McCain Campaign Reaction To Obama’s Speech

Posted below:

ARLINGTON, VA – Tonight, the McCain campaign issued the following statement from Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, on Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”

BARACK OBAMA’S TOP MISLEADING CLAIMS

MISLEADING CLAIM #1: Barack Obama Can Bring Democrats And Republicans Together. OBAMA: “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· NPR’s Juan Williams: Barack Obama “Doesn’t Have The Record” Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR’S JUAN WILLIAMS: “You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there’s John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn’t have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn’t have the record.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 5/7/08)

· Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPp2usgY6Y

· The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen: “There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically.” “Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.” (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, “McCain’s Core Advantage,” The Washington Post, 6/24/08)

· Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “He’s pretty much a conventional liberal on the issues and has few examples of breaking with his own party, so how does Obama try to pull off being ‘post-partisan?’” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama’s Third Way: It’s All In The Tone,” Politico, 6/30/08)

· Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion.” “Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, ‘unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.’” (Tim Talley, “Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse,” The Associated Press, 6/10/08)

· “The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat …” (Editorial, “Obama’s Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?” USA Today, 1/28/08)

· In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 3/3/08)

· In 2006, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 96 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/08)

· In 2005, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #2: Barack Obama Will Ensure That Our Troops On The Ground Have “The Equipment They Need In Battle.” OBAMA: “As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

MISLEADING CLAIM #3: Barack Obama Has Not Supported The President. OBAMA: “These challenges are not all of government’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. … But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush “For The Most Part.” REPORTER: “For a couple of days, they’ve been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that’s going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?” OBAMA: “I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I’ve been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there.” (KMOV [St. Louis, MO], 6/10/08)

· Watch Barack Obama’s KMOV Interview

· The New York Times‘ David Brooks: Democrats Saying McCain Represents The Third Bush Term Are “Just Factually Inaccurate.” “Finally, the Obama people are too convinced that they can define McCain as Bush III. The case is just factually inaccurate. McCain will be able to pull out dozens of instances, from torture to global warming to spending, in which he broke with his party, as Rush Limbaugh will tell you.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “Calling Dr. Doom,” The New York Times, 6/3/08)

Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh: “As We Now Know Nearly Four Years Later, McCain Was Dead On In His Analysis Of What Went Wrong In Iraq.” “In early November 2003, at a time when Fred Dalton Thompson was playing a tough D.A. on ‘Law and Order,’ John McCain was cross-examining Donald Rumsfeld for real on Capitol Hill. It was still very early into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the as-yet-unacknowledged (by Rummy, that is) insurgency was already out of control. Alone among his fellow GOP senators, McCain blasted Rumsfeld for not putting enough U.S. troops on the ground, and for resorting too soon to ‘Iraqification’ – that is, transferring security to ill-prepared Iraqi forces. In an extraordinarily blunt speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that grim autumn, McCain warned that ultimately Iraq could become another Vietnam ‘if we lose popular support in the United States.’ The next day, the secretary of Defense asked McCain to breakfast. ‘I read y our speech,’ harrumphed Rumsfeld (that ‘must have been an enjoyable experience for him,’ McCain later joked to me). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he and his top civilian brass (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the usual crowd of incompetents) would continue to do things the same way. They ‘believed there was no need for additional troops,’ McCain later related. McCain had already realized that Rumsfeld was a lost cause. The real question, the senator suggested to me back then, was whether George W. Bush himself would push Rummy to make changes. ‘I’d like to see the president fully engaged,’ McCain said. Bush needed to be on top of ‘more details of what’s going on.’ As we now know nearly four years later, McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq. Right down to the need for Bush to get engaged and fire Rumsfeld. McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about Bush’s current ’surg e’ is that if it had occurred back then – when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years – it might well have succeeded.” (Michael Hirsh, “Why McCain’s Collapse Matters,” Newsweek, 7/26/07)

· John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)

