My Call

Obama wins popular vote

I'd take odds that McCain wins the Election through threading the Electoral college needle Red States, as I think the polls have systematically overstated Democratic turnout.

It'll be tight, but McCain still has a chance. GO VOTE!

John McCain for President

I received this recently and thought I'd share it:

There are facts about Barack Obama that are important for prospective voters to know, before they make the mistake of voting for him. I will be voting for John McCain and I hope you will join me. Barack Obama will raise taxes. Maybe not yours, maybe someone else's, but if his campaign can't get it straight, how can you be sure it wont be you? He says no one above $250k, but his running mate Joe Biden just said the limit is $150K.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAEE1_IUycs

Raising taxes for "fairness" in a recession is not patriotic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytIsTX_WNjo , as this guy says, its confiscatory and redistributionary Socialism. Since 2005, Barack Obama vote 94 times to either NOT CUT or to Raise taxes on people making as little as $42K. Who knows, maybe he'll do it again, perhaps aided by the all-Democratic Congress that is currently in power and likely to increase in numbers. Obama is not raising them because we have a structural deficit, or to fully fund Social Security, or to win the war on terror, but only because he thinks its FAIRNESS for some people to bear even more of the burden than they do today, as he said to Sam "Joe" Wurzelbacher, he wants to "spread the wealth around".

The interesting thing is, 5% of taxpayers already pay 60% of all taxes paid, and how about the 95% of the country he will give the tax break? The IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006. Not to mention we're pretty obviously in a recession, and who in their right mind raises taxes in a recession. Obama has also said he will raise Capital Gains taxes, the Death Tax and Social Security taxes which are separate from income taxes because the system is designed so that each person provides for his or her own retirement...you'll note that the current cutoff for these taxes is $97K. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-11-obama-social-security_N.htm

Barack Obama will appoint liberal judges to radically change our courts and reinterpret the Constitution. He is interested in judges who have "empathy", not who will call balls and strikes according to the Constitution. In fact, we have recently learned that he is not interested in the Constitution at all, but in how judges should REINTERPRET it, to redistribute wealth...please listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck or read this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122497140074869661.html

Obama will likely accede to the liberal Congress's wish for "Card Check" , which will essesntially force unionization across the country by eliminating the right to a private vote on the issue at your employer.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/obama-supports-union-organizing/

Obama will sign the Freedom of Choice act, which although a nice name, will eliminate all possible restrictions on abortion today, which various states legislatures and individual voters through referenda have implemented, such as: waiting time, parental notification and restrictions on partial birth procedures. He even voted against a law to save children who have survived abortions. http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

Whether you are for a women's right to choose or are disturbed by the use of abortion as birth control, all reasonable people should be able to agree that people through their elected officials and constitutional votes should work through these changes in the democratic process .not decided by unelected judges. http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html You can see again Obamas comments on the Constitution and judicial activisim with regard to this issue - which are clearly against 200 plus years of history.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/472559,CST-NWS-sweet18.article

Obama voted to withdraw all troops from Iraq over a year and a half ago, which would have eliminated all chance for the Surge to succeed. This Surge has succeeded today in protecting the Iraqi people from the terrorists who have been blowing them up since we invaded their country and deposed their corrupt murderous dictator...which was only implemented because of John McCain. The current administration tried to win the war by not having enough troops there for far too long. Only because of John McCain is it possible that we can leave a more stable situation than was the case only just months ago.

Obama has also openly advocated invading / targetting Pakistan, a wholly irresponsible discussion in public of a delicate situation Obama's running mate thinks our enemies will test Obama because he is weak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpiNfuG8YY8 Pres.Clintons Sec of State thinks so too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD_EAe1N9-M

Why do we need to watch Barack Obama get tested, when we know John McCain...after all, he spent 5 1/2 years getting tortured in a North Vietnam prison camp and made it out alive, with his honor intact... and still wants to serve his country.

