I’m sure you’ve heard of Barack’s brilliant energy plan…
Everyone knows that regular car maintenance, including keeping your tires properly inflated and having regular tune-ups can improve its performance and energy efficiency… but if Obama thinks this is will reduce our dependence on oil and lower gas prices then he is off his head.
If you donate to the McCain campaign you can get an “Obama Energy Plan” Tire Pressure Gauge. Mine is on its way.
Could John McCain win in Massachusetts? Senate candidate Jeff Beatty thinks polls indicate that he can… In the past month and half, Obama’s lead in Massachusetts has dropped from 23 point to 9 points. If Obama’s support can dive that quickly in Massachusetts of all places, that has to be a concern for Democrats… Ed Cox, the head of McCain’s New York campaign team also thinks that McCain can win in New York. I’m not so confident about that yet… but if Obama’s lead can be so easily diminished in Massachusetts, then it could happen in New York too.
With polls showing no statistically significant advantage for Barack Obama, and some with a lead for McCain, Obama seems desperate to shift his positions to be more moderate… his latest flip-flop is on drilling. First he was against it, now he’s for “some” drilling and tapping the strategic oil reserve.
Got a pretty weekend ahead of me, so feel free to discuss whatever you’d like in this open thread.
Following Obama’s overseas crash course in foreign policy, the Gallup daily poll showed Obama with a 9-point edge over McCain.
Well, over the past few days, Obama’s 9-point lead has dwindled down to a mere point.
And don’t be surprised if Obama’s race-baiting keeps his numbers moving in the downward direction.
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe, authors of Why You’re Wrong About The Right: Behind The Myths – The Surprising Truth About Conservatives, which debunks 20 negative stereotypes about Republicans and conservatives.I have posted the interview below:
MATT MARGOLIS: Did your experiences growing up and living in the liberal northeast inspire you to write this book? Was there any particular incident that made writing book feel more like a necessity to you?
S.E. CUPP: Although I grew up in the liberal northeast, I didn’t necessarily grow up in a particularly political household. My parents were patriotic, hardworking and compassionate, so that was my largest immediate influence — not politics. It wasn’t until college really that I understood how conservative I was, and until I realized that the Republican Party best addresses my political interests. This book is a direct result of our circumstance, being conservative fish-out-of-water in liberal Manhattan, and finding ourselves inexplicably at the business end of a verbal firing squad on a near-daily basis.
BRETT JOSHPE: Yes, for sure. My experiences in college and law school probably contributed to my desire to write this book more than anything. It is very frustrating being lectured to by left-wing professors and having relatively little recourse. It made me want to respond in other ways, hence the book. Also, I witnessed a great deal of anti-Americanism given the post 9/11 world we live in, which was also frustrating and inspired me to want to work on this project.
MATT: How did you choose which stereotypes to address in your book?
S.E.: It wasn’t hard to come up with a list of 20 stereotypes that are regularly and inaccuarately used to sum up conservatives in catchy sound bytes and clever bon mots. I think anyone with a pulse and a television could come up with 20 stereotypes about Republicans.
MATT: How can Republicans overcome these stereotypes?
BRETT: Well, it certainly won’t happen lying down. It’s important for conservatives to disprove these stereotypes by not only showing people that they do not embody the myths, but by educating themselves on the facts so that these accusations can be refuted. Our book is a good place to start, and there are also some other new books filled with facts that show why some of these stereotypes are grossly inaccurate. Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Makers and Takers” is one such example.
MATT: Have any of your liberal friends read your book? Were they convinced by it?
S.E.: Many of our liberal friends have read the book, which is a feat in itself. And while they’ve all said how much they enjoyed it, how funny it was, and how informative it was, few have actually changed their own political ideologies. But I think a number have realized that conservatives and Republicans are far more intellectually diverse than they thought. I think they appreciate how nuanced our positions on race, reproduction, poverty, foreign policy, faith, gun control, and the rest are, and I think many will think twice now before using the same, hackneyed rhetoric to describe conservative points of view.
BRETT: Yes, many liberal friends have read it and enjoyed it. One such friend said that although it didn’t push him over the edge from liberal to conservative, it provided about a 20% swing towards conservatism. Not bad. If we could get a 20% swing in everyone, we would have no trouble in November. In general, I think most people, liberals and conservatives, who have read the book have enjoyed it and definitely have a more complete view of our movement now. Continue reading
Obama’s excuses for canceling his visit with American troops during his European Let’s Pretend I Have Foreign Policy Experience Tour have changed on an almost daily basis.. but it’s quite obvious that Obama was only interested in visiting American troops if he could bring the media with him so he could exploit his visit for political gain.
Wow. Now this is audacity of a dope.
Republicans are, smartly, seizing upon this report from Der Spiegel (which has become a must-read this week):
SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. “Barack Obama will not be coming to us,” a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. “I don’t know why.” Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.
The optics here are not good: Obama has time to get in a workout and give a speech to a crowd mostly comprised of Europeans, but can’t be bothered to visit American troops wounded in action recovering at a military hospital.
Obviously, Obama found it more worth his while to rally for Europeans to get that media coverage of him being a rockstar in Europe than it was for him to meet with members of the military whom he wants to be the commander-in-chief of.
UPDATE: It’s worth noting that the Obama campaign’s excuse for dissing our troops doesnt’ hold water
“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” explains spokesman Robert Gibbs.
This is a sticky wicket for Obama.
On the one hand, he’s been criticized for the (laughable) contention that the trip is not related to the campaign. To clearly delineate those elements of the tour that are related to his role as a senator and those that are undeniably political would seem to be a way to respond to that critique and seperate church from state. Moreover, he’s being doubly safe by avoiding the perception of campaigning in a military hospital and using wounded troops as props.
But then how many politicians include official stops in the course of a trip otherwise related to a campaign (think POTUS or a member of Congress doing fundraising and public business on the same day). Further, Obama met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on this, the campaign-funded, part of his trek. If that was deemed ok, than are we to assume that each of his get-togethers with European leaders is political in nature?
Assuming their rationale was on the level and not just cover to give the candidate a breather, the easier move may have been to still visit Rammstein and Landstuhl but keep the press behind.
Of course, if Obama cared to visit the troops, he’d have made the effort to see them… even without the media.
Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that “the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.
“And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.”
That’s the same Barack Obama, the former constitutional law professor, who apparently doesn’t know the length of a presidential term.
Let’s give the professor a little crash course… from The Constitution, Article II, Section 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected […]
Maybe Obama should review it before he continues his campaign, before he gets something else wrong.
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.