Did you know that Bill Clinton received tens of millions of dollars from a politically influential German company? No proof of impropriety yet, but boy, scandals gather around the Clintons like flies on...well, never mind. Despite that, Hillary is (at least in some polls) enjoying a huge lead in Pennsylvania, probably due to Obama's insults of millions of Americans last week (more on that later). One of the big issues Clinton and Obama have been batting around is whether or not they would revoke NAFTA. She is pledging to do so, even though it was her own husband who signed it into law, and is now saying she was always against NAFTA and would trash it if she became President. The problem with that is that her record shows she was decidedly pro-NAFTA back when Bill signed it, and remained so from the early 1990s up until at least 2002. Was this another lie, or did she just mis-remember? Finally, do you remember Norman Hsu? He was one of Hillary's biggest fundraisers until he got caught for fraud. Lee Cary asks what happened to Hsu, and then wonders what happened to some of the other questionable Chinese fundraisers who have associated with the Clintons and other Democrats over the years. Hmmm...
Moving on to John McCain...
All I can do is sigh when I read this:
John McCain is telling his campaign staff to lay off of Hillary. So says the Drudge Report. Not a shocker if you’ve been listening to The Maaaaverick’s effusive praise for Hillary–she of such “good character, honesty, and integrity“–over these many months and years.
What planet has he been on?? This is another disturbing sign that McCain is trying to run a sissy campaign, completely unwilling to roll up his sleeves and fight. Not that he has to fight dirty, mind you, but with either Clinton or Obama, there are a multitude of fights that he can -- and should -- pick. He would win. Richard Baehr breaks down the electoral numbers on McCain actually winning, if you're interested in the minutiae. On another topic, John McCain appears to have taken both sides of the issue of the current mortgage bailout. He has another speech coming up soon, which should give him a chance to clarify his position with more details, thus indicating where he really stands. McCain has also laid at least partial blame for the 'recession' at the feet of 'greedy' Wall Street types, which should disturb conservatives and Republicans. On the other hand, he has also proposed a temporary gas-tax 'holiday' from Memorial Day through Labor Day. As I've blogged about several times before, reducing the government's take of gas sales would be the fastest, most effective way to reduce gas prices at the pump. It's good to see McCain figure that out.
If you are having a hard time figuring out if you like McCain and his policies, you're not alone. I would suggest that this is going to be life under President McCain (if he wins). He is a very liberal Republican and completely believes in big government, but has moments of sound conservatism. It will be a bumpy ride filled with lots of frustration and head shaking, but he's better than either alternative. Just get used to it. Do you wish you could take back your primary vote yet...?
Now we come to Barack Obama...
First, a couple articles that point out some very disturbing facts about Obama. Andrew McCarthy writes about the company Obama has chosen to keep over the years, which include an avowed anti-American racist wife, an avowed anti-American racist pastor, self-admitted terrorists (who say they wish they could have blown up more targets), and an open supporter of Palestinian attacks on Israel. This list of 'friends' should trouble any normal American! Even if Obama doesn't agree with all of them, shouldn't it raise questions about his ability to pick and keep appropriate associations?
Next, Peggy Shapiro finds some disturbing similarities between Obama's campaign poster and advertisements for some notorious historical figures. Take a look:
Vladimir Lenin, totalitarian Soviet dictator and mass murderer
Che Guevara, Argentinian-born terrorist and mass murderer
Adolf Hitler, German fascist dictator and mass murderer
Barack Obama, ...?He picked this poster. You need to ask yourself why he felt this style and image best represented himself.
Finally, we come to his latest campaign trail flub. Wow, when this guy sticks his foot in his mouth, he shoves it all the way into his lower intestine! The short version is that he spoke to a small (private) gathering of ultra-rich donors in San Francisco a few days ago, and in that speech he explained the working class this way:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
For a small sampling of analysis on the comment, check out Victor Davis Hanson, Hanson again, Lisa Schiffren, Mark Steyn, Peter Wehner, John B. Judis, George Will, and Ed Kilgore. Pretty much everyone has an opinion about this, but the general feeling I'm seeing is that Obama may have caused himself even more political pain over this comment than his association with Rev. Wright. Most opinions I've seen center around the fact that he insulted the very people he needs to win the nomination -- middle/working class white people, religious people, and people who value the 2nd Amendment -- by saying they only 'cling' to guns and religion because they're desperate and at the end of their rope. This is totally absurd, of course, and everyone with a brain knows it. Obama has back-tracked several times in attempting to 'clarify' what he was trying to say, but he hasn't actually changed his tune much. Even Hillary Clinton seized on the comment to point out how Obama is an 'elitist' and out of touch with Americans (yes, I know the irony is thick right there). The bigger scope of this comment is that he probably indicated more of his true feelings than he intended since this statement was made to a private gathering of rich people like himself. He sees normal Americans as worthy only of condescension, and are backwoods hicks that are only good for one thing - voting for him.
Obviously, this is a HUGE problem for him, and it isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
I really cannot believe you posted this thing about the campaign poster. Do you sincerely think Obama was trying to make subtle connections to Hitler, Che, and Lenin? Really? Seriously? Honestly? Are you kidding? Why?
Is it because it's just a stately picture of his face in an upward looking pose? Because if so, I bet there are posters of all stripes, sizes, political offices, etc. that match the criteria.
Is it the coloring? If so, is it really that surprising that an American presidential candidate would use **GASP!** red, white, and blue on a campaign poster.
Is it the abstract nature of the poster (as opposed to just a straight photo)? If so, it was probably designed by a pretty high-priced marketing firm who decided that it could create visual "punch."
Here's a thought, maybe Obama chose the poster (if he even personally approves everything the campaign uses) because that style is effective in winning elections and public support (obviously it worked for Hitler, Lenin, and Che, didn't it?) RATHER than choosing it to send subtle signals that he's a socialist, revolutionary, Nazi politician that will eventually seek world domination. Just because bad guys used effective communication strategies does not mean that those communication strategies are tainted forever throughout the rest of history.
I have my doubts about Obama and have no idea who I'll vote for yet, but if this is an indication of the strategy conservatives will use, he's going to win in a landslide, because that was just dumb.
I'm glad you asked because I seriously don't understand it myself! You tell me - why would Obama have chosen such a theme?? I can't figure it out, because I really don't think he would choose to associate himself with those murderous thugs. That's why I put forth the question.
You're exactly right that there are an almost infinite number of other poses/styles/schemes that he could have used, and pretty much any of them would have been better!
I think you're stretching it to call this red, white, and blue. It looks orange to me, and nothing about this says the color scheme is trying to symbolize anything. If he was going to use patriotic colors, there are any number of ways to do that more effectively. Of course, he does seem very reluctant to celebrate the American flag, so that would rule out a lot of good patriotic images...
Even if an ad firm created it, someone had to give it the thumbs up. If it was him, it's all the more important a question to answer.
I suppose it's possible he's using it because there are some market stats to show it's an effective presentation. Still, I think it might be wiser to avoid such a close replication of some of the most vile people ever to walk the planet. Mimicking communication strategies is one thing, but duplicating propaganda material is quite another.
Another reason this seems like more than coincidence to me is that we know Obama is a fan of Che Guevara, as I've blogged about before (here, here, here, and here). You connect the dots.
I find it interesting that you think this is the 'best' that we conservatives can do. Would you please tell me what conservative is actually in this race for November? To suggest McCain is a conservative is to reveal a total misunderstanding of what conservatism is. McCain has a handful of conservative tendencies, but he is far from conservative. Why do you think he won't be counting on his own Republican base in November? Many will probably grudgingly support him, but many will not. He is going to have to rely on moderate/conservative Democrats and Independents if he is to have any chance at winning against either Obama or Clinton. His core base has largely deserted him, especially in terms of fundraising. He likes to talk about his 83% conservative rating, but that's a lifetime average. If you look at the last few years (what counts most), he has made a constant and definitive migration to the left, abandoning many conservative positions just when true conservatives needed him the most. If you look at the record, he usually supports 'conservative' positions when the vote is a blow-out, but when it's really tight, he abandons his party and his base. I suggest you spend some time on my blog to educate yourself on what conservatism actually is if you think McCain is an example of it.
Because McCain is most certainly not a conservative, we don't have a candidate in November, and therefore there really is no strategy. The best we've got is to look at Congress, state, and local elections in the hopes of bringing true conservatives up a level and positioning them for the next opportunity. But, without a major name headlining the ticket, that's going to be tough. I'm inclined to agree with you that it will be a rough go-around for conservatives, but if Obama and Hillary continue to gaffe and flub like they have been over the past few weeks, McCain does have an outside shot.
Thanks for your comment!
Post a Comment