Who Woulda Thunk?

Even as recently as 24 hours ago, who would have thought that President George Bush would prove to be, at least for the moment, John McCain's most effective campaigner? When you can get Joe Biden to go "off his meds," forcing him to retreat to "malarky," you just have to smile.

Like Glen Reynolds, who himself had "a fun take" on the issue, I must say, "Heh!"

I'm waiting for someone -- anyone in the MSM to acknowledge that, for his comments, Bush received a "Standing O" from the entire Knesset. Even Fox News channel played only a few seconds of the applause following the comment. And in their story, CNN arbitrarily cut it off at the end of his comment -- they played none of the applause track at all.

(Update: 05/16)

If you watch the entire video posted at ABC, you can see that that deliberate CNN edit actually distorted the coverage of his speech.

Here is the original ABC News blog post by Ed O'Keefe at Political Radar, which linked to the video of Bush's remarks to the Knesset. There are over 1,500 comments on that post at the ABC website already.

Fom a political perspective, Obama and Biden were not the only dupes here. Nancy Pelosi also promptly hoisted herself on her own petard with her fustian comment (also posted about at The Crypt) calling Bush's remarks "beneath the dignity of the office." That, of course, only served to remind everyone of her looking silly in Syria, wearing that babushka-style burqa . . . or was it a hijab?

And John Kerry jumped in as well. Last night Fox showed a clip of him claiming that Republicans were trying to "raise the flag and waive fear . . ." whatever that means. Hillary also chimed in that the remarks were "offensive and outrageous" apparently oblivious of the very warm reception those remarks received in the Knesset. And, coincidentally that is the exact same phrase she used recently to describe the comments of Jeremiah Wright.

Today Obama himself continued to show his defensiveness over being politically snookered.

Fox News Channel reports that Obama is trying to go on the offensive in South Dakota by accusing both the President and McCain of "fear-peddling" and "exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s dividing our country and that alienates us from the world."

Again, neither he nor Hillary nor any of the critics make any mention of the warm applause and the "Standing O" Bush received in the Knesset for his remarks.

We Can Only Wish!

(Update, below:)



Don't you just love Bill?

UPDATE: Looks like AllahPundit already had this one posted on HotAir (the bottom of the two videos) . We received it just as a link in an e-mail from a friend.

Time to "Man Up" Barack!

Below is a transcription of the relevant portion of a Sunday (April 13th) response by Barack Obama, as he spoke to a crowd of steel workers, U.S.W. Local 1688 members, in Steelton, PA.

A video of that response was posted on YouTube by his campaign.

Here it is:



Obama was responding to prior comments he made to a group of well-heeled donors at a private Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco a week ago today. His original remarks, made at that event (which was closed to the press) did not surface until an obviously unofficial audio clip of his comments surfaced, and was linked on The Huffington Post just this past Friday.

Regarding the Sunday response, the AP, per Beth Fouhy and Kimberly Hefling filed a story today -- Obama Lashes Out at Clinton. But it focuses almost exclusively on the political aspect of his Sunday remarks, in which the reporters parsed his attack on both Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their responses to his original speech in San Francisco.

Below is the transcription of first part of yesterday's (Sunday) comments, the portion "explaining" his original remarks.

Over the last couple of days we've seen a whole dust-up, a dust-up about me talking about the frustrations and struggles of workers, not just here in Pennsylvania, but all across the Midwest, including my home state of Illinois.

Now . . . I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly because, you know, as my wife reminds me, I am not perfect. She reminds me of this frequently, and events often remind me as well.

So, I'm not a perfect man and the words I chose, I chose badly. They were subject to misinterpretation; they were subject to be twisted. And I regret that; I regret that deeply. But . . . but . . . but . . . when people suggest that somehow I was demeaning religion, when I know that I'm a man of deep faith, somebody who in my own life has held on to faith, held on to my confidence in God during times of trial and tribulation, then it sounds like there's some politics being played.

When people suggest that I was somehow being elitist in demeaning hunters, when I have repeatedly talked about the tradition that people pass on from generation to generation, hunters and sportsmen, and how I have consistently spoken about my respect for the Second Amendment, when people try to suggest that I was demeaning those traditions, then it sounds like there's some politics that's being played.

