Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Advice On How To Lose The 2012 Election

The Republican National Committee has issued a warning to fellow Republicans:

During the conference call, various Republican affiliates expressed concern that attacking President Barack Obama may prove too dangerous for the GOP. “We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” said Nicholas Thompson, vice president of Republican polling firm the Tarrance Group. “There’s a lot of people who feel sorry for him.”

Are these people insane?

My biggest complaint about the Republican party, for the past decade, has been their utter inability to communicate effectively. I've wailed about it on this blog with regularity (for example, see here, here, here, and here). And indeed, it is advice such as that above that has been responsible for Republicans abysmal showing over the past decade.

Perhaps the two worst most destructive instances of Republicans allowing falsehoods to become fixed as facts in the minds of the majority of Americans are the Iraq War and the fiscal meltdown. There was Bush not responding to the left wing attack machine's "Bush lied" meme. Karl Rove came very late to the conclusion that failing to respond was the biggest mistake of the Bush presidency. Then there was McCain not responding to the Democrats' effort to misdirect the blame for our economic meltdown onto Wall St. greed, rather than the actual cause, two decades of left wing government directed social engineering that tore apart credit standards and put Fannie and Freddie on steroids.

And now we have Obama making the most outrageous of claims about the failure of markets and capitalism as well as the supposed sin of the profit motive.  Indeed, IBD has an editorial out today discussing the Five Big Lies In Obama's Economic Fairness Speech. Even WaPo's Fact Checker gave the speech three Pinnochios. Yet the RNC responds by telling Republicans not to attack Obama because he is likable and the electorate feels pity for him? And just how are Republicans to counter this? Their silence would only cede the message to Obama and the left - and we have years of evidence telling us how that works out.

The RNC has it exactly wrong. Republicans need to be passionate and loud - with the caveat that they must be absolutely intellectually honest in their criticisms.

You want to see how to do it wrong - Mitt Romney's ad attacking Obama by taking a quote completely out of context.



That really will engender sympathy for this most destructive of Presidents.

Now to see how it is done right - Newt Gingrich laying out, in two minutes, why Obama is the President of class warfare and food stamps while conservatives are the party of paychecks.


There is a reason Gingrich is leading in the polls. And if he stays there, it will be in very large measure because he will have ignored the craven advice of the RNC.

As a parting gift, here is Rush in high dudgeon over both the idiocy of the RNC's advice to Republicans and the prevarication of Obama in his Kansas speech yesterday.



Read More...

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Best Political Attack Ad Ever . . .

This one is hilarious. John McCain goes after J.D. Hayworth with more snark, humor and kill shots than I have ever before seen. Had he only gone after Obama in this manner on his past associations and the Democrat's responsiblity for our on-going massive recession, . . .

Oh well, water under the bridge. Enjoy.

Read More...

Monday, March 22, 2010

Obama Leads The Progressive Left Across The Rubicon (Updated)


Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in November 1942

President Obama has crossed the Rubicon with the health care vote. The bill was not really about medicine; after all, a moderately priced, relatively small federal program could offer the poorer not now insured, presently not on Medicare or state programs like Medicaid or Medical, a basic medical plan.

We have no interest in stopping trial lawyers from milking the system for billions. And we don’t want to address in any meaningful way the individual’s responsibility in some cases (drink, drugs, violence, dangerous sex, bad diet, sloth, etc.) for costly and chronic health procedures.

No, instead, the bill was about assuming a massive portion of the private sector, hiring tens of thousands of loyal, compliant new employees, staffing new departments with new technocrats, and feeling wonderful that we “are leveling the playing field” and have achieved another Civil Rights landmark law . . .

Victor Davis Hanson, We've Crossed The Rubicon, PJM, 21 March, 2010

On Saturday night, we were a nation in deep trouble. We had a national debt of $12,676,374,186,522.00 - and were hemorrhaging billions in red ink daily. Unemployment/underemployment was well over 16% and was not forecast to get better during the coming year. We were still in the midst of the worst recession in our nation since the Great Depression - a recession itself brought on by Democrat social engineering of lending standards and a massive market distortion caused by Fannie and Freddie. (Update: The WSJ reports today that personal incomes contracted in the past year) Social Security, run as a ponzi scheme by a rapacious Congress for years and protected at all costs by Democrats, faced a huge problem of solvency (Update: with the insolvency starting this year) - dwarfed only by the massive unfunded liabilities looming in Medicare/Medicaid. And our ability to borrow to finance Obama's world record spending spree was rapidly deteriorating. Not only was our AAA rating for government securities in danger, but the market had already weighed in. "Two-year notes sold by the . . . Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity." Indeed, so serious are our economic woes that the "latest Fox News poll finds that 79 percent of voters think it’s possible the economy could collapse, including large majorities of Democrats (72 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (80 percent)." Moreover, the same poll finds that three times as many individuals, some 64%, see our national debt as a greater threat to our nation than terrorism. In short, we were, on Saturday night, in a very bad situation. And then, Sunday night, Obama and the progressive left managed to make a bad situation exponentially worse.

On Sunday night, the progressive pulled out all of the stops to pass Obamacare, taking over, directly and indirectly, one sixth of our economy (voting roll here). Instead of addressing the looming disaster of Social Security and Medicare - indeed, instead of addressing unemployment and an economy in deep distress - Obama added on top of our failing entitlement programs the biggest entitlement program of them all. And Obamacare comes replete with massive new taxes, including taxes on investment income, unfunded state mandates that will mean higher state taxes, and the assurance of skyrocketing insurance premiums. As to our national debt, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the CBO, explained the massive additions to our debt that we can expect as a result of this bill's passage.

The IRS will now expand massively as the designated arm of the state to enforce Obamacare. They will shortly begin hiring the 16,000 new agents needed to enforce the mandatory purchase of health insurance by all Americans. Over one hundred new bureaucratic offices are about to be created, all to oversee our Obamacare. As summed up by NRO, the vote last night “will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.” And the people are not fooled. When polled by CBS as to whether the health care plan pushed by Obama and the left was motivated by political concerns or actual concerns with health care - the majority, and even a majority of Democrats, 57%, answered that it was motivated by politics.

