Some of you will recall that I predicted an immediate campaign to destroy Christine O’Donnell through the politics of personal destruction.  However, I really think they have over-reached so far that an enormous backlash is coming.  Christine O’Donnell has handled this brilliantly, by laughing at the allegation.  Democrats have been desperate to destroy Christine O’Donnell, just like they remain desperate to destroy Sarah Palin.  Sadly, they were helped on their way by Karl Rove.  The most recent attempt is by Bill Maher, who has a video clip where O’Donnell talks about going on a date with a Satan worshiper, while she was in High School.  But, Maher’s big demand is that O’Donnell come back on his show with him.  In other words, he is desperate for ratings!

The real story here is how the main stream media, which totally ignored serious problems with Obama’s personal history, is obsessed with Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell.  Which is really important?  The fact that while in high school Christine O’Donnell apparently dated a fellow high school student who did some weird stuff regarding Satan worship, or Obama who was allegedly mentored by a card-carrying communist?  Which should cause us more concern about a person’s character, a public statement by Christine O’Donnell saying that living in sexual purity is a good thing, or Barack Obama admitting the enthusiastic abuse of alcohol and drugs, including cocaine?  While is more of a threat to our freedom, a Christine O’Donnell who hangs around with Christian fundamentalists, or her opponent who wrote an article in college entitled “The Making of a Bearded Marxist?”  Is she more of a threat than a Barack Obama who is best friends with William Ayers, a man who literally bombed the Pentagon and a man who expresses extreme hatred for the United States.

Today, Maureen O’Down devoted her entire column to a snarky attack on Christine O’Donnell.  Here is the link, if you want to read this dribble for yourself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/opinion/19dowd.html?_r=1

Yet I cannot recall a single column in the main stream media expressing the slightest concerns about what Obama believes.  Instead the media is stunned to learn that many Americans believe he is a Muslim and more than half question whether he is even a Christian.  No one in the main stream media apparently read Obama’s poem written while he was at Columbia.  It is titled “Pops” and apparently describes his relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.  I suspect a qualified psychologist with experience in childhood sexual abuse would read this poem with horror.

No one seems to care that he still has not produced his birth certificate and has never provided a single college transcript from Occidental, Columbia or Harvard.  No one wonders why there is a video recording of him singing the Muslim call to prayer and saying that this was the most beautiful sound in the world.  No one seems to care that he bought his house with direct financial aid from Tony Rezko, who is currently in prison for bribing public officials.  No one seems to care that Barack Obama may have several social security numbers.  No one seems to care that his education may have been financed by a Saudi Prince closely connected with the Wahhabi branch of Islam.  No one seems to care that his high touted autobiographies may have been written by William Ayers.  No one seems to care that he refers to the mother who abandoned him when he was a teenagers as “the dominant figure in my formative years…the values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.”  They are unconcerned that she was a left-wing radical atheist.  No one questioned why she met Obama’s father in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii.  How many people do you know, who are not communists, who wanted to study Russian in 1960 and 1961?  The media does not consider it important to know that his father, the man Obama gave him the ideals upon which he organized his life, wrote an article in  1965 recommending 100% taxation, communal farms with the elimination of private farming, the nationalization of businesses owned by Europeans and Asians and active measure to bring about a classless society. 

No one in the media thought it worth mentioning the allegation that Obama steered millions of dollars to the radical educational programs run by William Ayers.  No one cares that he may have also steered money to worthless projects that made people like Tony Rezko wealthy.  No one cares that it is alleged that he belonged to Man’s Country, apparently a notorious gay bath house in Chicago.  No, none of this matters.  What really matters is that Christine O’Donnell is a vocal advocate of Christianity.  Now there is a real threat to the union.

We should be outraged, not because someone is checking out Christine O’Donnell, but rather that simultaneous they absolutely refuse to check out any liberal Democrat. If we continue to allow the liberal left to practice the politics of personal destruction, with no restraints at all with regard to people like Palin and O’Donnell, yet let them give a pass to people like Obama, Geither, Dodd, Rangle, Franks, Waters, Pelosi and Reid, then we are doomed. 

One final note.  If O’Donnell really was involved in witchcraft, the main stream media would applaud that as freedom of expression.  The only reason they mention this silly episode is that they are praying it will convince Christians to turn away from her, so that they can elect another hard-core left wing radical to the United States Senate. 

TDM

Obama appears to have deliberately altered the Declaration of Independence to delete any reference to our right being endowed by the Creator.  If you want to see the entire video, I have attached the clip.  It occurs shortly after the 22 minute mark.  I listened carefully because this is so bad; I wanted to see it for myself before commenting:

 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/president_obama_removes_creato_2.html

 Here is what the Declaration says:

 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Here is what Obama said:

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal….. endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

If you watch the video (I would suggest nausea pills in preparation) you will notice that Obama is clearly reading this smoothly until he gets to this part, where stops, and appears to deliberately delete the words “by their creator.”  You can see it in his facial expression. 

 I believe that Obama did this deliberately in an act of unprecedented arrogance.  This is a man who expects to be adored and who believes himself worthy of adoration.  It appears that the criticism is really getting to him and he simply could not control himself.  It really looks like he was unable to force himself say the words “by their Creator.” 

Unless this is a deliberately doctored video, which I doubt, this is really bad!

 I expect this clip to go viral.

 TDM

The fight is on.  We are about to witness the political fight of our lifetime.  This is totally unprecedented and this is going to be interesting to watch.  For the first time, since the Revolutionary War, the American people are totally fed up with the political establishment.  In 1776, it was England and King George.  Just think of the issues that drove the revolution so many years ago.  People were fed up over getting more and more taxes from a government that ignored their interests.  They called it Taxation without Representation.  They were also upset over being ruled by an arrogant aristocracy that felt it was entitled to make the rules for the little people.  They were furious as restrictions on our personal liberties imposed by a government that did not believe in equal opportunity and self-determination.  The same issues are what drive discontent in 2010.  That is why so many people have joined the “tea party.”  We have a congress full of incumbents in both parties that feels entitled to power.  The only thing that is saving Republicans is that right now Democrats have complete control, so they get the lion’s share of the blame.

Two years ago people wanted change.    Foolishly, many people thought that Obama was the leader who could deliver real change.  But they were not prepared for someone whose idea of change was to make everything even worse.   I believe the real message delivered yesterday in Delaware and New York was that people are fed up and they no longer want change, they demand change.   The only tea party endorsed candidate who lost was the one in New Hampshire, and she was endorsed by Sarah Palin.  It is interesting to note that the only Republican RINO Senator to survive the primary this year was John McCain, after he was endorsed by Sarah Palin.  It would be foolish to underestimate Sarah Palin.

I really think Delaware just woke up the Republican establishment.  They can no longer pretend that this is just people upset with Obama and Democrats in general.  The American people have revolted, only they are doing it at the ballot box rather than the battle field.   This year we are going to see a lot of candidates, true outsiders, promising real change.  Notice how candidates like Carly Fiorina are not even bothering to shift to more acceptable liberal positions on subjects like gay marriage and abortion.  I saw the Republican candidate for Governor in New York interviewed on CNN.  They asked him about Gay marriage.  He said:  “no.”  No spin, no “explanation” no backpedalling, just “no.”  For the past twenty years and more, liberal positions on social issues was often the deciding factor for independents.  This year, independents want real change and they are going to vote for whoever they think is ready, willing and able to deliver it.  The Republican establishment on Monday was saying Christine who?   On Tuesday night they were saying “no way Jose.”  On Wednesday morning, they started saying “how quickly can we get on board.”  They aren’t doing this because they like her or they like her message.  They are doing this because the people running political polls have warned them that a political storm is developing and it is growing out of control.   If they don’t move, they will be swept out with the tidal wave of public opinion.  When threatened with a storm of this magnitude, you either get out of the way, you go with the flow or you just go.

The only hope Democrats have now is to find so much dirt on some of these “newcomers” that they will become unelectable.  They tried that with Rand Paul by pretending he was a racist.  It didn’t work.  But they will continue to try it with people like Christine O’Donnell, because they have nowhere else to go.  Watch for one of the most vicious, dirty, no holds barred political dog fights in our nation’s history.   Like in any war, it is impossible to predict what will happen.  But, right now, it is real easy to see who has momentum and who is running for their lives.

TDM

All of the “pundits” on TV are aghast that O’Donnell may win the Republican Primary in Delaware.  The theory is that Mike Castle is as conservative a Senator as we can get elected in Delaware.  They also are concerned that O’Donnell has some baggage and no real track record.  They clearly believe that if O’Donnell wins the primary, she loses in the November election.  They fear this could result in Republicans failing to gain control of the Senate. 

They may be right, but miss the point.   For years we have told that any RINO is better than a Donkey.  That undoubtedly is true, but a RINO is still a RINO.  Far too often these RINOs end up being the lone vote that caves on important issues when it matters the most.  Think Lindsey Graham and Elena Kagan.  The real problem is that the Republican establishment too often puts Party ahead of principle.  

For years the main stream media has been telling Republicans they need to nominate more moderate (think liberal) Republicans.   How many times have you heard about the need for a bigger Republican tent?   But I wonder if the Republican establishment has noticed that the main stream media never suggests that Democrats nominate more conservative candidates.   Does anyone recall main stream media concern when Democrats nominated a left wing radical nut case like Al Franken in Minnesota?  The so-called big tent actually has an overpowering left wing.  In the deluded world of the main stream media and the cultured elite, it is only Republicans who need to moderate their core values if they want to get elected.  Sadly, the Republican establishment has swallowed this line of crap time and time again.

Too many leaders in the so-called Republican establishment fail to understand that tea party movement is a spontaneous response to growing discontent with both political parties.  This is far from a fringe movement, unless one considers individual freedom, lower taxes and smaller government to be a fringe concept.  People are responding to the tea party movement not because of some slick campaign, but because they hunger for a return to traditional American values, in both parties. 

If the Republican Party hopes to survive, it must be purified by fire.  Republicans cannot hope to win back the hearts and minds of the tea party movement by riding to victory on the back of RINO’s. 

TDM

For the first time, perhap ever, there is a real change for fundamental change in Washington.  Barack Obama ran on a promise of change, but in reality he merely accelerated the rapid slide toward socialism that started long ago.  What is remarkable is that real change is not limited to the United States.  All over the world, the electorate has finally been forced to acknowledge the complete and total failure of socialism.  Perhaps we needed a disaster like Barack Obama to wake people up from their decades long slumber.

Here are key events to consider:    

Bob Bennet, RINO, was defeated in the primary election in Utah.

Charlie Crist, RINO,  lost in the primary election in Florida.  He promptly decided he is now an independent and has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, why he always was a RINO.

John McCain, RINO, managed to survive.  Recently it is increasingly hard to reconcile the John McCain who ran for President with the John McCain runing for re-election to the Senate. 

Lisa Murkowski, RINO, was defeated in the primary election in Utah

The Republican establishment candidate in Nevada lost.  Many people thought that would allow Harry Reid to keep his Senate Seat.  But, Sharron Angle now looks like she will win that race.

Mike Castle, the most liberal Republican in the House, is running to replace Joe Biden in the Senate from Delaware.  If the recent polls are accurate, he may not survive the primary election.  Christine O’Donnell, opposed by the Republican Establishment may just win. 

The main stream media thinks the Republicans are blowing their chance to win big this fall by passing over well established candidates for untested newcomers.  But, if they are wrong, we may see something more important that Republicans winning back the House and the Senate.  We may see Conservatives winning back the Republican Party.

Joe Miller won in Alaska because of the endorsement of Sarah Palin and the infusion of cash and a great media buy by the Tea Party Express.  These are the same people who got Sharron Angle the nomination in Nevada and are may just tip the scales in Delaware.   Democrats and the liberal left thought they had destroyed the Tea Party Express when they managed to pressure the Tea Party Express into having Mark Williams to resign for writing an admittedly racist article.   But, the Tea Party Express is far from dead and managed to pour over $200,000 into the Delaware primary.   One thing is clear, the Tea Party Express is pretty good at raising funds and are very effective at using it.  For the first time we are seeing some genuine hard hitting conservative ads and they are having a major impact on elections. 

Progressives, in both parties, have dominated the agenda for the past 50 years.  The only difference between the two parties was often measured only by the speed of the slide into socialism.  For this reason I am posting the following reminder of what conservatives really believe:

Barry Goldwater said it very well in 1964.  It’s too bad enough people weren’t listening:

• I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
  • The Conscience of A Conservative (1960), p. 15

Goldwater was 50 years ahead of his time!

His acceptance speech from 1964, in San Francisco, of all places, still resonates today!

• I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue
  • Acceptance Speech – 1964                                                                                                                     
• Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
  • Acceptance Speech 1964

Goldwater would be proud of the Tea Party movement today.  The Republican Party would be wise to just run on a platform to adopt the principles laid down by Barry Goldwater in 1960. 

TDM

Recently this Florida Pastor has been getting a lot of publicity for daring to burn a Quran in public.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/8/anti-koran-cleric-sees-modern-battle-with-evil/

 The world is outraged.  What a terrible thing to do.  This is going to make people hate us all over the world.  Of course they already hate us, so it is just a matter of degree.   Now granted this is a two-bit clown totally undeserving of his 15 minutes of fame.  This is a dumb thing to do, since it will stir up hate and discontent with no discernible benefit to anyone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_as/quran_burning_reaction

 But perhaps the more important issue is the hypocrisy of the main stream media.  What was barely noticed is that our own military is burning Bibles, to avoid offending the Afghanistan people:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

Why is no one outraged over the burning of the Bible?  !   If the military didn’t want these Bibles, shouldn’t they have respectfully returned them? Instead, troops are ordered to “burn their trash.” At a minimum, shouldn’t these have been treated with respect at least equal to the Quran?  Suppose our troops had received an unsolicited copy of the Quran?  Would our military even consider ordering them to burn it along with the rest of the trash?   I seriously doubt it

President Obama was very vocal in supporting the Ground Zero Mosque.  He was even more vocal in condemning the burning of the Quran.  So has been a lot of other people, including Hillary Clinton.  But the real question should be:   “who is outraged at our troops being ordered to burn Bibles along with the trash?”  Who is outraged that the people our troops are dying to defend seem to have no problem burning our flag and shouting down with America?

The Florida Pastor is deliberately insulting Islam.  That is wrong.  We get it?  But what we don’t get is the indifference to those people who deliberately insult Christianity.  Where was the outrage when Rosie O’Donnell said that Christians were more dangerous that Islamic terrorists.  Where is the outrage when Christian ministers are constantly portrayed in the movies as naïve, self-righteous bigots?  It is increasingly obvious that one must never insult any religion, except Christianity.  Then insults are not only acceptable, they are celebrated.

I am outraged at the burning of the Quran, but I am even more outraged at the daily barrage of insults against Christianity.  I am also sick and tired of hearing Islam described as a religion of peace when Islamic Terrorists are blowing people up all over the world, in the name of jihad shouting Allah Akbar.  When Christians start blowing up people in the name of Christ, then and only then will I consider the two religions equally dangerous.

A final thought.  In case any of you were wondering exactly how far out of touch Obama is with regard to the American people, his most recent speech is very interesting.  He described his principles as the “values of self-reliance and individual responsibility” and “a country that rewards hard work.  A country built upon the promise of opportunity and upward mobility.”  He contrasted his principles with Republicans who are “asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class.”  What is most remarkable is that Obama probably believes this, and does not even see the obvious conflict between these stated principles and his policy decisions of massive government spending and complete control over individual lives.  I don’t see how it is possible to reason with a person whose view of the world is so far detached from reality.

TDM

Obama’s Ship of State is now sinking at an unprecedented rate.  The following article calls Obama’s Foreign Policy a failure.  He is compared unfavorably with… George W. Bush:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-06/obamas-foreign-policy-fails-on-afghanistan-israel

This is hardly a right-wing rag.  Tina Brown, the founder, is very liberal and they were very supportive of Obama, until recently.

This last weekend, just about everyone turned on Obama.  He is no longer getting high grades from either left or right:                 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/07/wapos-cohen-obama-needs-fire-key-people-or-americans-will-fire-him

The tea leaves are all lined up and they are showing a full-fledged Democratic disaster this fall.  While a few die-hards are pretending that Democrats can maintain control of the House, most strategists are now predicting the Republicans will take back the House.  In addition, for the first time, Democratic strategists are admitting that the Senate is also in play.

 What’s astonishing is that nearly two months before the election, Democrats are already into the blame game.  The person they are all blaming is Obama.  Clearly, everyone expected better than this.  Even more clearly, very few people in either party think Obama is up to the job.  Republicans are angry at what Obama is doing to the country.  Democrats are angry at what Obama is doing to the Democratic party.  For the first time in decades, Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing; they are all angry at Obama.

 Obama is showing more and more signs of losing his grip.  This weekend he literally complained that Republicans were treating him like a Dog.  What a remarkable comment by a U.S. President.  This is the ultimate “it’s all about me” comment.

 The following article shows that the Democratic strategy of “blame Bush” no longer works. 

 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/voters_arent_listening_to_dem_message.html

 The White House is in panic mode.  This is a time to be alert, because they can literally see power slipping away before their eyes.  The $50 billion stimulus program proposed by Obama on Sunday was dead on arrival.  It should be clear, even to Obama, that most Democrats are not about to vote for anything between now and December.  Desperate people do desperate things.  Read my “Wag The Donkey” post:

 https://scotshonor.com/?p=333

Nothing is impossible with this administration.

 TDM

Some of you may recall that I used to teach Statistic at the college level.  I could not resist running some fairly simple regression analysis based on polling data to date to see if I could come up with a statistically sound range of possible outcomes. 

 According to Gallop, today in the generic vote for congress, there are 51% Republicans, 41% Democrats and 8% independents.   The same poll shows that the enthusiasm level for Republicans is 54% while the enthusiasm level for Democrats is 30%.  Here is what that means.    Let’s assume that the enthusiasm level is identical to expected turnout.  That means that 54% of Republicans would probably vote, 30% of Democrats would probably vote and 50% of Independents would probably vote.

 If we calculate assuming nothing changes between now and November 2, this would be what to expect:

 GOP  62%   DEM  28%  IND 10%

Now let’s assume Democrats make a major effort to generate enthusiasm.  They are unlikely to change the generic percentages this late in the game, but they may succeed in changing the enthusiasm.  Let’s assume they hit it out of the park and increase enthusiasm to 60%, while GOP enthusiasm plateaus at 57 percent.  This is what that election would look like:

 GOP 48%  DEM 45%  IND 7%

 Now let’s assume that the Republicans surge even more, up to the enthusiasm levels they had in 1994.  The Republican enthusiasm could soar to as high as 67% and we will assume that Democrats also increase, up to around 40%.   In that case the results would look like this:

 GOP 68%  DEM 28%  IND 8%

 Now, lets do a standard statistic analysis and provide even weighting to each outcome.  The average result is:

 GOP 58%  DEM 32%  IND 10%

 I know these numbers appear to be too good to be true, but recent results are very consistent with them.  For example in the recent ballot on Proposition C, the vote to repeal Obama care a poll was conducted of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats just before the election.  61% of Republicans were for the Proposition, 48% of Democrats were against the proposition.   In Missouri most of the elected officials are Democrats, but it is also somewhat conservative and John McCain carried Missouri by a very tiny margin in 2008.  Normally one would expect more Democrats than Republicans.  So most polling firms evaluating a poll of 300 Republicans and 300 Democrats would have adjusted the final estimate in favor of Democrats.   Scott Rasmussen, who typically rates Republicans higher than other polling firms estimated that Proposition C would pass 58% to 41%.  But the actual results was that Proposition C was passed with more than 70% of the vote.  

 Even if one assumes that the generic party affiliation in Missouri has shifted from 50/50 to 51/41, it would not explain this result.  That would have indicated a final vote of about 62% to 38%.  Clearly, at least in Missouri with regard to Proposition C, the difference in Republican enthusiasm was equally important as the difference in the generic ballot.  In fact when I used my analysis to factor in the expected voter turnout to be roughly proportionate to enthusiasm, based on the results of that last minute poll, I come up with an expected result of 73% to 27%, not that much higher than the actual 71% to 29% actual result.

 My methods are obviously crude, because I do not have access to sufficient data and because I have only spent a small amount of time on this.  However when existing data is this skewed, the projected outcomes, baring major unforeseen intervening events, are at least possible.  I am not predicting results, just commenting on the probability of some outcomes based on the Gallop Poll today. 

 I strongly suspect that all of the pollsters are seeing similar results but they are too shocked to report them.  I don’t blame them, because these kinds of results are unprecedented.  It is really hard to imagine Republicans coming close to getting 60% of the vote under any circumstances and doing better than that is pie in the sky range.  It would result in a political landslide of proportions never seen before in this country.  It is like predicting that the laughing stock of the National League for the period from 1962 to 1968, the New York Mets, would win the World Series in 1969.   Oops.  That happened!

 TDM

Tony Blair just published his long-awaited memoirs.   It is important to realize that Tony Blair was a liberal, adored by the main stream media.  He was everything George Bush was not, suave, sophisticated and undeniably brilliant.  But here is what Blair wrote about Bush:

Many Brits are perplexed that Blair was apparently persuaded to join that foreign adventure by President George W. Bush, who is often portrayed in the U.K. media as a dumb hick. But the former prime minister insists that Bush was “very smart” while possessing an “immense simplicity in how he saw the world.”

“I was asked recently which of the political leaders I had met had most integrity,” he says. “I listed George near the top. He had genuine integrity and as much political courage as any leader I ever met.”

Ultimately, I strongly believe that history will agree with Mr. Blair.  No one in the world knew more about the real intelligence regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein than Tony Blair.  It would be hard to make a case that George Bush tricked Tony Blair into believing anything.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice and if they do, I wonder if they will dare report it accurately.  For years the mainstream media has portrayed Bush as a naïve, stupid, corrupt right wing bigot.  It is hard to reconcile that image with the statements by Mr. Blair.  Either Mr. Blair is naïve and incompetent, or the press got this all bass ackwards.

George Bush is about to release his memoirs, on November 9th.   I believe that people are going to be stunned to find out that the Bush who shows up in print is brilliant man, with enormous integrity and unequalled political courage.   The contrast with Obama will be too obvious to ignore.  The problem for the Press is that George Bush knows the truth, which they either ignored or failed to recognize.  I think a lot of other people will recognize the truth when they see it.

TDM

Democrats are praying that very few people watched Obama’s speech from the Oval Office.  This speech was not merely bad, it was world class bad.  Obama looked like an undertaker reading a eulogy for someone he despised.  The speech started out bad, and then got worse.  At every step it was flat and boring.   He literally sat there staring at his TelePrompter, with his hands folded and a blank stare on his face.  I have no idea why he thought he needed to do this.  The only time he showed anything resembling enthusiasm was when he was blaming Bush.

 He started out by describing this as a historic milestone.  No victory.  No achievement.  Not even any goals.  The closest speech to this was when Ford took over for Nixon and said our long national nightmare was over.  But, Obama didn’t say that the Iraq war is over, he just said we were dumping the problem on Iraq and while we might continue to help a little, very little, we are out of there.

 He started by blaming everything on Bush and basically reminding us that he thought the whole war was a huge waste.  Then he explained why he thought George Bush was wrong about everything, but Obama had to admit Bush probably was just as much of a patriot as Obama.  Some people misinterpreted this as an act of class.  It was pathetic.  I am sure Bush would have prefered being ignored.  Please!

 It is clear that the primary goal of this speech was to avoid any potential for giving Bush credit for anything.  Sometimes this resulted in statements that, upon reflection, are bizarre.

 For example:

 They (American troops) defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.

 Apparently the unnecessary war “accidentally” removed Saddam from power?  Hmmm!  Bush gets no credit for defeating Saddam; it was apparently an accidental byproduct of a failed policy.

 Together with our coalition partners, who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.

 For years Democrat’s have complained that Iraq was the war where the U.S. went alone with absolutely no support from anyone.  Who were these strange people who made huge sacrifices of their own?  This actually shows that one of the big Democratic arguments against the war is and was a lie.  Obama is right; there were many countries that stood side by side with us at great cost, because they believed in our cause.  Its too bad Democrats only recognize this after over 6 ½ years of sacrifice.  Also too bad that Obama seems equally willing to toss them under the bus along with the people in Iraq.

 Then he is careful to give all the credit to the troops and ignoring the man who made it possible:

They (American Troops) shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces and took out terrorist leaders. 

 There was no “they,” there was only George Bush.  A President who refused to bow to political pressure from people like Barack Obama who were confident this change in tactics could not work.  Barack Obama kept telling people the surge couldn’t possibly work even after it was abundantly clear that it had worked.  Apparently Obama thinks that our troops got together in a huddle and just decided on their own to shift tactics.  Amazing!

Then Obama pretended that he had developed the plan to withdraw our troops.  That is absurd.  The plan to withdraw our troops was developed by George Bush and there was a signed agreement with the Iraqi Government before Obama even took office.  The only difference was that Bush refused to set an inflexible arbitrary deadline since he knew that would be very harmful for our troops.  Something like giving sustenance to our enemies.

 Then Obama flat out lied, but of course we are used to that:

 Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. 

 The opposite is true.  Violence has surged since our troops started to withdraw and the following article from CBS describes the situation as chaos:   

 http://www.keyc.com/node/41105

 The author, Joel Brown, CBS New, The White House ends with the following:

 Iraqis officials are hoping the violence is just a temporary spike . They say they’re confident the nation’s 650,000 security forces will eventually regain control.

 Either Obama was too busy golfing on Martha’s Vineyard to notice what is happening in Iraq, or he just decided to lie about it.

At this point, it is important to understand what Bush got right and what he got wrong in Iraq.   The campaign to remove Saddam Hussein was brilliant.  All of the military experts, like Wesley Clark, were predicting a long bloody conflict.  Instead the U.S. moved with lightening speed and threw Saddam out of power with record low casualties.  This Bush made a major mistake.  He listened to Democrats.  People like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were telling him he needed to win the hearts and minds of the people.  They were recommending that the U.S. military keep a low profile and instead we should invest billions in building infrastructure, avoid combat and invest primarily in training the Iraqi police and military.  We were also going to send in civilians to show how nice we can be.  It was a disaster, because al Qaeda just moved in full force and launched wide scale terrorist attacks against civilians and literally set off a civil war by blowing up a mosque.  Civilians soon learned that Iraq was death zone.  Al Qaeda didn’t view them as anything other than easy targets.  Iraq descended into near chaos.

Democrats were calling for us to just quit without regard to consequences.  But then Bush did something remarkable.  He refused to quit because he said that to quit would be to throw away the sacrifices of those who had fought there.  On numerous occasions he said he could not let those people die in vain.  Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought the situation was hopeless, so Bush keep searching until he found a General who thought he could win.  General Petraeus said we needed to reverse course.  He said we could not win the hearts and minds of the people until they felt secure.  He said we needed to send in more troops, relax the rules of engagement and take on al Qaeda and the insurgents.   Bush, in defiance of almost everyone with the possible exception of John McCain said he ordered the surge because he could not and would not settle for less than victory.  That is what a real President does.

 Here is Obama’s “new” plan:

 As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians, aid workers and advisors are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world.

 He is going to adopt the original Bush plan, that was a complete failure.  Perhaps it will work this time.  Perhaps our military has bought enough time so that Iraq can exert self control  Perhaps al Qaeda will avoid killing our civilians.  Perhaps aid workers won’t mind getting blown to pieces for the greater good, but somehow I doubt it.  But this time there is a big difference.  This time al Qaeda knows that Barack won’t fight back.  Unfortunately, that may be a fatal difference.  I sincerely hope that Iraq will be ready, willing and able to stand up to al Qaeda.  

Obama, who ignored giving credit to Bush for the surge in Iraq, announces that he is going to win the war in Afghanistan by ordering a surge similar to the one that worked in Iraq.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice that this is the height of inconsistency.

Finally, Obama goes completely over the top.  His speech is so bizarre it borders on delusion.  He says:

One of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone.  We must use all elements of our power – including our diplomacy, our economic strength and the power of America’s example – to secure our interests and stand by our allies.

 Really?  We tried that approach in Iraq and should have learned the real lesson.  The best way to defeat terrorist is to kill them.  It was only when we did choose to use our military force effectively that we began to make real progress in Iraq.

 The following line is delusional:

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners.

What planet is Obama talking about?  What old adversaries are now at peace because of anything Obama did since coming into office?  Where are those emerging democracies, other than Iraq?  Liberals keep saying you cannot create democracy with military force.  I wonder if any of them have ever heard of Germany or Japan?  And where is there democracy today, in South Korea, where we won or South Vietnam where we lost?

 Finally, Obama had to once again blame all the problems in the world on George Bush:

Unfortunately over the last decade we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity.  We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas.  This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.  For too long we have put off tough decision on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform.  As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

 With Obama, everything is Bush’s fault.  There is never any other option.  Just this week the CBO published a report showing that Obama’s failed stimulus plan spent more money in one year than the cost of the entire Iraq war to date.  In addition, Bush only increased military spending to 4% of GDP, the percentage many bi-partisan experts feel is appropriate to sustain our military at the appropriate level.  Of course Democrats blame our entire deficit on the Bush tax cuts.  The same Bush tax cuts that are due to expire this fall, resulting in the largest tax increase on the middle class in history.  Now if the Bush tax cuts only impacted the wealthy, why does reversing them result in a big tax increase on the middle class?  Democrats couldn’t have been lying about that, could they?  Now, of course, even Democrats are talking about extending the Bush tax cuts.  I wonder if Obama noticed that?

 The problem is that although this is pure hog wash, Obama believes every word of it.  That is why we have no hope of economic recovery as long as he remains in power.  He lives in a delusional world none of us can even recognize.  I believe the Republicans will win the House and the Senate this fall.  However, I doubt they will win a veto proof majority in the Senate.  The good news is that it is going to be much harder for Obama to do more damage after November 2.  The bad news is that he is likely to remain clueless and delusional and will continue to think he is right regardless of evidence to the contrary. 

 TDM