Archive for the ‘John McCain’ Category
As usually happens when Michele Bachmann speaks uncomfortable truths, the DC pantywaits can’t wait to criticize her. That was certainly the case when Michele joined with other conservatives in calling for an investigation into Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.
Thankfully, Andrew McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, has written this brilliant article highlighting the connections between Huma Abedin’s family and the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.”
It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood. That ideology fuels the “Islamic extremism” that, only a year ago, had McCain so worried that he thought allowing the Brotherhood into the Egyptian-government mix “would be a mistake of historic proportions.”
Considering this administration’s drift from ally to Israel to meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s perfectly justified to ask what, if any, influence Ms. Abedin has had. It’s certainly worth noting this information:
MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League’s Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Khalifa was the co-founder of the Benevolence International Foundation and he helped to finance Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 plot that would have simultaneously detonated bombs aboard eleven U.S.-bound airliners, blowing them up in mid-flight over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea.
It’s impossible to think that the Muslim World League, which promotes Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and helped finance Operation Bojinka, is anything but a terrorist organization.
At minimum, there’s justification to look into Ms. Abedin’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks and Tom Rooney asked the IG to do:
McCain blasted Representative Bachmann and the others, falsely accusing them of doing to his friend Huma what he had actually done to ElBaradei, namely, implicating her as “part of a nefarious conspiracy.”
To the contrary, the House members have drawn no such conclusions. Instead, they have pointed out the State Department’s dramatic, Brotherhood-friendly policy shifts during Ms. Abedin’s tenure as a top adviser to the State Department’s boss.
Sen. McCain’s temper might’ve clouded his judgment. That wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. There’s much more to Ms. Abedin’s family:
And it is here that we get to Huma Abedin’s mother, the Pakistani-born academic Dr. Saleha Abedin.
Dr. Abedin, too, has been a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, “which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood,” according to Walid Shoebat, a former Brotherhood member who has renounced the organization.
One thing is inescapable: Michele Bachmann had more than ample justification for calling on the IGs to study these connections. While it’s true that she ruffled some feathers in saying what she said, it’s equally true that she said what the PC Establishment didn’t have the cajones to say.
Here’s a glimpse into what Dr. Abedin’s organization believes:
D / Sheikh Abdul Fattah
Confirmed that he personally rejected these amendments fully, especially the item on the rhythm of punishment including his daughter circumcised, either the father or the mother or the doctor; may not be criminalized or prohibition of origin is permissible in Islam.
International Islamic Committee for Women and Children
The criminalization of female genital mutilation (FGM), clashed and completely incompatible with Islamic law, which did not provide for the prohibition, as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the drafters of the Charter, where he says:
“Juristic evidence and consensus on the inevitability of medical male circumcision only, while scholars differed in the female genital mutilation did not collect the mustahabb but they differed between being a duty or honor or desirable)
Apparently, Huma Abedin’s mother approves of practices associated with neanderthal living during the Stone Age. These aren’t the beliefs of people living in the 21st Century.
Rep. Bachmann’s statements have a substantive basis. The group’s request that the five departments’ IGs look into their request is more than reasonable. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain’s diatribe seems like one of his infamous temper tantrums, not the statement of an elder statesman.
Anyone thinking that John McCain’s dig at Newt was clever or funny doesn’t set the bar high for clever or funny.
John McCain just couldn’t resist.
“I think we ought to send Newt Gingrich to the moon and Mitt Romney to the White House,” the 2008 GOP presidential nominee is quoted as saying by ABC News and CBS News.
McCain’s remarks came today at a town hall meeting in Lakeland, Fla., ahead of Tuesday’s primary in the Sunshine State. Romney now has a nine-point lead over Gingrich.
John McCain used to be a man of integrity. By backing the backstabbing Mitt Romney, his integrity is questionable at best. Put another way, Sen. McCain’s integrity is situation-based. It isn’t a constant anymore.
Sen. McCain’s heroism during the Vietnam War is inspirational. His conduct as a politician falls substantially short of inspirational.
Let’s remember that McCain authored the bill that attempted to shred the First Amendment. Formally known as McCain-Feingold, it’s nickname was ‘The Incumbents Protection Act’ because it strangled free speech during campaigns.
It’s important that we realize that Sen. McCain said some nasty things about Mitt during the 2008 campaign. People will say ‘But that’s what all politicians do before endorsing them’. That’s true. Unfortunately, that isn’t what people living in the real world do.
Let’s remember, too that Sen. McCain talked about the inevitability of internet voting in the context of the HAVA debate. With ACORN’s prevalence, doesn’t internet voting seem highly questionable? What thinking person would justify such awful public policy because “it’s inevitable”?
More imporantly, let’s question Sen. McCain’s judgment on Mitt. Mitt’s run a scorched earth campaign in his win-at-all-costs bid for the nomination. Just like his own campaign, Mitt’s support amongst the GOP base is marginal at best.
The only thing inevitable about Mitt is his embarassing defeat this November. If he thinks he can win this election without enthusiastic support from the GOP base, he’s an idiot.
During my trip around the Rightosphere this morning, 2 things are abundantly clear: 1) Mitt and the RNC don’t see what’s about to hit them from President Obama and 2) Mitt and the RNC don’t see the seething anger building up against them from the activist base. Two posts highlight that second point brilliantly. Let’s start with Erick Erickson’s post first:
The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.
While I don’t agree that Newt doesn’t have a chance, I certainly agree that Mitt’s people are delusional.
Dan Riehl’s post has a harder bite to it:
For Romney to attack every conservative from the Right, when he is so obviously and so far to the Left of them, demonstrates a complete lack of character and integrity. But slash and burn is all he has, as he has no core conservative principles and can’t articulate them in an authentic manner. As much as I hate Obama’s politics, as an individual, I have more respect for him today, than I do Mitt Romney. And I am far from alone. If the GOP doesn’t realize what that will cost in soft support, or no support at all in the Fall, they are delusional.
With the advent of new media, too many people are seeing, talking and connecting today. The GOP in Washington is not the party of Reagan, it is a party on its way to the political wilderness for a decade or more without serious reform. The clearest sign of that is the support a Ron Paul pulls. It is 2 – 4 times what it should be and is a telling sign of just how many people have written, or are in the process of writing off the GOP establishment.
I agree with everything Dan said. The leadership at RNC HQ sucks. In fact, I’ll add to Dan’s thoughts with this:
1. When it comes to social media and the internet, Mitt’s team, like the RNC, moves at the speed of government. You could see Mitt’s surprise last night when, during the break, CNN checked on whose ad was running the disparaging remarks about Speaker Gingrich. In fact, if you watch the tape, you’ll see Mitt deflate immediately after that.
2. It’s been 28 years since Reagan won re-election and the RNC still hasn’t figured it out that you can’t win elections if the base isn’t enthusiastically behind the nominee. It just won’t happen. Each election cycle, the Establishment tells us that squishies like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney have a shot at winning.
Initially, I thought ‘you’d think that they would’ve figured out that that isn’t true, especially after last year’s midterm romp.’ Then it dawned on me: These Establishmentarians figured you can win with conservatives but that isn’t what they want. They’d rather have ‘compassionate conservatives’ than true conservatives.
3. When has Mitt fought for anything? Has Mitt fought for anything? I haven’t seen proof of it yet. In Massachusetts, Mitt certainly didn’t fight to keep Planned Parenthood off the MassHealth payment policy advisory board.
4. We know that Newt’s a fighter because he’s fought his own president on tax increases. He fought for 16 years to create a GOP House majority. He insisted that we balance the budget ASAP.
5. This is the most important of all. Mitt’s scorched earth campaign will kill him next fall when the TEA Party activists work to elect conservative congressmen, senators and state legislators but don’t lift a finger to get Mitt elected. That’s what happens when the nominee torches each of his opponents.
6. If you think that the TEA Party got riled up in August, 2009 through the midterms, you ain’t seen nothing yet. After Mitt loses, there’ll be a major housecleaning at the RNC. The worthless strategists that collect nice salaries but don’t have 2 brain cells rubbing together will be dispatched.
Squishie enablers like NRO’s editorial board, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Hugh Hewitt, Jennifer Rubin, S.E. Cupp and Ann Coulter will be political roadkill. Good riddance.
Don’t say the activists didn’t try warning you.
UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.
PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.
It isn’t a secret that I’m a Newt guy. It isn’t a secret that I’ve criticized Mitt. After reading this article, I have to respond. Here’s what Mitt said that started things:
Drawing a strategic contrast with the man now besting him in the polls, Mitt Romney took steps to define himself as the consummate Washington outsider with an unblemished record as a family man.
“I don’t have a political career,” Romney told the Republican Jewish Coalition on Wednesday, calling himself a private-sector creature and the opposite of a Washington insider.
Technically speaking, Mitt isn’t a career politician. That’s because he’s lost too many times to be a career politician. In 1994, Mitt lost because he couldn’t get far enough to the left of Ted Kennedy.
In 2002, he won election as Massachusetts governor. When he announced that he wasn’t running for re-election, he started running for president. He’s still running for president. When Mitt lost in 2008, it was because he couldn’t get to the right of Sen. McCain.
When he lost the 2008 race, it was clear that a) GOP activists didn’t warm to him and b) GOP activists weren’t likely to warm to him anytime soon. People simply don’t trust him, partially because he’s still defending the individual mandate and Romneycare during debates while insisting that Obamacare is wrong for the nation.
Calling himself a man of the private sector is a major stretch.
The issue isn’t black and white for Romney, who served as the governor of Massachusetts, ran for president in 2008 and has been campaigning for the 2012 nomination almost from the day President Obama was inaugurated.
But embracing an anti-Washington, individualist persona affords Romney an opportunity to differentiate himself from Gingrich, who served in Congress from 1979 to 1999 and, as a former House Speaker, is widely considered a GOP establishment figure.
Embracing “an anti-Washington, individualist persona” doesn’t afford Mitt the opportunity “to differentiate himself from Gingrich”. Portraying himself as a pure-as-the-driven-snow-DC-outsider will cause him to be the object of ridicule with GOP activists. At this point, Mitt’s target audience must be GOP activists in Iowa and New Hampshire.
These aren’t wet-behind-the-ears novices. They’re people who pay attention to politics. GOP activists know that Mitt’s been running for office a long time. They know that it’s been a decade since he’s worked in the private sector.
Prior to Mitt running for governor, he was hired to run the Olympic Games in February, 1999. He hasn’t been in the private sector since. After running the Winter Games, he ran for governor in Massachusetts and getting elected. After Mitt announced that he wasn’t seeking a second term in 2006, he essentially started running for president. Now it’s late 2011 and Mitt’s still running for president.
In short, he hasn’t worked in the private sector in almost 13 years.
It has become increasingly urgent for Romney to take advantage of lingering animosity toward Gingrich and present himself as the fresh-faced alternative for voters who see Gingrich as part of the problem with a gridlocked Washington.
Mitt the CEO is on full display again. He isn’t a Washington outsider but that’s what he thinks people are looking for so he’s repackaging himself yet again to win favor with voters. Mitt apparently hasn’t figured out that his multiple repackagings are why people don’t trust him.
That, more than anything else, is why he didn’t connect with GOP activists in 2008 and why he’s failing this time, too.
If Mitt doesn’t win this time, it’ll be because people have decided that they can’t trust him or predict who he’ll be a year from now.
Yesterday, I said that conservatives, just like all other groups, have to police their ranks from time to time. This morning, after reading Rep. Ryan Winkler’s disgusting tweet, it’s obvious that the DFL isn’t putting a high priority on policing their ranks. I just finished writing about the DFL-orchestrated boycott of Target here. Here’s what Rep. Winkler tweeted that’s got me upset:
RepRyanWinkler @esmemurphy Target has been good corp. citizen, but MN political spending is new. Your show just showed risk of giving to candidates.
There’s no indication from Rep. Winkler, a DFL elected legislator, that he thinks there’s anything wrong with boycotting companies that contribute to right-of-center organizations. Apparently, Rep. Winkler isn’t worried that threatening a company for their participation in the political system might have a chilling effect on political participation.
I’m not asking Rep. Winkler to apologize because it’s impossible for Rep. Winkler to unring that bell. The damage has already been done.
Rather, what I’m asking is for Minnesotans of high integrity to reject the DFL’s ambassadors whenever they don’t condemn, either through their statements or their silence, the Left’s thuggish tactics.
Rep. Winkler didn’t utter a peep, or post a tweet, when John Cowles, the former publisher of the Strib, contributed to Dayton Family, Inc, aka ABM, a far left organization. The unmistakable message is this: Contribute to radical leftist groups and you’re quietly accepted by the DFL; contribute to right-of-center causes and you’ll be highlighted for boycotting.
Is that the type of Minnesota you want to live in? Should we tolerate subtle threats to our constitutionally-protected liberties? My reply to both questions is an emphatic and resounding no.
It’s time to rid Minnesota politics of the Ryan Winklers of the world and others who think it’s ok to threaten corporations for their political beliefs. It’s the political equivalent of paying protection money.
Check out this article and see what jumps off the page at you. Here’s what jumped off the page at me:
President Barack Obama scolded Virgina Republican Rep. Eric Cantor for the stack of paper he brought with him to the health summit, calling it the type of political stunt that gets in the way of lawmakers having a serious conversation.
Here’s something from an exchange between President Obama and Sen. McCain:
“People are angry… we promised them change in Washington,” Senator McCain said at the meeting on Obama’s stalled top domestic priority at the Blair House presidential guest house in Washington.
