- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 10, 2008
I’ve never understood the need to “buck up” after a defeat. Is there some benefit to pretending that we succeeded when we actually failed miserably?
I just received an email from the McCain ex-campaign that started with:
You should all be incredibly proud.
Oh really? Of what should we be proud of, much less “incredibly” proud? Rick Davis sums it up with:
We fought the good fight.
Bullplop! For John McCain’s campaign manager to claim that they (and by extension, McCain voters) fought a good fight is a lie of Clintonian proportions.
Tell me if these are examples of fighting the “good fight”:
- Having Juan Rodriguez, a pro-Mexico open-borders radical as an advisor. That worked well.
- Denouncing state GOP organizations who dared criticize the statements of Michelle Obama when representing her husband.
- Pretending that Obama’s associations were irrelevant, even when Obama himself said they were.
- Matching Obama handout for handout and calling it an economic plan.
- Allowing the campaign to appear divided over Palin.
- Denouncing every attack on Obama instead of using them.
- Railing against earmarks and then voting for a $700,000,000,000 bailout that is loaded with earmarks.
- Supporting giveaways for any industry that asked.
These aren’t “the good fight”. This is letting your opponent set the agenda. The McCain campaign spent 6 months trying to out-Democrat Obama. That’s not a fight at all.
I’m sorry, but I refuse to be proud of abject failure and redefine it as nobility.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on October 29, 2008
Every day I get at least 10 emails that are either from the McCain campaign itself or are primarily advertisements by the campaign.
Do they really think that anyone who took the time to sign up at johnmccain.com or a conservative website is really going to forget that “this is an historic election” or that it’s important to get out the vote?
I’ve got Attention Deficit Disorder (no joke). But even I can remember from 9:00 to 11:00 that there’s an election coming up. I haven’t forgotten by noon that Obama’s a socialist and I don’t need a reminder at 1:00 to tell me what Obama’s going to do if he wins.
I understand that not everyone is as involved in politics as I am, but let’s get real. A lot of this is coming from the same places. Telling us the same things over and over doesn’t help, it furthers the stereotype that McCain doesn’t have a clue about the Internet. Clearly his staff doesn’t.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on October 27, 2008
A primary tactic of the Left is the constant battle to define the Right by trying to redefine reality itself. With the help of the MSM, they will fill a diatribe with lies and then build on those lies to make their real point. It is as effective as it is subversive.
Because of this ploy, a number of lies have become accepted as fact simply because they have been repeated so much:
- Joe McCarthy was responsible for Hollywood blacklisting.
- Silicone breast implants caused cancer.
- Abortion rights are in the Constitution.
- Nuclear power is dangerous
Not that it is any surprise, but they’re trying again but this time they are trying to bury Reaganism and conservatism with this strategy:
Having doubled-down on Reaganism, they know that a loss under these circumstances would be not just a momentary electoral set back, but a huge repudiation of conservative ideology, and a huge mandate for progressivism. And so conservatives are already trying to revise history to pretend these last few months of the campaign never happened.
Sirota, a socialist in his own right (he was Bernie Sanders’ press secretary) errs at a very fundamental level:
- John McCain is not a Reagan conservative, in spite of his own claims.
- Barack Obama has been trying to hide his Wilsonian progressive agenda.
And so Sirota attempts to cloak his own revisionism by preemptively accusing Republicans ahead of time of his own scheme and cloaks it in the term “conservative”.
It’s not going to work.
The only way Scrota’s scenario would be true would be if Obama had run as a “progressive” instead of trying to appear moderate. Most who will vote for Obama don’t think he supports progressive socialism. They don’t think he wants to take from one group and give to another. That’s socialism. They will scream (as Biden did) that the correct characterization of Obama as a Marxist is just an attack. If the electorate thought that progressivism was being voted on, they would reject it. One only needs to read the Huffington Post itself to see how the so-called progressives have chastised Obama for trying to move to the right.
Further, nobody in their right mind would characterize McCain as a conservative. McCain is pro-amnesty. He votes against tax cuts. He thinks corporate profits should fall under government scrutiny. He’s drunk the global warming Kool-Aid. He voted for the $700,000,000,000 bailout and never saw a “stimulus” he didn’t like.
If Obama is elected, the only mandate is that George W. Bush is an idiot, but not the sophomoric way the commulibs portray him. He’s an idiot because he thought “bipartisan” meant something other than “Democrats getting their way and still criticizing Republicans for it.”
David Sirota: The GOP's "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument
- Posted by Christopher Estep on September 2, 2008
Many conservatives have cheered the selection of Sarah Palin of Alaska for VP by John McCain, myself among them. Because Gov. Palin is a genuine reformer as well as a genuine conservative (unlike McCain) the hope is that she will bring Sen. McCain a little more to the right.
