Change you can believe in, but not expect.

Like I was sayin… please don’t hold me to my word.

For the last year, the Obama campaign has be working feverishly to make sure that we understand that an Obama administration means that Change is coming, we can now all have Hope, and finally that all our prayers will be answered (at least if you don’t make too much money that is).

Now that the election is only a few days away, the Obama campaign is concerned that Americans will be upset if Obama doesn’t deliver. 

According to a Times of London story by Tim Reid, senior staffers are working on a communication strategy to let America down softly:

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair.

The adviser added that Obama was one of the first to realized that expectations may risk being inflated.  It seems that it didn’t dawn on anybody in the campaign that promising to ease everyone’s burdens would risk setting up some expectations.

Recently when asked about his first 100 days, Obama indicated that he would need more time to tackle issues like the war, health care, and global warming:

“The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,” he said.

Perhaps now we can expect great change and hope during the administration following Obama’s should he win.

The Audacity of Troop Pullouts

Like I was sayin… do as I say not as I say.

Senator Obama made a big splash with is overseas trip this summer.  He made several anti-free market speeches and even met with military and political leaders in Iraq.

It should be no secret to anyone that Senator Obama favors a speedy withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as he has said so publicly of the last few years.  However, apparently what he does behind the scenes is quite different.

In an article today in the NY Post, Amir Taheri details Obama’s lobbying the Iraqi government to delay an agreement troop withdrawals until after the US elections.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari:

He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.

The article goes on to detail that:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

I find it hard to believe that an American presidential candidate would seek to derail Iraqi security negotiations for his own political gain, but then again, some people will do anything to gain power.  This is the type of thing that the candidate of change has been preaching against.

Once again we find our politicians saying one thing, but then doing another.

Right Turn Clyde

Like I was sayin… most people wouldn’t like you if they knew what you really thought.  Apparently, Barack Obama feels the same way.

There have always been several things that bothered me about Sen. Obama, his total support for gun control, support for the “fairness” doctrine, commitment to pull out of Iraq without regard for thesittuation on the ground, and many other positions.

Not suprisingly, his support of these ideas and others allowed him to cater to the far left of the dem party and win the dem nod for the White House.  However, America isn’t far left even though I am afraid the left blinker is stuck on (which I will write about in a few days).  With his eye on the White House, Obama is singing a different tune on many past positions.

Dick Morris pointed out in a recent article many of these new-found convictions:

• He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• He now opposes late-term abortion.
• He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
• He now says that he won’t raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he’d eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.
• He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.
• Now he says he’s going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.

The upsetting thing is that this leaves many Americans wondering where does he truely stand.  Some of my friends on the left say that he is just saying those things to get elected (which many, oddly enough. think is ok).  The independents that I know that support him say that he only had far left leanings to get the nomination and now we see the real Obama (which oddly enough, they too, think this is ok).  The friends that I am still keeping aren’t voting for him anyway…

Over many years, a person can change their opinion on an issue, but most don’t change over the course of a few months.  I believe that Obama will govern from the far left (even if he doesn’t want to to so, see here).  This would leave America far weaker position in terms of the economy and our adherence to the constitution.

If you support or are leaning toward voting for Obama in November, you have to ask yourself which Obama are you voting for or even more importantly… which one will you get?

Rockefeller Apologizes to McCain

(April 8, 2008) – Like I was sayin… some people will say anything.  Sen. Rockefeller (D, WV)  apologized to Sen. McCain for saying that he doesn’t care about the lives of people caught in the wars he champions.

Sen. Rockefeller made his remarks in the Charleston Gazette.

“McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.

“What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

There is so much wrong with these statements, you have to wonder what is wrong with Sen. Rockefeller.

First off, in Vietnam, the fighter pilots didn’t drop bombs from 35,000 feet nor did they have laser guided bombs.  The fact that Sen. Rockefeller doesn’t even know what he is talking about should cause anybody to wonder why they should vote for him in the next election.

Secondly, and even more troubling, what message does this send to the men and women who are currently or have served our country in the military.  Are they not fit to be the president because they launched missiles or dropped bombs?  If that is his opinion, then he should come out and say it and not just take cheap shots and McCain.

So not only is Rockefeller clueless as to how wars are fought, but his character comes into question if he doesn’t believe that pilots don’t care about people and therefore can’t be the president.  If that isn’t his opinion, then he is just another politician that is willing to say anything to get elected.

Being the man of conviction that he is, on Tuesday Rockefeller issued an apology:

“I have deep respect for John McCain’s honorable and noble service to our country. I made an inaccurate and wrong analogy and I have extended my sincere apology to him.

“While we differ a great deal on policy issues, I profoundly respect and appreciate his dedication to our country, and I regret my very poor choice of words,” he said.

Notice that he didn’t say that McCain does indeed care for people caught in war, but that he merely used a bad analogy and a poor choice of words.

I can’t imagine that anybody in the military would even think of voting for Rockefeller.

Democrats Start New PR Campaign Ahead of Iraq Report

(April 5, 2008) – Like I was saying… some people are very predictable.  With Gen. Petraeus due to deliver a report next week, the dems are ratcheting up the “all is lost message” again.

Just like last year, the dems are starting their PR campaign ahead of a report from the commanding general in Iraq.  Last year, the message was that regardless of what the general says, things aren’t getting any better and the “surge” has failed.

This year, the message is that even though security has dramatically improved the surge is still a failure since the objective was to stabalize security so that the political process can have a chance.  So the new message is that the surge has failed since they way dems define the objective was to provide security AND have everything resolved on the political front.

This week, Sen Joe Biden started to rebutt next weeks testimony by Petraeus.

“The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically,” said Biden, D-Del., in this week’s Democratic radio address. “Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together.”

As I have posted before, the dems need things to fail in Iraq to improve their quest to gain the whitehouse and increase their numbers in congress.

It is one thing to oppose the war, but it is another to hope for American failure to score political points.  I imagine that we will see more headlines about the dems pushing the failure message in an attempt to counter any positive results the general might highlight.

Attacks in Iraq Continue to Decline

(November 19, 2007) – Like I was sayin… if we don’t pull out soon, things will continue to get better.

 Today I was reading an article in the NYT indicating how the attacks in Iraq continue to decline.

According to the article, since the “surge”, Iraqi forces casualties are down 40% and civilian fatalities are down 75% over the last few months.  Other news stories point to a continued decline in U.S. caualties.  I for one would like to see this continue.  The sooner things become stable in Iraq, the sooner our troops can come home.  I am shocked by the number of people who get upset by good news from Iraq (see my post about Clyburn).

I would imagine however, with this news, you will begin to see further calls for U.S. forces to pull out now from the”please don’t let this thing work out” crowd in congress who would rather see America fail and gain a political win for THE PARTY than see things improve.

Mass. Boy Scouts Stopped from Supporting the Troops

(Nov. 16, 2007)  Like I was sayin… for it or against it, you have to support the troops.

 According to an article I saw today, a troop of boy scouts were stopped from supporting the troops in Cambridge.

 Apparently, the boy scouts had put collection boxes at 33 of the city’s polling stations on election day in the hopes of collecting candy, magazines, toiletries, etc… for the troops.

Apparently, when somebody complained that the boxes represented a political statement, the collection boxes were removed.

 It seems to me that the scouts were collecting for the troops and not a ’support the war’ drive or a candidate running for office.

Seems that the city of Cambridge allowed 1 person to make their own political statement by having the collection boxes removed.  But like I was saying… you can’t afford to offend even 1 person anymore.

Sen. Biden’s son Heads to Iraq

(Aug 17, 2007) – Like I was sayin… sometimes you can’t help but have some common sense.

It was reported today that Sen. Biden’s son is to be deployed to Iraq.  With the Democrats being mostly of the ‘pull out now’ ilk, I couldn’t wait to read the article to see what all political points Biden had to make.

 However, I was shocked to see what Biden had to say. 

“I don’t want him going,” Biden, D-Del., said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.”"I don’t want him going,” Biden, D-Del., said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.”

That kind of made me take a step back, but then the story continued: 

“There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybodies life out there. None.”

It’s kind of refreshing to hear talk like this.  I disagree with just about everything Biden has to say, however, it was nice to hear somebody putting common sense before party politics.

Bush Signs Surveillance Bill

(Aug6, 2007) – Like I was sayin… you can be against everything.

This weekend, Bush signed the Protect America Act of 2007 (S 1927), which continues the practice of listening to communications between U.S. citizens or others and suspected terrorists.

This comes as a blow to the “against anything Bush” crowd, who would prefer America to have its hands tied (at least as long as Bush is in office) in the fight against terrorism.  The headlines all proclaim ‘warrantless wire-taps’ and tell you how Bush is listening to your phone calls.

The bill itself does allow intelligence agencies to monitor the conversations of suspected terrorists that come through the U.S., however, not everyone knows what the bill allows, but are just against it.

The following are the key points of the bill as indicated in an AP article:

Expands the administration’s powers to eavesdrop, without a court order, on foreign suspects’ communications passing through the United States.  – - Note that it says foreign suspects communications PASSING through the U.S.  When somebody in Asia calls Osama in Pakistan, it doesn’t mean that the call isn’t routed through U.S. networks.  Foreign calls are often routed through the U.S.  This gives us the ability to listen in on those calls. 

Requires new wiretaps to be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney General.  – -  This adds new people in the oversight role.

Requires a court-issued warrant when a U.S. resident is the main target of surveillance.  – - Still against the bill?  It DOES REQUIRE A WARRANT when a U.S. resident is the target of surveillance.

Requires Congress to reconsider the law in six months. – - Being that the current bill was about to end, something needed to be done quickly.  This allows congress time to endlessly debate this in time for the next election cycle to start up…

There is always a balance that needs to be preserved when considering our liberties between our liberties and security.  However, you need to educate yourself whenever you see news headlines as we are now.  Just because somebody tells you what the bill does, it doesn’t mean that what the bill does.  Before speaking out against or for something, you need to read it for yourself.

Support for War Growing?

(Aug 2, 2007) – Like I said… some people prefer bad news…

Recently, the NYT conducted a poll on America’s feelings about the war in Iraq.  When the results came back, rather than publish them, they conducted another poll as the poll had results they didn’t agree with.

Here is a great article by Debra Saunders that comments on the story.

The initial poll found that the number of people who thought it was right for the U.S. to go to war had risen from 35% in May to 42% in July.  Being that the NYT didn’t agree with the results they re-polled.  Suprising to them, the results were the same at 42%.  However, they also found that those who thought it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61%  to 51%.

This could indicate that as there has been positive news from Iraq recently in the MSM, American’s opinions are shifting slightly.  It seems that more people feel it is the right thing to do if we win.

With this in mind, I would expect to see the Dems in Congress all over the news this week and next week trying to push just how “bad” things really are in Iraq.  They view things going badly in Iraq as good for the Dems and their quest for power.

As I have noted before, some people are more interested in politics and power than victory for America.