RNC Convention Update

What a pleasant sight to see in photos, Skye. Especially with the mayhem and BS we’re about to be subject to the coming week.

And you shall be a great addition to the view!

You’re blogging too, girl… if nothing else, make sure your fingers work! :0)

Oh yes… don’t forget to have some FUN!

You all have to read this!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html

Frank Marshall Davis, alleged Communist, was early influence on Barack Obama

…

A bohemian libertine who drank heavily and loved jazz, he became friends with Stanley Dunham, Mr Obama’s maternal grandfather in the 1960s. Mr Davis died in 1987 at the age of 81, five years before Mr Dunham.

“He knew Stan real well,” said Dawna Weatherly-Williams, a close friend of Mr Davis “They’d play Scrabble and drink and crack jokes and crack jokes and argue. Frank always won and he was always very braggadocio about it too. It was all jocular. They didn’t get polluted drunk. And Frank never really did drugs, though he and Stan would smoke pot together.”

[Obama's white grandpa smoked pot.]
…
While his mother was in Indonesia during part of his teenage years, Mr Obama lived with his white grandparents. Mrs Weatherly-Williams said that the poet was first introduced to the future Democratic presidential candidate in 1970 at the age of 10.
…

In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. At one point in 1979 Mr Davis described university as “an advanced degree in compromise” that was designed to keep blacks in their place.

[Davis was influential to BHO.]
…

read the rest of it. Davis talks about having sex with children. Who the hell is BHO?? Is this info new to anyone else?

Skye’s a Democrat!?!

But she seemed so ,,, normal,,,,

Wow, Scott. I agree with you 100 percent about the flag and what it stands for and Obama and what he stands for whatever that is. My question to you, and Skye, too of course is: If you can’t vote for democrats what is the use in calling yourself a democrat. As you say, the party has been taken over by communists and socialists. I used to be a democrat. Was one for decades but when I realized I could never ever vote democrat again I changed my affiliation to independent. When I thought about that for a while I thought what was the use in calling myself an independent if I could not or would not democrat. I might as well call myself a republican. Never mind these tiny parties that crop up from time to time. We are a two party system. Even voting for candidates in the house and senate are as good as voting for the socialists since the democrats vote en block adhereing to party lines. And the locals also adhere to party lines. So, you ask what is wrong with calling yourself a democrat? Why call yourself a democrat if you can’t bring yourself to vote for them?

Barbara, the only chance for real change in the DNC and in the Democratic Part will come from Democrats. For example, a Republican goes to a DNC convention watch party, and says, “I’m not sure Obama would fight and die for the flag the way John McCain has and will.” That person’s comments are dismissed. They’re not in the party, so no one in the party cares. On the other hand, a Democrat at the same DNC convention watch party says, “I dunno if Obama is really concerned about being President as he is about getting to be President.” It’s worded differently, but the message is the same, and the audience listens.

Honestly, I think there are thousands of Americans who have truly EARNED the job of President. McCain is one of em. However, my pigeonhole perspective tells me that Obama could actually be the better President-not because of what he says, how he says it, what he’s done, what he hasn’t done, or any of the things that make McCain the man who earns the job. No, imo Obama might make the better President for 2 simple reasons:

1) He (and most Presidents anymore) are riders of history-they react to it rather than have the political courage (or lack of political smarts) to take charge, take action, and deliberately change the face of the planet and our nation. FDR had the courage. Bush didn’t have the courage until about 9:11 on 911, and after that, I think he lacked the political smarts to do much other than to very boldly and strongly react to the attacks and endeavor on changing the face of the world and the US. Obama….no way. No experience because he never had the balls to do much more than be a community organizer in Chi-town. No political accomplishments because he never had the political courage to be a maverick and dare say something that was/is even an iota shy of pandering to his party. Confused? My point is that since Truman (save perhaps Reagan) Presidents have chosen to react to history rather than to step up, risk low approval, lose political capital, and take action that would make a difference. They ride the river rather than steer the boat. McCain will definitely try and steer, but he’d bring with him a divided crew-half of which will not only refuse orders, but work against them. Obama, on the other hand, will certainly not take office and suddenly change the pattern and tenor of his entire life by suddenly going about plans and actions that will actually change the planet and the US. No, he’ll ride the river….until…

2) Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato. Every President kills people in battle-Scott Malensek. There will come a time-there ALWAYS does-when a President Obama would have to steer the country away from the rocks. When he does….there will be no opposition to military action from the right (a lot of “I told you so’s”, but not opposition), and he CAN lead the left into war. He’s already saying he will with his warmongering promise to send more and more troops into Afghanistan, and to unilaterally, attack a sovereign nation (Pakistan) just on the chance of getting one tall Arab guy who has lost several fold of his power over the past 7yrs; he’d risk nuclear war to do this. Is it just talk? No. I don’t think so because Obama is a rule-by-poll guy, and no way can he stomach the kinda reports that have plagued GWB, Clinton, Bush Sr, and even Reagan’s legacy; “You coulda gotten Bin Laden and you chose not to-you let him get away.” Obama does not have the mettle to take that kinda accusation. So when the boat heads toward that rock, and he can either attack in Pakistan or let UBL go, he’ll hit Pakistan because it’ll be the popular thing to do, and he can lead his crew-people on the L and R-to support him.

