Posts with the tag 'politics'
The network of McCain supporter sites is going through a growth spurt, right, left, and center. On July 1st, the anniversary of John McCain’s promotion to Commander of Attack Squadron 174 in 1976, the founders of John McCain 2008 Social Network and McCain Now are launching LetsGetThisRight.com. They have worked tirelessly to launch a site that focuses on supporting Senator McCain and local Republicans across the country. They are looking to raise money for a series of candidates in important races.
On the other side of the spectrum, let me welcome Clinton supporters who now support Senator McCain to the club. The establishment and networking of Clinton supporters not willing to support Senator Obama, has been impressive to say the least. Over 125 sites and blogs have emerged within a few weeks. A list of all (or most) is available at Just Say No Deal. Here are a few that have already established a significant following. Clintons 4 McCain, Savage Politics, Puma Party (which includes the Puma Party forum), Done Dems, Hillary Clinton Forum, and Dems 4 McCain. Certainly, not all who have decided not to vote Obama have committed to voting McCain. However, there is mounting evidence that many Clinton supporters will vote McCain.
Some Hillary supporters have even decided to donate to Senator McCain’s campaign on July 4th. As a show of support, many long time McCain supporters have also agreed to contribute on that day. The request is that Hillary supporters make donations in amounts like $5.44, $25.44, or $125.44 and others donate in whole dollar amounts so Clinton supporters can be differentiated and counted.
Other new Pro-McCain sites include…
Battleground States ‘08 is a contributor based blog giving a state to state perspective on the presidential race.
Local Republicans similarly is a contributor based blog focused on down ticket candidates and state and local Republican candidates.
Grand Old Partisan is an excellent site for those interested in history. It remembers that the GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
also…
Jews for McCain
Conservative Mom in a Liberal World
Its All Dicta
McCain Brigade
McCain Independent
McCain Supporters
Local Republicans
Obama Independent or McCain Independent?
Red Arizona
Right Score
Stop Obama Vote McCain
Democrats and Independents for McCain Social Network
Tags: candidate, Clinton, Democrats, hillary, Hillary Clinton, independent, independents, John McCain, liberal, mccain, politics, president, republican, republicans
June 29th, 2008
Susan Rice’s false statement about the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting leaves open two questions. Are Obama foreign policy advisors up to snuff to guide a candidate and potential president? Are Obama advisors making misleading or false statements in order to win votes? First, Dr. Susan Rice is a Rhodes Scholar, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and has worked on the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns. It seems hard to believe that she would have thought that the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting really resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. If she did, it is a troubling gap in knowledge for such an accomplished international relations scholar.
Consequently, that raises the second question of whether this is a tactic to sway votes by misleading people. Was Susan Rice trying to cash in on the popularity of JFK by assuming most people would not know their history well enough to challenge her? This isn’t Rice’s first misstatement. She has been trying over the last few months to walk back Senator Obama’s statement that he would meet with dictators of rouge nations in the first year of his presidency without preconditions. The tactic being to confuse people with a debate between ‘precondition’ and ‘preparations’. Yet, Dr. Rice expressly stated, “Nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.” That is false, Senator Obama in a YouTube debate expressly stated he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions, which drew criticism from people on both sides of the isle. This begs the question is this a bumbling foreign policy, or old school politics. A decission to say anything regardless of its veracity to put your candidate in office.
YouTube Clip of Senator Obama agreeing to meet without preconditions
First published at Purple People Vote
Tags: 2008 election, foreign policy advisor, ignorance, Obama, politics
June 12th, 2008
In the New York Times latest Pro-Obama advocacy piece, high ranking Hoper and Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice decided to finally shed some light on a topic that has caused much discussion on this and many other sites.
Recently, we’ve had a spirited debate about whether or not Barack Obama’s plan to meet madmen without preconditions was a wise idea. It has been one of the more controversial aspects of Obama’s plan to bring the New Hope, with even his Democratic opponents lukewarm at best to the idea.
Well, as it turns out, the whole debate was pointless because Barack Obama… never said that?
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Oh.
Well, that makes me feel a lot better.
And since I’m in a good mood, I won’t call Barack Obama and his campaign a pack of habitual liars. I’ll just post the following without comment.
CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran also differs significantly from the Bush administration.
I will also post this video and transcript without using the “l word”
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
Finally, I will relay this excerpt from Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign Website.
Like I said, I will not accuse Barack Obama and his advisers of deliberately misleading the American public. I know how that irks some of you.
I’ll let the candidate’s own statements speak for themselves.
Tags: Barack Obama, change, foreign policy, politics
May 10th, 2008
In the days since Senator Barack Obama’s remarks at a San Francisco fund raiser have become widely known, Senator Obama and his surrogates have been fiercely trying to spin the Leader of the New Hope’s latest example of what he considers the “politics of hope.”
Unsurprisingly, Team Hope has focussed largely on the word ‘bitter’ and tried their very best to make everyone forget about the troubling snobbishness and elitism of the full statement, one I’m sure Senator Obama never thought the general public would ever hear.
Jake Tapper at the Political Punch writes about this and the Obama Campaign’s attempt to convince us that he said something other than what he actually said.
A robo-call on behalf of the Obama campaign from Mayor John Brenner of York, Pa., says that, “Barack Obama understands us. He’s got it right, we are frustrated — frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community, pensions to be stripped, health care benefits to be taken away and homes foreclosed. Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington. It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us.”
On Obama’s Web site, a public letter from 21 Pennsylvania “elected officials and community leaders from small towns and rural areas throughout Pennsylvania” defend him, saying, “What Sen. Obama said is that over the last 25-30 years, working class people in places like Pennsylvania have been falling behind, and that politicians in Washington haven’t been looking out for them. He also said that, as a result, many people have become frustrated, angry and even bitter about all the broken promises. He was right.”
No mention of the “cling”-ing to guns or religion.
If Barack Obama, his campaign, and his surrogates really think that they can gloss over and whitewash his comments, and expect he American public to just forget that these condescending comments, where he accuses religious voters of “clinging” to religion, he has another thing coming.
Frankly, if Obama and his campaign and The Audacity of Hope is just too good to accept these voters, I’m sure John McCain will gladly take them, warts, bitter religiousness and all.
Tags: Barack Obama, bitter, Campaign Issues, elitism, hope, John McCain, mccain, politics, spin
April 14th, 2008
New McCain Web Ad Tolerance.
Tags: acceptance, challenge, change, clean, compatriots, courage, debate, dignity, discussion, politics, respect, tolerance, web ad
April 11th, 2008
The Campaign of New Hope is lying yet again.
Barack Obama desperately wants to become President of the United States. But because his record in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate is as embarrassingly thin as it is radically liberal, he was smart enough to know that the American public would not vote on him based on record.
So Barack Obama created the myth of a “New Kind of Politics.” For almost a full year, Barack Obama talked as little policy as he could, preferring to yell words and phrases like ‘Hope,’ ‘Change’ and ‘Yes We Can!’ all the while promising to end the old-style politics, including partisan bickering, double talk and dirty tricks.
Since then, Barack Obama has lied about just about everything he can, no matter how big or small.
Perhaps the worst of Obama’s lies, and something we have covered repeatedly on this blog, is his insistence that John McCain wants a one hundred year war in Iraq. McCain supporters have been crying foul for months now, but the fact checkers and mainstream press have finally started calling him out on it.
The Obama Campaign needed to respond, so they did what they do best,
Lie.
David Axelrod went onto “Morning Joe” today to respond to accusations such as “rank falsehood” on Obama’s part.
“Senator Obama hasn’t said that Senator McCain said we would be at war for 100 years.
Really David?
Somewhere along the line the Campaign of New Politics has become a forty year old Simon and Garfunkle concert.
Lie-la-Lie, Lie-la-Lie-Lie…..
UPDATE: According to Red State Obama himself is continuing this line of deception. From his appearance on Today.
MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you’ve distorted his statements?”
SEN. OBAMA: “No. That’s not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it — he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)
Can we pull up the quotes on Youtube? YES WE CAN!
I always wanted to say that.
Tags: Barack Obama, change, election, foreign policy, hope, iraq, iraq war, John McCain, liberal, mccain, Obama, politics, president
April 7th, 2008
Well, no.
But if The Leader of the New Hope is going to at least be consistent with his lies and distortions, I expect a riveting speech on how Colin Kahl promises an endless war.
The theme of the Obama campaign seems to be that the candidate will give his speeches and present a world of hope and change and unicorns and rainbows. Then his advisers will either point out privately that Obama has no idea what he’s doing, or assure people that Barack is lying to the American people. Again.
But remember folks, Barack represents hope and change and new politics.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Tags: Barack Obama, hope, iraq, iraq war, John McCain, mccain, politics
April 4th, 2008
The Fact Checker at Washington Post has finally weighed in on The Leader of the New Politics’ repeated distortions of John McCain’s comments on the Iraq War.
At one time or another, both Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have said that the presumptive Republican nominee is willing to fight a 100-year war in Iraq. When challenged about this claim on Monday, Obama referred journalists to the YouTube version of the Derry Townhall meeting. But the YouTube clip does not back up his case.
The Pinocchio Test
A more honest line of attack for the Democrats against McCain would be his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whether or not he has a clear strategy for winning the war, and the feasibility of a long-term occupation of a Muslim country by the United States. Instead of attacking him on these grounds, they have twisted his words, by claiming that he “wants” to fight a 100-year war.
I’ve said it before, but for the Candidate of Hope and the New Politics, Barack Obama certainly resorts to old style political deception an awful lot.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Lots of others are also calling out Obama for distorting McCain’s words.
The New York Times:
He offered those as possible timelines, but only hypothetically, to make his points that terrorism had rendered the region unstable and that he would support a continued troop presence if warranted. But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies.
Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3
The Associated Press
No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq.
The future Republican presidential nominee and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances.
That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.
FactCheck.org had debunked this back in February, but that hasnt’ stopped Obama or Hillary from deliberately lying for their own political means.
Tags: Barack Obama, candidate, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, iraq, iraq war, John McCain, liberal lies, Obama, politics
April 2nd, 2008
Older Posts