It is not enough to now simply say that our government runs our health care system. To give full credit where it is due, the Democrats now own it. Let's never let anyone forget that salient fact.

It looked for awhile like Bart Stupak and a handful of pro-life Democrats might hold out against language in the Senate bill that was so crafted as to allow for federal financing of abortions. Ultimately, Stupak caved in under intense pressure and with the promise that Obama would sign an executive order directing that no financing would go for abortions. An executive order does not trump the plain language of Congressional legislation. Indeed, a Court interpreting the law would likely only acknowledge the executive order in a footnote to its decision, if at all. You can bet your bottom dollar that, when the mandates become operative in a few years, there will be a law suit forcing the issue - and a court with any intellectual integrity will require that the government provide federal funding of abortion. The reality is that federal funding of abortion through Obamacare is now virtually inevitable.

Obama stated in remarks after the vote:

This is what change looks like. . . . We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.

Is Orwell now Obama's speechwriter? Health care played no role in causing our economic downturn - yet Obama pretended that it was at the heart of the problem. The plan designed by the progressive left does nothing to bend down the inflation of health care costs - yet it was sold on the basis of sound fiscal policy (Update: James Pethokoukis of Reuters no less calls it Faith Based Deficit Reduction; see also the post above, wherein Krauthammer forecasts an Obama attempt to impose a regressive VAT tax in order to fund Obamacare). Not a single poll showed that a majority of the people wanted this monstrosity - yet Obama claims a popular mandate. This was not a bill passed on its merits - it was progressive sausage made with toxic, backroom deals. All that last night proved was that the progressive left are power hungry statists willing to say and do anything in order to amass power. This is not a government that works for the people - it's a political elite that wants to control the people and punish wealth creation.

Megan McArdle, herself a throwback to old times - an intellectually honest, if a bit misguided, Democrat - summed up her thoughts at the Atlantic:

What I hope is that the Democrats take a beating at the ballot box and rethink their contempt for those mouth-breathing illiterates in the electorate. I hope Obama gets his wish to be a one-term president who passed health care. Not because I think I will like his opponent--I very much doubt that I will support much of anything Obama's opponent says. But because politicians shouldn't feel that the best route to electoral success is to lie to the voters, and then ignore them.

As Bill Kristol points out, this is by no means over, even now. Republicans are planning a series of parliamentary procedural moves that may yet impact final passage of proposed changes to the bill. But the real challenge lays in the upcoming elections. "[W]hat Republicans have to do is to make the 2010 and the 2012 elections referenda on Obamacare, win those elections, and then repeal Obamacare." Truer words were never spoken.

James Fallows, on the other hand, writing at the Atlantic thinks that "this will not seem anywhere near as poisonous seven months from now as it does today." He is living in a dream world if he thinks, after the election of Brown to Kennedy's seat in blue Mass., after the birth of the Tea Party movement so maligned out of fear by the left, this will all blow over. At the Politico, they speculate as to which Democrat seats are now in danger as a result of their vote last night on health care. No need to speculate. The answer is every damn one of them.

Even John McCain has put the left on notice that they should not expect any cooperation in Congress from the right after their actions of the past year:

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

No, they didn't just poison the well, they urinated in it. And we really should go one further than McCain. If you hear anyone mention the word "bipartisan" again, in any suggesting that the Republicans should cooperate with the Obama administration, the only appropriate response is a swift and powerful kick to the groin. Repeat as necessary until the person expressing this obscenity has undergone a complete and permanent attitude adjustment.

While it will be several years before the full weight of Obamacare will be felt, some of the provisions, including ones directly attacking the health insurance industry, kick in immediately. One is a change to the acceptable ratio of payments to benefits that has long been the health insurance industry standard. The health care plan signed into law changes the acceptable ratio from 65/35 to to 85/15. In a stroke, Obama has destroyed the ability of health insurance companies to pay overhead, salaries and make a modicum of profit. In addition, the new health care bill includes a 40% rise in taxes on health insurance companies - which also must be paid from the 15. The net effect of this war on our health insurance industry will be a massive increase in premiums next January, when most plans renew, and a massive contraction of the health insurance industry as many, if not all, medium and small insurers, are forced from the market. This from a transcript of Rush Limbaugh's show on Tuesday, wherein a health insurance employee highlighted the impact of the newly passed bill:

. . .

CALLER: Okay. For time immemorial, both state and federal regulation -- and also just the industry standard -- has been a 65-45 percentage arrangement: 65 in claims payment and 45 for administration and claims expense. Withholding that you store for, you know, a major catastrophe or something.

RUSH: This is to pay your claims?

CALLER: No, 65% is to pay the claims. Thirty-five percent is for everything else.

RUSH: That means 35% is salaries, administration costs, and the offices, all the paperwork, that kind of thing?

CALLER: It's that as well as, you know, we are required to keep a certain amount of cash on hand as a percentage of our claims exposure to pay claims. . . .

RUSH: Now, I just want to make sure I understand here. State and federal regulations set those percentages?

CALLER: State and federal regulations, yes.

RUSH: So if you wanted to have 85% set aside for claims, you couldn't. You had to go at 65%?

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: If you wanted 30% set aside for claims and the rest were administration, you couldn't do it. It had to be 65%.

CALLER: That's illegal, yes. It has to be 65-35, and there's a couple of percentage either way, but generally when an insurance company falls outside of those guidelines, they are considered financially unstable.

RUSH: Well, who audits you all to make sure you are within the ratio?

CALLER: We're audited by the state insurance departments, primarily. There are some plans that are audited both state and federally, and then you have your private auditors who will come in as part of the stock market and that kind of thing. So we're audited often.
. . .
CALLER: . . . So what Obama just did an hour and a half ago is make every insurance company in the country financially unstable. Remember, the 15% that we are left has not only to pay salaries, maintenance, upkeep of buildings; it also has to pay the 40% increased taxes that we've got. I mean, there's just no way. You can't do it.

