Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Drudge Retort

User Info

scooter28054

Subscribe to scooter28054's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Links

Comments

More Obama gangland tactics: Signs banned at Virginia rally today
By Michelle Malkin September 27, 2008 10:21 AM Reader Ron e-mails that the Obama campaign has issued a decree banning all signs at a rally today at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia.

It is a public campus on public property.

The local newspaper, the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star is up in arms:

NOT ALL COUNTRIES guarantee their citizens the right to virtually unbridled freedom of speech. The United States does. Would someone please tell the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama? And the dozing guardians of liberty at the University of Mary Washington?

Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rallyor a McCain rally or a Nader rallyjustify taking a little off the top of Americans' most fundamental rights?

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for "security" reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no "part of the sign could be used as a weapon"e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick. Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, "We encourage people to make signs at our events."

The most fascinating political development of the summer has occurred with little notice. Republicans are respected again. Wait, what?

Believe it or not, entering the final quarter of the eighth year of the George W. Bush presidency, Republicans are ascending in popularity, Politico.com reported yesterday. Half of registered voters and half of independent voters have a favorable opinion of the GOP, according to a new poll from the Pew Center for the People and the Press. Democrats hold a slight edge in favorability among registered voters (55 percent to 50 percent), but they are statistically tied with Republicans among independent voters (Republicans 50 percent, Democrats 49 percent.)

How could this happen? Anyone half-paying attention for the past eight years can rattle off the list of reasons voters are supposed to be fleeing the GOP: Iraq, Katrina, Wall Street, Abramoff, DeLay, Bridge to Nowhere, bin Laden at large, gas prices, and home mortgages. When Democratic presidential candidates dream, they dream of election years like this one.

And yet since August the Republicans have closed an 18 point gap with Democrats among independent voters. A new Gallup poll finds that Democrats have only a three-point edge (within the margin of error) when people are asked which party they want to control Congress.

I think the answer is pretty clear: The Democratic leadership in Congress took the golden opportunity it was given in 2006 and pissed it away on petty partisanship -- just like the Republicans who preceded them did.

i love it, it just love it.

you blew it in congress, i mean hard was it to beat the repubs, but not only did you not beat them you lowered the bar to the ground.

now b/c of palin obama is acting like what he truly is, a thug politician.

The Shark Is Barack
By Jay D. Homnick
Published 9/19/2008 12:07:15 AM
The old joke has old Mrs. Jones being beaten up by four muggers. A neighbor looks out her window and sees the scene. Before running to call the cops, she yells to a bystander, "Hey, why don't you go and help out?"

When he turns and looks up, she recognizes Mrs. Jones' son-in-law.

"Oh, no," he responds. "Four is enough."

The classier politicians try to abide by this convention. Their surrogates, proxies, representatives, go-betweens, bagmen, cronies, cohorts, fellow travelers, mouthpieces, hatchet men, henchmen, running dogs, gophers, spinners and handlers all trash the opposition. These middlemen are there specifically to cut out the beginning-man. In fact, they will tell you that their principal would never say the things they are saying because he is such a downright gentleman. He likes to look only at the positive side of things. He believes that his positions stand for themselves. He regrets that other campaigns have waded into the gutter. He believes that America needs a new kind of politics, a politics of affirmation, a politics of vision, a politics of idealism. None of that slime for a man of his supreme gentility.

Barack Obama initiated his campaign advancing this premise. Let Axelrod wave the axe and Brazile shoot the bazooka. His hands were too full carrying the hope to be swinging the punches. His feet were too busy marching toward change to kick his opponents. That seemed to be working out pretty well for a while, when the tea leaves were signaling an herbal sort of bloodless victory. He took his victory lap around the Autobahn and returned from his conquest of Europe with nary a wilt in his laurels.

But a funny thing happened to him on his way from the Forum. McCain took an exciting running mate and the polls were dead even. And then... and then...

...the true face of Obama emerged. If Palin has accomplished nothing else, she has certainly done one thing. She has unmasked Obama as an angry man. Suddenly he is spewing bitterness everywhere. He runs ads mocking McCain for not using a computer. He blames McCain for economic conditions. He savages McCain for suggesting a commission to analyze the regulatory situation. He runs scurrilous advertisements in Spanish that distort Rush Limbaugh's words about immigration and then blames McCain for Limbaugh. (Kudos to Jake Tapper at ABC News for thoroughly debunking this two-tier fraud.)

No more Mister Nice Guy for Obama, and the difference is telling. His voice has a new snarl. Suddenly he is the commissar, the Kommandant, the drill sergeant: "Get in their faces," he exhorts his acolytes. The battle now takes to the streets, hand-to-hand, house-to-house combat. The Democrats are shouting that McCain has no honor, they are going after Palin's husband and daughter. This is what they used to call in wrestling a Texas Death Match with no holds barred. Or we might say, no bars held. The phony bar they set for the "new politics" was breached by themselves first.

Now we get to see how a community organizer organizes the community. Can Obama win as yet another angry Democrat, spitting against Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Swift-boat politics and the ghost of Lee Atwater? I would like to believe that the answer is no, that voters will recoil from the sight of the animus and the venomous, the odium and opprobrium. The burnished Obama has been tarnished, while Sarah Palin has furnished the varnish for McCain.

Wire tapping

This summer Senator Obama voted for a bill that would continue wiretapping procedures vital to the Bush administration's war on terror and a law enforcement campaign of locating enemies within the United States. The bill provides that wiretaps found illegal by courts at a later date will still be treated as admissible evidence. The bill allows wiretapping to take place without the issuance of warrants. The legislation is a surprising and robust endorsement of President Bush's domestic surveillance policies. Senator Obama's vote was an important endorsement to the President's overall agenda on terror and was a noted departure from his common legislative practice of voting "present" when confronted with difficult controversies. The vote stands as an important feather in Senator Obama's limited bi-partisan political cap.

The Iraq War

Senator Barack Obama prides himself on taking a long consistent position against the Iraq war. At an important junctures in the Iraq debate, Senator Obama describes his position as similar to the President's. In 2004, in the full swing of Presidential election fever, Obama described his position:

"There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."


More recently, Senator Obama showed his willingness to resemble the Bush administration in his understanding of the situation in Iraq. In August 2008, he described the Bush administration surge in Iraq as succeeding "beyond anyone's expectations." It seems that Senator Obama is comfortable taking President Bush's positions on Iraq at moments that suit his own political designs.

Public Financing for Elections

Senator Obama's current strategy for winning the election resembles at least one key strategy from the Karl Rove playbook -- lots of money. The Obama campaign has raised close to half a billion dollars for his election. This comes after reneging on a campaign promise to abide by the public financing formulas followed by the McCain campaign. Surprisingly the strong financial position of the Obama campaign did not lead to charges from the Washington Post or the New York Times that money is corrupting our political process. Up until the conventions, Obama had out raised the McCain camp by more than $100 million. It seems that the money pouring into the Obama campaign is clarifying our electoral process rather than polluting it, as was the case in the Bush campaigns, as the media told it. In this respect, the Obama campaign does resemble the Bush/Rove strategy of elections.

Senator Obama characterizes his campaign as being about change. On at least five major issues including Iraq and economic policy, Obama has shown himself to be enough of a political chameleon to match President Bush whenever it suited his immediate purposes. Is that what he means by change?


so i am a little confused, exactly what is barry-o gonna change?

Obama and Bush agree on more than you think
By Ben Voth
The Obama campaign has founded their election strategy upon drawing similarities between Senator McCain and President Bush. Despite his avowed aversion toward the policies of President Bush, it is useful to examine important arguments made by Senator Obama which are similar and supportive of President Bush's own policies.

Faith Based Initiatives


In Ohio, Senator Obama announced this year that he plans to increase the Bush initiative of using federal tax money to support faith based organizations such as churches and religious ministries. Obama's support for this arguable mingling of church and state stands in sharp contrast to his churlish supporters who invoke the "separation of church and state" as a holy grail for exorcising the fundamentalist demon that is Governor Palin. Much of the Democratic Party base has expressed severe concern that Governor Palin will impose Christian beliefs in public policy. It seems that Christians will have a fair opportunity to do so under Senator Obama's promise to increase funding of this unique Bush initiative.


Bush Tax Cuts


Senator Obama has recently announced that the Bush tax cuts will not be suspended until the economy improves. According to Senator Obama, economic times are too precarious to allow taxes to increase -- even on individuals making more than $250,000 a year. This position endorses a central Bush administration view of economic policy: Tax cuts benefit Americans and provide a good opportunity for overcoming economic adversity.

Senator Obama explained his new preference for tax cuts in hard economic times to George Stephanopoulos at ABC News:

"STEPHANOPOULOS: So, even if we're in a recession next January, you come into office, you'll still go through with your tax increases.

OBAMA: No, no, no, no, no, no. What I've said, George, is that, even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts. That's my priority.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not the increases?

OBAMA: I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now. The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."


Obama suggests that he will not implement the tax increases inherent in allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Senator Obama acts as though he believes tax cuts are the most important policy for overcoming economic adversity. This does not sound like change. In fact, it sounds a lot like current Bush economic policy.


Interesting Obama

Obama's assertion that the two never discussed politics is another bald-faced lie. We can be fairly certain that politics was a frequent subject of their discussions, since both Obama and Wright are consummately political creatures. Barack Obama is, of course, a professional politician. Jeremiah Wright is a political activist in a religious garb.

The real question is not whether Obama knew about his pastor's anti-Americanism, but to what extent he shares it. And there is every reason to believe that he shared most if not all of it.

To see why, you only need to ask yourself a few questions: Would you hold up a man as your father figure if you did not also identify with his worldview? Would you pinpoint him as the person who had the greatest influence on your life? Would you keep him on a role model and mentor?

If we take statements made by these two men in their moments of undoubted candor -- Wright's pulpit tirades against America and Obama's admiration of his pastor as expressed in his writings -- we can safely conclude that Obama not only knew of Wright's attitudes toward America, but that he is of one mind with him. In other words, the facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that Obama disdains America just as his father figure does.

Obama has understandably denied this. Wright, however, exposed him in his speech to the National Press Club in April of this year when said that Obama's denials were merely a ploy of political expediency:

Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. . . . I do what pastors do; he does what politicians do.

This was truly a peculiar moment, since Wright had been given the speaking slot with the implied understanding that he would explain himself to the nation. But the reverend apparently felt so wounded by Obama's betrayal that he refused to play along.

If any other candidate were caught in a similar situation, he or she would have been forced out of politics in disgrace. The same media that hounded Sarah Palin's old pastors deliberately overlooked a cleric who told them that his protg shared his hatred of America.

Drudge Retort

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2008 World Readable