Does Obama Know Who He Is Running Against?

Listen to Obama's speeches. You will be amazed at the number of times he mentions George W. Bush. Does he think he's running against Bush? Does he think voters are stupid enough to think he's running against Bush? Actually there's a good reason for him to keep bringing up Bush. Bush is easier to beat than McCain.

The truth of the matter, if you check the Congressional Record, is that McCain's voting record is closer to Hillary Clinton's than it is to Bush. In fact, McCain's voting record is closer to Clinton's than Obama's is. That's the fact Obama wants voters to miss. That Hillary supporters have more in common with McCain than they do him.

McCain and Clinton both actively try to work across party lines, where Obama prefers to stay rigidly to the left. He is, after all, rated as the most liberal senator. But he's going to have to work harder now. Everyone who drank the kool aid came out in the primaries, and it still took him all 50 states to win the nomination. If he expects to appeal to the mainstream voter, Obama will have to get his act together and remember he's no longer preaching to the choir.

Why To Trust McCain On Iraq

In the Sunday New York Times, there appeared an article which, more than any other, showed why John McCain is the candidate to trust on the issue of Iraq. Much has been made about McCain's military credentials and his experience, but the article answered a questioned that anti-war activists have been throwing around since the start of the war. In fact Michael Moore asked the question of almost every pundit he argued with during the 2004 presidential campaign. Would you want your child to serve in Iraq?

In John McCain's case, the question is irrelevant. His son is already there. (Read the article) So John McCain can honestly look at the issue from several points of view. Not only can he look at it from the point of view of commander-in-chief, who must figure out what is best for the country; not only can he look at from the point of view of a former prisoner-of-war who has seen the horrors of war first hand; but he can look at it as the father of a soldier who would be affected by any decision he would make.

While Obama and Clinton attempt to make the argument that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of George W. Bush, McCain's own record proves that wrong. McCain has fought against the use of torture that the Bush administration has advocated. He was among the first to call for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, for mishandling the war effort. The fact that both McCain and Bush backed the surge also serves to highlight the differences. McCain proposed such action well in advance of Bush eventually agreeing to it.

Clearly, the war has turned around since McCain's recommendations were acted on. While Iraq is still not where we like it to be, it is on the right track. Even the Democratic National Committee must recognize this, as evidenced by his outright manipulation of McCain's "100 years" remark. (See Factcheck.org's analysis of the distortion)

There is no simple solution to the war. We would all like our soldiers to come home has soon as possible. The candidate best able to do that safely would seem to be John McCain.

Votes vs. Soundbites

Congress has passed an increase to the minimum wage. Workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, called the increase one of Òthe proudest achievements of this new Congress.Ó

Kennedy said. ÒDemocrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty.Ó

So what's the problem with this? What Kennedy isn't saying is that he voted against the bill. So did Senators Clinton, Obama, and Dodd. Why? The minimum wage was raised as part of the bill that funded our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 87% of Americans said we should finance the war and 69% said we should have benchmarks. So we have a bill that 87% of Americans support, that provides funds for our troops AND raises the minimum wage, and four of the most vocal Senators, three of whom are running for President, voted against it.

They voted against "the proudest moment of this new Congress." We should not forget this.

To vote or not to vote?

Democratic presidential hopefuls are wavering in their support for our troops. They know that not passing a funding bill will put our troops in graver danger than they are already in, but they are more concerned about how their vote will affect their election chances.

Democrats have to weigh doing what is right with doing what is popular. The main problem is that they're not sure they want to vote for funding that doesn't tell the enemy when we're leaving. If this is confusing for them, I don't want them in the White House.

Damn The Security, There's An Election To Win

Yesterday, three Democratic senators who are running for President showed us just what they are made of. Unlike the majority of the Senate (Democrats and Republicans alike), Senators Clinton, Dodd, and Obama voted to abandon our troops in Iraq and cut off their funds completely. Never mind that it would put our troops in more danger than they are in. Never mind the fact that it would abandon the Iraqi people again. (Is it any wonder that people don't believe we can see things through with cut and run policies like this?) Never mind the fact that it would give Al-Qaeda a new home from which to plan the next 9/11. They voted to suck up to organizations like Moveon.org, who represent their own agenda, not that of the American people.

As President, your job is to represent the country. If Clinton, Dodd, and Obama seriously want the job, they should start by not voting to throw our soldiers under a bus.