Conservative Review |
||
Issue #22 |
Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views |
April 27, 2008 |
Who is Obama?
We have to be reasonable and logical here. Obama did not just wake up one day, think, “I would like to be president” and then start campaigning the next day. Something had to occur between the thought and the campaign. All presidential candidates are packaged, in one way or another. Slogans are developed (American’s Mayor), life narratives are established, and one or more people other than the candidate make some hard decisions in order to package their candidate. There is nothing wrong with this process, as, to some extent, a politician has to reach the lowest common denominator, and, when dealing with the American public, that can involve reaching way, way down. Even though many of us wish the presidential race could be issue-driven, for many voters, that is just not the case. As Rush Limbaugh often says, “It is what it is.”
What is different about Barack Obama is the way that he was packaged. Certain key phrases had to be associated with him: the candidate of change, of hope; the one who can change the way things are done in Washington.
He writes a book. I am sure that Obama’s mind was focused on high office when he wrote and published this book. The book also did something very clever: Obama had very little dirt in his past, but he does have some. He lays it out in the book, so that no one can be surprised by any personal revelations which may come out about him.
Once the general picture has been established, then no doubt, there are behind the scenes deals which are made. People are contacted, the possible candidacy is discussed, some are brought on board and others are made aware of what is happening. Alliances are made in advance and alliances are made organically as the campaign begins.
Then, how does one get the message out? Obama chose a number of soft venues. Ellen’s show, Dave Letterman, Oprah. Certain venues are avoided: FoxNews for instance, was shunned completely by Obama (until today on Chris Wallace’s program). Many of the interviewers on FoxNews (like Brit Hume or Bill O’Reilly) would give Obama an hour, but he won’t take it.
Not all of this is completely calculated out. Like any war, you adjust to changing circumstances.
What Obama did was, give a lot of general speeches in rallies and he comes onto soft forums, where no one digs too deeply into his character or positions.
What is not commonly reported is, Obama does not just speak about change, the corruption that is Washington, and hope. At many of his rallies, he sets out very specific political positions and programs, many of which can be found at his website as well. These positions are rarely reported on by the press (not by mainstream media and not by the new conservative/less biased media).
One of Obama’s positions is, if a baby is born alive during a botched abortion, he believes that the doctor may kill this baby, and he has voted this way (this is the 2002 the Born Alive Infant Protection Package—SB 1661) while serving in the Illinois State Legislature. Obama is willing to take a position; but the press rarely reports on any of his positions.
Obama does have a political past, and this is essentially ignored by the media; although I covered it a few issues back, which I based upon a Houston Press story by someone who knew Obama way back when (and supports him).
You reach the masses with the words hope and change. You speak to your faithful of specifics. I can guarantee you that what he says to who was focus group tested. I don’t know when or how, but I am sure that it was done. I am not saying that any of this is wrong. It is what it is, and these things are not confined to Obama’s campaign by any means. I don’t doubt that almost every candidate thoroughly approaches their candidacy behind the scenes in this way, apart from, perhaps, Ron Paul, Gravel and Kucinich. Obama was well-packaged and ready from day one for his campaign.
Now, what is not brought out in the open? For the most part, few people know anything about Obama, other than he was against the Iraq war and still is; and that he wants government-run health care (at least, to some extent). Almost no one among his supporters knows that he has any sort of a legislative record, but he does have one, which was covered extensively in a previous issue.
Here are the kinds of things which are coming out: his wife calls America a mean country and has only recently been proud of her country; despite the fact that she went to Harvard and Princeton and has been making nearly $400,000/year. In one speech, she counseled those listening to her not to get into the private sector (as she had done), but to get involved in volunteer work. When she was called an elitist, she started speaking English like she had barely graduated from high school, sounding (in my opinion) intentionally stupid. However, when she mentioned how she was a product of public education, all of a sudden, she stopped mispronouncing her words and she began to speak in complete sentences. The links to this can be found in a previous issue of Conservative Review; and by searching www.youtube.com. It personally stuck me as being very phoney (like Senator Clinton trying to speak like a Black woman before a Black crowd).
Michelle Obama and Barack are friends with William Aryes and Bernadette Dorne, two radicals from the 60's who were involved in the bombing of various government buildings. I have heard that people have died in those bombings, but I cannot confirm that. They had turned themselves in, but they were not convicted because of a technicality. How closely the Obama’s are associated with this couple is unclear. Ayres held the fundraiser in his home which kicked off Obama’s state Senate seat run; they’ve given speeches together, they have served on boards together. Now, Ayres and Dorne are not sorry for what they did and their views are almost as radical as they were in the 60's. They do not appear to be blowing thing up anymore, however.
Obama has gone to the church of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, but he quickly points out that the things which we have seen on TV and the Internet were things which he had never seen and he condemns the words. He also quickly points out that he never reads the church bulletin, which apparently carries pro-Hamas articles and other radical nonsense. Obama was aware of something about Wright, as he dis-invited him to his presidential campaign kickoff a year before the Wright controversy came to light. In Obama’s interview today, Chris Wallace asked him what statements caused him to dis-invite the Reverent Wright, and Obama said something about his strong stance of Black issues and Black men not stepping up (I do not recall the exact quote). Obama did not admit to hearing any particular anti-American statements, although he was not completely clear about what he did or did not hear. The Wallace interview is the closest Obama has ever come to saying anything about what he heard in Wright’s church which gave him pause.
