Obama’s excuses for canceling his visit with American troops during his European Let’s Pretend I Have Foreign Policy Experience Tour have changed on an almost daily basis.. but it’s quite obvious that Obama was only interested in visiting American troops if he could bring the media with him so he could exploit his visit for political gain.
15 comments July 26th, 2008
From Rasmussen:
Voters who have served in the U.S. military favor John McCain over Barack Obama by a 56% to 37% margin.
This data, from a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, is based upon interviews with 3,000 Likely Voters, including 588 voters who have served in the military. Voters with no military service favor Obama 50% to 43%.
Its simple, really - those of us who served are much better as spotting someone who is shining us on. A lot of illusions about human nature are stripped away when one is serving in close quarters with hundreds or thousands of other human beings for months on end without a break. I think it pretty fair to say that each of us veterans knew one or two people in service who were complete phonies who sounded like they knew what they were doing…
3 comments July 26th, 2008
While the lamestream press and rock-concert goers were salivating and tripping over themselves to touch their messiah’s garments on Obama’s recent European tour, others were not so impressed
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
Read, as they say, the whole thing.
14 comments July 26th, 2008
Geesh - all hail the Great Guiding Light Barack Obama, our Leader and Teacher….’cause if you don’t, you’re out…
Wisconsin Democrats have ousted a delegate to their national convention for saying she would vote for Republican Sen. John McCain.
The Wisconsin Democratic Party’s administrative committee voted Friday to strip Debra Bartoshevich of her status as a delegate to the Denver convention.
Bartoshevich was elected as a pledged delegate for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But after Clinton dropped out of the race, Bartoshevich told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel she would support McCain.
Bartoshevich says she made the comments during an emotional time and she hasn’t made up her mind.
But the party says she violated rules requiring delegates to support its nominee.
Don’t try to convince her to support you, just force her out so that you can have complete unanimity, because we know how leftists hate deviationists and other Trotskyite wreckers. In our great task of defeating the forces of McCainite counter-revolution, there can be no room for those who are weak - to the wall with such traitors to the proletariat!
23 comments July 26th, 2008
Interesting opinion piece over at Opinion Journal:
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That’s not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a “W.”
There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell…
…Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3″ and now “The Dark Knight”?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified…
…When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away — because we have to chase him.”
Being a coward is, pro-tempore, easier than being a hero - being a coward only requires that one do nothing; being a hero requires that one act. Of course, failure to act can land you, eventually, in much worse trouble than the immediate risk of acting, but a coward can always rationalise away future risks if it gets him out of the particular spot he’s in. While those who act are those who make things happen (good or bad, depending on the actor), it is only those who act nobly who are subjected to the calumny of the cowards. To insult the efforts of a wicked man, you see, is to take a brave stance - so much easier to call Marines in Haditha cold-blooded killers than to take on the cold-blooded killers the Marines are fighting.
The dichotomy between President Bush and the man who wants to replace him cannot be more stark - Obama is lauded for doing nothing; Bush is condemned for doing something. What did Obama do to garner support which eventually awarded him the Democratic nomination? He spoke out against liberating Iraq before the liberation was attempted. What did President Bush do to earn the hatred of the left? He ordered the liberation not of Iraq, but of Afghanistan. Oh, I know - we’ve spent so much time on Iraq that it seems that Iraq triggered leftwing hatred of Bush…but if you think back on it, you’ll remember that the first “anti-war” campaign post-9/11 was to keep us out of Afghanistan…because the Taliban hadn’t attacked us, because we shouldn’t get into the middle of a civil war, because it is impossible to defeat a terrorist enemy on his own ground, because it would be a humanitarian catastrophe. It wasn’t Iraq; it was the fact that President Bush proposed to do something - that is the source of the hatred.
Had President Bush made a few heart-rending speeches and merely promised the full weight of American law enforcement, he would still be disliked on the left for various reasons, but the hatred wouldn’t be there because in such a response there is no challenge to the cowardly. The coward, being able to look at a mere indictment of Osama bin Laden, can take all sorts of exception with what President Bush did…heck, the coward could even say that invading would be better…but there is no challenge; no forcing of a choice. No contrast between right and wrong. Obama doesn’t challenge - he tells the cowards that they were right, that we shouldn’t have acted - that being afraid to confront evil is the smart thing to do. He tells the coward that he never has to shoulder a heavy burden - that the UN, EU and everyone else on God’s earth will take care of it, but he’ll never be asked to sacrifice, save perhaps in a higher tax bill.
