Here comes the pandering.

Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican.
Obama contended he is merely stating long-held positions — surprising to some, he said, after a primary campaign in which he was “tagged as being on the left.”

In recent days, with the Democratic nomination in hand and the general election battle with Republican John McCain ahead, Obama has been sounding centrist themes with comments on guns, government surveillance and capital punishment. He’s even quoted Ronald Reagan.

One can only guess what kind of faith-based programs he’s for:

Score one for Life, and one against Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood:

(CNSNews.com) – South Dakota may enforce a law that requires doctors to provide pregnant women with a written statement saying, “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” a federal appeals court ruled last Friday.

In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7-4 to strike down a 2005 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for South Dakota.

The injunction had prevented a statute – requiring abortion providers to tell women, in writing, that an abortion would terminate the life of a “living human being” – from taking effect. The decision by the appeals court reversed the injunction and remanded it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The lawsuit, filed by Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, required the court to consider whether the definition of human being should include “the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.”

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds and Attorney General Larry Long, representing the state, argued against Planned Parenthood in the suit, providing evidence that the embryo or fetus is “whole, separate, unique and living.”

The court’s ruling said, “Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion.”

The court cited a bioethicist’s affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, which stated that “to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental evidence interrupts its gestation.”

Dear readers, when faced with the Truth of what an abortion is, the pro-abortion, pro-death lobby has no moral leg to stand on. Unlike a pile of wood, which can become a chair, a table, or part of a home, a developing embryo can only become more and more of what it already is–a human being.

Congratulations to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for having the cajones to face up to that truth.

I’m still pulling for Bobby Jindal to be with McCain, but Sarah Palin would do just fine, too.

Discuss the Veepstakes – will it make a difference? Who is best for Obama? For McCain?

Obama’s surrogates are out there on the hustings trying to say that Obama always said the “troop surge” would work – don’t believe it for a moment:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)

“But I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 1/10/07)

“But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq . We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum — military and civilian, conservative and liberal — expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq .” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)

“And what was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president’s strategy will not work. The almost near unanimity among experts on the Middle East and Iraq that the president’s strategy would not work. I was further struck by a consensus among the majority of witnesses that I heard — and, you know, I was not in every minute of every hearing — that we needed to, rather than escalate our troop levels, we actually needed to de-escalate; that, consistent with what the Iraq Study Group had stated, only by indicating in a strong fashion to the Iraqi government that we will not be there in perpetuity will we be able to change the dynamic and force the Shia, Sunni and Kurds to make the political accommodations that are required in order for us to bring some cessation to the violence that exists there. So, what’s striking to me is, at least, outside of politics, consensus seems to be building. It certainly is built among the American people. It is built among the experts in the area. And what remains, then, is the need for us to act.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/24/07)

Again and again and again Obama clearly and without qualification stated his view that the surge wouldn’t work and he backed up his view by citing alleged expert testimony stating that it wouldn’t work. There’s no two ways about it – Obama committed himself from the start to the position that the surge would not work. Now that it has worked and Obama is essentially being forced to acknowledge it he is choosing the standard Democratic tactic when faced with gross error – lie, lie and then lie some more. We can’t let Obama get away with this – he owns defeat in Iraq and can’t claim the slightest bit of credit for the fact that we are now winning.

Not only is it disgusting that Obama is trying to slither out of his 2007 defeatism but this attempt shows, if we needed more proof, that Obama is manifestly unfit to be President. A President is a person who must be willing to take the hard decision even if they are unpopular and who must be willing to endure the slings and arrows to ensure that the required things are done – Obama is proving himself a feather blown upon the winds of fashion and motivated entirely by a desire for personal power and prestige.

McCain advocated the surge even before President Bush did – heck, even when I thought the surge wouldn’t be necessary, McCain was out there saying it was. Kudos to McCain for perceiving correctly what needed to be done and more honor to him for staking out a position which was very unpopular at the time it was implemented. McCain, just in this alone, has shown that he has what it takes to be President – in the test of leadership, McCain has passed with flying colors, while Obama is still trying to copy the answers off the smart kid in the room.

Eventually, will even the kook left have to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

The streets of Baghdad are back in business. The teashops are busy. The shops and markets are bustling.

After years when there seemed to be no end to the city’s trauma, people are feeling more confident.

Why, even property prices in Baghdad are rising. According to one estate agent we spoke to, they have doubled in the past four months.

Yes, things are better in Baghdad.

But before we get too carried away, it is important to stress that the improvements, while real, are plainly very brittle.

As US officials readily concede, comments about “breakthroughs” and “corners being turned” are premature…

…it was not simply American force of arms which made the difference.

