Barack Obama likes to claim that he is the candidate that transcends partisan politics, but a new Rasmussen poll says that 30% of conservative Democrats say they are voting for McCain.
The poll also says that, while there are more Democrats than Republicans who are undecided, a majority of undecided voters are leaning towards McCain.
Once again, Obama claims one thing, while the facts prove the opposite.
The Wall Street Journal just released an editorial discussing McCain and Obama’s approaches to fixing the education system in the United States. One of the things that I found interesting was that Obama’s daughters do not attend a Chicago public school, but instead go to the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, which range from $15,528 a year for kindergarten and $20,445 a year for high school.
Now, what bothers me about this isn’t that Obama spends more money than many of his supporters earn in a year to send his children to private schools. It is certainly his right to do so. What bothers me is his continued opposition to what he told the American Federation of Teachers was the “tired rhetoric of vouchers and school choice.
In other words, Obama thinks it is fine for his kids to go to private schools. For parents that can’t afford to spent tens of thousands of dollars a year, though—too bad, their kids are stuck in failing and often unsafe public schools.
This is blatant hypocrisy, and just goes to show how much of an elitist Barack Obama really is.
On Thursday morning, CNN released a story maligning Senator John McCain’s appeal to younger voters compared to Obama. It quotes a University of Southern California student named Eric Perlmutter saying, “We try to get people out to our College Republican meetings, but… we can’t seem to draw the same kind of vocal support.”
However, USC College Republican Chairman Ben Myers strongly denied this, saying, “I have never met Eric Perlmutter. I have never seen him at a College Republican meeting. He is not on our membership roster. I don’t know why someone would think he speaks for us. As far as I know, he could be a Democrat.” He went on to say that his club attracts 30-40 attendees at their regular meetings, more than the rival Democratic club on campus.
CNN called their use of a fake source an “inadvertent error,” but questions still remain regarding their apparent anti-McCain bias.
CRNC Chairman Charlie Smith said of CNN’s fake story: “This is another fallacy in a long history of CNN’s attempts to smear Sen. McCain and the Republican Party. From planting Democrats in the YouTube debates and now using bogus sources, CNN is doing everything it can to put Barack Obama in the White House and it shows. Denigrating the work of college students who want nothing more then to be part of the process is simply pathetic.”
Meanwhile, real College Republicans are excited about Senator McCain. The Where is the Red? crew is nearly halfway through its summer-long cross-country roadtrip through Republican congressional districts, campaigning for McCain and other GOP candidates the whole way. Their use of a blog, YouTube, Twitter, and other web 2.0 tools is doing a great job appealing to our generation and get them excited for GOP candidates in the fall.
Follow the link as the WITR crew gets some action on WIRED.com!
Don’t forget to check them out at WhereIsTheRed.com for updates as they travel across the nation helping out Republican causes!
While regular Americans are doing double-takes at the pump and are scraping under the driver’s seat for some extra cash, the elitist Democrats have been accessing their cheap gasoline. Of course, these very same Democrats oppose legislation in Congress that would lower the price of gasoline for American consumers by drilling for more domestic oil, lessening burdensome regulation on oil refineries and nuclear facilities, and eliminating the federal gas tax.
But for now, I guess we’ll just have to live in the “Two Americas” the Democrats have setup.
…and the media and Barack Obama are dead wrong.
Brought to us by the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack:
As Frederick Kagan wrote in September 2007: “Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad.”
If McCain was saying that Col. McFarland’s counterinsurgency approach “began the Anbar Awakening” then that’s pretty much on the mark. The “surge” after all is often shorthand for both the addition of U.S. troops as well as the adoption of a counterinsurgency strategy.
The whole post is pretty interesting, check it out.
So there’s this argument going on now as to whether we can attribute the ongoing success in Iraq to the “surge” strategy or whether it was simply a product of the domestic Anbar Awakening. The basic premise of the question is way off because the Sunnis who stood up to become the Sons of Iraq (SoI) that began the Anbar Awakening never would have done so unless they had know the US was coming over the hill with reinforcements.
But the media seems to think that they have caught Sen. McCain in some sort of foreign policy flub because he contends that the SoI would’t have been sustainable were it not for the surge in US troops. They point out that the additional surge troops did not arrive in country until after the SoI had begun to stand up. However, this ignores some fairly important facts. We had announced well before then that we were recommitting to securing Iraq, and we had begun to implement the new strategy surrounding the additional surge troops before they arrived. Both of these things provided a pretty strong signal to the SoI that we weren’t about to abandon them (like Barack Obama would have done and still plans to do), and that they were safe to begin operations against AQI.
Not everyone in the media seems to have bought into the liberal line of attack however. Joe Scarborough over at MSNBC concludes that history is on McCain’s side:
…it all makes sense now:
