Lou Aguilar gives ten reasons why over at NRO - but just part of number 10 is good enough for me:
Susan Sarandon has vowed to leave the country if McCain gets elected. Case closed.
Add comment July 18th, 2008
From Victor Davis Hanson:
Our 21st-century paralysis is surprising. The United States is not materially exhausted. We sit atop trillions of dollars worth of untapped oil, gas, coal, shale and tar sands.
America could mine more uranium, and reprocess fuels to build hundreds of nuclear plants. American agriculture is blessed with the world’s best soils, most developed irrigation systems, and most productive and astute farmers.
There is as much sun and wind in the western United States as anywhere in the world. We have plenty of natural resources and the know-how to make all the wood, steel and cement products we need.
A new, hungrier generation of Americans will have to want to reclaim our pre-eminence and change the national attitude. It must be ready to pay off generations of debt rather than borrow, build rather than sue, and drill rather than whine.
It’s time to honor rather than avoid and outsource physical labor. Our children are healthy enough to cut our own lawns and pick our fruit. Let’s also hope they want to hear a lot more about Gen. David Petraeus’ success, and a lot less of Madonna’s latest psychodramas.
But just as importantly, what Americans need now is leadership to get moving again — rather than more platitudes about hope, squabbling about race and gender, and endless rhetoric about who is really a maverick or a true conservative or the most liberal. What we need to know from our two presidential candidates are specifics about how to jumpstart America.
So, how many more barrels of oil, refineries and megawatts will America produce –and when and how? How much debt will the next administration retire — and when and how. How and when will our schools return to knowledge-based rather than the present (and failing) therapeutic curriculum?
Americans, in short, should be tired of hearing that we are a post-industrial, postmodern, post-anything society. Instead, we want to be known again as a can-do producer nation that sweats as much as it thinks. And the confident presidential candidate who can best assure us of that will surely win this election.
My answer, naturally, is that McCain is the better man to do these things - and, indeed, McCain has been tacking towards a new understanding of American strength, and the real point of American conservatism (it isn’t just a powerful military and low taxes - those are incidental to conservatism, not central). While there is a rank foolishness in Democratic class war rhetoric (especially when at least a plurality of the rich back the Democrats - and its probably an absolute majority), no conservative can view corporate America with anything other than dismay at the way they’ve made of mess of things in housing, automobiles and finance. We’ve been so busy, on the right, fighting the War on Terrorism and fighting off socialism that we’ve forgot that a two by four needs, at times, to be directed at corporate America, too. All conservatives, schooled as we are in understanding the inherent weakness of large bureaucracies, should understand almost instinctively that a large corporate bureaucracy is only slightly better than a large government bureaucracy.
It is time for us to really get America moving again - a comprehensive insistence that government get out of the way, but corporations be held to the highest possible standards of honesty; an insistence that the lawsuits stop; a demand that NIMBYism on things like oil drilling and refineries be slammed hard; a realistic approach which gathers our immense strength and applies it to our pressing problems. And, most importantly, a rigid defense of the family - against intrusive government bureaucrats and corrupt teacher’s unions, to be sure, but also against corporate greed which views the family 14 year old as a prime target for sex and violence marketing.
Its all of a piece - for many decades we were focused on defeating the USSR. Lately we’ve been concentrating on the War on Terrorism - but its does us no good to win the war abroad only to lose it at home. What America needs, from top to bottom, is conservatism - conservative economics, conservative morals, conservative government. McCain may be the man to do it, but Obama is definitely not the man for the hour. This is no time for intra-movement fights over alleged purity, but it is the time to fight it out on each issue for what is really best for America - conservatism.
10 comments July 18th, 2008
John McCain on the deaths of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser:
I wish to extend my deepest condolences to the families of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. When I met the Regev and Goldwasser families in Israel, I was moved by their profound love for their sons, who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. Now we know that Eldad and Ehud made the ultimate sacrifice for the country they served and loved. In spite of this tragic loss, Israel and the United States will remain united in their struggle against terrorism. The continuing attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups supported by state sponsors of terror like Syria and Iran pose a severe threat to Israel. Our democratic ally is under siege, and these two deaths are just the latest in a long line of brave Israelis who have been killed by vicious terrorists. Though we mourn the loss of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, we are reminded by this that we must never waver in our support for Israel, and we continue to demand the re lease of Gilad Shalit, taken captive by Hamas and held illegally since the summer of 2006.
