Sunday, September 07, 2008 |
|
Barack Claims He Wanted to Join the Military |
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
8:04 PM |
Somehow, he left it out of his two memoirs, but this morning, Barack told George Stephanopoulos that he really thought about joining the military, but chose not to because we weren't in a war at the time.
Sorry. I don't believe it. I've had some good things to say about the Barack Obama I knew. But no way, no how is this true. Barack and the people who surrounded him were hardly the types to have any sympathy with or interest in the military. They were the type who supported the ban on ROTC at Harvard and other Ivy League schools and were happily anti-military because of the military's ban on gays.
What's more, the presence or absence of military conflict is irrelevant to many of the people who join ROTC. Many did so during peacetime as a way to pay for their educations -- like one of my roommates at Princeton. If Barack had had any inclination to serve in the military in even a limited capacity, of course, this option might have helped defray some of the cost of those student loans that his wife keeps discussing.
|
|
|
Sunday, September 07, 2008 |
|
Sleaze Alert |
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
7:23 PM |
At this hour, the Drudge Report has an item (no link) that reads as follows: "NYT PREPARES TO FRONT EXPOSE ON PALIN'S BABY... DEVELOPING..."
Who knows? It could be a false lead. Or . . .
Is it even conceivable (no pun intended) that the "newspaper of record" would try to run an "expose" on a baby in order to harm his mother for political reasons? Are they going to try to blame the Governor in some way for little Trig's Down syndrome? What can there possibly be to "expose"?
The possibilities boggle the mind, and sadly, after what we've seen last week, there's not really much I'm prepared to rule out. It would seem to me, however, that the Times is running the risk of creating the backlash of all time, in what seems like a transparent effort to offer aid and comfort to the Obama/Biden ticket.
|
|
|
Sunday, September 07, 2008 |
|
Obama Surrogates Smearing Palin |
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
6:25 PM |
Barack Obama has promised he wouldn't wage a smear campaign against Sarah Palin but a number of his surrogates are sure getting their hands dirty. Too many to be a coincidence.
Take for example this CNN report in which Drew Griffin confirms members of the Obama campaign contacted Palin's former-brother-in-law Mike Wooten's union.
Hmmm...Why, might I ask, would political operatives be contacting Wooten's union? To squeeze the union to pressure Wooten to speak out against Palin, perhaps? Someone needs to ask Team Obama who exactly is involved and why they think it's okay to do this.
And while we're on Troopergate doesn't anyone else think it's a little "conflict of interesty" that Obama supporter Hollis French is leading the investigation against Palin? You think any of our mainstream media friends might have a question about that one?
Secondly, when is Obama going to denounce, or at least distance himself for pity's sake, from the email written by his spokesman Mark Bubriski that called Palin a NAZI SYMPATHIZER? Or give his Finance Chair Howard Gutman the cursory slap on the wrist for calling Palin a bad mother?
The answer, I expect is never. (That is, unless the MSM finally stops wondering what on earth Bristol Palin is going to name her first child and starts asking Obama some real questions about the ruthless, no-holds-barred campaign he's running.)
If Obama really wanted to stay above the fray, he would have fired these people from his campaign. Since he didn't I can only assume his campaign does support these kind of attacks and that his operatives have no intention of running clean against Sarah.
I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Sunday, September 07, 2008 |
|
Secret Weapon: Todd Palin |
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
5:16 PM |
It's somewhat amusing to think that the Obama campaign might really believe that Hillary Clinton is going to help Barack win Pennsylvania, for two reasons. First, since when was Hillary Clinton really the blue collar male voter's candidate of choice? Could it be that they voted less for her than against her arugula-loving elitist primary opponent? Second, if the Obama campaign really thinks Hillary is committed to seeing their man win -- well, let's just hope that they don't take that level of naivete into negotiations with Putin.
What may be being overlooked a bit in all the Obama camps calculations is Todd Palin's appeal to blue-collar men. I can see the voters both campaigns are after resonating more to a snow-mobiling union "regular guy" than to a presidential candidate who sees them as "bitter" -- or his running mate, whose working class roots have been somewhat softened around the edges by years of Senate bloviating.
|
|
|
Sunday, September 07, 2008 |
|
Obama's Sunday Morning Gaffe |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
5:01 PM |
I have no reason to believe Barack Obama is anything other than a Christian -- as he professes. To my knowledge, no credible person has argued that he is anything other than a Christian. However, in the viral world of the new media age, this verbal gaffe is a step backwards for the candidate who has spent months trying to false debunk rumors (mostly spread via email) that he is, in fact, a Muslim ...
... At best, this causes confusion and forces Obama to expend more time and energy to set the record straight. At worse, some Obama opponents -- certainly not anyone credible -- will use it in an attempt to frighten some voters. Either way, by misspeaking, Obama may have opened the door back up on an issue he has desperately been trying to put to bed. At the very least, it will be talked about -- and Obama will have to answer more questions on the subject -- when he would rather discuss a topic that might actually help him win...
|
|
|
Sunday, September 07, 2008 |
|
Obama on Why He Never Joined the Military |
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
1:30 PM |
If Barack Obama was just honest about why he never joined the miltiary it would sound a lot better. This excuse he keeps putting up about not joining because he was never drafted is much worse than just saying "I wanted to be a lawyer."
About a week ago Obama said he never served in the military he wasn't subjected to the draft. “I didn't serve, as many people my age, because the Vietnam war was over by the time I was of draft age and we went to an all-volunteer Army" he's quoted saying by the AP on August 25.
Today on ABC News Obama says he didn't join because the US wasn't fighting a war when he graduated high school. He left off the part about not joining because he wasn't drafted, but it's basically the same message. "You know, I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school" Obama said. "And I was growing up in Hawaii, and I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there. And I actually always thought of the military as an enobling and, you know, honorable option.But keep in mind — I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue."
|
|
|
Sunday, September 07, 2008 |
|
CNN This Morning |
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
9:54 AM |
I'm about to go on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz to talk about the media's coverage of the conventions and Sarah Palin.
By the way, if you haven't been reading Kurtz's columns about the media in the Washington Post, you should. His archive is HERE. He always has the inside scoop and he's one of the best in the MSM at giving the GOP a fair shake, IMO.
|
|
|
Saturday, September 06, 2008 |
|
Chicago Rules: Defending Sarah Palin From The Chicago Machine |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:58 PM |
The Obama thugs that tried to intimidate Stanley Kurtz are now busy sending e-mails alleging everything about Sarah Palin except an illegal polar bear hunt, and that may be in tomorrow's in-box. Teams of Obamians are arriving in Alaska to invent veneers for smears, even though by now the record of rebuttal is so complete that perhaps even the New York Times will hesitate before publishing another round of lies and retractions. (Then again, probably not.) Exposure as a dirt-monger doesn't deter those without a conscience.
One thing is clear: McCain-Palin is going to need a large "compliance fund" which are the monies used to defend the campaign on a variety of legal fronts in the weeks ahead. It is still legal to contribute to this fund, and if you support a fair shake for Sarah Palin, you should.
The three posts directly below --on Team Obama's disgraceful handling of their surplus flags from coronation night, the questions that need to be answered about Obama-Ayers, and Obama's incoherent gun ramble from yesterday-- all suggest an Obama campaign in crisis. The huge crowd at the McCain-Palin event in Colorado today will only work to increase the sense of panic on the left, which in turn will raise not only the level of nuttery in the leftosphere but also trigger more resort by Obama to the Chicago rules he has mastered. When the going gets tough, Obama has a history of doing whatever it takes to win, so watch it get even uglier next week.
UPDATE: Be sure to read Jack Kelly's Sarah Barracuda: Palin should strike fear in the hearts of Democrats. Hard to believe Jack is a Steelers fan. I haven't pinned down this most-disquieting of rumors about Governor Palin yet, but it is said that she, like Jack and Rush, suffer from "SDS," Steelers Derangement Syndrome, which leaves the afflicted with sudden flashbacks of NFL highlight films from the '70s.
See also the Los Angeles Times' Andrew Malcolm noting that Hillary is refusing to join in the disgusting attacks on Palin. The story includes this picture:
Here's an e-mail re: yesterday's McCain-Palin rally in Colorado Springs:
Obama’s media reports: “more than 10,000 saw McCain and Palin….. but that is to be expected because it is Colorado Springs.”
The truth---
1) I haven’t seen a reliable number but
2) Cars were backed up for miles
3) The line to get in was about a mile long 3 abreast when the hanger was already full and stretched in a 20 yard semi circle outside the hanger door.
4) 12,000 flags were handed out and not more than 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4 people received one.
5) At least 15,000 tickets were handed out per McCAin HQ and many were noted to admit 2
6) Children on 16 were not issued tickets and many children were there.
7) At the end they passed anyone through the magnatometer
8) I had a high bleacher seat and could see 3/4 of the crowd. I tried to picture them in seats in a stadium and concluded that there had to be at least 30,000 and could be as many as 50,000.
Many came from Fort Collins or Lamar 100 to 150 miles away. Many came from Denver 90 miles away. It would have been more correct to say it is to be expected because it is McCain and Palin.
If they had a bigger venue they could have issued tickets for another 50,000… They stopped issuing tickets not previously reserved mid week.
Just one more incident of a media denial. Finally, ModerateRisk is peempting attacks on Palin smears. Examples:
1. No, Sarah Palin did not have a torrid love affair with GEN Petraeus while she was in Kuwait visiting AKNG troops....
12. No, Sarah Palin did not hunt down and kill everybody with a picture of her in a bikini from her pageant days. (Most people destroyed the negatives of their own free will after the disappearances started.)
|
|
|
Saturday, September 06, 2008 |
|
Obama's Ayers' Gambit and The Questions It Should Raise |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
1:49 PM |
Yesterday I played the tape of Barack Obama telling a crowd that he was being accused of being a Muslim, and of associating with radicals. This was a weak attempt to asssociate the disreputable and unfair charge concerning Obama's faith --never made by any responsible journalist much less the McCain campaign-- with the very real concern that Obama's friendship and close partnership on the Annenberg Challenge with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Obviously Obama is hoping to persuade the public and journalists that the story of Obama's association with Ayers is as irresponsible as nutter claims that Obama is a Muslim. Obama has used this tactic before, and we can expect to hear it again and again.
The most important thing we know for sure about Obama's relationship with Ayers is that Obama mischaracterized it when asked about it in a nationally televised debate. That alone should be a red flag for journalists. Here's his response to the Stephanopoulos question about Ayers:
GS: Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.
The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those, either.
So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.
Called on this by Hillary, Obama acknowledged that he served on a board with Ayers, then the subject was dropped.
Through the work of Stanley Kurtz, whom Obama's Chicago gang has unsuccessfully tried to intimidate, we already know that Obama and Ayers served not just on the Woods Foundation together but in a close partnership on the controversial Annenberg Challenge. Kurtz is continuing his researches, but MSM --so quick to invent stories about Sarah Palin such as the New York Times' fiction on the vetting process which launched a thousand smears-- doesn't have to wait for Kurtz's to wrap up his researches to ask obvious questions and press for detailed answers on how closely and how often Obama worked with Ayers on Woods and Annenberg and whether or not Obama ever represented Ayers or any of Ayers' projects as a lawyer.
When Obama yesterday in effect asserted that the charge of his association with radicals was as false as the charge that he was a Muslim, he was renewing his attempt to lay a defense he must realize he will soon need. We know this a dodge, an attempt to categorize the Ayers connection as as far-fetched as the misinformation about Obama's faith. We know after last week that MSM is in the tank for Obama, but are there any MSMers left with any standards who will ask the obvious questions: How often did Obama meet with Ayers? Why did Ayers recruit Obama to the Annenberg Foundation? Has Obama or his firm ever represented Ayers? If so, on what matters? Was Obama unaware of Ayers' current political views which are indeed radical? Did they never talk politics or theory?
The voters would like to know, even if the MSM arm of the Obama campaign doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blog Postings:
|
|
Last updated 14 Minutes 10 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 18 Minutes 47 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 35 Minutes 15 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 35 Minutes 51 Seconds Ago
|
|
Last updated 37 Minutes 22 Seconds Ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archives Archives
|
|
| | | |