RUSH: Well, you're getting a little bit ahead of me here. What did Obama sign that changes this 65-45 split? In what way did Obama now sign you into permanent instability?

CALLER: The provision in the Senate bill requires that all insurance companies pay 85% of premiums collected every year in claims.

RUSH: So the 65 is now 85?

CALLER: Exactly. It doesn't matter how much we increase the premium, it won't matter.

. . .

Rush: . . . You originally thought that your industry would survive. You're speaking industry or just your particular company?

CALLER: I would say 99% of all insurance companies, health insurance companies in the country.

RUSH: Okay. So you originally thought you might have three to five years to stay in business under Obama. Now you said it's two to three. Why?

CALLER: Because of the 85-15. Plus the additional expenses were going to incur. Additionally, the mandates, what people don't understand when CMS (which is the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare) push a mandate down on insurance companies, we have to pay to complement those mandates. We don't know how many of those are in this monstrosity. So we can have our mandate budget doubled, our taxes already up 40% or whatever it is, and our cash flow immediately cut.

RUSH: Well, how can you know in advance of paying any claims? Because they've now shifted to 65% that you have to set aside for claims to 85%. How in the world can anybody know in advance of paying claims that it's going to amount to 85%?

CALLER: Well --

RUSH: Of course 65%? It seems to be like this is a ridiculous dictate made by people that have no clue how your business works.

CALLER: Well, they don't have a clue. But the way that that amount of money is calculated is you look at the past year, past five years, past ten years, and you see what your claims expense have been those years. Then based on your enrollment and your demographics you project forward into what you expect to be paying in the future, in the next year and the next five years. So you can do that. It's not precise to a dollar, but you usually get pretty close. What he's done is by saying, for example, the preventative services now --

RUSH: Those are free. Those are, quote, unquote, "free."

CALLER: Yeah, exactly.

RUSH: What the hell is a preventative service covered by an insurance company anyway?

CALLER: Well, that would be your colonoscopies, your mammograms, your yearly physicals, your lab work.

RUSH: Oh, so those are free now! So if I want to go get a colonoscopy today and I have an insurance policy, I'm not going to pay for it?

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: But you will.

CALLER: Well, we will. We'll pay out the nose for it.

RUSH: (laughing) Well...

CALLER: I know, bad analogy. I'm sorry.

RUSH: It is Christmas!

CALLER: But, Rush --

RUSH: Well, no, I don't look at a colonoscopy as Christmas. Don't misunderstand. . . . But it is Christmas in the sense that I'm not paying for it. I don't know how you can stay in business even two to three years with this kind of thing happening to you this year alone.

CALLER: I don't think we will and that's why I am seriously considering leaving this industry. I'm updating my resume. You know, people who I work with -- even people who voted for Obama and thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread -- are shell-shocked.

RUSH: That just frustrates the hell out of me. Anybody with a brain has no reason to be shell-shocked about who this guy is, but it is what it is.
. . .
CALLER: And you know how many people are going to die in the interim, Rush? I say that in all sincerity, because come January 1st you're going to see 200, 300% increases in premiums and people are going to drop their coverage. So you've got the woman who isn't going to go get the mammogram or the man who's not going to get the prostate exam.

RUSH: Wait a minute!

CALLER: People are going to die.

RUSH: I thought the mammogram was free.

CALLER: Not when you drop the coverage because you can't afford three times the premium. Remember, the premiums are going up because of the government, and jobs are being lost because of the government. If you can't pay it, you can't pay it. So people are going to drop it. They're going to drop their insurance before they drop their mortgage.

RUSH: They're going to be clamoring to the government to fix the mean-spirited insurance companies for raising the prices so high and that's where Obama's going to step in and say, "You know what? We have no choice here but than to do it ourselves," and then you get dumped on again first and foremost with Obama portraying the government as the savior. . . .

Read the entire transcript.

When Julius Caseser crossed the Rubicon river in 49 B.C., entering into Roman territory, it marked both a crossing of the point of no return and a declaration of war on the Republic. The end result was ultimately the destruction of Rome's Republican form of government. I think the analogy here is apt. Obama has so polarized politics in our government, it is questionable when or if we will see a return to rational, measured politics until either conservatism or progressivism wins out and the other is pushed into the dustbin of history. We are, as I blogged here, in a zero sum ideological war today. Never in history has the political system been so manipulated and in such a highly partisan fashion. Its provisions, mandating each person purchase health insurance, if upheld, will represent a vast expansion of the government's power to control and direct our lives. But even beyond all of that, this bill threatens not merely our health care system, but it also poses a clear and present danger to the fiscal viability of our nation.

In the end, the right must not merely repeal Obamacare, but it must present a better alternative. In that respect, Paul Ryan may in fact have the answer to Obamacare, as well as the problems of Medicare and Social Security. His "Roadmap" is a very serious attempt to address the actual problems we face. Here is hoping that Congressman Ryan is a player in 2012.

Read More...

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Obama - 180 Degrees of Wrong



Is Obama insane?

The democraticaly elected President of Honduras, Zelaya, makes an extra-Constitutional power grab even after the highest Court in Honduras rules it illegal. On the eve of that act, he is replaced during the final six months of his administration. That wasn't a coup. That was defense of democracy and the rule of law. It was ordered by a properly convened Court. It was supported by a democraticaly elected legislature. And now Obama is joining hands with Chavez, Castro and other enemies of the U.S. and of democracy to condemn the actions in Honduras and reinstate the President?

If you ever needed evidence that Obama should never have been let near the oval office, this completes the mosaic we saw begin over a year ago with Georgia, when their democratic regime came under assault from Russia. Obama did not come out in support of democracy then, not until he took a lesson from McCain. The lesson didn't stick. Two weeks ago, as Iranians were being brutalized and murdered in the streets by a regime that had just engaged in massive vote fraud, Obama sat silent and then, despicably, played down the importance of the revolt. Now, when a country acts to preserve its laws and Constitution against an extra-Constitutional assault from a rabid socialist following the Chavez model, Obama supports the one who was seeking to violate the constitution. Obama really does see the U.S. as the problem. He has no understanding of the intrinsic importance of democracy and the rule of law. He has embraced moral equivalence and is unable to discriminate friend from foe.

History is important, and true, the U.S. has been involved in more than one coup in Central and South America. History should inform all of our acts - but it should never hold us hostage. As Hot Air notes, it may be that, in some incredibly naive burst of deeply opaque motivation, Obama is trying to repair America's image by coming out on the side of Chavez, Castro et al. If so, it is inexplicably foolish.

This is bad - and holds the potential to get much, much worse. The last president that even approached this level of dysfunction was James Earl Carter, and he gave the world the Iranian theocracy. I do not know what Obama's legacy will be, but I fully expect it to be far worse.

For Obama's future reference on such matters, Charles Krauthammer provides a rule of thumb:








Read More...

Friday, June 26, 2009

Iran Update - 25 June: Mousavi Fights Back, Dissidents Call On Israel To Help In The Commo War

Many things of import happened in Iran today, but I held off writing this post to see if a rumor spreading on twitter could be verified. That rumor was that Iraq's senior cleric - and Iran's most popular cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani - had publicly denounced the Iranian regime for its brutality. I've blogged about Sistani's importance here. If you haven't read it, you should also see this 2007 Boston Globe article, "Shi'ite Cleric Gains Sway Across The Border." If the rumor was true, the importance of a public denunciation from him could not be overestimated. Unfortunately, I could not verify it.

The most important development has been Mousavi's decision not to capitulate to pressure from the theocracy and to come out swinging. This from yesterday's LA Times:

After days of relative quiet, Mir-Hossein Mousavi launched a broadside against the Iranian leadership in comments published today, suggesting that the political rift over the country's disputed presidential election is far from over.

The former prime minister turned artist and scholar accused Iran's supreme leader of not acting in the interests of the country and said Iran had suffered a dramatic change for the worse.

He slammed state-controlled broadcast outlets, which have intensified a media blitz against him and his supporters with allegations that recent unrest over the disputed June 12 presidential election was instigated by Iran's international rivals. And he vowed to pursue his quest to have President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection annulled.

Read the entire article. There has been some question, given his relative quiet of the past few days, whether Mousavi was getting cold feet and would fall from the titular forefront of this revolutionary movement. That is the subject of Krauthammer's article today, noting that the revolution may wilt if it does not find its Yeltsin. Mousavi appears, for the moment, back on track now to try to fill Yeltsin's shoes, though the effectiveness of the theocracy's repression is relentless. Indeed, the same LA Times article linked above goes on to say that Mousavi met with a 70 person group of university professors on Wednesday and that, immediately following the meeting, the professors were arrested en masse by the regime.

Several days ago, I blogged that the U.S. should be doing all in its power to covertly support the uprising, noting in the comments that the greatest need was to counter the theocracy's attempts to shut down communications and to facilitate as much as possible communications to and inside of Iran. Congressional Quarterly is reporting that Senator's McCain, Graham and Lieberman are drafting legislation to require the U.S. to do precisely that. Good for them, but what that tells us is it is likely Obama has our covert operators sitting on their thumbs at the moment. If so, that is an atrocity. If Obama still has dreams of crafting a grand diplomatic bargain with the butchers of Tehran, he is a danger to us and the world. As Robert Averich states, Obama seems to have graduated from the "Neville Chamberlain school of international relations."

Communications is critical to this ongoing revolt. In fact, it is important enough so that some of the protesters inside Iran are reaching out for assistance to Israel. This from Arutz Sheva News:

. . . "Dear Israeli Brothers and Sisters," writes Iranian dissident Arash Irandoost, "Iran needs your help more than ever now. And we will be eternally grateful. Please help opposition television and radio stations which are blocked and being jammed by the Islamic Republic (Nokia and Siemens) resume broadcast to Iran. There is a total media blackout and Iranians inside Iran for the most part are not aware of their brave brothers and sisters fighting and losing their lives daily. And the unjust treatment and brutal massacre of the brave Iranians in the hands of the mullah's paid terrorist Hamas and Hizbullah gangs are not seen by the majority of the Iranians. Please help in any way you can to allow these stations resume broadcasting to Iran.

"And, please remember that we will remember, as you have remembered Cyrus the Great's treatment of you in your time of need," Irandoost concludes, signing his blogged call for help "Your Iranian Brothers and Sisters!"

In an interview with Israel National News, Iranian expatriate pro-democracy activist Amil Imani said that Irandoost's message represents the sentiments of much of the youth in the streets in Iran. They have a strong belief in the technological know-how of the Israelis to overcome the Iranian regime's attempts to block communications. . . .



Shiran Ebadi, famous Iranian female lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, made a statement the other day that she is willing to represent the family of the slain girl, Neda Soltana, in an action against the government. Iranian News announced today, reported at the blog NIAC, that a formal complaint has been filed against Ebadi to strip her of her license to practice law for "repetitive infringement of Islamic decrees, Sharia law and the constitution."

I blogged in the post Faultlines Developing that significant cracks throughout the regime were becoming apparent. Yet another became apparent today when President-elect Ahmedinejad held his formal victory party. All members of Iran's 290 person stong Parliament were invited to attend. The BBC is reporting that a substantial majority, 185, did not attend. The BBC, stating the obvious, notes "the move is a sign of the deep split at the top of Iran after disputed presidential polls."

There was supposed to be a general strike on Tuesday, though there was no confirmation of it occurring from any of the news sites. The progression of the 1979 protest went from street demonstration to general strikes. That will likely be the next phase of things if the revolution continues to grow. Gooya News now has pictures from a strike among the bazzaris in at least one city, Saghez, in the Kurdish region of Iran.

Lastly, via Hot Air, here is a BBC interview of the doctor who attempted to treat Neda, the girl brutally murdered by the basij during a protest in Iran.



Prior Posts:

24 June 2009: Glimpses Into Chaos - Iran, 24 June
23 June 2009: Obama, Iran & The Rising Of The Sun
23 June 2009: Obama On Iran: A Broken Moral Compass, A Distorted Perception Of Reality
21 June 2009: Faultlines Developing
21 June 2009: When The Regime Will Fall
20 June 2009: The Regime Turns On Its Own People (Updated)
20 June 2009: Life, Death & Terrorism On Iran's Streets - Neda
19 June 2009: Countdown To High Noon
19 June 2009: An Iranian Showdown Cometh - Liveblogging Khameini's Speech At Friday Prayers
18 June 2009: Iran Update
16 June 2009: Iran 6/16: The Fire Still Burning, An Incendiary Letter From Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, State Dept. Intercedes With Twitter & Obama Talks Softly
16 June 2009: Breaking News: Vote Recount In Iran, Too Little, Too Late
15 June 2009: Iran Buys Time, Obama Votes Present, Iraq's Status Is Recognized
15 June 2009: The Fog Of War - & Twitter
15 June 2009: Chants Of Death To Khameini
15 June 2009: Heating Up In Iran
14 June 2009: Heating Up In Iran
14 June 2009: Tehran Is Burning; What Will The Iranian Army Do? (Updated)
13 June 2009: The Mad Mullah's Man Wins Again - For Now
15 April 2008: The Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match (Background On Iran's Theocracy)








Read More...

Thursday, October 16, 2008

The Final Debate

The last debate was the best in terms of format. McCain's performance was very strong. But in a year when the well has been poisoned against Republicans, in part by their actions, in large part by their inability to communicate, and in large part by an MSM thoroughly biased to the left, and with the economy tanking, was it enough?

Last night was McCain's best performance by far. His likening Obama's economic plans to Herbert Hoover, the man who led us into the Great Depression, and McCain's discussion of the Colombia free trade agreement were just a few of the high points of the evening for McCain. The low point of the evening for McCain, I thought, was in answer to the first question, when he began to expound on the economic crisis by citing to "Wall St. greed." The problem's we face are not founded on Wall St. They are founded on Clinton and the left's intervention into the mortgage market beginning two decades ago. They are founded on ACORN and other people - Obama included - who fought to degrade lending standards rather than seek color blind equality in lending. Wall St. is an important player in this collapse, but in the scheme of things, they are a bit player in what happened. McCain's failure to explain that last night was, perhaps, a fatal error.

Thankfully, it only got better then there for McCain. And on Obama's side, we were treated to falsehoods about abortion, Ayers and ACORN. Unfortunately, with a media in the tank , Obama could spin whatever fantasies he wanted up there, and by the time news of it breaks beyond the shield wall the MSM have created for Obama, the election will be long over.

At any rate, the long and short, I am feeling very pessimistic about this one. I think the chances of McCain winning the election are fading because popular perception is that Democrats are better for the economy. The problem is that, if that was ever, at any time true, that perception does not comport with today's reality. The people in charge on the left are not left of center democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are both on the far left end of the scale, a place where Adam Smith is not welcome. I think McCain made a last good effort, though I do not think it enough. I hope that I am wrong. If not, we will soon see America remade.

Read More...

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

McCain-Obama Debate 2 - A Town Hall Travesty


The second McCain-Obama debate is in the books. The format, faux town hall, was horrid. The questions varied from reasonable to mindless - why do we need to know who either one of these two would appoint as Treasury Secretary? The time allotted for answers was ridiculously short with no follow-ups. This all worked in favor of Obama who is sitting on a lead in the polls and a commonly held belief among far too many Americans that the tanking economy is the fault of George Bush and Republicans.

This was by far the worst debate I can recall every watching. McCain needed to be aggressive and to attack on the economy. He did that within the limits of the debate format. Unfortunately, the debate format was so limiting, I doubt whether he was able to impact many people at all. My notes from the debate:

- Finally, McCain goes on the attack over Fannie and Freddie. That was good, but he needs to extend out that attack and repeat it every day between now and the election.

- Obama is referring to a letter written in 2006 when he supposedly warned of the subprime crisis and the need to take action against Fannie Mae. I want to see that letter. It doesn't appear on his website. Obama is a political coward who does not go against the grain of his party - all of whom were in strong support of Fannie Mae and their mission to purchase subprime mortgages at the time. Bottom line, I am not taking the One at his word on this one. Show me the letter. Release it to the public. McCain should have demanded this at the debate.

- McCain is going to buy up all distressed mortgages. My initial reaction is to recoil in horror. I will have to sleep on whether it actually makes some fiscal sense given that, one, it was government intervention in the market place that got us here in the first place, and two, McCain is selling it as a way to stabilize markets. I have more than a little doubt.

- McCain hit on a point I have been thinking about for a few days. How similar Obama's plans sound to Herbert Hoover's when he found himself facing a down economy.

- Conbama Law 101 - The right of the people to health care shall not be infringed. If we are staring disaster in the face in the long run from the growth of medicaid, what is going to happen when we extend health care to the nation as a whole as a fundamental right?

- Obama is going to add a trillion in spending while cutting the budget and reducing taxes. That will no doubt come after he walks on water and feeds the nation with a loaf and a few fish. I wish he would name one program he intends to cut with that scalpel of his. Fannie Mae would be a start.

- The foreign policy questions were mostly a repeat of the same ones asked at the last debate, bringing out repeat responses.

- Why does McCain allow Obama to get away with saying he will end the war in Iraq? We've won the damn thing - Obama cannot ideologically admit to it.

- Did anyone else notice Obama's refusal to answer the question whether he would immediately rise to Israel's defense in the event of an attack by Iran. He spent two minutes trying to wind his way around the question without ever answering it. This guy really is dangerous.

- Overall, McCain needed a far more freewheeling debate format if he was to have any chance of turning things around. Tonight was just horrid. If the next debate is like this, say hello to Presidnt Obama.







Read More...

