Blogs For Victory

We’ve heard this before:

Always busy, Sarandon is about to start work on the romantic period drama The Colossus, but with the presidential election campaign being heatedly contested, she also has bigger things to consider.

“If McCain gets in, it’s going to be very, very dangerous,” she says.

“It’s a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I’ll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don’t know. We’re at an abyss.”

Yep, we are at an abyss…a wide and deep chasm which separates liberals from reality. Anyways, we now have another great reason to vote for John McCain…and just maybe this time those who threaten to leave will actually go…

This is a must-win State for Obama – pretty much its a case of “no Michigan, no White House” for Obama…and yet in recent polling, according to Real Clear Politics, McCain has a slight lead.

Now, one has to expect that in heavily unionised Michigan Obama will eventually emerge the winner – but it seems pretty clear that Obama will have to fight for it, and that is bad news…any time and money spent fighting to hold is time and money which can’t be spent trying to poach in GOP territory.

As per usual, I still say the GOP has a long, hard road in front of it – but there’s no reason for any GOPer to be gloomy.

Interesting:

Mr. President, it has been an extraordinary honor and privilege to have served you for more than seven years now, the last two years and nine months as your Press Secretary.

The White House is going through a period of transition; change can be helpful, and this is a good time and good position to help bring about change. I am ready to move on. I’ve been in this position a long time, and my wife and I are excited about beginning the next chapter in our life together.

You have accomplished a lot over the last several years with this team, and I have been honored and grateful to be a small part of a terrific and talented team of really good people.

Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Only McClellan, and God, can know for certain…but I note that a very liberal friend of mine is disgusted with McClellan and his book.

UPDATE: From NRO’s Editors:

McClellan tries to walk a fine line between echoing Bush haters and saying utterly irresponsible things. So he specifically stipulates that the administration didn’t lie. But he couches a commonplace point — that nuances were lost in the heat of the debate over Iraq in the run-up to the war — in indefensibly incendiary language. We won’t rehearse the tired debate over the intelligence over Iraq, except to note that the Silberman-Robb commission studied the matter and concluded the fundamental problem was the poor quality of what intelligence we had to begin with.

McClellan makes much of the administration’s emphasis on weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, as opposed to Bush’s desire to transform the Middle East, which wouldn’t have been as palatable to the public. This is an odd sort of supposedly damning charge: that Bush was secretly more idealistic than he let on in public. But the two rationales for the war weren’t mutually exclusive, and Bush talked about the importance of a democratic transformation in the Middle East as well as the dangers of Saddam, even if the emphasis was (appropriately) on the latter.

The most extraordinary aspect of McClellan’s book is the sense that he stumbled into a reckless, propagandizing administration and did its bidding for years without realizing how nefarious it was — until he left and decided to write a book. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he has shaped his views to the marketing pressures of the publishing industry. If so, it is a shameful end to an undistinguished public career.

Yep.

Barack Obama is trying to capitalize on a recent story about two McCain advisors who are linked to a 527 group that is attacking Obama.

Of course, Obama has his own issues with campaign officials and advisors, such as the advisor who recently left after it was reported he held talks with Hamas. But, there’s also this story, reported yesterday by The Washington Post, about Obama’s campaign co-director who is also a federal lobbyist for the government of Puerto Rico.

Ethics watchdogs said that the high-profile role of Francisco J. Pavía appears to contradict the Obama campaign’s ethics guidelines, which forbid federal lobbyists from working on staff. But Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Pavía is an “active volunteer” — not a paid staffer — and can hold the job without running afoul of the campaign’s rules.

Because all campaign have co-directors who are just active volunteers.

Obama’s hypocrisy over connections to lobbyists has been well documented but highly ignored by masses. Not too long ago, Obama alleged that lobbyists were running McCain’s campaign…

Really, what does all this finger pointing prove? Obama talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. He may think he’s doing himself a favor nitpicking over advisors connections to this group or that, especially given his own past problems (which there is always a crafty excuse for) … For a candidate who claims he doesn’t like campaign distractions from the issues, he certainly has a love for distractions he thinks he can benefit from politically.

With a wave of my magic wand “poof” and you, dear reader, are now President of the United States. Pretty cool, except that I’ve landed you in a situation where two days ago a 1 kiloton nuclear weapon was detonated in Manhattan. About 100,000 Americans are dead, twice that number wounded and the American financial system is in complete meltdown. Incontrovertible evidence is now presented to you showing that the nuclear weapon originated in Iran. What do you do?

