Video: McCain losing his bearings by taking the high road?
posted at 8:40 am on May 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Bill O’Reilly gave John McCain an opportunity to take up the cudgel of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers against Barack Obama, but McCain passed on it, for the most part. He told O’Reilly last night that he wants to run a high-road campaign, even while Obama gave a thinly-veiled suggestion that McCain had reached senility. McCain’s answer will likely continue the frustration Republicans feel with his unwillingness to discuss Obama’s pattern of ties to rabid anti-American demagogues and worse:
This high-road approach may not last much longer, if Obama keeps up his attacks on McCain’s age. As Soren Dayton notes, that will almost certainly continue. Soren punctures the myth of Obama’s own commitment to the high road, noting that Obama didn’t mind using sexist terms to deride Hillary Clinton:
I want to point remind you of one of the great un(der)reported stories of the Democratic Primary, Barack Obama’s sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Jake Tapper first noted this when Obama said that Hillary was “taking out the claws.” At the same time he noted that Obama would use “[l]anguage such as ‘when she’s feeling down’ ‘periodically’ she ‘launches attacks.’” Tapper noted that a number of female reporters and bloggers picked up on this. Later Obama complained that Hillary was “throwing the China” at him. Again, Tapper heard the dog whistle. Tapper noted that this “feeds into the ‘harridan‘ caricature of Clinton.”
Quite obviously, we can expect more of this kind of campaigning from Obama and his team. Does McCain believe that he can beat Obama by delivering the positive campaign and exposing Obama’s false promises of one? If so, he may be in for a rude awakening — the press simply won’t report it. Besides Jake Tapper, how many other political reporters have noticed the sexist themes from the Obama campaign?
On the other hand, McCain may want to focus on issues now and prepare for infighting later, during the general campaign, when it will do more damage. That could be a smart strategy, staying above the fray as long as Hillary Clinton keeps aggressively punching at Obama’s image. That has already opened many avenues for later attack and has transformed Obama’s image from a political Messiah to an elitist intellectual somewhat out of touch with mainstream America, damage Obama did to himself in equal measure.
If that’s his strategy, then McCain had better refrain from categorical disavowals of using the Wright and Ayers issues in the general election. And if one listens carefully, McCain never really does say that the topics will not arise; in fact, he points out that Obama has already acknowledged the legitimacy of Wright as a campaign issue, and Obama still has a full-throated defense of Ayers on his campaign website. Let’s hope McCain has left the opening for a reason.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I don’t have a problem with that statement. I’m only disappointed that there isn’t another woman in this race so that we could have a full-blown cat fight.
As for McCain’s tactics, pressing the guilt by association theme isn’t going to win the next election. Voters are deeply dissatisfied with the nation’s course and politics as usual. The type of circus side show ‘values’ issues that helped Bush win in 2004 aren’t going to play out in Ohio and other states in 2008. Voters won’t fall for it again.
bayam on May 9, 2008 at 8:47 AM
I’m hoping the strategy you outline is his plan. Surely he can’t be so naive as to think the high road of political campaigning still leads to the WH, especially with the media so aggressively against him.
petefrt on May 9, 2008 at 8:53 AM
We can fully expect this hypocrisy from Obama, and expect it to become more and more obvious with time, especially as McCain schools Obama.
drjohn on May 9, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Hmm…I just imagined an eyepatch on McCain, and…voila! He’s Colonel Tigh, a Cylon!
fossten on May 9, 2008 at 8:54 AM
I really think that issues wise Mav’s gonna pound him. All this crybaby stuff Obams’a gonna try is gonna backfire, with talk radio, FOX and the blogs. It’ll be impossible for him NOT to be seen as a whiney ass wimp. All that “poor me” stuff and the swooning press (they are becoming a joke that will backfire on him too) will make him and his campaign a caracture(msp?) of themselves
LtE126 on May 9, 2008 at 8:59 AM
One of McCain’s problems is his knee-jerk response of getting offended (and saying so) every time someone criticizes him, and then turning around and criticizing his opponent for offending him.
This not a winning approach.
For all Obama’s left-wing policies, in a one-on-one debate he is going to make McCain look old, crotchety and thin-skinned. All of which McCain is.
And, no, Ed, this is not hate speech.
BigD on May 9, 2008 at 9:01 AM
At the moment, it’s impossible for me not to see McCain as a whiney ass wimp.
Blake on May 9, 2008 at 9:03 AM
McCain is a relatively honorable guy who will probably stick to his pledge to take the high road and lay off the easy softballs he could knock out of the park, like Ayers, Wright, etc. However, the amusing part will come when the subordinate attack-dogs get out there and pound Reverend Wright’s hate-speech against whites (yes I know, hate-speech vs whites seems to be an oxymoron). That’s when the wheels will come off the Obama campaign, the media will become an apologist for him (or BIGGER apologists), and all of us in Bitter-land will go McCain (for lack of a decent candidate)
While I believe that McCain is a poor choice for president, Obama would be a disaster.
webproze on May 9, 2008 at 9:07 AM
It won’t take long for Obama’s hypocrisy and lack of ethical and moral bearing to ignite the McCain campgain. Obama will get the serious ass-whipping that he so richly deserves.
Jaibones on May 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM
McCain won’t be perceived as a wimp by the general population. This is the man who stayed 5 more years in captivity and was tortured more because he didn’t want to leave before his fellow men.
amerpundit on May 9, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Nah, McCain will blow the socks off of Obie in the debates; Barack just doesn’t have any muscle behind the empty platitudes.
I look forward to the sly references McCain will drop about being a combat vet while Obama tries to spin himself as the Ultimate American™.
Bishop on May 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM
McCain’s not going be the first to go negative, but when he does attack The Obamassiah I think it will be devastating. Remember his letter to the junior senator.
Plus it will show The Obamassiah as the hypocrite he really is.
rbj on May 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Despite McCain’s age and physical restrictions, there’s no doubt in my mind that he could annihilate Obama in a cage match. Hillary, I’m not so sure.
Syd B. on May 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM
While I believe that McCain is a poor choice for president, Obama would be a disaster.
Bumper sticker in the making right there.
I can only hope sane people feel the same way come election time.
TroubledMonkey on May 9, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Hillary, I’m not so sure.
To paraphrase Obie, it depends on the time of the month. My wife is all of 5′3″ and 115 soaking wet; she would tear my head clean off if I were to get on her bad side during those days.
Bishop on May 9, 2008 at 9:16 AM
BigD, I completely agree with that assessment.
Ed Morrissey on May 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM
You understand McCain got the ‘Maverick’ nickname by opposing Republicans in Congress? If you are a Republican, he got that nickname by hosing you on issues that are important to you. A Republican using that nickname looks…silly. Ok, stupid. No coffee yet so I’m not going to be nice.
Think of it this way: there’s a man in your neighborhood, having relations with everyones wife. They all call him ‘Casanova’.
You walk up to him while he’s waxing his Prius and say: ‘Hey Casanova, how they hanging good buddy?’ He answers ‘Great! Last night I scored with this woman that lives across the street. She’s living with a totally boring jerk!’ Problem is, he’s pointing to your house. Don’t use a nickname that celebrates somebody screwing your values system.
Pfft. I’d say chances on that are slim and none. He pounced faster on his own party for criticizing obama in their local race in Carolina and he groin kicked that Cincinnati radio guy for using Obama’s middle name; you think he’s going to go after obama aggressively? Dream on slick. If you’re going to promote fantasy, why don’t we dream about McCain actually campaigning for Right wing voters. Let’s imagine he doesn’t go and pander to La Raza again…no, doesn’t work. I guess because it just happened 4 days ago it’s to difficult. Well, let’s do our cheer:
Obama sucks..he really really sucks!
