Posts Tagged ‘leadership’

Obama Total Failure As Leader: Even Uber Liberals Throwing Obama Overboard In Gulf Disaster

June 16, 2010

If you see Obama covered in oil, it’s because a gang of liberals shoved him overboard into the sticky muck.

It appears that things are really getting desperate for the left.  Leftwing journalists, who have always been such reliable propagandists for Democrats, might finally be at that point where they realize if they don’t report the truth, their viewers will go to those that will.

From the gang of liberals at MSNBC:

MSNBC Trashes Obama’s Address: Compared To Carter, “I Don’t Sense Executive Command” Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama’s Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

VIDEO: Obama: Oil Disaster “Most Painful And Powerful Reminder” That We Need Clean Energy

VIDEO: Krauthammer: Obama Gave It A Shot, But The Story Will Not Be His Speech

VIDEO: Frank Luntz Focus Group On Obama’s Address: “Negative”

Here’s the Youtube video in which the above comments were made:

From the New York Times:

From the beginning, the effort has been bedeviled by a lack of preparation, organization, urgency and clear lines of authority among federal, state and local officials, as well as BP. As a result, officials and experts say, the damage to the coastline and wildlife has been worse than it might have been if the response had been faster and orchestrated more effectively.

“The present system is not working,” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said Thursday at a hearing in Washington devoted to assessing the spill and the response. Oil had just entered Florida waters, Senator Nelson said, adding that no one was notified at either the state or local level, a failure of communication that echoed Mr. Bonano’s story and countless others along the Gulf Coast.

“The information is not flowing,” Senator Nelson said. “The decisions are not timely. The resources are not produced. And as a result, you have a big mess, with no command and control.”

They were supposed to be better prepared. When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989, skimmers, booms and dispersants were in short supply for the response, which was led by a consortium of oil companies in which BP was the majority stakeholder.

A year later, lawmakers passed the federal Oil Pollution Act to ensure that plans were in place for oil spills, so the response effort would be quick, with clear responsibilities for everyone involved.

No skimmers were available when the Exxon Valdes ran aground.  And – thanks to our fool-in-chief Barry Hussein – when we had a chance to get some much needed assistance to supply much-needed skimmers, Barry apparently thought they said, “We’d like to send you winners” and turned them down fearing they would make him look bad.

U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertiseBy LOREN STEFFY –  Houston Chronicle – 06/08/2010

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

So we’ve got this complete, unmitigated, and inexcusable disaster:

Had Obama accepted the offer back then and not allowed BP to use illegal dispersants, the oil would have never made landfall 48 miles away.

Today, (a month and half to late) there are US tankers that are steaming to the site with four pairs of modern skimming booms that were airlifted from the Netherlands and should be sucking up oil at the flow site within days.

Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

If those skimmers were in place when they were offered a month ago, each pair could presumably recover 4.4 million barrels of oil. Four pairs of the state of the art skimmers would be able to suck up 17.6 million barrels in a month, although they will not be able to reach the depths of the plumes that are floating away with the illegal dispersants.

Thirteen nations offered to give us help to mitigate this massive disaster.  And Obama basically wrote, “To whom it may concern, please to get the hell out of my business” letters to all of them.

And, of course, this failure is too big for just one inexcusable and stupid and unforgivable abandonment of leadership, judgment, and basic common sense.  In addition to the “Thanks, but up yours” response to other nations’ offers to supply skimmers, Obama also allowed MILES of boom that would have been hugely important in protecting the coasts to sit useless in warehouses:

UNBELIEVABLE! How’s this for HOPE AND CHANGE?

Tar blobs began washing up on Florida’s white sand beaches near Pensacola this past weekend. Crude oil has already been reported along barrier islands in Alabama and Mississippi, and has impacted about 125 miles of Louisiana coastline.

It didn’t have to be this way.

(Reuters)
There are miles of floating oil containment boom in warehouse right now and the manufacturer Packgen says it can make lots more on short notice.
There’s just one problem… No one will come get it.

It’s unfair to compare Bush’s failure at the 500-year hurricane striking the worst possible location with Obama’s failure in this oil leak disaster – Obama’s failure is incommensurately worse.

And the American people know it.  A new poll–by a left leaning public opinion firm–finds that:

Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama’s handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama’s done dealing with the spill.

50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.

Since Obama was elected, I’ve been saying that a third of American voters would continue to support Obama even if he led us into the stone-age-like conditions that Kim Il Jong has led his people into.  We could be living in the dark and freezing at night, and scratching our own fecal matter from the ground in order to have something to burn, and this group of people would still adore their Dear Leader.

And what is Obama’s response to this terrible crisis?  Well, his golf game certainly hasn’t suffered in any way.  He’s been very busy doing fundraisers so his fellow liberal buddies can have a chance to stay in office.  He got a nice vacation in.

Oh, and he gave a speech.  A speech in which Obama sought to seize advantage of the disaster in order to impose his monstrous and disastrous cap-and-trade system that would cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”  Obama is no leader who can possibly solve this crisis; he is rather a demagogic community organizer who can only seek to ideologically benefit from the crisis.

And MSNBC and the New York Times aren’t the only liberals who realize the disastrous and disgraceful failure that Obama has been.  Longtime liberal Democrat political strategist James Carville realized it.  Liberal journalist and former Clinton administration public affairs hack Kirsten Powers realized it.  I’m sure a lot of other liberal media pukes are realizing that we’re coming to the place where they either throw Obama overboard for his incompetence, or demonstrate that they themselves are clearly incompetent in their analysis.

