Blogs For Victory

I love how Barack Obama is claiming the moral high ground on the issue of negative ads and attacks by launching what can essentially be called an attack website against Hillary Clinton.

Seriously. Every campaign season we get candidates claiming they don’t like negative campaigning, making self-righteous pledge not to go negative, then suddenly everyone is shocked–shocked that they are getting criticized for something, and thus launches everyone into negative attack mode… as if we expected differently.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Everyone says they’re against negative ads, but saying you’re against negative ads is really just talk because eventually something happens that “forces” that candidate to go negative… but in self defense. In the end, everyone does it because, like it or not, negative ads are quite effective… even thought candidates claim they aren’t when they oppose negative ads.

The worst is how Democrats pretend like it’s the Republican Party that is the party of negative ads and attacks. This is the same Party that can’t speak a sentence without blaming something on President Bush, and they act as if no one in the Democratic Party has ever had anything to do with a negative ad before.

This apparently happened a few days ago. Not media coverage is there?

Had this been an aide to a Republican Senator, do you think the media would have been so quiet about it?

I quick Technorati search shows that many blogs, liberal and conservative, are talking about Senator Larry Craig, and the eight men claiming to have had homosexual encounters with him.

I find this interesting… the reactions and the willingness of left-leaning bloggers to accept the accusers claims as genuine without scrutiny or a hint of doubt. It’s interesting because a similar benefit of the doubt did not exist when it came Bill Clinton and the women who accused from rape to fondling to witness intimidation.

When Kathleen Willey was on Hannity & Colmes a few weeks ago, Alan Colmes, bursting with Clinton talking points, attacked Willey’s credibility at her accusations, which have been carefully documented in her new book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Would Colmes, or any Clinton Defender for that matter, give equal scrutiny to anyone accusing any Republican of something damaging? Of course not. Partisans on both sides of the aisle are more than willing to doubt those who attack their own, and accept wholeheartedly those who attack their political adversaries.

I can’t say any whether or not those men claiming to have had encounters with Larry Craig are telling the truth or not — and neither can those liberals who are anxious to take political advantage of the scandal. But, if they are going to be given the benefit of the doubt by the media, or the Democrats, then Bill Clinton’s accusers deserved (and still deserve) the same.

Word is that Mitt Romney will give his long awaited speech discussing his faith. He will give the speech, titled, “Faith In America,” this Thursday, at The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas

According to Romney’s campaign spokesman Kevin Madden, “This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected.”

Romney reportedly made the decision to deliver the speech last week.

Obviously, there’s been a lot of speculation about if and when Mitt would give a speech addressing his Mormon faith. I’d always felt that that he should have done it early on in the campaign, and gotten it over with before it became a bigger liability for him. So why is he making the speech this week, when he could have done it earlier? The answer is iowa.

Romney’s lead in the polls in Iowa has taken a hit, and some polls even have Mike Huckabee taking the lead. Obviously, now is the time to bring this issue front and center. The question then will be “Will it work or was it too late?”

I still believe it would have been better for Romney to address his faith earlier in the campaign, but we’ll have to wait and see how his speech will affect the evangelical Christian voters.

Putin’s party is said to have won nearly 63% of the vote. Putin-allied parties are set to gain nearly 17% of the vote. When the ruling party gets that high a percentage and its primary opposition is actually shut out of Parlaiment all together, that in and of itself smells of fraud…when you add in all the voting irregularities reported, it becomes pretty clear that Putin has engineered himself an absolute majority which will now be able to adjust Russian law however necessary to allow Putin to remain in power, even if he officially leaves office at the end of his current terms as President.

Its really rather sad, and extraordinarily foolish of Putin to pull this – even supposing that Putin and his party are best equipped to govern Russia equitibly (and that is a bit of a stretch), Putin should realise that all he’s done is set up a dictatorial system which is bound to suppress Russia’s ability to fully harness its resources while at the same time opening up the myriad opportunities for corruption which has always been the bane of Russian progress. Watching from afar, I get the impression of a Great Russian patriot in Putin but like all too many such in Russia’s history, Putin lacks that sense of proportion which would allow him to share power with others – Putin will, I believe, be classed with Witte, Stolypin and Kruschev who set out to remake Russia, and made a hash of it.

All we can do is class Russia as a potential enemy in world affairs, and build our alliances with Poland, Georgia and other nations on Russia’s periphery who would like very much to stay out of Russia’s grasp.

The other night I caught a segment on FOX News where there was discussion about the hostage situation that occurred at the Hillary Clinton headquarters in Rochester, NH. It seems like there’s a lot of talk about “how Hillary handled the situation.” I’m sure I don’t need to remind you about the ridiculous puff piece written by Glen Johnson for the AP, but clearly much of the discussion reflects sentiments implied by that piece.

Hillary and her campaign clearly saw the political opportunities from the hostage situation at her campaign HQ, but, we shouldn’t forget that there was absolutely nothing Hillary had to handle. She wasn’t at the headquarters when it happened. She was never in danger at any point. She also had no authority over local law enforcement, thus she was never in a position to make any decisions that affected the outcome of the hostage situation. It was never a test of her leadership abilities, and not once was she in a position to demonstrate her capacities to handle a crisis situation. Instead, it showed her ability to see the political impact of a situation and how to exploit it.

That being said, one can’t ignore that there is certainly going to be a short-term political advantage for Hillary as a result. Some theorized that, with regards to her recent slide in the polls after her terrible performance at the Philly debate, this event combined the subsequent “presidential-looking Hillary” media coverage, should “stop the bleeding.” I wouldn’t doubt that it may do that, but there’s no reason why it should.

It appears that in recent months Barack Obama’s campaign was coordinating with his political action committee on whom to make political contributions to… and it just so happens these donations were made to politicians in key primary states during a time the campaign was securing endorsements.

Ian Schwartz brought my attention to this story, which shows that dead people are still making political contributions… and a majority of those contributions from deceased is going toward Democrats and their committees.

CNN continues to get more flak for their screening practices… and even more obviously Democrats/liberal questioners have been discovered…

Also interesting is that the Republican CNN/YouTube debate was the most-watched debate yet.

If Jack Murtha is finally willing to admit it…

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt made the following statement today in response to Murtha’s comments:

With one of the Democrats’ leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraq is working, it’s difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding for our troops. It can’t be the facts on the ground that are influencing their decision-making: After all, our servicemen and women have made tremendous progress the past six months, with fewer attacks on our troops, greater security in historically insecure areas, and terrorist insurgents on the run.

UPDATE: More from Suitably Flip