Fight the Smears: The truth about Barack's plane ... is that the paint is not smeared at all

Fight the Smears | The truth about Barack's plane

The truth, also, is that he placed his logo on the tail, not that the plane did not have an American flag anywhere. But this is the nifty message he wants everyone to share, because it is so darned important to correct the kooks claiming his plane has no Stars and Stripes on it. Go figure.

Lie:
Barack Obama has been attacked for not having an American Flag on his campaign airplane.

Truth:
Barack Obama does indeed have an American flag displayed on the outside of this campaign airplane.

He selected Joe Biden, so now I can't be too ticked off if things don't go McCain's way. But I just don't see Obama being our youngest elected president. He's just coming off as too young in substantial ways: like bluster.

------

UPDATE, post-conventions (Sept 06 2008):

Well, now Joe Biden, who once claimed he would run on a ticket with McCain, basically defecated on McCain during his speech, so I am just waiting for the election. Obama is obsessed with himself, and theoretically, the masses, and Biden blew it for me. So the whole thing comes down to whether I am miserable for four years, or I will pray that McCain is elected and can manage to be a real leader. I am soooo disappointed in the whining coming from Obama's camp about every little, tiny thing -- like this airplane thing here. Give me a break!

Person Joe Biden

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Jean Kirkpatrick contributed to the ire of liberals - remembrance of 1984 in 2006

Washington Times - Kirkpatrick hit liberals for blaming America first

We live in interesting times. Getting to know the 1970s and 1980s, and the troubled thoughts of Jeanne Kirkpatrick about her Democratic Party, might help clarify why and when one party (heavily) wandered to the left, while another followed a path set by Ronald Reagan, and folks like Newt Gringrich in later years.

"When Marxist dictators shoot their way into power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies," Mrs. Kirkpatrick said of her party, which had just had its national convention in San Francisco. "They blame United States policies of 100 years ago. But then they always blame America first."

She accused Democrats of abandoning the anti-communism of liberals like Harry S. Truman, Hubert H. Humphrey and Henry "Scoop" Jackson for the accommodative tack of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and the "new liberals" she tagged as the "San Francisco Democrats."

Mr. Reagan liked the "blame America first" refrain so much he used it against Democrats in his speeches in the fall 1984 campaign, winning a landslide victory.

Kirkpatrick and her husband were dismayed by the post-1972 drift of the Democratic Party to the extreme left. But "the GOP didn't seem an acceptable alternative because it retained a brand image associated with country-club snobbery and an indifference to problems of race and poverty."

Kirkpatrick, who was in fact a longtime Democrat, was right to do so, especially in the time of Reagan's focus against Communism. That of course proved to be a windfall against autocratic, or simply undemocratic, leadership.

Late the same year the quoted retrospective article appeared, Kirkpatrick, a former ambassador to the U.N. passed away, on Dec. 7, 2006.

- JRO

Was it the lack of a devil's advocate that cost the nation the Katrina tragedy?

How Bush Blew It
After-Action Report: Bureaucratic Timidity. Bad Phone Lines. And A Failure Of Imagination. Why The Government Was So Slow To Respond To Catastrophe.

Newsweek, from Sept. 19, 2005:

It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the President of the United States

When Hurricane Katrina struck, it appears there was no one to tell President Bush the plain truth: that the state and local governments had been overwhelmed, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not up to the job and that the military, the only institution with the resources to cope, couldn't act without a declaration from the president overriding all other authority.

Tragic situation, even more tragic, it would seem, due to the management approach of GW Bush.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Actor John Cusack joins MoveOn.org comedy tour...

... what do you mean? MoveOn.org isn't a comedy troupe?!

Wow, then those rhyming insults against generals and spastic cartoons of John McCain are not jokes? Oooo, creepy.

How perfect an ally for an actor who wants to be identified with an unabashed propagandist and fabricator such as Obama. (Please see related post regarding Obama's totally inaccurate references to the Kennedys, and Selma march, in his parents' lives.) Well, that's not ironic at all.

Newsmax.com - Actor John Cusack Takes On McCain for MoveOn.org

"I'm not going to pretend this thing in Iraq was some kind of free market utopia to spread the gospel of democracy through the Middle East," John Cusack told the AP from London, where he's at work on another project.

John Cusack will not pretend! You got it?!

We wouldn't want Cusack to pretend. His using big words like "utopia" is too much. Famous people should never have to pretend for any reason, least of all for politics or money. Although, he is a professional pretender! It makes it doubly ironic, then, that he is against pretending, huh?  

Powered by ScribeFire.

McCain addresses CPAC, and I got to thinking

McCain is not too old, Obama is not too Black (or not Black enough), and Hillary Clinton is not too female.

Welcome to the 21st Century, when Black people, women and old men can actually do things the rest of us can do. (What about Huckabee? C'mon -- see note at bottom.)

Now that that's out of the way, here's some of what I think -- not that you asked.

Is McCain a big butt kisser, or is he sincere? Does he speak from his ground, or does he pretend to be standing where everyone wants him to be standing, like too many politicians try so hard to do? I think he can be a little more frank, a little more straight, a little more willing to listen, than these other folks.

Here's a few of McCain's words, from comments to a conservative group:

You have heard me say before that, for all my reputation as a maverick, I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself.

McCain also has a strength of character and wealth of experiences that make is all too much more capable than the other contenders. Like him or not, personally, this is the case. Propaganda will contort that, but it is why he became so popular since the 2000 election.

WHO'S SCARY AND WHO IS NOT

What we need to be concerned with, from here on out, is the differences between the people running for the White House. Who is a Commander-in-Chief? Who is able to think for themselves without alienating a majority of people? Who will work with the other side of the aisle (and has proven, both right and wrong, to be able to do so).

Why did Hillary Clinton
chose to move to a state in which she never before lived, to run for a high office from that state when she had never before held a high (elected) public office? Why is it she did not choose to lead from a seat won in Arkansas, or in her home state of Illinois? Certainly I am not the only one that has trouble with that! Clinton chooses, of all places, New York State -- the Land of the Elitists. Creepy!

Whose approach in this campaign smacks of the right to be president more than the desire to serve the country? Not McCain's.

As an independent-minded, registered Republican, I ask you: which candidate's campaign reminds you of the "establishment" that was quietly apparent as GW Bush ran for the office? I think it is Clinton whose interests we should be wary of. Hers is far more a candidacy of expectant, dynastic ascent than the McCain campaign. Now, I do not expect everyone to agree with me on that, naturally. I just would rather express my feelings about it and have you react (or simply bristle in disgust) than leave it be.

I like Barack Obama, but he has not matured enough, and I am not ready for someone so young as president. He will serve honorably in the senate, but he is no JFK (which is both to his credit and to his discredit, for a variety of reasons). The presidency, of course, is not just one man's job, but a whole administration, with a White House staff, a Cabinet, directors of
this and that, etc. Still, I do not see Obama as ready for it.

I am far more ready for a true war hero who suffered and yet still dedicated his life to serving, to be president. Right now, I think that is EXACTLY what this country needs. I cannot write this with a straight face, but: McCain should have won in 2000 (I can hear the groans, and the comments that Gore did win... enough).

TODAY, TOMORROW, NOVEMBER

George W Bush will not go down as the worst president in our history. He will not go down in history as the leader-hero who brought us all together after the tragedy of September 11, though. History remembers Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor and into WW II as the great leader who brought us to war and did not provoke us into strangling each other, and our allies, in the midst of it.

Perhaps it is unfair and even (in some opinions) ridiculous to suggest it, but Bush seems to have been granted permission to be president by the establishment, the movers and shakers his father has been so deeply involved with. G W Bush had the backing of the big political machine some have mistakenly called Destiny.

I think we have had two mediocre presidents for the past 16 years. I don't despise either one of the men, as they both have their good qualities. As presidents, though, they were not exactly doing the business of the people the way I would expect it to be done. If those presidencies were movies, I wouldn't even rent the DVDs -- I might sit through them once they made it to TV. (I would have fast-forwarded through the Lewinsky thing and quite a few other stupid parts!)

SEE IT IN THEATERS, OR WAIT FOR THE DVD?

McCain is known for his efforts to work on change that brings politics down to street level: fighting for campaign finance, against budget and legislative "pork", and more. Perfect? Hardly! Untested? Of course he's tested -- he's been in the wide public eye for at least a decade! Able to lead? Of course!

McCain may not be Lincoln, or JFK, or Reagan, or Roosevelt, or Truman. But he won't be as frighteningly untried as Obama or as unbelievable and divisive as Clinton (Ms. Clinton). It is not unreasonable to suggest that some conservatives actually hate McCain. That is not just politics talking, that is some kind of eery intolerance. I would rather ally myself with McCain than hateful, spiteful, myopic people, thanks. I think it showed great decency and reason for GW Bush to push recently
for wide (far-right conservative) support of McCain, as McCain has been as supportive as he could be of Bush for eight years. That's part of GW's good side.

I believe McCain will serve us as a president we can respect, and one that other nations will respect. Isn't that the optimal necessity? We can beat on out Congress all day about local issues -- we need a president who will assure other nations can respect us again.

McCain can be president. We can make sure by assuring that voters are going their thing in November.

Did you know that Democratic voters, so far in the primary and caucus votes, are far outweighing Republicans, in voting numbers? John McCain is not going to win by turning Dems and Independents alone. People need to VOTE for the best person to win.

Feel free to pass this rant along. To people you like, or to people you don't like. Either way, or both!

Or, at least, remind those who care about this country's fate that voting actually does count and maybe they should do it in November.

Note: If you think Huckabee can win it, you live in a different country than me. Reality is knocking, and Divisiveness is not standing next to him. McCain just whipped Divisiveness' butt, around the corner, and old dirty "D" is running to Rush Limbaugh's house to have an emotional breakdown with Ann Coulter on Rush's couch. (Mind you, Huckabee is no friend of Divisiveness, but he is not going to be president. Not this time around.)

Person Jon Osterholm

Powered by ScribeFire.