President Bush looked at the rubble of the Pentagon and WTC and was filled with a terrible resolve - that this shall not stand, and that those who did it will be made incapable of doing it again. For a while there, the overwhelming majority was with him - but as hard decision followed hard decision the siren song of defeatism and cowardice took its toll until, now, President Bush is in many ways the most unpopular man in the United States. All too many just wish he’d go away and stop demanding of us a hard courage to face the difficult tasks. Millions who hate President Bush will want him again, if we’re ever attacked like 9/11 again…but for now, they just want him get out, and allow a coward to stroke the ego of cowards.
And the only thing which may prevent this unhappy outcome? Another man of courage - John McCain. We’ll see in November if there is a majority of Americans still in favor of doing what is right, rather than talking about what is right and acting like talking is doing.
64 comments July 25th, 2008
Because abstractions are incapable of acting. People act, as Victor Davis Hanson notes regarding Senator Obama’s latest MSM leg-tingler:
With all due respect, I also don’t believe the world did anything to save Berlin, just as it did nothing to save the Rwandans or the Iraqis under Saddam — or will do anything for those of Darfur; it was only the U.S. Air Force that risked war to feed the helpless of Berlin as it saved the Muslims of the Balkans. And I don’t think we have much to do in America with creating a world in which “famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” Bad, often evil, autocratic governments abroad cause hunger, often despite rich natural landscapes; and nature, in tragic fashion, not “the carbon we send into atmosphere,” causes “terrible storms,” just as it has and will for millennia.
Perhaps conflict-resolution theory posits there are no villains, only misunderstandings; but I think military history suggests that culpability exists — and is not merely hopelessly relative or just in the eye of the beholder. So despite Obama’s soaring moral rhetoric, I am troubled by his historical revisionism that, “The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love.”
I would beg to differ again, and suggest instead that a mass-murdering Soviet tyranny came close to destroying the European continent (as it had, in fact, wiped out millions of its own people) and much beyond as well — and was checked only by an often lone and caricatured US superpower and its nuclear deterrence. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no danger to the world from American nuclear weapons “destroying all we have built” — while the inverse would not have been true, had nuclear and totalitarian communism prevailed. We sleep too lightly tonight not because democratic Israel has obtained nuclear weapons, but because a frightening Iran just might.
The world will not come together. It won’t solve our problems. We, people, have to actually get out there and do things…if what is meant by “the world” is a UN resolution condemning the crime of Darfur, then that is worse than doing nothing…what is needed is for those oh, so liberal people out there to find someone like Kitchener and send a punitive expedition to the Sudan to force the Sudanese government to stop being a bunch of inhuman savages. You want to “free Tibet”? Then gather yourself money and arms and infiltrate Tibet and start to set up revolutionary cells to expell the Chinese invaders. You want to help the poor? Then you can at least donate some money to Missionaries of the Poor…if you’re waiting for “the world” to do it, you’ll be waiting a long time. Its up to you, ya see?
The high flown rhetoric of Obama hides nothing - and not in the sense that Obama’s got nothing to hide; he’s hiding the fact that there’s nothing there. Under a President Obama we’ll have many, many meetings in many, many ritzy areas of the world and we’ll hear from many, many people telling us of the plight of this or that people or thing…and money will be appropriated and Nobel Prizes awarded…and nothing will have been done, because people didn’t actually go and do something about the problem. We had during the 8 years of Clinton lots of talk of doing things and not much action - and the worst offenders are those very same European elites who hail Obama as the man to lead the world…it was the Europeans, after all, who sat on their hands and talked about doing something in Yugoslavia as the horrors of World War Two were repeated, nightly, on their television sets.
What we want in a President is a man who will do something - McCain is that man. He won’t wait for the UN to have a conference, but will dive right in looking for a practical solution that actual people can carry out in a short amount of time. All through Obama’s thought runs the idea that we’ll do things, one day, after we’ve talked about them, for a while…all of McCain’s thought is centered on what we can do, right now, to make things better for people. Think about it for a moment - who has done more for others: the Marine in Anbar or the head of the UN High Commission on Human Rights? The one does, the other talks. Talk is, as they say, cheap.
And so, my friends, is Obama - just a man who moralises on the cheap and never puts himself out to actually do something. Afraid of his own shadow, Obama hides behind a mountain of words which sound sweet in the ears of those who want others to do the heavy lifting…but which disgust anyone who has ever done anything.
UPDATE: Gerard Baker has a hilarious send up of the Obama phenonema. A sample:
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
Read the whole thing.
