Archive for the 'politics' category

Rove Hearts Obama!

It is a good thing that the Wall Street Journal does not have comments, because the unhingedness (I don’t care if it’s not a word) over Rove’s hopiness and changiness article about Obama would be enormous. WSJ - Barack’s Brilliant Ground Game

For a campaign that says it wants to end the politics of the Bush-Cheney years, the Obama for President effort has cribbed an awful lot from the Bush-Cheney playbooks of 2000 and 2004.

Teeth nashing.

For starters, Barack Obama’s manager admitted to the New York Times that he wanted an “army of persuasion” modeled explicitly on the massive Bush neighbor-to-neighbor “Victory Committee” of ‘00 and ‘04. Those efforts deployed millions of volunteers to register, persuade and get-out-the-vote.

Fist clenching.

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama has harnessed the Internet for persuasion, communication and self-directed organization. A Bush campaign secret weapon in 2004 was nearly 7.5 million email addresses of supporters, 1.5 million of them volunteers. Some volunteers ran “virtual precincts,” using the Web to register, persuade and organize family and friends around the country. Technology has opened even more possibilities for Mr. Obama today.

Apoplectic shaking

The Obama campaign has also copied the Bush strategy of broadening the general election map. In 2000, the Bush effort targeted not just the traditional battlegrounds, but also West Virginia (last won by the GOP in an open race for the presidency in 1928), Tennessee (Al Gore’s home), Arkansas (Bill Clinton’s home), Washington and Oregon.

Prozac Time! Get the petitions jumping, jump on the DU to seethe a bit, throw a few 4 letter words Rove’s way, ask others to write letters to the WSJ to fire Rove!

If anyone would know about that Bush playbook, it would be Rove. Seriously, I wouldn’t want to be answering the phones or checking the email at the WSJ today!

James Rubin: Lying, inept hack

While I was at TPM earlier reading the Greg Sargent piece on the McCain blogger call, I noticed the Left is pushing yet another blatant lie - that McCain wanted to have a dialogue with Hamas. Haha. As if.

Thankfully, I don’t have to tear that lie apart, because Ed Morrissey has already done it.

The Left has had a field day with an expertly-clipped YouTube excerpt from a John McCain interview in January 2006, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority election. Former Clinton official James Rubin uses it for a dishonest attack on McCain, calling him a hypocrite for tying Barack Obama to Hamas while McCain supposedly supported diplomatic contact with the terrorist group. In doing so, Rubin and McCain’s opponents misrepresent both the Hamas issue and the larger context of McCain’s remarks.
[...]
The context here is crystal clear. McCain envisioned a possible change in Hamas from a terrorist group to a legitimate political party, one that recognized Israel and renounced violence. Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions.

More of the same distortions of the truth (aka lies) from the Lefty Liars, as usual. Nice try, chumps.

I wonder, will they go with this lie during the next blogger call?

Here’s the part they conveniently “forgot.” Notably, so did Obama (biggest liar ever to seek the Presidency, perhaps?)

(Cross-posted from MVRWC)

America in 2013

The new John McCain “2013″ video is posted below, and I want to add the transcript from McCain’s speech in Columbus, Ohio, today about what America will look like after a first McCain term.

THIS is what we’ve really been waiting for.

John McCain 2008

Read the whole transcript, reprinted in full below the break or at the link.

Show More >

The Obama Cult

Funny? Scary? You decide. (Full-size here.)

More Obama worship! This one IS scary.

Barack Obama cult

*click to enlarge*

star Hot Air

(Cross-posted at MVRWC)

Show Me State Says Show Me Proof Of Citizenship To Vote

I’m sure the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives will endorse this plan, since they are so dead set (sic) against voter fraud

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum — say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

What a fantastic idea: making sure someone is a legal citizen of the United States of America in order to vote. The ACLU will chime in soon saying how much they love the proposed law, which is also being considered in 19 States, as they are the champions of making sure that only those legally eligible to vote can vote.

“Three forces are converging on the issue: security, immigration and election verification,” said Dr. Robert A. Pastor, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University in Washington. This convergence, he said, partly explains why such measures are likely to become more popular and why they will make election administration, which is already a highly partisan issue, even more heated and litigious.

Well, yes. Illegal immigrants should not be able to vote. Nor should even those who are visiting legally. They are not US citizens.

Remember, when you go to the voting booth on a designated voting day (as opposed to early voting), you give them your name, and they check your name off. The logical extension is for the voting precinct works to look at an ID that shows that your are actually the person voting, though, again, you have no Right to vote in a federal election, per the Constitution. That Right is generally conferred by State constitutions and/or State law. That Right could be removed, BTW. That is the basic reason why it is Constitutional to disenfranchise felons.

All that said, I would recommend that the Missouri law not be implemented prior to the 2008 elections. It might actually be tough for some people to verify that they are US citizens in the face of what we know is government incompetence. It may take some people awhile to find the documentation necessary. Of course, this is up to the people of Missouri to decide on, and approved by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Critics say that when this level of documentation is applied to voting, it becomes more difficult for the poor, disabled, elderly and minorities to participate in the political process.

Yawn. Could the left please come up with new talking points? This one is stale and predictable. Personally, I am all for disenfranchising people who couldn’t answer a simple test on what they are voting for.

Of course, those liberals who love to make sure that elections are fair, such as Firedoglake, Hullabaloo (who calls it voter fraud fraud), Prairie Weather, and Eschaton, are all for the measure. They love it!

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats