The question John McCain asked in response to Barack Obama's position on dealing with threats to America was to inquire as to what exactly Obama would like to talk about with people who have sworn genocide against a key US ally and "death to America".  The question, of course, remains unanswered.

The difference between the Obama approach to talks and the Bush Administration is clear:  while the Bush Administration is obviously wary of a military conflict with Iran, they make it clear that the option remains "on the table" and realistically, may need to be implemented; whereas Obama's rhetoric is big on friendly talk, but with the exception of some filler words here and there, tough military talk is all but absent.  Bush understands the concept of 'carrot and stick'; Obama simply wants to hand out carrots.

So what of the question posed by Senator McCain?  Some low-key events have taken place in Iran in the past couple of weeks which makes his question even more poignant.

An Iranian vice president (and extended family member of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) made a surprising statement in a recent speech.  Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, the Vice President of Tourism, said, "we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans."

Wonderful, isn't it?  Not so fast.

The reaction of the Iranian parliament was swift if not predictable.  200 members (out of 290) declared the comments "unforgivable" and have demanded Mashai's resignation.  Thus far, the VP has refused to resign and to the best of my knowledge, has not repudiated the comments.  Second to being openly homosexual in Tehran, Mashai has shown near unprecedented courage and Israeli and Western politicians and pundits should be supporting this kind of display.

Mashai has stood by his stance, adding, "I have said before that we do not have any hostility against the Israeli people and I still say the same thing proudly."

Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi has questioned how someone who "think(s) like that be one of the president's colleagues?"

And as for Ahmy?  The president has tried to Obama his way out of this by not directly engaging the controversy, but he did add his own two cents, repeating some rhetoric he issued back in June, declaring Israel the "germ of corruption" that will "be removed soon" (updating it from the previous statement that the "germ of corruption will be wiped off the face of the world".

Now I realize that there are no such things as defenders of Ahmadinejad and Iran in the good ol' USA.  Ahmy is simply a "rational actor" playing his part on the world stage.  These Americans who don't exist made heartfelt attempts to explain away Ahmy's previous comments about wiping Israel off the map.  I can't locate a transcript of this latest Ahmadinejad rant (it's supposedly on his presidential website) but I'm curious as to what positives and excuses we can extrapolate from this last verbal assault on Israel.

Americans generally seem to agree that the Iranian people are not the problem, that it's the government. Should we assume that the Iranian people support Vice President Mashai's friendly chatter and reject Ahmy's genocidal ravings?

There has been talk lately that President Bush plans to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat before he leaves office.  As the days go by this become more unlikely so the real question, 73 days before the elections, has been asked already.  If this country makes the grave mistake of putting Barack Obama in the Oval Office, what exactly do we talk to the Iranian regime about?  Would Obama's desire to chat with the Iranian president include talking to Vice President Mashai (assuming he's not with Allah by then)?  Or will Obama feed into the Jimmy-Carter Democratic stereotype that America should only buddy-up with the worst people in the world (has Ahmy ever made Keith Olbermann's list?)?

With the sudden push by Russia to resume Cold War positions in the world and talks of Russia and Iran strengthening ties, this isn't the time to make a feel-good vote come November.  If Barack Obama wants to have a chance of becoming president next year (and each time he speaks his chances seem to less likely) then he needs to redesign his approach to Iran, Islamofascist terrorism and the potential Russian/Iranian pact.  This is his time to stop pandering, stop playing campaign games and start reassuring the American people that his administration will not be batted around, that his election will not be sought by our enemies.

Kathleen Parker recently wrote a column of hypothetical letters to Vladimir Putin.  The first by George Bush was about four paragraphs long and emphasized Bush's buddy approach to Putin ("What's up with Georgia? This is not good, Vlad.").  The second by Barack Obama was four to five paragraphs long and touched on Obama's apparent desire to avoid confrontation ("Please picture me looking very serious when I say that I respectfully request you to calm down.")

The third letter simply said:

From Sen. John McCain:

Hey, Putin.
Don't make me come over there.
McCain

That's what America needs in 2008, whether in dealing with Russia or Iran.  Or both simultaneously.

I’m am taking this opportunity to confirm the rumors that have been flying around Obama campaign headquarters: yes, yours truly will be blogging from the Republican National Convention. Thanks to the interest of folks at Newsvine and MSNBC, I will be attending the ultimate grand old party in a new capacity: as a citizen journalist. The difference between a citizen journalist and the standard journalist is that I actually get to confess my bias. I’ll make it clear now: I will not provide objectivity and balance.

I will do what it is that keeps me young: I will explore the stories within the stories, the psychology behind political ideals and define what the candidates and politicians are really saying. I will present the convention and the election through the eyes of rational smaller-government conservatism and from the perspective of a devoted John McCain supporter.

If I had my choice I would prefer to attend the Democrats convention in Denver because I find Democrats to be the more interesting specimen of politician and much of leftist politics to be fascinating in a ‘you mean to tell me John Edwards isn’t faithful to his wife?!’ kind of way. Seriously, anyone think that since the ticking-time-bomb-Edwards started making the MSM’s list as a top consideration for Obama’s VP that the Obama campaign itself fueled the Enquirer’s interest in Edwards extramarital…sorry, sorry.

Back to me. I want to thank Calvin Tang, the Chief Operating Officer of Newsvine for offering me this chance and for Newsvine and MSNBC for making it happen. To a political junkie, this is the equivalent of having ESPN send a football addict to blog from the Super Bowl or E! Entertainment sending a movie buff to blog from the Oscars. I recall watching the 2004 conventions from my living room, amazed that I could literally feel the energy from the TV. I remember during various speeches, particularly the barnstormer by Democrat Zell Miller at the RNC, wishing I was there.

Four years later and I am in! Bloggers are no longer relegated to reacting to stories but are increasingly being given the opportunity to make the stories themselves. Thanks to the blog, the average citizen now has the potential to affect the dialog in this country in ways that was just a short time ago limited to the mainstream media and talk radio.

I look forward to meeting fellow Viners Rob Ballew, Adam Hobson and Stacy Malboun, the latter two who will also be attending Ron Paul’s counter rally in Minneapolis. Stacy, suffering from some affliction I’m sure (I kid!), will be covering the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-capitalist, anti-Republican protests happening all over Saint Paul that week. Perhaps she’ll ask a question for me to the anti-Iraq war protesters: what exactly are you protesting now? Victory?

Please check here in the coming weeks for convention insight. Check the side bars to the right for links to Newsvine’s convention coverage and my contributions, as well as feeds to the McCain and Obama campaign websites and general election and convention coverage.

Thanks to Andrew for this Seed addressing Barack Obama's handling of an abortion question from Rick Warren at Saturday's televised Saddleback forum shared with opponent John McCain:

Obama dodged a question?  Say it isn't so!  Decisions to triple the capital gains tax during an economic downturn and to invade Pakistan to get bin Laden demonstrate that economic and foreign policy issues are above your pay grade too, Senator.  But that isn't stopping you from saying it.

This is a vital question to the abortion debate and one that helped push me more into a pro-life position.  What did it for me is that everyone (except Obama) has a view on when abortions should and shouldn't be permitted and they all vary.  Typically, the positions seem to depend on what stage of fetus the target is.  But there is no substantive measurement to this.  It's quite arbitrary and I've had scores of discussions with people where I've tried to get them to clarify why it's okay at 'x' weeks but not okay at 'y' weeks.  In the end, the result is the same so does it really matter if it's nine days or nine months?

Pro-life arguments focus on the life at hand.  Pro-choice arguments focus on the mother which makes their side of the debate on when a life is determined to have value rather interesting because it is possibly the rare exception to focusing on the mother.  And it suggests why so little about that side of the abortion argument actually deals with the would-be aborted.  It's a lose-lose argument for them anytime the issue of life or the value of life or the magic date when a baby is more of a baby than a fetus is part of the discussion.

It's rather pathetic that this wonderful politician isn't prepared to answer a key question about perhaps the most bitterly divisive issue this country deals with year in and year out.  What - he was hoping that it just wouldn't come up?  Or he just hasn't given it that much thought?

The next president will be appointing anywhere from two to four Supreme Court Justices.  In that context, he will be setting up policy and interpretations directly impacting Americans for at least the next few generations.  He had damn well better show that he has some insight on this issue.

John McCain didn't have a problem answering the question.  That's what happens when one has beliefs, even if expressing those beliefs risks alienating potential voters.  McCain could answer the question because his was one of only two answers that make sense:  Rights for babies either begin when the baby exits the birth canal or - as McCain believes - at conception.

McCain solidified his pro-life background.

Obama might have tried defining some magic time for when a fetus is considered worthy for protection.  And that would have been a lie.  In fact, his actual response was a lie.  He didn't answer the question because his answer is on the other side of the spectrum from McCains.  Obama doesn't believe he is "above the pay grade" to profess a belief; Obama believes that Rights kick in when the cord is cut though he professed to support restrictions on late-term abortions.  However...

Obama opposed the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart that upheld partial-birth abortion bans, a brutal, unnecessary act that happens to fall under the umbrella of late-term abortions.  He opposed it on the grounds that it threatened the entire institution of abortion and Roe v. Wade.   He believes that there are no Rights until that baby is born.  He simply doesn't have the political courage to state it.  He can't even weasel-word it to make it sound more appealing than it is.

Obama co-sponsered the FOCA bill which would virtually strip away all restrictions on abortion.  He opposes parental notification laws; he supports taxpayer funded abortions; he opposes waiting periods; he opposes protections for babies born from failed abortion attempts; while he supports government funded health care he opposes government funded health care for unborn children. 

That, according to Hillary Clinton, is when he had the courage to take positions.  Early on in the primary battle, the Clinton campaign accused Obama of voting "present" on seven different pieces of anti-choice legislation during his time in the Illinois State Senate.  That basically says, yeah - I'm here.  I'm just not going to go on record on this one.

It should be no shocker that Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRL.  So why the artful dodge?  What's to hide?  Doesn't it suggest that even he is aware of how troubling his own record and position on abortion is?

Way to stand up for women's rights!  The movement deserves more of these kinds of acts of raw courage. l 

"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life." - The Manchurian Candidate (line repeated by Shaw's brainwashed colleagues)

"George W was destined from birth to lead us into the valley of the shadow of death. I believe that Obama was destined from birth to lead us out. For us, there is a gift in entering and in leaving to the soul." - Denise Gibel Molini  08/01/2008

Come again?

Generally, we worship a president after he's proven himself to be a great president.  This is like naming Lincoln's birthday a federal holiday before his election in 1860.  Ronald Reagan wasn't truly revered until after he left office - while serving, he was still just a flawed politician.

I don't know Denise and I'm sure she's a wonderful person but I'm curious to know if she - and others - really believe this kind of stuff.  Whether it stems from hatred of George W. Bush or fawning admiration for Barack Obama, it begs to be asked:  are we really going to apply religious overtones to our feelings about fellow men?

Is Obama the Manchurian Candidate minus the international conspiracy, supported by zombies and tall-tale-tellers and people so desperate for meaning in their own lives that they are willing to turn a mere (and unaccomplished) politician into a superman?

These guys are, after all, just politicians - yes, even The Obama.  They are flesh and blood just like you and me.  Yes, they are typically privileged and molded for office, they tend to be ambitious and smart and fortunate and they manage to convince a majority or plurality of voters to support them.  Bush is not going bring about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and Obama is not going to part the Red Sea.  When Bush leaves office in less than five months, he will have left some things better and some things worse.  When President Obama or McCain leave office in four or eight years, they will have left behind some things for the better, some for the worse.

The country is bigger than one man and history is bigger than most men.  There are 535 members of Congress who collectively have more influence than the president.  There is a judicial system that, while imperfect, can do things the president can not do.  The presidency is bigger than any other individual perhaps, but not any other body of government in our system.

One of my most consistently applicable and repeated critiques of the Left in the past year has been the line, "To the Left, it's not about the 'what' - it's about the 'who'." 

