Lieberman's JFK

Despite Senator Joesph Lieberman lost his Democrat primary in 2006 and was elected as an Independent, he caucuses with his former Democrat Party and still calls himself a Democrat. Lieberman has a strained relationship with the Democrat Party base because of his stance on the Iraq War, and the relationship is only getting worse after he endorsed Senator McCain. Many know McCain was one of the first supporters of the new counter-insurgency Iraq strategy, also known as the Troop Surge. Few remember Lieberman was also an early supporter for the Troop Surge - even before many Republicans. At the same time, he was equally critical of the Bush administration.

On February, 2007, Lieberman wrote a feature article on the Wall Street Journal:

Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

Lieberman accurately pin-pointed the philosophy behind troop withdrawal. Underneath all the "Bush is dumb" and "Cheney is a warmonger" rhetorics, the troop withdrawal argument ultimately rests on the concept that things will get better in Iraq if only US withdraw. This, of course, is an unrealistic assumption. At the end of the day, how can we support a strategy which will likely worsen the situation?

Lieberman has repeatedly said that the Democrat Party today is not the one he once knew. On November 2007, he gave a major speech on National Security. In it, he said:

Democrats under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy forged a foreign policy that was simultaneously principled, internationalist, and tough-minded. This was the Democratic Party I grew up in ...
That Democratic foreign policy tradition ... collapsed just a few years later, in the trauma of Vietnam. ...
That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party—but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.

Yesterday, Lieberman gave a surprising statement, but not illogical:

It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.

So, this explains why this Independent Democrat still calls himself a Democrat while supporting a Republican.

McCain -- Man of Action! Obama -- Not Even Close!

This has been an interesting couple of weeks, folks. While Senators Clinton and Obama have been taking potshots at each other over race and religion, and arguing about superdelegates, John McCain goes on a tour of Iraq, the Middle East and Europe, burnishing his foreign policy and national security credentials.

Last week, Senator McCain gave a key foreign policy speech to the World Affairs Forum in Los Angeles. ThinkProgress immediately jumped on some of Sen McCains' rhetoric, declaring him to have plagiarized parts of his speech from a one given by RADM Timothy Ziemer in 1996. They retracted their accusations a day later when it turned out John McCain used similar words in a speech given a year earlier than that by RADM Ziemer.

The Daily Standard has a nice article on the stupidity of the whole affair and emphasizes why words are so important to the Obama campaign:

"...WHY DID CERTAIN Obama supporters make such a big deal about McCain's alleged "plagiarism?" After all, these are intelligent and savvy people most of the time. And yet they wanted to deliberately steer the conversation to McCain's valorous background. The answer is to be found in the kind of campaign Barack Obama is running and indeed must run.

In terms of personal accomplishments and service to country, Obama's cupboard is virtually bare next to McCain's. The same goes with political actions. ... Obama lacks a biography that tells you where he stands. He also has taken no defining or even noteworthy political action in his short time in public life.

And that's where the speeches come in. Obama's campaign is one purely of words. Verbiage matters for the Obama campaign, more than it has for any presidential campaign in memory. Verbiage matters for Obama in a way it couldn't possibly matter for McCain. The only way Obama can tell the country of his plans and of his basic nature is through speeches and other campaign set pieces. When Obama said "words matter" to rebut one of Hillary Clinton's attacks, he had it right. For his campaign, nothing matters more."

So, now we have a clear contrast:

John McCain, a Man of Action:

A man who has given 50 years service to his country, the first half of it as a career naval officer, combat veteran in Vietnam, and most famously, a Prisoner of War. During the second 25 years, Senator McCain built a distinguished record in the Senate as a LEADER, who has always managed to find ways to hammer out workable solutions to tough problems, such as campaign finance reform, immigration reform, tax reform, and leading the "Gang of 14" moderates who blocked filibusters to get the majority of President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed.

While Sen McCain has sometimes been unsuccessful, he has always proven that as the "man in the arena," it is necessary to act, regardless of the consequences to himself or the criticisms of others. Of significant note is his support for the surge in Iraq, and his well known quote that he'd "rather lose a campaign than a war."

... and Barack Obama, A Man of Words:

Sen Obama claims that because he spoke out against the Iraq War in a 2002 speech, this proves that he has the "judgment to lead" this nation. However, Sen Obama was not in Congress at the time, nor was he running for President. As a "man of words" his "courage" to speak out against the war falls flat when you consider he had no political capital to risk in doing so, unlike Senator McCain, who has risked all in his support for the surge in Iraq.

In the Senate, Obama has not been that great of a performer. The New York Times outlined his rather inconsequential role during his Senate tenure , stating "he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates."

The Washington Post notes that Senator Obama has a habit of exaggerating his own role and grabbing credit for the efforts of other Senators -- even when he was only a peripheral player.

While Sen Obama is obviously a man of great talent and charisma, he has yet to prove he has the statecraft, let alone the courage to act, or to lead, to become President of the United States.

In short, in a contest of actions versus words, courage versus criticism, leading versus spotlight-grabbing, the choice is clear: JOHN MCCAIN.

Vets For McCain

To a fallen hero

I am going to take some time out from discussing politics to discussing some news I heard today. The remains of Staff Sergeant Keith Matthew Maupin were positively identifed yesterday and his family notified by the US Army. Maupin was captured in April of 2004 when his fuel convoy was ambushed. I clearly remember seeing his pictures broadcast on TV, him sitting on the floor, surrounded by masked cowards with guns. In June, 2004, the same group of cowards released a photo of a US soldier being shot, but the picture was of poor quality and SSgt. Maupin could not be clearly ID'd as the murdered soldier.

For four long years, his family held out hope that their son was alive. Now they have some closure to their agonizingly long wait. Now they can bring their son home to rest. My heart goes out to this family, as well as SSgt. Maupin's friends and fellow soldiers who knew him.

He is the reason, along with 4,000 of our brave soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors, that we will finish this war and we will win this war. Let not his death, nor the thousands of others, be tainted by the Democratic decision to retreat - I won't dignify it by calling it withdraw of troops. SSgt. Maupin is the reason that Senator McCain will not allow his death, nor the death of 4,000 other brave US soldiers be in vain.

I leave you with two tributes to SSgt. Maupin. May he forever rest in peace.

http://www.mattmaupin.us/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIFVFTn6GNU

Al Sadr Offer Welcomed by Iraqi Government

The Iraqi government has welcomed an order by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his fighters off the streets.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told FOX News that the decision is "positive and responsive." Al-Dabbagh said the move would "help the government confront those who are violating the law" and that it would help to "isolate those who are trying to destroy the government effort". He said Iraqi security operations in Basra would not end until the "criminal elements" operating there are removed.

Also praising al-Sadr's orders was Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said it was "a step in the right direction."

Al-Sadr ordered those loyal to him and his Mahdi Army Sunday off the streets in Basra and cities across Iraq, saying that whoever carries arms against Iraqi forces is not one of his followers. Al-Sadr also called on the government to stop what he calls haphazard raids and release security detainees who haven't been charged.

Sunday's offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf. Points are listed below. Al-Sadr is demanding that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also "disavows" anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.
Clashes between the government and al-Sadr's supporters came to a head after hundreds of arrests by U.S. and Iraqi forces of al-Sadr supporters that U.S. commanders say are members of Iran-linked cells attacking American soldiers. There is no indication at this time if the government will accept the offer, or if a counter offer from the government will be forthcoming.

The following, obtained by FOX News, is a copy of the nine point statement released by Muqtada al-Sadr office in Najaf:

Due to our responsibility to protect Iraqi blood, to protect the reputation of Iraq and its unity, in preparation for its independence and freedom from the armies of darkness, and in order to put down the fire of sedition that the occupiers want to light between the brothers of the Iraqi people, we call upon the Iraqi people to be responsible and stop shedding Iraqi blood and to protect the country's stability and independence. Therefore, we have decided the following:
1. Ending all JAM (Mahdi Army) military presence in Basra and the rest of the provinces.
2. Stopping all random and illegal detention and arrests.
3. Calling on the government to implement the general amnesty law and releasing all detainees not convicted, especially the Sadr Trend detainees.
4. Whoever raises arms and targets the government and state offices, organizations and the services and the political party offices is not one of us.
5. Cooperation with the government in preserving security and targeting criminals through legal procedures.
6. We confirm that the Sadr Trend does not possess any heavy weapons.
7. Efforts should be made to return the displaced people to their original homes which they left because of the security situation.
8. We call on the government to take into consideration the human rights and all its security measures and procedures.
9. The effort should be focused on reconstruction and services projects in all provinces of Iraq.

No Misspeaking, No Misleading: Only Lies.

When Senator Hillary Clinton told and retold her Bosnia story, many of us were mesmerized by her daring actions. She rushed to the cockpit, she dodged the sniper fire, she ran toward a hanger, and then she completed her lies: none of what she said is remotely true. Later, Senator Clinton told us that she simply misspoke because she was sleep deprived, but did she? When a person makes a false statement, the person may have done so because he/she misspeaks, misleads or lies. So which one did she do?

Senator Clinton certainly did not misspeak. When a person misspeaks, the person tends to make a correction very quickly. She had continued her nonsense for a month or more despite people tried to correct her.

Did Clinton mislead us? Did she tell us the truth in the wrong context? The Clintons, of course, are famous for misleading us. When Hillary Clinton told us that George W Bush has stalled the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding between year 2004-2008 and that Bush has launched a "War on Science" policy, she was telling us a half-truth. Yes, the NIH budget has been flat between 2004-2008 (Bush's second term). However, NIH had experienced one the fastest growth between 2000-2004 (Bush's first term). It almost doubled. Here is a diagram for NIH budget. On her official website, Clinton states that she will "Increase the NIH budget by 50% over 5 years and aim to double it over 10 years." (See Bulletin Point Number 3) Let me get this right: she aims to double NIH budget in 10 years - something Bush did in 4 years, right? Senator Clinton, of course, tries to mislead us about the federal science budget.

Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, her Bosnia story is not a misleading maneuver. There was no half-truth, only full lies. The only truth in her story was the word: Bosnia. There was no sniper, no bullet, no running to hanger, no rush to cockpit. There was a warm reception - but she denied that. Is it possible she thinks of the little girl is a sniper? If so, why did she hug and kiss a sniper?

So here we are. We accept the truth. She lied.

Character of Islam Part I of IV - Measuring Danger’s Palate

The United States of America is a society forged from Christian immigrants dating to the landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620. The Puritan and Anglican religions were massed together into the Christian denominations of today; the most common element and legal document being the Bible. Americans possess very little understanding of the roots of Muslim religious beliefs. In this Part, I will attempt to provide similarities and where I feel Muslims veer from Christianity.

Social Laws: Christian
In the 1636 Book of Laws were several crimes that mandated the death penalty, treason, murder, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, rape, bestiality, adultery and cursing or smiting one's parents. Sound familiar? Even though these laws predate Colonial laws, most of these crimes are written and found in the Bible and are laws of our country today. But in comparison of the Koran of Islam, the first Five Books of Moses in the Old Testament and the Koran are identical. Both Jewish and Muslim people revere each others accounting.

Social Laws: Islam
Though the laws of the Books of Moses and the Koran are acknowledged, the Muslim’s believe that the original revelation to Moses was modified (corrupted) by the Jews and the Christian scribes and preachers and divide each others religious traits. This will be discussed in depth in Part II.

Accounting and Origin: There is a massive wealth of historical information about the Judaism and Muslim societies. I will address this division from concerned recordings to the time of Babylon’s rule over the Jews and their captivity under the Muslim Conquest around 597 BC. To Christians, we recognize the Prophet and Savior Jesus Christ who died around 33 AD. The Muslim’s, were still holding Jewish tribes in captivity over 1,000 years and to the time of that the Prophet Muhammad governed. The Constitution of Medina, was a treaty that allowed both Jewish and Muslims to practice their own religions to ease tensions in then known Arabia. There were three major uprisings of note during this time. The first was the Banu Qaynuqa at the Battle of Badr that allegedly breached treaties and agreements with Muhammad and were besieged and expelled upon surrender. The second uprising was by the Banu Nadir, who were accused of plotting to kill Muhammad and were expelled . Not long after, the final tribe, the Banu Qurayza, was besieged and expelled as a recorded event in Surah 33 of the Koran. I call this the “Religious Rift.” In the year 641 AD, the successor to Muhammad, Caliph Umar decreed that there be only one religion in Arabia and starting a forced deportation of Jews and Christians from the land and from thereon, the Holy Land of the Hijaz was forbidden to non-Muslims.

Wow! Powerful huh? Could this be root of division between the Muslim and non-Muslim nations of today? Does it go back that far? We have all heard the word “Jihad,” which is translated to mean Holy War. With other accountings, prior to and since 9/11, the message is clearly conveyed by the radical jihadist’s is death to the infidels; Israel and any other nation who are not Muslim. That’s over 1360 years people that this war has been waged! The question is... can the American people interpret this as a declared war? There are Leaders in the Muslim countries saying that these few are “radical extremists,” and they do not recognize their effort! Do they?

Hmmm... now they want to pick and choose? It’s okay to sell their oil and accept everyone’s money, teach them infrastructure, supply food, buy weapons, clothing, transportation and road-building to name a few... but we are the infidels! The West and other industrialized nations brought these people, hell-bent of war and suffering, out of the Stone Age. They didn’t even have to participate in a Feudal Revolution! Here is an area that I am bitter of, that the United States offers technology... in exchange for trade to those who ally with us. WTF? Even the trading obsolete technology is dangerous, especially weapons. About two months ago, President Bush “gave” Saudi Arabia Smart-Bombs. What the Hell does Saudi Arabia need Smart-Bomb technology? Time will reveal.

Where do all these radical extremists hang out? Anywhere in the world! They can venture out... but you are not allowed in, and if you are, follow their rules! Simple right? For a people to mastered hate for 45 generations and desire to indoctrinate the world with their belief, they are massing in numbers not only in third world countries, but have grown exponentially in the United States since the adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 by Malcolm X.

God has blessed America. A society set up with a Constitution that protects it’s citizens and recognizes freedom, and human rights. I am one Buck that you cannot fool into believing that all Muslins, including those living everywhere in the world, do not have a taste of hate toward all other religious beliefs. One learns at an early age... they will learn this hate; as any child growing up in the United States, who tastes their first peanut butter and jelly sandwich or first cookie, it stays with you forever.

Upcoming reads to this series:
Part II: The Spirit of Tolerance.
Part III: Africa’s gift to the Americas.
Part IV: Following Barack Obama.

Visitor Supplemental Notes: Apr 3, 2008 (http://mccainjci.blogspot.com/)

It is thought and confirmed by ancient Jewish writings of the Oral Law (Talmud) that this vast civilization existed on the Tigris and Euphrates river of what is now Iraq and extended far in every direction and did include the Arabian peninsula. While the ancestors of Islam surely lived there, the prophet Mohammed and the Koran did not appear until much later.

Thank you Alan

Jake

Howard Dean is a Fool

Opportunist: A person who exploits opportunities with little regard to principles or consequence.
That is a definition I found from a dictionary.

On Friday, the McCain campaign team has launched a new TV ad called "624787" - a wonderful ad.



Despite Senator McCain is a national figure, many people do not know his life story. The goal of the ad is to introduce John McCain: his passion, his values, his experience, his moral compass. It is a pure positive ad. An ad only mentions him and no other. The response from Howard Dean (DNC Chairman) is astonishing: John McCain is a Blatant Opportunist.

Dean's full response is here.

Howard Dean, of course, has never failed to amuse me after his "I have a Scream" speech, a scream which has inspired a new generation. It is exactly this kind of nonsense comment which marginalizes himself.

Howard Dean, you are a fool and here is the definition for you:
Fool: A person lacking in judgment or prudence (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

McCain Lays Out Foreign Policy Vision

John McCain gave a preview of what U.S. foreign policy would be like under his Administration, in comments Wednesday to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles.

In a clear break with Bush foreign policy, McCain acknowledged the mistakes of the past 8 years, indicated a more conciliatory tone and desire to work more closely with our allies.

"..the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation."

Abandoning Bush's "go-it-alone" approach is imperative in repairing relationships with the other great nations and restoring America to it's rightful place in the world.

Addressing Iraq, McCain pressed for the need to utilize all the elements of national power, "public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities," to win friends and gain victory in that part of the world.

"Our goal must be to win the "hearts and minds" of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs."

You can read the entire text of the speech here.

National Review put forward a defense of McCain's Iraq policy, rebuking Democrat's hammering McCain for his off-hand "100 years" comment.

McCain's pragmatic, practical view of how to deal with the challenges facing this country is a refreshing change, especially given the incessant coverage of calls for "hope" and "change", and arguments about race, religion, and superdelegates.

In John McCain, we'll have a President who knows how to keep his eye on the ball to keep this country moving forward.

McCain and Romney Campaign Together

Many posters have expressed a desire for Senator McCain to select former rival Gov. Mitt Romney as a running mate over on the official John McCain for President Site. We may not see who he picks until the dust settles on the Democrats side. In the mean time, Senator McCain will put ex-rival Mitt Romney's campaign finance know-how to use. Sen. McCain, who has struggled to raise money compared to Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, is on a weeklong Western fundraising swing. Romney is popular in Utah and Colorado, states with large numbers of Mormons.
Gov. Romney joined Sen. McCain at a fundraiser in Salt Lake City yesterday and is set to accompany him to another fundraiser in Denver this evening. This is familiar territory for Romney, whose family has roots in Utah and who lived there for several years. Romney raised $6.3 million in Utah, more than from his home state of Massachusetts and second only to his contributions from California, during his bid for the GOP nomination.
McCain, by contrast, has raised only about $200,000 from the state. Because of this, the vast population of Republican donors in the state is nowhere near to tapping out its allowed $4,600 maximum donation to McCain. The pair's spin through the Mountain West is notable given the palpable disdain that existed between them during the primary. In this show of Republican unity, the one-time bitter rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney raised money and campaigned together Thursday for the single goal of getting McCain elected president.

Because It Might Come True

“Be careful what you wish for”. Similar phrases are echoed in different language. Like the invention of fire, it is probably independently discovered in many cultures - a testament for its universal truth.

We, McCain supporters, had hoped for a Hillary Clinton nomination. Senator Clinton can unify the Republican Party and push away the independents, we are told. Yes, she can, but can she really deliver the kind of vulnerability we are promised, or will Senator Barack Obama actually be the one. Who is the weaker candidate against Senator McCain?

On the surface, Obama should be the stronger candidate. He can draw in more money, he can draw in independents and he is more likeable (before the Wright controversy anyway). However, this is assuming Obama stays as popular as he is now, which has never been the case in any election. Candidates’ likeability will drop once the attacks begin. Because Obama campaign is largely based on his fresh image and idealism, he is more vulnerable – an excellent point made by Forma Harrop. Already, we see Obama suffers from his association with Jeremiah Wright. Clinton actually has a stronger hold on the Reagan Democrats: blue collar Democrats who are socially moderate/conservative, which means an Obama nomination can loosen up these Democratic voters.

Today Gallup poll published a report supporting this idea. If Obama is to win the nomination, then 28% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain in the general election. If Clinton is to win, then 19% of Obama supports will vote for McCain. These are astonishing numbers, and I doubt these numbers will hold in November. Nevertheless, the poll suggests a wider opening for Senator McCain if Obama is the Democrat nominee.

So, who shall we wish for?

Wicked and Stupid

The recent gestures from Senator Obama have only added more fuel to the fire. It is true that Obama himself has not said those offensive words, nor would I expect many of his supporters to leave him. Yet, by defending the indefensible, Senator Obama has only cemented those who oppose him. Quoting from a column written by Christopher Hitchen:

“The statements of clergymen like Jeremiah Wright aren't controversial and incendiary; they're wicked and stupid.”

Hitchen is correct. There is nothing controversial about “God damn America”, it is wicked. There is nothing incendiary about “government created AIDS to kill black people”, it is stupid. Consequently, Obama did not defend controversial and incendiary statements. He defended wicked and stupid ideas. If Obama is unwilling to stand up against a pastor who believes that we deserved to be attacked on 9/11, then how will he address hostile foreign leaders?

Like I wrote earlier, I have yet to believe Obama shares Wright’s beliefs. However, Obama is defending the wicked and the stupid. He has rejected the sermons but has not found the courage to confront Wright. Why Obama brings his little girls to hear these wicked and stupid sermons is beyond logics. To quote Hitchen again:

"To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future."

Judgment to Lead, Or Rush To Judgment?

CNN is reporting this morning that the CEO of the company whose employee was dismissed for improperly accessing Sen Barack Obama’s State Department passport file is a consultant and advisor to Sen Obama’s campaign.

“John Brennan, president of The Analysis Corporation (TAC), advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.

Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign earlier this month. The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January.”

Bloomberg reports similar incidents with Sen McCain's and Sen Clinton's files as well, but this part of the story has not been as widely reported in the press as the access to Sen Obama’s files. Likewise, we are sure that the connection between this incident and Mr. Brennan's role with the contractor in question will receive minimal coverage -- and none at all from the Obama campaign.

But what really catches our attention is the knee-jerk response of the Obama campaign to immediately call for an investigation and blame the Bush Administration for breaching the State Department files for political purposes. You can read the article here on CNN:

“Obama's campaign is asking for a complete investigation to find out who looked at Obama's passport file and why.

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a statement.

"Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

We agree with the Obama campaign that an investigation into these incidents is necessary to ensure everyone’s privacy is protected, and appropriate measures be taken to punish the offenders. But clearly the Obama campaign has jumped the gun in casting blame where there may actually be none to be found.

For a candidate who is now basing his candidacy on “Judgment to Lead,” such an immediate rush to judgment (in this case, judgment of the Bush Administration, or political opponents) indicates decidedly POOR judgment.

Judgement on T-Shirts

Today, Lanny Davis wrote a short and insightful column on Senator Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech. In Two Questions for Senator Obama, Davis acknowledged the brilliancy in Obama's speech, but he raised two important questions: Can Democrats support a candidate who is part of a congregation driven by racial division and hatred? Can Democrats support a candidate who appointed a divisive minister to his advisory committee?

Like Davis, I appreciate Senator Obama for denouncing Jeremiah Wright's hateful languages. Obama correctly pointed out that we as a nation has a dark history on race and consequently there are mistrust and anger in the Black Community, as he so eloquently put it: "But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." Yet, race is not the only issue. Wright's sermons are offensive also because of the unpatriotic tone. These comments cannot be explained by Obama's speech. It is exactly because of Obama's brilliance which makes this incident so difficult to understand: Why has he remained in this divisive congregation for 20 years knowing Wright's offensive nature? Why did he appoint a racially driven Wright as his adviser for the campaign? Obama has only selectively condemned Wright's offensive sermons, but has not distanced himself from Wright?

This is the same as if I have been wearing a T-shirt with offensive logo for 20 years, and when someone pointed out the fact, I gave a speech about slavery and racial inequality. I then selectively denounced the languages on my T-shirt, but refused to take it off. The offensive languages are still on the T-shirt and as long as I am wearing the T-shirt, I am displaying them. Wright's hateful and bigoted ideas are still with him, and as long as Obama refuse to distance himself from Wright, Obama is indirectly "displaying" these very hateful and unpatriotic sermons. At the end of his speech, Obama described the Wright sermons as distractions to other important topics, and "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'" Yet, this is not a mere distraction, is it? Furthermore, treating the Wright incident an distraction contradicts Obama's earlier point: "... and to simply wish it away ... only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." Can we really simply wish it away? Or is Obama the one who wishes it go away? If Wright's sermons are mere distractions to this ever important campaign, shouldn't Obama take off his offensive T-shirt? It is rather odd for him to tell others to "move on" while he refuses to change one bit. Does it mean he thinks we, the public, are wrong and consequently we need to change but he does not?

At the end of the day, I do not believe Senator Obama shares Wright's hateful beliefs, but he has displayed very poor judgments for staying in Wright's congregation for 20 years, for appointed Wright as his advisor for 2 months, and for refusing to change himself thus far.

John McCain--A Great Conservative

Gov Mark Sanford (R-SC) makes the case for Senator McCain:

"...I join many others in saying that federal spending is now as significant an issue as the war on terror, federal judgeships and energy independence. The U.S. stands at a fiscal crossroads -- and the consequences of inaction, or wrongful action, will be real and severe.

Fortunately, the presidential election offers us a real choice in how to address the fiscal mess. To use a football analogy, we're at halftime; and the question for conservatives is whether to get off the bench for the second half of the game.

I sat out the first half, not endorsing a candidate, occupied with my day job and four young boys at home. But I'm now stepping onto the field and going to work to help John McCain. It's important that conservatives do the same."

Check out the entire article here.

Welcome to the MacPac!

This is the inaugural post of the MacPac08 blog, supporting John McCain to be President of the United States. Our goal is to rally support for Sen McCain and provide an unofficial forum for expressing our views, generating excitement for Sen McCain, and proving information about McCain campaign events around the country.

For those of you who are new to Senator McCain, we invite you to watch "Journey To Freedom," the inspirational story of John McCain's POW experience and release from captivity.