· John McCain Is “Widely Acknowledged To Have Charted A Course Independent Of Bush” On Climate Change. “On global warming, McCain is widely acknowledged to have charted a course independent of Bush. Immediately after the 2004 election, in which he stumped for Bush’s re-election, he sharply distanced himself from Bush on climate change, calling the administration’s stance ‘terribly disappointing.’ McCain had co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman to curb greenhouse gases in 2003. Bush had opposed any such move, citing possible harm to the economy and doubts over global warming.” (William March, “McCain Bucks Ties To Bush,” The Tampa Tribune, 6/11/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #4: John McCain Believes We’ve Made “Great Progress” And Families Aren’t Hurting. OBAMA: “He said that our economy has made ‘great progress’ under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the e conomy are strong.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· FactCheck.org: Obama Use Of Quote Is “Misleading” And “Distorts” John McCain’s Words. “The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: ‘[T]here’s been great progress economically.’ The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. … McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during Bush’s time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldn’t be enough to comfort families ‘facing these tremendous economic challenges.’ His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites ‘challenging times’ and ‘enormous difficulties.’ The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks.” (D’Angelo Gore, “Distorting McCain’s Remarks,” FactCheck.org, 8/19/08)

· In The Full Question And Answer Cited By Barack Obama, John McCain Clearly Said That We Are In “Tough Times” And Families Are Facing “Tremendous Economic Challenges.” Bloomberg’s Peter Cook: “I’m going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?” McCain: “Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re – why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties. “I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, yo u could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong. We’re the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They haven’t lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still – keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.” (John McCain, Interview With Bloomberg TV, 4/17/08)

· Watch Video Of Obama Economic Attack Compared To John McCain’s Full Response: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WynLgJFBxSs

· ABC News: Barack Obama Proved “He Knows How To Twist With The Best Of Them” When He Cited The McCain Quote. “Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. Speaking in Erie, Pa., Obama charged: ‘John McCain went on television and said that there has “been great progress economically” over the last seven and a half years.’ Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain’s Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is ‘no comfort’ to struggling families.” (Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib, “Obama Twists McCain On Economy,” ABC News, 4/18/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #5: Barack Obama Will Pay For His Massive Spending Increase. OBAMA: “Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· Barack Obama: “I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013.” “‘I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,’ Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

· Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has “No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending.” “Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending.” (Editorial, “Failure Of Nerve,” Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)

· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

· The National Journal’s John Maggs: “[Obama] Has Rhetorically Committed To A ‘Pay-As-You-Go’ Approach By Offsetting New Spending And Tax Cuts With New Taxes Or Spending Cuts, But His Proposals Do Not Come Close To Meeting This Standard.” (John Maggs, “Obama On The Economy,” The National Journal, 5/31/08)

· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of” His Proposals. “The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do.” (Peter Nicholas, “Adding Up The Cost Of Obama’s Agenda,” Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)

· The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #6: Under Barack Obama, We Will Achieve Energy Independence. OBAMA: “And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· The Detroit News: Barack Obama’s Energy Plan Will “Do Nothing To Answer The Nation’s Long-Term Needs.” “The latest additions to Sen. Barack Obama’s energy plan, outlined during an appearance in Lansing Monday, may win the Democratic presidential candidate some votes from disgruntled consumers in November, but they’ll do nothing to answer the nation’s long-term needs.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Energy Plan Is Fueled By Populism,” The Detroit News, 8/5/08)

· The Washington Post Editorial: Barack Obama Offering Gimmicks On Energy. “When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. ‘It’s an idea to get them through an election,’ Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)

· Barack Obama Opposes Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore To Increase American Energy Independence. Obama: “The politics may have changed, but the facts haven’t. The accuracy of Sen. McCain’s original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/08)

· Barack Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell, PA, 4/21/08)

· Barack Obama Called John McCain’s $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A “Gimmick.” Obama: “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

· Barack Obama Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: “That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn’t make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

· Barack Obama Is Proposing A Tax On Oil That Will Only Lead To Higher Prices At The Pump. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

· The Washington Post: Barack Obama’s Tax On Oil Will Only Lead To “Higher Prices At The Pump.” “But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump – thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)

MISLEADING CLAIM #7: Barack Obama Will Cut Taxes. OBAMA: “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. … But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standar d deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)

###

32 comments August 28th, 2008

Obama Speech Open Thread

Within the parameters of what Obama might say, does say or has said in the past, have at it, boys and girls.

Errrmmm….you can also make fun of any other Democrat who comes to mind…

UPDATE, 10:12 PM ET: Obama takes the stage.. let the crazy talk begin.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: From reading the prepared remarks… I see the same talking points we’ve heard the past few days… the same lame attacks on McCain and Bush…

Guess what Obama, the economy was doing just fine until your party took control of congress.

He’s spent more time attacking John McCain then explaining why he can do anything he claims to do.

UPDATE, 11:28 PM, by Matt Margolis: What sticks out the most about the speech was the negativity. I think it was a major mistake for him to be so negative. He lacked specifics. He attacked John McCain and Republicans endlessly, then claimed to be able to unite the country. Obama could never unite this country.

UPDATE: Media Lizzy posts the McCain campaigns reaction to Obama’s speech.

Associated Press Analysis: Obama spares details, keeps up attacks

UPDATE: From Obama’s speech: “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”

Umm, yeah, that pretty much describes what Obama has been doing during his campaign. He has no record to run on, and he’s trying to make people afraid of John McCain. The RNC and McCain campaign should jump on that line.

Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Open Thread, Unready to Lead

87 comments August 28th, 2008

BREAKING NEWS: IT’S NEARLY OFFICIAL: PAWLENTY FOR VEEP

I just got off the phone with Andy Barnett, who informs me that he just recently spoke with Pawlenty Press Secretary, Alex Carey. While Mr. Carey did not actually state that Pawlenty was the choice, there was excitement in his voice, and he did state that Governor Pawlenty “cleared his schedule” for the weekend.

Meanwhile, according to Barnett, a source very close to the Romney campaign stated that Governor Romney had not heard anything with regard to VP plans within this past hour.

…developing

Tags: Campaign 2008, John McCain, Tim Pawlenty

35 comments August 28th, 2008

Whistling Past the Electoral Graveyard?

From Kausfiles:

On the record Time coffee featuring Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: Plouffe argued for paying less attention to the ups and downs of the polls because a) Obama would beat McCain on turnout and b) swing voters would probably break one way or another after the debates. The audience consensus–which in this crowd was almost by definition CW–seemed to be that Plouffe was whistling past the graveyard, relying on turnout machination to make up for a worrisome message problem. … P.S.: Plouffe also said the McCain campaign was “obsessed with news cycles.”

The advantage is still with Obama, but there’s trouble in Obama-land…and the speech tonight with Obamessiah at the Greek Temple might actually be the very worst idea Obama - or his advisors - ever had.

Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Polls, Unready to Lead

23 comments August 28th, 2008

Remote

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: There is no ad more devastating to Obama.

Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Unready to Lead

31 comments August 28th, 2008

Pro-Life Democrats Abandoning Obama

If you can’t even vote to protect children outside the womb, then there’s not much chance that anyone pro-life will be able to justify a vote for you:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A new Gallup poll finds pro-life Democrats are abandoning Barack Obama now that more evidence has been presented that Obama takes a hardcore pro-abortion position. The drop in his support from pro-life Democrats also comes as John McCain has been more active promoting his pro-life views.

As the election draws closer and more voters are paying attention to it and learning where the candidates states, a Gallup poll finds pro-life Democrats are less inclined to support Obama.

The Gallup survey shows Democrats who say they are conservative on issues like abortion supported Obama at a 72 percentage point clip in mid-July.

Now, that level of support has fallen to just 63 percent — dropping steadily since then during a time Obama has come under fire nationally for his opposition to a bill to provide medical care for newborns who survive abortion.

Our issues are many in 2008, and each of them takes a piece out of the Obama narrartive. On life issues, Obama is an out-of-the-mainstream supporter of the most extreme, pro-abortion position. On foreign policy, Obama has absolutely zero experience. On defense policy, Obama has absolutely zero experience. On the War on Terrorism, Obama not only has no experience, but has also been proved absolutely wrong on the surge. On economic policy, Obama has nothing but the failed policies of a liberal past. On energy policy, Obama has mostly set aside those concrete steps we can immediately take to ease prices and set the stage for alternative fuels. Each of these issues works against Obama, and each of them will be used - in various ways at various times - against Obama from now until November.

Obama has the money, the friendly media and an anti-GOP sentiment in the nation at large - and yet the chances of him winning are, right now, no better than 50/50. We owe this amazing fact to good campaigning by McCain and the GOP, and the fact that the Democrats nominated the weakest man to be President.

UPDATE: Here are some stories which show why Obama is losing pro-life support:

Denver Bishops on Church’s Stance Against Abortion

Archbishop Wuerl on the Church and Abortion: It “Is the Same Teaching as It Was 2,000 Years Ago”

Cardinal Egan’s Comments on the Unborn: “They Are Human Beings With an Inalienable Right to Live”

Democratic National Convention: Obama Receives Ringing Endorsement from Planned Parenthood Action Fund President

US Bishops: Speaker Pelosi Got Church Teaching Wrong, Misrepresents Catholic Understanding of Life

Democratic National Convention: Abortion Leader Rails against McCain

Biden Selection Pleases Delegates, Abortion Activists

Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, culture of death, Culture of Life, John McCain

34 comments August 28th, 2008

What Media Bias? Part 122

From NRO’s The Corner:

Here in Denver, there were audible cheers in the press pavilion from multiple directions when Barack Obama walked on stage. It’s outside the convention center and no regular delegates are here — only press.