I like the way the American Thinker concludes on Obama’s performance:

The utter lack of leadership and hands-on management in responding to the Gulf oil crisis is an embarrassment to the President, as well as a hideous disaster for the Gulf and those who live near it. Can Obama’s first-ever Oval Office address make the damage to his standing go away? I seriously doubt it. Obama has failed in his duty to protect the homeland through sheer inexperience, incompetence, and indolence. The man who has planty of time for golf, hoops, parties, and fund-raisers is asleep at the switch when it comes to making the system respond effectively to an emergency. There is no papering over the spectacle with rhetoric.

.

Advertisements

Maybe Democrats Should Change Their Symbol To An Ostrich

February 9, 2010

I had a very brief conversation with my Democrat neighbor (a retired professor emeritus in education).  I asked him what he thought about Obama.  He said he liked him, and I left it there: no point arguing with a fool – especially if that fool happens to be your neighbor.

But I was pretty shocked that an otherwise intelligent man would be unable to see that the president he likes so much is utterly laying waste to the party he likes so much.

There is more and more evidence coming out that even DEMOCRATS are recognizing that Barack Obama is a total failure as a president.  And I recently wrote a piece that quoted from a number of Democrat-written articles lamenting the complete failure that their failure-in-chief has turned out to be.

Obama’s polls have gone from the stratosphere right into the toilet bowl as Americans have finally begun to comprehend what this radical leftist is trying to do.

Republicans have won every single statewide election since Obama took office – with every victory occurring in states that voted heavily for Obama.  Obama actually managed to transform Camelot into a Republican state – something nobody would have dreamed possible only a short time ago.

But Democrats – and apparently the “smartest” Democrats in particular – continue to keep their heads shoved into the ground (or their rear ends).

Republicans certainly had their fair share of self-delusion in 2006 when the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate.  But as bad as it was, it wasn’t even close to this Obama-as-Messiah-worshiping disregard for reality.

But more and more and more news keeps coming out:

Americans Losing Hope, Looking For Change

By Ed Carson

Tue., Feb. 09, ’10    10:00 AM ET
(IBD)Voters are souring on the economy and the government’s remedies, according to February’s IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index. It fell 4.1% to 46.8, matching December’s level and the weakest since July.

“Persisting high unemployment and a wobbly stock market dampened January’s optimism,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, IBD’s polling partner. Readings below 50 signal pessimism.

Confidence in federal economic politics dived 7% to 38.3, the lowest since President Obama took office. That’s consistent with other polls showing a strong shift by Americans away from big government over the past year. The $787 billion stimulus failed to keep unemployment from soaring to double digits, now 9.7%. But it helped the deficit explode to $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, with $1.6 trillion seen in 2010.

Obama has tried to stress economic issues since Scott Brown’s stunning Massachusetts election victory derailed health care legislation. He’s railed against fat-cat bankers while proposing new taxes and further curbs on the biggest banks. That populism can win easy political points, but it can also backfire. Stocks have sold off since Obama began his anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

He’s also proposed a jobs bill that includes a hiring credit for employers. But some Democratic lawmakers question that idea while many experts say the latest stimulus plans are too modest to make much of an impact. And any government boost will add to the gusher of red ink.

The new emphasis on jobs and the economy also is an implicit admission that for much of the past year Obama’s focus has been on health care.

That was a mistake in the eyes of independents. Their view of federal economic policies tumbled 12.7% vs. January and 30.3% since September.

Independents disapprove of Obama’s handling of economic issues by a 2-1 ratio (50%-25%). Just 3% think he’s doing an excellent job while 29% say it’s unacceptable. This extends a recent trend.

Swing voters’ view of Obama’s overall job performance sank 7.9% in February to 40.8, a new low for him. A year earlier, the rating was 72.9.

The IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index dipped 0.6 point to 50.2, holding just above the neutral 50 mark thanks to continued strong support from his liberal base. But the White House and congressional leaders fear most voters will soon lock in their negative views of the economy for the rest of the year, even if conditions improve in the summer.

That may already be happening. Three-fourths of independents have a favorable view of the tea party movement and say one-party control of the White House and Congress has been bad.

As today’s IBD story notes, independents were a key part of Obama’s coalition in 2008. But no longer:

“They truly believed in his campaign message of hope and change, but Obama’s performance has disappointed them,” Mayur said.

Independents are increasingly anxious about the economy as well as soaring government spending and deficits. Obama may be tempted to keep playing to his solid liberal base, but that could further alienate moderates.

Then again, maybe Obama can’t take his base for granted. His health care agenda is comatose, though Obama hasn’t issued a DNR order yet. Meanwhile, cap and trade is going nowhere, the Gitmo prison is still open and unions’ hoped-for card check bill never had much momentum. And while independents took the sharpest downturn in February, Democrats’ were less enchanted with federal economic policies and the six-month economic outlook. What’s going to motivate left-liberals, greens and labor to turn out in the midterm elections?

On the upside, Americans’ view of their own finances edged up 0.1 point to 53.5, holding in a tight range of modest optimism. But that’s well below the pre-recession reading of 60.8 in February 2007.

IBD/TIPP conducted the national poll of 902 adults from Feb. 1-7. The margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points.

It wasn’t all that long ago before the way-too-left-leaning media pundits were smarmily predicting the permanent demise of the Republican Party and the permanent ascendancy of the Democrat Party.  They virtually ignored the Tea Party movement that now dominates the current political picture – and the coverage the movement has since received has been both incredibly condescending and incredibly biased.

No matter.  The mainstream media is merely another exemplification of the nation repudiating the left: now Fox News – the very Fox News that Obama repeatedly attempted to demonize – is the most trusted name in news.  And it is dominating the ratings as people increasingly abandon leftwing propaganda and embrace reality.

The Democrat-mainstream media industrial complex broadcasts the narrative that it’s the other way around – with quintessentially racist fearmongers hatefully attacking the Obama administration agenda and spreading a viral spirit of fear and obstructionism – but their narrative couldn’t be more wrong.  In reality, the American people gave Obama and the total Democrat majority a fair chance: and they recognize that Obama and the Democrats have utterly failed.

Obama’s polls nosedived to an all-time low yesterday, with the Marris-College survey revealing that Independents now oppose Obama by a 2-1 margin, and his approval has plunged to 44%.

And a whopping 75% of Americans are angry at the policies of the Obama and Democrat-controlled government.

CNN – which led off every single hour with Bush’s poll numbers when they hit their lowest point – did not bother to mention Obama’s poll numbers even ONCE last night.  Instead, they gleefully mocked the fact that Sarah Palin had written a total of four points on her palm.

A complete addiction to the Teleprompter of the United States of America is fine, as is referring to the highly-trained Navy medical personnel who save the lives of Marines on the battlefields as “corpse men“; writing seven words on one’s palm is apparently just beyond the pale.

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are as dishonest as they think they can possibly get away with.

Independents are leaving Obama and the Democrat Party the way rats must have left the Titanic.  And it is quite possible that Democrats will abandon the Democrat Party before long, as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid continue to attempt to impose contemptible policies upon an American people who have done everything imaginable to scream that they do not want them.

If a few elitist Democrats want to continue to serenely play their violins while their party literally sinks around them, it will only make their going down all the sweeter.

Democrats Beginning To Recognize That Obama Is A Total Failure As A Leader

February 9, 2010

If Democrats weren’t loathsome, self-righteous hypocrites and demagogues, I’d actually feel sorry for them, given the entirely  self-created and well-deserved state they are in due to the pathetic non-leadership of their failure-in-chief.  But they are, so I’m not.

Democrats chafe as White House wavers on health care bill
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 2/6/10 6:40 AM EST

President Barack Obama has left Democrats as confused as ever about how the White House plans to deliver a health care reform bill this year, after two weeks of inconsistent statements, negligible hands-on involvement and a sudden shift to a jobs-first message.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and beyond say they have no clear understanding of the White House strategy — or even whether there is one — and are growing impatient with Obama’s reluctance to guide them toward a legislative solution.

At a White House meeting Thursday with Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed frustration with the slow pace of the negotiations and the president’s decision not to weigh in publicly on a path forward, according to a Democratic source familiar with the meeting.

And some Democrats feel that every time they look to White House for clarity, they hear something different, as though the strategy is whatever the president or his top advisers said that day.

In the past two weeks, since Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race, Obama or his top advisers have suggested all of the following: breaking the bill into smaller parts, keeping it together in one comprehensive package, putting it at the back of legislative line and needing to “punch it through” Congress, as Obama himself said Tuesday.

The latest comment came during a Thursday fundraiser when Obama described the “next step” as sitting down with Republicans, Democrats and health care experts. “Let’s just go through these bills — their ideas, our ideas — let’s walk through them in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense,” Obama said, describing a process that could take weeks, if not longer.

He first floated the idea during his State of the Union speech almost three weeks ago, but top congressional aides in both parties said Friday that they still have no idea what the president was talking about.

Even the White House struggled to explain what Obama had in mind. On Friday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said there was no meeting on the schedule.

At the same fundraiser, Obama seemed to acknowledge for the first time that Congress may well decide to scrap health care altogether — an admission that blunted his repeated and emphatic vows to finish the job.

“I’m not sure where the White House is right now,” said Ralph G. Neas, a longtime progressive activist who is now the head of the National Coalition on Health Care. “But I do believe that given everything that has happened, the time has come for more forceful presidential leadership. That is the only way to close the deal. That kind of leadership involves providing more precise guidance to Congress and a clear case to the American people on how this benefits families. The president must step up and wield the power of his office.”

So maybe electing a community organizer with 143 days of experience in the Senate isn’t such a great idea, after all.  Maybe electing THE most liberal U.S. Senator under the incredibly cynical and deceitful promise that he would be “post-partisan” (and is now recognized to be the most polarizing president in history) wasn’t such a great idea.

I mean, who could have possibly known, except maybe every single conservative on the planet?

No leadership, you say?  You mean electing a guy who never actually led anything in his life – not so much as a frigging LEMONADE STAND – might somehow translate into a political party and an entire nation drifting rudderless in an increasingly stormy sea?

For the record, Obama’s “next step” of meeting with both Republicans and Democrats is nothing more than a photo op and a fabricated pretension of bipartisan cooperation.  And the reason that even Democrats don’t have a clue as to what such a staged event would accomplish is that they understand that it would accomplish nothing.

Obama is trying to turn his ObamaCare boondoggle into a rhetorical campaign event rather than trying to actually produce health care legislation.

