AP: Obama has the delegates. Higher taxes on the way.

IMAO: Reasons For Obama's Victory

"Yes, Obama wins... but WHY?

I speculate thusly:

* "I inhaled... frequently".

* His uncanny ability to tap into white people's secret hatred of white people.

* Winning candidate in 30 of the 57 state primaries.

* What am I trying to tell you? That Obama can dodge bullets like Hillary? No... what I'm telling you is that when he's ready... he won't have to.

* Y chromosome, baby.

* Has a middle name sounds like a dead dictator, not a dead princess.

* Say what you will about his choice of minister, but at least Obama's proven to America that he can walk into a church without bursting into flame.

* Demonstrated willingness to speak to America's fallen heroes.

* People thought they were voting for Dave Chappelle.

* Not married to Bill

Your thoughts?"

 

Because pretty much everybody wants something from the government and they think somebody else will end up paying for it. And to a large extent they are right. If you divide the total federal spending by the number of Americans, you'll see that the vast majority (like 90%) pay less than that aevrage cost per person. In other words, most Americans are getting more government than they are paying for. Most of us are moochers. Everybody gets an eqal say in who gets in office, but not everybody gets an equal bill. And bigger and bigger government is the inevitable result.

The decision on whether we should have big or smaller government is over. Finished. Kaput. Now the arguing is all about how much bigger it should be, and if it all should be bigger or just most of it.

(Paraphrasing Yosemite Sam) Peoples is so stupid.

 

Not me, man, I'm paying through the nose

Imo, the question is: as the Government grows to support different areas in our life, how "smart" is it going to be? Just redistribute wealth (dumb and destructive) or help the economy grow as part of a win-win strategy (smart and constructive)?

The best Government, imo again, provides a minimum number of services, but is a very active, smart and impartial referee and cheerleader to the activities that sustain and grow our economy and communities.

 

McCain Poised for Obama Take Down

By: Bill O'Reilly

"Cutting through all the fog, there are two primary reasons behind Barack Obama's stunning victory over the Clinton machine: authenticity and the war in Iraq.

As amply demonstrated, there is simply no comparison between Obama and Hillary Clinton as far as public speaking is concerned. He is eloquent and natural, talking directly to the folks. She is more stilted and rehearsed, talking at the listener. Sen. Clinton comes across as the typical politician, while Sen. Obama seems like a genuine human being.

He also outflanked her on the Iraq war. In the beginning of the campaign, Obama bolted from the starting gate flashing his anti-war cred. From the jump, he had been against the action. And now he was the guy who would pull the United States out of the Iraq swamp.

Clinton was immediately put on the defensive, as she initially supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein. Also, her entire outlook on confronting Islamic fascism was far too bullish for far-left America. So the Net roots, as they call themselves, flocked to Obama and provided him with vast amounts of money via the Internet.

By the time Hillary rallied Democratic moderates, it was too late.

Now Obama has achieved the nomination, but his winning primary strategy on Iraq could come back to haunt him in the general election, when the far left becomes rather insignificant. Already John McCain is painting Obama as a terror appeaser who would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.

And McCain has some heavy ammunition to back up his attack. In May, American casualties were the lowest since the Iraq war began in 2003. In addition, Iraqi oil production is now at its highest level since Saddam fell. Even the liberal Reuters news agency calls the current situation in Iraq a "dramatic turnabout."

Of course, you won't hear much about that in the American press, as the liberal media have much invested in a U.S. defeat in Iraq. But there is no question that the war there can now be won. It's not a lock, but it's certainly a possibility.

McCain must make the case that a victory in Iraq, which means the country stabilizes and becomes an ally against Islamic terror and Iran, means a much more secure United States. For the past few weeks, McCain has been spotlighting Iran's villainy; pointing out its support of terror groups like Hezbollah and its outright killing of our forces in Iraq.

Quietly, McCain is setting Obama up for a hard right to the jaw. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too quickly, the pressure on Iran immediately lightens and the potential for aggression by the bitterly anti-Jewish and anti-American mullahs rises dramatically.

Does Obama understand that?

Does it matter to him?

McCain will confront his young challenger with those questions.

Obama's advisers know the Iraq scenario is changing fast. They also understand that the media will ignore the good news for as long as it can. But word will get out and, after years of frustration, Americans could be staring at a success story after all.

Not good news for Obama."

 

McCain and Obama Square Off

by Ericka Andersen

"John McCain’s national campaign finally has an identified adversary: Barack Obama, despite Hillary Clinton’s last-minute pleas for a reprieve -- will be the Democratic nominee this fall. And McCain is already seizing on the most obvious Obama weakness: his inability to think quickly and answer questions for which he isn’t prepared.

