Now She Tells Us

After years of media disparagement of George W. Bush and portrayals of him as being out of touch and inarticulate, a major news personality finally sets the record straight. In an interview with Lloyd Grove of The Daily Beast, CBS News anchor Katie Couric let slip a trade secret of the national news: "George W. Bush was not the ignoramus we made him out to be."

Couric said this to Grove:

I didn’t get a chance to interview President Bush all that often. I often went to lunches that I was invited to before the State of the Union, before they announced the "surge," and that was really interesting because I think President Bush felt a lot more relaxed and was a lot more facile with information and details and policy than I think probably the American people gave him credit for and were exposed to.

Couric's last statement..."were exposed to"...is the most telling statement. If the American people somehow drew the conclusion that George W. Bush was not intellectually up to the task (I'm not sure they did even though it was an article of faith among the American Left), it was because he was portrayed that way by the mainstream media.

I will be waiting with bated breath to see if Ms. Couric and Co. apply the same standard (or lack thereof) in reporting on President Barack Hussein Obama. Somehow, I think we will see a stark change in how the presidency is viewed.

Prove me wrong, Ms. Couric...please!

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Now...A New Ice Age (LINK)

The Democrats are now poised to take over both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. Among the various promises that the Democrats made was the assurance that they would deal with the catastrophic global warming that some scientists and many politicians say will bring life on this planet to the brink of extinction. At least that is what the more extreme are saying. And, as we all know, the politicians love to quote the more extreme so as to generate more sympathy for their government solutions.

Anyway, as the Democrats are about to take the reins of power and implement economically disastrous remedies for global warming, prominent scientists are now saying that global warming is not the problem that we should be concerned with but rather the onset of a new ice age.

A recent article, appearing in the British Daily Mail, referenced the work of two scientists whose findings were published in the prestigious science periodical Nature. These scientists are predicting a new ice age due to...get this...FALLING LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

According to the Daily Mail:

British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Britain in 6,000ft of ice. Most of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England could be covered in 3,000ft-thick ice fields. The expanses could reach 6,000ft from Aberdeen to Kent – towering above Ben Nevis, Britain’s tallest mountain.

The article continues...

And what's more, the experts blame the global change on falling - rather than climbing - levels of greenhouse gases.

Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – could actually be the key to averting the chill.

Now, I do not for one minute think that the Democrats will allow such findings deter them from enacting radical climate measures to combat supposed global warming. This will not happen for two reasons:

First, bureaucratic inertia, the most powerful force in this country, is with the global warming crowd. They are too close to victory now and will not be stopped by something as pedestrian as actual scientific evidence. Perish that thought.

Second, this thing was never totally about science. Science, or the misinterpretation of it, was merely the justification. The actual goal of the left was greater government control over the lives of the populace. If it can be done by legislating socialism...great. If it must be done by judicial fiat...fine. If it must be done by cajoling the public into thinking that the world is ending and that drastic actions by the government are required (along with sacrifices on the part of the populace)...fine also.

For the Dems, the band will keep playing and the Obama legions will keep goosestepping along (Sorry for the mixed metaphor. Roman legions did not goosestep).

For the rest of us, as the Dems are conquering global warming that does not exist, get a good overcoat. It is going to be a long, cold winter.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Obama Plays the Race Card [LINK]

Barack Obama said Friday that Republicans will use his race in the president campaign to make people afraid to vote for him. He said:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Obama is right that race has now been interjected into this campaign; he only got the culprit wrong. It is Barack Obama who has introduced race into the campaign. It is Barack Obama who is playing the "race card."

Neither the McCain campaign nor the Republican party has raised criticisms, or even innuendos, about Obama's race. If they had, the mainstream media, otherwise known as the Obama cheering section, would have published it far and wide.

This is obviously a cynical, and racist, attempt on the part of Obama and his campaign to insulate himself from the rightful criticism of his lack of experience to be the Chief Executive of the United States. Obama has no record to run upon so he must somehow invalidate that criticism of himself. He, and his campaign, knows that some media persons fear being called a racist more than anything and that will prevent them from taking him on.

It takes no courage to run such a campagn because it plays to the baser instincts of some people. In reality, it is the Obama campaign that is trying to stoke fear. He is doing it in the traditional Democrat way...scare minorities, scare old people, etc.

This kind of campaign is totally at odds with Obama's supposedly "post-racial" image. This irony is not lost on some African-Americans. Lt. Col. Allen West, candidate for Congress in Florida's 22nd district had this to say about Obama's remarks:

My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone...however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.

It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a "uniter" and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.

Well said, Colonel.

Submitted by B. Bryant

The Problematic Election (Part 2)

Yesterday I looked at this problematic election from the standpoint of the Democrats. Today, I turn to the Republicans.

Problem #2: For the Republicans, a Weak Party and a Strong Candidate

Calling John McCain a “strong” candidate is, as are all things in 2008, relative. He is strong because he is the anti-Republican candidate in an anti-Republican year.

