Blogs For Victory

The Politico reports this very significant piece of news.

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.

The implications of this poll are very big. Since the two Democrats running for their party’s nomination are both against the war and for an immediate retreat, the increasing support for the war effort won’t help either of them in a general election campaign.

Geraldine Ferarro had to resign from the Hillary campaign for saying “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” For this comment, she’s been called a racist. Was there really anything racist about it? No. Of course not. It all comes back to the ultimate truth that Barack Obama is a media star and has avoided a lot of scrutiny because of his race. Hillary has gone from presumed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to fighting for survival because while the media has treated her far more severely than Barack Obama.

I’ve watched the two of them debate a number of times, and it was ridiculously apparent that she was getting tougher treatment. She can’t even attack Obama without accusations of racial insensitivity being raised. To bring up Obama’s past cocaine use is apparently racist. To mention his middle name is xenophobic and racist. To show his picture in an attack is racist. Barack Obama has become virtually untouchable in this campaign because his race has been used as a shield to protect him scrutiny.

Ferraro may have not chosen the best words to make her point — certain in defending herself she seems to be digging herself further into an whole — but there was nothing racist about what she was saying. Keith Olbermann equating her words with that of David Duke actually quite proves Ferraro’s point.

I’m sorry, but Geraldine Ferraro’s comments are far less offensive than the rhetoric of Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM%5D

But, I’m sure I’ll be called a racist for daring to talk about this.

UPDATE: More from Michael Graham.

Why need a strong dollar? For me, its a matter of basic fairness – those who hold a US dollar today should have a reasonable expectation that tomorrow it will still be worth a dollar. Outside of that, there are a host of purely economic reasons for a strong dollar, and Jack Kemp lays out why McCain is the man to bring us a strong dollar:

With the dollar’s weakness pervasive and the economy slowing down to a near halt, with more and more evidence of too many Americans, particularly people of color, losing their homes and their nest eggs of wealth, I believe McCain will chart a political and economic course for our nation that will do far more than just offer “hope” or “change.” I believe he will pursue policies that will actually lead to strong economic growth while ending these early stages of dollar weakness and inflation.

Those on the left will ask in response, “Don’t you have to have higher interest rates to strengthen the dollar?” Absolutely not!

As David Malpass, chief global economist at Bear Stearns, points out, “The two aren’t tightly connected. Many countries with low interest rates have had strong currencies, including the German mark in the 1960s and the euro now. The dollar strengthened in the first years of the Reagan administration when he focused on it and put in good economic policies. We should do that again. The United States is a great country, and the dollar is normally a great currency.”

McCain, I firmly believe, will do that again.

As I wrote recently, moving our nation toward a flatter, fairer and simplified tax code that is both pro-growth and pro-family while strengthening the investment climate in our country will immediately strengthen the demand for the dollar here and around the globe. McCain knows we need a tax policy for the 21st century that both recognizes the need for a competitive economy in an increasingly flattening world while encouraging capital formation and job creation here at home. His ideas for cutting corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent, expensing all investment in machinery, equipment and technology, making permanent the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains, dividends and estates while eliminating the alternative minimum tax would give us the answer to the dangerous simultaneity of inflation and recession.

These pro-growth initiatives by candidate McCain will force Sens. Obama and Clinton and their political advisers to say, “Oh no, we can’t cut tax rates, we need higher taxes – but only on the rich.” But soaking-the-rich rhetoric and policies to redistribute wealth will weaken the U.S. investment climate, further weaken the dollar and, in the end, exacerbate stagflation.

McCain’s thesis of noninflationary growth will have the winning edge against Obama and Clinton’s “antithesis.” I truly believe this, among the other issues, like free trade, immigration reform, national security and a strong foreign policy, accompanied by McCain’s pledge of strong appointments to the Supreme Court like Roberts and Alito, will give Republicans the opportunity to both win the White House and gain seats in the U.S. Congress.

The dollar became the world’s reserve currency because of all the world’s economies, that of the United States could be best relied upon to be governed by rational ideas and be ruled by law, rather than governmental whim. People are wary of the dollar today for a variety of reasons, but not least of which is the worry that come January, 2009, the United States will not be as friendly an investment climate as now. With the Bush tax cuts set to expire, the worry is that if you keep your money in the US, you’ll find yourself hit with a rather large tax penalty because liberals in the United States want to tax “the rich” (which actually doesn’t mean taxing real rich people, but works out to taxing productive people and capital).

