1. Obama could be construed as saying that we don't need to be concerned with radical Islam, which is totally irresponsible. Seldom can he be specific about foreign policy without digging himself a hole.

With that said, there is no easy solutions here and any solution will require some diplomacy and probably some action. He is trying to connect the policies of Bush with McCain, because the polls say Bush has only a 28% approval rating. However, at face value these statements are empty rhetoric and it may also be a good idea from John McCain to distance himself from Bush and/or to draw parallels between Barry O and Jimmy Carter's foreign policy approach, which would be tough to him to shake.

Posted by: KS on May 16, 2008 10:17 PM

2. He actually found Watertown? Ohwait, the crew of the plane found Watertown. My bad.

Posted by: GM CASSEL AMH1(AW) USN RET on May 17, 2008 03:44 AM

3. The leftist bias of the media has never been more obvious than in this years Presidential race.

They play us for fools who can't tell a lie from the truth.

The question is: Are we?

Posted by: Independent Voter on May 17, 2008 05:43 AM

4. Yes. Yes you are.

Posted by: A voting... INDEPENDENT! on May 17, 2008 06:04 AM

5. Like most leftists, the rules are "different" when they apply them to themselves.

The Empty Suited, Hamas-endorsed One will say anything to get elected.

Unfortunately for him, his taking ownership of the Chief Appeaser position is just another nail in his political coffin.

Posted by: Hinton on May 17, 2008 06:12 AM

6. I think Obama should just focus on the 57 states and not venture into foreign policy...

Posted by: Doc-T on May 17, 2008 06:22 AM

7. "Sen. Barack Obama linked Sen. John McCain Friday with what he called "the failed policies" of the Bush administration"

It should continue on to say that Sen. Obama would like to lead our country in the failed policies of the Carter administration.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 17, 2008 07:03 AM

8. Obama is endorsed by Hamas, Jimmy Carter and now Baghdad Jim McDermott--the trifecta of idiots.

Posted by: Walters on May 17, 2008 07:37 AM

9. R.I.P Republicans; this pretty much calls it. You've got a lot of work on your hands to ressurect yourselves...might be generational?

Posted by: Duffman on May 17, 2008 07:59 AM

10. Dangit Doc T, you brushed close to what my question was: Which of the 57 states was the half white candidate speaking from when he said that?
He seems to have a thin skin to critisism. This being said, be sure and insult his half white/christian (I know) side. Leave his half black/Hussein/muslim background out of it.

Posted by: PC on May 17, 2008 08:09 AM

11. Hi Duffman,

In general, you are right about Republicans, but don't confuse Republicans like those running Sound Politics with Conservatives. Conservatives are winning, just look at the last special election. Republicans are losing because they have become the old Democrats - just look at the pro-abortion, pro-big government guys running this site who would like nothing more than to have every conservative Republican run out of office. Their words for conservative Republicans are "cheap dates", "Losers", and a ton of other insults - so much for party building. They have control over the Republican party in WA state but keep claiming the reason we lose is because of conservatives.

Posted by: John McDonald on May 17, 2008 08:10 AM

12. Sounds fair..hope you're right I really do; one party strength without 'challenge' is not good. :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 17, 2008 08:33 AM

13. The R.I.P. article is spot on and there really should be more focus about it on this blog, because it cuts to the core of the issue for Republicans. Now, Democrats are an entirely different situation - first there has been moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party leadership since the early 90's, that really started showing up back during the Vietnam War.

What we now have is two mediocre parties that do not represent the best interests of the people, who are self-serving and that's about it. With the retirement of baby boomers not far ahead, there will be some big changes of cataclysmic proportions to follow with potential tsunami effects and the people already have very little confidence in the Congress (18% approval) of who they elect. No wonder, we have placed such a high level importance on the upcoming elections - Highly dubious if there will be much discernable change - a change of attitude has to occur first, that only typically occur after a catastrophic event.

Posted by: KS on May 17, 2008 09:31 AM

14. ..ergo..'America Alone' by Mark Steyn, eh KS :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 17, 2008 09:52 AM

15. McCain tied himself to Bush when he flip-flopped from a previous taped interview. Even many Republican MSM were blasting Bush for playing nasty political games from a foreign country.

We do need to fear the continuation of an unjust war that is killing innocent people and ruining our economy.

Posted by: Jim on May 17, 2008 09:56 AM

16. McCain tied himself to Bush when he flip-flopped from a previous taped interview. Even many Republican MSM were blasting Bush for playing nasty political games from a foreign country.

We do need to fear the continuation of an unjust war that is killing innocent people and ruining our economy.

Posted by: Jim on May 17, 2008 09:58 AM

17. " R.I.P Republicans; this pretty much calls it. You've got a lot of work on your hands to ressurect yourselves...might be generational?"

We'll see in November. you're obviously checking the pulse of the American electorate using the wrong instrument.

McCain will win this election not on his own merits, but because the clowns he was running against were so visibly weak.

...Hillary may have won the Democratic nomination if she had only known about the 7 extra states that Barack Obama campaigned in...sucks being her I guess.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 17, 2008 10:14 AM

18. Obama himself doesn't really know what he'd do about Iraq if he becomes President. He's already "flip-flopping" from his original stance of immediate withdrawal.

If you want to whimper about nasty political games Jim, perhaps you might review the beating Bush has taken from the left since the day he took office. He gives you back just a teaspoonful of your own medicine and you cry like spoiled children when they don't get their way.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 17, 2008 10:18 AM

19. The ends always justify the means. The Marxists will say or do anything to get what they want. They are the change they seek.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 17, 2008 10:19 AM

20. "We do need to fear the continuation of an unjust war that is killing innocent people and ruining our economy."

Perhaps you can elaborate how this is an "unjust war"...or is just regurgitating the DNC talking points the limits to your intellectual argument?

Posted by: Rick D. on May 17, 2008 10:21 AM

21. I suppose the Dems will win the White House in '08 (assuming Obama is the nominee). Every now and then we need a catharsis, and having a moonbeam neo-socialist is the price we have to pay for 8 years of cronyism and getting involved in religious wars that are none of our business.

We can ride it out.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on May 17, 2008 10:55 AM

22. I suppose the Dems will win the White House in '08 (assuming Obama is the nominee). Every now and then we need a catharsis, and having a moonbeam neo-socialist is the price we have to pay for 8 years of cronyism and getting involved in religious wars that are none of our business.

We can ride it out.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on May 17, 2008 10:57 AM

23. In place of "strategy and analysis and smart policy."

Am I missing something? When did that start?

Posted by: HappyHeathen on May 17, 2008 11:47 AM

24. The Noonan article is somewhat right about Republicans, but dead wrong about Democrats. The Democrats have still failed to resolve their most important problem: the majority of Americans disagree with the Democratic Party on the majority of important issues.

The gay marriage thing in California will bring some of this to light. As will the economy and health care and continued emphasis on putting the "environment" over humanity.

The big problem with the Republicans is they know that the Democrats are perpetually out of step with the majority, so the Republicans have taken their majority status for granted, and the still to this day don't act like they are losing, even though they are.

The Democrats correctly say that Bush HAS been a uniter: they've united people against the Republicans. And this is why they try to link everything to Bush. But they don't seem to really understand that when the Bush bogeyman is gone, they WILL LOSE their majority again, unless they can actually come to the mainstream. But the Democratic base won't let them do that.

It's a similar problem with the Republicans, but the key difference is that the Republican base is MUCH closer to the majority of Americans than the Democratic base is. So you can get people to vote Republican even if they disagree on abortion, as long as Republicans act like Republicans and cut government, enhance liberty, and so on. But as soon as those Republicans give up on acting like Republicans, they lose.

Again: whoever acts most like a Republican wins. This is why the Democrats won the special elections, they acted most like Republicans: principled fiscal, social, and foreign-policy conservatives.

The lesson here is simple: be a principled conservative, and you win a lot more than you lose.

Posted by: pudge on May 17, 2008 12:14 PM

25. This is an interesting link:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080517140327.thd0wmmy&show_article=1

I just wish "Bush" would have said and acted on it 7 years ago.

Posted by: BUCKO36 on May 17, 2008 12:41 PM

26. Pudge @24,

I agree with what you said but I would also like to add something. Democrats behave more like programmed sheep. Even if the devil himself were nominated, they'd vote for him just because he had a D next to his name. Far fewer Republicans will vote for an objectionable Republican than Democrats for an objectionable Democrat. Democrats have more blind loyalty.

The major factor in the 2006 Republican loss was disaffected Republicans not voting for their own reps. It most assuredly was not an embrace of Democrat policies.

Former state Rep Beverly Woods learned the lesson the hard way.

Posted by: pbj on May 17, 2008 12:41 PM

27. Pudge says, "the majority of Americans disagree with the Democratic Party on the majority of important issues." I entirely agree. May I add also that Democrats spend a remarkable amount of energy covering up the fact that they are socialists. The young people swooning at Obama's campaign rallies have no idea whatsoever what he'd actually do as president. He won't say. Once it becomes apparent that he wants to tax the very people that drive the economy and further bloat the size of government his audience will shrink.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 17, 2008 12:52 PM

28. I absolutely love the connection made over at Michellemalkin.com between Obama's eruption about this and Bill Cosby's hilarious "Bullet in the Funace" story. check it out....The entry is called "Obama, appeasement, Bill Cosby, and Shop Class"

Posted by: Michele on May 17, 2008 01:43 PM

29. Oh yeah, I remember that hilarious Cosby bit. Indeed a great parallel. Obama and other Dems reacted to Bush's appeasement speech in much the same way as you'd expect junior high students to react.

Modern Democrats always remind me of mean, lying little school yard bullies who heap misery on others and then turn into sniveling crybabies when they get confronted.

These meanies have heaped years of abuse on Republicans and when Bush calls them on one of their stupid ideas they whimper some nonsense about how he shouldn't "attack them from a foreign country". It boggles the mind.

I've said it many times, the left is like a vacuum that collects unhappy, negative, mean-spirited people as if they were lint.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 17, 2008 02:26 PM

30. Cruchon's last line is particularly on target. They just don't see it. But we definitely do. They should listen to themselves, sometime.

Posted by: Mickey on May 17, 2008 06:23 PM

31. I love how the hypocritical liberals are chastising Bush for "attacking them from a foreign country".

Where were they when Carter did that to Bush? Where were they when Baghdad Jim did that on enemy soil prior to our invasion? Where were they when Nancy Pelosi somehow got it in her head she was president and decided to go visiting the middle east (not recently, the previous trip)? Where were they when Bill Clinton was criticizing his country from foreign soil?

Oh puhleeeeeze. Give. Me. A. Break.

Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 04:11 PM

32. Don't you know that the basis of debate in the Democrat party is that they are entitled to have it both ways ? Maybe because they know that the Mainstream media is on their side and will covertly cover for them - hard to find a better example of this than now - leading up the the 2008 election. Of course, when this is shown to be the case, they are not worthy of being called the Democratic Party.

Posted by: KS on May 18, 2008 09:17 PM

33. This is why people shouldn't throw stones. The last thing Bush should be talking about is comparing Obama to Nazis! Pres. Bush's grandfather had ties with the Nazis. His links with Fritz Thyssen Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street partner for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party, but by 1939 was bitterly denouncing Hitler and had fled Germany. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the Nazi regime.[5] Business transactions with Germany were not illegal until Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of German banking operations in New York City. Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing property under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Bush was a director and held only one share. Fox News has reports on recently declassified material about this issue, according to a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency.[6] By 1941 Thyssen no longer had control over his business empire, which was in the hands of the Nazi government.

Posted by: Redphilly on May 19, 2008 05:01 AM

34. Redphilly: The last thing Bush should be talking about is comparing Obama to Nazis!

Bush NEVER compared Obama to Nazis. You are very much confused. No one has alleged this, not even the Democrats.

Posted by: pudge on May 19, 2008 08:01 AM

35. Here we go again. Yet another Demobot coming here to repeat a talking point he got off from the KOS Kids.

RedPhilly, go lookup Joseph P Kennedy (Teddy's daddy) and how he approved of the extermination of the Jews.

Posted by: pbj on May 20, 2008 01:34 PM

36. pbj, yeah, i don't even respond to that nonsense. Also, Abe Lincoln was a racist! Thomas Jefferson owned slaves! The founder of Planned Parenthood wanted forced sterilization! Your mama is so ugly ... !

All of it may be true, but none of it is seriously important to what is happening now.

Posted by: pudge on May 20, 2008 01:52 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?