Vote McCain because Obama really sucks!
yay!
austinnelly on May 9, 2008 at 9:23 AM
And then McCain stabs his subordinates in the back…
This is also the man who whined after losing the nomination in 2000, hobnobbed with the enemy (Hollywood), who obviously believed he was one of them, threatened to switch party, refuses to mix it up and throws his supporters that do under the bus.
Blake on May 9, 2008 at 9:28 AM
You seem to think that negative campaigning doesn’t work. Wrong! I don’t like a totally negative campaign either, but history shows they work, and quite well. Guilt by association is not always wrong, either. How else to show that someone who talks a good show, and has no record to criticize, is other than what he says he is than by the company he keeps. Hanging out with David Duke for 20 years would show, at the least, terrible judgment.
As to McCain taking the high road, I think it makes very good sense, given that there will be 527s to carry out the attacks. McCain can condemn every attack add put out by conservative 527s and look statesmanlike, while the ads keep running and hammering Obama.
Buford Gooch on May 9, 2008 at 9:33 AM
I dunno…I disagree. McCain has held his own so far when being interviewed by notoriously Left-leaning people.
I think he’ll bury Obama in the first debate. The only thing is, taking the “high road” is fine and dandy, but will it win votes? For all it’s worth, people always say they are sick and tired of negative campaigns…but in reality, they are effective.
JetBoy on May 9, 2008 at 9:35 AM
You’re exactly right, and it’s heartbreaking. This drawn out Democrat civil war proved that neither Obama nor Hillary could effectively deal with negative press. Both campaigns seemed very amateurish in responding to negative attacks, and both were pretty amateurish in dishing the attacks.
But McCain, I think, is good at responding to attacks. He won’t make the same mistakes as Hillary and Obama. I believe he should be CAREFUL about how he goes negative on Obama, because of the hair-trigger race card that’s waiting for him (which is why he was so aggressive with the Cinci radio guy). Going negative IS the winning strategy for McCain. His substantive message (stay in Iraq) is unpopular, and he has no support in his base. But on the plus side, he is widely viewed as “independent,” not strongly-tied to a weak Republican brand, and as a smart, decent guy. So he wins by creating enough fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of voters to make them run away from Obama and vote for the “least worst alternative.” That was Bush’s strategy in 2004 and it needs to be McCain’s strategy in 2008.
Outlander on May 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Stay on the high road, John.
Valiant on May 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM
We’ll see. Keep in mind that they will moderated by mainstream media types and that they are, by their own admission, practically sexually excited by Obama. They are not going to let McCain take the debates away. In fact, I can envision McCain getting frustrated (that would be “offended”) by the tone of the questioning, which will be likely be quite obviously slanted to the Democrats’ advantage.
I would be willing to bet that Obama, as a lawyer, has considerably better debating skills than McCain. We’ll see how McCain holds up for 90 minutes at a time when he’s probably usually getting ready for bed.
BigD on May 9, 2008 at 9:50 AM
“Never wrestle with a pig in slop…You both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it.”
So, the question is, when electing the Leader of the Free World, and the Face of the Nation,
Do we want a pig?…Or, someone with a sense of decorum?
It ain’t rocket science
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 10:05 AM
What’s desperatly missing here is the “high road” McCain has over Obama when it comes to protecting this nation and foreign policy experience. (see tonights part two interview) While McCain’s policy is one of negotiating from a position of military strenght, Obama’s lost in his “appeasement and approval” policies when dealing with our enemies and allys. These were the same disastrous mistakes that the Carter and Clinton administrations took that gave our enemies the window of opportunity to strike at the heart of western civilization. This nation can ill afford to go down this road again. And McCain will not allow it.
Rovin on May 9, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Outlander on May 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM
St Mc is doddering and absent minded at times…? He better keep Holy Joe at his elbow during extemporaneous interviews!
BHO may refer to his condition[s] occasionally; it really isn’t necessary. All one has to do is watch and listen to St Mc for affirmation of his geezerness.
He reminds me of myself!
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
desperately missing——not desperatly (where’s an editor when ya need one?)
Rovin on May 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Any possibility that McCain is keeping his powder dry as a negotiated quid pro quo because he hopes to keep opposition researchers from digging to deep into his own closet?
McCain the war hero is on a mighty high pedestal.
Angry Dumbo on May 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
So this past evening I see McCain declaring on O’Reilly that he won’t be signing anything that would entail the opening of ANWR to oil drilling. Well that’s great. One more reason I hate McShamnesty the RINO. I swear, if Hillary or Obama either one says they’re for it. . . I’m voting for them. This is just ridiculous now, this whole race.
Vaporman87 on May 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
FWIW - when the picture for a post is taken from The Onion, it always makes me think the post it goes to is a joke.
its vintage duh on May 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Yah…right on Rovin. The BushCo neocons were much too busy discussing how they were going to divvy up Iraqi oil to be bothered by intel and a NIE that stated nefarious dudes were making plans to fly planes into buildings!
Why even Condi couldn’t believe something like “that” was possible?
Keep her between the ditches, Rovin.
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Exactly,
After the 1993 attack on the WTC, and it was finally traced to bin Laden, how many times did Clinton pass on the opportunity to kill or capture him?…Not to mention all the other attacks, when Clinton still made excuses…And, fell asleep at the switch.
“This was a failure of imagination.”
Are we going to fall asleep, again?…Are we going to fail to conceive the inconceivable?…Will we, again, open the window of opportunity?
I don’t want there to be a “Next time”
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I asked my crystal ball, wiil Israel bomb Iran?
It replies, “Without a doubt.”
I asked my crystal ball, what will be America’s response?
It replies, “Depends, on who gets elected.”
I asked my crystal ball, who will be elected?
It replies, “Depends on those, who think immigration is a top priority.”
[sigh]
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
This doesn’t even make sense.
Keep talking to yourself, though, it seems to keep you happy.
fossten on May 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Thank-you,
For proof, you have no imagination.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
VaporMan.. Save Yourself the Frustration, it isnt going to get better. Many I know plan to stay Home on Election Day and Let the EvilDoers take responsiblity for what ultimately is Gods Will. McCain has contempt for Conservatives.. Pure and Utter Contempt. True Conservatives feel the same way about Him. Contempt does not Parlay into a Vote.. at least not in my World.. but I am a Conservative who will NOT be taken advantage of again after the last 7 and a Half Years.
LibsREvilDoers on May 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Yes indeedy, franksalterego. It wasn’t just National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice who was incredulous; it was Secretary Paul O’Neill who spilt the beans …
Next question?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Bush had eight months…Clinton had eight years.
Clinton had bin Laden in his sights, several times.
Bush never had that opportunity.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Nice try J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I’m sure we all loved the workings of Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher who had the “insights” to see the danger from abroad developing.
Perry and Cohen as defense secretarys also must have missed the “visions” of planes flying into buildings too? The facts are these pathetic appointees that Clinton put into office did nothing but decimate our intelligence capabilities along with Jamie Gorlick’s WALL. But by all means, let’s revise history and put BushCo at the head of the blame for this nation’s dereliction. Oh, and can ya tell me how much Iraqi oil is coming into our reserves at no cost? Answer: NONE
J_Gocht’s revisionist regime change:
What are the stubborn facts?
The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not left over from the first Bush administration, but, rather, unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.
Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” William Jefferson Clinton
Next fabrication Mr. Gocht……
Rovin on May 9, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Yeah, but the Obamas were tortured by 5 years of debt from student loans.
RushBaby on May 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
It’s clear, from the record, Bush had two challenges, when he took office.
