I have heard (on MSNBC) that Mark McKinnon is basically a hired gun -- and a Democrat. If he disagrees with Obama on "several fundamental issues," as he says, then he would seem to have a moral obligation as an American to oppose Obama. That's what the political process is (supposedly) about. Thus, McKinnon seems to be cultivating his 15-minutes-of-fame.
I've been accused of launching attacks on Barack Obama. Let me be clear on that point.
I have attackedObama on my blog and elsewhere on what are basically character issues. I agree with John McCain that there are many signs that Barack -- a words-man -- is not a man of his word. McCain was talking about Obama's on-again, off-again pledge to accept public financing in the general election.
In January, 2006, Obama said the following to Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I will serve out my full fix-year term [in the Senate]." When Russert asked him again if he would run for President or Vice-President, he said, "I will not." Earlier, however, in December, 2006, he had made a visit to New Hampshire, where he told a crowd he "would participate in the process," by which he meant the presidential election process.
(You can find this information on p. 542 of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics. For his New Hampshire remarks, google Obama + New Hampshire + December, 2006, as I did.)
I've attacked Michelle Obama for words she said (about never being proud of her country until very recently). On MSNBC at this moment (4 p.m. ET), Michelle Obama is supposedly "clarifying her remarks." She is not clarifying anything. She says, "We've overcome diversities that we should all be proud of." Whatever that means. I thought we were in favor of diversity. We'd better be!
She's not suffering from gratuitous attacks. They're not based on thin air. They're reflective of positions Obama and his wife have taken. They need to be less careless with words, which are supposed to be their strong points.
Be clear on this: I will never intentionally say anything about them that's untrue. But if they want to assume the nation's highest positions, they should cease spewing out nonsense.
One areas where we won't hear any ringing words from Obama is on the subject of abortion.
Barack Obama has voted against providing medical care in the case of so-called "live birth abortions." That happens (rarely) when an abortion is botched and the embryo is born alive, thus becoming a child (and an American citizen). This is the same Obama who is for "universal health care" -- except, of course, in the case of a child gasping for life.
(Barone's words on this follow: "He voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who surived abortions . . . ). That's not exactly a position which is going to "bring the nation together," as Obama claims is his goal. When he and Michelle talk about their concern for America's children, we need to press them on exactly which children get excluded.
They preach unity, but they practice the worst forms of division.
Yes, Obama, the political preacher man, has a 'dream." But with many of his extreme views, the question is how he can sleep at night.
The Myth of Obama
It's absolutey critical to "introduce" the American people to Barack Obama, and John McCain and Cindy McCain were doing just that yesterday. Among other things, McCain said something quite fascinating, that Obama is advocating "a holidy from history." I don't advocate that as a campaign slogan, but it demonstrates that McCain has Obama's number. He's saying that Obama's "soaring rhetoric' has left the stratosphere and totally detached itself from reality. Unfortunately, some people will remain forever bamboozled, including the college-freshman types mindlessly chanting "Yes, we can!" No, you can't, something most two-year-olds learn when they turn 3.
Obama is talking about our society's failures in regard to children. This from the guy who voted to deny medical assistance to children born alive in botched abortions. I guess "universal health care" has its limitations.
In terms of education, Obama's "plan," like Bill Clinton's is to do nothing other than pay of the Teacher's Union. Parental choice? He doesn't have that "dream." Merit pay for excellent teachers? Not during his watch.
Health care? That means more patients, the same number of providers, and somehow lots of imaginary "savings."
As for the War on Terror, his goal seems to be to leave Iraq to al Qaeda and, at the same time, invade Pakistan. He quotes JFK, but very selectively, missing the famous line about: "We will pay any price, bear any burden to ensure the survival of liberty." Perhaps Caroline Kennedy can remind her new hero about that one. It's vitally important to defeat this snake-oil-salesman, the man-of-words who turns out (as with campaign finance) not to be a man-of-HIS-word.
NOTE TO PENNSYLVANIANS: IN THE COMING WEEKS, I'M GOING TO DISCUSS HOW ACTIVISTS (PEOPLE LIKE YOU) CAN LEVERAGE YOUR POWER IN ELECTIONS. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS YOU CAN DO IS TO WORK WITH YOUR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS, PARTICULARLY THE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTIES.
SOON, I'LL BE FEATURING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY (PA) REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATION. IT'S ONE OF THE BETTER GOP GROUPS IN THE STATE. THE EMPHASIS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, HISTORICALLY A DEMOCRATIC AREA, IS ON BUILDING THE PARTY, AND THEY'RE SUCCEEDING. IN THE LAST ELECTION, THEY ELECTED THE FIRST REPUBLICAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
THE BEST KNOWN POLITICAL FIGURE IN THE COUNTY IS COMMISSIONER DIANA LYNN IREY, WHO RAN FOR CONGRESS AGAINST JOHN MURTHA IN 2006. BONNIE WEST IS THE HEAD OF THE LOCAL ORGANIZATION, AND SHE'S AN EMERGING POLITICAL STAR.
If you'd like take a look at Washington County GOP's web site: http://washingtoncountyrepublicanparty.blogspot.com. It's a good one, even though the guest editorial by former Senator Rick Santorum has outlived its usefulness. It's important to keep web sites current and relevant, which Washington County usually does.