stick - the Pelosi Premium.
The three videos here are enough to clearly show the intent and will of the Democratic party. They clearly intend to do irreparable damage to the US economy in order to push their agenda. There is never compromise... there is never good will towards the citizens. It is simply there way or the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)