So says Kate Sheppard over at In These Times, by reason of McCain’s pro-life stance – calling a it “war on women”:

McCain’s campaign has been making a clear play for women voters in recent weeks, hosting conference calls with Republican women and touting that his policies on national security, the economy and healthcare appeal to women voters.

But the suggestion that women — and feminist women, at that — will be lining up behind him is a fairytale. At least, it should be. McCain’s record and policies on issues of importance to women are neither moderate nor maverick.

In The Nation, Katha Pollitt put it simply: “[T]o vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane.”…

…the number of progressive or even moderate voters who would seriously consider voting for McCain is much smaller than the media would have you believe. Unfortunately, McCain’s propaganda seems to be working, at least on those who aren’t aware of his record on issues of concern to women voters.

A February Planned Parenthood poll of 1,205 women voters in 16 battleground states found that 50 percent of women voters don’t know McCain’s position on abortion, and that 49 percent of women who backed McCain were pro-choice. Forty-six percent of women supporting McCain said they’d like to see Roe v. Wade upheld — though McCain says he supports overturning the decision. When they learned of his position on Roe, 36 percent of women who identified as both pro-choice and likely McCain voters said they would be less likely to vote for him.

These moderate, often suburban, middle-class women could be critical swing voters this election. At the time of the Planned Parenthood poll, Obama held only a 5 percentage-point margin over McCain with its swing-state demographic, 41 percent to 36 percent.

Planned Parenthood concludes that these findings suggest “that just filling in McCain’s actual voting record and his publicly stated positions on a handful of key issues has the potential to diminish his total vote share among battleground women voters by about 17 to 20 percentage points.”

All of that predicated on a theory that women are so in love with abortion that the mere fact of McCain’s opposition will doom him – such theory being a standard on the left every election cycle with the only flaw being that it never comes out that way. We GOPers are always warned that our pro-life stance will destroy us at the polls and yet we manage to win from time to time (like 7 out of the last 10 times – and the times we lost it wasn’t because we’re pro-life). Be that as it may, does McCain’s pro-life view make him a sexist at war with women?

If you’re a leftist, it does – because for the left, abortion has become a sacrament in the Church of Secularism. As a Catholic views Annointing of the Sick (“last rites” for you non-Catholics out there), so the leftist views abortion – a thing not done all the time, but vital to the overall health of the organism. To be opposed to abortion on the left is akin to being opposed to forgiveness of sins in Christianity – it just isn’t done. So entrenched is this view that even someone as kooky as Kucinich was forced to drop a lifetime of pro-life views when he made his quixotic run for the White House. Calling McCain a “sexist” is just liberal-speak for saying “he disagrees with us on abortion”.

And thus the real battle is joined – in the end, Iraq, Afghanistan, oil prices, inflation and the rest are all secondary: the dividing line in America is over the issue of Life. The Culture of Life battles the Culture of Death, and eventually America will become all one thing or all the other. That is, all Life or all Death.

The particular issue, abortion, won’t be on the ballot – but the mindset which allows abortion and the mindset which seeks its end will be, and in this year of 2008 the stakes are very crucial as the judges who will either overturn or uphold Roe for another generation are likely to be appointed by the next President. It will be one battle in a long war, but for those of us who fight for Life, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

This counts as “What Media Bias? Part 117”.

The New York Times rejects a McCain Op-Ed responding to Obama – the offending document, via Drudge:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance…

…Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

The Iraq issue will be, I think, key for McCain – not in the sense that a majority will vote based just on that issue, but that it is the easiest issue for McCain to question Obama’s judgement and further question Obama’s fitness to carry Afghanistan to victory. Obama is staking his foreign/military policy meme on a “get out of Iraq, win in Afghanistan” proposal – the narrative will be that Obama will “end” the war in Iraq so that we can, finally, win in Afghanistan and thus repair all the damage President Bush has done and McCain proposes to continue. But this is a two-edged sword Obama is wielding – McCain can point out that Obama’s defeatism when the going got tough in Iraq indicates that Obama will also flunk the test when things get rough in Afghanistan. Obama ran up the white flag once entirely un-necessarily, what can he say to demonstrate to us that he won’t surrender, again, in Afghanistan?

Obama is nothing but a story – a fraud wrapped up in an illusion. As long as no one points out the nakedness of this would-be Emperor, he’ll be fine. McCain’s job is to force people to see what Obama really is – an ambitious non-entity with no requisite experience justifying installing him in the most powerful position in the world. If the election revolves around which man has the better story, then Obama will be our next President – if the election revolves around who is best able to be President, McCain will be sworn in on January 20th. We’ll have to see if Obama can hide in plain sight until November, or if McCain will force him, naked, into the public view.

McCain’s new ad, “Pump” on gas prices and oil drilling. A strong statement against Obama and in favor of McCain.

The ACLU is screaming that there are a million names on it and that we all must tremble in fear for our liberties due to the very existence of this list. John Stephenson at Pajamas Media notes the few good points the ACLU makes (notably that the list needs to be better managed – something, of course, the government freely acknowledges), and then goes on to indicate why the leftwing fear-mongering over this is a bit strained, to say the least:

I have given the ACLU credit on this issue; now I will give reasons to be skeptical. The claim that there are one million individuals on the terror watch list is a myth created through the exaggerated “estimations” of the ACLU. The truth is there are less than 400,000 individuals on the consolidated terrorist watch list, and less than 50,000 on the no-fly and selectee lists.

Assumptions by the ACLU were probably based on a 2007 report claiming the estimate of 700,000 possible records on the watch list and growing by an average of 20,000 per month. Apparently, they didn’t take into account that the numbers do not necessarily represent actual individuals. A new “record” is created for every alias, date-of-birth, passport, spelling variations, and other identifying information for watch listed suspects. Furthermore, they did not take into account the name-by-name scrub that took place in 2007. Notably, 95 percent of those on the consolidated watch list are not American citizens and the majority are not even in the U.S. The shocking numbers the ACLU is broadcasting are simply inflated and dishonest figures.

Which conclusion anyone who thinks about it would come to – the operational word here being “think”, and thus we can see why the ACLU and the larger left is up in arms over this. The last time a lefty had a thought he was writing the Communist Manifesto at the British Museum…its been all downhill since then.

The tremors of fear the left tries to generate with this story is just part and parcel with the leftwing fairytale about President Bush – given that the left is living in an Alternate Universe where facts are subordinate to intentions, it is no surprise that each and every action of the Executive branch – no matter how routine – is cast in the darkest terms possible. Its also part of the leftist’s personal worldview – they see themselves as the pure-hearted battlers for truth, and as they are fighting for truth, anyone who opposes them must be fightig for lies…and liars, of course, will do anything to win, including spying on some obscure leftwing writer because he tells “the truth” about President Bush.

Just for fun, someone at DHS should slip into the list the names of a few liberal bloggers…so they can be found and really scare the bejabbers out of these professional hand-wringers. Heck, they believe a massive, nefarious, PNCA/Likud conspiracy is afoot, lets not disabuse them of the notion. We can have some fun with this, ya know?

The news story:

The presidential campaigns seemed like they were everywhere but Michigan a few months ago.

Democrats were avoiding the state, and the Republicans had come and gone. An early primary strategy adopted by leaders of both parties had backfired.

What a difference the passing of time makes.

Michigan television stations have aired at least $5.6 million in dueling TV ads in the last 2 1/2 months; the candidates, their wives and surrogates have the state on their itinerary for rallies, town halls and fund-raisers on an almost weekly basis; and the presumptive nominees are firing off waves of e-mail reactions every time Detroit’s automakers hiccup.

Michigan has morphed from political wilderness to campaign battleground central.

Need more proof? While Republican Sen. John McCain headed to Warren on Friday to talk to GM employees, the Democrats responded with no fewer than three countermoves: a letter from Sen. Barack Obama to UAW members, a news conference attacking McCain’s plan and an e-mail questioning the Republican’s record on incentives that might aid the industry.

“Michigan is going to be in play all the way, I think,” said Evan Tracey, the founder of Campaign Media Analysis Group, an Arlington, Va.-based company that tracks political advertising.

Charlie Cook, one of the most respected political analysts in Washington, has Michigan as a toss-up on his latest electoral college map; so does the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato and others.

Rasmussen shows Obama with a good lead in Michigan, but I’m with those who say that Michigan is a swing State…and, I’ll add, it is a State Obama cannot afford to lose. Without those 17 electoral votes, I believe that Obama’s challenge to getting 270 electoral votes becomes – not impossible – but very, very hard. There just aren’t that many Bush 2004 States which Obama really has a shot in…Colorado? Sure, it has 9 electoral votes. New Mexico? Yeah, Obama could win that, it has five electoral votes. See where I’m heading? Kerry got 252 electoral votes in 2004, 18 short of what he needed…Obama already has to take away Bush States in order to win. Lose Michigan and the need to increase by 18 becomes a need to increase by 35…even if McCain were to lose Ohio, Colorado and New Mexico, he’d still win it with an electoral vote to spare if he wins Michigan.

Will McCain win Michigan? I don’t know – we have to rate it a “leans Democrat” based on the fact that it hasn’t gone GOP at the Presidential level in 20 years…but the political gurus rate it a toss up, and that tells us something: forget any talk you might have heard of a coming Democratic blow out. If the GOP were about to get scorched, then McCain would be trying desperately to hold on to places like Georgia and Florida, not making a serious play for Michigan. Obama still has to be rated the favorite to win, but only because the GOP is still unpopular amongst the general voting population. If the GOP brand were just doing as usual in 2008, we’d probably have this thing close to sewed up. But, we’re not – so its off to the battle we go.

Since the start of this campaign season (ie, the day after the 2006 midterms) Democrats have consistently done everything they can to lose in 2008 – from refusing to end the corruption they allegedly ran against to being a defeatist on the war to being unable to pass any meaningful bills since they took over Congress, the Democrats have damaged their own brand…and then they went and nominated a good looking non-entity for President, who turns out to have a lot of skeletons in his closet. If we win this year, we GOPers will have to give a vote of thanks to the Democrats for helping us out along the way.

Just remembered that it is July 20th, and that means its the anniversary of the attempt to overthrow Hilter in 1944. That it failed was a shame, but that it was attempted covered those who tried in glory, including their leader Claus von Stauffenberg.

Many things happen and memories get lost, but I think it worthwhile to remember that even in the darkest times under the worst evil, the light of God and the courage of mankind can shine through.

Sorry boys and girls, too tired to write anything worthwhile tonight. Have at it on your own.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: I have a question for everyone to answer… Does anyone here who did watch Meet The Press before Tim Russert passed away still watch it? If so, what do you think of the direction the show is headed with Tom Brokaw at the helm?

Courtesy of the Democrats:

Congress has relaxed rules that would have required public disclosure of contributions and parties paid for by lobbyists, narrowing the scope of new ethics rules intended to draw back the veil on Washington’s influence game.

New guidance released by Congress late Wednesday exempts lobbyists from reporting their financing of an array of political and charitable contributions, events and parties at political conventions.

What? You expected something different? If you did, its because you still haven’t purchased Caucus of Corruption.

I know, I know – you liberals out there think Matt and I just wrote a book blaming corruption on Democrats, but that isn’t what we wrote at all. What we wrote is a book detailing how the Democrats are locked into corruption because no one ever holds them accountable – not the MSM, not rank-and-file Democrats and most certainly not other elected Democrats. People are people, and that means that a certain percentage of them will sin – and for a politician, the sin usually revolves around abuse of power by various means. We can’t get all corruption out of politics because we can’t get all people out of it. But we can lessen it greatly if we hold everyone accountable for their actions. By one means or another, Republicans are held accountable…so Cunningham goes to jail, while Jefferson is set to be re-elected, again. So Foley resigns, while Frank is a powerful member of the Democratic caucus. So Rowland is threatened with impeachment by his fellow GOPers to force him out, while Blagojevich is still in office even though he figures prominently in myriad corruption scandals. On and on it goes like that.

Look, Democrats, its not for us to tell you what you must do, but we will tell you what you should do – and what you should do is start to understand that good intentions don’t excuse crimes. It doesn’t matter that these are all good liberals who are reliably on your side on the issues – they are poisoning our politics and contributing to the contempt government is held in. They have to go – but only you, on your side, can actually make them go. Do you really want to be a party which is ok with corruption? Don’t you want to be honest as you can be?

