LA Times:
------------
Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.
Except, it turns out, that's not really true.
In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the great Republican satan 25%. Obviously, this is unacceptable to current popular thinking.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
I'm all for immigration
Done the right way. Congratulation, newest fellow patriots.
----------------
Robert Looney... administers the oath of naturalization to 77 servicemembers on Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, Nov. 11, 2008. (image at link)
----------------
Robert Looney... administers the oath of naturalization to 77 servicemembers on Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan, Nov. 11, 2008. (image at link)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Data: US Still Center-Right After 2008 Election
But can we keep it that way? Tony Blankley at WaPo:
-----------
... It is revealing that the exit polling disclosed that the public self-identified itself as 44 percent moderate, 34 percent conservative, 22 percent liberal, which was statistically identical (45-34-21) to the numbers after Bush's 2004 victory. ...
...Consider that in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won his first presidential election, the public was self-identified as 46 percent moderate, 28 percent conservative and17 percent liberal. But by the 1984 Reagan re-election the public had shifted to 42 percent moderate, 33 percent conservative and 16 percent liberal - a statistically significant shift to the right. In those four years Mr. Reagan had convinced 5 percent of the electorate to move largely from moderate to conservative. And that 5 percent have stayed conservative for 24 years, right through the 2008 election. It is that 5 percent that has made America a center-right country, rather than a centrist country - allowing a fairly conservative Republican Party to win both congressional and presidential elections most of the time.
-----------
... It is revealing that the exit polling disclosed that the public self-identified itself as 44 percent moderate, 34 percent conservative, 22 percent liberal, which was statistically identical (45-34-21) to the numbers after Bush's 2004 victory. ...
...Consider that in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won his first presidential election, the public was self-identified as 46 percent moderate, 28 percent conservative and17 percent liberal. But by the 1984 Reagan re-election the public had shifted to 42 percent moderate, 33 percent conservative and 16 percent liberal - a statistically significant shift to the right. In those four years Mr. Reagan had convinced 5 percent of the electorate to move largely from moderate to conservative. And that 5 percent have stayed conservative for 24 years, right through the 2008 election. It is that 5 percent that has made America a center-right country, rather than a centrist country - allowing a fairly conservative Republican Party to win both congressional and presidential elections most of the time.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Death by a thousand cuts
(I try to reserve this statement only for emergencies.)
This is a MUST READ.
Bush has walked us down this isle and McCain tried to continue it. "Compromise" is not a noble cause. "Healing the nation" is not synonymous with defending the Constitution. (Mark Steyn)
------------
“The greatest dangers to liberty,” wrote Justice Brandeis, “lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Now who does that remind you of?
Ha! Trick question! Never mind Obama, it's John McCain.
This is a MUST READ.
Bush has walked us down this isle and McCain tried to continue it. "Compromise" is not a noble cause. "Healing the nation" is not synonymous with defending the Constitution. (Mark Steyn)
------------
“The greatest dangers to liberty,” wrote Justice Brandeis, “lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Now who does that remind you of?
Ha! Trick question! Never mind Obama, it's John McCain.
Rookie Miskates?
You know how you like an actor, then you see him on the Tonight show and your image is shaken? I'm afraid many people are going to get that feeling about President-elect Obama soon. Powerline
----------------
The only news Barack Obama made in his first post-election press conference was when, in a classless moment, he falsely ridiculed Nancy Reagan for holding "seances" in the White House. He was then compelled to call her to apologize for what he termed his "careless remark."
It appears that Obama may have been careless again yesterday, with international consequences. He spoke with the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, on the telephone. Afterward, Kaczynski wrote that Obama "said that the missile-defense project would continue." The Obama camp then released a statement to the effect that Obama had said no such thing: "President Kaczynski raised missile defense but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it."
It's possible that President Kaczynski deliberately misquoted Obama, but that seems highly unlikely. It's much more probable that Obama indulged in his usual ambiguity, failed to choose his words carefully, and thereby conveyed a misleading impression.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. ...
----------------
The only news Barack Obama made in his first post-election press conference was when, in a classless moment, he falsely ridiculed Nancy Reagan for holding "seances" in the White House. He was then compelled to call her to apologize for what he termed his "careless remark."
It appears that Obama may have been careless again yesterday, with international consequences. He spoke with the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, on the telephone. Afterward, Kaczynski wrote that Obama "said that the missile-defense project would continue." The Obama camp then released a statement to the effect that Obama had said no such thing: "President Kaczynski raised missile defense but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it."
It's possible that President Kaczynski deliberately misquoted Obama, but that seems highly unlikely. It's much more probable that Obama indulged in his usual ambiguity, failed to choose his words carefully, and thereby conveyed a misleading impression.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. ...
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Enemy #1
From Pajamas Media:
---------------
When the object is to win, it would seem that the most salient key to victory lies in properly gauging the true character of one’s opponent. And in this regard, it seems to me that our beloved Senator McCain — outstanding war hero and statesman that he is — failed to comprehend the reality on the ground regarding Barack Obama and that army of trench fighters backing his candidacy.
---------------
The irony is that Obama and the democrats will bend over backwards to negotiate, compromise and appease the enemies of the United States. But when if comes to Republicans, the Democrats are more than willing to fight rather than compromise.
---------------
When the object is to win, it would seem that the most salient key to victory lies in properly gauging the true character of one’s opponent. And in this regard, it seems to me that our beloved Senator McCain — outstanding war hero and statesman that he is — failed to comprehend the reality on the ground regarding Barack Obama and that army of trench fighters backing his candidacy.
---------------
The irony is that Obama and the democrats will bend over backwards to negotiate, compromise and appease the enemies of the United States. But when if comes to Republicans, the Democrats are more than willing to fight rather than compromise.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Unity
Does Obama have his "Cheney"? (The Corner via Hot Air)
-----------
Emanuel was by all accounts a very effective White House staffer in the Clinton administration, and he has certainly been an effective member of the House of Representatives. He is smart and tough. But he has been, in both positions, a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient....
The White House chief of staff is not a chief strategist or a chief advocate. He is a manager of people and of process. Above all else, he sets the tone internally, and shapes the president’s decision process and the feel of the upper tiers of the administration. Obama is especially in need of someone who will lead him to decisions, because he appears to be intensely averse to making difficult choices—which is the essence of what the president. His inclination is to step back and conceptualize the choice out of existence, looking reasonable but doing nothing. To overcome this, he will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel. There is definitely a place for a Rahm Emanuel type of brilliant ruthless shark in a White House staff, but not in the Chief’s office. Not a good first sign.t does.
-----------
Emanuel was by all accounts a very effective White House staffer in the Clinton administration, and he has certainly been an effective member of the House of Representatives. He is smart and tough. But he has been, in both positions, a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient....
The White House chief of staff is not a chief strategist or a chief advocate. He is a manager of people and of process. Above all else, he sets the tone internally, and shapes the president’s decision process and the feel of the upper tiers of the administration. Obama is especially in need of someone who will lead him to decisions, because he appears to be intensely averse to making difficult choices—which is the essence of what the president. His inclination is to step back and conceptualize the choice out of existence, looking reasonable but doing nothing. To overcome this, he will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel. There is definitely a place for a Rahm Emanuel type of brilliant ruthless shark in a White House staff, but not in the Chief’s office. Not a good first sign.t does.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
What must our enemies be thinking?
A spot-on piece in the WSJ. This morning-after-the-election, Obama and the left want me to join them in uniting the country. For at least the last 4 years I have seen the left excoriate President Bush and now they want ME to let by-gones be by-gones? Don't count on it.
---------
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
---------
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