Israel cares about its sons, and so it paid a high price just to get the bodies of their brave men back…Hamas views its sons as excellent guided bombs and so much cannon fodder. They call this “asymetrical warfare” - where the weaker side will make the stronger pay a higher price than they want to bother with. This is very tough to be, but it is beatable.
We have shown in Iraq that the evil of terrorism can be defeated, even when backed by outside players - the ultimate resolution of the problem of Lebanon will require, I believe, military action. But not another foolhardhy grinding match in the hills of Lebanon…no, when push comes to shove, Israel (with US backing, if need be) must strike at the real heart of Hamas, which is in Damascus…hold Damascus hostage to a complete Syrio-Hamas withdrawal from Lebanon.
Its either act decisively, or Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser will just become two of a long line of Israeli dead.
7 comments July 18th, 2008
Perhaps the most forlorn of political efforts, but still well worth the attempt - John McCain at the NAACP:
Perhaps with more charity than was always deserved, it was Dr. King who often reminded us that there was moral badness, and there was moral blindness, and they were not the same. It was this spirit that turned hatred into forgiveness, anger into conviction, and a bitter life into a great one. He loved and honored his country even when the feeling was unreturned, and counseled others to do the same. He gave his countrymen the benefit of the doubt — believing, as he wrote, that “returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.”
I remember first learning what had happened in Memphis on the fourth of April, 1968, feeling just as everyone else did back home, only perhaps even more uncertain and alarmed for my country in the darkness that was then enclosed around me and my fellow captives. In our circumstances at the time, good news from America was hard to come by. But the bad news was a different matter, and each new report of violence, rioting, and other tribulations in America was delivered without delay. The enemy had correctly calculated that the news of Dr. King’s death would deeply wound morale, and leave us worried and afraid for our country. Doubtless it boosted our captors’ morale, confirming their belief that America was a lost cause, and that the future belonged to them.
Yet how differently it all turned out. And if they had been the more reflective kind, our enemies would have understood that the cause of Dr. King was bigger than any one man, and could not be stopped by force of violence. Struggle is rewarded in God’s own time. Wrongs are set right and evil is overcome. We know this to be true because it is the story of your cause, and the story of our country.
As much as any other group in America, the NAACP has been at the center of that great and honorable cause. I’m here today as an admirer and a fellow American, an association that means more to me than any other. I am a candidate for president who seeks your vote and hopes to earn it. But whether or not I win your support, I need your goodwill and counsel. And should I succeed, I’ll need it all the more. I have always believed in this country, in a good America, a great America. But I have always known we can build a better America, where no place or person is left without hope or opportunity by the sins of injustice or indifference. It would be among the great privileges of my life to work with you in that cause.
Earlier in the speech, McCain directly challenged Obama on his education and economic policies - pointing out that Obama is wedded to the worn out ideas of the past when the times call for new efforts and new ideas in dealing with our nation’s problems. For the most part, no doubt, this speech fell upon deaf ears - polite ears; ears willing to be respectful of a great American…but ears, none the less, which were not inclined to hear the message. The NAACP does have a long and honorable history but over the past 10-20 years, it has turned itself more and more into a mere adjunct of the Democratic National Committee…devoted to party above country and, indeed, above the real needs of black Americans. If Obama wins in November, this will probably just become more ingrained - but if McCain wins, it will hopefully be a time for black Americans to reconsider their views, and their loyalty to a party which gives much lip-service to the needs of black Americans, but little in the way of actual help.