18 comments July 25th, 2008
While Presidenator Obama (D-Utopia) practices the poses he’ll strike on January 20th, 2009, Senator John McCain continues to act like there’s actually an election to get through before the coronation of His Anti-Imperialist Majesty, Barack I:
McCain Makes Significant Gains in Key Battleground States
Majority of Voters in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin Favor Keeping Troops in Iraq, According to Quinnipiac-washingtonpost.com-Wall Street Journal Survey
Republican John McCain has quickly closed the gap between himself and Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in several key battleground states even as the Arizona senator struggles to break through the wall-to-wall coverage of Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East this week.
McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead heat in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota while the Illinois senator has a more comfortable double-digit edge in Wisconsin, according to polling conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the Wall Street Journal during the past week. Only in Colorado, however, does McCain hold a greater percentage of the vote share than Obama.
About that wall-to-wall coverage of Obama overseas - I wonder if its really helping matters for Obama? Certainly his goal was to give himself foreign policy credentials (as if waltzing ’round Europe makes one a regular Bismarck in foreign policy)…but the way he’s acting like he’s already President is, well, nauseating…and I think it starts to grate on people.
In keeping with Obama’s delusions of Presidential grandeur, what he’s doing is running like he’s the incumbant President - a “Rose Garden” strategy of loftily ignoring his opponent and allowing his stellar record in the White House carry the day for him. Its a great idea, but Obama would be better advised to use it in 2012, supposing he wins in 2008. Believe it or not, Senator, you actually have to win in November - and there isn’t a single poll out there since the absurd Newsweek poll showing anything other than a tight electoral battle (and I do wonder if, perhaps, Obama believes the Newsweek poll?).
The advantage still, barely, lies with Obama - call it a 52% chance of an Obama win. Last week, if the election were held then, I figured Obama for a winner…this week? Not quite so sure anymore.
25 comments July 25th, 2008
Who think of themselves as men of destiny are a high risk for high office, as Nevada Pundit notes.
Youth will have its way with the world, but a wise man never lets mere youth to have its way because it is young.
37 comments July 25th, 2008
Would be, well, idiocy, if this quote from Germany is anything to go on:
“This is a rare event,” said Alla Samkova, 68, a native Muscovite who has been living in Berlin for 45 years. “In the end it doesn’t matter what he says; it only matters that he’s here.”
That is all there is to Obama - the fact that he’s Obama.
November might well end up with all kinds of surprises.
4 comments July 25th, 2008
Wow. Now this is audacity of a dope.
Republicans are, smartly, seizing upon this report from Der Spiegel (which has become a must-read this week):
SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. “Barack Obama will not be coming to us,” a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. “I don’t know why.” Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.
The optics here are not good: Obama has time to get in a workout and give a speech to a crowd mostly comprised of Europeans, but can’t be bothered to visit American troops wounded in action recovering at a military hospital.
Obviously, Obama found it more worth his while to rally for Europeans to get that media coverage of him being a rockstar in Europe than it was for him to meet with members of the military whom he wants to be the commander-in-chief of.
UPDATE: It’s worth noting that the Obama campaign’s excuse for dissing our troops doesnt’ hold water
“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” explains spokesman Robert Gibbs.
This is a sticky wicket for Obama.
On the one hand, he’s been criticized for the (laughable) contention that the trip is not related to the campaign. To clearly delineate those elements of the tour that are related to his role as a senator and those that are undeniably political would seem to be a way to respond to that critique and seperate church from state. Moreover, he’s being doubly safe by avoiding the perception of campaigning in a military hospital and using wounded troops as props.
But then how many politicians include official stops in the course of a trip otherwise related to a campaign (think POTUS or a member of Congress doing fundraising and public business on the same day). Further, Obama met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on this, the campaign-funded, part of his trek. If that was deemed ok, than are we to assume that each of his get-togethers with European leaders is political in nature?
Assuming their rationale was on the level and not just cover to give the candidate a breather, the easier move may have been to still visit Rammstein and Landstuhl but keep the press behind.
Of course, if Obama cared to visit the troops, he’d have made the effort to see them… even without the media.
26 comments July 24th, 2008
Blogs For John McCain's Victory GOP Bloggers
Blogs For Victory is privately owned and maintained. All contributors are volunteers unaffiliated with any campaign or political party.
Material published and opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the individual authors of this site.
© Copyright 2008 Blogs For Victory. All rights reserved.
Blixed WordPress Theme | Design by Sebastian Schmieg . Icons by Kevin Potts . Powered by WordPress . Site Admin