But they won’t let their personal views color their reporting, right?

Tags: media bias

4 comments August 28th, 2008

USCGC Dallas Arrives in Georgia

The news story:

A U.S. military ship loaded with aid docked at a southern Georgian port Wednesday, and Russia sent three missile boats to another Georgian port as the standoff escalated over a nation devastated by war with Russia.

Georgia’s government said its short war with Russia had caused $1 billion in damages, while European leaders called the Kremlin’s moves in two breakaway Georgian regions an unacceptable attempt to unilaterally redraw the map of the Caucasus region.

The dockings came a day after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recognized the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, which Georgia answered Wednesday by recalling all but two diplomats from its embassy in Moscow.

The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas, carrying 34 tons of humanitarian aid, docked in the Black Sea port of Batumi, south of the zone of this month’s fighting between Russia and Georgia. The arrival avoided Georgia’s main cargo port of Poti, still controlled by Russian soldiers.

Why the Coast Guard? Probably has to do with the mission being more humanitarian than military (Dallas has one 76mm gun and one Phalanx anti-missile gun) and, also, its rather tricky to send combat ships through the Dardanelles. Still, its a sign that we remain committed to Georgia and any American forces in Georgia lessens the likelihood of further unprovoked Russian aggression.

But it is dangerous, and we should say a prayer for our men and women now in harms way in that corner of the world - Russia under Putin has proven itself irresponsible and dangerous, so we cannot rely upon the Russians applying common sense to the issue. They may strike again, and may even deliberately strike our forces in some bizarre attempt to teach us a lesson, or some such chest-thumping by the Bear.

Also good to keep in mind: the world is a dangerous place, and the White House is no place for a heretofor empty suit to learn the ropes.

Tags: Georgia, Putin, Russia, South Ossetia, USCGC Dallas

11 comments August 27th, 2008

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Praise for Obama

Because the MSM will not spend much time on this:

Several hundred Democratic National Convention delegates and observers gathered at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) Caucus in Denver on Monday to discuss their political concerns and how to advance them. Focusing on the promotion of anti-discrimination laws and same-sex marriage, the delegates expressed a favorable attitude towards Sen. Barack Obama, and praised his support for many of their positions.

Caucus members and attending media received copies of an August 25 letter from Sen. Obama in which he praised the LGBT Caucus for “pushing our Party and our country to achieve equality for all Americans.”

Telling the delegates the Democratic Party is looking to the caucus to help reach, register, and turn out “LGBT voters” in “unprecedented numbers,” he praised their organizing abilities. Further, Obama wrote, “Our party and my candidacy are immeasurably stronger” because of such organizing.

Claiming as members at least 274 of the more than 4,000 delegates to the DNC, speakers at the LGBT caucus reported that their delegate numbers had grown between 30 and 41 percent since the last convention in 2004. They claimed about one third of their 2008 caucus is composed of youth and about 40 percent are “people of color.” One speaker welcomed the changes from past convention caucuses, which he said had been “almost entirely white.”

It doesn’t take much to encourage a leftist - one election win in Arizona, one court ruling in California and a leftist is easily convinced not that things are going his way, but have already entirely gone his way, and there’s no turning back. I hate to burst a bubble, but acceptance of gay marriage is far, far down the road if it ever comes at all…and, meanwhile, by taking on “transgendered” to the gay rights movement, activists have essentially shot themselves in the foot as there is no rational way to make an argument that a person has a right to a sex change, or that in order to “be yourself” you’ll need some major surgery. No matter how much gay rights activists try to cloak themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement, the plain fact of the matter is that to live “gay” is a choice, even if one is born with a same-sex attraction, or with a strange desire to switch sexual identities. We are not the sum of our sex acts - being human is so much more than that, and anyone who tries to say they can only be happy if they are able to perform a particular type of sex act is a fool, and someone who will never win an argument with the broad mass of the American people.