Now, Obama can go to a radical far-left church for 20 years and not know what was taught; and yet most of us can google Trinity Church of Christ and understand in less than 60 minutes what this church is all about. This either means that Obama is very stupid (which he is not) or he is lying about what he knew about Wright and the church (Obama is a politician, which should help to explain what he has said). How he knew to dis-invite Wright a year before Wright was generally known to be controversial, and yet claim not to realize what went on in this church just does not add up. He is simply not being truthful.
Also, as I have pointed out before, watch these pieces of Wright’s sermons and look at the people; they are not shocked by what Wright says, they are jazzed up and excited and clapping. So these statements could not have just come out of the blue. Wright did not just say a few screwy things, which shocked his congregation; they loved it. Anyone can see that in the videos. I have personally listened to an entire Wright sermon, which contains some of the most offensive remarks, and they are not taken out of context (complete sermons can be found on www.youtube.com). What we hear is what Wright meant to say. I have heard Alan Combs say again and again, “If you listen to the sermon, you can tell he is quoting someone else.” Wright was quoting someone else, and it is clear from the entire sermon that he agrees wit this quote, that America’s chickens have come home to roost.
As an aside, there is a good article on the context of Jeremiah Wright’s ravings:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/24/the-wright-stuff-abc-provides-the-context/
There is Obama’s own comment, when he thought he was not being heard by anyone but fundraisers in San Francisco, when he spoke about the rural hicks in Pennsylvania, how government was not doing enough for them, so they were clinging to their guns and to their religion and to antipathy toward those who are not like them. I don’t think he misspoke; I think that is what he meant to say to that audience, and then he had to clean things up when it got out.
One more thing: when the Wright controversy occurred, Obama was right there making all the talk shows the next morning, saying one thing. A day later, he said something else; a couple days later, Obama said something else. If you follow politics as closely as I have, Obama gave several takes on this over the week that followed, until he found a take which worked.
When this comment that Obama made in SF got out, he first came out and said that he did not say that exactly; then it became clear the audio was out there, and he tried to explain what he meant. Later, he blamed the media. Again, if you followed the story closely, he takes several positions, and then settles on one which works (remember Clinton and giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens? Same deal).
In both instances, Obama came up with a variety of stories until he decided to stick with just one at the end.
When in Texas, when quizzed by our press about Tony Rezko, he walked away from the reporters saying, “Give me a break, guys, I answered like 8 questions already.” He is not ready to be grilled by the press at large.
The newest revelation is that there is an official Obama campaign blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, who has spent time in France participating in labor riots, has written for a socialist magazine, hung a communist flag in his home, and was a fan of Marx while at Harvard. I personally do not know enough about this person to know whether they are paid by the Obama campaign (it appears that he is) nor do I know anything else about him, apart from a recent article by Warner Todd Huston:
I did have problems locating this article, even with the link, and had to do a search using the keywords Obama blogger in order to find this story. If this article is accurate, it introduces yet another problem for Obama, as well as giving us insight into those who are really behind him.
There are things which get past most of us. I have watched the video of Obama giving Hillary Clinton the finger over and over again, and I think that this was an intentional gesture. Bill O’Reilly, on the other hand, believes it to be an unconscious gesture, and means nothing.
However, during the same speech, Obama gives another gesture, which no one thinks is accidental; the dusting off his own shoulder when speaking of Senator Clinton. For the unlearned, this is from Jay-Z’s rap song, “Dust off your Shoulder.” One can argue that Obama knows nothing about Jay-Z and was just doing that to be cool in front of his younger audience (who would get the drift, while we old farts miss the reference). I have done and said things to be cool when I was a teacher, without understanding any of the complete social ramifications of what I was doing. But, I am sure that Obama understood at least some of the Jay-Z reference that he was making.
Brent Bozell discusses this at:
http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/bozell.asp
Whether Obama understood completely the culture he was appealing to, or the implications, is certainly a matter of debate. However, for him to use this clear hand sign makes me more likely to believe that his finger sign toward Hillary was intentional.
The reason that all these things are important is, they add up to something. We know about the man through his associations; through the people he chooses to associate with and to marry. He has intentionally avoided tough forums for a full year (the exceptions being the Chris Wallace interview today and the 21st debate).
So, here is what I know about Obama: he will lie, he will give intentionally evasive answers, he will avoid tough venues (he had no idea what to expect at this 21st debate, and his answers showed that clearly); and he associates with far, far-left people. He is not something new and something different; he is just a politician running a generally excellent campaign, who is favored by most of the press, and he is not at all above dirty politics. He just acts like he is.
If you are a strong Obama supporter, there is probably nothing I can say to dissuade you. You could see him on YouTube sucking the brains out of infants in order to kill them (a bill which he supported), and it would not change your mind.
No matter where you stand, Obama is a very slick politician—much more so than Clinton or McCain—who offers big government solution to cure all of our woes. If you think the government does everything better, then he is certainly your man.
Expelled!