There is one black lady I know who likens President Bush to the devil - an absurd position to hold, but there was no doubting her sincerity when she was first shocked to discover that I was a Republican and she then blurted out her heartfelt opinion about the man I supported in 2000 and 2004 and still think is one of the best Presidents we’ve ever had. And when I said “shocked”, I meant it - apparently, the concept that a Republican could be on her socio-economic level and, also, clearly non-racist was something outside her common experience. Not that I’m the only middle-aged white guy she knows, but I’m probably one of the few she’s had politics come up with. We’re still friends - and we are, also, brother and sister in Christ…and we share many of the exact same values, especially as regards basic morality. But that this intelligent, kind and knowledgable lady can have such a different view about President Bush - and Republicans - shows the very high mountain we GOPers must climb to gain the trust and support of black Americans.
It is a challenge which John McCain clearly accepts, and one in which I wish him the best of luck - even getting the normal GOP 10% or so of the black vote will count as some sort of triumph in 2008, and I think he might very well be able to do that. The certain thing about this is that for the sake of the United States, black Americans and our Republican party, we’d better do whatever we can to bring black Americans back to their original political home.
51 comments July 17th, 2008
Can’t say it any clearer than this:
Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.
Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy…
…In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn’t get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago. I supported the surge because I believed it was our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused, and the right thing to do for our country. And although events have proven me right, my position wasn’t popular at the time, and I risked my own political ambitions when I took it. When I tell you, I will put our country’s interests — your interests — before party; before any special interest; before my own interests, every hour of every day I’m in office, you can believe me. Because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the se curity and well-being of the country I love. Thank you.
Obama was wrong about the surge - there is no way around that. More than his being wrong, however, there is now his rank dishonesty - his claims that he didn’t say the surge would fail, his Orwellian excising of his old Iraq position from his website, his attempts to spin himself into an architect of victory when he was singing the siren song of defeatism for the past 18 months. A dishonest man who can’t come up with the right solution - this is not the sort of man we want as President.
John McCain promises us that he’ll put country before everything - and we have the absolute proof that he’ll do that. He really did jump out in front of nearly everyone - including the President - in advocating one of the most unpopular acts our government has ever undertaken, and it worked…and our nation, and the world, is better off for it. All honor to those who saw the way clearly - and let us leave those who wanted to surrender in the dark recesses of our national memory, not elevated to the most powerful office in the world.
17 comments July 16th, 2008
Pretty stark:
A new Gallup Poll claims to show that registered voters who say religion is important in their lives tend to support presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain by a margin of 50 to 40 percent, while those who say religion is unimportant to their lives tend to support presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama by a margin of 55 to 36 percent.
About two-thirds of the registered voters surveyed by Gallup said that religion is important to them.
According to the Gallup Poll, which surveyed 95,000 registered voters from March through June 2008, the divide in voting preference is not confined to white Protestants but is manifested among non-Hispanic white Catholics as well.
Non-Hispanic white Catholics who say religion is important in their daily lives support McCain over Obama by 53 percent to 37 percent. Those who say religion is not important slightly favor Obama by a margin of 47 percent to 45 percent.
Hispanic Catholics, black non-Catholic Christians, and those who do not have a specific religious identity reportedly tend to support Barack Obama, but their support apparently is little affected by the importance of religion in their lives.
Hispanic Catholics who say religion is important in their lives support Obama over McCain 57 to 31, while those who say religion is not important support Obama by a margin of 63 to 30 percent.
Meanwhile, among the 12% of respondents who have no religious identity, Obama cleans up with 65% to McCain’s 26%. Obama will, of course, try to move some religious voters his way; McCain, meanwhile, will try to expand his appeal to religious voters…and the election may very well turn on just who shows up…believers, or unbelievers.
There is a sad note in this, however - we are, in many ways, a house divided against itself, just as we were in the 1850’s - and just as it was back then, we will not forever remain divided, but will become all one thing, or all the other. Our fervent hope, of course, is that the passions which divide us never lead us to view those who disagree as our enemies.
This election may settle a lot of things, one way or the other - an Obama Presidency would cement ultra-liberal control of the judiciary while the Obama plan to massively increase government may place such a large number of Americans on government dependency (in one form or another) that we’ll have an European style electorate wedded to welfare and unwilling - even at the cost of national destruction - to modify their demands. On the other hand, the election of McCain will cement a conservative majority in the judiciary, while McCain’s proposals to reign in government spending and end pork would get government further out of Americans’ lives, and thus retain in America that sense of independence which is one of the two mainstays of our national strength (the other is our continued strong religious belief, especially as relative to the rest of the western world).
It is a crucial election, and pettifogging complaints that the candidate isn’t pure on ideology are worse than stupid - for each side, to stand aside is to give up the fight, perhaps for good and all.
27 comments July 16th, 2008
Deal Hudson writes an open letter to Prof. Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who has endorsed Obama:
…Abortion, infanticide, and marriage — Obama’s positions on these issues alone make it impossible for me to support him. McCain, on the other hand, is reliable. His position on embryonic stem cells does not create equivalence between him and Obama on the life issue – the difference between the two candidates on life and marriage is stark.
I have noted, of course, your concern about the Iraq War. You argue that Catholic voters should reevaluate their support for President Bush, the GOP, and John McCain because of the war. You have come close to saying, but not quite, that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq weakens any claim that Bush, McCain, or the GOP are closer to Catholic social teaching than the Democrats or Obama.
On this, once again, I cannot agree. President Bush has been the most committed pro-life president since Roe v. Wade. The abortion rate in the United States is at its lowest since 1974. The achievement of Bush and the GOP controlled Congress in limiting abortion cannot be offset by the Iraq War.
Whatever you think of the war, it is within the prudential prerogative of the president and the Congress, according to Church teaching, to make this decision (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2309). At the time of the invasion, Democrats as well as Republicans supported it.
There is no official Catholic position for or against the Iraq War…
…Some Catholics have argued that if Obama and McCain were compared on prudential matters only – health care, poverty, minimum wage, energy, taxes, immigration, national security, war & peace – Obama would be their choice. If Obama and McCain held exactly the same positions on abortion and marriage, I would still opt for McCain on prudential grounds, but that is not, I believe, where the argument lies.
The argument between us is about those positions the Church has taught should not be compromised by our political judgment. In all that you have written and said, I still have not found a compelling reason that justifies your public support for Barack Obama.
Much is made in Democratic attempts to woo Catholic voters about how Democrats care about the poor and in keeping with the “seamless garment” urged by the US Bishops on such matters, the fact of Democratic support for abortion rights pales in comparison to an alleged GOP disdain for the poor. This is an arguable point, but my contention is that the social spending Democrats wish to apply to poverty actually deepens poverty - it takes the suffering poor and makes them the parasitic, suffering poor. A brother or sister who needs a hand is magically transformed by the welfare State into a shiftless leech.
Given the failure of the Democrats’ poverty plans to actually alleviate poverty, we’re left then with the Democrats views on abortion, marriage and infanticide - without a counterbalancing reality of helping the poor, the evil of Democratic support for the Culture of Death is just that much more stark, and Obama’s fawning devotion to the most extreme of pro-abortion positions makes it impossible for me, as a Catholic, to ever consider casting a vote for him. It doesn’t at all surprise me that many Catholic Democrats are backing Obama - these are the same Catholics who yammer on about women priests, married priests, birth control and other positions in direct opposition to Church teaching. Its expected - but what wasn’t ever expected was someone like Kmiec falling for the Obama delusion.
In the end we all must do what we think is best - I hope that Kmiec has thought this through carefully and that his decision is based entirely upon his convictions about what is best for society in accordance with Church teaching. My conscience, instructed by our mutual faith, leads me to a very different conclusion, and I do wonder if any Catholic who fully considers everything in relation to the whole can really justify a vote for Obama.
95 comments July 15th, 2008
Victor Davis Hanson notes the shrinking of Obama:
think McCain will incrementally continue to close the lead for four reasons:
The hope and change rock-start moments are waning, and replaced by a new Obama composite:
1) Obama flips in furious fashion; the only controversy is over when the mutations will stop, and how well he can convince his base that they are only cosmetic adjustments of limited duration necessary for election and the implementation of their shared European-like agenda.
