Blogs For Victory

We give the French a lot of grief, but lets not forget that they are with us in Afghanistan, and under President Sarkozy they are getting ever more aggressive in fighting the enemy:

KABUL, Afghanistan – Ten French ISAF soldiers were killed and 21 injured when about 100 insurgents attacked a patrol in Kabul Province on Aug. 18. Afghan security forces were also involved in the patrol.

Fighting began in the late afternoon 18 Aug. and continued into Tuesday, 19 August. The initial patrol was reinforced with quick reaction forces, close air support, and mobile medical teams. During the engagement a large number of insurgents were killed.

“This is a difficult time right now for the families and friends of those who died or were injured, and we offer them our sincere condolences and sympathies,” said Brigadier-General Richard Blanchette, ISAF spokesperson. “The lives of these soldiers are irreplaceable, but this loss does not deter ISAF from supporting the people of Afghanistan in their fight against the enemies of peace and stability.”

The enemy also attacked a US base with a force of suicide bombers – the enemy, defeated in Iraq, seems to making a stand in Afghanistan. This really is a long war, and while Obama says he will fight it out in Afghanistan, the plain fact of the matter is that he’s an untried quantity, and for the long war we need a President who has proven he can take the worst and carry on – John McCain is that man, and lets hope we make the right choice in November.

From Politico:

A classic Joe Biden ad from 1988, which begins: “The White House isn’t the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation. A President has got to know the territory, but that’s not enough.”

Experience was a major theme of Biden’s pitch in the primary (take the above, and add 20 years), and it’s a contrast they’ll have to aim to avoid if he’s Obama’s running mate.

If Biden gets the nod, you can bet the GOP will run that ad again and again and again.

The other day at the Saddleback affair, when asked at what point a baby would be deserving of human rights, Obama responded, “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

From a theological perspective, the question remains a no-brainer:

Thou shalt not kill.

Pretty black and white, if you ask me. Especially given the innocence of the developing life in what should be the safety of a mother’s womb. So unless Barack Obama’s pay grade is below that which one would consider literate, it is my opinion that he is unfamiliar with his job description.

Obama’s theological ignorance aside, his reliance on the cloak of science from which to hide from his inequities hardly provides any meaningful cover.

Science is a discipline of facts, not of values. It is within the purview of exploring our ethics and values to determine how to interpret scientific data in the context of human interactions and the values of society. The question of what stage to assign a developing life form the title of “human being” and when to bestow all rights and privileges therein is necessarily a question of values, not of science.

Recognizing a child as a “human being” with the right to live from the moment of conception is most assuredly a values decision, just as assigning only live-born children rights concomitant with humanity is also a values decision.

But let’s take a closer look at the “values” involved in each of those mindsets, shall we?

In the former circumstance, assigning the title of “human being” to a child beginning at the moment of conception is a values decision, born of the belief that every human being, regardless of stage of development, or of ability to independently or otherwise function, is a manifestation of human life, must be held sacred, and is necessarily worthy of protection under the law.

In the latter circumstance, assigning the title of “human being” exclusively to children who are born alive (and I’m giving Obama wayyy too much credit for even this) necessarily stems from a value that the title “human being” and privileges thereof should be bestowed based solely on functionality; not on the mere existence of the child.

To assign humanity based solely on functionality rather than on merely “being” is a decision based on values, not on any “facts,” nor on any “science.”

When you assign humanity exclusively to born-alive infants, you have made the value judgment and choice to limit humanity and/or the value of a person based exclusively on functionality. At the risk of evoking Godwin, wasn’t that mindset pretty much the underpinnings of the eugenics movement? (Not ironically, Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a big fan of eugenics)

Obama at once tried to justify his moral malfeasance by claiming both religious and scientific ignorance; it is quite apparent that he failed in his attempted justification on both counts.

If this is indeed the extent of his “pay grade,” it may behoove the Obamessiah to set his sights on a somewhat more lowly ambition than POTUS.

After a not-so-great week from his fumbled respond to the Russia-Georgia conflict, Little Boy Barry is trying to sound like Mr. Confident now…

A combative Barack Obama said Tuesday that Republican John McCain “doesn’t know what he’s up against” in this election and challenged his rival to stop questioning his character and patriotism.

Obama, campaigning in a state where he hopes to become the first Democratic presidential candidate to win in more than three decades, implored his supporters to fight for the presidency.

“Our job in this election is not just ‘win,’ although I’m a big believer in winning,” Obama said during the rally. “I don’t intend to lose this election. John McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against.”

Obama, you will lose. There’s a real world out there, with real problems. McCain’s genuine leadership beats your teleprompter prowess.

Governor Rendell (D-PA) says he’ll vote for Hillary at the convention.

