My Interview With Laura Ingraham
At the 2008 Republican Convention in Minneapolis, I met and briefly interviewed radio talk show host Laura Ingraham.
For those who do not know, Laura Ingraham used to clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
This was a quick interview because she was between interviews with television news programs. Her pace was hectic, so I kept my pace brisk.
1) Who are your three political heroes?
LI: “My political heroes are Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Winston Churchill.”
2) What issues are most important as we head into the 2008 election?
LI: “The economy. It comes down to the economy.”
(So many people are so passionate about red meat social issues, but as in most elections, people looked at their wallets before voting. Ms. Ingraham does frequently dive into cultural issues, but she was right about 2008 from an issue perspective.)
3) How do you explain the hostile reaction toward Sarah Palin? Shouldn’t a governor and mother of five be seen as Superwoman?
LI: “It was disgusting how the media treated her, especially regarding the story about her daughter. If Bristol Palin had decided to get an abortion, she and Sarah Palin would be celebrated by the left. Because Sarah Palin is pro-life, the left hates her.”
4) How would you like to be remembered 100 years from now? What would you want people to say about Laura Ingraham the person?
LI: “I would like to be remembered as somebody who tried to do the right thing.”
Laura Ingraham is a serious person. She is very smart, and passionate about seeing conservatism get back to its roots. With plenty of discipline (fiscal and political) and a bit of luck, the next time I run into her will be as part of a celebration of the governing GOP majority.
eric
March 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Interesting interview. Call me cynical but I always thought Ingham (and Lopez’s) demands that McCain choose a pro-life running mate was more to do with trying to rein in McCain’s Maverick tendencies - that about abortion per se (after all she supported Mitt Romney).
By the way what does everyone think about Obama’s speech yesterday? I hope that I am wrong, but despite Bill Kristol’s and Robert Kagan’s optimism - I still believe that President Obama wants a withdrawal from Afghanistan as soon as possible. Despite his fine words, I just can’t trust someone who tolerated Jeremiah Wright’s rant about September 11. Indeed, if Obama (and Clinton) really wanted victory they would not have voted against funding for Afghanistan in 2007. However, Obama knows that to pull out, so soon after he used Afghanistan to give him cover vis-a-vis Iraq would be politically suicidal. Therefore, ever since he assumed office, Obama has been “talking down” the war, emphasising the problems, in an attempt to move public opinion in favour of a withdrawal. He has also been preparing to open up back channel communications with Iran, with a view to them helping out.
Obama’s negativity, combined with a partial Taliban resurgence, has “succeeded” in shifting the debate. According to Gallup, on the day of Obama’s inauguration around a third of American adults believed that the Afghanistan war was a mistake and two-thirds supported it. Now the proportions are much closer. However, Obama’s political strategy has also polarised the debate. Whereas previously, it would have been easier to switch to more modest goals as a first step to withdrawal, in the new environment such a policy would be tantamount to withdrawal. It has also strengthened the resolve of both Iran and the Taliban, making any negotiations more difficult.
This has forced Obama to, at least nominally, escalate the war. However, any “surge” must be treated with caution until he delivers since Obama has a track record of saying one thing, and then doing something else when the spotlight is off him. The idea of “reconciliation” could easily become cover for letting the Taliban in by the back door. Similarly, Obama explicitly reiterated the administration’s wish that Iran become involved – another road to disaster. To misquote Sinclair Lewis, if surrender is ultimately announced it will wrapped with eloquent words and flanked by General Petraeus and Hillary Clinton on either side for political cover.
The latter point is not a criticism of Petraeus, since he has to obey the chain of command, but Obama is use subordinates to defend any future withdrawal (as Bush did during the surge debate), rather than do so himself. Another tack that Obama might take is to put pressure on Karzai to make concessions to the Taliban, which would mean that Obama could spin any agreement as the “decision of the sovereign Afghan government”. Karzai and the Taliban are currently in semi-serious talks, though they are expected to produce little.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I meant to say Ingraham not Ingham!
March 28th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Tipster.
I think you’re right about Obama wanting to bail on Afghanistan.
Its all about 2012.
He’ll give it a whirl to leave the impression he really tried and then tell the whole world he gave its best but we should of learned from the Russians and never of gone in.
That’ll pull back his far left base right before the next election.
Hes using the same tactic in his approach to corporate and bank bailouts.
Its nothing but a set up, a trap designed so the government can take over corporations/banks
The help is there and being offered if these banks and companies want it but the strings and regulations that comes with those funds are so ridiculous many of then wont take the assitance.
This way if they do fail he can say he tried and now the only solution left is to have the fed take over.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I really like Laura Ingraham. She does this killer Nancy Pelosi and Meghan McCain imitations
Before Al Gore Invented Global Warming or Global Warming Baloney.
http://sarah-palin-2012.blogspot.com/2009/03/before-al-gore-invented-global-warming.html
March 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I agree that Ingraham is smart, but I think her stated belief in modern conservatism is dubious at best. I suspect she is more of a Nixonian Republican. I’ve suspected that for a long time, since she first started popping up on talk radio in NYC.
I think she’s playing to the audience on Palin and knows that Palin’s alleged abuse by the media was really just self-inflicted. Palin misstepped all along the way. She was a lousy pick. My good blogger friend, the Lazy Iguana, had long suspected that neither party really wanted to win the ‘08 election. Along those lines, I wonder if McCain was advised to pick Palin so that he would lose. After all, whoever inherited the distaster left by the Bush years was in for a tough time in the White House. Already the GOP is blaming Obama and the Democrats for everything that’s happened in the past year or so. Expect that to be ramped up in ‘10 and ‘12. Whether Americans are stupid enouigh to fall for it again is yet to be seen.
I think you guys couldn’t be more obvisouly wrong about Obama on Afghanistan. He’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do all along. He’s going to try to see if he can pull a “surge” there. If it doesn’t work, he may have no choice but to pull out. Afghanistan, afterall, is a destroyer of empire - dating all the way back Alexander! Sometimes there is something to be said for history.
The problem with Afghanistan is that it is simply not ready for modern democratic republicanism. They are tribal, accustomed to endless war, very backwards, extremely religious, very poor, and corruption is the order of the day ion the government on every level. Karzai is a wonderful personality, but an impotent leader. Obama and Karzai are going to try to get more moderate Taliban leaders to abandon their party and mainstream their way into the government. If that fails, all bets may be off. No foreign military has ever been successful at imposing it’s will over there. Period.
It’s funny to read hipster’s take on the “partial Taliban insurgance.” Partial? Yeah, right. Very funny. It’s a full blown outbreak and it’s thanks to the half-buttocked job Bush did over there. We should have wiped them out when we had the chance. Now they’re all over the place, well funded, and will kill more people with heroine than the terrorists ever could in their best century. Yet another abject Bush failure.
JMJ
March 28th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Senator James Webb (D) Virginia thinks we are putting the wrong people in Prison.
He mentioned M13 Mexican Drug Gangs maybe Obama should have thought about a place for Jim Webb in his administration, he seems to be one of the few making any sense of the Mexican Drug Violence Problem.
Senator James Webb (D) of Virginia is bringing up American Prison
Reform he wants an over haul he wants to kick nonviolent offenders out
and put the violent offenders behind bars. He believes the current
system isn’t serving anyone especially the American Taxpayer who is
footing the bill to something like 68 Billion Dollars a Year.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-fav-senator-james-webb-proposes.html
March 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
There was a lot of pressure on Obama to pick Webb for veep, but I remember reading that Webb and Obama had a few differences and that Webb might run for president on down the road, maybe in ‘16. Webb is absolutely right about our drug war/prison problem and he may have the power one day to do something about it. There are major changes coming down the pike, but it looks like most of those changes will be at the state level, with the federal gov’t stepping aside. Obama, unfortunately, may not be able to push very hard for decriminalization because he can’t look soft on crime and drugs. A president Webb could get away with something like that, but Obama can’t. It’s not Obama’s fault. It’s just a politcal reality. Meanwhile, Obama has promised that the federal gov’t will not impose federal drug laws in states that decriminalize or legalize marijuana. David Paterson has for years been fighting against the Rockafeller Drug Laws and now NY is on the verge of repealing much of them. Massachusetts has reduced possion of up to an ouce of pot down to a civil infraction - the equivilant of getting a traffic ticket. Not that Obama has promised to call off the dogd, California seems to be ready to push beyond medical marijuana with a lot of that riding on the outcome of the next gubenatorial election. There are now 13 states that have medical marijuana laws or decriminalization statutes. There may be an ironic paradigm at work here now - the destruction of the economy brought about by the conservatives may well bring an end to the draconian drug laws they foisted upon us. Prisons, cops, guards, DAs, Judges, parole and probation officers, helicopters, etc all cost a lot of taxpayor money. With that money drying up, perhaps for many years to come, gov’ts may have no choice but to repeal these ridiculous police-state drugs laws.
It’s about time.
JMJ
March 28th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“think she’s playing to the audience on Palin and knows that Palin’s alleged abuse by the media was really just self-inflicted. ”
“Alleged”?
Self inflicted”?
I guarantee theres no way you can back that up amd look intelligent at the same time.
” Expect that to be ramped up in ‘10 and ‘12. Whether Americans are stupid enouigh to fall for it again is yet to be seen.”
No more stupid than I am to fall for the lies you tell about Bush.
Most of your allegations and lies cast against Bush are indefensible as theres no proof and its all just a bunch of moonbattery on a windshield.
In Obamas case, Obamas name is all over every single one his screw ups because hes so arrogant and concieded he takes credit for it all, theres no way he’ll be able to deflect the truth that wil cost him the next election.
My 14 year old so can see where Obamas going wrong so I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the American people in that come 2012 their gonna tell Obama to take his blackberry and hit the road
“Yet another abject Bush failure”
yet you live to tell about it.
The problem is that you’re just not a multi dimensional thinker and can only see things in a perspective of “win this war be cause it started first”
Iraq actually holds more value in being dealt with first that Afghanistan ever did.
The strategy was pure genius to go to Iraq right after we started in Afghanistan.
Genius.
Obama will bail on Afghanistan after a couple years and claim victory because he did the right thing, and ” the right thing is always victorious”.
I can hear it now.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Micky, Palin made a fool of herself in two national TV interviews. Those were not ambushes - they were standard boilerplate interviews. She was completely unprepared, and even her handlers later admitted that she was obstinant, arrogant, a little stupid, and seemed to be almost intentionally ignorant. Look, I don’t hate Sarah Palin. In some ways I even like her. Her successful fight against some very entreched and crooked Alaskan pols was quite a feat, even if it did seem a little self-serving. But the lowbrow infatuation with her looks that she only played up, her pandering to the idiotic religious right, her obvious lack of substance - that’s what took her down. Not the media. You’re just in denial like the rest of her admirers.
“The problem is that you’re just not a multi dimensional thinker…”
ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah, right. I’m the myopic one! LOL!
JMJ
March 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“Micky, Palin made a fool of herself in two national TV interviews. Those were not ambushes - they were standard boilerplate interviews.”
Would you like the list of how many times Obama and Biden made fools of themselves on simple issues ?
Its a massive difference. The other massive difference is the passes that Obama got from the MSM when he screwed up and the worldwide coverage everytime one of Palins hairs were out of place.
For starters lets ask why she was continuously compared to Obama , and not Biden.
You know why ?
Because that would be like comparing Charles Krauthammer to Andy Rooney.
To keep things seemingly evenly matched we had to put her up against the next best thing in her weight category, that was Obama and she even kicked his rump in all depts.
Even in my debates with moonbats they always eluded to comparing Palin to Obama becuse they knew your VP pick was just a hopeless clueless bumblin fool that couldnt be trusted to do anything without screwing it up.
Not to mention before he was picked he said himself that Obama was “clean and articulate” and “not ready to govern” and that he’d be proud to stand next to McCain as his running mate.
hah !! And then num nuts went and picked hima anyways !!
And then guess what ? That kind of cabinet selection was not just a fluke either !! After he was elected he went on to pick even more loosers that had more tax and legal problems than all of anyone in any previous administration.
Trust me, the embarassment is on your side buddy.
I’ve lost count of all of Obamas flubs, gaffes and flips already, its a blur.
In the last 8 years the womans record next to Obama makes him look like a kindergarten principle.
Lauras right 100% no two ways about it.
The moonbat media was incredible unfair to her, the worst assult on any individual in the American spotlight I’ve ever seen.
You guys just hated her because she represented everything the left dictates a woman should be but… “burn her at the stake ! Shes a republican !!”
As long as you’re still backing this clown we have for a president please dont talk to me about denial
“ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah, right. I’m the myopic one! LOL!”
Yup, you got nothin to back that up either except more proof that I’m right.
Its true, the main contributor to your limited abilities is that you see everything through “conservatism is fu**ed glasses no matter how much sense it makes or how successful its been.
When anyone says for two years straight that Bush was a complete, utter, abject failure in everything hes done even after clear examples of his accomplishments was shown to you, and sticks to the same regurgitated mantra over “mission accomplished” and terrorists are like “unruly children” and 911 was Bushs fault (with nothing to prove it) theres no doubt that his mind is stuck in a mud hole and cant see past his hate.
I despise liberalism as much as you do conservatism yet can take off my hate for a second and give credit to those libs where its due.
If you were actually able to move the hate out of the way you’d be able to think on a level that would allow you to do this, but you cant, and it prevents you from entertaining other ideas.
Bush knew exactly what he was doing in turning the focus to Iraq, it was pure genius in that it secured an area in the middle east much qucker, established democracy in the middle east much quicker, protected vital resources that much qucler, made an ally that much quicker, gave us a platform to work from that much quicker and put the whole middle east on notice to the point guys like Kadafi disarmed voluntarily.
But no.
All you can do is reflect back on how we havent finished the war yet in Afghanistan and how its just another example of Bushs failures.
Same thing applies to your view on national issues. If you really cared about this country you’d be able be honest. that honesty would be reflected in showing some deeper thought on issues before you opened your yap.
Hell, the way things are going right, in the interest of the country and weighing out the mitigating factors, right now I’d give up my left one just to have Clinton back.
I’m serious too !
March 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“Would you like the list of how many times Obama and Biden made fools of themselves on simple issues?”
Sure. Let’s see it.
“The other massive difference is the passes that Obama got from the MSM when he screwed up…”
Okay. Like what passes on what screw-ups?
“Because that would be like comparing Charles Krauthammer to Andy Rooney.”
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Rooney is a brilliant writer, an American icon, heck, a part of our history. Krauthammer is a very important conservative thinker, in the old Bill Buckley vane, very smart. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Who’s Rooney and who’s Krauthammer in your little analogy there? I wouldn’t compare Palin to either of those guys. I wouldn’t even compare Palin to Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck is far more substantive, for whatever that’s worth.
And are you suggesting that Obama shouldn’t have campaigned against McCain? That McCain didn’t shovel it right back at him? That somehow both of these men should have been completely above presidential campaign politics? You’re really losing me on this stuff, Micky.
As for Bush, I’m sure he thought he knew what he was doing. He also thought Intelligent Design should be taught in science class - something both Andy Rooney and Charles Krauthammer found laughable.
I believe you when you say you’d like Clinton back when compared with Obama. Clinton was a Blue Dog conservative Democrat, afterall. He was practically a neocon, for all intents and purposes. His positions on trade, foreign affairs, labor, monetary policy, and many other things, was not that far removed from what you guys want. Obama is perhaps slightly to Clinton’s left, but not all that much. You guys are just comic-bookishly hyperbolic about him. He’s not a commie, and the nation is not going to become a European-style social-democracy state anytime soon, probably not even in our lifetimes. The deeply entrenched corporatocracy in America isn’t going to just pack-up and leave.
I was watching the old Manchurian Candidate (the one with SInatra) on TV today. I thought of you guys when the Senator Iselin character simply invents a number for political expediency and declares, “There are exactly 57 card-carrying members of the Communist Party in the Department of Defense at this time!” Ridiculous nonsense. You guys really believe your own rhetoric. Amazing. And you say I’m myopic! I know enough to take everything I hear with the proper grain of salt - no matter who’s saying it. But you’re so myopic, you imagine that I must think exactly as you do, idolizing partisan figures, accepting at face value whatever I want to hear. You love Bush. I don’t love Obama. I don’t hate Bush. You hate Obama.
I see these guys as complicated political figures within a dynamic constitutional government. You see them as bad guys and good guys battling it out in some comic-book universe. I’m not the myopic one, Micky.
JMJ
March 28th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Whats even funnier and drives my point is that if the election were held today, according to Rasmussen Obama would only hold aboout a 5% lead over Palin.
I’ll get you your list tomm.
I’ve had enough pre school for one day
But in closing I’ll make my point again, with conviction.
When you say these two things below its proof that you keep your mind at a sinplistic level to avoid pain I guess because I’ve actually shown you these items before.
But I guess you have some developed menal block where it doesnt get registered at all and the next day you’re asking the same thing or saying the same thing all over again.
Stay on track, never faulter from the mantra, its easier on the mind and the memory.
You stay on one level, its safe that way.
As Grace jones said.
“Everyone stand still and no one will get hurt”
—————————————-
Would you like the list of how many times Obama and Biden made fools of themselves on simple issues?”
Sure. Let’s see it.
“The other massive difference is the passes that Obama got from the MSM when he screwed up…”
Okay. Like what passes on what screw-ups?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I’m not buying that Rasmussen poll. Given electoral demographics, I doubt Palin would come within ten percentage points in the popular vote. I say that because those Rasmussen polls look at men and women without differentiation (they don’t prefer gender in their polls), but in the general electorate men only make up 36% of actual voters. Palin is less popular with women than men, and so I seriously doubt she’s as popular as you think. She very well may have cost McCain the election because of this. I would suggest you read more on the subject and then tell me what you think, because I think you’re way off on this one, with all respect.
I love the Grace Jones quote, by the way, but get a completely different message from it. Conservatism is, by definition, standing still. I have a distinct distaste for standing still. My positions change when I am informed so as to think differently. Your’s seem to always stay the same.
I get what your saying about my questions about the Obama/Biden screw-ups and passes, but I was looking for is what you think were screw-ups and passes. I already know what I think. If you want to know what I think about that, then ask me.
JMJ
March 29th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Jersey,
1. I meant to say resurgence not insurgency - there has obviously been an insurgency since Kabul was liberated in October 2001. However, my wider point still stands. Karzai’s government is corrupt and ineffective, and the Taliban are making a comeback. However, NATO still controls Kabul and the majority of Afghanistan and things are improving - albeit slowly. The status quo is clearly deeply unsatisfactory and a surge would help us to crush the Taliban. However, NATO is not “losing” and the situation is not comparable to Iraq in late 2006 - except that Obama’s negativity has badly sapped troop and civilian morale and reduced the willingness of NATO countries to help.
2. I’m extremely cynical and I think that McCain’s campaign was a farce. However, I doubt that anyone in the Republican Party wanted Obama to be elected - and even if they did I can’t believe that McCain “was told to lose”. What I do think is that many in McCain’s campaign team - especially those whose loyalty was to the party establishment rather than McCain - were more interested in reining in his maverick tendencies than winning (which is why McCain loyalists such as Lindsey Graham were reportedly pushing the Senator from Arizona to select Joe Lieberman, up to the day Palin was announced).
Similarly, McCain could still have saved his campaign (and saved taxpayers a lot of money) if he had opposed the bailout – as he clearly wanted to do. However, that would have meant annoying those Wall Street firms that stood to benefit from TARP. The path to a possible victory was clear - but it would have meant Charlie Black, Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace jeopardising (to misquote Russell Brand) their positions as King Rat at the National Review dinner. The irony is that Obama’s overregulation means that many of the banks will come out worse while Wallace & co were (unfairly) blamed for Palin’s gaffes.
3. I think the fall in Obama’s popularity is real, although the Zogby poll overstated it. I also think that Obama’s victory proved that anybody can get elected if they have luck on their side and their opponents a bad enough campaign - and unfortunately that includes Sarah Palin (though if it is an Obama vs Palin fight it would be good to see a credible third party candidate emerge, such as Lieberman, Giuliani, Graham or Bayh).
4. Although you’re correct in you belief that more women vote than men, the proportions are 47/53 not 36/64.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main/
March 29th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Dont have to take my word for it but yea, predictable as ever. I just knew you’d try and find some way to discount the poll since it refutes your position on Palons popularity.
“doubt Palin would come within ten percentage points in the popular vote. I say that because those Rasmussen polls look at men and women without differentiation (they don’t prefer gender in their polls), but in the general electorate men only make up 36% of actual voters.”
This is not really about whether anyone shows up at the polls in whatever groups, its just about how Americans feel and the field they took their answers from is balanced.
+Palin is less popular with women than men, and so I seriously doubt she’s as popular as you think. She very well may have cost McCain the election because of this.”
I know very well what cost McCain the election and it wasnt his VP pick as much as it was his lack of conviction and his inability to attract those more right of center.
If one VP pick determined the candidates future I’m wondering why choosing Biden didnt land Obama in the looney bin.
” I would suggest you read more on the subject and then tell me what you think, because I think you’re way off on this one, with all respect.”
I’ve read more than of course you think only because your predictability always dictates you to say that someone of a different view is less informed, or “stupid” as you like to say.
For Americans it was harder for them to digest a good looking woman with her level of accomplishment and ability to lead than it was a black man of even lesser ability to do the same thing.
America it seems is still more hung up on gender than it is race.
“I love the Grace Jones quote, by the way, but get a completely different message from it. Conservatism is, by definition, standing still. I have a distinct distaste for standing still. My positions change when I am informed so as to think differently. Your’s seem to always stay the same.”
Conservatism is to move forward holding the same values and principles as opposed to liberals who will discard their principles to fit any agenda they approach out of convenience.
You guys call it progressiveness, I call it hypocrisy.
I’ve shown you irrefutable evidence before that totally dismantles your argument and you still hold to the same position. You’re just saying that but cant show me one example of your position changing.
What the Grace Jones quote implies is that a lazy mind will not venture into anything that destroys complacent thought as its just too much work to as one change can mean you’d have to re arrainge many other positions in your views.
If you take no risk then the odds of getting hurt are decreased, but theres no chance of progress either.
“I get what your saying about my questions about the Obama/Biden screw-ups and passes, but I was looking for is what you think were screw-ups and passes. I already know what I think. If you want to know what I think about that, then ask me.”
You put Plain out there as some kind of fool whos screw ups or ineptness cost her the election/ I am saying that without the liberal media giving Obama a pass at the many more screw ups he had he wouldnt of won the election so I offered the list in order to compare and make evident that what the media did amounted to nothing more than a two year commercial for Obama.
I really dont want to know what you think are screw ups because I can predict already that most of them are spawned of contempt and not being able to look at the genius whether you agree with the action/intention or not.
I can still appreciate the way in which something was executed while not appreciating the goal.
Example for you would be that because you disagree with us being in the middle east everything tied to it, the decisions, strategy and dynamics were all stupid.
I disagree with Obamas policies, regardless he ran a brilliant campaign and is not an idiot. As much as I call him one its simply because I view liberalism in itself as a dumb choice but I dont see him as a complete bumbling fool and an abject failure in everything he does like you do Bush.
He’d be able to run a very good community out reach program or be a spokesperson for civil rights, liberalism or sociaslism at the levels that King or Malcom X took it to, but he had no business governing
March 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Hipster,
“…Kabul was liberated in October 2001.”
As much as it pains me to say, Kabul was NOT liberated. It was invaded and occupied. As much as it pains the entire world, the Taliban were a product of Afghanistan, not some foreign force imposed upon it. I’m glad we took them out, and maybe this is just pointless semantics, but we did NOT liberate Kabul.
“However, NATO still controls Kabul and the majority of Afghanistan and things are improving - albeit slowly.”
No. NATO ONLY controls Kabul and a few other areas. Most of Afghanistan is still pretty much lawless, under the “control” of local warlords and tribal chiefs. Things are NOT improving, in fact all reports show things are backsliding. That’s why Obama is proposing this new surge, that’s why he’s pleading with Europe to send more forces and support, that’s why Karzai has been unable to get a truly functional gov’t working over there.
“…Obama’s negativity has badly sapped troop and civilian morale and reduced the willingness of NATO countries to help.”
Yeah, right. Obama is extremely popular abroad - even more than here, and much more than Bush ever was. That whole “negativity” argument is, I’m sorry but, a lie.
“…I doubt that anyone in the Republican Party wanted Obama to be elected…”
Anyone? I doubt that! I’m many GOP operatives are quite happy the Dems are stuck with the mess the GOP left behind.
“…loyalists such as Lindsey Graham were reportedly pushing the Senator from Arizona to select Joe Lieberman, up to the day Palin was announced).”
LOL! You really think that would’ve helped? I guarantee all that would have done would have been to keep more opf the GOP base at home on election day. Lieberman may be popular with some neocons, but he’s NOT popular with the GOP base in Flyoverland.
“The irony is that Obama’s overregulation means that many of the banks will come out worse while Wallace & co were (unfairly) blamed for Palin’s gaffes.”
LOL! Okay, I’ll bite. What “overregulation”???
“Although you’re correct in you belief that more women vote than men, the proportions are 47/53 not 36/64.”
Excuse me. My fault. White Men are 36% of the electorate. Palins numbers among minorities are extremely low, for both men and women. Palin’s only good numbers came in from White Men.
Micky,
“I know very well what cost McCain the election and it wasnt his VP pick as much as it was his lack of conviction and his inability to attract those more right of center.”
There are just less voters who are right of center these days! Party and position affiliation has moved significantly to the left in recent years, largely due to the amazing failures of the Bush years.
“For Americans it was harder for them to digest a good looking woman with her level of accomplishment and ability to lead than it was a black man of even lesser ability to do the same thing.”
LOL!!! Palin? Accomplishment? Give me a break. She’s governor of a goofball state with a population about that of Columbus, OH. Prior to that she was a small town mayor who won election by pandering to the religious nutbags and then left the twon is desperate debt for a stupid sports complex in the middle of nowhere. Obama is a very substantial man. A majority of Americans agree with me on that one.
By the way, I’m still waiting for your examples of Obama’s “screw-ups” and “passes.”
JMJ
March 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Here ya go bub.
First there’s Obama saying that taking out Osama was our highest priority.
“And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think we have to act & will take them out. We will kill Bin Laden; we will crush Al Queda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”
(that’s about the same time he was saying he would sit down and negotiate with terrorists he would attack Pakistani positions without that government’s permission. )
Later he said something completely different.
“My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him,” he said. “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”
And now guess what ?
In his 3/24 speech on the Afghanistan strategy not only has he changed his position on that again, the speech said many of the exact same things that Bush said right before we invaded Afghanistan.
Is the media giving him a pass on this ?
Of course they are because since most of these journalists and reporters can spot a repeated statement a mile away as is that’s really a crucial part of their job.
When Obama sounds like some other great historic figure they light him up and adorn him with praise but when he renders a national security speech that reflects much the same positions Bush held previous to invading Afghanistan you dont hear about it unless its from.
As a matter of fact Obama has taken a ton of material from past presidents speech’s and changed the wording ever so slightly but making sure to keep it within the same context. This has been duly noted by most media outlets but it seems that anything that holds any position in common with Bush rarely gets heard.
Then there’s the campaign financing lie.
A little more than a year and a half ago Obama signed a piece of paper vowing a fund raising truce with McCain. ”I am committed to public financing.”
” He committed to public financing. It is not any more complicated than that,” McCain said. “I hope he will keep his commitment to the American people.”
Well, now we now know that was a lie simply because as soon as Obama won the primary the cash started flowing in from the Internet and he discovered that he would be able to raise more than twice, maybe three times as much money without public financing and its spending limits. He did the exact opposite and used the lame excuse “I changed my mind” How convenient. He’s now the first nominee of either party since Watergate to reject campaign-finance limits.
Did the media give him a pass ?
Hell yea ? Sure, he was asked about it on many occasions, but did anyone basically get in his face and ask him; ” Didn’t you lie to the American people?”
I mean hell, if I was doing an interview on nationally syndicated TV the first thing I would of asked is ” Senator Obama, last year you took a vow to accept public campaign financing and yet today you’ve reversed yourself on this position. Would it be wrong to assume that this basically is a lie that’s trying to be justified as simply a change of mind ?”
Do you think its prudent of you to risk being elected in the face of such a complete reversal to the point that it almost looks as if you planned this ?
Gay marriage ? He flipped on that too.
First he said he supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, he still believed that marriage should be legally preserved between one man and one woman.
After that he wrote a letter to a gay-rights organization, telling them that he opposed a California ballot measure that would overturn a recent court decree allowing gay marriage. Obama called the initiative “discriminatory and divisive.” .
Was Barack Obama “discriminatory and divisive” until last week?
Did the media give him a pass on that as well ?
Tell me when is the last time you heard about Obamas rotating position on gay marriage since Rick Warren was a speaker at his inauguration ? Did we hear about it when the people voted yes on the prop ?
Absolutely not ! What we heard about was the all the queen moonbats running around disrupting churches and having public hissy fits while tearing a cross out of an old ladys hands and then stomping on it. All attention by the media was given to the evil churches who had very little to do with the vote passing as it was actually the black and hispanic community ion Ca. that were the largest supporting block of proposition 8
Flip flopping on NAFTA.
This happened when he tried to move from populist just before getting the Democratic nomination. He tried kissing heartlanders butts by saying he would “unilaterally opt out of free-trade deals, specifically NAFTA, ”
In an interview with Fortune magazine he backed off his attack on the free trade agreement and said he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
That was after he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.
On Iran.
First he wanted to meet with Ahmadinejad (among others) without preconditions, then he only wanted them if they agreed to stop sponsoring terrorism and funding militias in Iraq, which sounded a lot like a “precondition” to me and anyone with half a brain.
The media reported this, it was pretty hard not to since he said to the whole country, but it actually gained most of its attention had McCain not brought it up as often as he did.
And then of course theres the whole Iraq withdrawal thing. What a fiasco of crap that was.
Obama had said on many occasions that he would “immediately” start pulling out of Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14359099 “September 12, 2007 · Obama; “would continue to have U.S. troops who are able to strike at terrorist targets inside Iraq, although the troops themselves and the strike forces might not have to be deployed inside Iraq.”
That makes alot of sense. I dont even want to begin to appraoch just how impractical and useless such a strategy would be.
“Obama’splan for Iraq included “ immediate ” withdrawal of one or two brigades every month and completing a full withdrawal by the end of 2008.”
Excuse me ? 2008 ? I always wondered how he would pull this off since he wouldn’t be in office til 2009. Did the media tell everyone about this ? Chances are you heard it from me or another righty before the media would let you know.
Then of course he was all over the place with his withdrawal time spans. he went from imediate, to 6 months, to 12 months, to 16 months and then after his first security briefing when actually got a clue it went to “responsibly”. Finally upon his last visit to Iraq where he met with Maliki and came out of the meeting all high and mighty announcing his 16 month plan but not being honest in letting everyone know that just the day before Bush and Maliki had already agreed on a time for withdrawal that was centered around 16 months calling it a “foreseeable horizon”, leaving no exact date to tip our enemies with. But of course Obama had to make it appears as if this was all his little brainstorm while at the same time putting a date on the timeline thereby letting any insurgency know exactly when it would safe for them to resume their operations.
Did the media explain this to you or anyone the way I am ? Of course not. Only FOX mentioned right after Obamas meeting with Maliki that Bush and Maliki had already reached an agreement the day before. All Obama was doing was riding Bushs coat tails as he has with every decision hes made related to the middle east so far.
What also was reported by the media but not with half the zeal we see when one of Palins hairs are out of place was how Obama totally flipped on his far left anti war base by keeping Gates, Patreaus and maintaining just about every Bush foreign policy that he told everyone during the campaign sucked.
The first two bombings in Pakistan as we all know cant really be credited to Obama as anyone would know these operations were based on intelligence gathered and carried over by the Bush administration, but of course the media will just let the false impression fly that it was all Obamas doing, nor did you hear Obama giving credit to the Bush administration for their major part in the whole thing. Or will you hear the media mention how Obama cant deny things have worked out well in Iraq and that Obama will not give Bush or the surge the credit it deserves but how its secure enough to begin pulling troops.
Ya know Mr. Obama, just say it !
The previous administration has reached a level of success that has allowed me to go ahead with my withdrawal plans
GITMO
Everyone made such a big deal about this when really it was just an empty display to keep the Cindy Sheehan (who just called him a warmonger for staying in Afghanistan) Michael Moore nut jobs happy. So what if hes closing Gitmo ? How much did the media focus on the fact that at the same time he was maintining rendition policies from the previous administration ? NOT MUCH ! But of course we got hear all about the ups and downs from both sides on closing Gitmo, didn’t we ? What we didn’t get to hear was how we can still ship em off to Riad or someplace and pull their fingernails out and it would be legal.
Warrantless wire taps ?
Theres another one of Bushs policies he bashed just for votes,but guess what ? He voted for it in the first place!
Late last year he opposed legal immunity for telecommunications companies that worked with the government in terrorist surveillance. He promised to fillibuster any bill that included it.
Now he says that he will support legislation that includes immunity for the telecoms Since his selestion of the three Gates, McConnell and Hayden have expressed a willingness to stay on, all three of these guys are seriously defending Bush policies-such as the wire tapping program and I hardly think they would stay if Obama is gonna take away from the what is basically their best weapons. Why should Patreaus, gates or anyone else stay if they’re going be rendered ineffective by having no way to gather intelligence ?
Then theres all these issues
Privacy for net use anyone ?,
Sticking to fed funds for campaign ?
Drilling ?
Nuclear ?
I can’t throw my pastor overboard became ” I’m a member of a church community”and then” I was never associated with the church, only with religious practices ”
His pastor/mentor is an avid fan of Louis Farrrakhan
Ayers did dispicable things when I was 8 but didnt know about it till the media brought it up ?
Just a guy in the hood became..
We did work together for a little while became..
We worked together for a couple years.
And then theres the ACORN/Annenberg/community organizer/citibank strong arming for sub prime loans debacle/connection.
I gave ACORN 800,000.00 bucks but dont work with them even though I represented counsel to them in the citibank issue.
My mom and dad were Marxist.
My relatives in Kenya are radical muslims.
My half brother in Kenya lives in a shoe box on less than 10.00 a month.
Why was Corsi arrested in Kenya ?
His association with Frank Marshall Davis. (mentor/communist)
His association with Rashid Khalidi - Palestinian supporter/professor at C U
His economic plans are mathematically impossible.
He has plainly repeated the words of Carl Marx in saying “Spread the wealth”
He has accused our forces of bombing innocent Afghanis.
He wants to bomb Pakistan and kiss Irans ass
Even Jesse Jackson has recently said that with Obama in office Israel is screwed.
Obama along with Barney Frank, Criss Dodd, Harry Reid, Pelosi, Scuhmer blocked McCains attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie all the while being the top recipients of donations from them.
Everyday in congress amounts to a million dollars in spending by virtue of his votes.
Voted against troop funding unless a timeline was attached.
Babies are “Punishment”
————————————————————–
Now.
You asked for a list that included Bidens screw ups also, but since his are pretty much evident and getting really tired of rubbing you nose in all this i think just the list of his screw ups before the election should be enough for now.
If you want more theres some excellent articles here than can back up some of the issues I mentioned.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Its-President-Obamas-crisis-now—-and-so-is-the-blame-41528712.html
http://antzinpantz.com/kns/?p=6742
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2256460769&topic=19781
http://www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com
March 29th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“There are just less voters who are right of center these days! Party and position affiliation has moved significantly to the left in recent years, largely due to the amazing failures of the Bush years.”
See, thats what I mean, you dont move on. I showed you rasmussen and other polls last week that showed the middle moving away from dems and wanting them out of congress for the first time in 3 1/2 years largely due to the miserable failures they’ve displayed in the last couple of months. It wasnt a huge number, but it finally crossed over, but you still keep broadcasting the same ole untrue news.
Must be nice in your comfy little world where that brain doesnt have to deal with any chagnes, yea ?
All about feelin good huh bub ? And not dealing with the truth.
“For Americans it was harder for them to digest a good looking woman with her level of accomplishment and ability to lead than it was a black man of even lesser ability to do the same thing.”
“LOL!!! Palin? Accomplishment? Give me a break. She’s governor of a goofball state with a population about that of Columbus, OH. Prior to that she was a small town mayor who won election by pandering to the religious nutbags and then left the twon is desperate debt for a stupid sports complex in the middle of nowhere. Obama is a very substantial man. A majority of Americans agree with me on that one.”
A substantial man ? Yes, I’m sure all the moonbats will agree with you on that. That substance is nothing more than a nice voice and a teleprompter.
I’m a substantial man but I dont have half the qualifications or resume` as Palin does and neither does Obama, this point was made over and over again during the campaign and Obamas best defense was being a community organizer.
Alaska contains a huge range of huge resposibilities that far surpass that of even Ohio itself. Alaska has the largest parks, Nat, guard and coast guard in the whole country
Obamas numbers have been going down with congress since the day he set foot in the office. FACT
Palins numbers have been going up.
Get used to it. But to tell you the truth, I dont want her to run in 2012 because she’ll still get the same treatment she got this time around, I think no matter how well shes qualified this country is ready to accept her because its just too hard for Americans to buy into an attractive plain smart common sense woman in office. Kinds homely and idealistic like Hillary sells better when trying to push a female politician. Its ignorance and predetermination that a good looking woman just cant be that smart.
Maybe when America gets over the generalization that all pretty women are scatterbrained dingbats that will change.