And what really burns me up is when people suggest that me saying that folks are mad, they are angry, they are bitter after 25 - 30 years of seeing jobs shipped out, pensions not fulfilled, healthcare lost, the notion that people are surprised and are suggesting that I am out of touch, because I spoke honestly about peoples' frustrations, that tells me there some politics going on.
. . . .

In the first place, note that rather than apologize for his San Francisco statements, he is merely conceding that he chose some words badly, not that he even misspoke (ala Hillary' concession on the non-existent sniper incident). All he is conceding about his choice of words is "[t]hey were subject to misinterpretation; they were subject to be twisted." Are we to conclude, then, that the real fault lies only with those who "misinterpreted" or "twisted" his words? His only real concession, seems to be that he was just not crystal clear.

And, Barack gives the credit for pointing out his lack of clarity to his wife, Michelle! She, whose own lack of clarity on how she generally feels about this country, or on other subjects, e.g., our meanness as a people, are hardly the most instructive examples of lucidity!

Secondly, note also how he has also chosen to utterly ignore a few of the most egregious comments from the relevant portion of his original statement madeout on the West coast.

As a reminder, here was the key portion of the "private" comments to the San Francisco elites -- Barack Obama discussing the bitterness of small town Pennsylvanians:

It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.

So . . . what happened to his explanation for his comment about the bitterness of the Pennsylvania voters harboring, "antipathy toward people who aren't like them?" That one sounded to me like the Senator was telling the San Francisco elites in "code" that small town Pennsylvanians are a bunch of bigots. Where am I wrong? Where is Barack's explanation? And, I might add, his context was what can be deemed pure Marxian analysis -- they harbor these feelings, according to Barack, arising out of their economic frustrations.

And, why has he offered no explanation of his comment about their "anti-immigrant sentiment?" Funny, over the past few years I thought the public debate in this country was focused throughout pretty exclusively on peoples' concerns about "illegal immigration," not on "anti-immigrant sentiment." It was a long and instructive public debate; and one in which the balance of persuasion has clearly came down on the side of those who have urged the implementation of measures protecting our borders prior to providing, in federal law, for a process of possible absorbsion into our society of those who are here, many quite unlawfully.

Therefore, his characterization of the issue as "anti-immigrant sentiment" simply sounds like another unfair accusation of bigotry on his part, and is not a fair comment about peoples' feelings on the topic. Where am I wrong?

Finally, what about his reference concerning "anti-trade sentiment?" This is the really strange one. I thought he and Hillary are both "anti-trade," or at least they are both telling us they are -- at least this week! So why was he raising that point with the San Francisco crowd? Was it more "code" message for a rich crowd hailing from a major United States port . . . as in, don't worry about that! We'll deal with the issue your way once we get this election out of the way!!??

Why should we not conclude that Obama is really talking very quietly one way to a group of well-heeled folks, many of them very interested in free trade, and quite another way to manipulate union voters in Pennsylvania who are upset over outsourcing of jobs?

After the comments written above, he then went on to attack both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The attacks on Clinton were especially belittling, even asking rhetorically and quite sarcastically if she thought she was some kind of "Annie Oakley," arising out of her sudden gun-hugging tendencies?

But the upshot is that Obama has clearly not adequately answered for what people are seeing as his stereo-typing elitist comments to the San Francisco fundraiser crowd. Recall that this is a guy who just recently called his own grandmother a "typical white person." That, incidentally is another comment he has not been called to account for by anyone.

He made the comment the day after his speech on race relations, in a radio interview. During the interview, he referred to his Grandmother, the woman who raised him, as a "a typical white person." It was his phrase. Makes you wonder . . . what exactly is a "typical white person" in the mind of Barack Obama? Should he not have to answer that question?

It seems that the time may be fast approaching -- or probably has already arrived -- when Barack Obama is going to have to "man-up" and directly address several of the things he has been saying, ones that he has been getting way with so far.

Snippets of explanation in politically-laced speeches to supporters will simply not do any longer.

Gutter Ball

(Update, below)

Scott Ott at Scrappleface has really nailed it on Obama's stereo-typing characterization -- in a speech at a San Francisco Fundraiser on April 6th -- of what the candidate views as small town Pennsylvania folks:

"It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations."*

Obama's comment to the leftie San Francisco elites was not just a gaffe -- it was a downright verbal gutter ball. He and his apologists will try to explain that it was all taken "out of context," and he will never withdraw the comment, or apologize, or even express any sincere regrets.

As a result, he will likely just keep trying to counterpunch his way out of it.

But the context of those remarks should be abundantly clear to anyone.

The words were not spoken out of any sense of, shall we say, bonhomie. There was nothing gentle or affable about such expressions.

And obviously the comments were not an example of what politicians like to call "connecting" with voters. He was just plain talking down about small town people, their beliefs, their values and their cultural heritage, to a bunch of well-heeled elitists, in behind-closed-door remarks that were simply never intended to become public.

But he got caught.

(Update:)
*This is a transcription of the key portion of the April 6, 2008 comments by Barack Obama to the San Francisco Fundraiser, based on the audio that was posted by Mahill Fowler on the Huffington Post here. It differs slightly from the transcription Fowler himself posted. His version is as follows:

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I cannot hear the "So" Fowler included at the beginning of the sentence, hence I did not include it. It sounds to me (having listened to the recording several times) like Obama said "their guns" -- not just "to guns" as transcribed by Fowler. The context suggests that he did, as well. It also sounds clearly to me like he said "antipathy toward people" not "to people."

"I Will Stand Where I Stand . . ."
-- Senator John McCain, Senate floor speech, all-night debate, July 18, 2007

(Update: 03/02/08)
Campaigning down in Tyler, Texas early today (02/27/08), Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, delivered a direct ripost to a comment made by Democrat hopeful, Senator Barack Obama during the final Democrat presidential debate last night. Senator Obama said, in response to a question, that if al-Qaeda came back to Iraq and established a base after he, as President withdrew the troops, then he would send military troops back to Iraq.

But as John carefully and pointedly explained today, al-Qaeda is already in Iraq. "It's called al-Qaeda in Iraq!" he said. And he further noted that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) does not want a base; they want to take the country. McCain said, "I will not surrender to al-Qaeda."

Here is the video*:


Base-tm
Uploaded by luvnews


The words in the title quote (above) of our post today, were taken from a early morning speech delivered by McCain during the debate over a Democrat proposal to force the Administration into a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, way back on July 18, 2007.

It was, in my opinion, one of the great speeches in American history, coming as it did at a pivotal moment in our nation's contentious internal debate and, at that moment, institutional confrontation over the future of our commitment to the struggle in Iraq. Yet, his stirring remarks went utterly unreported by any in our national media, save for a few bloggers who picked up the significance of his speech and shared them.

Most notably, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters quickly turned around a transcription of McCain's remarks, which the Senator actually finished delivering at about 4:10 am, and Ed astonishingly was able to have them posted them on his blog, along with commentary, by 10:46 a.m. that morning!

Ed properly entitled that post, employing John's own words, ones embodying his determination that whatever the ultimate verdict of history, or the shorter term judgment of the people, that "I will stand where I stand." Ed introduced the Senator's remarks thusly:

Harry Reid wanted a debate, and he got one, especially from John McCain, during last night's stunt -- which Reid himself mostly skipped. It didn't change a single vote, and more importantly, Reid didn't get what he wanted -- a Republican refusal to engage. Instead, Republicans made it clear that they had no intention of allowing Congress to usurp the role of the executive, and McCain made it clear why. Here's his entire statement from the debate early this morning:

. . . .

The AP reported on the debate back then in a story that began:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules."
. . . .

Had the Democrats succeeded in forcing a withdraw back then, our nation would now be humiliated and retreating, having opted to abandon an ally whose people we freed, and having, in our cravenness, emboldened al-Qaeda to become a major force, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East, freely recruiting future terrorists. And, we would have also clearly signaled our other allies, both there in the region, and throughout the world that we can no longer be relied upon.

One wonders how long would it have been before al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorists would have been back on our shores, and at our throats? But because of the surge, which the Democrats opposed -- AQI is quickly becoming a discredited and defeated force, with recruitment down, prospects dimmed and increasingly, a Sunni populace that has rejected their approach.

During that all night debate, at a little after 4 am, John McCain, his campaign for the Presidency on the brink of collapse, nevertheless stood and delivered one of the great speeches in all of American history. Yet no one but a few bloggers such as Ed Morrissey reported his stirring words at that moment.

Senator McCain concluded his speech as follows:

"I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril."