The year 2008 is a very bad year for Republicans. Some of that is the peril of being the party in power. Republicans held Congress for 12 years from 1994 to 2006. They have held the presidency for the past 8 years and 20 out of the past 28. There is a certain fatigue that comes with that, especially when times get difficult and the public is looking for someone to blame.

Add to that the fact that many Republicans got comfortable with power and forgot the fiscal responsibility that put them into power in the first place. President Bush’s low approval ratings and the unpopular war have also contributed to Republicans' problems with the electorate.

The Republican base is divided and disillusioned. The frustration that Republicans feel shows up in the paucity of donations to candidates for the fall. Normally, a Republican candidate can count on a large advantage in contributions. This year, John McCain will probably accept public financing while Barack Obama, flush with cash, will not (despite his promise to do so).

The Republican base has been frustrated by the big spending ways of Republicans in Congress. That frustration extends to President Bush because he failed to restrain it. President Bush has faithfully defended the country from attack in the post-911 world. For that, Republicans, as well as all Americans, owe him a debt of gratitude. However, President Bush did his part to divide the base. His nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court and his support for the amnesty bill caused great frustration and raised mistrust. The conservative base desperately needs someone with a clear conservative voice to unite them. Unfortunately, John McCain is not that man.

Most conservative Republicans are apathetic toward McCain, at best. His support for amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy) and campaign finance reform(?) (McCain-Feingold) are just part of his problem. He has jumped on the global warming bandwagon and supports cap-and-trade which has great potential to hurt the economy. His support for stem cell research makes many pro-lifers uneasy. McCain is far from the ideal candidate for Republicans. Still, by and large, conservative Republicans will vote for McCain because they simply have no choice. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said it well:

“What I hear from people is, 'John McCain was not my first choice, John McCain was not my second choice, John McCain was not my third choice. However, I would rather have a third-rate fireman than a first-class arsonist.' And they view Obama as a first-class arsonist."

That will be in many conservatives’ minds this fall and will compel them to vote McCain, despite their misgivings.

As weak as McCain appears to be from a Republican standpoint, those very things make him a strong candidate in an anti-Republican year, especially against Barack Obama. His “maverick” reputation helps him with an electorate that, for whatever reason, does not want to vote Republican. Also, when compared to the radical views of Obama, McCain looks like a right-winger.

To McCain’s credit, he is a true patriot and will never sell out America. He will have a credible foreign policy especially when compared to Barack Obama’s Carter-ism (“Trust but don’t verify because they might not like you if you do”).

To paraphrase Dick Morris; “In the Democrats you have a candidate that can’t win and a party that can’t lose. In the Republicans, you have a candidate that can’t lose and a party that can’t win.” Morris sees it as a toss-up but thinks that the election will not be close either way.

I agree and disagree with Morris on this problematic election. I do not believe the election will be especially close but I think the winner will be John McCain. I have a difficult time believing that the general public will turn the reins of the US government over to such an inexperienced empty-suit as Barack Obama. Despite his lofty rhetoric and having the mainstream media as his cheerleaders, Obama will have to deal with reality before the election and that is where he will fail. He will have to hang meat on the sketchy skeleton that he is constantly talking about and
the American public will not like it.

At least that is the way I see it. I certainly hope I am right.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Hyp-O-crite, Economics Version

B.O.H. has shifted his focus to the economy (albeit just to point out how much more debt he'll add to the USA coffers), while McCain continues to focus on Iraq and national security. So what are the headlines today?

The Free & Liberal Press is claiming that the focus of the presidential campaign has shifted to the economy. Funny how the press goes along in this game, isn't it?

Anyway, let's just point out some obvious hyp-O-crisies.
-- The nation's spending and revenue (Tax) budgets and policies are enacted through Congress.
-- Congress is currently controlled - in both Houses -by the Party of SuperDelegates
-- B.H.O. is blaming Republican President GW Bush for the economic woes of this country.

Huh? Let's look at the facts.
What economic atrocities have Bush and the Republicans wrought on the USA?
-- GW Bush wants to increase oil drilling in the USA, which would ultimately increase oil supply. (Economics for Dummies note: increasing demand without increasing supply will lead to an increase in price. If you increase supply, you either reduce price, or maintain price while satisfying increased demand.)
-- GW Bush wants to reduce taxes, which would provide American families with more funds to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- GW Bush called for a one-time tax rebate to try to stimulate the economy immediately.

What have the SuperDelegate representatives recommended?
-- B.H.O. wants to increase taxes on the upper-middle class incomes (as well as the upper-class incomes, which would include his wife's, I suppose), thus decreasing the amount of funds available for these families to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- B.H.O. wants to institute a tax on oil companies. (Economics for Dummies note: a tax imposed on a business will ultimately be passed on to its customers. So, by instituting an additional tax on oil companies, B.H.O. will be increasing gas prices even more.)
-- The Party of the SuperDelegates has tried to stimulate the economy by passing the... ummm... by recommending passage of... uh..er... Well, they must be thinking about doing something, right?

So, to summarize... GW Bush and the Republicans want to try to reduce oil prices, reduce taxes, and put more money back into the pockets of the citizens of this great country. B.H.O. and the Party of SuperDelegates want to increase taxes, increase oil and gas prices, and figure that inaction is the best political action this year.

Which party is imposing their economic will on the country?

(Hint: The Party of the SuperDelegates has been in control of Congress during these challenging economic times. What have they done for you?)

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

And heeeeeeeeere's Obama!

In case you've been living in a foreign country, or if you swore off all news stories until the Democrats decide to take real action against the weakening dollar and hair-raising oil prices... B H Obama will claim the Superdelegate Party (formerly known as the "Democratic Party") nomination for President tonight.

Finally.

Five tidbits that you should be aware of, as we start the five month journey to the Presidential Election of 2008:

1. B H Obama has served a portion of one term in the US Senate, of which he has spent 2 years campaigning for the presidential nomination. Analysis: Inexperienced.
2. B H Obama's wife, Michelle, became proud of her country - for the first time in her life - after her husband won some primaries in 2008. Analysis: Unpatriotic.
3. B H Obama's "former" pastor and spiritual guide has been labelled as anti-American and prejudiced for many years. B H Obama "resigned" from his church a couple of weeks ago, after another religious leader, speaking at his "former" church, let loose another rant against whites and females. Analysis: Dangerous, and yet spineless.
4. B H Obama has avoided all factual-based discussions and debates. In fact, B H Obama has not participated in a debate since he was asked tough questions - for the first time - by ABC during the Pennsylvania debate in April. Which he lost. Analysis: Overly sensitive, and is weak on solution details.
5. B H Obama takes umbrage with the press for asking any tough questions about his positions or past. For evidence, see the March 3, 2008 press conference. (My favorite quote: "Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We're running late." God Bless America if he wins the election and has to answer, say, nine questions about policies. He may launch missiles at the press corps.) Analysis: Overly sensitive, arrogant, and will walk if the going gets tough. Although his press conferences will provide a level of comedy we haven't seen in a long time.

Meet the nominee from the Superdelegate Party, B H Obama.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Winning Change in Strategy

In an apparent attempt to win back mainstream America, while capitalizing on the support she's garnered from political radio host Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton has declared that she will disassociate herself from MoveOn.org and run on a "platform that more accurately reflects Main Street USA" than her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

"I'm tired of being a pawn for George Soros and MoveOn.org. I tried to be a good soldier, but I see that I've just become a target for snipers again. This time, the snipers are people who claimed to be my supporters just a few months ago. The Democratic Party, the press, even my cleaning lady...everyone has lost their senses and now support a person who has officially spent more time running for President than he spent as a US Senator in Washington. It's gotten so bad that I'm almost on the verge of tears."

Obama countered Clinton's claim by stating, "We've all heard claims in the past that weren't true. As far as I've been told, this attempted character assassination by Senator Clinton is simply wrong. This is a situation where a losing candidate is unable to come to grips with reality, and is blaming her situation on the fact that I'm a minority candidate that has curried favor with the media. Her position couldn't be any further from the truth. For more information, please see my web page, which is proudly sponsored by MoveOn.org and hosted for free by ABC News."

Clinton now says that she supports the suppression of terrorism in the Middle East, reduced taxes, a stricter immigration program that includes secure borders, and free trade. She has also filed for divorce from Wild Bill Clinton.

John McCain was unavailable for comment, because he was conducting business on the Senate floor.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Happy AFD

Because, after all, 2 years of experience is all you need

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

Then again, it's not the toughest comparison out there...

But "Presidential Candidate" Obama goes on to say:
"Senator Clinton apparently disagrees with me on this issue of preconditions," he said. "I think she's wrong on that because if we continue to set preconditions for discussions that are hostile to us, I think that's what loses the PR battle worldwide because it implies the United States is the superior power and other states have to give in to our demands before we even deign to meet with them. And that reinforces the sense of the arrogance of U.S. power around the world, which is a source of great damage -- and makes us less safe."

Dear, dear Senator... do you not yet realize that this is the real world, and it's not governed by tracking polls, public relations ratings, or liberal classroom case studies? Real world, real people, real power. Maybe you'll understand this some day when you're able to take off the political diapers you're still wearing.

Keep America Beautiful. Keep America Strong.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Is this a neophyte, or a savvy leader?

ne·o·phyte (nē'ə-fīt') Pronunciation Key
n.
A recent convert to a belief; a proselyte.
A beginner or novice: a neophyte at politics.

NEOPHYTE OR SAVVY LEADER: Who is more likely to say that the USA should bomb Pakistan, regardless if the recognized government of Pakistan is in agreement with the action?

NEOPHYTE OR SAVVY LEADER: Who is more likely to say that the USA should meet with Axis of Evil countries Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria without conditions?

Let's be clear. Maintaining position and status as "The Leader of the Free World" is untenable unless the leader knows how to lead in a complex world.
-- Be Informed. Vote Wisely