The first challenge was Saddam, who was blatently, in your face, defying U.N. sanctions, and the terms of the surrender in the first gulf war…The brutality, and the threat of Saddam was well documented.
The second was bin Laden, who was known to be dangerous…But, it was inconceivable, how much damage he could do.
Even if you imagine, he could orchestrate flying airplanes into buildings, NO ONE, could conceive they would collapse…In fact, it was almost inconceivable, until they actually did.
So, if you, as president, are prioritizing bin Laden vs. Saddam, it’s perfectly understandable why Saddam was taking priority.
To put forth any other position is nothing more than 20/20 hindsight.
My pet goat, notwithstanding
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Well now Rovin; who was in the kitchen, doin’ the cookin’, when we were attacked?
If Secretary O’Neill’s assertions are only partly correct with respect BushCo’s cabinet deliberations; it’s still despicable malfeasance.
Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz was completely wrong with respect to their plans for Iraqi oil; this only continues to demonstrate how flawed and shallow was their analysis and planning. Check it out, least you’ve forgotten?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Nice! LOL
funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
A fair number of women are gonna vote McCain because of this stuff…my mom is one of them. She caucused for Hillary (shudder) but will NOT vote for Obama.
funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Are you saying, you believe, “Secretary O’Neill and Paul Wolfowitz” had advance knowledge of the time & place of 9/11?
Because, that’s the ONLY way you could come to your conclusion.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Bush had less than 8 months. Thanks to Gore’s Florida antics, Bush was not able to start assembling his team until after December.
MarkTheGreat on May 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM
What he said.
Ares on May 9, 2008 at 12:18 PM
The fact that Bill Clinton lobed some cruise missiles at the Defense Directorate in Baghdad around midnight and killed a janitor, not withstanding…
Such action was far superior then the frivolous invasion of Iraq, by Bush. Clinton cost us a couple missiles…
Bush’s cost is litterly immeasurable with respect to the loss of life and limb,on all sides. If you also consider the financial cost of running our country into the ditch; his Great Adventure into Mesopotamia, truly boggles the mind.
“Way to go Dubyah”! Or was it “Brownie”?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM
MTG, you apparently didn’t bother to read this?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Those are characteristics I associate more with Obama, lately, than with McCain.
Big S on May 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
And, the cost of doing nothing?
That’s where your imagination fails.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Obama was interviewed on CNN. They brought up the Republican plan to highlight his lack of experience and asked what he brings to the table that counters this. His response was “judgement”. And I swear he smirked when he said it, realizing even himself that’s a bunch of bs.
miles on May 9, 2008 at 1:05 PM
You’re pretty hot, on this hindsight sh!t.
How ’bout a prediction, Iran with a nuclear weapon?
Let’s see how f**king brilliant you are.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM
franksalterego, you’re the “man with all the imagination”!
I prefer to deal with facts; when it comes to war and peace.
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Now, now… getting a bit testy are we? Please recall I gave you full credit for having a great imagination!
Civility is the next best thing, to imagination…?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Big, Smoking Craters, where Jerusalem, or St.Louis used to be, won’t be such a fun fact, afterwards.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Exactly the answer I was expecting…It’s exactly the same answer I’d expect from Obamessiah…It’s exactly the same answer I’d expect from any hindsight expert.
I’ll bet, you’re an expert quarterback, too.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 1:32 PM
…with all apologies to Ronald.
With that absolutely fabulous imagination!
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Only on Monday morning!
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I’m always fascinated by idiots, who “could’a, would’a, should’a”
They’re always the ones, who can’t see any farther ahead, than the next letter on their keyboards.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Were you refering to President Bush’s cabinet in 2000?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM
After McCain gave a thinly-veiled suggestion that Obama supports Hamas’ agenda.
MB4 on May 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM
“2000″
The first year in recorded history.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM
But then Wolfowitz got just about everything wrong.
Iraq war architects shrug off truth
MB4 on May 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Hey there MB4…I’ve always wondered if “franksalterego” was actually “Frank”; do you think he would be a flaming liberal?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Big S — you are right, and I was thinking the same thing earlier today. They are indeed both doing it! Ought to make things interesting, except that McCain has said he won’t attack Obama.
BigD on May 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM
What’s with The Onion pic on the front page? This has nothing to do with The Onion.
DaveS on May 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Ms Diana West, is truly insightful, discerning and well written.
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 2:18 PM
The ignorance of this statement is breathtaking. Clinton became Commander-in-Chief with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions that concluded the Gulf War and protecting this country from the rising jihadist threat. Instead he took a vacation from history and stuck cigars in interns while Saddam Hussein flaunted war sanctions, gave international terrorists safe haven, turned our allies into enemies with oil-for-palaces bribes, and provided aid & funding to terrorists around the globe (including Al Qieda).
To call Clinton’s disasterous turn at the helm of America’s security “superior” to anything is an insult both to common sense and those who’ve died due to his incompetance.
miles on May 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM
A couple of days ago, McCain was sucking up to an Hispanic group and opened his Spanish speaking website. He once again, is talking “comprehensive immigration reform” and now TA-DA….he’s going on his global warming swing to through the US. Lucky me, he is coming to Seattle.
I am totally convinced this guy is out to stick it to the base and the feeling is mutual.
thatcher on May 9, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Is it now?
So ‘miles’ how do you rate the coitus interruptus of the senior Bush? He had olde round heels Saddam flat on his back; was it just the most distinguished, insightful and masterful concert of foreign policy and war fighting you’ve ever witnessed?
Perhaps he was smarter by half than his junior offspring…gosh is that a understatment!
Better to off one janitor then kill and maim hundreds of thousands, no?
Saddam never was, would never have been and now for certain [if it’s important?] never will be a threat…to anyone but the peoples of Iraq.
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM
You say.
I say…
To call Bush’s disastrous turn at the helm of America’s security “superior” to anything is an insult both to common sense and those who’ve died due to his incompetence.
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM
John McCain will take the high road all the way to a massive defeat! Ronald Reagan had no problems sticking it to liberals…I thought Johnny was a “foot soldier” in the “revolution”… He must have been a back-bencher at best…idiot!
sabbott on May 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM
To understand The War on Terror one must have a grasp of modern terrorism. It is no coincidence that that brutal period in human history began with the ascension of Saddam Hussein in the early Seventies because he was to it what Hitler was to Nazism. He came to power by terror, ruled by terror, exported terror and repeatedly attempted to conquest by terror.
Fortunately for humanity a leader with balls finally said enough is enough and took that monster down once and for all. For this political courage George W. Bush deserves applause and gratitude. Yet sadly the malicious, power hungry jackals of the left have repeated their Big Lies so long that history has been obscured and people have actually started to believe them.
miles on May 9, 2008 at 4:33 PM
When historians place pen to paper; President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq will be defined as the moment when America turned its’ back on the tenants of the founding fathers.
The assault on and loss of our personal freedoms,the financial ruin it has wrought and continues to bring… will only serve to predicate the insult of the despicable war itself.
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Or, p’haps, it’ll be defined as the moment Democrats turned their backs on their country.
franksalterego on May 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM
RushBaby, the Obamas are also tortured by the price of arugula.
Entelechy on May 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Hey there franksalterego…is Frank a liberal, conservative or libertarian?
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Uhm, folks? I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but
likes to spew fever-swamp talking points just to get a reaction.
In other words, he’s a troll. Please don’t feed the trolls.
misterpeasea on May 9, 2008 at 5:54 PM
misterpeasea, is that nice?
We all have to eat, even olde geezers like me.
J_Gocht on May 9, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Then there’s this…St Mc refuses to sign the “New GI Bill” soldiers…?
Perhaps he’ll have a change of “heart” before November…?
J_Gocht on May 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM