Obama's dead ender

Iran: No security talks until U.S. ends ‘massacre’ of Iraqis.

Your move Barack Obama.

Obama's quote of the day

As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests.

Gee Barak, let's hope you don't have to tap into this looking-out-for-America "reserve" very often. It's almost as if you're more willing to tap into the ANWR reserves.

(of course this was after McCain decimated him over his comment on re-invading Iraq)

Support vs. BS

McCain opposing timetables:






Romney supporting secret timetables:
(I have yet to hear Romney explain how secret timetables could be kept secret in a country as politically unstable as Iraq).

THE SURGE IS WORKING!

In the two months AFTER general David Petraeus hearing where he convinced some democratic pinheads that the surge had been successful, 75 U.S. troops have died in combat. That's 75 too many. However, that is the fewest number of casualties in Iraq in nearly 4 years. The US suffered 72 casualties in Iraq from Jan thru Feb of 04.

data.

Is McCain the GOP's last hope on Iraq?

You cant get more anti-Iraq war than Andrew Sullivan. So when he says "Only one Republican [McCain] can end this war with honour" you gotta pay attention.

This would be a good question for John McCain. He was one of the very few Republicans to pull off a national security hat-trick: he supported the war in Iraq, he subsequently became a ferocious critic of the feckless occupation, and then full-throatedly backed the “surge”. There aren’t many people on the national scene who did all three.

more...

Well spoken. Is the implication that some Democrats pull off this hat-trick? General Anthony Zinni?

McCain's Latest Ad

One man opposed a flawed strategy in Iraq. One man had the courage to call for change. One man didn't play politics with the truth.

Passing the truth test with flying colors.

McCain begins to take off the gloves

Look at the smile on his face. This is beginning to get very interesting.

Mitt Romney's Stool Sample Problem

Hugh Hewitt traded his credibility as a right-wing pundit for a pair of Mitt Romney pom poms. For the latest blatant example, look no further than this exchange with Hugh and Willard:

Hugh Hewitt: What is…do you have a target for GDP expenditure on defense matters?

Mitt Romney: For me, the target is we’re going to reach about 4%, and I think you’re going to see us hit the 4% level. I think we need to hit that level. I don’t think we have to sustain that level forever, but we’ve dropped below that. It used to be as high as 6% during the time when Ronald Reagan was president. Of course, Bill Clinton pulled back the scale of the military, pulled back the spending on our equipment. We have been underinvesting in equipment and maintenance now for a long, long time, and we’re going to have to rebuild our capacity.

In Hugh's warped mind, this actually makes sense. oof.

Now we all know Romney touts his stool, or to be more precise, his three legged stool. One of the three legs: strong military.

"GREAT," the passive conservative passerby may say. "I too want a strong military"

What's wrong with that? ROMNEY... HAS... A... STOOL... SAMPLE (which he pegged at 4%)... PROBLEM (see page 140)...

For me, the target is we’re going to reach about 4%

Read a book Willard. Spending for 2007 is projected to be 4.1%! And the country has been at 4% for the previous two years. What's more, spending is projected to increase in 2008. Perhaps even more baffling is that Romney considers spending 3% of the GDP on the military to be dismantl[ing] it. So in conclusion, 3%=dismantling; and a cut from 4.1% to 4=making the military strong.

No wonder McCain took you to task on your legendary parsing of words in the latest Foxnews debate:


Romney waffling on Iraq (specifically the surge) puts the Waffle House to shame:

Ouch...

McCain actually IS popular

I've been thinking. McCain is popular, but no one seems to know it. Many seem to like him, but for whatever reason they think the next guy does not. Why do I say that? Take his general election matchups for example.

This from the Washington Post:

Nearly half of the Republicans polled said that Giuliani represents their party's best chance to win in November 2008; that is three or four times as high as the percentage who mentioned other candidates.

But wait. This table is from eyeon08.com


It shows McCain having a better chance of beating the almost certain Democratic Candidate in 08, Hillary.

And as I posted yesterday, McCain is tied with Giuliani on handling Iraq and does better among independant voters (which is vitally important). Giuliani has a very slight edge over McCain in handling terror.

By far the best thing Giuliani has going for him is being tough in terror, but if McCain is virtually tied with him on that front, why would the GOP not go with a MUCH more socially conservative McCain?

McCain is trusted most to protest the country

McCain in tier 1 among democrats and republicans for the war in Iraq and in fighting terror.