2) Obama is proving messianic; all the lectures about fainting, the Brandenburg Gate, his new seal, open-air address in Denver, oceans receding, etc. are cementing a portrait of a megalomaniac. Almost everyone has by now “disappointed”, or “disrespected” Obama, or is not the fellow prophet that Obama “knew,” “remembers”, or “recalls”. His sermons on our SUVs, lack of language fluency, diet etc. are as hypocritical as they are sophomoric, and confirm Michelle’s summation of the rest of us as “unaware, uninformed.”
3) Obama is ruthless — the numbers of those thrown under the bus — Wright, his grandmother, Ms. Power, former aides — are now resembling speed bumps. This is not unusual in politics, but contradicts the Sermon on the Mount imagery, and confirms the past narrative of his take-no-prisoners political ambitions.
4) Obama has a poor grasp of history, geography, American culture, and common sense — whether the number or location of states in the Union, basic facts about WWII or where Arabic is spoken, or his sociological take on Pennsylvania, etc. His advisors realize this, and are playing 4th-quarter defense by keeping him out of ex tempore, non tele-prompted hope and change venues, where his shallowness can manifest itself in astonishing ways.
Hanson wisely goes on to note that Obama is still the favorite in Campaign ‘08 - but it is clear that the bloom is off the rose. The big question is whether or not Obama’s handlers can keep him locked away from the electorate until November. If the election were held today, Obama would probably win - but the election is in November and Obama has nearly four months in which to continue stumbling from one gaffe to another. The key for McCain is to figure out a way to draw Obama out - either by goading him (he has a large amount of pride and might be snookered into going into an unfavorable venue with McCain) or by chipping away enough at Obama’s lead (which is already happening) to the point where Obama’s people understand that defeat looms and only a direct confrontation with McCain can possibly save the day.
What stuns the seasoned political observer is the vaporous nature of Obama - he’s really got nothing except a pretty good, set piece speaking style. I think we have to go back to the Wilke phenomena in 1940 (another political zero raised up as the next big thing) for a comparison. Every now and again in American politics someone comes along who is hailed as the saviour of a worn out America - the aforementioned Wilke, but also William Jennings Bryan, John Fremont…people who came out of nowhere to shake up American politics, only to be brought down to earth by the realities of life. We’ll see if Obama is different - but for him to be different he’s going to have to get down and dirty and fight this thing out like a man, not walk around like he’s already President-elect.
23 comments July 15th, 2008
Nevada Pundit has a word to say about this rather tiresome Democratic talking point:
…Democrats love to say “McSame”. I think that there is something that they are overlooking, President Bush was elected on a platform of strong conservative beliefs, ideas that enough people believed in that he was elected President. President Bush’s unpopularity was not with his ideas so much as his implementation. The part that I don’t think the Democrats understand is that the Republican party doesn’t want those ideas to go away, they want someone in office that will be effective in getting their ideas through.
Very little that I have heard from McCain is a continuation of Bush’s policies, what they are are a continuation of Republican ideas in a way that McCain and many feel will be much more effective than President Bush’s approach. The idea of “McSame” is only being used, in fact can only be used as a scare tactic to the moderate voters…
I can dispute the exception on Bush’s effectiveness - personally, I think he’s been very much so - but I see the point: It is, perhaps, a situation now where GOPers are looking for someone less ideological and more practical…someone, that is, who can take core GOP values and get them implemented without the extraordinary level of nastiness we’ve seen directed at President Bush; a nastiness partially engendered by President Bush being clearly identified with a very conservative set of moral values as expressed by his evangelical Christianity. The left has spent so many years demonizing the religious right that, to the left, President Bush was pure evil even before Iraq. The fact that some Democrats are still seeking impeachment - six months before Bush leaves office - shows the level of hatred felt on the left for President Bush. A President McCain, however, won’t be carrying around the baggage President Bush has been saddled with and, addtionally, given McCain’s hero status, it will be very hard to tag him the way the left has tagged President Bush. And thus we see “McSame”.