This is a little movie by Ben Stein which is documentary, released this past week in about a 1000 theaters nationwide. For me, it was a very powerful film, which elicited quite an emotional response from me, particularly at the end.
Ben Stein looks at academia and the stranglehold which evolutionists have on the modern academia in the United States. It is not primarily a debate between Intelligent Design adherents and evolutionists, but more of a commentary on the state of things in science, and how each side of this debate views the other. He believes that schools and science should be places of freedom and not tyranny. Stein interviews about a half-dozen people who are associated with the ID movement. Most of them had lost their jobs over minor indiscretions of mentioning ID (although the institutions which terminated them had a different story; having been terminated from academia, I understand how that goes). Although the thrust of the film was not an argument showing the evidence for ID, there were a few issues brought up; e.g., the incredible complexity of the single cell.
Stein also interviewed an equal number of evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, who wrote “The God Delusion.” Stein was able to get them to give their opinions of ID and its adherents. At the end of the film, he pressed Dawkins for how life actually began, and Dawkins suggested that alien life forms planted organic life here on earth which eventually became all of the species of animals which we see today. Another evolutionist explained that life could have begun on the backs of crystals, and explained this twice to Stein; and neither time did Stein or I quite get his explanation.
During the last portion of the film, Stein examined one of the possible results of a belief in evolution: Nazi Germany, where the philosophy seemed to be, to create a super-race, and this was done by the elimination of the weak, the feeble, the insane, and the Jews and the Christians. The idea was, they were helping evolution along; survival of the fittest needed some help, and killing millions of people was their approach.
Stein could have examined what happened in Russia, China or Vietnam and Cambodia, where a godless philosophy resulted in the deaths of millions of people because they just did not fit in. He chose not to do that, but it would have been just as easy to tie Darwinism to Marxist political thought (I am serious about that).
For a week, www.rottentomatoes.com left Expelled! off their list of movies, even though it was the 8th highest grossing movie of that past week. It is listed there now with very, very low reviews:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/?critic=creamcrop
The reviews are so low, it is shocking. Although I am sure there are movies somewhere with lower reviews, I don’t know any of them.
Ebert and Roper, who review almost every movie, did not review this movie yet:
Metacritic finally listed Expelled here:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/expellednointelligenceallowed
On a 100 point scale, it was rated between 0 and 50 by the professional critics. Of all the movies out there today (about 70 of them), it has the lowest score (a 20 average rating).
Personally, I was absorbed by the movie. The interviews were good, they did not go on too long; there was a great deal of variety in this film (it is not just interviews with scientists). Almost everything that the scientists said made sense, except for one who spoke about life being formed on the backs of crystals. I felt that it was also even-handed, Richard Dawkins, an atheist and an Darwinist, who had more screen time than almost anyone else in the film, besides Stein.
This film was interesting, well-paced, funny, tragic, scary, and absorbing.
When I went trolling for information on this film when I was thinking about seeing it, I went to yahoo movies, and the message board there was in an uproar over this film. The anger and condescension toward those who do not believe in evolution is palpable. If you post anything in favor of this movie or in favor of any of its ideas, about a dozen people will pile on, so to speak, and call you a variety of names because of being so stupid as to believe that we were created by God.
Here’s the link:
To read the comments of the professional critics, you would think that this is the worst movie of all time. To read the reviews of individual who saw this movie, it sounds like quite the opposite.
Now, I do have two criticisms of the movie, to be fair: the rationale which finds its way into newspapers over and over again is, ID is based upon the fact that everything in life is so complex, that it must have required a greater intelligence to design it. Either Ben Stein or one of the people whom he interviewed, said that was not really the basis for ID or its fundamental argument. However, I walked out of the movie recalling that, but not knowing a different or better argument for ID.
There is also an animated sequence about what I think is an individual cell, but there is no careful narration which explained to me that is what I was observing or explaining the processes which were occurring which I was observing. That could have been made much more perspicuous.
This movie is criticized for drawing a line between Darwinism and Nazism; I think similar lines could be drawn to the massive murders which have been done by Communist dictators in order to further their godless kingdoms. I believe that Stein draws a reasonable connection between Darwinism and the destruction of Jews in Germany. What he does, and how he connects the two, is a much different approach than simply branding someone you don’t like, Hitler (as people have done to President Bush). Stein made a reasonable connection between Darwinism and the destruction of millions of people, who just were not good enough to be a part of the German super-race.
I highly recommend this movie. Reviewers should be out there telling you not to see something because it is bad and/or boring. However, it is pretty clear, these critics simply do not want you to see this move. How else can one justify giving this movie just about the lowest score of all time.
Oh, and my sister-in-law who despises mass mailings emailed everyone that she knows and told them to go watch it.
Obama Interview with Chris Wallace
It is quite obvious that I do not support Barack Obama for president. I would even support Hilary Clinton over him. However, I have to admit that he acquitted himself well in his interview with Chris Wallace today. If he made any missteps, they were minor. Chris Wallace gave his standard tough interview, and Obama was ready for it. Had Obama been willing to do this before, and had he been as prepared for other interviews and forums as he was for this one, there would have been no way to keep Obama from being president.
When I first heard about Obama and observed him, he seemed like a pretty nice, likeable guy. Over the past several months, at least to me, he has become a lot less likeable. However, in this interview with Wallace, he managed to fend off some tough questions and remain likeable.
Questions about taxes still throw him; and questions about the many programs that he proposes, he is not quite ready for. But, he was able to come out of this interview not only relatively unscathed, but likeable again.
Don’t misunderstand me—I am not on the Obama train. But I have to be intellectually honest enough to admit to what I observed.
Let Me Pull it Together for You
There is a movement afoot to let the government decide when life is valuable and when it is not. This is not a conspiracy nor is there some think-tank somewhere pulling the strings to this. How far George Soros figures into this is unclear.
Let’s first look at the science classes in our public schools. There is a concerted effort to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom; and there is a concerted effort to keep out all information and observation which do not support evolution (and there is a lot of it). ID is not creationism repackaged, nor it is necessarily a way to get God back into the classroom; it is simply an approach to science where there are more options on the table.
However, evolutionists have managed to fight this tooth and nail, and in the public school system, and on most college campuses, ID at best is seen as simply giving in to the unscientific, unwashed masses of religious fanatics. The end result is to teach, with little opposition, that man arose of natural causes, without a purpose, without meaning, except to perpetuate himself and to eliminate the weak and the inferior. Survival of the fittest.
Secondly, abortion has become commonplace. The number of fetuses which are destroyed yearly dwarfs the number of people killed in the world by war. Unelected officials have decided that whatever is in the womb is not life, but inferior to life, and can be destroyed at the whim of the mother carrying this fetus. As pointed out before, a fetus born alive during an abortion, in some states, can be killed right then and there by the doctor—after that baby has been born! The state decides what sort of life is worthwhile and what sort of life can be destroyed. It should be clear to those who are up on the abortion issue, that if a couple is about to have an inferior child (like a baby born with Down syndrom), then they may, with society’s blessing, kill the fetus. It’s inferior. With regards to the state, such a baby can be killed without guilt. The state allows for this.
Thirdly, for the first time, public health care is before the public as never before, and there is a good chance that some form of public health care will be passed. Do not think that this means, no matter who you are, or whatever your problems are, you are now guaranteed that hospitals will be required to do everything that they can to keep you alive. If this were the case, public health care would go bankrupt the first year. There is not enough money to insure this. If you know anything about government, health care will not be free, but become more and more expensive; and there will have to be cost-cutting measures. The most expensive treatment out there is the kind of treatment which prolongs life in difficult circumstances. Back during the Terri Shiavo controversy, who do you think wanted her to die? I bet there is a very high coronation between those who want abortion on demand those who want public health care and those who wanted Terri Shiavo to die.
My point here is, at some point in time, some set of unelected bureaucrats will have to make decisions about who we keep alive and who do we kill (I mean, allow to have a dignified death).
Also, think back—how many television shows and movies have you seen which deal with a person who wants to die; who wants a dignified death?
So, here we have government teaching in our schools that we are just amazing accidents; and there is no God or higher being involved. Government officials along with state-supported Planned Parenthood can decide who is worthy of being born; and who may be killed after being born. And soon, there will be bureaucrats deciding how far they are willing to extend life, even if life is extended by a simple feeding tube.
I find all of this quite disturbing.
Definition of Political Correctness
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
I read this at the BDSG in the Delphiforums
Tax Corporations like There’s no Tomorrow
Corporate taxes. Somehow, in some way, the most liberal forces of the Democrat party have managed to develop animosity between many of their followers and big oil, big pharmaceutical, Wal-Mart, etc. If it is big and private, it is bad and needs regulation; if it is big and publically funded, it needs more money (public schools and stem-cell research, for instance).
Simultaneously, and schizophrenically, Democrats cry out against corporations who take their businesses overseas. Of the industrialized nations, we have the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world. This is a bad thing. This drives businesses away. This drives jobs away. So, what do the Democrats want? More taxes for corporations and more regulations.
There is the old saying, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. When a state, city or even nation makes corporate environment good (low taxes, limited regulations), corporations will flock to that area. The easier it is for a company to make money, the more likely they will come and stay. It does not take a genius to figure this out. If you raise taxes on corporations, they are going to leave the US.
Furthermore, taxes are simply a part of the bottom line. Corporate accountants consider the taxes, consider the other factors; and they are generally faced with two options: raise the price of the products sold (which increases the cost to us, the consumer) or find another place where these goods can be produced more cheaply. Again, it does not take a genius to figure this out.
Somehow, liberals have convinced their faithful that these corporations are evil and need to be taxed more. However, if you patronize any of these evil corporations which get taxed more, that simply means that you will pay more for goods and services.
Low taxes and limited regulations means a better environment for corporations and a better environment for American ingenuity. This results in lower prices to us, the consumer; and more jobs on the market for Americans.
When politicians go after big corporations as though these things are evil; and then claim they are standing up for the little guy, that is just so much crap. We, the little guy, benefit by large corporations. Wal-mart is a good thing, not some evil which government needs to regulate out of existence. Wal-mart is a good thing for consumers and for those who need employment, but have a limited skill set. Now, is Wal-mart perfect? Of course not! You can examine any company under a microscope and find something wrong with it. The problem is, when government does this, it rarely benefits anyone.
Rush on McCain
One of the most pathetic and wrong-headed objections to Rush Limbaugh is, he is just mouthing Republican party talking points, which he received regularly, either by email or by fax.
Rush is strongly conservative, more than he is a Republican; and he will criticize Republicans (like Bush, like McCain), just as other talk show hosts do.
The Republican party in North Carolina is running an ad against two Democrats, tying them to their support for Obama, who is then tied to Reverent Wright. It is a great ad (in my opinion) and can be found a:
http://www.ncgop.org/home/index.asp (This website would like to keep this ad off the airwaves).
Rush comments: So, the North Carolina Republican Party is running an ad. Everybody seems to be missing the point of the ad. John McCain came out, and without having seen the ad, denounced it and said that it doesn't represent the kind of campaign he wants to run. He told the people in North Carolina to cancel it. The North Carolina people said (paraphrased), "Screw you! You couldn't run what we do. We're going to go ahead and do this." Here is audio of the ad.
FEMALE ANNOUNCER: For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in his pew listening to his pastor.
WRIGHT: And then wants us to sing God Bless America? No, no, no! Not God Bless America. God (bleep) America.
FEMALE ANNOUNCER: Now, Bev Perdue and Richard Moore endorse Barack Obama. They should know better. He's just too extreme for North Carolina.
DAVES: The North Carolina Republican Party sponsored this ad opposing Bev Perdue and Richard Moore for North Carolina governor.
RUSH: Well, this just caused the McCain camp to get a little bit upset. He sent the North Carolina GOP chairwoman Linda Daves there an e-mail, saying that this was an offensive advertisement. (doing McCain impression) "The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement," and you know what that means when McCain says "in the strongest terms, I implore you not to run this ad?" "The Republican National Committee also called on North Carolina GOP officials to pull the ad. 'Senator McCain has been very clear that he expects to run a respectful campaign based on the critical issues confronting the nation,' Danny Diaz, an RNC spokesman, said in an e-mail. 'The RNC has been in contact with the NC GOP and communicated that we do not believe the ad is appropriate or helpful and have asked that they refrain from running it.'
"The state Republican Party [of North Carolina], however, would not relent. ... It is believed to be the first time nationwide that Republicans have used Wright's comments in a TV advertisement since the comments first drew scrutiny last month. The party has not released details on how much money it plans to spend on airing the ad." How about zero? They don't have to spend any money on this. Now, there are two ways of looking at this, two ways. One is that the McCain camp and the RNC are brilliant; that they, by opposing this, have called -- I'm just giving you one of the theories. This theory is out there in certain circles, that the McCain camp and the RNC are brilliant in demanding this thing be taken down because it's called attention to the ad, and everybody's playing the ad and it's not costing the North Carolina GOP anything to have it aired. Not just in North Carolina, but all over the country. So some people say there's a method here, that McCain knows exactly what he's doing.
The other theory (laughs) is not so charitable regarding Senator McCain. The other theory is that he hid out of the blue against this ad without even seeing it. MSNBC just went all over the last night. They just had a cow. This is racist. Now, Mrs. Clinton has been hitting Obama for the past six weeks, and they have never accused her of racism, but what this is, I guarantee you, folks... This is why I don't care there's a method to the McCain strategery here or not. What I think is happening is just like we cannot say his middle name, Obama's; just like we can't call him a liberal; just like they've tried to tie us up in what we can say about Obama; this is an attempt by the Drive-By Media to limit what Republicans can say about Obama in the general election -- and it's an attempt to dissuade them from using Reverend Wright, because it's harmful to Obama; and this will lead to charges of racism against the Republicans, and McCain doesn't want to be called a racist.
So now that exact charge is being made from the Drive-By Media at MSNBC, and it will spread to other Drive-By Media outlets. I don't know if anybody will buy it or not, but McCain's buying it. This is the point. McCain's buying it. McCain is afraid of it. McCain is out there saying, he will not sponsor anything else, he will not sanction it. What is McCain doing? Is he crisscrossing the country helping some of these gubernatorial candidates with their campaigns? Is McCain running around the country? Is he helping anybody run for House seats or Senate seats? Is he? I don't know. I haven't heard about it, if he is. I know he's down in New Orleans today saying we gotta get serious about fixing this. He's with Bobby Jindal. There's a bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz about McCain meeting with Bobby Jindal because, as you know, I was the first to suggest that Bobby Jindal would be a fabulous vice presidential candidate, despite his age.
The people of Louisiana don't want to lose him because he's doing revolutionary work down there. Bottom line here in this ad: There is nothing wrong with tying Obama to other candidates, like these Democrats running in North Carolina. There's nothing wrong about that at all. There's nothing wrong pointing out that Obama has extremely liberal relationships, and there's going to be more. I think the depth -- we got a couple of them in the Stack today -- a couple of the relationships that Obama has with pure radicals is going to surface. And if the McCain camp is not going to use it because they fear the charge of racism, somebody's gonna use it. Mrs. Clinton has been doing this for a month now -- talking about Jeremiah Wright, talking about Bill Ayers -- and they don't call her a racist, do they? But they're calling Republicans racists for doing this, only when Republicans do it is it racism. This is why Republicans cannot be cowed. All this is, is an attempt to shut up any criticism of Obama. The Democrats know his weaknesses. Like I told you yesterday: The superdelegates, they know what they face.
There's a guy in Canada who wrote an analysis almost as good as mine yesterday on the outcome in Pennsylvania. He said, basically the superdelegates know they're going to be committing murder when they choose a candidate, because neither of these two candidates -- Hillary or Obama -- is going to win via the Democrat primary purpose. A bunch of hacks, unelected hacks called superdelegates are going to end up choosing the Democrat nominee, and one of them they're gonna kill. Politically, they're going to have to kill one; and when they do that, you know, this is going to cause reverberations throughout the party that the Drive-Bys and the Democrats know full well that they're doing everything they can to limit this. Now, there's another theory that McCain's not smart enough to denounce the ad for the purposes of having it aired free of charge in far more places than just North Carolina.
The theory is that McCain is doing what he always does, and that's doing what helps him politically -- in this case, buying into the liberal attack and joining in the attack on his own people. He is attacking his own people. He's attacking the Republican Party here, and he's doing it in sort of a dictatorial fashion by demanding they pull the ad that he sent out instructions, and that the RNC seconds this and so forth. Look, I want to know which Republican candidates he's helping as he crisscrosses the country. Now, I know it's early. Senator McCain has to know the numbers. The numbers, pre-election polls, House and Senate; it's a disaster in terms of the number of seats the Democrats pick up in both: five to seven, maybe eight in the Senate. The Republicans that are retiring in the House and Senate, the numbers are huge. Some people are speculating Democrats may pick up another 30, 35 seats in the House of Representatives in November. And McCain has to know this, and if he's got any kind of conservative agenda, he's going to have problems.
He's gotta be out there trying to help. Who's he trying to help? This is not a challenge. I don't know. I haven't seen Senator McCain campaigning yet for people running for the House or Senate. But here's a question that I have about this North Carolina ad and the McCain reaction to it. Is this how you build support for your campaign within your party? The North Carolina GOP runs an ad tying Obama via Reverend Wright, to Democrat gubernatorial candidates, and McCain comes out; slaps 'em and says, "Stop it! It's demeaning. I want to run an honorable campaign," and there's nothing wrong with the ad! There is nothing racist about the ad. The racist in the ad, if there is one, is Wright, the preacher! Now, is this how you build relationships and support for your own campaign within your own party? Is this how you help rebuild the Republican Party in these states? Is this how you treat fellow Republicans, by trashing them to highlight the ad and then come off like you're above the fight?
You know, I'll tell you something. It is no wonder that so many Republicans want to dump Ronald Reagan so badly. He was honorable! He fought hard to rebuild the Republican Party and lead the conservative movement. So we're dealing now with the era of McCain, the era of moderates and country club blue-blood Republicans. What is this business, McCain only wants to run on policies? He wants to have serious debate on the major issues? What is this? He attacked Mitt Romney relentlessly. If you go back and look at the Republican primary, you didn't see all this honorable stuff that McCain is now insisting on in the presidential race. Maybe he only wants to run on policies when dealing with Democrats, but he's more than happy to attack Republicans. This is sadly disappointing, regardless what your theories are. Here on MSNBC Live yesterday, we have two more sound bites here of Linda Daves; who is the North Carolina Republican Party chairman. Norah O'Donnell: "I understand in this ad you're challenging those candidates to do that, but what's interesting, I think, is that an e-mail essentially that John McCain wrote said, 'The TV advertisement you're planning to air degrades our civics, distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run the ad.' In fact, McCain says it's offensive. So are you going to heed McCain's call, pull the ad off the air?"
DAVES: We plan to run the ad because I think that we're thinking about the people of North Carolina. This is not about the president's race. This is about the people of North Carolina, and they have a right to know.
O'DONNELL (interrupting): Aren't you a loyal Republican?
DAVES: Well, of course I am, but I'm also the chairman of the state Republican Party, and it is also my responsibility to point out the weaknesses of the Democrat candidates in North Carolina.
RUSH: Amen! Amen! Linda, you go, babe! You go. For Norah O'Donnell to ask her if SHE is the loyal Republican? That question needs to be asked of a bunch of Republicans in Washington, not in North Carolina. If you want to find loyal Republicans, you'll find 'em in North Carolina. You're going to find 'em in a lot of states. The problem is we're not going to find very many of them in Washington. We're not going to find enough. One more bite: Norah O'Donnell said, "It's interesting. The chairman of the RNC essentially said it's not appropriate or helpful. Are you playing the race card?"
DAVES: No, none whatsoever. If this had been Hillary Clinton I'd do the same thing, and I really would encourage people to get past that race card thing. That is an accusation that is frequently made by people when they want to divert the discussion from the real issue at hand, and the issue at hand is good judgment and patriotism.
RUSH: I'll tell you, thank God for Linda Daves in North Carolina. She is exactly right. If it had been Hillary Clinton, they'd do the same thing. Get past the race card thing. But, see, here's the question from Norah O'Donnell: "Are you playing the race card?" They haven't asked Hillary Clinton if she's playing the race card against Obama. This is a Drive-By Media effort to intimidate Republicans like those in North Carolina to pull these kind of ads and to shut up about Barack Obama and his preacher, and some of the other lunatics that form his inner circle -- and we can see here that in North Carolina, it isn't going to work. Kudos to them.
Let's continue to explore this notion that anti-Obama ads are racist. Floyd Brown -- who was the guy who did the Willie Horton ad; my buddy Roger Ailes has been tarred and feathered incorrectly with being the architect of the Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis, The Loser, back in 1988. It was Floyd Brown that did it. He's got a new anti-Obama ad that's running, as well.
FEMALE ANNOUNCER: Mike Boyd, killed at 15; beaten with bricks after a gang member crashed into his car. Severo Enriquez, just 14 years old; when he refused to flash a gang hand sign, he was shot five times in the back. They all died in 2001, in Chicago. The Sun-Times called it "urban terrorism" and demanded action on gang violence. But that same year, a Chicago state senator named (pause) Barack Obama voted against expanding the death penalty for gang-related murders. Can a man so weak in the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror?
RUSH: Whoa! This just has them fit to be tied in the Drive-By Media. Last night MSNBC Hardball, host Chris Matthews talking to Roger Simon of the Politico and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post about this ad.
MATTHEWS: It's a giant permission slip to somebody that doesn't want to vote for him to begin with, and it's also a permission slip for the Republican Party to use him as a target throughout the general election. This guy the -- hides under a rock, every couple generations shows up again with another -- another ad against a black candidate or using a black person --
SIMON: Yeah. (crosstalk)
MATTHEWS: -- as the -- as the bad guy.
SIMON: I'll say I'm not a great fan of -- and Brown, and, you know, I wrote extensively about the Willie Horton ad when it was used in a negative way. Uh, I'm not sure you can say this ad is racially motivated.
CAPEHART: Right.
SIMON: Um, this is a attack on Barack Obama for a specific vote, not extending the death penalty, uh, to gang members or whatever the heck it's about, but it's not -- I mean, you can't say that every time somebody uses Barack Obama's picture in an ad, it's racism.
CAPEHART: Correct.
SIMON: I mean the guy is what the guy is.
CAPEHART: Bravo, Roger.
RUSH: That was Jonathan Capehart. So Matthews had his lunch handed to him by a couple fellow travelers there on DNCTV last night. See, the knee-jerk reaction is what Matthews had. Well, you got an ad talking about Obama. Black guy. Therefore the ad's racist, whatever the ad says -- and Roger Simon says, no, no. This is about some vote he made when he was in Chicago, Illinois, against expanding the death penalty for gang-related murder. But, you know, there's a method to Matthews' madness; and once again, it is to stifle any criticism of Barack Obama at all by saying that any criticism is racist. Look, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but this is one of the primary reasons that I started Operation Chaos; because it became clear to me that the Republicans -- as evidenced here by McCain's denouncing this ad in North Carolina and the Republican National Committee doing the same thing; it became clear to me a long time ago that the Republicans -- are not going to attack Obama. They're just not going to do it because they're afraid of being called racists. So if Obama's not going to be attacked and bloodied up politically, somebody's going to do it. Who better than the Clintons? Ergo, Operation Chaos. Now, these two sound bites here from Chris Matthews and the previous one from Norah O'Donnell, illustrate what the Drive-By Media technique is and that's to stifle any criticism of the guy they think is their eventual nominee. Matthews was not finished last night. He was talking to Norah O'Donnell on his show last night about Pennsylvanians.
O'DONNELL: But this seems to be some residue of people that -- that Clinton voters who don't like Obama. Obama voters are more likely to like Clinton and be willing to vote for her in November. We saw that not just among Catholics, but among all voters in Pennsylvanian exit polls.
MATTHEWS: Well, somebody doesn't like that group of voters might call them Archie Bunkers. I'll call them Reagan Democrats. They're Reagan Democrats, people who are culturally conservative, maybe a little culturally conservative on the racial front, on the ethnic front. Uh, they like to think of themselves as Democrats on economic issues, but when it comes to the squeeze on some of these cultural issues -- this -- Didn't this all come up earlier about three weeks ago in San Francisco, this conversation?
RUSH: Absolutely right, and it was harmful to Barack Obama. You know, Obama to this day -- and this is I think a characteristic that is attributable to all elitists. He doesn't understand what he said wrong. When he was out in San Francisco with the elites at the Getty mansion, and he starts talking about the bitter clingers, holding on to guns and God because they're disappointed the government's ignored them and so forth; they haven't had jobs in 25 years. He believes that. He doesn't understand what was wrong about that, and Matthews doesn't, either. Of course they've had this conversation three weeks ago, Chris, when this all happened. But, now, these Reagan Democrats who didn't vote for Obama, they are culturally conservative on the racial front. So I know exactly what's happening here, and we better not buckle to it.
We're going to start in Steubenville, Ohio. This is Kelly. I'm glad you called. Great to have you with us.