“Look, let me just make this point John, because we are not campaigning anymore,” Obama said, having had time to compose his rebuttal jab.
“We can spend the remainder of our time with our respective talking points going back and forwards, we are supposed to be talking about insurance.”
This was stunning TV. President Obama has having a snit all day thus far. Petulant is an adjective that fits President Obama to a Tee. He’s had his lunch handed to him several times, with Dave Camp, Eric Cantor and Lamar Alexander leading the charge.
This isn’t going according to the Democrats’ script. In fact, I’ll predict this: If this afternoon’s session goes like this morning’s session, this will demolish the Democrats’ ‘Party of No’ storyline forever. They’re getting their backsides kick. The reason I know that is because Max Baucus and Chuck Schumer spent their time talking about how little the differences were between the Democrats’ legislation and the Republicans’ ideas. That simply isn’t credible. If that were true, we would’ve agreed on a compromise bill long ago.
Monday, President Obama issued a statement on the latest terrorist attack. It would’ve been nice had President Obama reacted quicker. William McGurn’s WSJ op-ed puts things in perfect perspective:
The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidentsâ€”with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”
In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?
For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions: e.g., squeezing in a condemnation of Iran before a round of golf. With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?
President Obama’s staff rushed in immediately to tell him he’d won the Nobel Peace Prize but they waited 3 hours before telling him about Iran’s latest killings. What’s worse is that it took President Obama 3 days before talking about the foiled terrorist attack.
Anyone who remembers Russia’s invasion of South Ossetia remembers that then-Sen. Obama’s response was tepid whereas Sen. McCain’s answer was strong. Here’s Obama’s initial statement:
â€œI strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,â€ Obama said in a written statement. â€œNow is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgiaâ€™s territorial integrity must be respected.â€
Contrast that with Sen. McCain’s initial response:
â€œ[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.
â€œThe government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.â€
The Russian invasion of South Ossetia happened on August 10, 2008. It wasn’t until August 12, 2008 that then-Sen. Obama reacted forcefully. I noted in this post that then, too, Obama was vacationing in Hawaii:
Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, on Tuesday read a statement blaming Russia for increasing tensions in the Caucasus.
â€œNo matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country,â€ said Obama, 47. â€œThere is no possible justification for these attacks,â€ he added.
Liberals quickly criticized President Bush for not reacting quickly enough after the 9/11 attacks for their liking. Chief among those critics was Marty Meehan:
Meehan was quoted as saying “I don’t buy the notion Air Force One was a target … That’s just PR. That’s just spin.”
Nary a peep was heard from President Obama’s allies in the print media when he took 3 days to denounce the Iranian regime’s violent squashing of the people’s uprising.
President Obama’s reticence to quickly respond to a terrorist attack makes the United States look timid. It also makes us look weak in the terrorists’ eyes. (If there’s anything that President Obama is good at with regards to national security, it’s that he’s great at procrastination and making the United States look positively wimpy.)
This is why we shouldn’t have elected a toy messiah to do a man’s job.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Democrats are whining that Sen. McCain has started voicing opposition to their misguided legislation. Here’s one of their pathetic arguments:
Democrats say Mr. McCain is part of a broad Republican effort to kill the health-care bill, President Obama’s top agenda item, and deal a devastating political blow to the administration. Mr. McCain disagrees, contending that the legislation in its current form is simply bad policy, but he appears to be relishing the political combat.
That’s what’s called a feeble attempt to distract from the real issue. The American people have repeatedly, and LOUDLY, told Congress to kill this bill and start over. They don’t want the huge tax increases. They don’t want to get shoved off of their private insurance. They certainly don’t trust the federal government to run health care efficiently.
If Republicans defeat the bill, it’ll be because, like Sen. McCain says, it’s awful legislation. If it’s bad legislation that isn’t appealing to Democrats, the Democrats only have themselves to blame for that. Republicans had a slew of great ideas. Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi didn’t care about those ideas and kept Republicans from participating in negotiations. President Obama didn’t help with that either, meeting just once with Republicans. Not once did President Obama negotiate with Republicans in good faith.
If the Democrats’ legislation fails, which is a distinct possibility, it’ll be because the Democrats (a) put together an awful piece of legislation and (b) took a my-ideological-way-or-the-highway approach to jamming the legislation through. Had the Democrats taken a more centrist approach, they likely would’ve attracted a number of Senate Republicans.
The fight didn’t get easier when Richard Foster from the CMMS issued a report on Medicare saying that health spending would increase:
Republicans assailed the analysis, however, focusing on the increased spending of $234 billion from 2010 to 2019 that Foster noted, as well as various conclusions in his analysis that access to Medicare services could be jeopardized as the system grows to accomodate more Americans. Foster also found that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans from 57 million to 24 million, which Republicans said still represents a failure.
“We had representations that the purpose of this health care reform was to decrease, to move down the healthcare costs. Now we find that this bill significantly increases the national healthcare expenditures,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). “It appears the Reid bill clearly fails that test and gets an ‘F’ on the issue of vetting the healthcare costs down and on the issue of insuring everyone.”
Proposing to expand Medicare and Medicaid was a foolish, possibly desperate stratgy on Reid’s part. Doing that alienates two of the people he’ll need to win over: Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman. If Sen. Reid can’t get Snowe or Lieberman, this legislation dies in the Senate, which is what’s most important.
If this legislation dies, the fault will be Harry Reid’s, Nancy Pelosi’s and President Obama’s. It’ll be their fault because they insisted on pushing an ideological agenda rather than putting a common sense plan together.
The proof that the people blame Democrats for this is found in Scott Rasmussen’s latest polling for President Obama:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16. Thatâ€™s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.
It’s pretty dramatic when only 1 in 4 people strongly approve of a president’s handling of his job, especially in that president’s first year. President Obama’s approval ratings should tell Democrats that they shouldn’t worry about what President Obama says. For that matter, Senate Democrats should ignore Harry Reid’s marching orders, too, because he’s history after next November.
If the Democrats’ health care legislation fails, it’s the Democrats’ fault because they didn’t put a sensible bill together. It’s just that simple.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naÃ¯ve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”
Gen. McChrystal replied forcefully:
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”. When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.” He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”
If I’m forced to choose between trusting Gen. Vice-President Joe Biden or Gen. McChrystal on national security matters, I’ll choose Gen. McChrystal. It’s important that we remind ourselves that Vice President Biden was the idiot who thought we had the authority to split Iraq into 3 separate countries. He pitched the Biden Option while Sen. McCain pitched the Surge. Obviously, the Surge worked, thanks to Gen. Petraeus’s brilliant plan and Gen. Odierno’s decisionmaking.
Fast-forward to today. Here’s how the Obama administration is treating Gen. Petraeus:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the face of the Iraq troop surge and a favorite of former President George W. Bush, spoke up or was called upon by President Obama â€œseveral timesâ€ during the big Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room last week, one participant says, and will be back for two more meetings this week.
But the generalâ€™s closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obamaâ€™s White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat.
No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washingtonâ€™s journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days.
Based on these reports, I’m left wondering whether the Obama administration wants to lose the war in Afghanistan. Obviously, they’ll never admit it but their actions aren’t giving people confidence that they’re interested in winning. Their actions don’t even say that it’s a priority.
I’ve said before that the Obama administration’s foreign policy reminded me of the Carter administration’s foreign policy. I’m revising that to say that the Obama administration’s foreign policy doesn’t even meet the lowly standard established by the Carter administration.
The Obama administration has shown a hostility towards the military experts. What’s worse is that they’ve done these things to appease their anti-war left fringe. Their actions say that they’d rather lose a war than ruffle their political allies’ feathers.
That’s a disgusting set of priorities.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
According to this article, Jon Huntsman was a Republican that the White House worried about. Before I’d believe that, I’d have to first believe that Cindy Sheehan will unseat Nancy Pelosi in next year’s Democratic primary. That won’t happen anytime soon.
Commentators pointed out that Mr Obama had cleverly removed a possible opponent from the 2012 election race. Mr Huntsman has won fans for his moderate politics and was the co-chairman of Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign last year. “I did not expect, as national co-chair of Senator McCain’s presidential campaign, to be called into action by the person who beat us,” said Mr Huntsman.
Thinking that Huntsman was a viable presidential candidate in 2012 is utter lunacy. Being a co-chairman to McCain’s campaign would’ve been a mark against him. Believing in the policies that McCain believed in would’ve been the disaster that sunk him.
Let’s put it this way: Huntsman would’ve been the 2012 cycle’s Sen. Hagel. That means he would’ve been the media’s darling with practically no support with GOP primary voters and caucus goers.
REMINDER: The national media will always swirl around moderates like Huntsman. They think that the only way to win elections is by being more like them. That’s nonsense. If the people are given a choice between a Democrat and Democrat lite, they’ll pick the Democrat every time.
The GOP picking a squishie is like throwing pail after pail of cold water on a raging campfire. It’s the best way to ensure a miserable election cycle for the GOP.
ADDITIONAL HINT: That’s why Charlie Crist is a disaster waiting to happen. Even if he’s elected, it’ll be like electing a Democrat.
Cross-posted at California Conservative