Blogs For Victory

CTV (Canada) reports that Obama’s rhetoric against NAFTA is only rhetoric, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

“Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.”

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4JuU%5D

Greg McIsaac of CTV stands by the story, despite denials by the Obama campaign, and has said on record,”The facts of our story are accurate.”

HAT TIP: The Flyover Report.

UPDATE: Camp Obama denies… gee, ya think? More from NRO’s Jim Geraughty… Still more…

The New York Times, which already declared its intent to thwart John McCain’s candidacy, is now following up its previous smear with another ridiculous story questioning whether John McCain is even eligible to be President of the United States, because of his place of birth.

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

Obviously since this has been vetted before, the New York Times really has no reason to try to inject new life to the claim. This seems quite typical of the Left smear tactics. When Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, his Democrat opponents called his residency into question because he had been temporarily living in Utah to manage the Olympics. When Tom DeLay has retired from the House and moved to Virginia, Democrats challenged his residency (by saying he was still a resident of Texas) in order to keep him on the ballot.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Democrats pursue this. If they make any attempt to challenge McCain’s eligibility, then they will do so out of fear.

The Los Angeles Times has the story…

As he emerges from a sometimes- bitter primary campaign, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain poses a stiff challenge to either of his potential Democratic opponents in the general election, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending America’s involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. And even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain — a Vietnam vet who has supported the Bush administration’s military strategy — was better able to deal with Iraq.

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats

So, not only does McCain beat both Hillary and Obama in head-to-head match ups, but when it comes to dealing with the most important issues facing our country, McCain clearly has an edge as well.

This is good news, but we shouldn’t give too much weight to these polls. For starters, various other polls have shown different results, and a poll — even a scientific one — isn’t going be able to account for voter turnout factors, particularly the potential effect an Obama candidacy in the general election on the youth and minority votes, both of which lean Democrat.

But, liberals should stop pretending they have a landslide victory coming for them.

Earlier today, John McCain said of Obama, “I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It’s called al Qaeda in Iraq.” Obama, in response said, “I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

While that may have gotten his supporters riled up, the fact of the matter is that Obama’s not telling the truth. All you have to do is do a search in the official 9/11 Commission report to find plenty of references to Iraq and al Qaeda — while there’s nothing that proves any collaboration in attacks, there’s quite a bit that indicates plenty of contacts and various forms of cooperation. Thankfully, QandO already ran through all the references back in 2004 and posted relevent excerpts which you can see here.

Unfortunately, Obama can lie through his teeth and it doesn’t matter. His supporters want to believe him and everything he says so badly they’ll just swallow everything up… Obama sounds more like the popular high school jock running for class president (promising shorter classes, longer lunch periods, and banning homework) than he sounds like a real leader who actually has the knowledge and experience it takes to be the President.

K-Lo reports the news.

I’m devastated to report that our dear friend, mentor, leader, and founder William F. Buckley Jr., died this morning in his study in Stamford, Connecticut.

He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas.

More from The Associated Press…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: John McCain on Bill Buckley;

I am very profoundly saddened to hear of the passing of William F. Buckley Jr. and offer my deepest condolences to the Buckley family. Bill had many friends, including my parents, who he even took time to visit when they were stationed at the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii. My father and mother very much admired him and so did their son. With Bill’s passing, freedom has lost one of its greatest defenders. Bill was a great American who helped change the course of history. When conservatism was a lonely cause, he bravely raised the standard of liberty and led the charge to renew the principles and values that are the foundation of our great country. A man of tremendous vision and big ideas, he founded the National Review in 1955 and through its pages and his other endeavors, as a lecturer, commentator, debater and author of dozens of books, inspired many and advanced an intellectual rigor that transformed American politics. Bill was an American giant who shall be missed.

Just astounding:

London, Feb 26, 2008 (CNA).- A committee in the British House of Commons will investigate Catholic schools following the Bishop of Lancaster’s instructions to schools to place crucifixes in every classroom and stop “safe sex” education, the Independent reports.

Patrick O’Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster, had circulated a 66-page booklet instructing Catholic schools to stop “safe sex” education. Bishop O’Donoghue wrote, “The secular view on sex outside marriage, artificial contraception, sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and AIDS, and abortion, may not be presented as neutral information.”

Additionally, he told the schools not to support charities that support abortion. He singled out Amnesty International, which recently renounced its neutrality on abortion and now favors the abortion of children whose mothers were raped in war zones.

The government’s investigating committee is chaired by Labour Party member Barry Sheerman, who is reportedly concerned the Church is adopting a “fundamentalist” line.

“A lot of taxpayers’ money is going into church schools and I think we should tease out what is happening here,” he added. “We seem to have a shift in emphasis on the ground despite what the reasonable voices of the leadership are saying,” Sheerman said.

Why does Sheerman get to decide who is reasonable? This is the thing which is really bothersome about this – a politician is going to bring pressure on a religious body to toe the government line because the politician has arrogated to himself the right to decide what is reasonable, and what isn’t. Now, if Mr. Sheerman thinks the Church wrong; that is fine. If Mr. Sheerman thinks that the Church is so wrong that it should not receive any government funding in Britain, then he may move a bill in Parlaiment to do just that. But to use a government committee as an attempt to browbeat the Church into doing the secularists’ will, that is an abominable infringement upon the rights of the people.

Chesterton said a very long time ago that, in the end, there is the Church, and her enemies – and Mr. Sheerman is demonstrating this to us in very stark terms. It isn’t enough for the Sheermans of the world to have all sorts of taxpayer funded programs to promote the leftist agenda – arrogantly self assured about their moral superiority, lefists insist that no one be allowed to dissent from their worldview. Britain, like the rest of Europe, is far gone down the road to socialist slavery – but this is the sort of world that the left wants to bring to the United States; a government controlled world of enforced political correctness. You want it, you can have it – all you have to do is “hope for change” in 2008, rather than learn and think.

Well, when someone said that the GOP governor of Alaska is sharp as a tack, and a babe, I just had to take a look – and correct on both counts:

Challenges lie ahead, but let’s look back at the last year and at some accomplishments. In Education, we are shaping a three-year funding plan to finally shift the school debate from perpetual “money talk” to accountability and achievement! We are focusing on foundational skills needed in the “real-world” workplace and in college. In Natural Resources, we’ve opened arms to welcome development – but only responsibly, or not at all. Thanks to those abundant resources we will be able to provide for the urgent needs of our citizens. In Revenue, Alaskans ushered in a new era of stability with ACES, our new oil and gas appraisal system. It will provide protection even when oil prices aren’t as high as they are now. Ronald Reagan warned, “Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.” I agree and that’s why we must save our surplus. My administration is proposing $7 billion dollars into the Permanent Fund, Constitutional Budget Reserve, the Education Fund and PERS/TRS debt relief. In Fish and Game, we are managing our fisheries based on science, not special interests. Alaska’s predator control program is showing results with greater wildlife populations so more Alaskans can hunt and feed their families the world’s healthiest, cleanest protein on God’s green earth. In Environmental Conservation, our Climate Change Sub-Cabinet has begun working on ways to adapt to impacts and we’re implementing the voter-mandated Ocean Rangers program. In Administration, we redesigned technology for government efficiency and transparency, including our nearly-complete online checkbook, showing Alaskans where their money is spent.

A lot of this relates, of course, to Alaska issues, but the Reaganism is loud and clear, and not just in the wonderful Reagan quote; free markets, free people, responsible stewardship. As for the “babe” judgement – picture available here.

McCain could do far worse in his Veep selection.

Debating tonight… Leave your thoughts…

UPDATE, 10:17 PM: Not a good night for Hillary… She’s coming across as desperate to get a word in..

The Times Online (UK) reports on a very shady deal involving Barack Obama and a British-Iraqi billionaire, that also involves Tony Rezko and the already shady land deal they had.

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million. Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city’s South Side while Mr Rezko’s wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko’s still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn. Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.

Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions. It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave….

MORE: Our Obama file…

Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO’s The Corner:

Most Americans simply cannot imagine their president as the topic of a two-hour encomium by Farrakhan, or why an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers would have once been associated with him. Those are legitimate issues, and the Obama campaign needs to come up with a comprehensive defense against them before they arise: e.g., “All sorts of diverse people are attracted to various causes under the umbrella of social change; what distinguishes Obama is his singular devotion to working within the system and avoiding the extremism that plagues the movement.”

Until there is some systematic preemptive exegesis, I think more and more of these disturbing hard-Left embarrassments will turn up — none of them alone a problem; all of them in sum finally devastating.

Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President. If this is true, then so be it – but I don’t think it is. What this means for Obama is that he’s going to be running in a center/right America as a liberal/left politician. As long as Obama can keep it to high sounding rhetoric, all is well – but just as soon as Obama is forced down into the nitty gritty of politics, his liberalism will prove an obstacle to winning.

Americans are tired of Iraq – but do Americans want to lose in Iraq?

Americans are tired of the mess in health care – but do Americans want socialised medicine?

Americans are tired of endless government debt – but do Americans want tax increases, or would they prefer spending cuts?

These are the sorts of questions we are going to answer between now and November and while Obama can, perhaps, answer them in a way which leads to his being sworn in on January 20th, 2009, the plain fact of the matter is that it won’t be easy – especially not easy against a seasoned campaigner like John McCain, who is popular, highly respected and has a vastly more substantial resume’ than Obama.