CALLER: I've tried several times, and it's great to get through. I just wanted to comment about the stuff you've been talking about this morning about the North Carolina leader of the Republican Party there. I just think it's great that we have finally found somebody who can deal with these stupid questions, and be clear and not be distracted and get to the point. I, for one, am a Catholic homeschooling mother of six, and I am completely disturbed by this Reverend Wright thing. Not that I would ever vote for Obama or Clinton to begin with, but it's just beyond disturbing to me. And I can't imagine how some of these people rationalize it and make it out to seem like it's just not a big deal.
RUSH: Well, they know it's a big deal. That's why they're trying to rationalize and say it isn't. They know that it is a killer deal.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: And so is Bill Ayers, and so are a number of others. Not with the people that are already on board for Obama. They don't care.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: But as Obama has demonstrated, he can't get people he doesn't already have. He is not expanding his base.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: He basically has his elite, wealthy white liberals, and 80% to 85% of the black vote. Beyond that, nothing. That's why he hasn't won a primary since the 22nd of February.
CALLER: I just drove up to my house, and I thought, "I'm going to Google her name and I'm going to find her e-mail and I'm just going to send her e-mail and say, you know, 'God bless you,'" because more people have to stand up.
RUSH: Let me spell her name for you. It's Linda Daves. D-a-v-e-s.
CALLER: Great.
RUSH: At least that's how it appears on my cue sheet here.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm. Yeah.
RUSH: D-a-v-e-s. You're exactly right. But here's the thing. I'm not taking anything away from her. In fact, I'm going to play these two audio sound bites again because she deserves to be heard again.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: But this was a Republican defending her actions against an attack by the Republican presidential nominee.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: She hasn't not yet been attacked by the Democrats; well, maybe she has in North Carolina. I hope she holds firm, steady and all that when the Democrats start laying into her.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: That's what McCain doesn't want. McCain doesn't want the Democrats attacking him; he wants the Democrats liking him because that's where he's seeking his majority victory.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: But she stood up to the Republican presidential nominee -- that's even more impressive -- and basically said, get out of my state.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: So here she is -- thanks for the call, Kelly. I appreciate it. This is on MSNBC Live last night, and Norah O'Donnell asks Linda Daves who is the North Carolina Republican Party chairman, if she is going to pull the ad off the air because McCain asked her to.
DAVES: We plan to run the ad because I think that we're thinking about the people of North Carolina. This is not about the president's race. This is about the people of North Carolina, and they have a right to know.
O'DONNELL (interrupting): Aren't you a loyal Republican?
DAVES: Well, of course I am, but I'm also the chairman of the state Republican Party, and it is also my responsibility to point out the weaknesses of the Democrat candidates in North Carolina.
RUSH: Right. And when she does that, who does she hear from? The Republican presidential nominee and the Republican National Committee. And of course this question, "Aren't you a loyal Republican?" As I said brilliantly mere moments ago, ask that question of people in Washington, ask that question of Republicans in Washington. One more Linda Daves bite, she's asked by Norah O'Donnell, "Are you playing the race card here?"
DAVES: No, none whatsoever. If this had been Hillary Clinton I'd do the same thing, and I really would encourage people to get past that race card thing. That is an accusation that is frequently made by people when they want to divert the discussion from the real issue at hand, and the issue at hand is good judgment and patriotism.
RUSH: The accusation of racism is frequently made by people when they want to stop and shut down the discussion at hand, not divert it. And as I said, Mrs. Clinton has been using Reverend Wright and attacking Obama (finally) for the last month, and note that nobody is accusing her of being racist, because even the Civil War -- the uncivil, civil, whatever you want to call it -- the race war in this country has been on display for months in the Democrat Party. We have seen that that's where racism is in this country. It's in the Democrat Party. These people at MSNBC, these pathetic people understand that. They're doing everything they can to shift it based on cliches: Racist! Sexist! Bigot! Homophobe! Uncaring Republicans! -- and make them out to be the racists; when all the racism in this campaign is on the Democrat side, and the lead racist in this campaign has been none other than the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Taken from Rush’s April 24, 2008 show and edited slightly.
It should be obvious that, by this set of comments, that Rush does not simply come out and rubber stamp everything that the top Republican does (in this case, McCain).
As you know, Rush has a lot of parodies on his show, and there are just about as many of them on McCain as there are on Clinton.
By the way, related to this story, is Chris Matthews and his accusation that this is a racist ad (which I think is ridiculous, but you decide).
Related to this is, will the Democrats commit political suicide? Obama, through what he has said and the associations which he has, has dug himself into a pretty deep hole. Although he still appeals to his base and to the left wing of the Democratic party, what he is selling will not be bought by middle Americans, the moderates. It is just too obvious that Obama is anything but moderate.
However, deny him the nomination and all chaos is going to break loose. No matter how you explain it, if the general public believes that Washington insiders pick Clinton over Obama, there is going to be a very angry rift in the Democratic party.
One person’s opinion on this from outside of the United States:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,549103,00.html
Believe it or not, I’ve got so much more for this week, but back pain prevents me from doing so, so I am going to end this issue prematurely.
One more thing; I was in severe pain when I originally wrote this issue, so there were a lot of spelling errors and some of the sentence structure rivaled a Michelle Obama speech proving that she is just like the rest of us. It is 2 days later, and I am able to stand up and walk without much pain; so I have gone back and fixed the many errors.