While President Bush is unpopular, I don’t think he’s hated the way the left hates him - but they believe he is so hated, and so we’re seeing an attempt to closely tie John McCain to President Bush, even though McCain has been a strong GOP critic of the President. For the left, they feel that if they can really make people think that McCain is a Bush clone, then their task is done - Obama will be elected in a landslide. Time will tell if the left has hit upon the winning tactic, but the fact will always be that McCain and President Bush are two very different sorts of Republicans - sharing some core values, but having a very different conception of what is to be most emphasised and what means should be used to effect the desired ends. Democrats are, in short, using their tried and true method - lying.
21 comments July 12th, 2008
Quite simply because - outside of the various affinities Catholic voters have for a man like John McCain - winning without the Catholic vote will be nearly impossible:
John McCain is preparing to ramp up his efforts to reach out to Catholic voters with a “very, very aggressive” campaign, spearheaded by the newly created Catholic Outreach Coalition.
Frank Donatelli, the Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Committee, spoke to reporters and Catholic media on a conference call this morning about the efforts that the McCain campaign is planning to reach Catholic voters.
Donatelli described the Catholic Outreach Coalition, chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback and Frank Keating, as “first-rate” and said that it will be “very well-funded.”
McCain’s Catholic campaign will involve literature, sending speakers to parishes and Catholic gatherings, a direct mail program and statements by Sen. McCain on issues of concern to Catholics.
The coalition plans to explain to Catholic voters how McCain is a stalwart opponent of abortion, has a strong appreciation for the social conscience of the world and that he is in favor of an immigration policy that defends the nation’s borders but also is humane in its treatment of illegal immigrants.
Donatelli also mentioned to CNA that the McCain campaign is also actively reaching out to Latinos, a group that historically votes for Democrats and is largely Catholic. Besides the cultural issues that presidential contender is emphasizing with non-Latino Catholics, McCain sees addressing the immigration issue in a humane manner as key to attracting the Hispanic vote.
Meanwhile, Obama’s alleged Catholic outreach guy hides:
Mark Linton, director of Catholic Outreach for the Obama Campaign, refused to appear on a Catholic radio show to explain Obama’s views regarding abortion and address his accusations of supporting infanticide.
The Detroit-based radio show, hosted by Al Kresta, founder of Ave Maria Communications and best-selling Catholic author, wanted to invite both Mark Linton and Deal Hudson, the director of InsideCatholic.com, onto his radio show. Nick Thomm, the producer for Kresta’s show, explained to CNA, “[Linton] is the National Catholic outreach guy and he disagrees with Deal Hudson over the facts surrounding Obama’s record on abortion. So we figured we’d have them both on the show to hash it out.”
Hudson has written several articles questioning Obama’s stance on abortion and infanticide due to his refusal to pass the Born Alive Infant Protect Act in the Illinois Senate. Linton responded on July 4 by sending out an email criticizing Hudson and attempting to clarify Obama’s abortion position.
After successfully contacting Hudson, Thomm was unable to find a contact number for Linton on the party’s website. When he contacted Obama’s Senate office, he told that they couldn’t give out Linton’s phone number and that he would have to send Linton an email.
After sending Linton an email on Monday afternoon and another Tuesday morning, Thomm called Senator Obama’s office once again to try and reach Linton in time for Kresta’s 4 p.m. (ET) radio show.
Thomm explained that when he called Obama’s senate office he told the Obama staffer, “we have no choice but to think that he’s trying dodge us. He’s supposed to be a National Catholic Outreach coordinator and we’re a Catholic radio show, so who’s he doing outreach to?”
“We never heard back from him and so we just went ahead and did the show without him,” said Thomm.
CNA also tried to contact Linton to discuss Obama’s abortion record and the missed radio debate, but calls and emails were not returned.
Compare and contrast - McCain’s willingness to stake out firm positions with Obama’s unwilingess to ever get into a tight spot.
10 comments July 12th, 2008
Blogs For John McCain's Victory GOP Bloggers