With Democrats in control of Congress and at least an even money chance that a tax and spend ultra-liberal will be sworn in come January, it might be a good time to hedge your bets on the United States and move your money into Euros…or into oil futures. On the other hand, a McCain victory – especially if accompanied by more GOPers in Congress – would be seen as a signal that taxes will remain low and America will remain open for investment.

Details over at Blogs for John McCain’s Victory.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer will be giving a statement at 11:30 a.m. ET. I’m hearing that the resignation will take effect on Monday. There is a lot of speculation about a possible deal with prosecutors in return for his resignation…

The hypocrisy of this whole situation is astounding. The sex aspect is nothing in the big picture:

As attorney general, he once broke up a call-girl ring and locked up 18 people on corruption, money-laundering and prostitution charges. He ruthlessly investigated the pay packages of Wall Street executives and was so familiar with shady financial maneuvers that he rose to become the top racketeering prosecutor in Manhattan.

But in the end, it appears that Spitzer may have been done in by the same behavior he built a career out of prosecuting.

In fact, it seems he was tripped up by some of the very financial accounting methods he used so successfully against multibillion-dollar Wall Street firms.

For one thing, the governor initially drew the attention of federal investigators because of cash payments to an account operated by a call-girl ring, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of because of the sensitivity of the case.

Banks are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports to the government whenever they observe something they fear may be a crime.

In court papers, Client 9—identified by another law enforcement official as Spitzer—hurried to get more than $4,000 in cash to pay a call girl at a Washington hotel.

That kind of activity, repeated over time, is just the kind of thing that would set off alarm bells with a bank’s compliance officer, who is trained to be on the lookout for what is called structuring or “smurfing”—a pattern of transactions aimed at hiding the nature or purpose of certain money.

There is a lot more to this story, particularly since, as Rep. Peter King has noted, the link between prostitution rings and organized crime:

At least a dozen New York members either didn’t return calls or gave variations on “no comment” or “we’re monitoring the situation” when Capitol Briefing asked for a reaction. One of the few exceptions so far was the always media-friendly Rep. Peter King (R), who passed along his thoughts right before sitting down for a CNBC interview on the subject.

“I was absolutely shellshocked,” King said of the Spitzer news. “I’ve never heard any rumors, any whispers, anything at all.”

King added that he believed Spitzer should resign, since “prostitution rings are invariably linked to organized crime” and the governor’s behavior “leaves himself and the state susceptible to blackmail.”

The question remains what is the ultimate fate of Spitzer? Will he avoid prosecution and jail time?

UPDATE 11:45 am.: Spitzer resigns with his wife at his side.

UPDATE: Robert Stacy McCain hits the nail on the head:

In many ways, Spitzer’s resignation statement was classy, and notably lacked the kind of “accuse the accusers” tactic that Bill Clinton taught us to expect from Democrats caught red-handed.

However, Spitzer’s repeated use of the phrase “my private failings” was a dishonest evasion. What would Spitzer, as a former prosecutor, say about an accused dope dealer who spoke of his crime as a “private failing”?

In patronizing prostitutes, Spitzer was engaged in a criminal act. Crime is an offense against the citizenry, which is why the prosecution of Spitzer for federal money laundering charges — if such a prosecution is indeed pursued — will be called “United States vs. Spitzer.” And no crime can be more public than a crime committed by a powerful public official, such as the governor of New York.

How long, I wonder, before this trial gets a continuance to January 21st, 2009?

An e-mail message made public on Monday in the fraud trial of Antoin Rezko, a businessman and political contributor, brought attention to Senator Barack Obama’s role in discussions involving a state health planning board that Mr. Rezko is accused of improperly influencing.

The message indicated that Mr. Obama, now a Democratic presidential candidate, and other top Illinois politicians consulted in 2003 on legislation to keep the board, which approved the construction of health facilities, from expiring under sunset provisions in state law.

The vaguely worded message also seemed to raise the possibility that Mr. Obama, who at the time was chairman of the Illinois Senate’s health committee, had been involved in recommending candidates for the board.

Mr. Rezko is accused of using his influence in state government to stack the board with associates, including some who made political contributions to Mr. Obama and other top Illinois politicians, and of seeking a bribe on a hospital project.