Lastly, I know we're all sick and tired of the association & terrorist references to Bill Ayers, and the racial tirades of Obama's multiple pastors. However, generally where there's smoke there's fire...and Obama himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDTluWDUBEY refers to his affiliations "I chose my friends carefully...marxist professors". Perhaps thats why he has his tax and judicial policies...he agrees with the Marxists.

I understand that many people are frustrated about the economy and the way things are going with house prices, retirement accounts, government spending, and wars that haven't gone so well. Sometimes we all want to run away from the world. Unfortunately, Barack Obama's lofty rhetoric won't fix these problems, and will make many of these situations worse for us. John McCain has never been George Bush, and will be a President we will all be proud of. Please vote John McCain one week from today on November 4, or early, if you can. For those of you near Colorado or New Mexico, John can use your help there especially. thank you

Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif renounces the murder of civilians and choosing targets based on religion or nationality

Defusing Jihad from within


Could it be that the end of Islamist violence will be brought about by Jihadists themselves?
Jul 21, 2007 04:30 AM Sarah Barmak Special to the Star
After collectively wringing our hands for years over how many hearts, minds and billions of dollars it will take to win the global war on terror, the secret weapon needed to fight the terrorists might just turn out to be the terrorists themselves.
Revelations surfaced last week that one of Islamic Jihad's former top leaders is planning to renounce the extremes that define the movement, including the murder of civilians and choosing targets based on their religion or nationality. Such a retraction could puncture a huge hole in the fabric of the ideology of radical Islam, experts say. It could also trickle down to mosques and madrassas in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where terrorist doctrine often incubates.
Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, a former associate of Al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman Al Zawahiri whose writings provided much of the religious and intellectual foundation for that group, was reported in a Washington Post article to be authoring his retraction in the underground Egyptian prison where he has been held for much of the last decade.
As militant followers of el-Sherif begin to fall in line behind his so-called "revision" before it has even been penned, a long-neglected and complex aspect of the history of the jihadist movement is beginning to come to light. It shows that the surface of Islamic insurgency is anything but uniform: It contains cracks and fissures, with both moderate and extreme factions vying for supremacy.
Paradoxically, it would seem that violent jihadists can occasionally preach restraint more effectively than their Western critics, since terrorists would be more receptive to messages from their own than from outsiders.
Professor Fawaz A. Gerges, a Middle East scholar at New York's Sarah Lawrence College who has written two books dealing with what he calls the "civil war" within radical Islam, has long argued that such rifts within terrorist groups are nothing new. He also claims they may represent a great opportunity for the West.
"Since 2001, if we had looked closely at the debates ... we would have realized that the overwhelming number of (militants) not only stayed on the sidelines, but vehemently criticized Al Qaeda and 9/11," says Gerges, who is in New York briefly after having spent a year in the Middle East interviewing Islamic insurgents.
According to Gerges, the Western media's "Al Qaeda-centric" approach of lumping all Middle Eastern radicalism together is misleading. In actuality, he says, the creation of Al Qaeda in the mid-1990s created a rift among extremists. Al Qaeda was a small, elitist, fringe group interested in attacking what they called "the far enemy," or the U.S. This was preposterous to most militant Islamist organizations, which concentrated on "the near enemy" – local Muslim and Arab governments.
For Gerges, revisions such as el-Sherif's allow governments to learn key information about how terrorist cells work – and how their points of weakness may be exploited. Not all observers are as optimistic.
"I share Fawaz's position in general," comments Jens Hanssen, who teaches Middle Eastern history at the University of Toronto. "The questions are to what extent these revisions occurred under torture and how irreversible they are."
Hanssen pointed to the practice of taqqiye in Islamic history, which allows Muslims to lie under duress and retract statements later – although such a loophole has normally been associated with Shiites. El-Sherif's credentials are "as `Sunnist' as they get," he says.
Gerges says that misses the larger point. "The question really is, can Islamist movements transform themselves...can they be integrated into the political process? Do we have historical examples (of this)? I think we do."
Indeed, the list of extremists who have later become advocates of moderation – even mainstream leaders – is a long one, including prime ministers, Nobel Prize winners and other influential world leaders (see factbox).
In every historical case of an extremist's jump to moderation, however, critics will always remain to doggedly remember the bad old days. Gerges remains optimistic that the best source of moderation may be within the lunatic fringe.
"Let's capitalize on those revisions," says Gerges. "We should really build alliances with the same people who renounce violence and see whether they are genuine."

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al Al-Sheikh warns against terrorism

http://www.saudinf.com/main/y6674.htm
27Jan2004 Grand Mufti warns against terrorism
Makkah, 27th January 2004
The Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al Al-Sheikh said that Islam does not tolerate the shedding of blood or the random killing of either Muslims or non-Muslims. In a lecture given at King Faisal Auditorium on Monday evening, Al Al-Sheikh warned against acts of terrorism, and emphasised the detriment they cause to society.
Al Al-Sheikh stressed the importance of honouring agreements and treaties, and said that Islam does not tolerate any form of betrayal and dishonesty. He said that Islam has nothing do with terrorism, which utterly contradicts the teachings of Islam and rulings of the Islamic Shariah.
He said that terrorism, which is a result of deviant ideas, destabilizes society and threatens the welfare of all citizens. “The Ulema (Muslim scholars) utterly oppose terrorism, and believe in obedience to rulers,” he noted.
Calling for the enlightenment of youth, Al Al-Sheikh stressed the importance of protecting youth from deviant ideas. “The terrorist acts that have been committed in Makkah, Madinah, and Riyadh are completely contrary to the teachings of Islam,” he added.
Source: SPA

oberweis

Bad sign in Chicago...Oberweis loses the Hastert seat...and not so close...could portend landslide Dem Congress pickups...but TBD.

McCain vs the Two-Headed Disaster

It really doesn't matter which Democrat that McCain has to run against after the August Democrat convention chooses...either will be a disaster.

1. Both have committed to withdrawing in defeat from Iraq
2. Both have committed to raising taxes during a recession
3. Both have committed in varying ways, to destroying the best medical care system in the world
4. Both have committed to eliminating any further gains for the US in our trade agenda...which is again, terrible policy during a recession, as most trade entering the US is tarriff free...its the exports that our trade agenda is working to improve.
5. Both have committed to increasing spending and regulation, while McCain has been a consistent Conservative in his drive to minimize unnecessary spending, while ensuring competition is fair on his tenure on the Commerce Committee.
6. Both have minimal foreign policy experience...Barack was in grade school and Hillary was partying in Woodstock while McCain was in a Vietnamese prison camp.

John McCain should begin to refer to the Democrats as the Two-headed Democrat Disaster...as he will have to campaign against both of them for months...and perhaps until August.

My March 2006 GOP Nomination Post

I'm back now folks, guess I was in a blogging malaise...funny as it was probably amidst the best news for Iraq since the invasion, lots of political news, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks to Rosemary, at http://rosemarysthoughts.blogspot.com/ for reminding me...
I wrote this quite a while ago, and while I did not foresee the rise of Barack Obamania, I think its a pretty good analysis for what actually occurred. Next post will talk about McCain's chances vs. Obama...the still not certain, but likely nominee. for now, though, I'm packing for a little beach vacation. happy reading.



Tuesday, March 21, 2006

My McCain 2008 PRO & CON Analysis
PROS:
1. Has always been fiscally responsible, voting against pork, excessive spending, etc. He is currently working with Sen. Coburn to highlight each individual earmark.
2. Has consistently favored higher defense spending, favors a forward-leaning defense posture, and is one of the strongest defenders and communicators of our Long-War & War on Terror strategy in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. He agrees that advocating democracy and freedom can increase our peace and security over the long run. He understands the "neo-con" view of the world, of which I subscribe. This view holds that from 1945-2001, we supported dictators in the Middle East, which linked the US with those dictators, and caused the people to slowly turn against us because of the inherent corruption, poverty & joblessness that always results from dictatorships. This bad economic, political and social environment then fostered hatred & intolerance.
3. He has generally been pro-life, but much like my view, is not completely intolerant to the view that the woman should have control of her own person when there are mitigating circumstances. However, I believe strongly that states and the people within them should have the power to set their own laws when it comes to this issue and NOT judges, and he has recently said that he would sign the SD bill.
4. McCain has become much more of a party-supporter over the last 2 years. He campaigned vigorously for the President and many colleagues in 2004, and will do so again in 2006. I believe he has learned that bucking the party only gains him Dem friends, and he'll never be President without 85% of the GOP votes. It seems as though he has mended fences with the Bush administration and is also gaining in key-politicos and donor personnel. This will take time, but must be a focus.
CONS:
1. McCain voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in both the budget and separate votes. Although he supported the tax cuts in 2005, his view on this critical item is suspect and I demand more from a GOP Presidential candidate, especially when these cuts have been proven to both grow tax revenues and the economy over time. McCain may have some "evolving" to do on this issue, which it looks like he is trying to do, and this is critical for him to gain GOP votes. He has to get out in front of any potential tax reform efforts and lead to have any credibility, but CPR is possible here.
2. Freedom of speech issues are a problem as well. The campaign finance reform issue was a big one for McCain, and I am fully against limiting individual contributions. However, McCain Feingold was a boon for the GOP in that it did double the hard-dollar limits. My view is that both corporate and union money should be banned completely, and that individual limits should be doubled again, but this will never happen. This issue is a problem for McCain, and I don't see him fixing GOP opinion much here.
3. Judges is the 3rd problem for McCain. He brokered the "gang of 14" which did help to confirm some of the blocked appeals court nominees, and ensured Alito and Roberts passage, but the agreement appeared to many GOP faithful to be another cave to the left. He needs to be a forceful advocate for "judicial restraint" and come out aggressively against any liberal judicial rulings over the next 2 years.
4. Because he has bucked GOP orthodoxy so many times over the past 5 years, there is little trust in McCain from the GOP grassroots. This can be overcome, but must be a long-term effort that is consistent and visible.
GOP Competitors:
Rudy Giuliani has a shot, but McCain is much more socially conservative. Head to head, John would win 2-1.
George Allen is a popular, gregarious fellow, but I think he's probably just a bit too much like President Bush in personality & communication methodology. Now matter how much I like GWB, I think the broader electorate will probably be looking for something a bit different.
Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee are good conservatives but would need $1 Billion apiece just to get the Name Recognition that McCain already has. Both will lose to most DEMs.
Governor & former Olympics coordinator Mitt Romney is probably the most likely competitor down the stretch, although he is also a bit unknown. However, his strong showing at the SRLC in Tennessee opened a lot of eyes. He is socially conservative, balanced a huge budget deficit in Massachusetts without a tax hike, and has pretty good organization already set. He is running, and I think will be the conservative challenger to McCain.
Condi Rice or JEB Bush would be fantastic Presidents, both, but I believe neither are running. Both might be running for VEEP, and both would make fantastic running mates.
Pataki and the rest of the also-rans should drop their thoughts of running. They don't have a shot at beating any one of the above names. Oh I forgot Bill Frist, sorry. That should give you some idea of what I think of his chancesssssszzzzzzzz
GOP Nomination Summary:
I think McCain has the best shot right now at winning the GOP nomination in 2008. Independents love him, and he can win back most of the GOP, if he works consistently & patiently over the next 2.5 years to show that he has both learned that some of his prior positions were incorrect and that he is a more Conservative politician than the GOP grassroots think he is.
DEM Competitors:
Hillary is most likely the nominee, but Mark Warner wil be her credible challenger from the "center-left", Russ Feingold will be the competitor from the liberal quarter, and a DEM Latino governor from the southwest (New Mexico) named Bill Richardson gives me the willies, but it seems as though he is too disorganized and childish (read: Bill Clinton) to have a credible shot at anything but VEEP. Any one of these candidates will get 48% guaranteed in the General, and Hillary or Warner could get 49%. 2008
GENERAL Conclusion:
McCain will win if he runs a credible campaign, and could win by more than GWB in 2004. If Romney is the nominee, the race is closer, he has to run a perfect campaign, and any other GOP candidate could likely lose.
UPDATE:
1. Thanks to Vodkapundit, Decision '08 and Polipundit for the links.
2. Several folks have mentioned McCain's support for CFR, the "anti-torture" bill, McCain's age (he'll be the oldest POTUS in history), some history as wishy-washy on ROE, support for the "Kyoto-kill American Industry treaty", and 1 big one I forgot - the Illegals bill (he supports a more 'forgiving' bill than most conservatives... but I also forgot that McCain was a strong supporter of the Ports deal, and Free Trade in General. My view on the ports? IF we are not profiling arab men 15-55 from getting on our airplanes, why are we profiling an entire country?
These are all vaid points CON a McCain nomination (I do understand that most independents don't vote in MOST GOP primaries), but I would wager that a close call in 2006 ( I'm not yet convinced that we lose the Senate or House - GWB will go all out to protect his legacy as the only President in decades to win seats each race) will push many towards the view that McCain would most probably win, and that the Hillary-monster is looming large. She would be worse on EVERY issue that matters.
My analysis does push Giuliani down lower in the pack because he is not obviously organizing, which is the key part of the race now. If you do not lock up key talent and fundraisers early, all the good resources are gone when it matters.) I think it's a big deal that McCain is slowly vacuuming up key Bush personnel (and has Trent Lott's support). I do think that Rudy would be valuable in the VEEP slot, and if he suddenly comes out with a rip-roaring stemwinder on some issue, things could change, but he's been strangely silent on many issues that could have helped him...Katrina, Ports, Roberts and Alito - had he stepped up to advocate for them he could have made a lot of waves erasing his pro-abortion past....but he didn't.
GWB had the race effectively set-up for him to win by Nov 1998. (in May 1998, I wrote my senior thesis for a political communication class on how GWB could win in 2000). This race is more up in the air, but the equivalent year this time around is getting very close. The fact that 2 candidates this year are very credible (McCain, Romney) , along with the other "potential" candidates (Brownback, Huckabee, Frist, Giuliani, Rice, Bush) will make this a much more interesting year on the GOP side.

ON the right track

I havent been back for a while now...sorry...but I'm getting back into the swing of things...and so it seems for Iraq. The surge is slowly but surely working. We need to give it more time, because success in Iraq is that important.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/09/10/generalpetraeustestimonyslides10september2007.pdf

In Memoriam

I stand with the patriotic Abu Risha tribe, and all Iraqis today to condemn the senseless murder of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Bezia al-Rishawi. I ask all Iraqis to come together to defeat the murderous killers, and to work together to create one Iraq, for Iraqis.

Joint Statement
By Charge d'Affaires Patricia A. Butenis and
Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno
Regarding the Assassination of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Bezia al-Rishawi
It is with outrage that the United States and Multi-National Force Iraq condemn the assassination today of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Bezia al-Rishawi. Sheikh Sattar headed the Abu Risha tribe since the murder of his father by Al-Qaeda in 2004. He founded the Sahawat Al Anbar, or Anbar Awakening Council, an alliance of 42 tribes pledged to fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq.We extend our deepest condolences to his family and to the families of the others killed in the attack, and our prayers for those who were wounded, including Sheikh Sattar's nephew.
Sheikh Sattar will be remembered for his commitment to peace and security in Anbar. He had the courage to build unity in the face of ruthless violence. Sheikh Sattar exemplified the strength of the Iraqi people in the face of terrorism. His work will go on, and his legacy will never be forgotten.We stand in solidarity with all Iraqis in expressing our sorrow at this barbaric and senseless killing. We will continue to work with the leaders and people of Iraq as they strive for peace and stability for their country. Our policy in this regard will not change.The Coalition will work with the Government of Iraq to bring those who perpetrated this heinous act to justice. Further, we will continue to work with the Government of Iraq to honor the work and sacrifice of Sheikh Sattar who was a martyr in the honorable cause of peace in Iraq.