Operation Rescue puts out a flier entitled, “Is it Immoral to Vote for Obama for President?”.

Scrappleface demonstrates how unfair the Saddleback forum was for Obama:

That interchange clearly demonstrates how the event was biased against Sen. Obama, according to his spokesman.

“Of course McCain looked good,” the anonymous Obama aide said. “He didn’t have to worry about how his answer would be perceived. He didn’t have to work to recall his talking points. He didn’t have to think, or even try to look like he was thinking. All he had to do was blurt out what he believed. Clearly, this gave him an unfair advantage, and we think the American people will see this for what it is…another Republican smear tactic.”

The oil bubble continues to burst.

New blog: New Catholic Politics. We’re taking over, ya know? Promise we’ll only make you recite the Creed once.

Nevada Pundit notes that the National Security issue is wide open, again, and it works for McCain.

La Shawn Barber takes on the notion that race will be a big factor in whether Obama wins or loses.

Other than that, not much to talk about this morning.

The problem, my friends, is that Obama grew up in the political hot-house of the kook left, and now has to try to fit into mainstream America, and it ain’t working:

In response to the new evidence which reveals that Senator Barack Obama has misrepresented his position regarding his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the Obama Campaign has continued to deny that the Illinois state bill included a neutrality clause.

On Thursday, the ChicagoTribune.com posted a “fact check” on its website regarding Sen. Obama and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) when it was proposed in the Illinois Senate. The site quotes a Susan B. Anthony List press release from August 12 as stating:

“Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where “neutrality clause” language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.”

ChicagoTribune.com quoted the Obama Campaign’s response as:

“There are major differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a ‘neutrality clause’.”

President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser responded to the article saying, “The Obama campaign thinks if they continue to repeat their flimsy story about Barack Obama’s opposition to the common sense Born Alive Infant Protection Act that their thin explanation will become true. The reality is that actual legislative records directly contradict their story.”

She continued, “Here’s the truth: Barack Obama killed the commonsense Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois Senate, and his campaign continues its game of hide and seek. That’s because his position is heartless. There is no baby at any stage – even born accidentally – that he finds worth protecting. Where is his heart for the downtrodden when it comes to the most vulnerable human beings? It is no wonder he cannot admit to the truth of his ‘leadership’ as a State Senator.”

Heartless, indeed. As a matter of fact, that is what the whole so-called “pro choice” position is – heartless. To think that abortion – the killing of an unborn child – is a good or even reasonable reaction to the temporary condition called pregnancy is absurd. It is only the love of lies and the cowardice of our times which allows this position to be professed, and the people professing it to continue on in politics as if they held reasonable opinions worthy of merit.

What I wonder is just when sensible Democrats will realise that they have signed on to a monstrous crime – there is a great deal to be said for such Democrats ditching the far left and setting up a Christian Democratic party…a party which will advocate for great amounts of social welfare, but which won’t be beholden to the wickedness of abortion, nor in thrall to those who seek by one means or another to undermine the family and traditional morality. Welfare has all sorts of problems with it, but someone who wants to help the poor has his heart in the right place – but no heart at all if an alleged concern for the poor is joined to an unconcern for the women and children who fall victim to the abortion industry.

Could it be that Obamessiah is ready to share some of the spotlight?

Senator Barack Obama has all but settled on his choice for a running mate and set an elaborate rollout plan for his decision, beginning with an early morning alert to supporters, perhaps as soon as Wednesday morning, aides said.

Obama’s deliberations remain remarkably closely held. Aides said perhaps a half-dozen advisers were involved in the final discussions in an effort to enforce a command that Obama issued to staff members: that his decision not leak out until supporters are notified.

Obama had not notified his choice — or any of those not selected — of his decision as of late Monday, advisers said. Going into the final days, Obama was said to be focused mainly on three candidates: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia and Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware.

If I had to guess which of the three he’d pick, I’d put my money on Kaine.

The news story:

…McCain plans to celebrate his 72nd birthday on Aug. 29 by naming his running mate at a huge rally in the battleground state of Ohio, Republican sources said.

That’s a week from Friday, and the day after his rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, accepts the Democratic nomination at a 70,000-person spectacular in a Denver stadium.

The campaign has begun building a crowd of 10,000 for Dayton, Ohio, according to an organizer. McCain is scheduled to appear with his running mate at a large-scale event in Pennsylvania shortly thereafter.

Senior Republicans are in the dark about who he’ll name, although they say former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty are prime contenders after a trial balloon by McCain gave him very negative feedback about the idea of picking an abortion-rights running mate such as Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania and the first secretary of homeland security.

Sources close to McCain say he has wrestled with the choice, torn between a high-stakes, high-reward pick like Ridge or Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman — the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 — or a safer and more conventional selection such as Romney or Pawlenty.