Barack Obama is the culmination of that trait.

I was in the kitchen of a woman recently who I didn't know well but knew was a committed Democrat.  She asked me if I thought McCain had a chance and I said, "Sure, I think McCain has a great chance."  She sighed and then commented on how depressed she would be if Obama didn't win.

I didn't respond but I was flabbergasted.  Here was a successful, older-than-middle-aged, cultured woman who was going to base her personal happiness on the turnout of an election.  

I want McCain to win.  If he loses, I will be disappointed and concerned - but no one should view the success or failure of a candidate as the be-all, end-all to their own lives.  I will not be depressed if McCain loses.  I will roll up my sleeves and keep doing what I do and fight the fight again in four years.

People need to face up to the very real possibility that Barack Obama is going to lose this election.  It's Obama's lack of a qualifying background that makes the whole worship thing so hard to understand.

So my questions amount to this:  what is Obama's single biggest strength?  What makes people believe that he is the answer to their problems, that he will save the world?  What has he accomplished that would make people believe that he'll accomplish great things (or anything for that matter) in the White House?  Why has the man-child been able to come almost from out of nowhere and capture the minds and hearts and even spiritualness of so many people?

My personal opinion is that it's a sickness - that there is truth to the claim that the Left treats politics like religion with scriptures and temples and prophets and messianic figures and judgment days.  Some of the worst leaders in history have risen to power on these kinds of waves.

My advice for these supporters is to vote, campaign, run for office, stay politically aware, write, organize, contact lawmakers and fight for what you believe in.  But the notion that Obama is going to lead us out of the valley of death makes me wonder:  where exactly is he going to lead us to?

The Obama's position on winning in Iraq is that we never should have been there in the first place.  Barack Obama is trying to present himself as both flexible and inflexible in regards to his stated campaign promise:  "...When I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war."

So does it or does it not matter what is happening in the theater?  Obama says that He will listen to and assess the input from ground force commanders and military brass in regards to when it is and isn't safe to make drastic changes in the Iraq situation.  He also says that as the CIC, He will set a new mission for the generals to achieve, namely getting the troops out.  So what if they oppose that?  Then what?  If He listens to generals who are troubled by His mission, does He consider abandoning His mission?  Or does He act in accordance with one of his previous positions which was to more or less blow off the recommendations of the people managing the conflict?  If a turn for the worse or a turn for the better...does either really matter? 

That approach ignores five years of living history on which demonstrates that it is vital that a president be flexible enough and observant enough to know that saying that 'we should have never ousted Saddam Hussein from power (because with Saddam in power, all of our problems would be gone)' is not a strategy.

How are we to trust a commander-in-chief who ignores all data from an ongoing war and all input from it's commanders to make his decisions based on the post-toddler position of 'we shouldn't have gone there in the first place'?  I still don't get Obama's view that losing in Iraq will help us win in Afghanistan, which, even if it's true - and it's not - it's like saying if I sell my Mercedes that will help me buy a Ford Taurus and then I can attract an entire new class of women.   It's sophomoric.  And it's based on a lie.

I stated some time ago that if we were to abandon Iraq when Harry Reid and Barack Obama wanted to do so a year-and-a-half ago, there would be no point or hope of continuing the fight in Afghanistan or elsewhere (though the fighting would continue).  Handing the enemy the method on how to defeat the US military - or more accurately, defeat the US Congress - would ensure that it is repeated, with more determination and confidence than previously displayed.

The whole take-from-Iraq-and-give-to-Afghanistan plan is based on a lie.  A big lie.  From the ground up.

We'll get to the lie.  First, the motivation behind this Obama position.  It about represents the safest position that Obama could take on the war.  He can end the war in Iraq "without preconditions" and appease his anti-war handlers.  He can also put at ease some of the hawks and moderates who believe that Al Qaeda must be defeated <em>somewhere</em>.  It may become more difficult, as November approaches, to convince people that abandoning Iraq on a phony pretext is the way to go since Rasmussen is reporting that for the first time since 2004, a majority of Americans believe we are winning the war.  Regardless, Obama maintains the perception of sanity by not pulling out of both Iraq <em>and</em> Afghanistan - which fits in perfectly with the big lie and clumsily reaches out to supporters of the war without compromising the base and propping up the lie:  the lie that the Left has always supported the mission in Afghanistan.

One of my more satisfying moments as a blogger was a few years ago when an outspoken nemesis claimed that his opposition to the Iraq War was rationalized by the fact that he supported the Afghanistan invasion.   I confronted him on it, he stuck to his story and I was fortunately able to produce exchanges I had with him in early 2002 where he clearly and passionately opposed invading Afghanistan.  Is there a conservative who was blogging during the months after 9/11 who didn't debate people opposed to invading Afghanistan?  Those people gave many of the same arguments against Afghanistan as they would against Iraq a little over a year later.  But during the buildup to Iraq, suddenly you had to search for a leftist who opposed Afghanistan.

Why is that?  Especially considering that just during the first days of the Afghanistan war the anti-war left was already smearing the invasion with much of the same language and claims that they later used for Iraq.  On October 31, 2001, just three weeks into the war the NY Times asked, "Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam?".  MediaMonitorNetworks reported on November 21, 2001 (a week after Kabul fell to the Americans and a week before Mullah 'Cyclops' Omar fled Kandahar) with another question, "Is Afghanistan slipping into a quagmire?" 

Time Magazine reported on October 31, 2001 , that because the "war in Afghanistan drags on without any bankable signs of progress" [in it's third week of American's running roughshod over the Taliban!] they declared the "Halloween Word for the Pundits" was "Quagmire".  In a country where the Soviets struggled for ten years, American boots had barely hit the sand before opponents were calling it not only a quagmire, but lost.  Anti-war comments were peppered with mockery of the mission after our failure to capture bin Laden in the initial run.  The obligatory invocation of Vietnam emerged.

The Left didn't want to go in and they didn't see or necessarily care for a victory there - after all, only 88% of Americans supported that war; someone was against it!  So why the change of heart and where precisely did it emerge?

The Left now will claim (in alliance with Obama) that being in Iraq is distracting us from the goal of capturing and destroying the organizations that perpetrated the September 11 attacks.  That concerns them now when all conventional wisdom says that AQ leadership is hiding in Pakistan.  In 2001, it didn't seem to matter that the leaders behind the attack were actually in Afghanistan daring us to invade.  People who opposed the Afghanistan invasion for the usual laundry list of reasons are now eager to get back to the fight there, even tap dancing around the possibility that a confrontation with a nuclear armed nation of 168 million Muslims might be considered in the efforts to capture a handful of men.

Democrats become incessant about wars with setbacks but are quick to get America involved in some of the bloodiest confrontations in our history.  Afghanistan was a sure-loser; Iraq was a sure-loser.  Now that Iraq is begin to become shielded against the ritualistic claims of Leftist prophets, their answer is to move troops back into the other sure-loser.  Since it's not enough of a sure-loser, let's throw Pakistan into the mix - it's better to have a hostile nuclear threat than an unstable and flawed ally.

But that is now; this was then.  Since seizing Afghanistan from the Taliban was such a quick and resounding success and more questions could be fueled about the necessity or legitimacy of invading Iraq, the Left managed to move stealth-like from opposing the first war to opposing the second.  After establishing an echo-chamber for attempting to stop the Iraq invasion, suddenly the Afghanistan war that they opposed became their own political tool.  An Iraq invasion would never be as popular as the Afghanistan invasion and they capitalized on that by doing what they do best:  rewriting history.  By hitching on to the Afghanistan cart they could use that to legitimize their contempt for ousting Saddam Hussein.  After all, Leftist-prophets could paint their pictures of doom and gloom with reason and rationale because...they backed the previous invasion.  They weren't just anti-war mouthpieces - they were selectively opposing an Iraq invasion based on substance rather than fanatically opposing it based on political ideals.

In the years since the Iraq invasion, Afghanistan suddenly turned into the war that Leftists wanted to win, or at least fight.  Some of the most consistent complaints during Iraq's post-invasion era was that we were distracted from fighting in Afghanistan, that it was now, years later, imperative to go back and get the perpetrators of 9/11, the very perps they opposed getting in 2001 and the only way to do that would be to lose in Iraq.

The Obama is simply carrying that torch.  Back to my automobile analogy:  

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said, "Afghanistan is running out of targets."  Or infamously said if you buy into the way his words were spun by the Left.

The point is that the war on terror has been about getting Osama bin Laden.  But of course in a world that doesn't fold up neatly like the pages of The Nation publication the war has been about so much more and Iraq was intricate to much of it.  Osama may not have been in Iraq but Saddam Hussein was.  Hussein was the most open and hostile state supporter of international terrorism in the world, in conflict with the Bush Doctrine of 2001.  Iraq is positioned in the heart of the middle east;  Afghanistan is not.  Iraq has infrastructure; Afghanistan does not.  Iraq has oil; Afghanistan has a pipe.

For good measure, add Saddam's history of invasions, use of wmds against civilian populations, his threats against the US, his financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers, his multiple violations of ceasefire resolutions, including his consistent attacks against no-fly-zone enforcements...the question almost becomes, 'In what world wouldn't we move from Afghanistan to Iraq?'  

War with Saddam Hussein was surely inevitable.  I have no doubt in my mind that even had we not invaded in March of 2003, we would still be in Iraq today, only with a more complex geopolitical layout and more questions than answers on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Win in Iraq, President Obama - and win decisively.  Then maybe you won't have to start all over from the ground up in Afghanistan, which is no more appealing today than it was seven years ago, despite the political advantages of pretending it is so. 

We can go back to any campaign of any politician and (correctly or incorrectly) attribute spin and lies to a candidate.  Senator Barack Obama, lacking substance and experience, appears poised to win an election based on lie after lie. 

This is to be the first in what I feel is going to be an extensive series in the next 13 weeks.  From his claims regarding his history with the United Trinity Church (what did he know about Jeremiah Wright and when did he know it?) to his claims to have 20 years of public service; from stating that all Americans should learn Spanish and French as second languages (he speaks neither) to his strategy of losing in Iraq in order to win in Afghanistan (almost entirely based on lies); from his stance that he's willing to debate John McCain (after refusing every attempt by McCain to do so) to the motivation of his Kenyan father in emigrating to America - candidate Obama is very much like candidate Bill Clinton without the political background.  Anyone recall the repeated staged drama of women fainting at Obama rally-after-rally earlier this year?

My views of Obama over the months have progressed from curiosity and admiration to disbelief and contempt.  I already knew that politically I would be opposed to Obama but there are Democrats who I disagree with and respect.  Barack Obama is not one of them.

The first lie to cover appropriately is the most recent:  Obama's response to his opponent, Senator John McCain.  McCain has been going after Obama for his lack of experience and his poor judgment.  A recent campaign ad refers to Obama, the celebrity cult-of-personality while depicting images of tabloid superstars like Paris Hilton.  The ad then goes on to address differences between the candidates on nuclear energy and oil drilling.  

Obama's response, made at a campaign stop in Missouri - and repeated in other speeches - has made waves in media because he has done what many of us viewed as inevitable:  he injected racial victimization.

The first question is:  who are "they"?  Bush has said little about Obama.  McCain has said nothing about Obama's name, race or ethnicity.  Not in the aforementioned ad; not ever.  McCain has responded swiftly to people supposedly representing his campaign who have tried to bring Obama's name and race into play.  As I've said in the past, there is plenty to run against Obama on - these trivial and divisive messages are unnecessary.  McCain out does Obama in virtually every measurable trait that we use to determine a president's qualifications.  Even if McCain could get traction from sinking to these levels, he doesn't need it to demonstrate that he would be a better president.

Obama makes the dollar bill statement in a way that suggests that McCain or his campaign have ever compared Barack Obama physically to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln (Obama did insert the five dollar bill in once performance).  It's simply not true and not only is the sentiment a lie, but as the counterattack this was staged as, it's downright false.  It implies something that has never been suggested by the McCain campaign.

Of course when a politician or a candidate lies, it is often followed up with more lies through efforts of damage control.  The McCain campaign responded by saying that Obama "played the race card - from the bottom of the deck."

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs denied it:

This appears to be the standard from Democrats defending Obama or attacking McCain:  take a statement and make up whatever you want in describing it.  They did it to McCain in regards with the '100 years of war in Iraq' lie.  They did it repeatedly throughout the Jeremiah Wright scandal.  They do it now by redirecting Obama's words to mean something that they didn't even come close to saying.

After a couple of days of Obama defenders trying to explain, as Gibbs did, that it wasn't about race,  another key member of Obama's campaign, David Axelrod, admitted that Obama was drawing a distinction between himself and past presidents, summing it up with, "Yes, he's African-American."

I'm just waiting for Barack Obama to announce at some point that he is in fact not black, that it's all just a smear designed by the McCain camp to hurt his chances in the general election.

Paris Hilton doesn't exactly look like George Washington either.  Maybe if she runs for local office now, she can be the Democratic front runner in 2012.  She just might be more trustworthy than Obama.

 

Most people paying attention are aware of some of John McCain's story involving his military service and the five and a half years he spent as a Vietnam prisoner-of-war.  What many may not appreciate is just how riveting and inspiring his history has been and why it should be relevant to this campaign.

In 2004, incumbent George W. Bush was challenged by Senator John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam vet who injected his brief albeit daring service in Vietnam into the campaign at every turn with virtually no references to his nearly three decades serving in Congress.  His surrogates and supporters made sure that his service was very much relevant to the election.   Kerry was more qualified than Bush because Kerry served in Vietnam and Bush was in the Texas National Guard, which was decried as inconsequential because Bush's connections kept him out of Vietnam and that he allegedly abandoned his service at some opportune moment.

Here we are in 2008 and the tables have more than turned on this sort of distinction - they have been obliterated.  The Democratic nominee has never worn the uniform of any branch of service whilst his GOP opponent has a military background that can be mirrored by very few.

Revisiting some of the leftist rhetoric of the 2004 campaign, we should first observe Michael Moore, who has been strangely quiet during this campaign season.  Moore famously asked in 2004, "Would you sacrifice your son to secure Fallujah?" and in his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, stalked Republican congressmen asking them why their children weren't serving.  Which brings us to the first thing you may not know about John McCain, largely because he virtually never talks about it:

Jack and Jimmy McCain

McCain's two sons are currently in the US military.  Jack recently graduated from the Naval Academy and Jimmy, a lance corporal, recently returned from two tours in Iraq.   Just as John McCain's father was Commander-in Chief, Pacific Command while John was serving in Vietnam, the candidate may very well be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces while both of his sons are vulnerable to additional combat in the war against terrorists.  And Jimmy McCain didn't just merely enlist of his own accord - he was 17 when he insisted on joining and his parents had to give consent to make it happen.  

President McCain offers the Michael Moore crowd exactly what they required in 2004 - a Republican leader willing to sacrifice his children for a war he believes in.  While Moore seemed confused on the notion that parents don't enlist their children in the military, in a sense Cindy McCain did just that.

John McCain's mere service in itself should inspire these leftists who attempted to make it a core argument in 2004:  a Commander-in-Chief must have combat experience.  In 2008, one of the candidates may have broken bread in the past with a terrorist bomber (targeting US institutions) but the other had actually flown dangerous bombing missions in Vietnam.  Not only had McCain flew 23 missions before being shot down and captured in 1967 but:

McCain the Volunteer 

Despite numerous close-calls on his life during his earlier years as a naval aviator, McCain volunteered for increasingly dangerous tours, ultimately ending up with the VA-163 Saints, which took on some of the most dangerous missions during Operation Rolling Thunder and suffered some of the heaviest losses.  Once in, McCain likewise volunteered for the most dangerous flying missions, which ultimately led to his capture as a prisoner-of-war.

While John Kerry returned from Vietnam and immediately channeled his four months of combat experience into a loathsome political agenda, McCain returned from a half-decade of imprisonment, torture and massive injuries to continue to serve his country in the Navy for another eight years.  Although he had surgeries and grueling physical therapy, he never fully recovered physically from his ordeal.  Here was a man who had to work to get his knees to bend again and never regained full use of his arms, but his efforts did manage to allow him to pass the physicals required to be able to fly again, albeit temporarily.  In 1981, McCain, having accepted his physical limitations and thus, his career limitations in the Navy, resigned from service with the belief that he could serve his country better in Congress.

A Medal And A Chest To Pin It On 

While the controversy in 2004 over John Kerry's medals from his Vietnam service was never settled, it was made clear by his supporters that those medals were symbolic of the man and his ability to be president.  Depending on the discussion, it was either important that he won them, important that he tossed them over a fence during a protest or important that he didn't.   While Kerry has been awarded a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, Purple Hearts and Green Clovers, John McCain has been awarded the following:

Silver Star

Legion of Merit with Combat V and one gold star

Distinguished Flying Cross

Bronze Star with Combat V and two gold stars

Purple Heart with one gold star

Meritorious Service Medal

Air Medal with one bronze star and Numeral "2"

Navy Commendation Medal with Combat V and one gold star

Combat Action Ribbon

Prisoner of War Medal

Navy Expeditionary Medal (Cuban quarantine)

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Cuban quarantine)

National Defense Service Medal

Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze stars

National Order of Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam)

Vietnam Campaign Medal with device (Republic of Vietnam)

What was important to Democrats in 2004 will most likely be downplayed and belittled in 2008, despite the fact that the GOP contender in 2008 excels in matters that were trumpeted important by the left in 2004.  John McCain has gone through experiences that most Americans can't comprehend and despite stories of his youthful arrogance and tough-guy persona, performed in ways that most Americans can only fantasize about - real life experiences, choices and sacrifices only worthy of the most far-fetched military depictions of John Wayne influenced Hollywood films.  Perhaps the most impressive thing about John McCain is that the terror he suffered through (and voluntarily submitted himself to) didn't cripple him as a person; McCain not only survived, but he succeeded in life, not becoming a slave to the horrors he lived through.

There is so much more to McCain's story.  We can't rely on the mainstream media to inform the voting public of what is truly one of the most amazing backgrounds of any presidential candidate in recent history and we apparently shouldn't expect to see McCain apply a John-Kerry approach to his own background.  It can't all be covered in one short article.   John McCain has demonstrated that he is courageous, principled and a man of honor, a true patriot in every sense of the word.  While this alone doesn't guarantee him the presidency (nor should it), any assessment of John McCain - and of this race - is incomplete without full disclosure of his naked heroism and self-sacrifice.

Barack Obama, through no fault of his own, lacks these traits.  He also lacks McCain's extensive political background, his record of bipartisanship and his willingness to break with traditional party and ideological dogma in order to pursue his own principles while maintaining a conservative backbone.  Not getting McCain's story into the mainstream American conscience before November is a disservice to the country and to the war effort and amounts to election thievery.

Take 20 minutes and read the page dedicated on Wikipedia to McCain's military service.  The tale should impact any clear-thinking American not blinded by sheer Obama-mania.

I've finally come up with a tentative endorsement for the next president of the United States.  If you would have asked me a year ago if I thought I would still be undecided just days away from the Iowa Caucus I would have probably laughed.  We had good candidates testing the waters and other good candidates waiting in the back drop.  But here we are.

If there is time to 'vote your conscience' then obviously it's during a primary match-up.  It requires a combination of selecting a candidate who can change the Party in the direction you want it to go and win in the general election.

And there is a third facet which so many adhere to above all others:  selecting the person who you personally like the most, who shares most of your views or who makes you feel good, with no regard to the Party, the election, the office or the potential of the candidate.

One of my trademark sayings is "idealism is fine until it butts heads with reality".  If you aren't prepared to deal with reality when conducting this sacred exercise than what are you really expecting to accomplish?

There were over 120 million votes cast in the 2004 presidential election.  You are not casting a vote for your own little island, even if somewhere in your childhood you were convinced that this were so.  Supporting a candidate is of course done with some element of the personal involved; however, it shouldn't be all personal.  There is a difference between voting with your heart and voting with your head.

One of the more tiring buzz-terms that gets recycled every election year is the adage of voting for the lesser of two evils.  It's an ignorant claim made by hyper-cynical people who think the path to enlightenment requires an outsider mentality.  That argument could be made when there are no good choices or contrasting choices but the reality is that both sides (and especially the Republicans) aren't suffering from not enough good choices but rather from too many good choices.   That doesn't relegate me to making a painful choice between two evils.  And when the Republican takes on the Democrat in November, I will have a clear choice between a candidate who will move the country in the direction I want it to go and a candidate who will move the country in the opposite direction.  

It's not about choosing the lesser of two evils; it's about making the best choice. 

And here is my rundown, my countdown if you will:

8. Alan Keyes:  out of the question.  I don't have much more to say.  The guy is certifiable and an embarrassment to the Party.

7. Ron Paul:  out of the question.  A likable guy?  Yes.  Do I share some of his political philosophy? Yes.  But nutty as a fruitcake and supported by many of the worst elements in society.  He has been an ineffective political leader and has no chance of winning the primary or the general election.  If he miraculously accomplished both, he would face obstruction from both parties.  He is a disaster in every sense of the word.  I most likely would not support Ron Paul in the general election.

6. Duncan Hunter:  I like Duncan Hunter.  A lot.  But he was never a real candidate and I'm not going to give my support to someone who is not in to win.

5. Mike Huckabee:  doesn't excite me.  I have problems with some of his platform but in the general election, I would see him as the candidate that keeps the country on track.  I wouldn't support him in the primary however because I don't think he could win in November.

4. Mitt Romney:  I was very interested in Romney in the beginning.  He never really connected with me and his campaign has unfortunately been held hostage under the shadow of his religion.   I do like him however and think that he has a knack for getting things done.  I would be happy to support him in November.  But again, I think winning in November would be a steep uphill climb for him.

3. Fred Thompson:  I like Fred, I think he would make a good president.  I'm sorry that his campaign didn't catch fire like some of us thought it might when he joined in the race.  He is great when he is on target and when he exercised that charming and sharp, no-nonsense Southern wit of his.   He is a solid conservative.  But he has to campaign like he wants it and I don't think he's convinced enough voters that he does.  I would enthusiastically support him in the general, but his campaign would have to light a fire under him if he would expect to beat any of the Big Three Democrats.

And finally, the problem I face:  who am I going to back for the Republican nomination in the weeks to come?  I'm split almost 50-50 between these two guys and I'm truly torn.

Both of them have solid and patriotic political backgrounds.   Both have records they can boast.  Both are icons in the post-911 conflict.  Both support winning.  Both have the right economic vision.  Both have run good campaigns.  And either of them could very realistically win in November.  

2. Rudy Giuliani:  I've always liked Giuliani.  I think he deserves the Republican nomination.  As recently as last week I have been telling people that he would be my guy.  He's an effective politician and I have yet to see any real counter against the miraculous turn around of New York City, the nation's largest and at the time, more troubling cities.  He left an undeniable positive impact on the city.  He boasts his accomplishments as he should.  While a Hillary Clinton slogan is that she has always cared about children, Giuliani's slogan is that abortions decreased and adoptions increased under his leadership.  He, unlike some his Republican rivals and virtually all of his Democratic rivals, has real and undeniable results he can point to.  And yes, despite opponents to Giuliani's insistence that it's limited or inconsequential, his leadership on 9/11 is a valuable asset to his campaign.  How a leader acts in the face of the unfathomable should have an immeasurable weight on how we assess that candidate.

1. And finally, my support for the next president goes to John McCain.  A year ago McCain would have been near my 'out of the question' level because the man has done some things to infuriate me.  But in hindsight I have to give him credit:  some of the things I thought he was wrong on...he proved himself right.  He was wrong on opposing the Bush tax cuts but he was right on opposing them on the grounds that they didn't include spending cuts.  That should be reassuring to conservatives.

