Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee in a year that every political scientist agrees is as favorable to Democrats as any in living memory. George W. Bush, the incumbent Republican has approval ratings consistently below 30%. The economy is sliding into recession and just weathered the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. Obama has the unconditional support of every mainstream news outlet in the country with one or two notable exceptions. His campaign is being actively aided by his former organization ACORN and others, which are engaged in what may be the largest voter fraud scheme ever. He has raised more money than any candidate in U.S. history – more than $600,000,000.00. By all accounts he is an unstoppable political force.

But he’s losing.

Oh, we’ve seen the polls, more than 150 of them that say that Obama is winning this contest or that, but the reality is, as Election Day draws near, more and more people are moving toward John McCain. You can see it in those same worthless polls, you can hear it in Obama’s impassioned pleas to supporters to keep up the pressure, to skip work to vote, to give even more money, in his overzealous advertising blitz, in the media’s dire warnings about the violence that will follow in the wake of an Obama loss, etc., etc.. With every possible advantage at his back, Obama is still unable to keep his head above 50% in key national polls, and driven by well-founded fears about his lack of experience, his radical associations, and his economy-killing redistributive economic policies, undecided voters are increasingly casting their lot with the battle tested McCain. Viewed in perspective, Obama’s failure to be in a commanding lead is utterly astounding.

Ironically, it is Obama’s own supporters that he has to thank. The fervor of the Left and the constant media pronouncements about Obama’s inevitability as well as the most openly biased press coverage in history has outraged and galvanized America’s conservatives. Coupled with the presence of Sarah Palin on the ticket, the Obama machine has stimulated GOP voter turnout by creating the perception of a competitive disadvantage that has in turn motivated conservatives to work harder and harder to make up a perceived deficit.  In a twist of poetic justice, Obama has demonstrated the superiority of the competitive spirit that drives the individualistic free market system that he and his socialist cohorts wish to alter.  Competition once again proves its worth.

Republicans will need every last vote, but if the current trends hold, the result will be higher than expected Republican turnout and a critical number of moderate undecided voters that will cast its lot with McCain knowing that America will get the new leadership she craves with the stability of common sense approaches to economic and military policy that he provides. 

Thanks to Obama’s media-driven inevitability, November 4^th may bring us the most stunning political upset in modern American history. This of course is our fervent hope.

John McCain has set a trap for Barack Obama, and its one Obama may find hard to avoid.  Obama owes his current candidacy and his position at the top of 2008 Democratic ticket to his uncompromising anti-war stance. Through the fall and spring, Obama’s position on the war was unmistakable, “Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq and there never was…the best way to protect our security is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months, or one year – now!” As a regular part of Obama’s stump speech, the freshman Illinois senator pledged, “I will end this war in 2009.” Such a position worked well with the left-wing base of the Democratic Party, but over the course of the past year a funny thing has happened in Iraq – the U.S. has employed an increasingly successful military strategy, and its primary public proponent has been Senator John McCain.

The trap laid by McCain was the challenge to Obama to visit Iraq. After all, how can a man running for the commander in chief spot not visit the very theatre of war he has founded his campaign on? Obama had no choice but to take the bait, but in doing so, he’s walked straight into a terrible conundrum. Once Obama arrives in Iraq, he will be faced with a radically different tactical situation and American commanders who are confident about the troop surge strategy and committed to continued U.S. presence.

Obama’s options will be to ignore the professional judgment of America’s top commanders and continue his call for immediate withdrawal despite the progress – an untenable political position that will shred his image and leave him vulnerable to withering criticism, or alternatively to repudiate his central campaign message, embracing the policy of George W. Bush – depriving him of the very essence of his candidacy and infuriating his own base. Will Obama campaign as the man who wishes to singlehandedly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, or the man who flip-flopped on the central issue of his campaign and embraced Bush? Quite simply there is no good option for Obama who today began his attempt to forge a middle path. It is an equally untenable option for Obama, who will cement his growing reputation as a split-personality candidate that has two contradictory positions on every subject and a penchant for politically expedient decision-making. Moreover, in addition to damaging his won credibility, whatever position he takes, will open him up from criticism from either the right, or the left…and most likely both – Obama can neither give ground on withdrawal nor ignore the conditions on the ground.