More to the point right here, though, is the way that this praise for Obama from a group in definitive opposition to the American majority is not being well-reported. If a group outside the American mainstream was singing McCain’s praises you can be sure that the MSM would put it front and center - but, as in all things leftist, the MSM seeks to hide the jagged edges of leftwing ideology. From the 60’s when the MSM would not show communist flags flying at “peace” demonstrations to today, when the more screwball aspects of the left are simply not covered, the MSM has been highly protective of the left and the liberals of the Democratic party who enable and empower them. But it needs to be out there - so that the people can make a full and fair judgement of both candidates.

If you vote for Obama, you are also voting for judges who will impose gay marriage by judicial fiat; you are voting for agency heads who will promote the gay rights agenda at every turn; you are voting for turning the United States military into a social experimentation laboratory for the left; you are voting for a man - and a party - which will not protect the States from a federal suit to force all States to recognise one State’s gay marriages. If you agree with this sort of thing, that is fine and that is your right - but Obama needs to be clear about what he’ll do in office, and not hide behind a mindless morass of well-turned phrases which mean nothing, once you break them down under analysis. We need to know - and one question which needs to be asked is just what Obama will do to advance the cause of gay rights in payment for the money and votes gay rights activists are providing for Obama’s campaign.

Tags: Barack Obama, gay marriage

78 comments August 27th, 2008

What Hillary Did

Victor Davis Hanson nails it:

Hillary tonight said little about the novelty or excellence of Barack Obama; when she evoked landmark African-Americans, she reached back to the Civil War to avoid overt praise of Barack Obama. I think, given the pulse of the convention, the renewed rantings of Bill, and the petulance of her supporters, we can see Hillary’s quite winning, though long-term strategy.

Hers is to go through the motions as a pro-forma Democratic supporter for Obama, convinced that such an inept and inexperienced candidate will lose without shared toxicity, or singular culpability for herself. And the party, in its belated wisdom, will then recognize its tragic errors, and in just four years, given McCain’s age, will rally to her Clinton centrist 2012 campaign.

Her speech in Kennedy-1980 convention-fashion fulfilled its tripartite intentions: 1) it was well delivered, albeit in ossified liberal tropes, to such a degree as to remind the dazed delegates what a catastrophe they have committed in having nominated a novice over a pro; 2) it got her off the hook by cursory praise of Obama without suggesting enthusiasm for him that might either help his election or turn-off her supporters whose potential for trouble is predicated on Hillary as the perpetually wounded fawn; 3) it was not overtly, but only pro-forma hostile to John McCain, and did not contradict ads airing that use her prior anger at Obama as proof of a sort of “she’s right” solidarity with McCain.

Bottom line: she remains loyal Democrat, dissed victim, the should-have-been nominated candidate, senior healer ready to clean up the mess of 2008, and savior in 2012. Note well Chelsea’s ubiquity, the slick Hillary infomercial, Bill’s wide grin, and the Clinton triad everywhere.

And the reaction of the Obamanics? They will belatedly seem like the baffled victims who discover their picked pockets, know full well who did it, but can’t quite tell the police when, how, or by whom it happened.

I was, perhaps, fortunate to be listening to the speech on radio rather than watching it on TV - while I’ve seen some comments indicating it was a good speech, as I sat in the car I cringed at how bad it was. Hillary will never be a great orator, but her speech was extra boring and delivered in a flat, lifeless tone. After the quite stupendous welcome she received one would have expected her to be walking on air - she sounded like she was addressing a PTA meeting. She hit a litany of liberal/left talking points, but there wasn’t anything in there which really said, “I think Obama will be a stupendous President”…all I got was “at least he’s not Bush or McCain”. The mentions of Obama were mechanical and not stated in a way which made a lot of applause likely.

It is clear to me, as Hanson notes, that Hillary has made the calculation that Obama is a likely loser in November and thus she’s positioning herself for a walkover primary process in 2012 (and you can bet she’ll have the ground game to end all ground games in Iowa, should it come to pass that she is running in 2012). It is a calculated risk, as Obama still barely has the advantage in Campaign ‘08, but she must have read the signs (and likely has seen some polling) which indicates that Obama is heading down to defeat, and thus Hillary’s job is to be just nice enough to Obama to shake off any possibility of being blamed for his defeat. Of course, if Obama wins then she’s out of the game until 2016, unless by some event Obama is not re-nominated in 2012. By 2016, Hillary will be very much yesterday’s news, but one can’t account for all contingencies, and from a cold, political calculation aspect, I think she’s doing the right thing.

Tags: Democratic Disunity, Hillary Clinton, PUMA

16 comments August 27th, 2008