Blogs For Victory

John J. Pitney Jr., writing at National Review, explains how Barack Obama’s “message of unity” and calls for change are neither new, or genuine.

As I explained on NRO nearly a year ago, Obama is echoing what George W. Bush said in the 2000 campaign. In fact, if Obama’s speeches were term papers, I’d report him for plagiarism. “Our country has unlimited potential. But our politics is broken — at least in Washington,” Bush said in California on October 30, 2000. “You know what’s wrong, Washington is obsessed with scoring points, not solving problems.” In another California swing a month earlier, Bush said: “I’m going to reject the ugly politics of the past, where people felt like they could get ahead by tearing down their opponents.”

One could argue that Bush was merely spouting political pap — but that’s the point. The “unity” message has been old for a long time. Here’s another example:”I saw many signs in this campaign. Some of them were not friendly. Some were very friendly. But the one that touched me the most was — a teenager held up the sign `bring us together.’ And that will be the great objective of this administration, at the outset, to bring the American people together.”

That was Richard Nixon, after his election in 1968.

I suggest you read the whole thing, but the main thing you need to get from it is that anyone can claim to be a uniter, and anyone can claim to be the agent of change. But it’s just rhetoric. Those claims don’t mean anything. As Mark pointed out earlier, Obama’s “change” mantra is meaningless because he hasn’t gone into specifics. He doesn’t go into specifics because his idea of “change” is even more liberal and extreme than even Hillary Clinton’s.

Still, even his idealistic calls for change and unity, and his railing against the status quo and politics as usual are lies. Pitney explains,

Like so many politicians before him, he speaks lofty prose while leaving the wet work to underlings. Eisenhower had Nixon, who later had Agnew. Obama has David Axelrod, among others.

Axelrod has been Obama’s chief political adviser for years. In 2004, Obama defeated millionaire Blair Hull for nomination to the Senate after sordid details of Hull’s divorce came out. Obama didn’t talk about it in public. But according to David Mendell, the reporter who broke the news about the divorce papers, Obama’s campaign “worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull’s filings.” And says the New York Times, many in Chicago “believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull.”

So let’s recap. Barack Obama is a senator today because his campaign exploited his opponent’s messy divorce. This is a miracle that qualifies him for secular sainthood.

And should I really have to mention Tony Rezko and other questionable deals/actions by Obama?

Obama is getting through this campaign because of the brand he is presenting. He’s not giving an accurate portrayal of who is, what he’ll do, or where he’ll take our country.

Your son, my lord, has paid a soldier’s debt:
He only lived but till he was a man;
The which no sooner had his prowess confirm’d
In the unshrinking station where he fought,
But like a man he died.

Military blogger Andrew Olmstead was killed recently in Iraq. Per his wishes, a last post has been placed on his blog and I wished to share it with our readers.

Per the command by Mr. Olmstead in his post, no political comments will be permitted on this thread.

Just bizarre:

Madrid, Jan. 3, 2008 (CWNews.com) – Spanish government leaders have asked the country’s Catholic bishops to apologize for the massive pro-family rally held in Madrid on December 30, Vatican Radio reports.

Leaders of the Socialist governing party have charged that the Church intervened in partisan political affairs with the rally, which drew nearly 2 million participants. (The government is reporting that only 160,000 took part in the demonstration.) The government has asked the bishops’ conference for an apology.

Although 40 bishops took part in the pro-family event, and the hierarchy gave clear support to the event, the rally was organized primarily by lay Catholic activists. The organizers have consistently argued that the rally was not intended as a partisan political event, but as a public expression of support for the traditional family founded on Christian marriage.

This is what the secular left wants – the Church to be removed from the public square. They’ll kindly allow us to practise our faith, as long as we don’t disturb their worldview by demonstrating publically what we stand for. If we’ll just keep it off the streets, all will be well – until they arrest our priests and pastors for “hate speech” because they teach Christian morality in the pulpit.

Last night may have been bad for Hillary, but her top donor, Norman Hsu, had a worse day today:

Disgraced political donor Norman Hsu was sentenced Friday to three years in prison after a judge rejected his bid to throw out a 16-year- old fraud conviction.

Hsu’s lawyers had asked Judge Stephen Hall to dismiss his 1992 no- contest plea, arguing that Hsu’s right to a speedy trial was violated because authorities were not actively pursuing him during his years as a fugitive. They could easily have arrested Hsu, his lawyers argued, at one of the fundraisers he hosted in California for prominent local politicians.

Hsu also faces federal fraud charges in New York.

His troubles began dogging Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other big- name Democrats last summer when news reports revealed he was a fugitive who fled the state before he was sentenced for the 1992 fraud conviction. He turned himself in on Aug. 31—then fled again.