"I will stand where I stand . . ." should, and one can only hope will likely become words embodying courage and steadfastness of purpose at a moment of real peril. That, it seems to me, is the very mark of good leadership. Please, go to the post and read the Senator's full remarks.

Finally, as we noted in a comment on that post at Captains Quarters, McCain's remarks were immediately followed by those of Hillary Clinton. Imagine, if you will, being in her position that day. She no doubt figured that, as the putative Democrat candidate, she had been given the advantage of the final word, by being scheduled to speak after him. But as she listened to his remarks, surely it had to cross her mind that something quite extraordinary had just been said. I wonder if, for even one brief second, a thought crossed her mind that she was indeed on the wrong side of history. We'll never know; she would likely never admit to it. And, neither will many likely know or care what she had to say that early morning. The moment had passed her by.


Thank you President Bush and John McCain, and General Petraeus, and thank you to all those brave troops who have put their lives on the line for our nation, and so effectively taken on an implacable enemy of this nation. We must not abandon them.


*A news report, from Brietbart, embedding the video of the Senators remarks today can be found located here. Reader comments are also linked to that post. (No comments were permitted with the original Dailymotion video, posted above.)

** The McCain campaign website indicates that he began speaking at about 3:45 a.m., which may only be slightly inconsistent with the AP report published the 18th that indicated he finished at 4:10 a.m -- it was not a 25 minute speech.

Why Mitt?

Many folks have endorsed Mitt Romney for President, and for a variety of reasons.

My reasons really can be reduced to a connection. Few agree 100% with the positions on issues of a candidate they support, so I am sure I'm no exception. But, having evaluated the views and the approach of the candidates, for some time now I have felt a solid connection to his approach. Mitt Romney's real world career successes, both in business and in the public sector, are far and away the most impressive of any of the candidates. And the manner in which he and his family have lived their lives is notable as well. But it was his approach, the way he talked about how he would govern, that won my support and my vote.

To me, the best Presidents have a few solid qualities, ones which can oddly seem somewhat contradictory on occasion. But the Presidency demands several qualities because a President fills several roles. And the best Presidents do so in a relatively seamless manner.

Constitutionally, a President is our nation's chief executive and the military Commander in Chief. A President is also the head of state. All three roles demand unique qualities, and for me Mitt Romney would best fill all three. In fact, his grounding in the business world is a particularly significant factor now in dealing with economic turbulence, including avoiding an over-reaction that would hamstring us on the back end.

Here in New Jersey, I am reminded that a few successive Democrat administrations have literally destroyed the economic viability of our State government -- not of our economy quite yet -- but certainly of our State Government. At the same time they have bloated the size of government all out of proportion. New Jersey has become a certifiably obese state Government. The current governor's "solution," however, is to mortgage the future with enormous toll road increases, which will simultaneously ruin whatever remains of our quality of life by driving traffic off onto local arteries. And he'll be long gone before the piper even begins to tune up!

In short, New Jersey has permanently adopted the J. Wellington Wimpy model of governance, "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." So, I want a president who will not continually be knocking on Democrats' doors looking for ways to compromise and grow the government, all while enabling personal dependence and diminishing our individuality, just so he can prove he is an independent.

A president must have extraordinarily strong convictions to successfully pursue a political agenda, but those should be coupled with an inherent modesty of purpose, an understanding that in promoting and protecting and ultimately preserving our representative democratic polity and our free society, the framework for pursual of a political agenda is, and should be, limited indeed. He or she leads, but not without being fully connected, and not without understanding that at the end of the day, our core values of freedom and liberty not only remain intact, they should ideally be enhanced.

Just because of the nature of the game, many candidates this year seem to exude much of that first quality -- strong convictions -- but too little of the latter, that inherent modesty of purpose.

Anyone who truly values and cherishes freedom and liberty knows that they both inform our national soul, and can be mighty messy as well! Nothing good usually comes out of the kitchen without a sink full of pans and dishes!

Good leadership, therefore, ought to arise out of energetic engagement in public debate, and succeed only through persuasion. Good politics is the fight for the right tomorrow, employing the means that preserve our political inheritence. Finding ways to tamp down or cut off politically motivated speech and debate, therefore, is inherently wrong. McCain/Feingold was and is an abomination. And when I hear a politician opine -- as several leading Democrats have threatened since eeking out a bare majority in Congress nearly two years ago -- that talk radio may need to somehow be reigned in, that is it for them. Where was the classic liberal who stood up and said "no" to that rubbish?

I often suspect that progressives -- that's what they like to be called these days --really believe that free speech and expression are merely means to the imposition of their ends, and that once their ends are being achieved, those means can just "whither away." "Political correctness" is a demonstrable current precurser of that end game. Just think of the perfectly legitimate things you're no longer "allowed" to say, and the new euphemisms you are now expected to employ! Nuts to that!

Some "progressive leaders" even exhibit a tendency to equate, or should I say conflate their own power-seeking ambitions, with our national zeitgeist. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. It is, and always has been all about her. Well, I say, "go garnish your own wage, lady!" And she really ought to lay off the bogus tears, too!

Finally, I like the idea of a President who, like Mitt, proved he could win and govern in a blue state, in some ways, the bluest state of all -- at least then! And this year, I was impressed by his ability to go into what will undoubtedly be a battleground state of Michigan, and win as well.

Lest anyone point to current polls, however, to suggest that only McCain scores against Democrats, I'm not impressed. As at other times in the past, John McCain has gotten a free primary-length pass from the main stream media outlets, including being endorsed for the primary by both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. But that honeymoon will not last for one single second, should he secure the Republican nomination. If he does win, the media-wide spigot will be abruptly turned off.

Then there will be a lot of cheerleading for Clinton or Obama. And, as in the past few cycles, there will be some significant breaking through that filter here on the internet. I predict, more and better.

So, HERE, as with some other notable locations elsewhere on the internet, I'm for Mitt Romney for President.

Now I think I'll go vote!

John McCain's Own Benchmark Porposal:
A Timetable for Withdraw!

UPDATE BELOW: Romney's strong support for the surge in early January '07:
UPDATE II BELOW: Captain's Quarters had the McClatchy Tribune story as well:

Regarding this CNN-reported ongoing kerfuffle over the timetables . . . how about a little perspective here?

One year ago, on January 26th of 2007, the McClatchy Tribune out of Tuscon, Arizona, per Margaret Talev, reported that John McCain himself was proposing a timetable of specific benchmarks that the Iraqis would have to meet, or we would pull out!

And Barack Obama was quoted in the story congratulating his fellow Senator at the time, noting that he (Obama) had proposed the same thing two weeks before!!

Below are the first several grafs of the story, which can be found here (my emphasis added).

And he's making his accusations aimed at Mitt Romney, for being for a timetable back then?

Washington
McCain considers setting benchmarks for Iraqis
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy-Tribune
Tucson, Arizona
Published: 01.26.2007

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain's thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.
McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."
. . . .

Here is the key quote in the story from Barack Obama at the time:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: "I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I'm glad that John McCain agrees with me."

So, just one year ago, John McCain was suggesting PULLING OUT of Iraq for failure to meet his benchmarks! And, he was warmly congratulated for his stand by Senator Barack Obama!


UPDATE: Here is the link to the Boston Globe story, (hat tip: Free Republic, here) dated January 10, 2007, highlighting former Governor Romney's position supporting the troop surge, a few weeks before John McCain (above) announced he was for specific benchmarks and withdraw if they were not met!

From the story by Rick Klein:

WASHINGTON -- Former governor Mitt Romney Wednesday endorsed President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq, breaking his public silence on the troop "surge" by arguing that a stable Iraq is only possible if US forces can provide security to Iraqi civilians.

Hours before Bush spoke Wednesday night, Romney issued a statement calling for five additional combat brigades in Baghdad and two Marine regiments in Al-Anbar province -- precisely the plan for as many as 21,500 new troops that was outlined by the Bush administration before the president’s speech.

"It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people," Romney said in a statement released Wednesday morning. "In consultation with generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops."

UPDATE II: Captain's Quarters had the McClatchy-Tribune story linked as well here. Ed Morrissey notes there was no specific timetable included, but observes how unwise it now appears for McCain to have picked a fight over this issue:

He didn't use the supposedly verboten word "timetables", but unmet benchmarks have to have timetables to be unmet, and clearly McCain had some timeframe in mind with this remark. Like I said, he drew a really dumb line in the sand with this issue.