Obama's Greatest Hits

As much fun as liberals and the media like to make of President Bush's verbal gaffes, one would think that they would at least be fair in their reporting and cover at least some of the misstatements by the presumtive democratic nominee Barak Obama.

Well syndicated conservative columnist, Michelle Malkin put together an abreviated list of such verbal mis-steps, I though you might enjoy reading .

* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

__________________________________________

Why? Why you ask? Here are a few examples of why we love the Bush-isms.... Courtesy of Salon.com:

"I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be—hold hands."—on how he can contribute to the Middle East peace process, Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2008

"I welcome you all to say a few comments to the TV, if you care to do so."—Inviting visiting Irish dignitaries to address the media, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2007

"I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."—Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007

"All I can tell you is when the governor calls, I answer his phone."—San Diego, Calif., Oct. 25, 2007

"And so, in my State of the—my State of the Union—or state—my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation—I asked Americans to give 4,000 years—4,000 hours over the next—the rest of your life—of service to America. That's what I asked—4,000 hours." —Bridgeport, Conn., April 9, 2002

"I want to thank the dozens of welfare to work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves."—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2002 (Thanks to George Dupper.)


"One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be."—On benefits provided to military personnel, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007


"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test'' (Feb. 21, 2001).


"I've coined new words, like misunderstanding and Hispanically" (March 29, 2001).

THERE ARE DOZENS MORE WHERE THESE CAME FROM! NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE ALL THIS UP! Bush.. the gift that keeps on giving...!

Rep. Richardson Bails on Her Mortgage

This little nugget was reported by the LA Times blog and linked on the DrudgeReport:

Report: California Congresswoman walked away from $578K mortgage

Capitol Weekly reports that newly elected California Congresswoman Laura Richardson walked away from the mortgage on her $535,000 Sacramento home, letting the house slip into foreclosure and disrepair less than two years after she bought it with no money down.

"While being elevated to Congress in a 2007 special election, Richardson apparently stopped making payments on her new Sacramento home, and eventually walked away from it, leaving nearly $600,000 in unpaid loans and fees," the publication reports.

Richardson, a Democrat from Long Beach, declined to comment for the Capitol Weekly story, and her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from LA Land.


Read more...

As Republican's Dance with Death... Trouble for Obama?

It appears that the Fall of the Republican Empire is fast approaching...

But in all my orgasmic happiness while viewing the very-public Republican autopsy being performed in the media, I saw some very disturbing analogies that may impact the fortunes of my guy, Sen. Obama, as he reaches for the Presidency.

First, the good stuff:

Politico.com is running a story on the lack of minority outreach by the Republicans. Authors Jim VandeHei and Josh Kraushaar are citing key "icons" of the party (Jack Kemp and J.C. Watts), noting that the establishment has abandonded the party's call as a "Big Tent" that includes all walks of life: Says Watts:

“In 1994, when I first ran, we had 14 African-American Republicans running for Congress. ... I was the only one that won that year, but we had 14, and we had some good candidates,” said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, one of the party’s most recognized African-American voices. “I am grateful for what Ken Mehlman did when he was RNC chairman, but I knew that wouldn’t last — that was one person. I’ve never gotten the impression that it was institutionalized.”

VandeHei and Kraushaar note several factors in the lack of commitment: lack of a history for recruiting and supporting diverse candidates; the poor environment for Republican candidates overall (economy, Iraq war, scandal, etc.); the lack of resources and a lack of candidate likeability. On lack of history of effective recruitment:

"In all fairness, Republicans have never been very good at attracting strong minority candidates, especially African-Americans. Only four black Republicans — Watts, former Massachusetts Sen. Edward Brooke, former Connecticut Rep. Gary Franks and the late Illinois Rep. Oscar Stanton De Priest — have been elected to Congress since Reconstruction.

The party has done slightly better with Cuban-Americans and Hispanics in recent years — Cuban-American Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida recently served as RNC chairman. But the GOP remains a white-dominated party elected overwhelmingly by white voters."

In all fairness and honestly... Craig has been the modern-day 'Chicken Little' on this issue for years, telling anyone who would listen about this problem and how to fix it. But he's right... the Republican Party has not done enough to capitalize on its opportunities to recruit and retain more people of color. Whether its a question of commitment or resources or what... I don't know. But the lack of effort is obvious.

The bigger issue - the issue that impacts Obama - is likeability. The post notes the GOP efforts in 2006 to strongly support efforts to elect three highly popular, likeable black Republicans in races that had significant national exposure: Michael Steele of Maryland, for the Senate; and Lynn Swann of Pennsylvania and Ken Blackwell of Ohio, for governor. Despite all of their positives (good press, good connections, party support, etc.) all three lost -- BIG. Why?

Obiviously, the Republicans in each state did not have much of a problem with electing these men as standard bearers for their Party. However, the question remains whether race trumped party for some people of color (and vice-versa for white Dem voters). The Republican 'label' may have signaled to minority voters that these candidates where somehow untrustworthy in supporting key issues. Additionally, each candidate obviously did not garner enough support from white voters to achieve victory. Granted, each candidate had his own challenges (poor polling begin one), but they were cosidered viable candidates that, if the voter crossover had been effective, would have meant Republican victory.

KEY QUESTION: can the same thing that happened to Steele, Swann and Blackwell happen to Obama?

The answer to this question will have significant import for Obama as he strives to be the Democratic standardbearer in the 2008 presidential election. Can he depend on white democrats to support a black candidate? The evidence from Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio suggests that Obama will have significant trouble earning the support of less well-off white voters. Some questions:

* Were Republican voters that sophisticated that they would vote for a minority in the primary and vote for the white candidate in the general election?

* More importantly, will this happen to Obama in the general election, with white voters supporting him in the primary and then defecting to McCain in the fall?

I do not know the asnwers, but it seems that the Obama camp would do well to spend some energy dissecting the electoral misfortunes of Steele, Swann and Blackwell to find out who left them - and why.

I think what Obama will find is that white Democratic voters were, and still are, the key to his electoral fortunes, and he must do whatever he can to address their concerns of likeability and trust in order to be successful. He can do this first by selecting a runningmate that signals to them that they are important and will not be forgotten... Sen. Jim Webb of Virgina and fomer Senator and VP candidate John Edwards are two that come to mind. Edwards is the popular front runner, but Webb is the more effective choice.

Democrat Party’s racist roots are starting to show…

Despite years of trying to portray themselves as “The Party of Diversity” the true face of the Democrats are finally showing through, as exit polling from primary after primary shows that race is playing a major role in how Democrats are voting.

North Carolina & Indiana:

Race again played a pivotal role in Tuesday's Democratic presidential clashes, as whites in Indiana and North Carolina leaned solidly toward Hillary Rodham Clinton and blacks voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, exit polls showed.

West Virginia:

One in five white voters said race was an important factor in their vote and 83 percent of them voted for Clinton against Obama, who would be the first black major-party presidential nominee.

Mississippi:

As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.

But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.


As a matter of fact Alan Fram of the Associate Press wrote:

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.


Isn’t this the enlightened party? … Open to a diversity of cultures?

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

This just goes to show that the party that fought to keep slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crowe, authored the Southern Manafesto and fought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act hasn’t strayed too far from it’s racist roots.

As far at their modern day racist policies… I’ll leave that for another post.

Turn Out the Lights.... the Party's Over!!!

Welcome to the Funeral March of the Republican Party! I'm David De Luz, and I will be your host for today's journey through the growing rubble that is the National Republican Party... much like the flooded Lower 9th Ward, there are bodies all over the place, lots of stranded people and a Republican Party acting as if everything is swell.

So, as they do in New Orleans, let's strike up the band, twirl the parasols and get to steppin' in the 'Second Line'.....!

Before we begin, a quick eulogy and recounting of the devastation is in order:

AZ Congresswatch: In Arizona, retiring GOP Rep. Jim Kolbe said he hopes the Republican losses “cause a serious reexamination of our party’s roots and directions.”

Kolbe, who has held his seat for 22 years, will be succeeded by [Democrat Gabrielle] Giffords.

“If Republicans are to provide leadership for our country, we must get back to the fundamentals of our party — an emphasis on national security, fiscal discipline, reducing government’s role in our daily lives, embracing immigrants from other parts of the world, and a commitment to economic growth through lower taxes and increased trade,” he said.

In the Wall Street Journal online, Peggy Noonan writes of the Republican death throes: The Republicans? Busy dying. The brightest of them see no immediate light. They're frozen, not like a deer in the headlights but a deer in the darkness, his ears stiff at the sound. Crunch. Twig. Hunting party.

She notes that when the party had the chance to break with the President, they didn't - missing their opportunity to save themselves. She goes on to place the blame squarely at the feet of President Bush:

""Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

MORE from Noonan.....

"Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership."

OUCH!

Bad politics, even worse candidates... and a President that no one likes - not even his own party? Geez, that sucks!

But you know what, Representative Maxine Waters called it a year ago..... posted on freepublic.com and attributed to Rep. Waters:

"The Republicans are dead in the water, and we need to put our foot on their necks and drown them."

The scandal sheet is long: Haliburton, Katrina, the Iraq War, Sex Scandals, Memogate, Tom Delay, Pundits on Payroll (Armstrong Williams), Alberto Gonzalez, Abu Ghriab, etc. And these are from just the first four years of Bush II.

And so in conclusion... Yes, the Party is Over. R.I.P. GOP!

Where in the world is Dandy Don Meredith when you need him??????

Obama fails history lesson

Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history as he continues to defend his commitment to meeting, unconditionally with the leaders of country’s that are enemies of the United States.

In his victory speech following the North Carolina Primary, Obama declared, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

Well Real Clear Politics published a commentary by Jack Kelly pointing out that Barak’s statement demonstrates stupidity, not wisdom. Kelly writes:

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

So apparently, Roosevelt and Truman did not agree with Barak’s belief in unconditional talks with enemy states. In fact, they held that the only condition that merited talks was that of “Unconditional Surrender.” Kelly goes on to debunk the Obama’s “wisdom” when it relates to the actions of President Kennedy:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."


Ok…. I’m still waiting for the “Wisdom” to which Obama is referring? Like a school yard bully, Khrushcev saw Kennedy’s overtures as a lack of will to fight, which we all know, will provoke said bullies to be even more bold and aggressive. I wonder how much sooner the cold war could have been ended, had Kennedy not compromised our credibility as a military superpower ready to do whatever it took to protect our citizens.

There is a popular saying: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through his own words, Barak Obama demonstrates that not only has he failed to learn vital lessons from history, he hasn’t even learned the facts of history.

__________________________________________

So are you saying that Kennedy should have engaged in a nuclear strike with Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Whatever you think of Kennedy, the fact that he did NOT engage nuclear weapons at the time was one of the BEST decisions he could have made.

One example of when a President engages in Diplomacy: Jim Lea writes in Stripes.com:

"... Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected U.S. president in November 1952 and fulfilled a campaign promise to go to Korea and attempt to bring an end to the war. He arrived in December and made it clear that he, too, was looking for an armistice rather than a military victory. (NOTE: An amristice is a truce, NOT unconditional surrender).

He let it be known to Moscow, Peking and Pyongyang that if the talks were not reopened and did not proceed satisfactorily toward an armistice, U.N. forces would "move decisively without inhibition in our use of weapons and would no longer be responsible for confining hostilities to the Korean Peninsula."

There was, however, no response from the communists to Eisenhower’s statement or to a proposal by Clark that the two sides exchange sick and wounded prisoners. Lt. Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor succeeded Van Fleet in February and continued to conduct skirmishes with the North Koreans and Chinese. A break in the Panmunjom deadlock came in March, some three weeks after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died.

North Korean and Chinese delegates agreed to an exchange of sick and wounded prisoners. The armistice talks resumed in April, the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners took place shortly thereafter, and the POW issue was settled by mid-June.

The two sides agreed that each would be allowed to persuade any prisoners who refused repatriation to change their minds.