So we have a guy who earned the job, is more than ready to do it, has a history of bi-partisanship, but can’t unite the left

vs

a guy who has as much experience as any other Joe Schmoe at being President, has almost zero experience in bi-partisan efforts, has almost no accomplishments to speak of in his life save getting elected Senator via uber pandering at a time of incredible national divide, but he gives shivers up Chris Matthews’ leg, makes the KOSsacks, DNC, Hollywood, and even isolationists and socialists feel all warm and buttery (-sorry, already getting ready for the taste of popcorn next week).

Gonna be good. Either way, America cannot win, and cannot lose. We will have a capable manager, or an inexperienced manager who is a good leader (soundbites rule the nation).

I’ll probably vote McCain just because I think he’e done more than enough to deserve my vote of support and he’s very capable of being President, but I believe that if one wants nationa unity…then Obama’s the guy.

Nothing will make President Bush looks smarter, his actions look braver, his accomplishments shine brighter….than an Obama administration, and 35wks after Obama’s taking office, the 911 denialist primary point of deliberate ignorance (the “it happened on his watch” bit about GWB) disappears. Any recession that starts on day 1 of Obama’s watch makes GWB look good. Any attack on the US 35wks into Pres Obama’s watch makes Bush look good. Airstrikes on Iran, war w Russia, whatever….as long as it happens after 91109…..it’s Obama’s fault.

Who cares about fault? We all should to a degree-not because it fingerpoints a person or a party, but because it erases the spin about an action, event, or strategy. For example…Pres Obama is elected. In transition, he gets briefed on Iran’s nuke program. They show him the laptop, the captured blueprints on how to make a bomb core, the captured plans on making a bomb, the pics of ballistic missiles being modified to ironically fit new warheads that match the plans down to the 1/16th of an inch. They play NSA phone intercepts of Iranians discussing how the bomb making is going. They show sat pics of what look like missiles. They show JSTARs radar images of Russian convoys loaded w ballistic missiles heading to the peaceful nuclear enrichment plants. His staff shows him IAEA reports that say it looks like Iran’s making nukes. Would Pres Obama go to the UNSC for the 28th time re Iran’s nuclear program? Maybe, but if the UN’s 2002/03 inability to deal w Saddam didn’t make them useless, and their 27 examples of saying “STOP! Or we shall say ‘STOP’ again!” didn’t make them useless, then Obama’s going there once more wouldn’t just put a nail in the coffin, it put a checkmark on a B2 bomber pilot’s checklist. Would he go to NATO which has failed in Afghanistan, failed in Georgia, and gets more and more ineffective by the DAY! Maybe, but it’d be another checklist on the bomber pilot’s pre-flight list. Obama could do all the things that the left rants should be done, but on the right….people don’t hide behind the illusion that all the problems in the world stem from an inept, appointed American President. The right recognizes bad guys. The left needs to be reminded (note, in their 2008 DNC platform….there is no longer a War on Terror. It’s over to Democrats). No, President Obama would come to office with a pre-bombing checklist to appease his base, then he’d have to order the strikes or let Hezzbollah have a nuke, or any of the other dozens of Iranian backed groups-including Al Queda.

Fall back to the question asked by Charlie Gibson at the debates about what to do when a nuke goes off in an American city. It takes months to do nuclear forensics (might not even be possible if other nuclear targets are hit and thus mix up the radiologicals or if the forensic faciltiies themselves are hit). Obama said he’d retaliate. Ooooo, there’s a stretch. Ya mean the American people would support such a thing? LOL What a political no brainer. The real question is…what if he found out the nuclear material was Russian (nuclear material given to Iran is from Russia btw), but that test results are mixed (because IAEA was never backed by UN etc to do intrusive investigations in Iran and find all the production facilities). Would he nuke Iran? Would he nuke Russia? Any tacit action (airstrikes) would lead to escalation. How could he take action with no way of knowing if there was a nuke hidden in every American city?

Obama’s transition would be the biggest eye-opening cold shower a President has ever had, and it’d be followed (as has already been promised by Obama) by a continuance of Bush’s foreign policy: in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, towards Iran, etc.

Nothing would make Bush look smarter/rhetoric of the past 7yrs from the far left look more ignorant) than those weeks between the victory balls in November and Innauguration day when Democrats realize the foreign policy they’ve so vehemently and effectively opposed and weakened over the pasy 7yrs….is now the one they’ve elected, but w a D next to his name.

Man, I can NOT WAIT(!) till the spin starts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s gonna be a YouTube bonanza!!!

Scott: I still haven’t forgiven you for voting for a Democrat for Congress in 2006. I blame you for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and high gas prices!

Scott, so your basic premise seems to be that only Obama can unite the country because his supporters will refuse to do the right thing if their guy isn’t the leader. I can’t fault the logic, but pardon my language: that s*cks.