Do you order a nuclear strike on Iran? I believe our least powerful nuclear weapon is 5 kilotons, presumptively able to do much more serious damage to, say, Tehran than a one kiloton device did to Manhattan. Meanwhile, the nuclear weapons aboard our submarine force (and thus likely to be most swiftly available for use) are 475 kilotons. Packs quite a wallop. Lets say, just for argument, that if you use an American nuclear weapons that you will kill at least 250,000 Iranians…and maybe a million or more.

Do you order large scale conventional bombing attacks? Our B-2 bombers can each carry 20 tons of bombs – with 20 in stock, lets say you order ten of them to do a bombing run on Tehran…200 tons of bombs. You can use about 40 of our B-1s, each also carrying about 20 tons…800 more tons of bombs. And then there is the ready standby, the B-52; you get to use 50 of these, carrying 30 tons each…1,500 more tons of bombs. You total out at about 2,500 tons of bombs for your attack on Tehran. How many people would that kill?

Of course, you could eschew all that and just have Congress declare war formally, and then you can spend a year raising the necessary military force for a full scale invasion of Iran – which will likely cost many thousands of US soldiers their lives, but would probably cost hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers their lives, as well as an untold number of Iranian civilians caught in the crossfire.

Or, you can do nothing.

None of these choices is really appealing, is it? Much better if you never have to make such a decision – which, in turn, is why it is vital we curb nuclear proliferation, as John McCain desires:

As President, John McCain Will Establish A Long-Term Commitment To A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons. Like President Reagan, John McCain believes we can see a day when nuclear weapons are banished from the Earth. While a distant and difficult goal, we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern on our security and our allies’ security. The time has come to take further measures to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and the U.S. must be a leader.

John McCain’s Highest Priority Will Be To Reduce The Danger Nuclear Weapons Will Ever Be Used. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used. While working closely with our allies, John McCain will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy.

At The Same Time, The U.S. Must Continue To Deploy A Safe And Reliable Nuclear Deterrent, Robust Missile Defense And Superior Conventional Forces.

John McCain Supports Further Strategic Arms Reductions. John McCain will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments, moving as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force.

John McCain Will Work To Strengthen Existing International Treaties And Institutions To Combat Proliferation And Develop New Ones Where Necessary. The U.S. should move quickly to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and improve the ability to interdict the spread of nuclear weapons and material under the Proliferation Security Initiative. John McCain will increase funding for American nonproliferation efforts, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs established by the landmark Nunn-Lugar legislation.

To Prevent Countries From Using Civilian Nuclear Programs As A Cover For The Development Of Nuclear Weapons, John McCain Will Limit The Further Spread Of Enrichment And Reprocessing. John McCain supports international guarantees of nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing. He also supports establishing international nuclear enrichment centers and an international repository for spent nuclear fuel.

When you have heard me state over and over again these past few years that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, this is what I’m thinking of – lots of dead Americans making a situation where we make lots more dead Iranians. Massacre, however, is not good policy on either a strategic or moral plane. My whole motivation – and I believe this is shared by President Bush now, and will be shared by a President McCain – has been to reduce the possibility of an attack on the United States even more horrible than that which we endured on September 11th. We can’t do this by diddling with the UN or waiting for our enemies to become reasonable – we have to attack the problem with diplomatic, economic and military means. In the end, if Iran – and other grave threats to world peace – refuse to give up their nuclear ambitions, then we must compell them to do so, even if this requires military action. Any such action will end up being far less costly than any enemy attack on us, and our retaliation against them.

Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons – regardless of cost to ourselves – is not really a debatable position. But Obama’s position on this (unconditional negotiations with Iran followed hard upon a US withdrawal from Iraq) is beneath contempt. Essentially, Obama’s policies would just about ensure that either Obama or his successor will be faced with the scenario I described. A six year old fed on fairy tales can hold such views, but men and women who are serious about the world know better. We must have a President who deals in reality – with the world as it is, not as a liberal hopes it will be. We have enemies. There are evil people in the world. We must prevent the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands. It will be wonderful if we can get all we want by talking, but we must be prepared to do whatever proves necessary. McCain’s plan is hopeful but also realistic, and I pray that we’ll have a chance to really end this long-standing nuclear menace.

And not just ’cause HillBama can’t agree who will be the nominee:

The Democratic Party is struggling to raise money for its convention in Denver on Aug. 25-28, with fund-raising by the host committee falling far short of the party’s goals and lagging behind the Republicans’ efforts for their convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

So far, the Denver host committee is about $15 million short of the $40.6 million it must raise by June 16. With only $25 million raised so far, the committee is scrambling to offer a new round of special deals for corporate underwriters, as well as to devise a backup plan should the fund-raising fall short and plans for the convention need to be scaled down.

