We Must Unite As a Party We must not let Obama or Hillary Win

My Friends, I am writing to you because we must begin to unite as party and prepare for the upcoming election in November. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for president, I will stand on my conservative convictions and offer Americans a clearly conservative approach to governing. But my friends, I cannot succeed in this endeavor without the support of dedicated conservatives like you. And today, I write to ask for your support. Will you join my campaign today by making a generous contribution? We will have a hard-fought battle against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and I know that by joining together, our party will prevail on Election Day. Earlier this month, Senators Clinton and Obama raised over $10 million online for their respective campaigns in just a few short days. I know that I must take the time now to replenish my campaign’s funds to prepare for what will undoubtedly be the most expensive campaign for president in our history. That is why I ask you to make an urgent contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or more today. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our shared conservative principles prevail. Senators Clinton and Obama want to increase the size of the federal government, raise your taxes, and withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for political expediency. I intend to reduce the size of the federal government, cut your taxes and win this war. I have had the distinct honor of serving our great country for many decades and with your support, I will be able to serve her for a little while longer. I am proud to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. My friends, twenty-five years later, I am still proud to be a conservative and it is my greatest hope that you will join me in this campaign today. Thank you. Sincerely, John McCain P.S. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for president, I intend to lead our party to victory in November guided by our shared conservative principles. The upcoming battle for the White House will be the most expensive ever and your immediate contribution of $50 or more will help our campaign raise the funds necessary to wage a spirited and competitive campaign. Your generous support is always appreciated and I look forward to working with you as we campaign through Election Day. Thank you. Paid for by John McCain 2008 · www.JohnMcCain.com

Limbaugh, conservatives close ranks to defend McCain

Rick Moran
Interesting development in the McCain smear by the New York Times. Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingram have both come out and defended John McCain from the outrageous smear being leveled against him  by the hit piece in the Times this morning:

“You’re surprised that Page Six-type gossip is on the front page of The New York Times?” Limbaugh asked as he began his radio show. “Where have you been? How in the world can anybody be surprised?”

Limbaugh said earlier in an e-mail to Politico that the Times article about McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist was a clear case of “the drive-by media … trying to take him out.”

Laura Ingraham, another influential conservative radio host, asserted that the Times waited until McCain was on the brink of the Republican presidential nomination and now is seeking to “contaminate” him with an article that she calls “absurd” and “ridiculous.”

CBN.org, the website of the Christian Broadcasting Network, calls an attack by the Times “a conservative badge of honor.” Ironically, a potentially damaging article about McCain may help bond him to conservatives, who are relishing the fact that now he needs them.

Does McCain now need the conservative base to fight back effectively against this attack? One thing for sure, he better be humble about it and accept this help because if he makes any noises about not needing anyone to help defend him - something I think McCain perfectly capable of believing and saying - he is going to become one lonely Republican candidate out there. Here’s Ingram:

Ingraham said triumphantly, “I ask the McCain campaign this question: Do you think you need talk radio now? Do you think that talk radio’s important to set the record straight, or do you think a press conference, where the media is shouting question after question at you — do you think that’s going to put an end to all of this?”

Which probably isn’t a very helpful attitude but conservatives are in no mood to be generous with this candidate. All over the conservative blogosphere today, the right is lashing out at the Times for what many professional journalists are saying was an thinly sourced, questionably reported piece.

The New Republic has now posted the piece I mentioned this morning that covers the debate in the newsroom that pitted Editor Bill Keller against the 4 reporters who were assigned to investigate and write the story. It turns out despite the fact the story has been ready to go since December,  that Keller just didn’t think the story was strong enough:

Beyond its revelations, however, what’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain’s former staffers to justify the piece–both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves–the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain’s aides that the Senator shouldn’t be seen in public with Iseman–and departs from the Times’ usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: “In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, ‘Why is she always around?’” In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the

With all this going on and with the painfully thin evidence for both the infidelity and ethics lapses, why did the New York Times publish the story anyway? All we can do is point to a well known bias at the Times against conservatives and believe that there was a political agenda at work. No other explanation makes much sense.

The Times went with a questionable story - violating their own journalistic standards in doing so - and we are supposed to believe they did it for the good of the country? Or that the pressures of competitive journalism simply overwhelmed them and they were forced to publish?

Rubbish.

Posted at 12:57 PM | Email | Permalink

‘A sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot’

Rick Moran
That’s Michelle Malkin describing the audience who listened and did nothing when Michelle Obama opined that there has never been a time in her adult life that she has been proud of America.

The spin merchants on the Democratic side have been busy trying to parse what Mrs. Obama said, assuring us she didn’t really mean exactly what came out of her mouth. Others are taking the right to task for even highlighting her statement - it’s much ado about nothing, or “ginned up” outrage,” or “typical of the right wing attack machine.”

I suppose that looking at the larger picture, Obama’s words amount to nothing more than typical liberal boilerplate about America. Liberals get ashamed about America at the drop of a hat and usually have precious little good to say about the country of their birth. But that is their right - a right fought for by every generation of Americans whether Mrs. Obama is proud of them or not.

Her husband took a stab at defending her:

“Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn’t at all what she meant,” Obama said. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said.

“Because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.”

In Milwaukee on Monday, Michelle Obama said: “Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.”

That’s not even close to what she said, of course. But in the Orwellian world of liberals, the words that actually come out of your mouth can be defined any way that is advantageous to you and disadvantageous to your opponents.

It’s as if we will need a piece of paper with a set of instructions whenever we hear Mrs. Obama speak from now on just so we can interpret what she really means when she talks. God help us if we try and take what she says at face value.

Michelle Malkin has taken what Mrs. Obama said literally and her response is instructive as to why the Agent of Change and his wife cannot be allowed anywhere near the White House:

I’m just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We’ve grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been “hungry for change?” Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent “change” any more than Hillary invented “leadership” or John McCain invented “straight talk.”
We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change.

We’ve lived through two decades’ worth of peaceful, if contentious election cycles under the rule of law that have brought about “change” and upheaval both good and bad.

We were adults through several launches of the Space Shuttle, in case you were snoozing. And as adults, we’ve witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science, and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned and succeeded to change the world. You want “change?” Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies who have flourished under the best economic system in the world.

If the fall of communism, American ingenuity, and a robust constitutional republic don’t do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice?

For all her superior education, Michelle Obama has a lot to learn about the country of her birth.

Posted at 09:04 AM | Email | Permalink

Why the GOP Has a Good Shot at beating Obama

Rick Moran
Ed Morrissey points us to this video and transcript from Chris Matthews “Hardball” show last night where a Texas state senator and Obama Super Delegate had a wee bit of a problem coming up with anything - repeat anything - that Barack Obama has accomplished in the United States Senate:

Matthews: “Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments tonight if you can.”

State Sen. Watson: “Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now.”

Matthews: “No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You’ve supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir.”

State Sen. Watson: “Well, I’m not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments.”

Matthews: “Can you name any? Can you name anything he’s accomplished as a Congressman?”

State Sen. Watson: “No, I’m not going to be able to do that tonight.”

Matthews: “Well, that is a problem isn’t it?”

Indeed it is, Chrissy - for Obama. For John McCain and the GOP, it is a great opportunity to show the American people just how empty Obama’s emphasis on “change” really is. McCain has had a legislative career where he has led the fight on many issues and has had his name attached to several bills (some of them, like McCain-Feingold, are less than popular with conservatives).

Obama can cut and paste his policy positions on his website all he wants and it still won’t give him any accomplishments in the Senate. And you can bet that McCain will try and get the voters to focus on that aspect of Obama and not his Messiah-like personality or speaking ability.

Posted at 10:31 AM | Email | Permalink

The Divider

The Divider

By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/21/2008

A critical plank of Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign has been his appeal for national unity. In speeches crafted to bridge partisan divides, he has assailed the “drama and division and distraction” of Washington politics and urged Americans to rise above their differences. Whatever one makes of this approach, and substantively it leaves a great deal to be desired, there is little doubting its success thus far. Whether in southern states like South Carolina, with their large black electorates, or majority-white states like Iowa and Wisconsin, Obama’s message has found popular purchase. So it is not a little ironic that the cross-racial bonhomie engendered by the Obama campaign is threatened by the woman closest to the senator: his wife Michelle Obama. 

That was most apparent in Wisconsin this week, where the tension between Obama’s soothing, post-racial politics and his wife’s more astringent views flared out in the open. As Sen. Obama traversed the state to make his final pitch to the voters, Michelle Obama spent the week chiding them for their past folly. Speaking in Milwaukee, she said, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

It was a jarring statement. Did the candidate’s wife really mean to suggest that the country had been hopeless until her husband emerged as the Democratic frontrunner? Indeed she did, and just a few hours later, she reiterated the point in nearly identical terms. “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country — not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.” There was no mistaking her message: Until it found the wisdom to rally around her husband, America had been a source of constant disappointment for Mrs. Obama.

When her remarks justifiably aroused outrage, the unenviable task of explaining them away fell to the senator himself. On the one hand, Obama said, his wife’s words had been taken “out of context.” But at the same time, Sen. Obama continued, “she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” And sure enough, it was this cynicism that landed her in trouble in the first place.

Yet it’s hard to see what Michelle Obama has to be cynical about. Though it is true that she was born on the South Side of Chicago, there is no shortage of Americans who start from humble beginnings. The difference is that, unlike many, Michelle Obama is also a child of privilege. In a recent interview with Newsweek, Obama reveals that she got into Princeton University not on the strength of her grades, which she admits were unexceptional, but thanks to her brother Craig, a star athlete and gifted student who preceded her to the school. As a “legacy” candidate and a beneficiary of affirmative action, Michelle Obama was granted an opportunity that others more accomplished were denied. Nor, according to friends quoted in the article, did Obama object when she was later accepted to Harvard as part of the school’s outreach to minority students. “She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,” her friend recalls.

Comfortable, perhaps, but certainly not content. A more humble personality might have appreciated the unearned advantages she had been afforded. Michelle Obama seems instead to have developed an abiding sense of racial resentment. This resentment finds its most bitter expression in her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, conveniently blocked from public viewing by the school until after next year’s presidential election, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” In it, the young Michelle LaVaughn Robinson paints a grim portrait of her future prospects, warning against “further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” Regardless of the opportunities that had been offered her, Obama continued to see herself as a victim of a racist white society, trapped in the divide that her husband’s campaign now seeks to breech.  

It would be unfair to assume that Michelle Obama’s writings as an angry and alienated undergrad are a reliable guide to her current views about race and her country more generally. After all, contrary to the grim prognosis in her Princeton thesis, Obama went on to succeed in the white “social structure” she had deemed so forbidding. She has held jobs at top corporate law-firms in Chicago, earned six-figure salaries, and seen her husband, himself of African descent, all but clinch the nomination of the Democratic Party. If that is not enough to make her a full participant in American society, nothing is.

But all evidence indicates that her views remain unchanged. In a February 2007 appearance with her husband on 60 Minutes, for instance, she said that “as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station.” Not the least of the problems with the charge was its conspiratorial suggestion that blacks were being targeted on account of their race. And in one tragic sense they were, though not, as Obama’s statement seemed to imply, by whites: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1976 and 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. Empirically baseless, Michelle Obama’s warning nonetheless revealed how deeply she had absorbed the narrative of black victimization in America.

It does not follow that the mixed messages of the Obama campaign — his hopeful and forward-looking, hers sullen and intransigent — will slow its current momentum. The rapturous crowds who flock by the thousands to the senator’s campaign stops seem unlikely to stand for any criticism of their candidate. (Sometimes literally: fainting has reportedly become a common occurrence at Obama rallies.) Before them, neither Obama nor any member of his campaign can do wrong. General election voters, on the other hand, may look less sympathetically on the prospect of a First Lady who would carry her unrequited grievances to the White House.

“We are the change we seek,” Barack Obama is fond of saying on the campaign trail. To the extent that the phrase has any meaning, it is that the United States is fundamentally a noble country, with an active and engaged citizenry seeking do right. Sen. Obama has certainly persuaded his supporters to believe that. Now if only he could convince his own wife.

---

Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com