Saturday, May 24, 2008

GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’ By DAVID PAUL KUHN - Politico.com







It sounds crazy at first. Amid dire reports about the toxic political environment for Republican candidates and the challenges facing John McCain, many top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004.




At first blush, McCain’s recent rough patch and the considerable financial disadvantage confronting him make such predictions seem absurd. Indeed, as Republicans experience their worst days since Watergate, those same GOP strategists are reticent to publicly tout the prospect of a sizable McCain victory for fear of looking foolish. But the contours of the electoral map, combined with McCain’s unique strengths and the nature of Obama’s possible vulnerabilities, have led to a cautious and muted optimism that McCain could actually surpass Bush’s 35-electoral-vote victory in 2004.




Though they expect he would finish far closer to Obama in the popular vote, the thinking is that he could win by as many 50 electoral votes.



By post-war election standards, that margin is unusually small. Yet it’s considerably larger than either Bush’s 2004 victory or his five-electoral-vote win in 2000.



“A win by 40 or 50 electoral votes would be an astonishing
upset, just a watershed event with all the issues that were stacked against him
from the very beginning,” said David Woodard, a Republican pollster and Clemson
University political science professor. “But it could happen. I know this seems
like wishful thinking by Republicans. I’m thinking that Republicans could win by
40 electoral votes. But I dare not say it,” he added. “Certainly what is
possible could come to pass.”



A top strategist with the Republican National Committee, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, explained that by his own examination, “we’re actually sitting pretty well in most states.”



“There are a lot of scenarios that look good for McCain, and I almost would go so far to say that there are a lot more scenarios [than for Obama],” the strategist added. “I don’t think anybody over here wants to let themselves get too excited about it. It is an eternity between now and November. But McCain looks a lot stronger than our prospects as a party.”



It is virtually impossible to find an established GOP strategist who believes McCain will win in a landslide. But in light of the circumstances, more than a few Republicans are pleasantly surprised to find that McCain is at all situated to defeat Obama. “The broader environment clearly favors the Democrat,” said Whit Ayers, another veteran GOP pollster. But Ayers argued that “a state-by-state analysis actually makes McCain a narrow favorite to win the Electoral College majority.”



“That would certainly run against the grain of history, if he pulled that off,” Ayers added. “But it’s also clearly plausible and a manageable outcome partly because of John McCain’s strength among independents and partly because of Obama’s weakness in culture, ideology and association.”



Some Republican strategists can envision a scenario in which Obama wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College — he might galvanize Southern black turnout, for example, but still fail to switch a state in the region. Among the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party’s prospects in November would be nil.



“No disrespect to the other candidates,” said GOP pollster Glen Bolger, “but if anyone else had been nominated we’d be toast.”



A VIDEO PORTRAIT OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

Special Thanks to Mrs TR for sending this to us:



A Gaffe, an Absurdity, and a Policy - By Charles Krauthammer



WASHINGTON -- When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has gone surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.



Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."



After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.



Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e. preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.
Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?



There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.



Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.



Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.


Continued...


1
2

Full Article & Comments


Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Vaccinations and Drugs are being forced on Public, Part 4 - By Felicia Benamon


Well, here I close with this article series. This is the last of the articles on vaccines and drugs and how we are being manipulated by those at the helm who are in it for the profit. Your health, be damned!! Just think about it, why are so many drugs being introduced every year on TV?!

And why are our kids being vaccinated so young with twice as many vaccines to take BEFORE age 1? We are killing off our next generation.

I don't know if anyone heard of the story I will talk about, in the news... what happened in Maryland. There was also an executive order in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry tried to order girls there to be vaccinated with Gardasil, but the order was overturned.

It's not the United States, where freedom reigns anymore when this sort of thing happens. Read on to find out what I'm talking about. --Felicia

May 24, 2008

Indeed the public is being forced to take vaccines and drugs. My last article gave testimonies from various physicians who bring to light that there is coercion on the part of the government for parents to vaccinate their children.

Perhaps the most shocking incident that comes to mind of government stepping over its bounds with the vaccination issue is the case in Maryland last year. In Prince George's County, MD, more than 1,000 parents were threatened by the State of Maryland with jail time if they did not allow their children to be vaccinated. With armed guards and dogs looking on, the state of Maryland forced the children to be vaccinated at the Prince George's County courthouse!

Just as a Texas Appeals court ruled days ago that it was wrong for Texas Child Protective Services to remove 400 kids from their home on a polygamist ranch, it is just as wrong and unconstitutional to force children to be vaccinated and for the government to threaten their parents. Yet that story received scant attention and coverage in the media. The Chicken Pox vaccine (with dangerous side effects like seizures and pneumonia) was one of the vaccines the children were given. To get the chicken pox virus is just rather annoying, but not life threatening, and it doesn't warrant the state stepping all over parents' rights.

Kathryn Serkes of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons emphasized, "This power play obliterates informed consent and parental rights." AAPS slammed the forced vaccinations in Maryland and is an upstanding group in that it shuns pharmaceutical companies' corporate funding (please read more on this story below this article).AAPS warned that money was the motive of such drastic action in Maryland. The association has made the effort to contact parents to let them know they have options. Indeed, physicians are not all in agreement that vaccines are necessary. Some see the outrageous methods being used to force parents to comply with vaccinations on their child.

I am thankful for such physicians and medical personnel who understand that it is the parents' right to care for their children first, and not the state or federal government.Government is no one's nanny. When we give the government too much control, as in the examples above, we then see the ramifications of our actions.

To counter the rising number of parents who are opting out of vaccinating their children, the media is doing its job to get the word out about the so called danger of not vaccinating against disease. They continue to report that more and more parents are claiming exemptions to get their child out of being vaccinated and then include in their report, someone in the medical field who says it's a bad idea. I saw such a report today on local news. This makes the second time (one local, one national) I've seen the media raise an unnecessary alarm over the need to vaccinate.

As Americans, we need to see that the media has become the government's mouthpiece.

In regards to parents claiming exemptions...HELLO! It's their choice! That is one thing that Americans should celebrate, is the freedom of choice in this country...the choice to take control of one's health and the health of their loved ones. Parents know what's best for their children.

The way to safeguard the future of this nation is to first start with our children...to make sure that our children's health is vigorously defended. Too many have suffered from needless reactions from vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs. It's good to hear that more and more parents are opting out. But as long as some parents fail to see that there is a financial motive towards the vaccines/drugs that are coming out on the market left and right, we will watch our freedoms slip further.

Drugs and vaccines are not a guaranteed barrier between you and a disease. But I believe we do need to put up a barrier between our health and those who choose to wreck it by mass marketing of drugs and vaccines.

Seek natural remedies for you and your child. Be mindful of one's food intake and diet as well.




If convicted to do something counter to what is being said in the media or what the government wishes, follow your heart.

In closing, I hope my series of articles on vaccinations has caused you to make better decisions when it comes to vaccinating your children and taking pharmaceutical drugs. With such a delicate issue: whether or not to vaccinate, it is wise to search all of the options and information available. One can opt out of vaccinating their child.

Strive to keep America free...and it starts with keeping one's health in check by watching what goes into our body.

Related Reading:

Children herded like cattle into Maryland courthouse for forced vaccinations

Doctors Oppose Maryland Vaccine Roundup

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (US Government database)

You have a choice ...exemptions to opt out of getting vaccinated

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Side Effects

Vaccines and Drugs are being forced on the Public, Part I

Vaccines and Drugs are being forced on the Public, Part II

Vaccines and Drugs are being forced on the Public, Part III


Felicia Benamon is a conservative columnist who writes from a political perspective, but occasionally deviates to write about other concerns facing her country. A patriotic American, Felicia hopes to motivate others to be more conscious of the current state of affairs in America, and to hold true to the wonderful traditions that make America great.Felicia comes from a military background and is proud to support the men and women who put their lives on the line daily to protect American citizens and who reach out to help those in need across the globe
.

© Copyright 2008 by Felicia Benamon

"We All Remember Bobby Kennedy"? Hillary Clinton on why she won't quit Presidential Race...

EARTH TO HILLARY: NO PRIZE FOR SECOND PLACE - By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on FOXNews.com on May 23, 2008.

Printer-Friendly Version

There is a growing effort by the Clintons — led by Bill — to convey a sense of entitlement for Hillary's newly minted vice presidential ambitions. The theory seems to say that she has earned the designation by her strong showing in primaries throughout the nation, particularly by her recent victories in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana.

Her supporters are demanding a place on the ticket as their right after a bruising primary season.

But ever since Aaron Burr rose from a vice presidential candidacy to contest Thomas Jefferson for the presidency in the House of Representatives, the person who came in second in the balloting for president lost his entitlement to anything. There are no more rewards for second place. No silver medals in the presidential race.

A less arrogant argument from the Clintonistas is that Hillary's presence on the ticket is vital to its chances for success in November. Noting that a Democrat must carry the very states she has won, the theory is that a VP slot for Hillary would make Obama so much more attractive to these voters that his election would be inevitable. (Disregard that Obama carried some states that would look nice in the Democratic column as well like Illinois, North Carolina, Washington State, Missouri, Connecticut and Wisconsin.)

But Hillary won these later primaries largely because the poison spewed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright led racially fearful voters to turn on Obama and find peril in his associations. Will Hillary running for vice president make Obama any whiter? Or Wright less offensive?

Let's not mistake racial fear of Obama for personal popularity for Hillary. Most of the blue-collar working class whites who backed Hillary Clinton, particularly the men, can't stand her. Faced with a choice between race and gender, they decided to hold to their fear of the former and overlook their unease at the latter. One wonders if all these police officers and firefighters and construction workers would actually vote for Hillary against McCain were she the nominee. Wouldn't these Reagan Democrats continue their lifelong exodus from the Democratic Party and back the Republican instead?

In any case, it is a far fetched hope that Hillary's presence on the ticket would so ease their fears that they would back Obama in November.

Hillary Clinton will not help Obama win a single vote. The feminists who supported her will all vote Democratic with the fear of McCain's likely judicial appointments uppermost in their minds. They are party regulars whose support for Obama would be automatic and axiomatic. Those more recent converts to Hillary, driven by fear of a black candidate with a nutty preacher, are not going to be assuaged by Hillary's presence on the ticket. Bringing them into the Democratic Party fold is Obama's problems and must be his highest priority. He cannot subcontract the job to Hillary.

And Hillary comes with unique baggage all her own. Her very presence on the ticket makes all of the unanswered questions about Bill Clinton to the fore. They suddenly become relevant and answers become imperative.

1. What did Bill Clinton do for the $15 million he was paid by the Emir of Dubai?

2. What did he do for the Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, who he brought with him to Kazakhstan and introduced to its president after Giustra gave his foundation, which he controls, $100 million?

3. What did he do for InfoUSA, the direct mail list company that sold lists of vulnerable elderly people to criminally convicted telemarketers so they could scam them?

4. Did Bill Clinton know that Hillary's brothers were being paid to secure some of the pardons he granted on their recommendations?

Obama doesn't need this kind of trouble. Bringing Hillary on the ticket brings Bill with her, these days a loose cannon at best, a self-destructive narcissist at worst.

Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
____________________________