• John McCain,  Mitt Romney,  President 2008

    John McCain Watch: Vice President to be Named This Week – Is it Mitt Romney?

    +++++Update+++++

    Mark Halperin has more poop:

    • ABC News: McCain to hold undisclosed event in Louisiana Thursday designed to “capture some of the attention” from Obama. He’ll deliver a major speech in Berlin Thursday.

    • WashPost: McCain to meet with Gov. Jindal Wednesday in New Orleans.

    • And/But: Politico reports that though McCain is very near a decision, an announcement this week is unlikely.

    Mitt Romney endorses John McCain

    Mitt Romney endorsed John McCain for President in February 2008

    Rovert Novak, the Price of Darkness of DC journalism says that John McCain will name his vice President this week.

    Sources close to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip. The name of McCain’s running mate has not been disclosed, but Mitt Romney has led the speculation recently.

    Does Novak know something that he is sublimely breaking here – Mitt Romney is the Vice President pick.

    Flap has thought a choice will be made when some initial polling has been completed. And, it has.

    New poll numbers out from the Detroit News have the Michigan race between Obama and McCain very competitive with a chunk of voters still on the sidelines.

    Obama is up 43-41, but 12% of voters said they’re undecided.

    The latest New Hampshire poll also has the race close.

    Anyone want to bet?

    Flap says it is McCain – Romney by Thursday.


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Barack Obama,  John McCain,  New York Times

    John McCain Watch: The Rejected New York Times Editorial Part Two

    NYTimesRejectsMcCain

    Thanks to AllahPundit for posting David Shipley’s e-mail in response to Team McCain’s submission of an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times.

    From: David Shipley/NYT/NYTIMES [mailto:XXXXXXX]
    Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:31 PM
    To: XXXXXXX
    Cc: XXXXXXX
    Subject: Re: JSM Op-Ed

    Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

    Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

    I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.

    However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.

    I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.

    Let me suggest an approach.

    The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

    It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And
    it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

    I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. Her email is XXXXXXXX; her phone is 212-XXXXXXX.

    Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

    Sincerely,

    David Shipley

    Certainly the New York Times is entitled to print what they wish. But, the John McCain piece DOES rebut Barack Obama’s piece of last week.

    Read the entire McCain editorial here.

    David Shipley’s suggestion that McCain’s piece MIRROR Obama’s is laughable and shows you the arrogance of the MSM and the LEFT.

    But, then again, what should anyone expect from the New York Times?

    Previous:

    John McCain Watch: The Rejected New York Times Editorial


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Barack Obama,  Media,  Media Bias,  New York Times,  President 2008

    Reporters Trying to Help Barack Obama Win?

    NYTimesRejectsMcCain

    Rasmussen has a new poll today that shows the American public is increasingly believing that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the Presidency.

    The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

    Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

    With the three television news anchors fawning over “The One” in Iraq and Europe is there any wonder?

    As Flap said before NBC News is unwatchable. Either it is a flashback to Tim Russert time or it is Obamamania.

    The blowback: More layoffs are forecast for the MSM, including the New York Times.

    Previous:

    John McCain Watch: The Rejected New York Times Editorial


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Iran,  Iran Nuclear Watch,  Israel,  Saeed Jalili

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Back to Sanctions or Military Action?

    irannuclearissues

    Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili (L) is pictured before a meeting on nuclear issues with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana (R), and US Undersecretary of State William Burns (3rdR) in Geneva. World powers’ latest bid to make Iran halt its nuclear programme stalled as high-level talks ended without a deal and Washington warned of possible further “confrontation.

    In a shocking surprise, even after the United States dispatched Under Secretary of State William Burns to the meeting, Iran “STONEWALLED” the issue of uranium enrichment.

    A U.S. decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment.

    In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions.

    Iran’s refusal to consider suspending enrichment was an indirect slap at the United States, which had sent Undersecretary of State William Burns to the talks in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage Tehran into making concessions.

    Officials and diplomats refused to characterize the timeframe as an ultimatum, but it appeared clear that Iran now has a de-facto deadline to show flexibility.

    The United States and its allies have done all they can do to negotiate with Iran. Iran has stalled for YEARS.

    As Flap has said before, time for Israel and the United States to either act or allow Iran BREAKOUT CAPABILITY.

    Previous:

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Back Channel American Nuclear Negotiations with Iran?

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Will NOT Stop Uranium Enrichment

    Iran Nuclear Watch: A Deal to Halt Uranium Enrichment?

    Iran Nuclear Watch: The Two Red Lines; Update: Israel is Bluffing?

    Iran Nuclear Watch: One Year to Stop Iranian NUKE

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Will Play Disrupt Gulf Oil Route Card

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Ahmadinejad – The West Could NOT Break Us

    Iran Nuclear Watch: The Red Line

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Britain to Increase Iran Sanctions

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Ahmadinejad Taunts Bush


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Barack Obama,  John McCain,  New York Times

    John McCain Watch: The Rejected New York Times Editorial

    NYTimesRejectsMcCain

    The New York Times is in the tank for “The One”- Obama but Matt Drudge put up the rejected John McCain editorial.

    In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

    Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

    Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

    Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

    The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

    To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

    Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

    No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

    But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

    Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

    The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

    I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

    In the meantime, the MSM newspapers lay off employees and they wonder why?

    Can media bias be anymore blatant?

    Oh yeah. The New York Times editor who rejected the McCain editorial: David Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Barack Obama,  John McCain

    New John McCain Television Ad – Don’t HOPE for More Energy, Vote For It

    The Latest John McCain television ad – “Pump”

    John McCain has targeted Barack Obama in his latest television ad, “PUMP.”

    The script:

    ANNCR: Gas prices – $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.

    No to independence from foreign oil.

    Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?

    CHANT: Obama, Obama

    ANNCR: One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets.

    Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.

    JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.

    Team McCain is going after Obama on his Dr. No domestic energy policy while Obama is traveling to Iraq and Europe.


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Barack Obama,  George W. Bush,  Iraq,  Iraq War,  John McCain

    John McCain – Obama Wrong About Iraq Then and Now

    Sen. John McCain criticized Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign policy position at the onset of his landmark tour of Iraq, saying he hoped the trip would address his “gross misjudgment.”

    Of course, Barack Obama and the Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were wrong about Iraq – past and present.

    Interesting how they are NOW taking credit for success.

    Will American voters realize this or is there Iraq War and Bush fatigue?


    Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • Barack Obama,  George W. Bush,  Iraq,  Iraq War,  John McCain,  Nouri al-Maliki

    Iraq War Watch: The Squeeze

    BushandalMaliki

    Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Bush

    Prime Minister al Maliki this weekend agreed with Barack Obama’s timetable for withdrawal of American combat troops and then he didn’t.

    Team McCain said al-Maliki was playing domestic politics and the LEFT said “The One” had been correct about the Iraq War all along.

    Now, the astute AP is talking about a SQUEEZE by Iraq politicians.

    The Iraqi prime minister’s seeming endorsement of Barack Obama’s troop withdrawal plan is part of Baghdad’s strategy to play U.S. politics for the best deal possible over America’s military mission.

    The goal is not necessarily to push out the Americans quickly, but instead give Iraqis a major voice in how long U.S. troops stay and what they will do while still there.

    It also is designed to refurbish the nationalist credentials of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who owes his political survival to the steadfast support of President Bush. Now, an increasingly confident Iraqi government seems to be undermining long-standing White House policies on Iraq.

    You think?

    The truth is without President Bush remaining steadfast on his Iraq War policy and John MCCain actively supporting the SURGE, the Iraq War would not have been won.

    Will American voters remember?

    Or care?


    Technorati Tags: , , , , ,