If McCain Keeps Making These Points . . .

. . . he has a chance of winning this election.



Not surprisingly, Powerline reviews MSM treatment of the speach and finds that the MSM has put what amounted to a news blackout on it. The MSM won't be able to do that during the debate tonight. McCain needs to make precisely the above case.

Read More...

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Why Isin't McCain Saying This?

Clearly there are many on the right willing to point out McCain's history as regards the subprime crisis - and the left's responsibility for it.



So why won't McCain?

Read More...

Friday, October 3, 2008

If This Is True, Then McCain Loses The Election

Accoring to James Pethokoukis at Capital Commerce, McCain does not intend to aggressively challenge Obama on the claim that Republican mismanagement of the economy is at the heart of today's subprime crisis. As I wrote at the time, McCain lost the "foreign policy" debate because of this. And if this is his plan, there is no need to wait until November and an election to call this one for President Obama.
___________________________________________________

This from James Pethokoukis:

Here is the big question of the moment that many GOPers are asking: Why is John McCain not tearing into Barack Obama and the Dems on the huge role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act in the financial crisis on Wall Street? In fact, the biggest criticism by conservatives of Sarah Palin's debate performance last night was that she had the opportunity to talk about Fannie/Freddie and the CRA but instead criticized the role of "predatory lenders."

Here is what Team McCain is telling me: Expect McCain to make the case on television, but [not aggressively] . . .

Nope, that is not going to happen Why not?

1) It is a complicated argument, and McCain is not good at making complicated arguments, not even about earmarks. (Note, additionally, his lack of defense of the war in Iraq during his debate with Obama. Amazing.)

2) There is a racial component to criticism of the Community Reinvestment Act that can make it sound like you are scapegoating minorities for Wall Street's problems.

3) The campaign believes McCain's time is better spent talking about taxes and energy and healthcare. Really.

This is the McCain camp turning craven and indecisive at the critical moment of the battle. The left is quite literally rewriting history. The electorate is in no way, shape or form going to hand this election to McCain if enough people think that the Republicans are the party responsible for the subprime disaster. The Politico makes this point crytal clear:

. . . “Before the economic crisis, we had a number of races moving our way,” said Matthew Miller, communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “But now we’re seeing Republican numbers plummet.” GOP officials largely agree.

Senate races don’t grab national attention like the White House battle does. But if these trends hold, the Senate outcome could be almost as important to Washington governance as the presidential winner will be. It takes 60 votes to pass anything through the slow-moving Senate. So the closer the Democrats get to the number, the more power they will have next year to put their stamp on the country.

Democrats say their candidates are benefiting from the wipeout on Wall Street with a single message in every region of the country: “These are the Bush policies coming home to roost.” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Politico: “Americans know that in economically difficult times, we need a change from George Bush’s policies. And incumbents who have voted for six years with Bush, up and down the line, are having a difficult time trying to convince the electorate that they’ve changed their spots."

The trends reflect the growing fear of among top Republicans that their prospects could crater on Nov. 4, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) running weakly at the top of the ticket, President Bush as unpopular as ever and the economic crisis serving as a last-minute propellant for the change message of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

With Republicans fearing the loss of 17 to 21 House seats, January 2009 could bring Democrats a dominance over Washington that neither party has experienced since the Reagan years.

Now is most certainly not the time to play defense.







Read More...

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

McCain, Subprime Crisis, SEC & Suspension of Mark To Market


This is good news. The McCain Camp is announcing that the SEC is partially suspending the recently intstituted mark to market accounting rules. This rule is playing a significant role in causing the current fiscal crisis. And once again, it appears McCain was on the side of the angels, calling for suspension of the mark to market rule months before the subprime crisis materialized.
_________________________________________________

"Mark to market" requires accounting for the present day, fair market value of all assets. Given no market exists for subprime loans and related securities at the moment, financial institutions are being forced to account for them at far less than their actual value. Getting rid of mark to market accounting was a part of the House Bill that was killed Monday. The SEC has decided to act unilaterally. This from the McCain Camp, noting the suspension and McCain calls in the months leading up to this crisis.

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008 Senior Policy Adviser, issued the following statement on the SEC's plan to relax mark-to-market accounting requirements:

"John McCain is pleased to see that the SEC has finally decided to permit alternative accounting methods to mark-to-market accounting for securities where no active market exists. There is serious concern that these accounting rules are worsening the credit crunch, making it difficult for small businesses to stay afloat and squeezing family budgets. In March, John McCain called for a meeting of accounting professionals to discuss whether mark-to-market accounting was magnifying problems in the financial markets."

Background:

In March, John McCain Called For A Meeting Of Accounting Professionals To Analyze The Current Mark To Market Accounting Systems. "[I]t is time to convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals to discuss the current mark to market accounting systems. We are witnessing an unprecedented situation as banks and investors try to determine the appropriate value of the assets they are holding and there is widespread concern that this approach is exacerbating the credit crunch." (John McCain, Remarks, Santa Ana, CA, 3/25/08)

(H/T Ace)







Read More...

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Clinton Weighs In For McCain On Subprime Crisis

McCain's new ad finally starts to take Obama and the left to task for ownership of the subprime crisis, with a helpful assist from former President Clinton.



Failure to say any of this was what cost McCain at the last debate and may well be what tips the election in favor of Obama. Given that the MSM is so over the top for Obama, McCain does himself no favors by valuing bipartisanship above reality.

Read More...

Monday, September 29, 2008

The History Of The Left's Subprime Crisis


Roger Kimball, writing at PJM, gives a very good thumbnail history of the subprime crisis and how it is a creation of Democratic identity politics and interference in the market. This story cannot be repeated often enough, particularly when Nancy Pelosi and company, aided and abetted by the MSM, are baldly lying, loudly and repetetively in an effort to hide their responsiblity for the subprime swamp.
__________________________________________________

This from Roger Kimball:

. . . ”The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).

* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit. The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.

* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”

Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.
$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.

But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”

* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.

* Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac–were there near the beginning, too.

Anatomy of a bubble

Step 1. The intoxication: “My house is worth millions!” From 1995 - 2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house prices.

Step 2. The hangover: “Oh my God, my house isn’t selling. What went wrong?”
Why didn’t someone try to stop it?

Someone did: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” The New York Times, September 11, 2003.

But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The New York Times reports:

Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. . . . “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”


Why didn’t someone else ring the alarm?

Someone else did. In 2005, John McCain co-sponsored the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act,” which among other things provided for more oversight of Freddie & Fannie. The bill didn’t pass. Guess who blocked it?
The bill was reintroduced in 2007. But again, no luck. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had friends in the Senate:

* Chris Dodd, a recipient of “sweetheart” loans from a Freddie and Fannie backed company.

* The junior senator from Illinois, i.e., Barack Obama, who turned to Jim Johnson, former head (1991-1998) of Fannie Mae, to help advise him on whom to pick for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. From 1985 to 1990, incidentally, Johnson was managing director of Lehman Brothers. Remember them?

* You might also want to check out one of Barack Obama’s other advisors: Franklin Raines, former CEO of Freddie Mac: see here , for example, or here , or here.

Towards the end of the video, we read this salutary observation: “Everyone deserves a home, not a house of cards.”

Who gave us the house of cards? Watch the whole thing here (original link was here). And then pass it along to everyone you know.

There are at least two other actions at work here. Of course if someone smells a dollar on Wall St., they'll try and latch onto it. That is what they get paid to do. But they don't get paid to purchase assets worth $1 for $10. The risk assessment associated with subprime lending got completely skewed. No one yet has even attempted to explain why that I can find, let alone do so with clarity. The other action are the recently introduced Mark to Market accounting rules that require accounting for assets at fair market value today. This accounting rule has the advantage of exposing bad assets. But subprime loans are secured. They are not valueless, though in today's market, under the Mark to Market rule, securities relating to these loans have to be counted as $0 because no one will offer any value for them. That, according to many in the know, seems to be a large part of the current implosion.

Other posts related to Subprime Crisis (from oldest to newest):

1. McCain, The Fannie and Freddie Crisis, and Obamafuscation - Obama and the entire Democratic Party are trying to blame Republicans for the subprime crisis. But this crisis was created by Bill Clinton and protected against Republican efforts to reign it in over a decade – until it failed, nearly pulling out entire economic system into a depression.

2. Dodging a Depression - The NYT and WSJ document just how serious is the subprime crisis. Quite literally it brought us to the point of a complete and catastrophic stoppage of our financial systems. This was not a stock market crash, it was a lending and credit crash. The WSJ describes the events of the week leading up to the crisis point.

3. Obama & The "Family" Of Fannie Mae - Documenting Obama’s relationship to Fannie Mae.

4. The Origins – And Foreseeability – Of the Subprime Crisis - A 1999 article in the NYT describes the Clinton Administration forcing subprime loans onto America and also forecasts that this will create a house of cards that will fall apart in a down market.

5. The Left’s Subprime Meltdown - A post by the Anchoress discusses this subprime crisis as a creation of the left and a system that was protected to the end by the left. She adds additional sites, quotes and links to explain the mosaic.

6. Fannie & Freddie, McCain & Obama, Subprime & Wall St.The WSJ discusses both how the subprime loan market came about and how Democrats, including Obama, were both the cause of the problem and the roadblock to a solution that would have averted this catastrophe. Dafydd at Big Lizard's explains how Mortgage Backed Securities worked on Wall Street.

7. A Doddering Fool & Charlatan - Chris Dodd is up to his ears in the subprime crisis. With our economy teetering on an actual depression due to the Fannie/Freddie/subprime loan crisis, it was not merely surreal to watch Senator Chris Dodd chair an emergency hearing of the Senate Banking Committee to evaluate the Treasury's proposed rescue plan, it was obscene.

8. Finally – Oversight - The FBI has finally announced criminal investigations at Fannie and Freddie.

10. The President Addresses The Nation - Bush explains the stakes involved for America with the subprime crisis.

11. McCain The Chessmaster Part II - McCain was responding to a 3 a.m. phone call in returning to Washington. He is given political cover and support by Bill Clinton.

12. A Spotlight On The Left's Subprime Crisis - A video summary of the origins of the subprime crisis with lots of footage of Rep. Barney Frank and others protecting Fannie Mae from regulation by the Bush Administration and McCain.

13. WaMu Swallowed Up In The Left's Subprime Swamp - Washington Mutual goes under because of toxic mortgage debt.

14. Dodd, ACORN, and the Penultimate Screwing of the Taxpayers - The left, the people responsible for the subprime crisis, proposed a deal that would have used the return on rehabilitated investments not for the benefit of taxpayers but to fund progressive advocacy organizations that are fundamentally corrupt.

15. Krauthammer On The Subprime Crisis: Time For A Return To Public Executions - America is livid over this fiscal crisis and wants a pound of flesh to satiate its cravings before beginning the job of putting our financial house back in order. Krauthammer things we should give it to them and suggests a return to the auto de fe, this time as a reality show.

16. The Subprime Crisis, Dems, Obama & McCain - a great video giving the history of the subprime crisis.

17. Subprime Crisis: Spin versus C-Span - a video of 2004 hearings in which the House Democrats heaped scorn on the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a disaster waiting to happen and fighting tooth and nail to preven any further regulation of Fannie and Freddie.

18. Thomas Sowell On The Subprime Crisis & Proposed Bailout - Economist Thomas Sowell weighs in on the need for the proposed bailout to stabilize the market and the politics at the root of this fiscal crisis.

19. Resolution of the Initial Subprime Crisis - Time For Investigation - A first look at the draft legislation and an outline of what else needs to happen to resolve this crisis.

20. The Treasury Dept. - Anerica's Newest Subprime Lender - The legislation to solve the subprime crisis is only aimed at part in shoring up financial markets. A large part of the bill requires that the Treasury Dept. act as the subprime lender of last resort.

21. The Subprime Crisis, ACORN & Obama, The Community Organizer - Obama's time as a community organizer was very much involved with ACORN's efforts to force subprime lending upon the financial institutions in Chicago.

Read More...

Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain-Biden Ad Attacking Obama On Iraq Funding Vote

In last night's debate, McCain raised the issue that Obama's vote against funding for out soldiers in Iraq was putting poitics ahead of the lives of our soldiers. This ad highlights that again. The fact that Biden is the one making the impassioned charge against Obama make this ad all that much more effective.



(H/T Stop The ACLU)

Read More...

Friday, September 26, 2008

Thoughts On The First Debate


The first debate is in the record books.

McCain appeared confident. Any questions about his age or his mental agility have been answered. He was aggressive without being overbearing, and he won the debate on foreign policy hands down. The difference in experience and knowledge on foreign policy issues was readily apparent.

That said, it is economic issues at the top of the list today, and Obama did better on the economic issues than McCain. McCain did poorly in response to several of the questions on the economic issues, and I am left wondering whether he was saving the attack on “regulation” and the cause of our current fiscal crisis until after a deal is reached in Congress on the bailout. At any rate, given the importance of economic issues today, it is no surprise that, according to a CBS poll, undecideds gave the night to Obama.

_______________________________________________________

Obama did well on some of the questions, and he won the economic portion of the debate on at least an emotional level. In a Fox News survey of undecided voters, the majority thought Obama won the night because he seemed to understand and connect more with "Main St." I suspect that perception was likely set in the opening statements, before the first question was even asked. Obama's statement was a consise itemization of his priorities to address the fiscal crisis. McCain's statement, was not focused on the economy. First impressions and emotions matter to a large swath of people - and at seems a lot of them are among the undecideds.

In substance, Obama was on the defensive much of the night. He attempted to interrupt McCain on several occasions and seemed on the edge of anger at least once. McCain got under his skin. And while I did not think that Obama repeatedly stating his agreement with McCain’s positions sounded bad during the debate itself, cut and spliced onto a Youtube video even before the end of the debate, it sounds pretty cutting.



The debate format was very good. Jim Lehrer did an excellent job as moderator.

My thoughts on some the specific questions and responses:

McCain did a very poor job of explaining why his economic policies would be better for “main street” than those of Obama.

Obama kept trying to tie McCain to Bush’s economic policies, but McCain fairly well neutralized that. And indeed, later in the debate, McCain tied Obama to Bush.

McCain allowed Obama to pin the current fiscal crisis on “eight years of bad economic policies” without any substantive rebuttal. This is an issue McCain could rebut and explain clearly in ten sentences or less – and it would be a devastating indictment of the socialist policies of the left as well as Sen. Obama’s inaction. That was the low point of the evening, and it occurred within the first minutes of the debate. If McCain repeats that in the next debate, I think he can kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye. People are too upset about the economy, and if he lets them wrongly blame he or Republicans generally, he will lose a close election. Thankfully, McCain will get another bite at that apple in the next debate. I hope that his reticence in making a rebuttal this time around was in respect to the negotiations going on in Congress over the subprime rescue operation.

McCain’s comments on reigning in spending and earmarks were good. They will play to the base. But he has the base with him now. A lot of Middle America will be somewhat swayed by this, but again, McCain needs to do a better job of explaining why it is far more to their advantage than Obama’s plan to increase spending by $800 billion. That is a massive chunk out of our economy that Obama plans to take from the private sector and turn it into public sector spending. That will do nothing to create wealth or grow the size of the pie for all Americans. It will merely result in greater shared misery.

The real high points for McCain on the economics issue came when he talked about a spending freeze and specific measures to cut wasteful spending, such as an end to ethanol subsidies. Obama would not name a single program that he would cut or freeze.

On foreign policy, McCain looked far more knowledgeable and confident than Obama. Obama committed no major gaffes, but the gravitas and experience gaps here were very visibly a canyon. McCain was speaking from experience, Obama was speaking from cue cards.

McCain was the aggressor and sounded much wiser on the answers to questions about Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. He let Obama get away with the tired and false meme that our standing in the world has deteriorated over the past eight years because of Bush policies. McCain should have mentioned that, today, there are more pro-American leaders of foreign nations than there were eight years ago. The only people who do not like us today were the same people in Europe who did not like us 8 years ago or 18 years ago.

There were a few minor gaffes by Obama, only one of which McCain pounced on. Obama claimed his policy to meet without preconditions with the heads of enemy states was supported by Kissinger. McCain told him that was wrong and, subsequent to the debate, Kissinger called the media supporting McCain. The other was Obama’s bizzare assertion on Georgia that McCain was not given an opportunity to respond to:

. . . back in April, I warned the administration that you had Russian peacekeepers in Georgian territory. That made no sense whatsoever.

And what we needed to do was replace them with international peacekeepers and a special envoy to resolve the crisis before it boiled over.

Does Obama know that Russian peacekeepers were there – and had been there for years - per agreement between Russia and Georgia? He's acting like he just found out some secret information. And what makes Obama believe that “international peacekeepers” would have stopped the Russian invasion?

McCain’s response to the 9-11 question was, I thought, very good. I must admit I had forgotten that he was one of the legislators who had taken on the administration to get the 9-11 Commission set up.

My favorite line of the night – McCain comparing the stubbornness of Obama in refusing to acknowledge the success of the surge to the stubbornness of the Bush administration in refusing to acknowledge the need for it. Let's not have another four years of McBama.

Most memorable lines of the night both came from McCain –

“Reform, prosperity, and peace, these are major challenges to the United States of America. I don't think I need any on-the-job training. I'm ready to go at it right now”

and

“I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.”

Most other blogs had a similar take:

Confederate Yankee

Hot Air

Jules Crittenden

Michelle Malkin

Tiger Hawk

Voldka Pundit

Jennifer Rubin at PJM

CNN had their debate report card.

Much more at Memorandum.

You can find the full transcript of the debate here.

Read More...