There is one way to tell if Palin genuinely has any influence with McCain and we should know the answer soon.
ANWR is going to be the real test. Palin has direct and personal knowledge and can speak to McCain authoritatively on why drilling should be allowed in ANWR. The only people who oppose this are environmentalists who don't want drilling anywhere to begin with.
So the real question of Sarah Palin's influence will be answered shortly. If McCain continues to oppose ANWR drilling then it will become clear that Palin is little more than an ornament and in no way an advisor.
ANWR is the biggest difference between Palin and McCain and Palin knows far more about it than McCain. So we soon shall find out whether McCain listens to advisors or environmentalists.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on August 29, 2008
After Rush played a clip from Palin's speech today, Limbaugh summed it up pretty well:
Sarah Palin. Babies. Guns. Jesus. Hot damn!
- Posted by Christopher Estep on August 28, 2008
As far as Romney being qualified and capable to be President of the United States (POTUS), I think he's the most qualified and capable of any of the candidates of either party, including my own first choice of Fred Thompson. The only other candidates that come close as far as qualifications are Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson, with Richardson's qualifications being the best (even better than Romney). I'm not saying I'd ever want either one in the oval office, just that both are qualified.
Having said that, I sincerely hope that McCain doesn't choose Romney as his veep choice. I think that would be a mistake on a variety of levels. It's an unfortunate reality that "ready to be President" is so easily overshadowed by political considerations. In order to BE vice-president, you have to get elected vice-president, and Romney is unelectable.
Boring White Guy
I realize that any white guy that is selected by McCain will fit the "boring white guy" mold. It's just that Romney is the poster-child for "boring white guy".
Class Warfare
The democrats have already started the "out-of-touch rich guy" theme and Romney would only add to that perception. It's more than a little ironic that it is the fact that he's a rich guy that makes Romney a good candidate and at the same time a bad candidate. The democrats and their media puppets are good at painting republicans as out-of-touch and let's get real here. Middle America really isn't going to easily relate to the rich white Mormon from Boston.
Mormonism
Romney's religion is the elephant in the room that people wish they could ignore. Being a
Latter-day Saint (
Mormon) myself, I understand better than most that it is BECAUSE of his faith that he would be a good POTUS. Mormons are raised being taught the value of serving your fellow man and have been loyal patriotic Americans for over 150 years. Likewise we are taught to respect diversity of opinion, even if some in Utah and elsewhere forget that from time-to-time. As a bishop and a stake president, Romney has worked with people from all stations and walks of life it triumph and tragedy and on a very personal and individual level. So make no mistake, Romney's religion helps his qualifications even though many don't see it. However...there's always a however...
Mormonism is still widely misunderstood and maligned by others who think they do understand it. Without turning this into a list of reasons why people oppose us, it's sufficient to say that these misunderstanding lead to us being called racist, cultist, polygamist, anti-christian, brainwashed, and so forth. Whether these characterizations are accurate or not (they are not), is wholly irrelevant.
Whether we like it or not (that is, Mormons or Romney supporters), the perception is there and the controversy is there. In the land of politics, truth amounts to a retraction on page 5 of section C while the damage of the front page headline has already done it's work. Every rumor, slur, accusation or wrongdoing that has ever been alleged against the LDS Church or a leader will be thrown out. There are religious bigots in the conservative movement, too. Some are just misinformed, others are wilfully bigotted. Regardless, the numbers are not inconsequential. We, as a party, cannot afford to have a candidate who will drive
away parts of its base, any more than it already has.
My Recommendation
As odd as this may seem, I think the most sensible choice for a VP would be Mike Huckabee. Huckabee may not be conservative enough for many, but he's more conservative than McCain and he's definitely pro-life and pro-second amendment. He also isn't rich, which takes away one more reason to criticize the ticket. He's a "typical white guy" but Huckabee has something that a lot of politicians don't have and that's an easy rapport with average people. Huckabee also has a quick mind and a great sense of humor. Yes, it gets him in trouble at times (like at CPAC) but as a VP candidate that can be brushed off.
Huckabee can do something that no other potential prospect can do and that's bring religious conservatives on board. He's an excellent speaker and I think can really help at the grassroots level. While he may not be the fundraiser that Romney is, he can excite people.
It won't happen, but that's my take.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on August 23, 2008
It was a year and a half ago that I pointed out just how big a dummy Joe Biden is:
As you can see above, there is undeniable proof that Senator Biden is nothing more than a ventriloquist's dummy belonging to the great Jeff Dunham. When you think about it, this does explain why Senator Biden plagiarizes speeches. He's already used to having someone talk for him.