It happens tonight.

You can follow on the ground citizen reporting of the results via Twitter. I’ve put a feed of the IowaCaucus Twitter in the sidebar to the right.

You are welcome to discuss the results as they come in, and offer your thoughts.

UPDATE 8:55 PM ET: FOX News projects Huckabee the winner of GOP caucus… Still no winner projected for Democrats, but last I saw Edwards was on top and Hillary and Obama were neck and neck behind him.

UPDATE 9:02 PM ET: FOX now shows Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all around 32-33%.

UPDATE 9:29 PM ET: FOX News projects Obama the winner of Democrat caucus with 35%… Edwards and Clinton trail each with 31%. Considering early reports of high turnout for Obama, it appears something happened once Democrats got inside to caucus… Obama may be the winner, but to me, the vote seems close enough that the impact on New Hampshire and beyond may not be huge. Based on early reports, it sounded like Obama was gonna win in a blowout… if the numbers don’t change much from now, then Clinton and Edwards are certainly still able to capture the nomination.

But, it’s not lost for Hillary either… Obama’s victory tonight could make him vulnerable. Dick Morris was saying earlier tonight that Democrats may start to really think about Obama and ask if they want to bank their hopes on him for winning in November.

As for the GOP… Let’s face it, Mitt Romney was the loser tonight, more than Huckabee was the winner. If Huckabee’s victory translates to more victories and stronger victories, then Romney will fall very fast.

UPDATE 10:22 PM ET: Will Hillary scream like Howard Dean? John Edwards just spoke… Does anyone really believe that John Edwards has any real understanding about problems of middle class America? Mr. 400 Dollar Haircut?

UPDATE 10:27 PM ET: Hillary speaks. She sounds hoarse… I’m sure she was screaming her head off earlier… Pushes electability in her speech. Refers to her “national campaign.”

A new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released today shows Obama on top, with Edwards trailing by four, and Hillary Clinton back in third in Iowa.

What does this mean? It’s hard to say, Iowa polls have been all over the place, so the only thing we should take from this latest poll is that anything can happen. I’m still thinking that Obama is not going to come out on top, but if he does, it could be fatal to Hillary’s candidacy. If Hillary doesn’t win, she better hope that John Edwards comes in first, because an Edwards victory in Iowa, in my opinion, would hurt her less in New Hampshire. Both Obama and Clinton need to win Iowa to get some momentum over the other. If the perception of electability in the general election is as important to caucus-goers this year as it was in 2004, than I think that helps Edwards more than Hillary or Obama.

As for the GOP, I think Mitt Romney will come out on top. Huckabee may have been surging in the polls recently, but that may not make up for the fact that winning Iowa is a key part of Romney’s strategy and therefore he’s been building up a good operation on the ground that will be hard to overcome. If Romney doesn’t win the Iowa caucuses, he’s in trouble.

As for Huckabee’s surge, I don’t dismiss it, but one can’t ignore that since his surge, he was open to attacks and criticism that he largely avoided previously. He also comes across as less able to handle foreign policy, and he clearly appears to be the easiest GOP candidate for the Democrats to beat in November. If the perception of electability is as important to Republican caucus-goers as it is to Democrat caucus-goers, than John McCain and Mitt Romney should benefit the most… however, if Republican caucus-goers think Romney’s Mormonism will be a problem, than McCain experience the bigger boost.

What will be really interesting to see is McCain’s performance. If he can come in second place, it will be good shot in the arm for his campaign and an indication that the message in his recent ad campaigns have worked.

As of this moment, I’m thinking John Edwards and Mitt Romney will be the winners. The second and third place positions for both parties could go either way…

Literally:

Like any Soldier, Pfc. Alexander Cesario always makes sure he has all his essential equipment before he goes outside the wire. For Cesario, that means his weapon, radio, and night vision goggles, as well as one special, personal item – an American flag his father brought home from Vietnam.

Cesario, a Somerville, N.J., native serving as a forward observer with Company A., Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, has carried his father’s flag with him on every mission since being deployed to Iraq a year ago.

The flag was first acquired by Cesario’s father, Adam, 61, when he was a young paratrooper serving in Vietnam. The elder Cesario never let a day go by without unfurling the flag, no matter where he was or what he was doing.

“(My dad) flew that flag every day, even if he had to put it up on a radio antenna,” Cesario said.

At one point, a mission went wrong and Cesario’s father was cut off from the rest of his platoon. For three days, he had to hack it out of the jungle alone, with the Vietcong in hot pursuit. But even on the run, he still managed to raise the flag each day.