The US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, adopted a new approach.

It is instructive to read the “Commander’s Counterinsurgency Guidance” which was issued recently to all US forces in Iraq.

These are some of the headings:

“Serve the population: give them respect: gain their support.”

“Live among the people: you can’t commute to this fight.”

“Walk: stop by, don’t drive by: patrol on foot and engage the population.”

“Promote reconciliation: we cannot kill our way out of this endeavour.”

By and large, that is what the Americans have attempted to do and, by and large, it appears to be working.

From a peak last summer, when security incidents were occurring at the rate of well over 1,000 a week, there has been a steady decline until now they are, according to the Americans, at their lowest point for four years.

Our magnificent troops under an inspired commander and working side by side with Iraqis who want a chance to live and build in a free Iraq have been doing what the left – led by Obama and his Democrats – said was impossible. In fact, Obama and his Democrats were assuring us 18 months ago not that things were bad, but that the game was up and the only thing for us to do was run out of Iraq with our tail between our legs…admit we were whipped by a ragged bunch of terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminal goons. Nothing doing said John McCain – we needed to double down and show what we can do when we set our mind and our magnificent military to the task. The rest, as they say, is history.

The cowardice, opportunism and rank defeatism of the Democrats since 2007 should convince everyone that they must be kept from the levers of power. While John McCain has his flaws – as we all do, being human – and while the GOP can (and must) improve itself mightily, the plain fact of the matter is that McCain and the GOP are far more capable of exercising American power than Obama and his Democrats are.

In response to the attacks on McCain’s military service, Obama said the following yesterday:

“For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”

But, when asked today if Weasel Clark should apologize for his attack on McCain’s military service, he had a much different attitude.

REPORTER: Do you not feel that Clark owes McCain an apology?

SEN. OBAMA: I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine.

I guess the real question is why Obama couldn’t have simply answers, “Yes, Clark owes McCain an apology.”

For someone who has made a point that “words matter,” he should also realize that a lack of words can matter too.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And the Obamaniacs just keep doing it:

So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief — understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings “bomb, bomb, bomb … bomb, bomb Iran” a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined “victory” really know how to gauge America’s opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let’s stand behind my friend Wes Clark — and hold John McCain accountable for what he’s said. – Lt. General Robert Gard (Ret.), Vets for Obama, on the kook-left hate-site Daily Kos

I’m sorry, but as Barack Obama has said before, words matter, and Wesley Clark’s despicable attack on John McCain’s service demonstrates the Obama campaigns desperation. Make no mistake about it, Clark was speaking as a surrogate for Obama’s campaign. Obama can’t take those words back, and it’s pathetic that Obama, for all his self-righteous rhetoric about words mattering and judgement, he seems to think that he can make up for various misjudgments and missteps by writing it off as a boneheaded mistake, or by coming up with some longwinded, manufactured excuse that’s suppose to make it okay.

Word matter, Obama. Clark’s attack on the service and patriotism of John McCain is beneath the dignity of a presidential campaign. A simple “disavowing” of Clark’s comments isn’t enough.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And Senator McCain shows real class:

“If that’s the kind of campaign that Senator Obama and his surrogates and supporters want to engage in, I understand that,” he said. “But it doesn’t reduce the price of a gallon of gas by a penny” or do anything else to help Americans.

He added a moment later, “I know that General Clark’s comment is not an isolated incident. I have no way of knowing what involvement Senator Obama has in that issue.”

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Clark’s comments have raised a lot of military ire:

The Obama campaign’s disgraceful attacks on John McCain’s military service are unworthy of the ‘new politics’ Barack Obama claims to represent. John McCain has proven his leadership and courage by putting his country first in the most trying of times, refusing early release from prison and standing strong with his fellow POWs. Barack Obama should realize that these tactics have no place in this campaign, and he can make that clear by denouncing these reprehensible comments. – Colonel Tom Moe, former inmate of the “Hanoi Hilton”

As a Marine pilot who served in Vietnam , I am deeply concerned about the disgraceful remarks from Barack Obama’s campaign surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark, regarding John McCain’s military service. John McCain is proud of his record of always putting the country first from his time in the Navy, in Vietnam , and through to today. Being in command of a military squadron, regardless of whether the country is at war or peace, requires the true leadership that is necessary when assuming total responsibility for the well-being of the men and women in one’s unit. John McCain’s military experiences solely qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief when compared to any other candidate running for President of the United States .

Having gone down in a helicopter myself in Vietnam , I know firsthand what is required to stay cool under fire. When John McCain was shot down, there is no doubt that he was in total control of the situation and made all the right decisions under fire. I personally feel betrayed by Gen. Clark’s statements against John McCain. And when Barack Obama allows his surrogates to attack John McCain’s military record, it simply proves that Barack Obama is to be nothing more than a typical politician who will say anything to get elected. – Colonel Jack Jackson, veteran of 600 combat missions in Vietnam

Senator John McCain is an American hero and an inspiration to those of us who have served our country, faithfully and fully, in times of war. He understands sacrifice like only a wounded war veteran and former POW could. At a time when fewer and fewer Americans know what it is like to serve in our armed forces, Senator McCain’s experience will be immeasurable when he is elected President. Barack Obama’s willingness to allow his campaign to smear Senator McCain’s service is an insult to all of us who have worn the uniform. – Master Sergeant Terry Benson, 24 year Air Force veteran

In 2004, protesters at the Democratic National Convention were put into a “free speech cage,” in order to keep them contained and away from delegates.

It looks like they’re planning similar infringements on free speech for their convention in Denver.

The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.

That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy groups have filed an amended complaint to their lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service and the city and county of Denver that says protestors and demonstrators may have their First Amendment rights violated by security restrictions.

The ACLU has said it wants to avoid the conditions that existed during the 2004 convention in Boston, where protesters were caged, infuriating First Amendment advocates.

The first phase of the lawsuit asked the court to compel the city and the Secret Service to disclose the information on protest restrictions.

What really gets me about this is that back in 2004, liberals accused the Bush campaign of kicking out protesters from campaign rallies, while all attempts by Democrats to limit the free speech of protesters who oppose them aren’t criticized at all.

Just goes to show you howl little the Democrats think about the Constitution.

So says Gary McCullough:

Gary McCullough, director of Christian Newswire, has called Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s attack on Focus on the Family president James Dobson a “political blunder” that could have a significant impact on Evangelical swing voters who were otherwise lukewarm towards Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain.

Sen. McCain’s past ambivalence towards same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research, McCullough wrote, had not excited the hard core of evangelicals.

“The evangelical community had been fairly unimpressed by John McCain. But Obama has shown a grave lack of political wisdom: he did not let this sleeping dog lie,” McCullough said in an opinion piece published on Christian Newswire.

Dr. James Dobson’s June 24 radio show critiqued Obama’s use of Scripture in justifying his political policies and positions. The next day Obama responded to the evangelical leader’s critique by saying that Dobson was “making stuff up,” which McCullough said was “an indirect way of calling Dobson a liar.”

McCullough said Obama’s treatment of Dobson eliminated any sympathy Obama would have received for the attacks on his religious associations, such as his long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s remarks also would be perceived as an insult towards “the single, most powerful influence on evangelicals,” he claimed.

Dr. James Dobson’s radio show reaches about 1.7 million listeners.

“His mistake could prove to make the difference in November — in favor of McCain,” McCullough wrote.

No doubt about it, my Evanglical brothers and sisters haven’t been lighting bonfires for McCain – but if Obama’s plan was to turn a so/so Evangelical vote for McCain into a Bush-like GOP blowout, then its working out splendidly. Obama does have this problem – outside the highly scripted and friendly venue, he’s apt to say uber-left things which sound outrageous to everyone who isn’t a leftist (“bitter”, eg). Victor Davis Hanson, observing the massive weaknesses of Obama, notes that one of Obama’s primary efforts will have to be insulating himself from the public, his past associations, Chicago Democratic corruption, his thin resume’ and, indeed, pretty much everything there is to Obama other than his puerile “hope and change” mantra…as long as Obama can keep it vague, he’s got a solid shot at winning. McCain’s job – and ours – is to make it crystal clear.

As I’ve said before, Obama is the “un-named Democrat” of 2004 made flesh – he’s boundlessly ambitious and has a smoothness about him most actors would envy, but there’s really nothing to him. He really is the empty suit – he’s done nothing, achieved nothing, which would indicate an ability to carry the massive weight of the Presidency. But this emptiness has its advantage – you can hang on him anything you like, and the left – being made up of people who believe feelings are as important as facts – feels that Obama is the answer to all their hopes and dreams. We’ve got Obama Wan Kenobi telling us to “trust our feelings” – ’cause the facts aren’t on our side. And so – facts are anethema…we’re supposed to feel it will be good and feel good about feeling that feeling…and thus elect Obama.

In our favor is a man who is deeply rooted in the some times harsh facts of life, regardless of what he might feel at the moment. John McCain is the antidote to Obamania…the cool gust of reality to clear out the hackneyed, suffocating, mealy-mouthed platitudes of Obama.