ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Obama / Biden 2008

It looks like Obama didn't listen to my advice and select Paris Hilton as his running mate.

It's the eternal comb-over from Delaware! (At least Obama can count on Delaware now.)

Obama has selected a man who the Left sees as having gravitas (in line with my Sam Nunn prediction), but who in reality is consistently on both sides of every issue and is only slightly better than John Kerry when it comes to providing a Yes/No answer in less than 500 words.

Apparently, Biden's comment that Obama was "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking" endeared him to The One.

The picture on the right shows Biden describing two positions that he's currently holding simultaneously on NBC's Meet The Press. (Either that, or he's showing Tim Russert how to milk a cow)

The MSM will provide breathless coverage about how Biden, the elder statesmen, provides gravitas that Obama so desparately needs - even though he's The One, the racist yahoos in the heartland are just too stupid to recognize Obama's brilliance. Unmentioned will be Biden's strong support for invading Iraq

Biden can be a good debater, if you look past his inability to provide a coherent answer to any question asked of him. Ask Joe if it's raining outside and you'll get a 15 minute response.

And can someone explain how picking a guy who's spent 35 years in the US Senate is consistent with Obama's call to for "Change?"

McCain needs to pick an energectic, youthful, and clear-thinking VP candidate. One who's frank and well-thought out positions will be in distinct contrast to the blathering from Sen. Biden.

And we all know what that means - John McCain's VP search committee had better not be looking for candidates in the US Senate.

Jim Geraghty at NRO provides excellent history of all the comments Biden has made about Obama or McCain in the past few years which can all be made into a campaign ad:

‘Just Words’ That Joe Biden Would Like To Forget
The curse of a loose mouth and Nexis.

By Jim Geraghty

The fun thing about an Obama-Biden ticket is that the McCain campaign can point to a new awkward comment by Joe Biden — either on the importance of experience, in praise of McCain, or in support of invading Iraq — that contradicts the stands and qualities of the Democratic nominee for every day from now until Election Day.

On McCain:
Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”

Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

On Obama:
Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.

On Iraq:
Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Of course, what is likely to happen is Obama will pickup Biden's previously-held, pro-Iraq positions now that The SurgeTM is working, attempting to make everyone forget that he's just slightly to the right of Dennis "X-Files" Kucinich.

The press will love it.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Friday, August 22, 2008

The Obamessiah's Number 2 - Predictions

Well, Brian left me a 15 minute voicemail (which cut him off) on Tuesday, explaining his prediction for The Obamessiah's vice presidential candidate. Brian promised to email me some of the finer points, but his seclusion in the middle of Florida has made it challenging for him. I'm sure that Penelope has her 9mm pointed at his head each and every time he contemplates using his laptop or surfing the interwebs through his phone.

So, with apologies to Brian, I'm just going to post his prediction now, without the various reasons he provided, and make a prediction or two myself. MontereyJohn can also chime in, of course.

Brian predicts that the Obamessiah is going to select Hillary!TM in the hopes that it will bring home the working class Dems who rallied to her cause. He also recognized the warning shot across the bow that was Bill Clinton telling everyone that Obama may not be qualified.

The All-Knowing St Wendeler predicts that The Obamessiah will select one of the following:

  1. Sam Nunn - He's old, he's got "gravitas," and the MSM will just love it
  2. Paris Hilton - Obama was really intrigued by her energy policy (and her swimsuit) and decided it's better to have her on the ticket and double the celebrity appeal
  3. A Ham & Cheese Sandwich - Who needs a Vice President? I mean, The Obamessiah can reverse the tides for heaven's sake, sent directly to us from God. (or is that "god?")

Regardless of who is selected, prepare for a MSM onslaught describing the choice as the most informed, insightful, and intelligent choice since the founding of the Republic.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Obamessiah!

The McCain campaign recently released this video, which is absolutely hilarious.

I love how they cut to The 10 Commandments throughout...


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Oh No, Not Again! Obama on Cover of Time for 7th Time in a Year

Good grief! Guess they are getting desperate to do something so transparently partisan. Where are Henry and Claire Booth Luce when we need them? They must be spinning in their graves.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The Nutroots - Idiocy on Display

Saw this post at AmericaBlog (via Memeorandum) and started to laugh uproariously. This is what's characterized as intelligent discourse among the nutroots.