Friends say he has yet to make a final decision, and is not expected to do so until after Sen. Barack Obama announces his choice.

That last bit is probably correct – its better for McCain to wait until Obama’s pick is known that way both the VP nominee and the manner of presentation can be geared for maximum positive effect. Other than that, I really don’t have a clue whom McCain will pick…I still have my slight hopes of Palin (yes, I’d still love Jindal, but I want to “save” him for 2012 or 2016), but McCain has kept this so close to the vest that I doubt more than one or two of his closest aides really know where he’s going.

My only worry was the trial balloons McCain was floating on a pro-choice VP…its not that any pro-choice GOPer is absolutely unacceptable, but that such a choice would put at risk the growing, yet still fragile, conservative movement support for McCain, espcially amongst conservative Catholics and Evangelicals. In the end, of course, the VP pick is only of marginal importance – there aren’t that many voters, if any, who will merely vote based on the VP nominee, but for both candidates the VP selection is important in what it will say about the men, themselves. Public perception will decide this race – and the man the public perceives as the most “Presidential” will win – so the VP pick won’t secure victory, but combined with other things it can go a long way towards helping a candidate to defeat.

That was one of the questions at Saddleback, and McCain just flat out answered it – the way he failed in his first marriage. How many of us, I wonder, have the courage to go on television and give that clear a statement? Its on my mind a bit now – of course, the first thing I have to do is go through that mental Rolodex O’ Errors and try to sift down decades of sin into something which is clearly a great moral failure. In the context McCain used, it would have to be something I did which I knew in advance was the wrong thing to do, and yet I went right on and did it, anyways; or something that you know you should of done, but you slunk away from it like a coward. Its one thing to acknowledge in public one is a sinner (heck, from time to time we Catholics even do that in Church – “I confess to you, Almighty God and you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned…”), but there is a gulf between a generalised statement of error and a specific acceptance of responsibility for failure.

Among my errors, I have these two things which weigh upon my mind:

1. Back when I was in the Navy, I stumbled across an attempted racial discrimination against a shipmate, and did nothing about it. Just happened to go into the room just as two very senior white enlisted men were in the process of attempting to screw out of a plumb assignment a black shipmate in favor of a white shipmate. I can take the excuse of youth, but that really doesn’t cut it – I should have done something specific about it, but I didn’t. The screwing failed, probably on account of my interruption of it, but that doesn’t lessen my failure an iota.

2. For very many years, I refused to forgive members of my family for their many failings, as if I were perfect and not in need of forgiveness, too.

As noted, there are many other errors – but my sins of commission pale in comparison, at least in many cases, with my sins of omission. You wish you could go back in time and do it right – but, you can’t; while your sins can be forgiven, they can’t be unmade. Always better to strive to get it right from the start, and forgive those around you who fail, because if you didn’t fail today, then its really more a matter of God’s grace rather than any perfection on your part.

I’ve seen this, too – the accusation that McCain cheated, as explanation for why he had a superlative performance while Obama bombed at Saddleback; didn’t know, however, that Andrea Mitchell was also a kook:

…Andrea Mitchell on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” suggested the Obama campaign felt John McCain “may not have been in the cone of silence” during Saturday’s Saddleback Civil Forum, “and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were.”

Although she claimed this was being “[put] out privately” by Obama’s people, CNN is now reporting that his campaign is “not pursuing whether McCain heard any of the other questions,” and that they’re “assuming McCain had the same information they did.”

So where did Mitchell get this idea from? Might it have been a Daily Kos blog posted at 9:22 PM PDT Saturday entitled “McCain cheated? proof he knew the questions ahead of time”…

If you go to the Kos entry in question, you’ll find that the conviction is that McCain had the questions, with the only doubtful thing being whether Obama had them, too.

What seems to have flummoxed Mitchell is just how prepared McCain was – in contrast to Obama. It just will never occur to an MSMer that the GOPer might be the smarter guy…and as far as Obamessiah is concerned, the MSM can’t imagine anyone holding a candle to him, let alone beating him like a drum. I still suspect that some day the MSM and the left will realise that it is they who aren’t all that bright – you’d think that after nearly 8 years of having GW run rings around them they’d figure this out, but the level of obtuseness on the left and in the MSM is extraordinary; its like armour plate…if we can figure out how it works, we can use it to up-armour the Army’s humvees and make them really impervious.

This, though, is just a slight taste of what we can expect if McCain goes on and wins the election – the level of hatred and paranoia on the left will make the past 8 years seem like a tea party. Remember, the left is not just convinced they will win this year, but that they will win big…anything short of a massive victory will be viewed with suspicion, while an Obama loss will be considered proof that we’re living under a dictatorship.

Ed. Note: This counts as “What Media Bias? Part 121”.