But let’s get back to the Democrats attacking Obama over his totally failed leadership:

Al Franken lays into David Axelrod over health care bill
By MANU RAJU & ANDY BARR | 2/4/10 7:47 PM EST

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama’s question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn’t the only angry Democrat in the room.

“There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.

“People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.

Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda — and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

For what it’s worth, this is yet another of the billions and billions of reasons to conclude the liberal mainstream media is utterly useless for truth.  They characterized the Republicans in the House as being hostile to Obama because “hostile Republicans” suited their narrative.  But Republicans were tail-wagging face-licking puppy dogs compared to what the Democrats had for Obama.

Guess that wasn’t part of the mainstream narrative, though.  The media wouldn’t want anyone to realize that Barack Obama being a gigantic colossal failure as a president isn’t a “Republican talking point,” but a now bipartisan-recognized reality.

Obama’s failure in leadership is not just in health care (where it couldn’t be more grossly apparent).  It’s anything and everything Obama has tried to do.

On issue after issue – demonstrating that he didn’t even have the power or leadership to win the Olympic games; taking months to dither over Afghanistan; issuing a completely irrational promise to close Gitmo; moving the terrorist trials to New York and treating terrorists like American citizens; mirandizing terrorist rather than water-boarding them until they grow gills; backing a completely idiotic approach to destroy our energy system and our economy along with it known as “cap-and-trade”; failing to influence the UN global warming debate at Copenhagen or push his agenda in any way; presiding over what even Obama himself called a “systematic breakdown” in the intelligence system; Iran making a mockery of American foreign policy while it boldly advances toward both nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to launch warheads; presiding over more jobs lost than any president has lost in any year since records started being kept in 1940; you can just go on and on and on (the above was just off the top of my head) – Obama has shown a profound lack of leadership.

This is serious.  It is no laughing matter.  We are the Titanic hurtling through the icebergs, and we have no functioning captain who is able to steer us.

Copenhagen Falls Apart Under Obama’s Hollow Rhetoric

December 18, 2009

Hot Air swings for the bleachers, and sends a lot of liberal pitches soaring over the center field wall.  Here’s another home run:

Breaking: India, China walk out of Copenhagen
posted at 10:49 am on December 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama came, he spoke, and no one concurred:

India and China have taken a united stand and walked out of the climate summit as Copenhagen talks fail.

Tensions prevailed at the climate talks at Copenhagen today, as Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations, as talks failed.

Obama feted Singh just this month, saying that they should be impressed that India got first crack at Obama’s state dinner agenda.  Apparently, Singh was less impressed than Obama presumed.

Meanwhile, Obama is getting some pretty bad reviews for his intervention in Copenhagen … from his once-adoring admirers.  Since this comes from the Left’s major newspaper in the UK, where political biases are openly acknowledged in the media, this may seem like good news for those worried that Barack Obama would give away the store in Copenhagen.  We needn’t have worried; Obama turned out to be just as effective on the world stage as he has been in finding compromises here at home.  The Right has no illusions about Obama, but the disillusionment from the Left is rather amusing:

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act “boldly and decisively” on climate change.

But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse. …

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: “The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, “Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world.”

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: “The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority.”

Honestly, have these people paid no attention to Obama’s performance all year?  He doesn’t do the hard work.  Obama has spent all year outsourcing his work on domestic policy to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, refusing to get involved in negotiations.  Even now, progressives on Capitol Hill wonder if Obama ever wanted a public option in his signature domestic policy priority at all — a rather strange gap, considering the high-profile cheerleading coming from Obama all year long.  That’s all he does: campaign.

The one issue that he could not outsource was Afghanistan.  As Commander in Chief, the decision on resourcing and strategy was his alone … and it took him almost four months to make it.

The truth is that Barack Obama would make a much better Secretary-General of the UN than an American President, and even the Left is beginning to see it.

As for Copenhagen, Obama was already redeploying over the event horizon before news of the walkout hit, according to ABC News, which had reported optimistically on Obama’s efforts for most of the morning:

“We’ve done what we can here,” a senior White House official in Copenhagen, Denmark, tells ABC News. “The Chinese are dug in on transparency and are refusing to let people know they’re living up to their end of the agreement.”

After landing in Denmark early this morning, President Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a bilateral at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to press the case that China needs to allow for transparency.

“The President’s priority is to make our economy far more focused on a clean energy economy that creates jobs,” the official said. “He is here to work constructively and participate in hoping to get an international accord. But not getting one here won’t change wanting to transform our economy to create the new foundation he’s talked about.”

Well, he’s been there one whole day.  Who can argue with his commitment after giving one speech and holding one meeting?

As to Afghanistan, Obama boldly claimed he had the right strategy in place back in May, picked his own general to implement it, and then spent four months angsting over that general’s urgent recommendation.  When Obama finally made a decision after four months of what the Pentagon described as dithering, it was accompanied with a withdrawal date that left even his own supporters unable to explain his policy, in addition to grave uncertainty and fear in the minds of our allies.

Not to mention the ridiculous joke of Obama finally making the announcement to send more troops to fight in Afghanistan, then jetting off to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.  “Ridiculous” because the only way he could reconcile the massive hypocrisy from the leftist prism was to invoke what was tantamount to the very Bush doctrine he had previously personally demonized (see also here).