And "big surprise", Biden officially threw his hat into the overcrowded ring for the democratic nomination for president in 2008.
And now Obama has chosen him has his running mate. I just have one thing to say…
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And why did Obama select him? Well, it’s obviously a reward for Biden’s unwavering support and the lengths that he’s gone to convince the voters that Obama is prepared to lead the free world:
What Biden REALLY thinks of Obama
Of course, the slOwBama campaign is saying that it’ll be a minor distraction, but won’t cost any votes.
Oh, really? There’s already concern that ‘bama boy isn’t ready to be President. How can they town Biden’s judgement and at the same time dismiss something that was said just a few months ago? But that’s exactly what the campaign is saying, “That was months ago”.
This was dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. I heard myself on CNN that they’re hearing from some democrats that Biden will be good for about 6 gaffe’s before the election.
So now it’s up to McCain to take this gift and use it. He needs to select a running mate that will contrast Biden as a VP. I’ve got a notion of who that should be, and it’ll surprise most of you. I’m writing on it today and will post it sometime tomorrow. But this selection of Obama’s is not going to give him a bounce. The convention will give a slight one, but choosing an old white guy from Delaware who thinks Obama is unqualified will bounce like a half-inflated basketball.
NOW things are fun!!!
And just in case you can’t sleep tonight, here’s Joe “Dummy” Biden’s book:
- Posted by Christopher on August 20, 2008
This is a screen capture I just took from MSNBC's web site. Note how they characterize statements about Obama. Biased? Naaah!!!
- Posted by Christopher on August 20, 2008
Those who follow polls and follow history know that polls are of dubious validity. They rely on a variety of factors, including:
- Size of the sample
- The phrasing of the questions
- The options given the polled populace
But the most important factor in determining if a poll has any value at all is the actual sample they are polling. When you read a news story about a poll, pay particular attention to whom they are seeking their opinion. They will use phrases like, "in a poll of registered voters" or "in a poll of those who are of voting-age" but the most reliable (if any can be called reliable) is "likely voters". These are individuals who specifically state that not only are they registered, but they are likely to vote. The pollster can further refine that sample by using restrictions such as "those who voted in 2004" or some such.
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41
percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking
his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
It's not possible to understate the significance of this trend. Obama should be destroying McCain. Obama's dynamic, good looking, likable, and he generally says all of the right things. And yet cranky old McCain with the weird bulge on his face, raspy voice, and a limp is actually beginning to lead. Four years ago, Kerry was destroying Bush in the polls.
My assessment is that Obama is overexposed. I believe that the media adulation of him and the rabid nature of his Kool-aid drinking supporters are beginning to cause great suspicion in the minds of likely voters. I saw a bumper sticker that said, "I already have a savior. I want a President" and I think that summarizes it quite nicely.
The fact is that the adulation being heaped upon Obama is not believable. The media and democrats are daily extolling his virtues such as leadership but they don't ring true. The arrogance and total lack of humility shown by Obama is more evident every day.
But most importantly, I suspect that foreign affairs play a significant role in this turnaround. When push comes to shove, a lot of people will question whether a 1st term senator is really capable of protecting us in an aggressive world. More and more people are finding that Obama has led nothing and has absolutely zero foreign policy experience.
Obama is shiny. Obama is new. And the shine is beginning to wear off.
- Posted by Christopher on August 13, 2008
When Bush met Vladimir Putin 7 years ago, he said:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.
"I was able to get a sense of his soul.
Oh, really? Not everyone really saw the same thing Bush did, apparently:
I looked into his eyes and I saw 3 letters. K. G. B.
This video was posted over a year ago. Think about that. McCain at least had the foresight to mistrust Putin when he should have.
As difficult as this is for me to admit, McCain is very, very right and is the only one of the candidates who is prepared to deal with foreign affairs. Obama thinks everything can be handed over to the United Nations and only McCain saw Putin for who he really is.
And now, Putin (who supposedly isn’t in power anymore?) is threatening with nukes. Over our defending Europe with a missile shield. Does this sound familiar? If you lived through the 80’s, it should.
Putin threatens Europe with nukes!!!
This is not good, my friends. This is not good at all. So I ask again. If Barack Obama is afraid to meet John McCain in a town hall meeting, how is he going to face Putin?
Thinks have changed. Things have changed dramatically over the last week. It’s a new campaign. Pray for John McCain to be elected because we literally can’t afford Obama in the White House. Hopefully, we’d be able to survive it, but now I’m not so sure.
I realize this makes me a reluctant supporter of John McCain, but I love my country too much to let Obama hand it over to Putin.