Neatly encapsulates the total difference between himself and his opponent:

Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. Most of the U.S. forces used in the surge have already been withdrawn. When a further conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. forces is possible, it will be because we and our Iraqi partners built on the successes of the surge strategy, which Senator Obama opposed, predicted would fail, voted against and campaigned against in the primary. When we withdraw, we will withdraw with honor and victory. An honorable and victorious withdrawal would not be possible if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed. An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat. If we had followed Senator Obama’s policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized.

Once again – wars don’t “end”. Wars are won, wars are lost – but wars don’t just “end”. The fact that Obama said he wanted to end the war shows his complete lack of understanding of war. He doesn’t know what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, or how its done…and yet he wants to be placed in charge of it, because he believes that it can just be ended. We’ve won in Iraq – a lot of the troops have already come home, more will probably follow in short order…but we will only draw down as we and our Iraqi allies determine it is time to bring more US troops home. The enemy is still there and may have many nasty surpises in store for us in Iraq – so we stay until we’re sure we’re done, and we only draw down when we’re certain that less US troops won’t adversely affect the overall situation. As McCain correctly points out, had we follow Obama’s advice in 2007, we would have lost the war.

Your choice, Americans – the man who figured out what needed to be done for victory, or the man who demanded we suffer defeat.

I mean, for crying out loud, these people are just nuts:

During Jane Mayer’s event today at New America promoting her penetrating new book, The Dark Side, a topic came up during the Q & A that I’d like to expand on–the possibility of establishing a truth commission for the Bush administration’s transgressions. The idea has been getting some play recently, both from Nick Kristof in the NYT and scattered across some lefty blogs (a funny parody here, another suggestion here). The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is generally held up as the model for such bodies, which don’t have formal judicial power but instead serve primarily as instruments for the discovery of past wrongdoings by governments.

So far, when each instance of misconduct has been revealed — from the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes and waterboarding to extraordinary renditions and habeas-corpus-free detention of prisoners at Guantanamo — individual solutions have been sought and some individual actors have been put forth to be held accountable. But this approach is piecemeal at best and does not get at the connective tissue and the systematization of abuses.

A truth commission, however, would provide a more holistic approach to the violations that have been committed or ordered by individuals and agencies within the government. A commission would serve as an opportunity to look back and expose where the administration started to go wrong in its decision-making process; allow those whose rights have been violated to be heard; and give Americans on the whole a chance to cleanse our national conscience–and our image abroad.

I guess they really believe their own press releases – these people haven’t entirely been playing a political game (though there’s a huge amount of that in this); they seem to actually believe that we’re out there violating the constitution, torturing prisoners, randomly wiretapping innocent Americans, and generally acting like the worst people, ever. This is what they think about a center/right GOP President who regularly ticked off his own conservative base by reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. Can you imagine what they’d feel like with a completely conservative President who was determined to fight it out tooth and nail on each issue?

This insanity on the left really has got to stop – this is the stuff with which civil wars are made. You keep talking yourself into thinking that you’re boxed in with no way out, and you’ll then start thinking of turning to violence. I think the only thing keeping the lid on these kooks is the fact they are convinced that Obama will win…but what if Obama loses? People who think we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission simply will not accept an Obama defeat…they will very swiftly convince themselves that they have been robbed…and thus be convinced that there is no way to work within the normal political framework.

Look, lefties, President Bush really isn’t evil…and he really isn’t dumb…and he really didn’t deceive us into liberating Iraq. All of that BS was cooked up by the leftwing ANSWER right after 9/11…the typical lies communists put together about anything America does. Think about it – President Bush is being accused of the very same crimes as Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan were accused of. Unless you want to believe that all of these men were criminals, you should grow a little suspicious that every time since WWII (ie, since we stopped being allied with communism) that we’ve engaged in any sort of warfare, the US President is accused of using chemical warfare, torturing prisoners, fighting for money, spying on Americans…its all a bunch of nonsense, people. The most transparant and stupid anti-American propganda…garbage even Goebbles would be embarrassed to use. Stop buying it – understand that the people we elevate to the White House are generally decent human beings who sincerely want to do whats best…and the servants of your goverment, especially those in the military, are so honor-bound and professional that they just wouldn’t do the sort of acts they are accused of doing.

Wake up. Stop being kooks. Get a grip on reality.