“He didn’t stop moving at all for those three days, except to fly that flag,” Cesario said.

When Cesario’s father returned from the war, he put the flag into safekeeping. He was so protective of it that even family members were rarely allowed to handle it.

“It was like his prized possession,” Cesario said.

Nothing could make the elder Cesario part with the flag until Alexander, 19, was deployed to Iraq this year. After he began patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Cesario decided he wanted to carry on his father’s tradition. After some arm-twisting, he convinced his dad to mail him the flag.

The flag arrived with step-by-step instructions on how to take care of it, Cesario said. He recalled the final step with a laugh: “If you lose it, don’t bother coming home.”

To allow such a priceless possession to go in harms way – that shows the truest possible love of country. In reading this, I was moved to the depths of my soul; and also made grateful to God that he allows us here in the United States to have such men as the elder and younger Cesario, ever willing to put all the have on the line for us.

A very small, yet hopeful sign:

Amman, Dec. 28, 2007 (CWNews.com) – The leader of an Islamic group calling for inter-religious dialogue has responded positively to a papal invitation for talks with the Holy See, Vatican Radio reports.

Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, the president of the Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Jordan, has indicated that he would like to meet with Pope Benedict XVI early in the new year. The Jordanian prince has been the most prominent figure associated the “Common Word” initiative, in which 138 Islamic leaders signed a public statement, issued in October, calling for broader dialogue between Christians and Muslims. More recently the Common Word participants joined in a Christmas greeting to the world’s Christians, renewing their call for dialogue and cooperation.

Pope Benedict replied to the Common Word initiative in November, with his own invitation for members of the Islamic group to join in talks at the Vatican. Prince Ghazi was responding to this papal invitation.

In his reply — which was conveyed in a letter to the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone — Prince Ghazi said that he hoped to meet with the Pope in February or March 2008.

I’ve linked to that public statement in the quote – and I do recommend that everyone read it. As I said shortly after it came out, it is a brisk and forthright attempt to bridge the gap between Islam and Christianity (and thus bridge the gap between Islam and the West). At that time, I also deplored the wet-noodle response a few weak-kneed Christians made to it; grovelling is not what is needed, or desired. But the Vatican holding a conference – at which I hope that other Christian leaders also attend – is a far better response. To get together and talk can often be an exercise in futility – but it some times can break logjams.

Just as there is a tiny element in Christianity which has forgotten what its all about, so there is a tiny element in Islam which is entirely off the Islamic ranch. Tiny, but still quite large in raw numbers (even if only 1% of Islam is radicalised, that is approximately 10 million people) – and, unfortunately, backed for varied reasons (some base, some just foolish) by politicians and rich people in the Arab/Moslem world. The ultimate key to victory in the War on Terrorism is for the Arab/Moslem world to be transformed into a free society which makes room for the religious dissident and seeks the betterment of the Arab people, rather than the revival of an archaic Caliphate. In this transformation, there is a role for everyone to play – including, not least, religious leaders on both sides who can come together and issue statements which will tend to isolate the Islamo-fascists and bring them into disrepute among the Arab population.

In this war of ideas, we must use our armed might, our economic might and our diplomatic might – but we also must make use of well-disposed people in the Moslem and Christian worlds who are willing, often at great personal risk, to come together past the divide. Small results will come from this conference – initially; but with good will and God’s grace, much will be accomplished over time.

The title of this entry shamelessly stolen from Mark Steyn over at NRO’s The Corner – but its just too appropriate:

Gordon Brown should mark the 60th anniversary of the NHS this year by turning its birthday on July 5 into an extra annual bank holiday, a leading Labour thinktank will urge today.

The Fabian Society will say the prime minister has long dreamed of establishing a “British day” to celebrate nationhood. The most appropriate date would be on the anniversary of the health service – an institution which appeals equally to people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

An essay by Rachael Jolley and Sunder Katwala, the society’s general secretary, points out that England and Wales have eight public holidays, compared with at least 10 in most EU countries. Scotland has nine and Northern Ireland 10.

In 2006, before Brown became prime minister, he told a Fabian conference: “What is the British equivalent of the US fourth of July, or even the French 14th of July? … What is our equivalent for a national celebration of who we are and what we stand for?” He said he had in mind giving the country a new public holiday.

There’s just something extraordinarily Euro-socialist in that – another paid day off, and to celebrate dependency upon a bloated, ineffecient government bureaucracy. It’d be like having AFDC Day here in the United States. One wonders – is what the Brits stand for really socialised health care? Long waiting lists, poor quality of care, routinely going over budget? Thus another page is written in the very final chapter of the Story of Britain.

Good morning and Happy New Year, everyone!