But David Wilhelm, a former campaign adviser to Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois who asked that the e-mail message be written, said in an interview that he had never talked about the appointment process to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama has said he had nothing to do with Mr. Rezko’s activities with the board.

Mr. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and his name is expected to come up only tangentially during the trial. But given his tight race against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, each mention of Mr. Obama’s name is being closely watched.

Now, Obama has spent a lot of time lately trying to make it seem like Rezko was just this guy he had dealings with from time to time…but Rezko was actually a very close friend and political associate of Rezko. The reason Obama is deserately distancing himself from Rezko is because of things like this – you know, the sort of connections to corrupt lobbyists and wheeler-dealers which had Democrats accusing the GOP of having a “culture of corruption” in 2006. When Matt and I were writing Caucus of Corruption we didn’t just put anyone into the book – we put in people we felt were excellent examples of the level of corruption in the Democratic party, and Obama fit very neatly into that catagory. Keep in mind, its not just Rezko and Obama; its the governor of Illinois and a whole bunch of politicians, government employees and associated hangers-on who have been helping Illinois to approach New Jersey levels of political corruption. To think that a politician would emerge out of such an immoral stew without a few skeletons in the closet is to hope against hope.

There is, unfortunately, plenty of corruption to go around in politics and GOPers have not been immune to the lures of money, power and sex – but the GOPers who do these things eventually get caught and punished; the problem, as Matt and I showed in great detail in Caucus, is that Democrats only very rarely get called to account for their corruption. Tom DeLay was indicted for alleged violations of a very obscure Texas law, and he’s out of politics – William Jefferon has been indicted for major corruption and he gets standing ovations from his fellow Democrats, and Speaker Pelosi tries to get him on major House committees. We’ll never cure all corruption in politics, but just so long as Democrats are nearly immune to punishment for corruption, so will the horrific levels of corruption in politics continue.

UPDATE: The Obama file.

And this guys platform was all about routing out corruption..

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a person briefed on the federal investigation.

An affidavit in the federal investigation into a prostitution ring said that a wiretap recording captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room. The person briefed on the case identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.

He may resign this evening.

UPDATE: While I am commuting back home on the train I would like to add that considering the dark ethical cloud hanging over Spitzer’s office since he became governor — his office was the subject of multiple investigations — it is somewhat unfortunate that this alone is what people will remember about his downfall.

UPDATE: Video of Spitzer apologizing…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Spitzer’s prospective replacement – Lt. Governor David Patterson, formerly NY Senate Minority Leader – also has an issue to deal with:

A US District Court judge has rejected the Senate Democrats’ effort to block a discrimination lawsuit filed by a white photographer who claims he was fired by former Minority Leader David Paterson only because he wasn’t black.

The ruling, first reported by the New York Law Journal (subscription only), makes for some interesting reading.

Paterson, now the lieutenant governor, asserted he axed the photographer, Joseph Maioriello, because he was a holdover from former Minortiy Leader Marty Connor’s regime. Paterson said he was unsure where Maioriello’s loyalties lay and was worried that Connor, whom he ousted in 2002, and others were “plotting” to re-gain control of the Democratic caucus.

Maioriello was replaced by an African-American photographer, El-Wise Noisette, who last worked for former state Comptroller H. Carl McCall (the first black gubernatorial candidate who lost his challenge to Republican Gov. George Pataki in 2002).

But Paterson insisted he had no idea about the race of either man due to the fact that he is legally blind.

“Given my visual impairment, I did not know for certain the race of either the plaintiff or Noisette,” Paterson stated in his deposition.

There’s just too many jokes to say about this…I’ll hold fire.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Kossacks, naturally, blame President Bush:

If Spitzer has a taste for call girls, I won’t defend that… Neither am I prone to jump on it and go to town. I’m strictly of the Larry Flynt camp…Let it all out, and let the hypocrites wither in the light of day.

But I have a very discerning internal alarm. and that alarm tells me that this story only hit the news because the NSA, or the FBI…was snooping on this guy because he is so on the record as a trust buster and corporate cop.

Mark my words…this has the Bush Administration’s fingerprints all over it…and if the MSM digs a little deeper, they will find what Congress is afraid to look for…evidence that Bush’s wiretap program has less to do with terrorists than it has to do with political foes.

UPDATE: As the New York Times notes, this is a federal crime…

Federal prosecutors rarely charge clients in prostitution cases, which are generally seen as state crimes. But the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910 to address prostitution, human trafficking and what was viewed at the time as immorality in general, makes it a crime to transport someone between states for the purpose of prostitution. The four defendants charged in the case unsealed last week were all charged with that crime, along with several others.

UPDATE: Impeachment threat if he doesn’t resign…

Re-emphasising his earlier statements:

New Orleans, Mar 8, 2008 (CNA).- Senator John McCain made efforts on Friday to do more than just distance himself from the anti-Catholic teachings of John Hagee by repudiating any comments made by the well known televangelist.

In an interview with the Associated Press the Republican presidential candidate said, “We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics”.

McCain also brought up the fact that he sent his children to Catholic schools as proof of his acceptance of Catholics. “I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it,” McCain said.

He also tried to strike a conciliatory tone for his campaign by saying, “we can’t have that in this campaign. We’re trying to unite the country. We’re uniting the country, not dividing it.”

For this Catholic, the matter is now closed.

From Gateway Pundit:

Just like his talk on NAFTA, it looks like Obama is not to be trusted with what he says on Iraq, either.

The American Mind has the transcript:

STEPHEN SACKUR: Let me stop you just for a moment. You said that he’ll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn’t a commitment isn’t it?

POWER: You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.

He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn’t have daily access now as a result of not being the president.

So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me –

SACKUR: Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?

POWER: It’s the best case scenario…

Power, of course, is now out due to calling Hillary a monster, but I think this is rather descriptive of the vacuity of Obama on foreign and defense policy. This is the man who has repeatedly said he’d “end” the war in Iraq in 2009…and here’s his senior foreign policy advisor saying, in essence, “well, we just don’t know”…and, of course, there’s nothing wrong with not knowing exactly what you’ll do come January 2009 but for crying out loud, if you don’t know then don’t go making fool statements implying that you do know!

I was wandering around a book store on Saturday and espied Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and it occured to me just how inane that title is…like something put together by a publisher using a focus group to figure out a title which sounds best. And it does sound good, but it doesn’t actually mean anything – being hopeful is audacious? If you are audacious you’ll be hopeful? I figure an earlier version of the title was Yes We Can Have Audacious Hope – but it was rejected as too many words for a liberal to grasp all at once…

This man, Barack Obama: no executive experience; minimal legislative experience; never held a job which required results…a lot of words. That is all.

Ah, the Democrats and their little problems:

…Clinton is still about 100 delegates behind, and the Democrats’ proportional representation rules make it impossible for her to close the gap in the remaining primaries. Her only plausible path to the nomination is to win a majority of super-delegates (party and public officials) and, perhaps, to reverse the party’s decision disqualifying the Michigan and Florida delegations — i.e., overruling the voters in one case and changing the rules after the game has been played in the other.

This might pass muster if the national polls show an unambiguous and substantial move toward Clinton. Otherwise, in more likely and ambiguous circumstances, a Clinton nomination will seem illegitimate to many who have been swooning over Obama and streaming into polling booths because he alone offers hope.

The March 4 exit polls show increasing percentages of Democratic primary voters unwilling to accept the rejection of their candidate. Both candidates have an incentive to attack on grounds that will weaken the other in the general election, as Clinton has already started to do with her “red phone” ad.

All of this is a windfall, surely, for McCain — unless he forgets that his party is in trouble and that he needs to make an affirmative case for himself and his policies. And loudly enough to overcome the din as Clinton and Obama pummel each other.

That last bit is very, very important for we GOPers. We must not even for a moment think that because the Democrats are beating each other up that we’ll cruise to victory. We’re still behind in national polling and in fundraising and while we have, I think, the best man to deflate whichever part of HillBama comes out on top, it will still take an intense effort to do so. Remember that GOPers – if you don’t want President Obama or President Hillary in January, then commit yourself right now to the longest, hardest political fight you’ve ever seen.

Meanwhile, however, the Democrats are in a pickle right now – and deservedly so, as they’ve spent most of the past 40 years playing gender and racial politics against us, and now they’re caught in a web of their own deceit. Really cool, huh? To think that they’ve been saying we’re the racists and sexists, and it will have to be Democrats who either reject a woman or reject a black man! Personally, I’m still thinking that Obama has the inside track to the nomination, but only just – Hillary is a very seasoned campaigner and a very down and dirty politician; Obama will have to call up a level of strength and hardness which have not been evident in his campaign to date.