Vintage Obama

Many, many years ago, on a family holiday to Florida, I stood in line for a ride at MGM. Although I can't remember anything about the ride itself, my hour or so in the queue remains quite vivid. I was surrounded by a fabulous collection of Star Wars memorabilia, the most impressive of which was a full-size version of one of the Imperial AT-AT Walkers (I had to look up the proper name) from the start of The Empire Strikes Back. I was amazed, naturally, and said eagerly to one of the park attendants, "Did they use that in the film?". He laughed first, and then said soberly, which somehow made it all the more cutting, "No, they used little models in the movie". I was pretty embarrassed, truth be told, I'm still a little embarrassed.

In my defence, I was 12 years old and wasn't running for President.

Here's Obama at Mt Rushmore (from the AP):

Obama said it was his first visit to the landmark.

He did express curiosity about the filming of a chase scene in "North by Northwest," Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 classic starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint that included a death-defying scramble over Rushmore's presidential faces.

"How did they get up there in the first place?" he asked ranger Wesley Jensen.

"They didn't. It was a movie set," Jensen told him.

It stings, Barack, I know, don't fight it, just get back on the horse.

Negotiating with al-Qaeda?

The Scotsman reports that Sir Hugh Orde, the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, thinks that we should negotiate with al-Qaeda. He may have a wealth of experience in dealing with the IRA, but he clearly has no understanding of fundamental nature of al-Qaeda's quarrel with the western world. All these inane statements do is legitimise the malefic force of militant Islam and generate an ominous sense of political entitlement.

Earmarks for Pfleger

Change you can believe in, huh?

This is from the Chicago Tribune (via Greg Pollowitz at NRO's Media Blog) in an article about how Obama managed to weave sizeable earmarks into massive budget bills that would benefit his friends and supporters:

One of those long-time supporters was Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church. He gave Obama's campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.

Pfleger said he made those donations personally, not on behalf of the church or to win grants.

"At a time when less people vote than ever, I don't think pastors should be silent on politics," Pfleger said.

So, one of Obama's spiritual advisors (who doesn't stay silent on politics) is a beneficiary of $225k worth of pork. And here was me thinking that Obama was ushering in a new era political integrity. Yeah, right.

Barack Obama . . . Duplicity you can believe in.

Obama: Investigating Vs Excusing

Wow, this is really turning into a bit of an Obama day. These are two stories which really capture, in my opinion anyway, the massive gulf that has developed in the reporting of Barack Obama.  On the one hand, we have Stanley Kurtz's investigation of Obama's "intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America" and how the group have influenced his thinking on many issues. The other article is a plea by Michael Kinsley (in Time) to not link Obama with the actions of former radicals -- here's some excerpts:

Ayers put it well: "Guilty as hell, and free as a bird. It's a great country."

Years later, Ayers threw a fund-raising party for Obama. They sat together on the board of a community group. Is this association between Obama and these dangerous radicals a scandal? Or is the scandal digging up all this ancient history? Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd.

(...)

Ayers and Dohrn never posed any real threat to U.S. national security. Their asinine chatter about killing people and their anti-American sloganeering were as ineffective as their bombs. But they did real harm. Their victims were liberals: the millions of people who were part of the mainstream antiwar movement and who later voted against Ronald Reagan.

(...)

If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others--including Republicans and conservatives--who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues.

So now the way to shrug off a friendship with a former terrorist is to say that because they were really bad terrorists it's okay to forgive them? Should the same leniency be shown to the shoe-bomber? After all, his aptitude for terrorism was about the same as Ayers and Dohrn's. I suppose we should all just be thankful that they gave up the terrorism business before the internet (otherwise liberalism might have really been in trouble).

Beatty at 15,813 and counting

Republican Senate hopeful Jeff Beatty is now well and truly secure on the primary ballot in Massachusetts. 15,813 signatures have been submitted and more are on the way. So far, his primary challenger, Jim Ogonowski, has failed to break the 10,000 threshold.

Hopefully Beatty will be able to retire the irksome and ineffective John Kerry, who recently had the audacity to suggest that McCain was "out of step with history and facts" -- of course, that was just after suggesting that the US was at peace on September 11th (via Andy Barr on The Hill's blog):

Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole [...], Kerry said, "well, we hadn't declared war".

Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, [he] said, "well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time."

And he wonders why he lost the election.

The Obama gaffe-machine

Great article by John Fund in the WSJ about the Obama gaffe-machine. He writes about the fraying image of Barack Obama as the "incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate". He goes through a list of BO's best gaffes (eg, seeing dead people on Memorial day, the 57 states of the union, Iran, Venezuela, Kennedy/Khrushchev, his uncle's liberation of Auschwitz), and wonders why someone like Dan Quayle still gets ripped for spelling potato, 'potatoe', when no-one seems to be bothered by Obama's growing list of clangers.

He also has an interesting point about Obama's Auschwitz gaffe that I didn't know:

Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama's revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka – even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

Now Fund also says, quite rightly, that these things should not disqualify someone from being President but when you consider the reaction and attention Hillary got with her absurd sniper story, surely it's about time the press cover all gaffe's equally.

Obama's religious headache

Obama's religious mentors are really trying their best to screw up his chances of becoming President. Here is Rev. Michael Pfleger, at United Trinity Church on Sunday:

How can this person call himself a man of God. That's not religion, that's fanaticism. In fact, I don't even think I have the words to do such an abhorrent performance justice. How many times did Obama sit through a sermon like that?

It should be noted that he apologised for it later:

"I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."

Rubbish. Such venomous and calculated enthusiasm is never followed with regret.

Obama may be heading to Iraq

Okay, let me get this straight, Obama is considering going to Iraq but has said that he won't go with McCain because it's a "political stunt".  He argues:

"I think that if I'm going to Iraq, then I'm there to talk to troops and talk to commanders...I'm not there to try to score political points or perform. The work they're doing there is too important."

So why has he only been to Iraq once in 5 years? If he regards the work they're doing as "too important", what's taken him so long to get back out there?

UPDATE: John Kerry has the audacity to attack John McCain for recent misstatements about Iraq -- He says that McCain is "out of step with history and facts". Obama is averaging about 2-gaffes-a-day and Kerry wants to go after McCain for mixing up Sunni and Shia?

McCain to name VP?

That's the rumour according to Marc Ambinder, although even he thinks that's a bit unlikely. Apparently, McCain cancelled a gig in Pennsylvania because he was going to name his VP choice, but the more likely story is that he's just sick. We'll see.

Tony Blair on Climate Change

Eeeesh. Tony's got a piece in the Washington Post -- seems like someone's angling for a peace prize. 

Beatty now "focusing on the next stage"

The Beatty campaign has submitted 11,782 certified signatures to the Massachusetts Secretary of State. Although more signatures will be submitted on Friday, 11,782 should be more than enough to withstand any legal challenges. Currently, Beatty is the only name on the Republican ballot after Jim Ogonowski failed to garner enough support (despite the backing of prominent Republicans).

Jeff Beatty and his team are now "focusing on the next stage of the campaign". Congratulations to them.

How McCain can win

Steven Stark (from the Boston Phoenix via RCP) writes about how John McCain can win in November. He writes that McCain will need to emulate the words of former California Governor, Jerry Brown, and run to "left and the right at the same time". I happen to agree but I don't think that McCain will have to try to do anything different to what he has always done. The fact of the matter is that he is left and he is right (not to be confused with centrism). McCain will make a big play of global warming and executive salaries, he will be seen as more in-tune with American values than Obama because he is more in-tune with American values (he doesn't need to wear a bomber jacket to emphasise it).  Similarly, with the right, he doesn't need to act like he's opposed to abortion and same-sex marriages because he is opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage.

The fourth point on Stark's list is McCain's choice for VP. I really disagree with him here. Here's the section:

If he picks a traditional Republican or anyone associated with the Bush administration, voters will assume he's traditional and a Bushie, too. And he will likely lose.

In truth, he shouldn't pick any of the commonly mentioned governors (Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Florida's Charlie Crist, Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty, etc.) because it will be hard to argue that Obama is too inexperienced if McCain has picked a running mate even more so. And all of McCain's primary opponents are either too flawed or too conservative to help the presumptive Republican nominee pick up a state he wouldn't otherwise carry...

That leaves McCain two paths to energize his candidacy. He can either choose an "outsider" woman or a Democrat/Independent as a way to demonstrate his independence. The problem in each case is finding one who would help the ticket but who is also pro-life. Republicans Carly Fiorina (best known for her leadership of Hewlett Packard) and Meg Whitman (former CEO of eBay) might fit the bill and would be intriguing candidates. But it would be a risk to pick a running mate with no governmental experience. There are a handful of Democrats who are pro-life -- such as Colorado governor Bill Ritter, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, and former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer -- but would any consider an offer across the aisle from McCain? Unlikely.

If none will, McCain faces a dilemma: does he risk alienating his party's right wing by turning to, say, pro-choice, Independent New York mayor Mike Bloomberg -- probably the best selection from an electoral standpoint? That's why this decision may well be the defining moment for the McCain candidacy.

Hmmm? Bill Ritter? Ben Nelson? Tim Roemer? Michael Bloomberg? Are you serious? I don't know what the deal is with touting Democrats as running mates. It sends a terrible signal.

The future of the Republican party: Democrats. It's such an easy argument for the Democrats to make: the Republican party is so weak that they have to get a Democrat to run as VP -- it would decimate the House and Senate races, and leave the party in turmoil for 2012.

UCU votes to boycott Israeli Universities

The Times is reporting that the UCU has voted in favour of boycotting Israeli universities.

Academia is a full of bizarre ironies and double standards. The University and College Union (UCU), which represents 120,000 academics, has voted to boycott Israeli Universities on the moral grounds that Israeli academics had “apparent complicity” in the “humanitarian catastrophe imposed on Gaza by Israel”. Aside from this charge being entirely bogus, it's also completely ludicrous and flies in the face of the spirit of academia. Engagement with Universities in Iran and Saudi Arabia is perfectly acceptable (as I think it should be), and in some cases encouraged. This sort of stunt can only hurt the international reputation of UK scholars. Of course, it's not the first time either, two years ago the UCU was made up of two different unions who tried the same thing before eventually overturning their decisions. It was determined back then that a boycott would be illegal, which is why this time they've stopped short and called for individuals to decide whether or not it's good for the institution to have any links with Israel. What a cowardly way to push a sickening agenda. This is even worse on the grandstanding front than Monbiot trying to arrest Bolton.

McCain 270 - 268 Obama

In the Evans-Novak Political report (at Human Events), Robert Novak and TImothy Carney look at Obama Vs McCain in the electoral college. They score it 270 - 268 for McCain. I'm a nut for playing around with the electoral college calculator, so I may do a comparison at some point tomorrow (which is now today).

Quick side note: Ladbrokes have Hillary at 10-1 to be the next President (Obama's 8-11, McCain's 11-8). 10-1 is quite tempting. If she makes it to the convention and if Florida and Michigan are given their delegates...it's not totally out the realms of possibility. 10-1 is worth a flutter.

GOP VPs: Pros & Cons

Townhall looks at the pros and cons of all the potential Republican VP candidates. Their Bottom Line: Bobby Jindal. It's a fine choice, and I think it would be a strong ticket. Part of me will always root for Romney, but it seems that there are too many weaknesses -- the press will kill him on flip-flopping and Mormonism (which drives me insane -- race, age, and gender are all a no-go [as they should be] but Mormonism is weapons free). [sigh] President Romney would've been special.

McCain whacks Obama on Iraq

From RCP Blog, McCain hammers Obama on Iraq:

Obama's campaign responds with the old classic ('we were always against the war'), and a new favourite ('even the White House Press Secretary said the Bush Administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war'):

"On the day after the former White House press secretary conceded that the Bush administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war, it seems odd that Senator McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq. Senator Obama challenged the President's rationale for the war from the start, warning that it would divert resources from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Al Qaeda and mire us in an endless civil war. Senator McCain stubbornly insists on pursuing the failed Bush policy that continues to cost so much, while Senator Obama believes it's time to begin a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops and compel the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future."

McCain's response is something I think we can expect until Obama eventually travels to Iraq, which is a story that's starting to get traction:

"In 2004, Barack Obama said he had the same position as President George W. Bush, so that line of reasoning is puzzling. Barack Obama is trying to hide behind inside-the-beltway headlines and avoiding the fact that he hasn't seen the conditions on the ground in Iraq for 871 days which includes the Surge strategy and its resulting progress. It's fundamentally weak leadership by Senator Obama and shows that he's just not ready to be our military's commander in chief."

Obama's got to get to Iraq soon. He should swallow his pride and go and meet General Petraeus.  Aside from it being the right thing for a candidate for President to do, if he doesn't, McCain's point about how he is more willing to sit down with Ahmadinejad than he is with General Petraeus is going to fester and fester until there's no coming back. If Hillary is smart she'll be on the first flight to Iraq and have a very public meeting with General Petraeus.

Freaky

Ladies and Gentlemen, the solution for the Democratic Party, Hillarack Obamton:

(From The Telegraph)

Is this the freakiest picture you've ever seen?

Beatty Vs Kerry as Ogonowski falls short

Bad news for Ogonowski:

The Boston Globe reports that Jim Ogonowski has failed in his bid to even get on the ballot for the Massachusetts Senate Republican primary. Apparently he was 82 votes short. Ouch. Even if he makes up the 82 votes needed, like his staff claims he will, you need at least a 10% cushion to survive the legal challenges.

...But good news for Beatty:

The Beatty campaign in Massachusetts sent me this a couple of hours ago:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday May 28th, 2008

BEATTY CAMPAIGN DELIVERS MORE THAN 11,000 CERTIFIED SIGNATURES TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE

As nomination process winds down, campaign expects to deliver nearly 17,000 signatures by June 3rd.

 
Boston – As the June 3rd deadline approaches for federal candidates to turn in their nomination papers, Jeff Beatty’s campaign for U.S. Senate delivered its first batch—over 11,000 out of roughly 17,000—of certified signatures to the Secretary of State’s office today.

This is the culmination of two months of hard work by more than 100 Beatty campaign supporters, staff and volunteers who fanned the Commonwealth to gather more than 25,000 total signatures in support of Beatty’s campaign to capture the junior Senate seat.  

“This massive support speaks loud and clear that people believe in Jeff Beatty’s creative vision, with new ideas backed by traditional American values,” said Joe Manzoli, Jeff Beatty’s campaign director.  “This demonstrates the fundamental desire of so many people who want Jeff Beatty, with his relevant experience, to provide his leadership and solutions to the challenges we face in the Commonwealth and in our country.”

In the coming weeks, the Beatty Campaign and its growing team of supporters will continue to move across the state, addressing the concerns of the Commonwealth’s citizens and enumerating the clear differences between Jeff Beatty and Massachusetts’s current senator.  

“Jeff Beatty’s commitment to the people o