‘Daily Show’ host Trevor Noah wishes ‘pro-lifers’ would devote their zeal to gun control – twitchy.com

There was a sigh of relief across the entertainment industry afterSouth African comedian Trevor Noah managed to earn enthusiastic reviews forhis debut as host of “The Daily Show.” Today, though,we’ll just go ahead and sigh. It’s not that we thought Noah would manage to find humor across the political spectrum; we just didn’t think he’d resort to unfounded liberal clichs so quickly.

The Los Angeles Times notes today that Noah tackled the subject of gun control on Monday night’s show by wishing that pro-lifers would devote some of their zeal to preventing gun violence; i.e., passing gun control.“Imagine if we could bring some of that pro-life passion into being well, more pro-life.” ROTFL!

His comedic observation? Republican anti-abortion activists are like comic book collectors: “Human life only holds value until you take it out of the package, and then it’s worth nothing.”

Because until it’s delivered, the fetus is just a clump of cells. Didn’t you learn anything from Bill Nye’s dropping of hardcore abortion science?

If you can handle the hilarity, the clip “Not so pro-life after all” can be streamed at Comedy Central’s website.

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2015/10/06/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-wishes-pro-lifers-would-devote-their-zeal-to-gun-control/

‘Lib heads explode’ at CRNC ads; Lena Dunham’s lady parts get a pass [video]

http://twitter.com/#!/FreedomBruce/status/517691932542128129

The College Republican National Committee is out with a new digital ad campaign spoofing “Say Yes to the Dress”:

BREAKING: The CRNC's newest digital ad campaign across 16 states. #youthvote #redcampus http://t.co/GsRDBdg4xx

— College Republicans (@CRNC) October 1, 2014

Here’s the one they made for the Florida gubernatorial race:

But would you believe it? Lefties have their panties in a twist!

@AndrewHClark @CRNC Women are so stupid that we need to reframe politics as a fake wedding for them to get it. You're right. Amazing!

— Charlie Rybak (@charlierybak) October 2, 2014

Stupid? √ Sexist? √ Cheesy? √. Trifecta! College Republicans Say Yes To Rick Scott http://t.co/vWjG3h68DA

— Greg Pinelo (@gregpinelo) October 1, 2014

The #GOP's Sexist Reality TV Spoofs Aren't Going to Win Over #Female Voters Women want more than husbands, believe it http://t.co/IyzvSCKywO

— L G J (@wcgirl1) October 2, 2014

And the award for the most #sexist political ad of the year goes to @CRNC! Congrats on belittling #FL women http://t.co/zslBanIruH #FLgov

— Travis Swanson (@TeeSwanJr) October 1, 2014

. @AlexandraCSmith @CRNC it was A. Not funny and B. Really, really offensive. But kudos for making Asa Hutchinson look sexist. well done.

— julie, just (@vintagegoddess) October 1, 2014

Still amazed that the @CRNC could release such a sexist and demeaning ad. Not one person raised opposition to this during production? #arpx

— ezra smith (@ezra_smith) October 1, 2014

Congrats @CRNC! @TIME: "This is the most sexist Republican ad of the year." https://t.co/MkWRWuWnBA

— Rob Flaherty (@Rob_Flaherty) October 1, 2014

Sexist & stupid RT @SaintPetersblog @TIME @CRNC ad for Rick Scott is “most sexist Republican ad of the year” https://t.co/WnAQGC58HQ #FlaPol

— AJDorsey (@AJDorsey) October 1, 2014

The College Republicans Put Out the Most Offensively Sexist Ad Ever for Rick Snyder http://t.co/ig98oJlRYh via @politicususa #p2 #p2b #ctl

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) October 2, 2014

Bow before the genius of the @CRNC. "I KNOW: LET'S TARGET YOUNG WOMEN BY COMPARING CANDIDATES TO WEDDING DRESSES!" https://t.co/eCo8zohlm8

— Alexis Goldstein (@alexisgoldstein) October 2, 2014

.@CRNC you should probably just stick to paying call centers to make fundraising calls instead of making sexist ads. pic.twitter.com/bBukwm9Y4B

— Ben Sharpe (@iamsharpe) October 2, 2014

Srsly??? RT @RepublicanSwine: The College Republicans Put Out the Most Offensively Sexist Ad Ever for Rick Snyder http://t.co/fYDungqGjH

— Frank Maynard (@nf8m) October 2, 2014

.@CRNC "Say Yes To Rick Scott" ad targeting women voters is sexist, patronizing & just bizarre http://t.co/dNGyKuBAO8 #sayfie #FlaPol #flgov

— Justin Snyder (@JustinSnyderFL) October 1, 2014

.@cologop @CRNC @bobbeauprez Fun? or incredibly offensive/sexist/condescending and just shows how out of touch GOP are with women

— Sabrina Singh (@sabrinasingh24) October 1, 2014

@cassielee514 @CRNC Ha, GOP still classically clueless. Sexists gotta sexist, I guess.

— stardust (@ofthestardust) October 1, 2014

@AlexandraCSmith @CRNC Im sorry strong women don't look at picking a candidate to vote for like buying a dress.

— lyric thompson (@lyric_thompson) October 2, 2014

With the NC CRs' strong stance against voter reg and the nat'l committee's horribly sexist ads, this is really not a strong week for @CRNC.

— Evan Goldstein (@egoldstein93) October 2, 2014

The CRNC plans more sexist ads in Florida? What's the next one going to say, "Jobless, no health insurance, barefoot and pregnant?" #flgov

— Beach Peanuts (@BeachPeanuts) October 2, 2014

The College Republican National Committee may have made "the Most Sexist Republican Ad of the Year" for Tom Corbett http://t.co/89DWnitOGX

— Philly Mag (@phillymag) October 2, 2014

Say “no” to sexist pandering: College Republicans release hilariously bad ad for Rick Scott, insult women [VIDEO]: http://t.co/cjRrhmwJxL

— Orlando Weekly (@OrlandoWeekly) October 2, 2014

Are College Republicans As Creepy As Their Stupid 'Say Yes To The Dress' Ad? http://t.co/gejnyC7zxS

— Crooks and Liars (@crooksandliars) October 2, 2014

The GOP’s sad attempts to court women's votes remind me of a love-struck guy who just can’t take the hint. http://t.co/Zxx8aG5OTj

— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) October 2, 2014

"Voting is hard, right ladies?" That's @estherbreger skewering new GOP ads targeting young women http://t.co/Zabsh47aWn

— Jonathan Cohn (@CitizenCohn) October 2, 2014

The College Republicans' "Say Yes to the Candidate" ads are probably the most embarrassing, demeaning & sexist political ads I've ever seen.

— Kyle Griffis (@JKGriff) October 2, 2014

Dumbsh*t college repub's not be learning much. Amazingly terrible sexist add. And they're the future of the GOP? http://t.co/XbmGFtDbUj

— KennethMontana (@KennethFurrow) October 2, 2014

Yeah, those College Republicans ads are, like, so sexist and degrading to women. Not like those empowering ones from liberals:

So amusing to see lib heads explode over @CRNC wedding dress ad targeting women. Same libs gushed over @lenadunham Obama/boyfriend ads.

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 2, 2014

@alexisgoldstein @CRNC Is it much worse than encouraging the loss of voting virginity to Obama as per @lenadunham ? https://t.co/TqSKQcXqwk

— Ken Monahan (@Foudroyant) October 2, 2014

Really? Lena Dunham compared it to losing your virginity @lyric_thompson @AlexandraCSmith @CRNC

— Think Freely (@BruceNV) October 2, 2014

The hypocrisy in the media over the @CRNC ad & @LeahDunham ad is astounding. Not a fan of either ad, but one is panned, other is celebrated.

— Matt Frendewey (@mattfrendewey) October 2, 2014

If you're a journo criticizing @CRNC wedding dress ads now, but praised @lenadunham's ad in 2012, you just might be a hack.

— Saat Alety (@SaatAlety) October 2, 2014

The hypocrisy. It scorches.

Democrats are allowed to use pop culture references in ads. Republicans can’t. That’s the media rule guys, @CRNC should know this.

— Andrew Clark (@AndrewHClark) October 1, 2014

OMG! Young GOP women are reaching millenials w/current pop culture analogies & humor. Femmes & Dems OUTRAGED!!! @crnc

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 2, 2014

The GOP is finding a way to connect with young people without resorting to creepy sex analogies? Sounds like they’re doing it right.

Oh, and for those who are wondering:

.@CRNC So.. about that sexist ad you folks put together… I imagine a bunch of white dudes thought this one up.. #OutOfTouch

— Justin Snyder (@JustinSnyderFL) October 1, 2014

Question for the @CRNC: Are all the young people featured in this ad actually Republicans? Serious Q.

— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) October 1, 2014

Ahem:

And just so we're clear, these are the strong, talented women who wrote the @CRNC's "Say Yes" ads! pic.twitter.com/iQHusGJVp3

— Alex Smith (@AlexandraCSmith) October 1, 2014

Again, as I said yesterday, here are the sexists who wrote/produced the ad. @javallon @CRNC @charlierybak pic.twitter.com/ucoS9Lxzpn

— Andrew Clark (@AndrewHClark) October 2, 2014

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2014/10/02/say-yes-to-the-hypocrisy-lib-heads-explode-at-college-republicans-ads-lena-dunhams-lady-parts-get-a-pass-video/

NCLR President Will Attack Republicans: You Don’t Care About Latinos

A year after NCLR President Janet Murguia called Obama the “deporter-in-chief,” she will rip into Republicans at the NCLR Capital Awards Tuesday, in prepared remarks viewed by BuzzFeed News. “Our complaint is not partisan, it is personal.”

Janet Murguia will say the Republican Party needs to get it right with the Hispanic community before the 2016 election Tuesday at the NCLR Capital Awards. Alex Wong / Getty Images

Almost a year to the day National Council of La Raza (NCLR) President Janet Murguia called President Obama the “deporter-in-chief,” she will lay into Republicans for opposition to his executive actions and immigration legislation, saying they don’t care about Latinos and have made it “personal” with the community ahead of the 2016 election, according to prepared remarks provided to BuzzFeed News.

Murguia will make the speech at Tuesday’s NCLR’s annual Capital Awards in Washington, D.C., an event recognizing officials from both parties for their support of issues that affect the Hispanic community. In her remarks, she makes clear she is now training her ire and that of her organization at Republicans, lumping together those who support tying Department of Homeland Security funding with ending Obama’s immigration actions and the governors and attorney generals leading the 26-state legal fight against the president.

“This feels like it is about us — that when it comes to Latinos and their families, too many in the Republican Party simply don’t care,” she will say, according to the remarks. “They don’t care about the human toll their inaction has on our community. They don’t care how many of our children will lose a parent. They don’t care about the financial devastation they cause to our families and our communities.”

In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Murguia said Republicans should see her tough words through the prism of the coming 2016 election.

“We’re taking the opportunity to make it crystal clear to Speaker Boehner and the Republican Party that if they don’t change course, they will lose the Latino vote for a generation,” she said, arguing former California Gov. Pete Wilson’s perceived anti-Latino rhetoric in the early 1990s made the state a bastion for Democrats.

She also addressed a concern recently shared by DREAMer activists who met with advocates close to the White House. The activists see an opportunity to attack Republicans on the issue, but worry doing so could stoke fears in the undocumented immigrant community and prevent people from even considering applying, if the program is reinstated during or after the legal challenge.

“We need to do both,” she said of the balance between partisan attacks and informing the community about the status of the legal challenge to Obama’s actions.

Murguia incurred Obama’s wrath after calling him the “deporter-in-chief” last March — she wasn’t invited back to the White House again until late last year — but many advocates highlight the moment as a turning point in the fight for immigration actions.

This year Murguia won’t hit Obama — she’ll thank him.

“The reason I’m thanking the president is we have had our differences on timing but at the end of the day he acted, he had a lot of options, but he did act boldly,” she said.

The awards will also honor New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Frank Sharry of America’s Voice.

With her speech framed toward the 2016 election, Murguia not-so-subtly hinted at what she wants to hear and see from presidential candidates, like Hillary Clinton, whose shadow looms over the entire field.

“That they can articulate their positions on policy issues that we care about and their campaigns reflect our community in staff, including in their inner circles, and that they’re present in our communities with outreach and messaging,” she said.

“Nobody is going to get by on their past record, we need to understand what they are committed to doing in the future.”

Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/nclr-president-will-attack-republicans-you-dont-care-about-l

McCain Says It To Obama’s Face, And Wins Final Presidential Debate 3, October 15 2008

During the past two weeks, Obama made a wish, he said McCain should “say it to his face”.

The format of this third debate gave Obama his wish, and it was clearly a case where Obama will remember the adage, “Be careful what you wish for”, because he got exactly that. This format allowed more of the type of interaction between the candidates we favor. McCain was able to attack Obama face to face. And instead of Obama’s usual calm smile, he wore a nervous smirk through much of the debate.

McCain was able to unnerve Obama by attacking him on the issues. He hit Obama on the spending that he constantly promises without defining clearly how to pay for it. He confronted Obama about his associations with ACORN and Ayers, the terrorist in Obama’s past. And he clearly had Obama retreating on issues about his tax increases, CAFTA and energy independence. He even got Obama to say he was considering off shore drilling.

Obama was not the calm, “promise the world” candidate he had been prior to this debate. He could not attack the issues the same way, which had been to just promise more than his opponent. In this debate, on each promise he made, McCain called him on the issues. One clear example is the promise to only tax those that make more than $250,000 while promising health care for everyone even with pre-existing conditions. Something we know does not work from real life experience in Massachusetts.

McCain nailed Obama on a quote he made about “spreading the wealth around”. Obama tried to defend it, but came across as an errant Robin Hood. He once again threw out his intentionally misleading statistic that 98% (It was 98% this week, it was 95% last) of all businesses make less than $250,000. That statistic includes self-employed individuals, so it is a complete lie.

Most businesses that have more than two employees would be in the category that sees their taxes increase under Obama’s plan. And McCain was able to call Obama on this, using a plumber wishing to purchase a small business as an example of a man that would lose in Obama’s plan.  Obama tried to say that the business would not be taxed because he only would tax the “rich”. And McCain’s response was to congratulate the plumber on being “rich”. It was a subtle and superb comeback and it cut Obama to the quick. Obama’s qualification of “rich” includes many that no one would consider “rich”

Liberals will try to find the bright moments for Obama to attempt to declare him the winner, but in this debate, there weren’t many. His promises didn’t add up and McCain was nailing him on it. Obama did have one bright spot on health care, but it was once again using his usual tactic of promising the world to everyone.  McCain was quick to point out that tax increases on small businesses while forcing them to add health care benefits they cannot afford isn’t going to add up on a calculator.

Both candidates have cuts they promise, but Obama’s plans just have no compromise. They are all based on welfare programs and investing in our future. It is a great concept to invest in your future, but you “invest” when you have the money to invest. “Invest”ing money you do not have is gambling, on margin. The US here needs to stabilize its costs before it can “invest”. And there is not a fast solution in government that will reduce those costs that adds the types of expensive programs Obama endorses. It was plain in this debate, McCain was not going to roll over, and just let Obama go unanswered and unquestioned.

“That one”

This time “That One” had to stand up and answer some hard questions, and he was nowhere near as effective or believable in the process.

Obama and McCain were very close in the first debate. Obama clearly won the second. McCain clearly won the finale. It is our opinion, however, from what we have seen discussing the issues with people, the debates do not shape the election much. The candidates can confirm your opinion, but sway few. If Obama had won this debate, it may have swung more neutral voters his way, but he did not. So, we don’t believe he gains anything.

We believe McCain will gain 2 points or so in the polls, but it won’t be enough to swing the final vote Republican. This debate did, however, finally show the kink in the Obama armor. When hit point blank with the questions about how he will pay for his programs without hurting small business, he crumbled. That proves he is not the guardian of the middle class he claims to be. He is the defender of the public programs like welfare that have proven so very costly for America in the past.

We will be back to cover the issues in more detail after we get a chance to fully review the transcript of the debate.

Part II: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position

A Strong Military in a Dangerous World

In a dangerous world, protecting America’s national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

While we agree Senator, how many more billions do you think we have to spend on the military and Iraq? Have you thought about asking the Iraqi’s for financial assistance, cuz we are broke guy.

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth – and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

We hope you have a bigger wallet than we do Senator. Darn it, wished I married a beer magnate’s daughter. Great tasting and less filling. Whoops, wrong beer, sorry.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is clearly talking the talk, and you do have a background in the military, so certainly we can respect your opinion on the matter much more than that of Obama. But these are all things we know and we are going broke defending ourselves.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values – and to keep the peace – America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.

We agree to a degree Senator, but the primary reason we need the strongest military in the world is because our national interests are way too dispersed because we don’t use our own resources. We can’t go to war with the entire world every single time our national interest is threatened. We have to make it our national interest to not have to.

John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation’s obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

This sounds like spending John. Big spending. If you are worried about the spending by Obama, we wouldn’t be talking about a military expansion.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America’s weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

We are figuring this worked Senator along with other policies because we have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since. We think you should bring that up clearly in the debate, although we are thinking you may not want to because it might be seen as taunting the terrorists.

We admire your experience in this area and endorse a continuation of a plan that appears to be working.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

But how do you address Guantanamo and what do you want to do with captured terrorists? Our legal system isn’t going to address terrorism. It will just make lawyers defending them rich.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong – an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

The battleground of ideas is getting pretty sparse right about now. We would like to see a few.

Effective Missile Defense

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

We don’t think Russia and China will be nuking us any time soon. Korea maybe, but we think we have enough deterrents against them, considering several of our missiles could blow away their entire population.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the “balance of terror” to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

With all due respect Senator. We have enough missiles.

Continue on next page…

Part I: Obama Versus McCain on National Security, Obama’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Since 9/11, there has been much political talk about national security. There is much talk by the Democrats about the failings of the Bush administration and much talk from the Republicans accusing the Democrats of being soft on security issues.

Before we begin discussing the issue, we would like to make one salient point, we have had no significant terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. We consider that, regardless of what either side claims or says, a very important statistic.

The positions on both sides are lengthy. Unlike some issues, where the two sides seem to avoid the issue entirely or only gloss over it, this issue appears to draw major attention.

Obama’s Position is the most lengthy, here it is dispersed with our comments.

“After 9/11, our calling was to devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad,” Barack said. “Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won.”

How does the President misrepresent our enemies? Would it be to affiliate with terrorist organizations like the Weather Underground?

“Obama declared that the war in Iraq and Bush’s failed foreign policy had made us less safe than we were before 9/11, and outlined a new, comprehensive strategy to fight global terrorism:

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences…

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

If Bush is giving terrorists what they want, why have there been no major terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

“The Senator’s plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.”

Mind giving us one that isn’t a Democrat supporting your candidacy or one of your advisors?

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

Did you expect a top Democrat to support McCain, or were you hoping we wouldn’t look it up?

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.

Isn’t Gration one of your political advisors? Would you expect him to speak negatively of your plan acting in that position?

Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military’s pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

A clearly liberal author? Wow, we would not expect her to support a liberal agenda.

Do you have anyone of any consequence at all that is not completely biased towards your campaign backing your strategy?

Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home.

Aren’t you just following the dozens of calls for her release since her initial detention?

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland. Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

And you were just ending your tenure with a radical group working alongside terrorists.


Continue on next page…

Who Won The Presidential Debate 2? Obama versus McCain. There is a Rainbow! Obama Wins

Rainbows have been a sign of hope in fable from the Bible to legends of magic and leprechauns. There is always a hope that the person we elect will make a difference, and that the achievements of these great men will touch and benefit us all as a nation.

What was clearly evident in this debate was that McCain is not good at projecting that rainbow. Obama painted one with dozens of colors, and McCain painted reality in a somber brown. McCain has the inherent trait that he does not want to promise what he cannot deliver. Obama has the inherent trait that he will promise anything whether he can deliver it or not. There are many more colors in Obama’s palette, but that is because he makes you imagine the paint instead of actually having to apply any of it.

The latter technique wins debates, because it paints that colored arch of promise. It leads Americans, especially those less educated, to believe that there is a pot of gold to be found at the end of the election.

Here is the reality. At the end of Obama’s rainbow, there is no pot of gold. All there is at the end of Obama’s rainbow is an inexperienced man that would be President.

When Obama speaks of health care, he speaks of covering people with pre-existing conditions, but he does not say how he will pay for it. He challenges McCain on his tax cuts. But anyone with third grade math skills can easily understand that 300 billion in tax cuts is only 1/3 of the government spending that Obama incorporates into his plan. The questions that had to be asked by McCain weren’t. McCain just plain was not aggressive enough. It may have to do with the platform, which did not allow enough challenge of the other’s positions, but these are the questions that McCain missed.

1. If Obama is going to cover pre-existing conditions for health care, where does that money come from? Does it come from those that are healthy in America? You bet. Will people with health problems just be able to jump on the train now at everyone else’s expense? How could that possibly be paid for? Get some numbers and pin the man down.
2. Senator Obama, you say Republican tax cuts will total 300 billion dollars, but you are also offering tax cuts. How much will those cost and how could you possibly believe that will be made up by only taxing people that earn over $250,000 without destroying small enterprises. Someone has to pin this man down on the costs of his programs. Where does the money come from?
3. On every topic Obama speaks to, he talks of spending. We will need money for education, health care, Social Security, Medicare, foreign aid, energy independence, blah blah blah. But he has no way to pay for any of it other than some absurd idea that taxing people making more than $250,000 will make any difference at all. He sounds like he has his wallet open to help America, but what he has open is America’s wallet, and it is empty.

On the McCain Front:

McCain is easy to debate. He is just too much of a straight shooter. He doesn’t want to tell you there is a rainbow if there isn’t one. He doesn’t speak of spending for everything in creation while promising a pot of gold.

Problem is, if you don’t promise the pot of gold, and your opponent is, you have to challenge the other man’s pot by calling his bluff. McCain was challenged on how he would fund his tax cut, but didn’t take the opportunity to drill Obama on his tax cut or his spending programs. A simple response, “You promise a tax cut plus all 900 billion dollars in new spending. Specifically how much will your tax cut cost, then add on your 900 billion dollars in spending and tell America how you will pay for that? Here is a piece of graph paper and a pencil, show us.”

It is sad to see McCain being weak in the debates because we have no faith in Obama. We believe he is the same hollow promise campaigner we have seen many, many times in our past. And we also believe that if he wins this election, all we will hear for years as his policies fail, is that the Republicans made it worse than he thought. He has built up the perfect excuse and continues to make promises he knows he can never hope to meet.

We believe that America wants that pot of gold. They will follow the candidate that calmly promises it to them. And for that reason, we believe Obama won this debate. He won it with false promises and false hopes that Americans want to hear. And McCain failed to challenge him appropriately to bust the concept of the Obama Fantasy Island.

While McCain is a poor debater, we also believe the formats being chosen for these debates, especially this debate, clearly favor Obama. He overstays his welcome, overruns his time frequently, and leaves little time for the other side. He also gets to answer questions from people that have no chance to challenge him on his response. They ask a question, he answers and it is done.

We would prefer a face to face debate. One in which each man confronts the other, one in which the promises of one can be clearly challenged by the other. This debate clearly did not cater to that and we do not think that an accident.

Obama comes across as confident and cool. McCain comes across as uncomfortable and stressed. As long as that is true, it is like listening to a story at bedtime. As you doze off to sleep, there is just the story. It takes you over as you gradually doze off to your slumber. It wishes you happy dreams as you hear of the characters of the story (in this case us) living happily ever after. Obama tells that story well, but we believe that under Obama’s leadership, our cradle will rock, the bow will break, and down will come America, cradle and all.

Who Won The Vice Presidential Debate 2008?

This debate is normally relatively ignored. It is not considered important in general, and it usually does not draw much of an audience.  This year was played up as being different.

We watched this debate, and from our vantage point, neither candidate made it worth watching.  Biden was interrupting and off topic, focusing on attacking McCain and Bush rather than addressing the actual issues and the future.  His personal focus was on the “little guy”.  Palin was obviously nervous.  She focused on her ticket’s future agenda.  From a personal perspective, she focused on moms and identifying with family and people in America.

Palin was not aggressive enough or mean enough to deal with an opponent bent on negative and accusatory politics.  She also does not have the background to really debate the past in Washington.

Palin did come across as a very positive, forthright and honest person.  We believe America will like her and identify with her more than with Biden.

Our main complaint in Palin’s comments is she keeps on blaming Wall Street, and she should focus more on policies that created an environment that not only made bad loans possible, but encouraged them.  And those policies have been in place for decades, but were most strongly pushed in the late 1980s.

We don’t see either candidate swaying the partisan vote, or even the undecided.  We are not saying the debate was a waste of time, but it didn’t present anything new.  The bottom line we see from both parties is they both want change going forward having learned from past mistakes.  Biden seemed more bent on criticizing the past, but we find that funny seeing as he has been around for three decades.  We understand though.  It is the in thing to hate Bush.  Other than that, it was just basically a repeat of the policies already stated in the first Presidential debate.

Palin did get a chance to call Biden on a number of his positions that now directly contradict positions he had taken when running against Obama in the primaries.  Biden got to attack the “Maverick” concept of McCain.

Palin did deliver partially on arguing for tapping US resources, and it was interesting to see Biden actually move towards clean coal!  But neither gives a plan we can grasp for how we get to energy independence.  McCain, because he is behind, needs to grab the reigns there and provide a clear plan, because it is a major differentiator.  He should also push getting Iraq to financially assist in the war.  We think that would kill the Obama financial justification of a fast exit strategy.

We think Obama, going forward, should be more forthright in the hows and not the what’s.  We are getting kind of sick of hearing how wrong headed Bush was, and how this is wrong and that is wrong, and this is what we are going to do differently, etc.  We want to know HOW!! Do that, and you get our vote.

Biden only had one major gaffe.  On a bill which Obama voted for, which would have raised taxes on people making as little as $42000 a year, Biden said McCain voted the same way on that bill.  McCain did not even vote on the bill.

Palin had one gaffe, getting the name of the General in Afghanistan wrong.

Palin had some problems in knowing which bills were which in some instances.  But Biden kept commenting to “go look it up”, which we find a silly debate comeback, having heard it again and again in conversations when the other party had run out of real arguments.

We think overall, Palin won.  Why?  Because she didn’t lose.  Biden has over 30 years of experience in Washington and is known for his debating skills.  Governor Palin has little exposure to this kind of debate, and yet Biden failed to convince us the Democratic ticket was the better choice.  Biden should have wiped the floor with Palin lipstick, and he gained little, if any ground.

If you want more on the debates, please read this:

Who Caused The Financial Meltdown? Was McCain Negligent? 2008 Presidential Debates Don’t Tell All.

[poll id=”52″]