Robert Arena submits a post that discusses polling and why Obama doesn't seem to be fairing well. It's a clarion call to the Progressive Nutroots to get out there and worship the Obamessiah even more. I'll provide the funnier bits, with my commentary mixed in:

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Why people should be worried about the polls
Robert Arena · 8/20/2008 09:00:00 AM ET · Link

(NOTE FROM JOHN: Rob's post is long. Please take 5 minutes and read it. It's quite possibly the best thing we've ever published in four years of running this blog. I've been wanting Rob to write for us (again) for a long while (he wrote a bit at the beginning, then got a real job). Rob used to be, arguably, the Republicans' top Internet political strategist until he defected around the year 2000. Rob's encyclopedic knowledge of politics, of dates and figures, of polls and data and electoral history, is downright scary. Read this post, then share it with someone. Thanks, JOHN)

Ok, first off... AmericaBlog has just positioned this post by Robert Arena as "possibly the best thing we've ever published" in the life of the blog's existence.

He also claims that Rob is one of the most knowledgable political strategerist since... since.... Bob Shrum? Curious that he left the GOP right as it was gaining power... How insightful.

Keep that in mind as you continue to read. This is THE BEST from THE BEST.
Last week Pew Research released their latest poll on the Presidential election. It has the horse race question at 46-43 for Obama - within margin of error. At this point in 2004, Kerry led Bush 47-45, in 1992 Clinton led Bush 57-37.

Shhhh... don't tell Bob about this poll - his head will explode at the mere possibility that McCain is actually ahead at this point.

Bob then provides some of the Pew Research poll internals. I won't bore you with the details (you probably already know them).

Bob then provides this analysis:
While some here think everything is going just fine, and that Obama has a secret plan lying in wait, I ask you to think back a year ago. Imagine if someone had told you that the most charismatic Democratic speaker in a decade would be in a dead-heat with a Republican has-been corrupt waffler - you would have laughed in their face. After eight years of George Bush? No way, people are fed up - that'll never happen.

Well, that's the reality today. This race is a dead heat and is up for grabs both in the national polls as well as in key states like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, etc. Face reality folks - something isn't working.

While some say ignore the polls at this stage, you can't really do that. To be sure, some polls are worth looking at and some are worth ignoring. How do you tell the difference?

Ok. So far so good. Bob hasn't demonstrated exactly how stupid he is - yet. But, in the next paragraph, we get to see how idiotic the Human Political Encyclopedia really is:
Let's talk about polling methodology. There are two different ways to poll - registered voters and likely voters. At this stage, I ignore likely voter polls. Why? Well after a primary full of polling errors, I'm skeptical that anyone at this stage in the game can really determine who a likely voter is. (Read more about likely voter methodology on my prior post.)

Having said that, we do have a more accurate indicator - the registered voter poll. In order to be able to vote in an election, you have to be registered.

LOL!!! First, in order to be a Likely Voter, you have to be registered as well. To be categorized as a likely voter, you have to first be registered and second show some degree of engagement in the current electoral process (ie answering yes to questions like "how likely are you to vote in November," "Did you vote in 2004," "did you vote in 2006," etc.) These questions are intended to determine how likely you are to get up on a cold November morning and pull the lever for candidates or issues you care about. If your commitment level is low, chances are that you're not going to head to the polls. If you've never voted before, there's a higher probability that you won't vote this year.

These are all relevant questions which make the poll more accurate.

Bob then goes on to assert that Registered Voter polls are more accruate, since it's a representation of the total population of registered voters. But, as we have seen time and time again, just because someone is registered does not mean they will vote. The youths of America (who the MSM always predict will provide a Democrat tidal wave) are notorious for registering in exchange for a t-shirt and then being too apathetic or hung-over to show up on election day.

By following Bob's logic, polls based on the preferences of adults (registered voters or not) would be a better indication of where the candidates stand. Heck, there's still a possibility that Team Obama will get those bastards registered in time, right?

Back to Arena's idiocy:
So then what does the Pew poll say about where we are and what to do moving ahead? What is says is that the demographic breakdown of the 2008 vote looks an awful lot like 2004, and 2000. You can draw from that, and other public polls, that the same states in play in 2004 will likely be in play in 2008, and that the races in those states are highly competitive. The Pew poll says that voters are concerned about McCain's stand on the economy and on foreign policy (i.e., Iraq), but that they aren't yet sold on Barack Obama and question his experience. They like Obama's positions on the economy, but they aren't there yet.

Surprise!!! The American voter hasn't gone from being traditionally conservative & free-market to embracing European socialism and pacifistic foreign policy!

Who'd a thunk it!

And that they kind of like Obama's position on the economy, well all that most people know are sweeping generalities from his campaign ads that everyone would agree with. For example, one of Obama's ads here in Missouri states that he wants to "grow the economy." Nevermind that his detailed policies of increased taxation will undermine this desire of his. When people learn the details of his policies, they won't come around - they'll run away.