With the armistice almost a reality, battlefield action increased as Chinese and North Korean troops made a final attempt to grab more land. On July 13, communist forces drove eight miles into the central sector of the 8th Army line. Taylor counterattacked, but ended the final battle of the war July 20 because negotiators had nearly reached an accord.

The agreement was signed at 10 a.m. July 27, 1953, in a building hastily erected by the North for the ceremony."

My point: That talking - even when you are a newly-elected president seeking to end a war going nowhere - can produce results.

Night of the Living Democrats!

The video says it all! Even you liberals should find this funny!

__________________________________________

Oh wow.... THAT was funny! I liked the reference to Reagan as the equivelent of garlic and holywater!!!

Here's another funny one!!!!!!!

Wright's Revenge?

The following is from an article from the New York Post accusing Rev. Jeremiah Wright of intentionally sabotaging the presidential campaign of Barak Obama.

As I am sure you know, I have my own thoughts about this issue, But I wanted to know what Y’all thought about it before I commented. Well David? What say you?

REV-ENGE IS SWEET FOR 'BETRAYED' PASTOR
By FREDRIC U. DICKER State Editor

(Albany)- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama's presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has "betrayed" their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. "After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

"Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now," the source added.

"Jeremiah doesn't care if he derails Obama's candidacy or not . . . He knows what he's doing. Obviously, he's not a dumb man. He knows he's not helping."

The source spoke yesterday about Wright's motivation for thrusting himself back into the news, the day after the pastor appeared at the National Press Club on Monday and embarrassed Obama by accusing the United States of terrorism.

Wright has said the reason he has begun granting interviews and making public appearances now is that he wants to defend black churches.

But the source said the preacher's motivation is much more personal.

The source noted that the roots of Wright's disillusionment with Obama began last year after the Illinois senator unexpectedly yanked him from participating in the public announcement of his presidential campaign.

"That's why Jeremiah revealed . . . that he had actually been at the [announcement] hotel and prayed privately with the Obama family before the official declaration," the source told The Post.

"Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship."

Obama further angered Wright by trying to distance himself from the pastor ever since videos were made public earlier this year of the preacher alleging that America brought 9/11 upon itself and that people should say "God damn America," not "God bless America."

The source added, "After 20 years of loving Barack like he is one of their own, after he was embraced by this congregation as a brother in Christ, after his pastor was a father figure to him and gave him credibility in a city he had not grown up in and in a black community that was suspect of someone from Hawaii and Harvard, he thanks him by not allowing him to speak publicly at his announcement last year?

"A lot of people in the church believe they were there for this man when no one else was, and a lot of people don't believe it any more when Obama claims he loves the man who did so much for him," the source added.

__________________________________________

This is BS! Dicker and his "source" offer no definitive proof that the Reverend is opening his trap to purposefully hurt Obama's candidacy. Who is this source? How is he related to Reverend Wright? For all we know, Hillary could have been the source! Just no credibility at all.....

Now, I believe the Good Reverend Wright to be an egomaniac. He is selfish and self-centered. I believe that he did what he did because he is selfish - not out of some twisted sense that Obama "betrayed" him. Remember, Obama stood by him originally; there was no denouncement of Pastor Wright - at least not until after his visit to the National Press Club and the Detroit NAACP... So why would the Reverend do the events to hurt Obama for denouncing him? And as for Obama distancing himself from Wright's original comments or asking him not to speak at his campaign announcement - I just do not believe that Wright is that dense that he cannot see the bigger picture. He does what he does because he thinks only of himself - not about Barack, the Country or the Church. This consipracy theory just does not add up.

Honestly, I was okay with the bulk of Rev. Wright's prepared remarks to the National Press Club. He was speaking a very harsh historical truth to an audience that, at times, was egging him on with their positive replies to the Reverend's 'call and response' techniques. He explained that in the sermon which has been the source of all this controversy (the "God Damn America" quote), he was actually quoting someone else. However, this dude then goes on in the Q and A to basically repeat the charges that America brought 9/11 on itself. SHUT UP! SHUT UP MAN!

I am glad that Obama distanced himself from him. It was time, and it is necessary.