I was angry over the 'Gang of 14' stunt - but in the end, he was proven right.  He got the Democrats to back off while preserving the filibuster.

I thought he was wrong on his insistence that greater force was the answer in Iraq.  This summer's troop surge in the war that Harry Reid dubbed "lost" nine months ago proves McCain right.

Despite the rhetoric surrounding Ron Paul, John McCain is the true fiscal conservative.  He has been a fighter against government waste, rejects earmarks and opposes agricultural subsidies.

McCain was obviously wrong on campaign finance reform and I believe him when he acknowledges it as a mistake. 

The biggest problem I have with McCain is his position on interrogations.  I'm not going to even try to question or challenge his perspective on torture (and very of us should) - though I don't agree with his view on waterboarding.   But I don't think any leader in Washington at a time like this should be advertising our intelligence gathering techniques or limitations.   

To put the icing on the cake, McCain is the only Republican candidate who polls with the best chance of defeating each of the Democratic candidates.  RealClearPolitics national poll averages shows that he is the only candidate who beats Hillary.  He ties Obama and he is within a few points of Edwards.  He would be a more legitimate Commander-in-Chief in that he has served (and then some) and has two sons currently serving overseas.  I say legitimate in that it would end the 'chickenhawk' rants once and for all.  He has name recognition and has run the cleanest and most stately campaigns of all of the candidates - he is often the straightest talker on divisive issues and has been a gentleman throughout the campaign.

John McCain walks softly and carries a big stick.

So there you have it.  It's not to say that I may be swept with an urge to pull for Giuliani as I'm approaching the polling booth, but as of now, my support and my money are with John McCain, the next president of the United States.

Happy New Year.  We're not only ringing in a new year but we are also heading into the final year of the historic two term presidency of George W. Bush.  Love him or hate him, it's practically impossible to deny that this has been a fascinating and impacting decade in US politics and world affairs.

TIME Magazine named President Bush 2004's Person of the Year with the caption "American Revolutionary".  This was on the heels of a decisive and energetic victory over his opponent in the 2004 election.  His opponent in name was John F. Kerry but in reality his opponent was a composite of opposition from much of the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, the higher education establishment, political organizations and 527's sharpening their teeth for the first time (and propelled by big money machines like George Soros) and vocal activists like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. 

It was said that Bush couldn't win with approval numbers under 50%.  It was said that Bush couldn't win in the face of propaganda like Fahrenheit 9/11.  It was said that Bush couldn't win against a war hero.  It was said that Bush couldn't win with an increasingly unpopular war hanging over his head.

The election drew record numbers of voters and George Bush, who had previously fooled a couple dozen Democrats into voting to support a war that they didn't really support, fooled them all again by being the first candidate to win the presidency with a majority of votes since his father did in 1988 and by securing the most votes ever received by a presidential candidate in American history.  As an added bonus, he defeated a candidate who received the second most votes ever recorded.

What is so great about George W. Bush?  Rather than focusing on policy and political successes and failures, I would like to take this time to give him credit in areas that he doesn't get much (if any) recognition for:  his legacy as leader who defied odds and defied the new status quo in public opinion and did it with political diplomacy and unyielding optimism.

George Bush ran in 2000 on the promise to bring "honor and dignity to the White House" and to "clean up the toxic environment in Washington, D.C."   While Bush's critics will never allow this to be accepted, George Bush has done just that.  At least on his end.  I have stated in the past that these days it seems that having a Democratic president is like having your brother in the White House; having a Republican in office is like having your father in the White House.  

Former FBI agent (assigned to the White House) Gary Aldrich's 1998 book "Unlimited Access" details the atmosphere in the Bill Clinton White House and the sharp contrast in how the White House was managed between his former boss, George H. W. Bush and the Clintons.  Out went the suits and in came the cut-offs and t-shirts.  The Clinton White House was a virtual hillbilly circus, stacked with relatives and 'friends of Bill' whose only qualifications for the job were that they were acquaintances of the Clintons, donated or were low level campaign volunteers. And the next eight years proved to be the most scandal-ridden administration in history.

Then the suits returned. 

It seems that George Bush kept his word.  Taking office on the heels of the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, impeachment and the fateful 2000 election circus, President Bush has largely kept himself above the fray.  For such a controversial administration, there has been very little in the name of scandals that have stuck.  The current Congress has launched hundreds upon hundreds of investigations and charges against the administration amid a constant drumbeat of cries for impeachment.  At least it should be noted that Bush's alleged scandals were usually policy related and his predecessors scandals were more often than not about anything but policy.

While previous administrations like Clinton and Reagan saw their share of polarization and bitterness, nothing compares to what the current president has had to endure.  If we were to add up every accusation and offensive comment lobbed at the president in the last seven years, Bush would appear to be Adolf Hitler, Benedit Arnold, Genghis Kahn, Darth Vader, Dr. Evil and Howdy Doody all rolled into one.  Perhaps it should be worth noting that as far as corruption and ill motivations go, his critics have never bothered to compare him to Bill Clinton.  Which would, of course, be crossing the line.

But it would not be crossing any lines by drawing some parallels between George W. Bush and the late, great President Ronald Reagan.  No, this isn't to make a comparison of the two men but to show that there are parallels in how each one was portrayed at the time.

Ronald Reagan's two terms averaged about a 57% approval rating.  Averaging one recurring near bi-weekly poll going back to January of 2001, Bush thus far averages about 53% (though his disapproval numbers are noticeably higher than Reagan's). 

Like Reagan, Bush has been called a simpleton (through a multitude of colorful adjectives) and a reckless cowboy.  Reagan called our enemy at the time an "evil empire"; Bush labeled three terrorist supporting nations as an "axis of evil".  Reagan joked about bombing Russia; Bush joked about being a dictator and both were skewered for it.   Bush wants to kill all Muslims; Reagan wanted to start a nuclear war.  God tells Bush what to do; Reagan was trying to fulfill Biblical prophesy and bring the world to Armageddon (the Left viewed Reagan as an eager nuclear threat the way Conservatives today view Ahmadinejad).    Reagan long believed in an aggressive foreign policy that dealt with our threats head on, against the status quo-commanded fear in the Beltway; ditto for Bush.  Bush wanted black people to die in a hurricane/flood; Reagan wanted homosexuals to die from AIDS.

There were international protests against both men, though Reagan wins in the area of numbers of protesters who rallied for a nuclear freeze.   Both presidents have been compared to Hitler (there are still websites making this comparison to Reagan today) and both were making enemies and losing allies.  

Both presidents handled the rabid hatred of them with class, indifference and humor.  It's unheard of to hear George Bush lash out at his critics or respond to the vitriolic and hyperbolic insults, lies and accusations with his own.  People have tried to paint Bush as a monster since day one and he lets it roll off his back.  Esteemed political opponents have called him a liar and have accused him of sending troops off to die for dubious reasons.  Bush has remained cool under the avalanche of silliness and hostility leveled at him.  To the point that he becomes his own flaw.

Most complaints about the lack of unity and the level of partisanship in national politics comes from the idealist Left or people of 'outsider' politics.  And they of course see President Bush as the great divider, the one responsible for the bitter atmosphere in Washington, a president beholden to corporate masters and Zionist conspirators.  And of course, they are wrong as they are often the same people who echo the vitriol and celebrate when a Democratic politician insults or impugns Bush, or calls for impeachment, or makes horrible accusations.  Psst...you can't have bipartisanship and a 'get along' atmosphere when you're supporting or perpetuating a third grade mentality that functions little more than to increase the bitterness and cheapen public discourse.

And President Bush ignores almost all of it.  While Bush talks like a conservative, the truth is that if you remove the war, his judicial appointments and his adherence to tax cuts out of the equation, Bush has been a very moderate president, including on huge issues like education, foreign aid and immigration.

Yes, George Bush will leave office in a year with a tarnished image.  Much of that is his own fault in that he refused to acknowledge the campaign of destruction that has been relentlessly waged against him.  He failed to counter the propaganda with his own.  No one will ever accuse him of being a "great communicator".

I personally like George W. Bush.  I think he is a sincere person, a serious person, a good person and a real and down to earth guy who has the best intentions.  In contrast to the portrayal made by his opponents, he is not some simple-minded fool being led by dark forces in his administration nor is he some evil, calculating dictator bent on power and destruction.  He has reinstated America as a military might in the world and his policies have led to reforms of one kind or another in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and North Korea.  He led the country out of a bleak economic situation and a devastating terrorist attack into a strong, vibrant economic machine, no longer content with the status quo in how we handled our enemies.  

Like Ronald Reagan's legacy at the time, Bush's is now under siege by his Leftist critics.  But their grip only goes as far as the present.  Like Reagan, history will be the final judge of the Bush presidency.   Bush has been accused of destroying the country and the economy and ruining our image in the world, that he is void of accomplishments, that he is a failed president.  The same mindset behind that also said the same things about President Reagan. 

Extra care has been given to destroying Bush because of the bitterness over the 2000 election.  Gore supporters hated Bush so much for not allowing Gore to steal the election that it would have roots in every attack on Bush made since.  That hatred has led what I'm sure are otherwise rational, well-adjusted and reasonable Americans (ahem!) into seeing President Bush as someone who stages terrorist attacks against his own country just so he can launch a war for financial gain.

While the question of 'who comes up with stuff?' begs to be asked, Bush deserves some credit for not legitimizing these sorry views by entertaining them or responding.

Because he does care about the dignity of the office, I can guarantee one thing that Bush will not do ala Jimmy "worst administration in history" Carter and Bill Clinton:  when his term expires next January, we will not hear George W. Bush running around trashing the next president.

What's so great about George W. Bush?  His patriotism, his resolve, his principles, his steadfastness, his belief in America, his optimism, his refusal to get in the gutter...

Character is king.  Again.

<p align="justify"><font size="2">[for further discussion on this, please visit the&nbsp;Comments posted at Newsvine]&nbsp;</font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2">I&#39;ve long argued that the debate over homosexual marriage was not about anti-gay vs. pro-gay, as it has been commandeered into, but is really about defending marriage vs. destroying marriage.&nbsp; The Washington [state] Defense of Marriage Alliance <a href="<A href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302553_initiative06.html?source=rss">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302553_initiative06.html?source=rss</A>" target="_blank"><strong>displayed</strong></a> their hostility, or at the very least, indifference toward the institution of marriage.&nbsp; At least in the &quot;political theater&quot; sense.&nbsp; </font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2">The group filed Initiative 957 as a reaction to the state Supreme Court&#39;s upholding of the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.&nbsp; If passed,&nbsp;couples in the state of Washington would have three years to produce a child or&nbsp;have their marriage annulled by the state.&nbsp; The logic of course is that the DOMA&nbsp;says that a marriage is between a man and a woman and expresses the states &#39;interest in furthering procreation&#39;.&nbsp; So, if people aren&#39;t procreating...then they shouldn&#39;t be married.</font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2">If someone thinks that on it&#39;s merits - if passed -&nbsp;this is logical and would be a good thing...I&#39;d love to&nbsp;know why.&nbsp; &nbsp;Otherwise, I&#39;m going to assume that I don&#39;t have to point out the many substantive flaws this proposal has.&nbsp; After all, we&#39;re translating &#39;state interest&#39; to mean state mandate.</font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2">The WDMA itself calls it &quot;absurd&quot; and admits that it&#39;s just to get attention.&nbsp; I wonder if the abortion industry perked their ears up when they heard about this.&nbsp; After all, this would declare that we don&#39;t have a Right to our body, stabbing at the very center of the universe for pro-abortionists.&nbsp; On the flip side, if government can use coercion to force people to have children, then why not government forced abortions?&nbsp; We can have the three-year rule <em>and</em> a Chinese-style control over our families!&nbsp; But I digress...</font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2">The WDMA is