My bet is that the HillBama campaigns are just sucking up all the Democratic money out there – which puts into question just how much they (and the auxiliary leftwing groups) will have for the fall campaign. I read somewhere recently that Hillary and Obama have raised (and mostly spent) half a billion dollars betweem themselves during this primary campaign. Naturally, Democrats will come up with sufficient funds to cover their convention, but a large question mark is starting to appear about Democratic finances.

At a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, John McCain made the follow statement and posed the following question.

Senator Obama has been to Iraq once. A little over two years ago he went, and he has never seized the opportunity, except in a hearing, to meet with General Petraeus, with General Petraeus! My friends, this is about leadership and learning.

[…]
Now, why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the President of Iran, but hasn’t yet sat down with General Petraeus — the leader of our troops in Iraq?

Something tells me Obama would sooner sit down with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad than General David Patraeus.

Yesterday, RNC Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan released the following statement:

“Barack Obama has only visited Iraq once – and that was 871 days ago. Despite lacking the experience and leadership to be Commander-in-Chief, Obama has done shockingly little to educate himself firsthand about the war in Iraq. Instead, he displays an arrogant certainty gained on the campaign trail. How would Obama make informed judgments in the future when he has not seen the situation in Iraq since the surge began? Why does Obama readily agree to one-on-one negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but decline one-on-one briefings in Baghdad with our military leaders? Obama’s failure to visit Iraq, listen and learn firsthand, and witness the surge’s progress demonstrates weak leadership that disqualifies him from being Commander in Chief.”

… amongst other things that disqualify him from being Commander in Chief.
The RNC has launched an online clock counting the days since Obama’s last visit to Iraq.

Jim Geraghty has more.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Vets for Freedom chimes in with a devastating ad about Obama’s unwillingness to meet with those who know the truth about Iraq – our soldiers.

From USA Today:

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. For that, he won 15 delegates to three for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates.

In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama’s 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.

Now under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Clinton by 13,000 votes in one state than Clinton does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?

That inequity, by the way, won’t be repeated in the general election, when the winner of Idaho will collect four electoral votes while the winner in New Jersey will get 15 — and the losers get nothing.

It is becoming more likely that Hillary will end up with more actual votes, while Obama has more delegates, and then gets the nomination. The fissures are starting to widen in the Democratic party as the Obama and Hillary camps grow ever more angry at each other over various slights, real or imagined. To win, Obama will need a completely united Democratic party behind him, and I’m starting to figure he won’t have it.

Robert Ferrigno, author of “Prayers for the Assassin” and his latest, “Sins of the Assassin” has an article of what an Obama presidency may look like, in the eyes of Mahamoud Ahmawhackjob. Read the whole thing.

I had a correspondence today with Mr. Ferrigno, in which I compared Obama with the movie, “Being There,” with Peter Sellers playing “Chance,” the cognitively-challenged gardener (Chauncy Gardner), who at the end of the movie is being considered for a run for POTUS.

Mr. Ferrigno responded,

“Leo
you nailed it with the Being There analogy. amazing. the guy truly is a blank screen on which people project their deepest desires. we’re in for some rough water, i’m afraid.
Robert

Is Barack Obama a life imitating art in this case? One would think so.

The Defense of Marriage amendment to the California constitution is favored by 54% of California voters.

Given the trouble many people in the world have getting food each day, the Pope’s recent statement is appropriate:

“The Lord and Creator of all things became a ‘grain of wheat’ to be sown in our land, in the furrows of our history”, said the Pope. “He became bread in order to be …. shared; … He became our food in order to give us life, His own divine life”.

“The Eucharist is a school of charity and solidarity”, he went on. “Those who nourish themselves on the bread of Christ cannot remain indifferent before people who, even in our own time, are without daily bread. Many parents have great difficulty in feeding themselves and their children. It is an ever more serious problem which the international community struggles to resolve. The Church not only prays to ‘give us this day our daily bread’ but, following the example of her Lord, seeks in all ways ‘to multiply the five loaves and the two fish’, through countless initiatives of human promotion and participation so that no-one may lack what they need to live”.

“May the Feast of Corpus Christi be an occasion to increase this authentic concern for our brothers and sisters, especially the poor”, said Benedict XVI and he concluded by calling upon the Virgin Mary “from whom the Son of God drew flesh and blood”, to intercede to this end.

I like Food for the Poor and Missionaries of the Poor…but feel free to help out in any way you can.

McCain ahead of Obama in money on hand? So says McCain advisor Carly Fiorina The Hill.

Sales of new homes rose in April. This suprised the experts. It doesn’t surprise anyone who knows that when prices go down, you can move more product. Apparantly the “experts” figure we’re all dumb and only buy when prices are on the rise…

Dicuss these issues and any others you’d like.