We arrive at something that should have occurred to the left when they were decrying Sarah Palin’s lack of experience.  Namely, that she actually had far more leadership experience than Obama did.  Sarah Palin had been a chief executive of a state; Barry Hussein had led exactly squat.  And so when the left was pointing out Sarah Palin’s lack of substantial executive experience, they were literally pointing out the splinter in Palin’s eye, while refusing to see the giant redwood log in Obama’s.

Well, they’re seeing that great big giant log now, aren’t they?  On virtually every front (e.g., the economy, health care, global warming, Afghanistan, unemployment, soaring deficits, Iran’s nuclear program, Gitmo, cap-and-trade, the Olympics), Obama is an utterly failed leader even according to the left.

Conservatives were loudly declaring that Obama would be a failure all along.  Rush Limbaugh was demonized for his prediction, but now far leftists such as Howard Dean have joined him.

The left-leaning world swooned over Obama’s speeches.  Now they know that, rather than being an eloquent man expressing a great vision, Obama is merely an incoherent gibberer who needs to read the word-for-word sentences of others off of two teleprompter screens.

This was the man who actually had the unmitigated and arrogant gall to say:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

Obama says here, “It’s not all about me; it’s about you under my inspired divine messiahship, too.”  I mean, why was “this” “the moment”?  Why wasn’t it the moment when either Bush was president, or when Clinton was president, etcetera?

Michelle Obama cut through the vain hypocrisy of Obama’s vain rhetoric at a UCLA speech delivered on February 18, 2008:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

I think Spike Lee summed up Obama’s delusional mindset best:

“It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”

It was always all about Obama.  And we, tiny little near-mindless proletariat ants that we were, would be stimulated into action by the exalted greatness of Obama’s wonderfulness.

And of course, it’s STILL all about Obama.  Only now it’s about what a colossal failure he is, rather than how he is somehow going to heal the planet.

Now because of America’s delusional foolishness, we’re going to have to suffer through the dismal malaise of three more years with a failed, dithering, appeasing, demagogic, pandering weakling in the White House.

But enough about the failure and fraud of Obama and his “hype and chains” movement.

Getting back to the abysmal failure and fraud of “Hopenhagen,” do read the absolutely blistering UK Telegraph piece by  Gerald Warner.

Obama’s Frightening Disconnect Following Ft. Hood Massacre

November 7, 2009

This is something.  And, for the record, it’s not the evil Fox News, but the evil NBC telling us that something is seriously wrong with our president:

Obama’s Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting
A bad week for Democrats compounded by an awful moment for Barack Obama.
By ROBERT A. GEORGE
Updated 9:18 AM CST, Fri, Nov 6, 2009

Updated 9:18 AM CST, Fri, Nov 6, 2009

Getty Images

President Obama didn’t wait long after Tuesday’s devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.”  Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That’s the least that should occur.

Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.

Did the president’s team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on — and the initial words coming out of their president’s mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

[Continue reading]

The NBC article concludes by saying:

“Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.”

Well, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have any reason to panic.  But then again, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have any reason.  Period.

When Obama was elected, unemployment was at 6.6%.  His adminstration promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.  And now it’s 10.2%.  That’s a huge problem.  And their only answer seems to be 1) blame Bush – as though the American people wanted a demagogue rather than a president who would man-up and start actually taking responsibility for the country’s problems – and 2) present a ton of false statistics to “prove” the unprovable (that his stimulus “saved” jobs).

Last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” David Gregory pointed out that little fact during his interview with Turbo Tax Tim Geithner:

GREGORY:  OK.  What is a saved job?  How do you measure that?

SEC’Y GEITHNER:  A, a saved–well…

GREGORY:  It’s not something an economist recognizes as an actual fact.

Note to Gregory: “Actual facts don’t matter to the Obama administration.”

David Gregory had previously put up a quote from an economist at Carnegie Mellon University:

“One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called `jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason:  how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?”

Reality isn’t important to the Obama administration, and neither is history.  What matters is rhetoric, demagoguery, and propaganda.

The giant $3.27 trillion porkulus was every bit the abject failure that conservatives predicted it would be.

And analyst Meredith Whitney – who was one of the few voices predicting the catastrophe we suffered last year – is saying that our joblessness is nowhere NEAR over.  She is predicting that unemployment will rise to 13% OR HIGHER.  Because NOTHING Obama has done has even come close to dealing with the REAL problems that are dragging down our economy.

Get behind that, America.  Obama’s “solution” for Afghanistan is his solution for America: namely, dithering is “change.”

But let us get back to Obama’s bizarre behavior.  First he chose to ignore what was going on in the country, how the people were expressing their mood and their views, and instead narcissistically decided to spend election night watching HIMSELF.

The Obama White House can’t acknowledge the obvious fact that we just suffered the second successful jihadist terrorist attack on our soil since he became our commander-in-chief.  And if even our soldiers on their secure base aren’t safe from these people, just who the hell is?

And now he’s just plain whackjob inappropriate giving “shout outs” only a short time after a dozen of our soldiers are murdered and over 30 more are wounded in that aforementioned terrorist attack.

Obama’s behavior seems to continue the trend with other socialist demagogues: seize power, showing a rare level of understanding of popular demagoguery, and then sink into bizarre behavior as his incompetence to lead becomes increasingly apparent.

The tragic thing is that it isn’t just Democrats who have cause to worry.  Americans have cause to worry that this inexperienced radical is nowhere even CLOSE to being the person we needed to lead us back to prosperity.

Catholics Open Can-O-Whoopass On Nancy Pelosi’s Abortion Of Catholicism

August 26, 2008

Thanks for helping Catholics understand how hateful Democrats actually are against religion, Nancy!  Kick start the DNC with a statement of foolishness and hate.

Pelosi – after making sure she was represented as speaking as a Catholic – was so unrelentingly stupid, and so full of blatant lies, on a crucial issue to the Catholic Christian worldview that you knew a response was coming.

Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, was one of the Catholic leaders to refute Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s incredibly stupid view of Catholic thought on abortion:

Statement on Remarks by Speaker Pelosi

August 26, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 26, 2008

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York

Nancy Pelosi “should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”

That’s why devout evangelical Protestants like myself love devout evangelical Catholics.

See my piece, “Pope Pelosi Issues New Papal Decree Re: Catholic Stance On Abortion” for Pelosi’s blatant misrepresentation of her own professed religion for despicable political purposes.

It’s whoop-ass day for Nancy Pelosi. The Catholic League weighed in over her terrible lies as well:

On yesterday’s NBC-TV show, “Meet the Press,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment on when life begins. Here is what she said: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.”

When Tom Brokaw told her that the Catholic Church “feels very strongly” that life begins at conception, Pelosi said, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: ‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.’ It also says, ‘Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.’ Looks like Pelosi didn’t study the subject long enough. But not to worry: We are sending her a copy of Catholicism for Dummies today (the Catechism is like maybe a bit advanced).

“Whether Joe Biden is as ignorant of what his religion teaches remains to be seen. What is not in doubt is the enthusiasm which NARAL showed when he was selected to join the ticket. The radical pro-abortion group was delighted, as were the radical pro-abortion delegates to the Democratic convention: as reported in today’s New York Times, 64 percent of Americans reject abortion-on-demand, yet only 23 percent of the delegates do. It is only fitting, then, that NARAL’s president will speak today at the Convention and Planned Parenthood’s president will speak tomorrow.

“So there we have it: the man running for president on the Democratic ticket supports selective infanticide, his running mate is a pro-abortion Catholic, the delegates are wildly out of step with Americans on abortion and the Speaker of the House hasn’t a clue what her religion teaches on the subject.”

The Pope has already spoken on the subject. A Reuters article titled, “Pope warns Catholic Politicians Who Back Abortion” says:

Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as “automatic excommunication” on themselves.

The Pope said parliamentarians who vote in favor of abortion have “doubts about the value of life and the beauty of life and even a doubt about the future”.

“Selfishness and fear are at the root of (pro-abortion) legislation,” he said. “We in the Church have a great struggle to defend life…life is a gift not a threat.”

“ALWAYS A GIFT”

The Pope’s comments appear to raise the stakes in the debate over whether Catholic politicians can support abortion or gay marriage and still consider themselves proper Catholics.

In recent months, the Vatican has been accused of interference in Italy for telling Catholic lawmakers to oppose a draft law that would grant some rights to unwed and gay couples.

During the 2004 presidential election, the U.S. Catholic community was split over whether to support Democratic candidate John Kerry, himself a Catholic who backed abortion rights.

Some Catholics say they personally would not have an abortion but feel obliged to support a woman’s right to choose.

But the Church, which teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder, says Catholics cannot have it both ways.

“The Church says life is beautiful, it is not something to doubt but it is a gift even when it is lived in difficult circumstances. It is always a gift,” the Pope said.

Catholics, please be true to your religion: vote out the Party of Death. Vote out the Demagogic Party. Get rid of these blatant blasphemers and cast your vote for life.

Nancy Pelosi: “Obamastan, Obamastan, God Shed His Grace On Thee”

August 19, 2008

Nancy Pelosi, the perennially unhinged Speaker of the House – and the paradigmatic example of what happens when Democrats are put in charge – had this to say about Barack Obama:

NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: “God certainly did shed His grace on America with the leadership of Barack Obama.”

I couldn’t help but recall what happened the LAST TIME God “shed His grace” on a place that had come to epitomize the values of Nancy Pelosi and her new lord and savior, Barack Obama: (more…)

Obama Trivializes Attacks On McCain’s Military Career

July 1, 2008

Let me begin by repeating Obama surrogate and possible Obama VP pick Wesley Clark’s attack against John McCain’s military career:

(CNN) — Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain’s military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

The McCain campaign called for Obama to condemn the remarks.

The dust-up began with Clark’s appearance Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.

In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was “untested and untried.”

When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.

“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
Don’t Miss

“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.

And – while we’re on the subject – led me add the comments made yesterday by Obama advisor Rand Beers:

“Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him,” said informal Obama adviser Rand Beers. “I think that the notion that the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost that you described than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war.”

“So I think,” he continued, “to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.”

Can you believe this? Here we have an Obama advisor who is out there saying that John McCain’s getting shot down, terribly injured in the line of duty, beaten, and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton leave him unfit to lead this country and command its military versus some liberal hippie protester getting herpes from all the free love and getting high on LSD at Woodstock. Unbelievable.

When you elect liberals, you put moral idiots in positions of power.

Barack Obama had this to say:

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” he said. “I think that, you know, right now we’re here to talk about how we can make sure that kids in Zanesville and across Ohio get the kind of support that they need and communities that are impoverished can start to rebuild. I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night.”

Any notion that Obama “repudiated” Clark’s remarks is just plain wrong. And now he dismisses the attacks against McCain’s military service as nothing worth worrying over.

I’m not in Ohio, and I’m not staying up at night. But I am outraged about it. I wrote about this issue yesterday; but there’s just so much more that needs to be said about it.

Clark’s and Beers’ comments follow in the wake of other Obama supporters such as Jay Rockefeller – who basically called McCain a warmongering killer who callously dropped bombs from 35,000 feet – and Tom Harkin – who said a family history of military service renders one dangerous and unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

It’s not inartful; it’s despicable. And after four Obama surrogates come out with this crap, there is little question that it is part of a coordinated Obama campaign strategy.

Obama is a complete wuss on foreign affairs and military issues – and his advisers know it. There is no way that the Obama campaign could possibly elevate their man – who may have walked past a recruiting station once – to the level of John McCain. Solution? Chop down John McCain. Insult, criticize, question, demonize, and trivialize a war hero’s record.

It’s no big deal. Just ask Barack Obama.

Every one of our presidents since World War II save one has served in the military. The overwhelming majority of our nation’s leaders since the days of our founding fathers have fought for their country before they tried to lead it.

Military service encourages the truest form of patriotism, the willingness to lay down one’s life for one’s country. Has Barack Obama demonstrated that total level of commitment? John McCain certainly did. Life in the military encourages the finest qualities a person can aspire to: honor, dedication, commitment, perseverance, and the moral clarity that results from having stared evil in the eye.

John McCain stared evil in the eye when he endured repeated acts of torture at the hands of North Vietnamese in the Hanoi Hilton. The closest Barack Obama ever came to staring evil in the eye was when he looked into the face of the pastor he chose to marry him and baptize his children.

The military teaches genuine leadership as no institution possibly can: every soldier who has ever walked, ridden, or flown into battle understands the meaning of the words, “FOLLOW ME!” as no one else ever could.

John McCain came back from injuries that would have made lesser men quit to regain his flight status and command the U.S. Navy’s largest squadron. He led that unit with distinction. By way of comparison, just what on earth has Barack Obama led?

Neither John McCain nor any of his surrogates have attempted to claim that John McCain’s military record – or even his 5 1/2 year captivity in the Hanoi Hilton – are sufficient to by themselves qualify him to be president. Wesley Clark – who refused to back down from his statements again this morning on Good Morning America – offers the straw man argument of a fool. And Clark’s charge, that a distinguished and heroic 15 year military career means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, is likewise the position of a fool.

That’s clearly what Clark is saying: that McCain’s military experience, his combat, his captivity, his leadership – and all the other qualities that military life develops from Annapolis to the field – mean absolutely nothing, and do not qualify him one iota more than a man like Barack Obama who never did squat.

Wesley Clark says that John McCain is “untried and untested.”  I would argue that Wesley Clark is untried and untested: when did HE sustain years of torture for his country?  No candidate for president has ever been more tried, and more tested, than John McCain.

Wesley Clark’s comments are all the more despicable coming from a military man. While it doesn’t rise to the same level of sheer vileness as Rep. John Murtha’s demonzing innocent Marines in Haditha as cold-blooded killers, it is the same sort of loathsome crap that is so typical from Democrats. Comments criticizing the military, or our warriors in uniform, are NOT somehow sanctified simply because the scumbag uttering the words was once a soldier himself; quite the opposite: it makes them all the worse.

Benedict Arnold was an American military officer too. But his name is now synonymous with “traitor” today. Today we could make the name “John Murtha” a synonym for treason as well. And hopefully Wesley Clark’s name will fade into the obscurity of politically radioactive losers after his 15 minutes are over.

And therein lies the answer to the question that one dare not question one man’s military service or patriotism: one certainly may, but only if that one man committed an act of betrayal.  John Murtha did (by falsely accusing innocent Marines of war crimes); Kerry did (by falsely accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes, for example); John McCain did not.

Barack Obama’s campaign, in choosing to try to cut down a war hero – and by so doing cut down the military itself – reveals Obama’s REAL attitude about the military and the men and women who serve their country in uniform.

Clark’s Dismissal of McCain’s Military Service Part of Coordinated Pro-Obama Smear Campaign

July 1, 2008

It appears pretty clear that there is a concentrated effort to attack and undermine John McCain on his greatest strength as candidate for president: his military service and his war record. Wesley Clark became the latest Obama surrogate attempting to undermine McCain’s military record Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation:

(CNN) — Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain’s military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain’s qualifications Sunday.

The McCain campaign called for Obama to condemn the remarks.

The dust-up began with Clark’s appearance Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.

In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was “untested and untried.”

When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.

“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
Don’t Miss

“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.

Clark’s comments are clearly part of a trend. Consider Democratic Senator and Obama surrogate Jay Rockefeller’s attack on McCain’s record in an April 8, 2008 interview with the Charleston Gazette:

Rockefeller criticized Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president. “Senator McCain does have a temper. But today, he speaks in a monotone on the campaign trail.”

Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.

“What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

And we can also find Democratic Senator and Obama Surrogate Tom Harkin attempting to directly undermine McCain on the basis of his military background:

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin is catching grief for suggesting John McCain’s family history of military service makes the presumptive Republican presidential nominee unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Harkin, who has a history of embellishing his own military record, told Iowa reporters last week that McCain’s background as the son and grandson of Navy admirals creates a “dangerous” situation because he can only view the world through the prism of the military.

“He has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Harkin said, according to The Des Moines Register. “I think he’s trapped in that. Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

The paper also quotes Iowa’s junior senator telling reporters, “It’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”

There is clearly a continuing campaign trend going on here. Each of the attacks is aimed at a particular facet to undermine McCain on what ought to be his greatest strength.

Harkin suggests that McCain is so steeped in the military worldview that his judgment as a civilian Commander-in-Chief should be questioned. Harkin comes right out and calls McCain’s military background “dangerous.” Rockefeller cuts down McCain – a Navy aviator and fighter pilot who was shot down in Vietnam – as some kind of robotic high-altitude push-button killer who couldn’t care less about human life. And now we have Wesley Clark suggesting that getting shot down and ending up being tortured for 5 1/2 years doesn’t really amount to squat, and that his command of the Navy’s largest aviation squadron doesn’t amount to real leadership.

And yes – although I will not link to that kind of crap – I also found attacks directed at McCain’s military career that suggested that he attained his success because of his Navy admiral father, and that he cooperated with the North Vietnamese Army interrogators.

So Obama surrogates have left no stone unturned in attempting to undermine, throw dirt at, discredit, and insult John McCain’s war record and military career.

Now, I’m sure that liberals will point to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and argue, “Republicans did the same thing to John Kerry!”

Well, no, they didn’t. The Swift Boat Veterans were just that – veterans. They served with John Kerry. And they responded to what they believed were distortions, exaggerations, and flat-out-lies by a man who had outraged them by turning on American servicemen and accusing them of war crimes during a career as a war protester that was actually longer than his career as a Navy officer. The fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of the men who served with John Kerry had a very different view of the man than the John Kerry (who put himself up for all his decorations) had of himself.

A Washington Post story on the Swift Boat episode by Michael Dobbs does a pretty fair job of sorting out the convoluted history and the claims and counter claims.

In any event, you don’t have a case of prominent Republicans attacking John Kerry’s war record and service the way you have of prominent Democrats doing such to John McCain. And, in order for the Obama surrogates “Swift Boating” of McCain to in ANY way be parallel to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “Swift Boating” of John Kerry, you would have to have a similar overwhelming majority of men who actually served with – and rotted with in the Hanoi Hilton – John McCain. Do we have any such? Not even close.

While John Kerry couldn’t wait to mention what he hero he was and brought his “band of brothers” with him on the campaign trail to sing his praises, “John McCain rarely speaks about his experiences as a POW in Vietnam.”

But at least one man – who’s reputation is unimpeachable, has spoken out:

John McCain rarely speaks about his experiences as a POW in Vietnam, but one of his cell mates at the Hanoi Hilton on Thursday described some of the conditions and character traits that earned McCain the commendations he received for his war service.

Col. George “Bud” Day, 83, is the most decorated service man since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, with more than 70 medals. A living legend, Day was blown out of the sky two months to the day before the North Vietnamese shot down a propaganda prize, whose father and grandfather were renowned American admirals.

One of those 70 medals is the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I’ll take Bud Day’s account on John McCain over any other, thank you very much.

Another, more detailed account on John McCain’s military career, is found in an LA Times story.  You’ve got to figure that the Los Angeles Times – which is decidedly leftist in its orientation – would have dug up whatever dirt they could have.

The story dings McCain wherever possible on minor points, but it begins this way:

THE POST-POW YEARS: FIRST OF TWO PARTS — When John McCain limped home from a Hanoi prison camp in 1973 with a badly injured knee that he could not bend, Navy doctors gave him the bad news: His 15-year career as a jet pilot was over. He would never fly again.

But McCain surprised his doctors by making a dramatic comeback. With a ferocious determination to fly again and a tough physical therapy regimen, he got his wings back and not long after was awarded command of the Navy’s largest aviation squadron, VA-174, at Cecil Field in Florida. Blue-chip connections in the Nixon administration helped.

These days, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is asked about his qualifications to lead and manage, he points to his command of that squadron as proof he has the right stuff to be president.

“I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy, not for profit, but for patriotism,” McCain said at a candidate forum in New Hampshire. “I’m proud of that record of leadership.”

McCain’s bravery during his 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war is a well-told story. But how he regained his career after the Vietnam War has received less attention in his autobiography and other writings about his life.

A review of Navy records and interviews with more than a dozen of his former colleagues paint a picture of a commander who was lionized by his troops as a war hero and respected by aviators as a fair and effective manager. He had rugged good looks and a common touch, and was fiercely loyal to those who worked for him, his former colleagues say.

There is no question: John McCain is a legitimate war hero.  He suffered for his country as few men have suffered.  And in his determination to return from trauma and injury to continue to serve his question leave no question as to his character and courage.  Anyone who attempts to undermine such a man’s military record undermines himself.  But there is little question now that Democrats and Barack Obama surrogates are out there doing everything they can to do just that.

And John McCain’s record – when compared to Barack Obama’s complete lack of a record – speaks for itself.  John McCain’s service qualifies him as Commander-in-Chief.  He has executive level leadership experience that Barack Obama clearly lacks.  And John McCain’s lengthy career in the Senate likewise serves to further underscore the fact that one man has far more experience and credibility to serve as President than does Barack Obama.

Wesley Clark, Jay Rockefeller, and Tom Harkin’s attempts to undermine a genuine hero are genuinely despicable.  And – when three Barack Obama surrogates come trickling out to attack McCain – it is more than worth asking as to what the Obama campaign’s role has been in this campaign to question, attack, and trivialize a clearly exemplary military career.