McCain seems to thrive in person-to-person debates. Obama is uncomfortable unless he is speaking prepared remarks to an adoring crowd. The two -- in this and so many other ways -- are polar opposites.

Wednesday, McCain said he wants joint town hall meetings across the country with his presidential opponent. He hopes they will promote a “pure form of democracy” and force Obama to “respond directly to the specific questions and concerns that people have” instead of pandering to audiences in eloquent but long, vague speeches. As any good pol would want to, McCain seeks to apply his strength to Obama’s weakness.

In a campaign conference call yesterday, McCain said Obama’s frequent “catch all phrases” do not capture the “specific positions and action for the future of the country.”

McCain hopes the American people will learn of and understand Obama’s ultra-liberal record: Obama was rated the most liberal US Senator by the non-partisan National Journal this year.

Both candidates delivered major speeches to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) this week, each acknowledging a vital connection and U.S. interest in the protection of Israel as a Jewish state.

In a conference call yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) noted a significant “disconnect” for these reasons. Obama pledged to “never compromise when it comes to Israel's security”, but as Lieberman pointed out, he was one of only a handful of Senators that did not support last year’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Even the Senate’s other most liberal members -- Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton -- voted for the amendment -- but not Obama.

In a debate last year, Obama called it “saber-rattling” but in yesterday’s speech he backtracked by saying we should boycott “firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”

McCain, though he said he had not seen Obama’s speech, was not surprised by the sudden change in direction, noting that Obama often switches on issues. This one, though, was particularly “remarkable.”

“He made several comments on this amendment…that it would affect troop levels and was the wrong thing to do,” said McCain. “Now he goes before AIPAC and changes…he’s moving through various evolutions…and I don’t think the American people will buy it.”

McCain said it proves again that Obama lacks the experience and knowledge to make the judgments necessary in a time of war.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment does not purport military action though Obama opposed on those grounds.

Randy Scheunnemann, senior foreign policy and national security advisor to the McCain campaign, said Obama never made any public statements supporting the designation of the IRG as a terrorist group until yesterday so it is “hard to escape the conclusion that…today when it’s AIPAC and a Pro-Israel audience that…Obama has a different message for different audiences.”

Obama made other switches in his speech as well. A few weeks ago, he referred to Iran as only a “tiny” threat compared to the Soviet Union during the Cold War but yesterday, he labeled the country a “grave threat.”

He blamed the U.S. decision to invade Iraq for strengthening the power of the Iranian regime. He said the United States knew of Iran’s threat to Israel before 2002 and “instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it.” Obama repeated that he said before we invaded that entering Iraq would “fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East.”

Lieberman was quick to disagree, saying, “It’s not because of what we’ve done in Iraq, it’s because Iran is a fanatical terrorist expansionist state…with a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel.”

Obama’s opinions on Iraq and Iran were challenged recently when it was publicized he had visited Iraq only once -- two years ago -- and never spoke personally with US Army Commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, when he could have done so easily.

“Obama continues to deny that the surge has succeeded in Iraq -- in direction contradiction to fundamental facts on the ground,” McCain said. “This is the 788th day… since he’s been to Iraq and has never requested to sit down and get a briefing from Petraeus.”

McCain concluded that, “That is a degree of lack of judgment about this war that I think Americans will not agree with.”

In the past, Obama has pledged to meet with the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran without pre-conditions but he went back on that statement too. He now claims he would meet with those leaders only if it advances American interests.

“He presents a false choice today that the only diplomacy can work is with Iranian leaders,” said Scheunemann, who also called Obama out on his negativity towards working more closely with European allies.

Obama said the U.S. was “outsourcing diplomacy” to European allies, provoking criticism from the McCain camp.

“To say we are ‘outsourcing diplomacy’ to European allies disparages the very essence of allied cooperation,” Scheunnemann said. “Sen. McCain wants to work with our allies …with sanctions. Sen. Obama seems more interested in…engaging in cowboy summitry with unnamed leaders.”

Obama’s constant calls for troop withdrawals appease a public sick of the Iraq war but don’t consider grave consequences for Israel’s safety, the stability of the region or the security of the US in the war on terror.

“Withdrawal from Iraq…regardless of the situation…that would lead to al-Qaeda declaring victory and giving Iran more power,” said Scheunemann, adding that to think a phased withdrawal wouldn’t have consequences is, “frankly, naïve.”

McCain admitted that Obama’s views on the now-successful troop surge have changed.

“It’s not the categorical condemnation of the surge that he articulated before -- and again -- I hope he goes to Iraq soon, sits down with Petraeus,” said McCain. “Any objective observer…will admit to the fact that the surge is success.”

McCain said Obama will have to discuss the success at length sooner or later -- whether he wants to or not. "

 

That part has already been decided. There's only a handful of us limited government types left. I'm pretty radical, I'd probably cut the government at least in half. Even NASA would be eliminated if I had my way. Pretty much money, banks, courts, roads and defense. Some regulation. Everything else left to the states and to the people. Hmmm, that last bit sounds familiar, kinda like it was in some forgotten but important document.

While they may say they like smaller government, when it comes time to cut some spending more Americans stand against it than for it. Someday we'll look back on today and say "Man, we had it good with that small government back then."

 

I would take it even further.

Defense spending would only be for defense, unless other countries PAID the US to base troops abroad. I'd cut way back on overall troop levels, but still keep spending quite a bit on technology to keep the lead there. Gotta have the best planes, tanks, etc. Basically, the rest of the world would have to pitch in to help police bad behavior.

I'd eliminate litigation vs doctors in most cases also. Brings down med costs dramatically (and Medicare as well). If the doc does his best, then take what you get.

I'd also make pork and earmarks illegal. You vote on every spending issue. The states should pay for their own projects if only the state benefits.

 

IMAO: One Key Step to Put Obama Over the Top In November

"At HuffPo, Robert Creamer lists "10" key steps for Obama, but it all boils down to one:

LIE

Face it. If Obama told the truth about his platform, he'd get blown out like Mondale in '84. "I want to raise taxes, regulate our economy into stagnation, and talk to terrorists until they blow us up, after which I would talk to them even more."

No, he's gotta put some bright-red, candy-flavored lipstick on the pig of his platform and hope folks'll believe it's Miss America.

Here's the honest, straightforward, no-spin, no-BS version of Robert Creamer's HuffPo piece:

1). Target States -- Spread the Field.
Lie to the people of the Midwest about sharing their values. Hopefully they've forgotten about that "bitter, clingy, racist, religious-zealot, gun-nut" comment.

2). Pour unlimited resources into Ohio.
Lie to the people of Ohio so much that Republicans will be FORCED to match your ad spending to point out what a liar you are.

3). Obama should not even think about opting into the system of public financing for the general election.
After you get elected, lie about how imperative campaign finance reform is, despite the fact that you couldn't have gotten elected with such a system in place.

4). We must devote a mix of resources to persuasion and to mobilization that is appropriate to each state.
Lie to racist blacks, the ignorant young, and frustrated Republicans contemplating the "nuclear option" of voting in Carter 2.0 in 2008 in the hopes of getting a Reagan 2.0 in 2012.

5). Nationally, the campaign must create a mass movement.
Lie to a LOT of people.

6). Democrats must convince skeptical swing voters that Obama is safely on their side.
Lie a LOT to a lot of people.

7). Democrats need to convince swing voters that McCain would usher in a third Bush term -- that he's not the "independent-maverick" he pretends to be.
Lie about McCain actually being a Conservative. Basically just say whatever McCain does.

8) Democrats need to undermine public confidence in McCain's competency and judgment with respect to the War in Iraq.
Lie about the war. Say things like "Only McCain would be stupid enough to believe that you can defeat terrorists by killing them". Try to keep a straight face while doing so.

9). We need to drive the contrast between a change candidate with a vision for the future and a candidate steeped in the ways of Washington.
Lie about being a sleazy Washington tool. Honestly, how long does the "steeping" process take? If you're still an "outsider" after working for the same company for THREE YEARS, you're probably not very good at what you do. Which tells me that Obama is just a worthless slack-ass who's not pulling his weight and is basically just stealing his paycheck.

10). Obama must continue to appeal proudly and self-confidently to progressive values.
Lie about the fact that "progressive values" is an oxymoron.

And most of all, lie BIG:

The magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others."

 

That part isn't further. Museums (except for a handful in DC) and bridges to nowhere should be punished by having the congress critters that voted for them pay for them.

I wouldn't last a minute as POTUS, LOL. People would be fighting each other to be the one to put a bullet in my head. Vegas would have a line on how many minutes my presidency would last. Eddie Murphy once did a bit about the first black president ducking and weaving as he took the oath of office. Obama has a WAY higher chance of completing that oath than I would.

Oh well, what can ya do. Most everybody figures they'll get to pick the pocket of their betters, don't notice that the folks behind them are picking theirs. Too much American Idol, not enough common sense.