(By the way, speaking of polls... there's one poll that the MSM often points to - the right track / wrong track poll. I would submit that a large portion of those responding wrong track are conservatives who are not calling for an ever increasing socialistic nanny state, but rather wish the government would get out of their way when it comes to making a living, saving for retirement, educating their children, etc, etc.)

Back to Arena for the final paragraph:
Not all is lost folks, Obama has time and money to make a shift. But if you thought that somehow this year was going to be different - something would change and somehow the American electorate would look completely different this year than any other year, the numbers today just don't show that. This isn't a transformative election, it's another hardscrabble, claw out each and every vote, election. To win that kind of election, you need to fight for every vote and fight hard. That's why you hear the concern you hear from Josh Marshall, John, Joe, etc. And it's backed up by years of experience watching the Republicans make Democrats look weak - Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. That line of attack works when not countered and we were defeated. None of us want that in 2008.


Was Carter seen as weak because of the Republicans? Or because he was???? A man who never met a dictator he didn't like, couldn't decide which side of his head to part his hair, encouraged people to wear sweaters during the energy crisis, and wimp out when it came to a bunch of Iranian mullahs.

And Mondale wasn't weak at all, despite support for a nuclear freeze, etc. And it was such a close election, what with Mondale getting only the District of Columbia and his home state of Minnesota - an electoral romp of 525-13 in Reagan's favor.

And Dukakis certainly was a strong guy, right? I mean, he even jumped in a tank to prove it. And he gave a professorial answer about opposing the death penalty for a guy who hypothetically raped and murdered his wife Kitty. He had some cojones, man!

And Gore wasn't weak... nah. He was the Alpha Male - at least, that's what we were consistently told. When did the GOP paint Gore as weak? I seam to recall Gore being more the nerdy Dingle-Norwood guy who was walking into everyone's personal space rather than just a pure wimp.

And, finally, John The Hat Kerry. What with his limp-wristed "reporting for duty!" salute at the Democratic Convention and his numerous campaign ads showing him on a boat in Vietnam. He was all man... except for the fact that he trashed the military and the country when he returned from Vietnam, had his own serious gaffes when it came to photo ops, and in truth was a haughty, effete, wind-surfing Massachusetts liberal. Which, if you're a Democrat, is a bonus, not a detriment to your prospects!

But yeah... the GOP always makes the Dems look weak.

And Obama's desire to lose the war in Iraq certainly positions him well to be the candidate of strength.

So, this is the best commentary that AmericaBlog has ever produced? I think I'll pass.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, August 18, 2008

Obama,Thomas, & Racism in the Democrat Party

Obama's slam on Clarence Thomas at Saturday's Saddleback Presidential Forum hosted by Rick Warren is analyzed by the Wall Street Journal.

Obama on Clarence Thomas
August 18, 2008

Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

BTW, you may recall that many Dems (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - see here and here) are apparently racist when it comes to assessing Justice Thomas. I mean, they rarely heap the scorn on Roberts, Scalia, or even Alito when it comes to their judicial reasoning - no, they keep their biting remarks for the only African-American on the court, despite his excellent credentials and thoughtfully written opinions.

Perhaps they think that their Democrat base instinctively has low expectations for and an underlying racism against African-Americans? It certainly was a common theme in the Dem primaries...

Which takes me to the current polling and the numerous questions about why Obama "isn't doing better."

Many have said that it's because American voters are racist.

If they really want to make that assertion, they're actually calling the average Democrat voter racist. Why?

Because your average conservative voter isn't opposing Obama because of his race.

They're already opposing him because he is the exact polar opposite on the issues, regardless of his race.

However, your average Democrat voter (who ostensibly agrees with Obama on the issues) who fails to support Obama by definition is racist.

They normally would vote for him because they like his policies, but they're not sure they're ready to vote for the black guy.

There... I said it. How long before the tools in the MSM recognize that they're calling the Democratic voter racist?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Sunday, August 17, 2008

A Pleasant Surprise - John McCain in California - The Rick Warren Forum

I guess when you have zero expectations it is easy to be pleasantly surprised, and that is pretty much how I was feeling before the forum yesterday at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church.

McCain was concise, precise and assertive, everything he has not been up to this point. He was unabashedly for offshore drilling. Life begins at conception. There is evil and Osama bin Laden is its face. Evil must be defeated. And on and on it went. An impressive performance.

Obama did okay in his nuanced sort of way. "Yeh but.." seemed to be his theme. For example, he admitted there was such a thing as evil but we have our own evils that we should not lose sight of. How humble and how stupid is that?

The format Warren set up was excellent. We got a good contrast in the thinking and styles of the candidates. I think McCain came off by far the stronger of the two.

I may even get off my butt and do something for the Republican nominee after last night's performance.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn