McBush attacks Obama on National Security

Remember when Kerry in 2004 said, “The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.”?

This seemed like a sensible analysis at the time, but in true Rovian form, it was used by Bush/Cheney to portray the Senator from Massachusetts as effete and out of touch on the most pressing issues facing our national security.

Now fast forward from 2004 to 2008, yesterday to be precise, when Obama, in an ABC interview with Jake Tapper, said the following:

“...And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

McCain's henchman Randy Scheunemann quickly retaliated with:

“Barack Obama's belief that we should treat terrorists as nothing more than common criminals demonstrates a stunning and alarming misunderstanding of the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism. Obama holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11th. This is change that will take us back to the failed policies of the past and every American should find this mindset troubling.” (emphasis mine)

Here's a Bush speech in 2004 attacking Kerry's statement on the war on terror:

“THE PRESIDENT: Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, 'The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.'

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)”

You got to love how the White House includes the audience reaction in their transcripts.

Notice any similarities in the arguments?

Not only is McCain running for a third Bush term, he's re-running the 2004 campaign all over again.

Odds and Ends

Wow! I didn't realize how long its been since I've last blogged at my own site. I've been busy blogging at TPM for Obama. I'm excited that he's won, that it's over, at least the primary that is...

Things are just heating up for the general, but I'm more relaxed by his prospects against McCain than against Hillary.

Tim Russert died. I was listening (ashamedly) to Sean Hannity when the news broke. I was just driving in my car reflecting on the movie I had watched, when out of the background noise of Sean demagoguing this or that issue he dropped the Russert Bomb. Sunday's won't be the same.

Speaking of the movie: The Happening--it's another M. Night Shyamalan dud. It lacked the sort of stomach crunching moment of What The Fuck that's at the heart of his other interesting flicks: Bruce Willis is a "dead man walking"-- The Village actually takes place in modern times... It's most similar to the movie Signs which is really the story of a dysfunctional family coming to terms with loss backdropped against a hostile alien invasion. Unlike Signs,
The Happening has bad actor chemistry between the leads. The main female character was about as wooden as Pinocchio, and her so-called relationship with Wahlberg was as frigid as a Frigidaire. There was a moment of genuine warmth at the end when she stood outside the front stoop to welcome Walhberg home with the news that she was knocked up. But that one winsome moment didn't erase all the sickly celluloid that preceded it.

Bad casting aside, the plot sucked too. We are lead to believe that plants are attacking people in the same manner that tobacco plants attract wasps to kill off infesting caterpillars, or something. This isn't such a bad concept since the plot develops along the idea that these sentient plants are attacking large groups of people only. Except when they're not. Like when they "release the hounds" or in this case some neurotoxin, against an old lady, who despite being crazy, tends to love her plants. There just isn't any rhyme or reason to the attacks, except a loathing of human beings in general. This plot line is going along as background noise to the broken relationship between Wahlberg and the ice queen, which ends with her getting knocked up, as I said. Alls well that ends well, I guess. I could have waited for DVD for this one, though.

Cute

I always feel queasy when I see politician's "suffering the little children", but this picture actually brought a smile to my lips. I grew up in Maine, and this picture was taken February 9th, 2008 in Bangor, Maine--a city I'm very well acquainted with. Obama is such a natural, it almost doesn't seem like pandering ;-)

Obama talking point is more than hype.

Senator Obama repeatedly claims that he garners the support of both independents and republicans. When he says this he is telling the truth. Exit polls in the majority of contests held thus far show that Obama outperforms Clinton among independents. This becomes crucial coming into the general election environment, particularly when the Republican challenger is John McCain.

I like this quote from an article in an Omaha Nebraska newspaper:

"Several said they were Republicans who had come to see what all the excitement was about. Some Republicans said they supported Obama because they believed he would bring change.

'He's inspiring. He's a leader. And he's positive,' said Sterling Schultz, a Republican farmer from Naper, Neb., who said he planned to fill out the paperwork necessary to caucus Saturday as a Democrat."

Welcome to the big tent fold Mr. Schultz!

Brother, can you spare a dime?

ABC news is reporting that Hillary's financial woes may have been a publicity stunt geared towards keeping pace with Obama's financial prowess.

Now, if that is true, it bothers me in a visceral way. Yesterday at work, I told a co-worker and fellow Obama supporter that I actually felt bad at the apparent dissolution of the Hillary campaign. First the rumors of staff going without pay, Hillary's $5 million dollar loan, and even rifts in her campaign in Iowa where her campaign mismanaged it's budget. I sort of felt bad for the old girl. My friend quickly pointed out that if the tables were reversed, it's hard to believe that Hillary wouldn't have capitalized on her opponents woes. I think he's right. Hillary has a killer instinct. Perceived weakness lands you with her jaws snapping at your jugular. That said, even though intellectually i applauded the development, my inner female felt sympathy. I can see my sympathies were misplaced.

Thank you Hillary for reminding me why Obama is the right choice.

Peggy Noonan advises Democrats

Mrs. Noonan, former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan writes today in the Wall Street Journal
that Obama is the better choice for democrats. They just don't know it yet. Now, I've disagreed with Mrs. Noonan and her frames of democratic issues before, but she's spot on in her analysis from a Republican point of view.

As time goes on, I hope democrats become convinced of this as well.

And time marches on.

I haven't done much blogging as of late--at least on my own site. I've done considerable elsewhere: sparring, parrying, and dodging on behalf of Obama. The time is late and Tuesday approaches fiercely, stridently.

The polls are all over the place. One thing is apparent: Obama is surging. Unfortunately for California, nearly 40% (stat based on projection by political director of the Sacramento Bee) have already voted early. Which means, Hillary probably has a 10 point advantage on those early votes. Therefore, my sincere hope is that Obama ends the day Tuesday with a 5-10 deficit against Hillary. This will keep him competitive and assure him a sizable apportionment of the available delegates.

Other states are more hopeful. Utah is surging for Obama, Georgia is in Obama's column, Colorado and Idaho look good, Connecticut is trending towards Obama, and he is closing the gap mightily in NJ.

My projection, and fervent hope, is that there is a 52/48 divide in delegates come Wednesday. This would keep Obama competitive when he moves into more friendly territory for the later February states.

Both candidates are waging good campaigns. Hillary is running a positive campaign and isn't being upstaged by Bill, and Obama has sharpened his message and is focusing on electibility.

Time will tell. I'm feeling very good with the trends. We'll see if they translate into votes.