Today’s dual press conferences from Obama marks the slamming of the door of the McCain trap, and the opening act of what will be a withering fall campaign that will shatter Obama’s credibility and leadership potential.  Obama’s first press conference was an attempt by the Senator to back away from his longstanding commitment to immediate withdrawal, and was met with such withering criticism from both the right and the left, that in an overtly defensive move, Obama called a second press conference to stop the bleeding. His assertion that he will “refine his position” on Iraq after his visit there is the kind of noncommittal, legalistic, and ultimately unpresidential position that will further erode the media-bolstered patina of a new kind of principled candidate. It was a clumsy first step into the political minefield posed by Iraq, and a stark contrast with the steadfast McCain.

Bill Clinton, once hailed as America’s “first black president,” has been disavowed by a once adoring black community. Geraldine Ferraro has been accused of being a secret racist.  Oprah Winfrey is labeled a feminist sell-out. The major campaigns eagerly pander to racial and socioeconomic groups, and try different combinations of divide and conquer strategies.  Black Americans are for Obama, and overwhelmingly admit that it’s a vote based on race, women are for Clinton and overwhelmingly admit that it’s a vote on gender. The two campaigns eagerly fight to curry favor with Hispanics. The wealthy are targeted for income redistribution, the poor are promised free medicine, and free-market capitalism is under full-scale assault.  A party who once railed against supposed voter suppression now openly practices it in key states, and a party whose name is synonymous with ideals of populist governance adopts a delegate system reeking of undemocratic elitism. For those who have long understood the American left, none of the bigotry, racism, divisiveness, extremism or elitism that is emblematic of the 2008 Democratic Presidential contest is surprising.  To understand the modern Democratic Party, one must recognize that it is a party built on racial, economic and socio-ethno-centric divisions.  It is a cynical party; a party that depends on a culture of victimhood and division that in turn generates the demand for governmental redress. Without division, without racism, without inequality, there can be no government programs to remedy them, no election year pledges to change society, no mission or great societal crusade to endlessly fight for – no modern Democratic Party. Change is the undeniable, mechanical, political nature of a so-called “progressive” party, and the disharmony wrought from a perception of inequality is its engine.

Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a purveyor of disharmony, and sadly, far from atypical. Like the Democratic Party itself, he is a man dedicated to ginning up racial hatred, to sowing societal discord, and fostering ignorance as a means of creating a willing and motivated following. Like the liberal establishment at large, for Jeremiah Wright, race is both a spear and a shield. It provides cover for his own bigotry, hatred and apparent anti-American paranoia while at the same time supplying the very weapon to denigrate his country and foster the societal division needed to drive his wayward flock.  Jeremiah Wright’s message is not the message of Christ, it is not the message of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., it is not a message of peace, of reconciliation, or of hope.

The footage of Wright spewing hate-filled anti-American rhetoric was not the product of undercover video, or hidden cameras, they were excerpts from DVDs sold in his church gift shop. Far from slips of the tongue, or misconstrued remarks, they are messages Wright thoughtfully constructed and powerfully conveyed with all his rhetorical might.  These are messages that Wright is proud of, that he wanted others to see and hear, that he believes with conviction. Jeremiah Wright, believes that the United States government created the HIV virus to perpetrate genocide on people of color. He believes the U.S. government conspired to allow the Japanese to destroy Pearl Harbor. He believes that our country is controlled by “rich white people,” and describes his own nation as the U.S. of AmeriKKKa.  He is a man who curses and asks God to “damn America.”  On the Sunday following the 9/11 tragedies he used his pulpit to blame America for the crazed acts of 19 Saudi terrorists, claiming it was America’s “chickens coming home to roost” – an infamous line of the radical, black Muslim separatist leader Malcom X, and a forerunner of the virulently racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Wright honored with a lifetime achievement award.  Wright even traveled with Farrakhan to Libya to meet with terrorist leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. Wright has devoted his life to building a church committed to the “Black value system” and with a stated policy of commitment to Africa, not America. He has asked his followers to “pledge allegiance to black values” and proudly displays a document entitled the “Black Value System” that is so thoroughly racist that were one to substitute the word “black” for “white” it could have easily been authored by Josef Goebbels.

Wright’s is a message of victimhood, paranoia and racism wedded to Marxist concepts of class warfare and societal struggle, it is born of the radical Liberation Theology of the 1960s and it has dominated much of the left and black America for decades. To the many however, who are ceaselessly fed a diet of anti-Americanism and division by their preachers, their political leaders in the Democratic Party, and a hopelessly biased entertainment industry and mainstream media, it is not even viewed as remarkable. So pervasive is this kind of divisive rhetoric on the left, and within the black community, that Donna Brazille, longtime Democratic strategist, admitted on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, “I’ve known Jeremiah Wright and actually Jeremiah Wright is one of the more moderate black preachers.”

Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult for Obama to distance himself from Wright, but once the deep connection between Wright and Obama is understood, it is impossible. Jeremiah Wright is Barak Obama’s self described “mentor!” Wright has been Obama’s pastor for twenty years, the man who married Michelle and Barak Obama and baptized their children. Obama credits Wright with leading him to Christ, and indeed, it was from one of Wright’s “sermons” that Obama borrowed the title for his best-selling political book. In a final elevation, Obama even appointed Wright to an all-black religious leadership committee for his campaign for President of the United States.

Attempting to distance himself from Wright was inviting the press to dig further into the murky relationship between Wright and Obama and the radical teachings of their organization. On Tuesday, an uncharacteristically unsure Obama took the stage before an overt display of American flags, designed to pay silent testament to Obama’s true love of country, a country his wife described as “downright mean,” populated by a people whose “souls are broken,” and a country in which she has admittedly never had pride until her husband’s late candidacy.  Obama himself reversed his earlier statements that he had not been present during any of Wright’s diatribes, and admitted to having personally heard controversial comments. Obama condemned the now publicized and indefensible statements of Wright, but far from distancing himself from Wright, Obama reaffirmed their close connection, saying he could no more “disown” Wright than he could the black community. In what could be dubbed the race-bait and switch speech, Obama delivered hackneyed platitudes on racial disharmony in America, and sought to parlay the issue into credentials for why he alone could solve America’s racial and socioeconomic inequities.  Obama’s attempt to refocus the media spotlight away from his own apparent bigotry by imputing racism to all of America was pathetic. Indeed, Obama even stooped so low as to criticize his own white grandmother for her alleged bigotry, a woman he admitted, greatly loved and sacrificed for him.

Far from saving Obama’s political hide, the speech was a pitiable smoke and mirrors show that unmasked the real Obama.  Inescapably, one must come to the conclusion that Obama either agrees with the teachings of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, or alternatively that he joined the biggest church in his community for the sake of pure political advancement despite its overt radical racism and anti-Americanism. Obama is therefore either a radical, anti-American bigot or a man of pure political ambition, lacking significant conviction who continues to embrace a mentor with repugnant and indefensible views. In either event it is a devastating indictment of his personal beliefs and political ideals, a thorough evisceration of the core message of his campaign, and a political circumstance that makes Barack Obama both unelectable and unfit to serve as President of the United States.

In an interview  with a San Antonio radio station Monday, Obama accused the Clinton campaign of playing dirty tricks saying, “The notion that they would try to use this to imply in some way that I’m foreign, I think is, you know, unfortunate.”

The controversy surrounds a story first reported by Matt Drudge regarding a single photograph of Obama wearing a turban, and dressed in traditional Somali clothing during a 2006 visit to northern Kenya.  Northern Kenya is predominately Muslim, and both Obama’s father and stepfather were in fact Muslim.  During his visit, Obama took time to visit his grandmother and other members of his extended family, who unlike Obama, have retained their Muslim faith.

While Obama’s supporters have dismissed any discussion over his faith as inappropriate, questions have been raised about Obama’s connections to Islam given his personal history, cultural and familial ties, and his attendance of a church with leaders who have purportedly singled out radical, racist, Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan for praise, and Farrakhan’s own endorsment of Obama this week. 

However in a surprising turn of events, Middle East news organization Al Jazeera may have unwittingly provided an alibi for the Clinton campaign, at least with regard to the photo’s origins.  On Tuesday, Al Jazeera’s English language site covered the photo controversy, but displayed a new and different version of the same enounter (right).  The existence of this photo proves that there are multiple photos of Obama in traditional Islamic clothing, and that multiple sources for these photos likely exist.  Whatever one’s view of Clinton’s campaign tactics, it is unlikely that the Clinton campaign is cooperating with the unpopular Al Jazeera news agency on a negative story about Clinton’s own attempt to smear Obama over connections to Islam.

Moreover, with multiple photos emanating from apparently multiple sources it is impossible to ascertain where the photos originated from, and how they arrived in the hands of various news outlets. Since the controversy broke, other photos of Obama in traditional African or Islamic garb have surfaced, prompting many to question Obama’s enthusiasm for foreign dress despite his outright refusal to wear an American flag pin while campaigning for President of the United States, and his wife’s admission that Obama’s campaign has made her proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Despite what his supporters would prefer, and rightly or wrongly, Obama’s religion, and his ties to Islam will likely be highly scrutinized at a time when America is engaged in a global war against Islamic elements, and especially considering the fervor with which the American left has denigrated and openly criticized the evangelical Christian faith of President George W. Bush and his supporters.

Rudy Giuliani:The Michigan debate may have been Giuliani’s best. The affable mayor seemed relaxed, optimistic, and in command of the issues. His attacks, waged largely against Hillary Clinton, did much to elevate him above the other candidates and helped to feed the notion that Giuliani is both the inevitable nominee and the best match-up against Hillary Clinton in a general election. Giuliani was able to avoid many of the social issues that have plagued him in earlier debates due to largely policy-focused questions, and his retorts were generally articulate and on-point. When coupled with some humorous if slightly contrived lines, Giuliani’s performance was exactly what he needed to help build on his frontrunner status. 

  Mitt Romney: Romney continues to shine in the debate forum. His command of the issues is solid, his style is confident, and there is little doubt that he is competent. Unfortunately Romney’s handlers have gotten to him; forcing the normally cheerful and easy Romney to take on Giuliani over a trumped-up difference in policy. Moreover, Romney’s endorsement of the unconstitutional federal line-item-veto does nothing to bolster his constitutional credentials (nor does his leave it the attorneys position on war powers) or his already suspect conservative credentials as a strict constructionist. Romney is at his best when he leverages his business acumen against the failed big-government policies of those on the stage as well as likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Romney should take a page from Ross Perot and treat his campaign as a hostile takeover of a badly managed government, while using his easy, clear, style to build confidence and optimism. Romney should campaign on his strengths rather than on Giuliani’s unapparent weaknesses, and should avoid the kind of forced lines that bolster his critics claims of phoniness.

Fred Thompson: Given the high hopes among rank and file conservatives, Thompson was almost sure to disappoint, but the veteran actor proved even less of a star than expected. From a stumbling start that was far to reminiscent of George W. Bush’s grating inarticulateness, to platitudinous answers to policy questions in which his eyes frequently diverted to his notes, Thompson did little to rebut his solidifying reputation as a candidate running on image rather than on ideas. Moreover, on the debate stage, compared to optimists like Romney, Huckabee, and even Giuliani, Thompson seemed dower and distant. Thompson’s forte is clearly not a staged debate, but rather the folksy one-on-one encounters with everyday citizens. Thompson has yet to prove that he has the “fire in the belly” to be president, or the command of the issues to defeat the intelligent, if overtly leftist, Hillary Clinton.

John McCain: McCain’s Michigan performance may have been his worst. The once aggressive McCain seemed tired, downtrodden, and at times gave rambling answers to questions that he is known to have a better command of. Though McCain’s strong position on the war continues to lend credence to his campaign, and there is no question that McCain would be a strong commander-in-chief, the candidate himself seems to have been deeply affected by the precipitous (illegal immigration-driven) decline of his campaign. Moreover, McCain seemed plagued by technical difficulties that left him unable to hear the questions, resulting in a series of awkward pauses that undoubtedly if subconsciously highlighted his age. McCain’s performance was competent, and honest, if uninspiring.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee continues to surprise and excel in the debate forum. His clearly articulated, folksy and cheerful demeanor makes him among the most engaging on the stage and continues to generate interest in his candidacy. Though some may deride Huckabee’s slightly “hickish” last name (certainly no worse than Millard Fillmore), there can be no doubting that Huckabee continues to gain popularity, and his common sense approach to governance seems refreshing and relatively genuine. Unfortunately, Huckabee continues not to receive the type of serious policy questions from moderators that he increasingly deserves. 

As for the other candidates, who have yet to emerge from solid second-tierdom, the results were mixed. Duncan Hunter’s tough, assured style continues to resonate confidence and decisiveness. Unfortunately his unrelenting focus on the issues of Chinese trade policy and a strong military begin to paint a portrait of the Congressman as an overly one-dimensional candidate. Indeed, it appears as if Hunter is campaigning full time for secretary of defense, rather than president of the United States. Sam Brownback continues to sound rational and clear, and gives the impression of a competent and dutiful public servant… perhaps suitable as a future head of the Department of the Interior. Ron Paul’s slightly hysterical personal style continues to erode any gains that his principled constitutional positions might otherwise engender, and Tom Tancredo, though right on illegal immigration, simply is out of his league as a presidential contender. Border Czar Tancredo has a nice ring to it however.

If Thompson and McCain were the debate’s big losers, Romney and Giuliani came out far ahead of the pack… and due to his poise, clarity, and skill the winner was clearly Giuliani.

Yes, for the past two days we’ve been treated to the important discussion over Barak Obama’s decision not to wear a flag lapel pin. 

The message implicit in this debate is this: those running for office aren’t serious. 

We have a government that is dysfunctional at almost every level, and seems to operate in a twilight zone devoid of both common sense and accountability.  Our education system is in full collapse. Our courts are overrun with junk lawsuits. Our imperfect health care system is in danger of a government takeover. Entitlements such as medicare and social security are facing ruination.  We’re borrowing untold millions of dollars every day from China and other countries in a macroeconomic shell game designed to perpetuate the illusion of government credibility, while our national debt climbs ever higher – now over $9 trillion.  While we create the largest governmental department in our history to provide for homeland security, we leave our borders open to waves of unknown invaders - 4,000 people a day along our southern border alone. We have troops fighting and dying in a war that will have profound impact on the Middle East and the world for the next century. And, we’ve relegated our Constitution to something akin to “persuasive authority.”

With all these problems, and hundreds more to boot, one wonders how any politician can answer questions about lapel pins with a straight face.  It is not the ultimate example of the “empty suit” politician to have reached a point where we now actually discuss the suit? Can there be more of an indictment of Obama’s own “message” than this reductionist nonsense?

This level of “discourse” is sickening, irresponsible, and ultimately pathetic.  The American people deserve better, and if the mainstream media and those seeking the highest office in the land can think of nothing more profound to debate, then we have some ideas about what they can do with their pins.

Say what you like about Newt Gingrich, but few people in either party would fail to recognize that Gingrich is one the Nation’s foremost political thinkers, and a man of considerable intellect.Gingrich’s passion for history and for America, when coupled with his practical style make him a natural choice in a time when pragmatic, small-government solutions for the Republic’s problems are required.

There is little question that the Clinton political machine – the most capable, ambition-driven, and some say politically-ruthless campaign apparatus of modern times - is moving into second gear.  Should Senator Clinton win in Iowa and New Hampshire, nothing will be able to stop her relentless march to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Of the current GOP contenders none appear to be able to stop her march to the White House. With Thompson gaining little traction (and evidencing little passion or policy acumen), and Romney expected to fizzle-out once the primaries reach the Bible Belt, only Giuliani seems to have the money and political staying power to mount a lasting challenge.  Still, his own personal shortcomings and his socially liberal views remain deeply disconcerting to many conservatives.

Newt Gingrich was in many ways the last great hope.  Though many conservatives scoffed at a Gingrich run, their main opposition to Gingrich appeared to be unease over decade-old P.R. trouble, and the self-fulfilling notion that Newt is unelectable.

(more…)

Over at howtostart.org an author opines that the problem with America is government and the party system:

The biggest problem in America today is not George W. Bush, but he does give it a face. The biggest problem in America today is that the party line has been drawn over our lives, drawn down the center of the nation, drawn through our homes and families. Rather than Republicans and Democrats agreeing on a vision of America but disagreeing on the means to achieve it, the two parties point their fingers, call their opponents names, and declare the other side unpatriotic. The Republicans are running on a platform of “the Democrats will destroy America”, while the Democrats do practically nothing at all, proud to not be Republicans. And we, the people, call them leaders. We, the people, elected them. We, the people, make their jobs easy because we, the people whom they have sworn to serve, don’t question them.

 No, you are incorrect. Without getting into the fact that this blogger fails to define the “problems with America” as anything other than her personal disagreements with the way the 9/11 tragedy was handled and the Bush administration in general; the real problem America faces today, and the biggest threat to the election in 2008, is the fact that we live in a lazy, greedy society. As a result of our growing slothishness we look to more and more to government to solve our problems. Exhibit A: Healthcare; one of the major issues in the election will be whether the people sign off on some socialist policy to have heathcare in this country run by the government. Does anyone really want their local hosptal to be run by the same people who run Walter Reed? Do we want the woman behind the post office counter running the triage in the ER? No sane person wants that kind of ineffcency. (more…)

Whilst sipping today’s afternoon cup of tea, we suggest you head over to jeremayakovka. He has an enlightening analysis of a video on YouTube entitled “African American Men for Hllary Clinton” the video begins with parise to God for giving the world the beautiful woman you see above. Jeremayakovka continues:

It’s exactly what it says it is — a series of outtakes from a gathering of African American leaders who endorse Clinton for president. It’s the usual stuff, chock full of familiar phrases like “leadership,” “compassion,” “the most important election in our lifetime,” etc. etc. It’s exactly what it says it is — almost. 

Head over there and check it out.

Hillary Clinton is definitely not a gift. Although she is the Democratic and Presidential frontrunner, she has some major hurdles to overcome on her road to the Whitehouse. Her policies are clearly Marxist in nature, however, most people will ignore that and rely on the separation of powers to keep her in check. The GOP will undoubtedly scrutnize her – and they should. The biggest hurdle she has, however, is justifying her support for the war in Iraq. This postion will cripple her support with anti-war liberals.

Most importantly of all, Hillary does not represent “change” – what most Democrat voters want. If she is elected this country will have had a President from one of two families for at least 24 years – if she is reelected in 2012 that could rise to 28 years:

• 1988 – 1992: Bush I 
• 1992-2000: Clinton
• 2000-2008: Bush II
• 2008-??

This is the Bush-Clinton Dynasty.

Thursday was an important day in the battle for border security. It was further evidence of the Republican backlash against amnesty and border lawlessness, and an indication that the continued pressure is beginning to have its desired effect.

As reported by Lou Dobbs, in a rare rebuke of GOP leadership, 47 members of the 168 member Republican National Committee authored a resolution demanding a border fence and the use of all available means to protect our Nation’s borders – including deployment of the U.S. Army. Such RNC resolutions provide direction for GOP leadership and help set national legislative policy goals.

The resolution is scheduled to be brought to a vote of the full RNC membership today, and is expected to pass by a wide margin. Though non-binding on our legislators, it demonstrates the clear will of the Republican majority.

In addition, Thursday saw a remarkable about face by one-time GOP presidential frontrunner John McCain. Abandoning the comprehensive immigration approach that has nearly ended his presidential bid, McCain joined with Senators Lindsay Graham (up for reelection in 2008) and John Kyl in proposing an enforcement-only bill.

McCain’s switch in policy was predicted by GOPublius last month:

“Healing the rift with conservatives will be tough, but McCain could go a long way by acknowledging that he will heed his party?s warnings on immigration and will make national security, including port and border security, a top priority.”

The move however is likely too little too late for conservatives who remain deeply suspicious of McCain, and will view the switch as a desperate attempt to re-ignite a failed campaign. Moreover, McCain did not accompany his policy switch with the kind of outreach necessary to help convince Republicans that he is respectful of their views and serious about enforcement. (more…)