Patterico's Pontifications

7/17/2008

Obama Raises $52 Million in June

Filed under: 2008 Election — Patterico @ 7:20 am



WLS has recently been telling us that he suspects Obama’s fundraising capacity is drying up. I wonder what his reaction will be to Obama’s $52 million June.

Meanwhile, another “lifelong conservative activist” says he will vote for Obama, whose trip to Iraq will be covered wall to wall by a pack of sycophants.

You folks getting the picture yet?

77 Responses to “Obama Raises $52 Million in June”

  1. i think the important fact not discussed is that with the 52 mil they raised, and what the DNC has, they have 72 mil…..

    that means he’s been spending as fast as he gets it, which doesn’t bode well for us if he gets elected, ’cause that’s just exactly what he’ll keep on doing with all of our money.

    it also points out his weakness, in that if he does something stupid, and the money quits coming, he’s SOL.

    redc1c4 (5c9f54)

  2. I continue to be amazed by conservatives who say they will vote for Obama. They seem to all have magical powers of telepathy regarding what Obama will do—rather than what he has done in the past. When he has done things, I mean.

    Or what he said then, versus now, versus the future. Ask the Kos-kids how they feel about Obama’s foreign policy, incidentally.

    And voting against both Roberts and Alito does not convince me that Obama’s Supreme Court appointments will be leaning toward freedom. Obama is on record thinking Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a model for a good Supreme Court appointment.

    Foreign policy? Obama knows nothing about it! His “moderate” advisors? Well, his past advisors and mentors were…well, mixed. Right? And Obama’s comments about Pakistan are not exactly encouraging about avoiding foreign entanglements.

    But the author magically knows that Obama will be like JFK? Huh?

    Once again, we are dealing with Moderate Republican Derangement Syndrome from hardline conservatives. And I suspect this is intentional—they want McCain to lose so that Obama will muck things up so much that conservatives will rise up and do great things in 2012.

    I’ll bet this guy voted from Ross Perot in ’92 as a “protest vote” to “teach Republicans a lesson.”

    That got us eight years of Clinton.

    Eric Blair (e8a68b)

  3. I suspect that guy is looking for a job. Being a “conservative activist,” who just happened to endorse the current favorite whose policies, what we know of them, are antithetical to conservatism, is a pretty good resume. Of course, like Scott McClellan, his moment of fame will be brief.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  4. Some telling quotes from the “lifelong conservative activist”, Larry Hunter [all emphasis mine]:

    — Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us.
    [Humbler, as in “we’re going to stop telling them what to do”? or “we won’t act to make things better”?]

    — the fact that [Obama] says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn’t bother me as much as it once would have.
    [Equivocation. The GOP failed (according to him) so it doesn’t matter if Obama also fails domestically.]

    — I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on.
    [On foreign policy he takes Obama at his word; on this issue he thinks Obama is pandering to the anti-business Left.]

    — I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect.
    [He doesn’t “suspect” that Obama is pandering on this one. He’s “hoping” that the candidate, who insists that he never does, changes his mind.]

    — based on his embrace of centrist advisers and policies, it seems likely that Obama will turn out to be in the mold of John Kennedy
    [Again with the hope. He should hope that Obama ends up being closer to Kennedy than to Khrushchev.]

    — economic growth has made Americans at every income level better off. For all his borderline pessimistic rhetoric, Obama knows this.
    [Another accusation that Obama is pandering to his base. Well, this opinion should reassure them.]

    — I believe he is savvy enough to realize that the real threat to middle-class families and the poor … cannot be counteracted by an activist government.
    [Talk about wishful thinking! Now he’s “hoping” that Obama reverses himself on already announced detailed policies.]

    — Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed … big-government liberal, I’m still voting for him.
    [The “lifelong conservative activist” can no longer make that claim.]

    — If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it.
    [The price for supposedly ‘improving’ foreign policy is guaranteed damage to the economy.]

    Icy Truth (ca326e)

  5. Patterico did you read my post on this to WLS? This was the same question I posed to him.
    WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama raised $52 million last month for his presidential campaign, more than twice as much as Republican rival John McCain in a significant boost to his financial cache for the fall contest.
    Where is WLS? I want him to comment on this post. I read a post from him where he was predicting that Obama could be having problems with his decision not to take public funding. He was making a point that Obama must have over estimated his money raising abilities. That his base may not be as enthusiastic about supporting his campaign as they did during the primaries. WLS was basing his analysis on the fact that the Obama campaign was delaying to release their June financial detail. He was reading that to mean they were having problems raisning and were afraid to admit people were not giving as befor. I was telling him it was too early to say that obama was having problems with money just because he was delaying to release it. I told him it was dangerous to underestimate Barack Obama. You never know what they have up their sleeves. I was right. They have just released their june income and it is more than double McCain’s. This with all the talk about Obama’s flip flopping habits and all the rest. WLS. WLS….WLS…..Where are you?……..

    love2008 (1b037c)

  6. $50-55 million is exactly the “average” they needed to hit if they hope to raise $250-300 million over the 5 months from June to Nov. 4.

    But, hitting the average in the first month is really not good enough. June was the month Hillary dropped out and Barack was crowned. He should have enjoyed a bump out of that.

    He won’t be able to attend fundraisers in September and October since making campaign stops is more important. A fundraiser takes an entire evening, whereas during the end-game in an election campaign, a candidate is going to try and make 4-5 stops a day at campaign rallies.

    I have read in other places that Obama campaign sources had mentioned $100 million being their goal for June for this very reason — June and July were the “cleanest” months in terms of their ability to get Obama to fundraisers and to meetings with bundlers.

    Maybe Hillary’s big donors will come through after all, and that money would probably get him to his goal. But if he can’t show some separation from McCain in the polls, they might be encouraged to sit on the sidelines and let him sink or swim on his own, knowing that if he goes down to defeat Hillary can always challenge a 76 year old one term incumbent in 2012.

    wls (02df99)

  7. to rephrase my #1: where has all the money raised so far gone?

    redc1c4 (5c9f54)

  8. love2008 — lets watch to see if Obama keeps 10 paid staffers in West Virginina and Texas now after this number. His “burn rate” is $10 million a month higher than McCains.

    wls (02df99)

  9. To be honest, I’m actually starting to hope McCain and the Republicans come to their senses, and just drop “winning the war” as a platform.

    Instead, his most recent argument for why he should be elected over Obama is “I know how to win wars.” What the hell kind of a platform is that?

    If McCain announced he was going to put an end to our occupation of Iraq and Afganistan, bring the troops home, and reel in the executive overreaches of the current administration, I would vote for him over Obama. And I bet enough folks like me would change sides that he’d win the election.

    Who knows, maybe enough of this beating he and the Republicans are taking will cause a reversal before the election.

    Doing so would neutralize Obama on the war issue, expanding his base beyond the neocons to the true libertarian conservatives. And frankly, I don’t think it would cause McCain to lose any votes at all. What are the neocons going to do, vote for Obama?

    I’m dreaming, I know.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  10. Here’s some info from the Weekly Standard blog which has reviewed the FEC filing and is familiar with the spending side of the Obama campaign:

    “With a burn rate of $42 million a month, Obama’s campaign can just barely sustain its current levels of spending. And what’s leftover may not be adequate to run the kind of campaign he needs to win. Just consider despite all the money he’s raised, Obama has been outspent on television by 3 to 1 in the last two months. All the stagecraft and theatrics has come with a hefty cost.
    Compared to the McCain campaign, Obama has spent three-and-a-half times as much on payroll and benefits, ten times on event staging, two-and-a-half times as much on travel and lodging, and three times as much on food and meetings. Despite being given free protection from the Secret Service, which has proven sufficient for other candidates, the Obama campaign has spent nearly $400,000 on outside security consulting, nearly all of it paid to a security firm that specializes in dangers emerging from “political instability, acts of terrorism, kidnapping, white collar crime, and cyber-attacks.”
    Although the Obama campaign has portrayed itself as “frugal” for making staffers take public transportation from O’Hare, FEC reports of the campaign’s spending paint a very different picture. Obama’s overhead is $10 million more per month than McCain’s, and this is likely to increase substantially given his campaign’s out of control spending and lofty plans for the general election.”

    Raise $52 million, spend $42 million. That seems like a recipe for disaster come September and October.

    wls (02df99)

  11. Phil — and McCain has said he’d rather lose an election than lose a war.

    You’re pathetic.

    wls (02df99)

  12. The fact that Phil wants us to end the “occupation” of Afghanistan — a move way over to the left of what even Obama proposes (does Phil know that Obama wants a “surge” in Afghanistan?) — speaks volumes as to his mindset. We can safely assume that Phil is the ANSWER/Code Pink delegate to Patterico’s Pontifications.

    JVW (6a7c34)

  13. And with respect to the question of whether $52 million raised in June is enough to keep Obama’s momentum going, as WLS points out in comment 6 the interesting question will be if Hillary’s donors start coughing up in large chunks (I hope everyone else liked that metaphor) for Obama. In making just a cursory check of lefty sites and reading letters to the editor after Obama voted in favor to re-authorize FISA, it struck me that a lot of his former true believers who claim to have been donors have vowed to stop all contributions to the Messiah. The question will be whether the $52 million in June turns out to be a launching pad or a high-water mark.

    JVW (6a7c34)

  14. I’m actually starting to hope McCain and the Republicans come to their senses, and just drop “winning the war” as a platform.

    As opposed to … what, exactly? Losing the war? Pretending it doesn’t exist? What alternative would you prefer to “winning the war”?

    (Hint: WE DIDN’T START THIS WAR. The Islamofascisti have been fighting it for forty years, and pulled the US in with the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, killing hundreds of Marines. Iran and the US have been in a State of war since November 1979, when they invaded our embassy and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and traded shots again in the late 80s.)

    You can have peace in the very next second, and all it takes is one thing: unconditional surrender.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  15. Ah, but Phil does have a point: McCain needs to emphasize things other than the war.

    He can’t run a single-issue campaign, and sometimes it seems he’s trying to. The worst part is that this feeds ammo to any critics who try to reduce his entire candidacy to “100 years.”

    If he can put some real pressure on Obama on other issues (judges, education, the economy, energy, etc) he could make some real progress with voters (such as Phil) for whom the war is *not* the central issue and also work to counter criticisms of his hawkishness and his age.

    The war is a very important issue, but it’s not the only issue, and McCain doesn’t help his image by (seemingly) focusing exclusively on it.

    This is also important because right now, if you cut out all the partisan rhetoric, what Obama and McCain envision for the *future* of Iraq is surprisingly similar (especially now that Maliki has spoken out about a timetable–though I still haven’t been able to find McCain’s response to that. You’d think it’d be all over his website, but *nothing* I can find: not helping his image!).

    Joe M. (36eada)

  16. It remains to be seen. But the fact is that we know now that he has exceeded expectations placed by wls in one of his posts. What? Do you really think (or hope) that his support will plummet this July? Keep hoping.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  17. Joe M – He can’t run a single-issue campaign, and sometimes it seems he’s trying to.

    — What about a single-word campaign: Change[?]

    Icy Truth (ca326e)

  18. #16,
    Don’t you think the way Obama burns through money is a concern? As a candidate, and as possibly ending up in office? How do you justify that?

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  19. Hey Drum,
    Who are we at war with? Which country Islamofacistastand?
    Going to war with countries over their extremists is like going to war with California because of what O.J. simpson did back in 94.
    Why couldn’t we have gone after the criminals instead of Iraq???

    Oiram (983921)

  20. Phil — and McCain has said he’d rather lose an election than lose a war.

    It sure is funny neocons talk about America “losing the war.” If we “lose” by withdrawing the troops, who “wins,” exactly? It’s not like we’re suddenly letting terrorists attack us without consequences, or that we stop looking for terrorists. It’s going to be just as hard to attack the U.S. as it was before we withdrew. Granted, we won’t have as many soldiers out there in the middle east with big fat targets on their back, but that’s hardly “losing.”

    I strongly suspect that “losing the war” is used by neocons in much the same sense as “losing my favorite toy.”

    As in, the neocons have finally got themselves a war, and they don’t want to “lose” it. They need it too much!

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  21. I told him it was dangerous to underestimate Barack Obama.

    This kills me. What in Obama’s vast resume did you base your statement on? Which of Obama’s “accomplishments” exceeded expectations?

    Something about Obama brings out idiotic grandiose predictions in his supporters. Whatever it is, it isn’t his resume.

    spongeworthy (9b4e06)

  22. Phil, we lose when the bad guys can say with any shred of credibility that they won. This would seem pretty obvious to me.

    spongeworthy (9b4e06)

  23. On a side note, Obama is getting lots of attention for “working out.” Interesting.

    G (722480)

  24. #18
    I am surprised that you ask that question. who has proven financial ingenuity as a candidate in this election year? Who has run a historically excellent campaign in being able to amass such support and money, enough to beat the Clintons? You can accuse Obama of a lot of things but you cant accuse him nor his campaign of financial impropriety. If they are spending the money its because that is precisely what the money was meant for. it’s not easy to run a presidential campaign. Add to that, the fact that he is running against an incumbent party that wont go down without a fight.
    As President, i beleive Obama will bring great economic fortunes to America. You can tell that by how he has run his campaign thus far.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  25. #18 Vermont N.,
    I am surprised that you ask that question. Who has proven financial ingenuity as a candidate in this election year? Who has run a historically excellent campaign in being able to amass such support and money, enough to beat the Clintons? You can accuse Obama of a lot of things but you cant accuse him nor his campaign of financial impropriety. If they are spending the money its because that is precisely what the money was meant for. it’s not easy to run a presidential campaign. Add to that, the fact that he is running against an incumbent party that wont go down without a fight.
    As President, i beleive Obama will bring great economic fortunes to America. You can tell that by how he has run his campaign thus far.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  26. Phil, we lose when the bad guys can say with any shred of credibility that they won. This would seem pretty obvious to me.

    What do you mean anytime the bad guys can say they won? You mean like this:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_troubled_diyala;_ylt=AhyQyjLisBBtQtF8t2B0o5QLewgF

    Or this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070103070.html

    Or this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6234046.stm

    Or this?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080713/wl_afp/afghanistanattacksnato_080713175947;_ylt=AlzBunNiiQghL4o5WPO8owPOVooA

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  27. #21
    Forget about that no-resume-ding-dong talk. We know that if that was important Hillary would have won hands down. Atleast she was more “qualified” and “experienced.” You will need more than a long resume and years of experience to beat Barack Obama this year. And on the qualification front, dont blame Obama, blame the constitution for making it easy for any true america to be president. If he or she has the money and can compete. The only constitutional thing that can stop him from being sworn in, come Jan.’09 is John McCain winning more votes than him. And it will take more than being an American POW in vietnam to do that. The resounding theme of 2008 is Change! People want change and if McCain can bring that change, then he has hopes of winning this year. So drop that “empty-suit” argument. it’s becoming boring. (yawn..)

    love2008 (1b037c)

  28. WLS (or another poster) showed the breakdown of the fat and exce$$ being spent on the BHO monthlies. Lodging. Food. Paid workers. etc. I think it’s a clear indicator that he spends what he gets, and it just underscores his total lack of experience in balancing any type of budget. (I know his supporters don’t care about this. Why, befuddles me.)

    you cant accuse him nor his campaign of financial impropriety.

    With George Soros and the Chicago thugs behind this campaign, I can’t agree with your statement at all. JMO.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  29. It sure is funny neocons talk about America “losing the war.” If we “lose” by withdrawing the troops, who “wins,” exactly?

    Who wins may be a more nebulous group, but the clear losers will be the Iraqi citizens, the US, and the Middle East as a whole.

    I strongly suspect that “losing the war” is used by neocons in much the same sense as “losing my favorite toy.”

    You got us, Phil. Because, as we all know, we just want to kill, jail and/or oppress us some brown people.

    JD (75f5c3)

  30. Love2008,

    I haven’t seen anyone here accuse him of “financial impropriety”. The Weekly Standard post does indicate that he may be hemorrhaging money and one could conclude that he may not have enough when he needs it later in the campaign. There’s no impropriety there, but I wouldn’t trust a guy who spends so freely with my own money.

    brobin (c07c20)

  31. Who are we at war with?

    Let’s start with the ones who are chanting “Death to America!” on international TV. Does that work for you?

    Why couldn’t we have gone after the criminals instead of Iraq???

    That’s like asking “why couldn’t we have gone after the Nazis instead of Germany?”

    Try actually cracking a history book. Iraq was an overt supporter of international terrorism, in violation of not less than seventeen different UNSC Resolutions, and was taking shots at American and British pilots on an almost daily basis. Every single one of those reasons would have been sufficient in and of itself. Throw in the WMD programs that were found (according to Rockefeller’s report), and the question becomes not “why did we go invade Iraq?”, but “why didn’t Clinton do it earlier?”

    Granted, we won’t have as many soldiers out there in the middle east with big fat targets on their back, but that’s hardly “losing.”

    That simply means that we will have lots of nice juicy civilian targets with big fat targets on their backs instead.

    Why are you so afraid of winning a war against people who want us all dead? Are you trying to pretend that it isn’t really a war, or just that we shouldn’t be fighting it?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  32. Love ’08, Hillary didn’t lose. It’s come down to chosen super delegates. She won the popular vote, no? He hardly trounced her.

    I’m still with a few that Denver could bring an interesting upset. She hung in for so long b/c she knew the stuff we’re just starting to read about now. BHO has never run a competitive campaign where he had opponents and detractors (coupled with the media) question his plans. In that area, HRC is actually very experienced – from AK to DC.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  33. OK while I was typing, Vermont Neighbor came pretty close to accusing the campaign of financial impropriety, but I think he means improper because of where the money comes from, not because of the free spending.

    brobin (c07c20)

  34. because of where the money comes from

    Brobin, you’re correct.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  35. I read the article, and Hunter is a fool.

    Luckily, he only has one vote to misspend.

    Dave Surls (666b48)

  36. #30
    Let’s start with the ones who are chanting “Death to America!” on international TV. Does that work for you?
    But Drumwaster, why do you think this anti-American sentiment in the middle east has grown considerably especially during the last five years? Why do you think that is? American hatred especially in the middle east has grown considerable. Dont you think it could have been better managed? This singular issue is a danger to America’s security. This anger and hatred has become a breeding ground for terrorism. The terrrorists are taking advantage of this to win more people into their evil organisations. Thus the malignant proliferation of al qeada networks and other terrorist groups. I know nothing can be done to get everyone to love america. But I also know a lot can be done to reduce the number of those who do. The lesser your enemies, the better for you.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  37. This singular issue is a danger to America’s security. This anger and hatred has become a breeding ground for terrorism.

    Love ’08 – with all respect, this just isn’t true. The dictates of the Quran have been in stone a lot longer than this country has been around. BHO could win office and it WILL NOT CHANGE the roots of radical extremism, the type that hit the USS Cole, the African Embassy, the WTC back in ’94. This jealousy toward the US and hatred exists beyond you, me, Bush or Obama. It’s what brought the towers down, and it’s not going away by ‘hoping for change.’

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  38. #31
    Love ‘08, Hillary didn’t lose
    How else would you define losing VN? She lost. He won. End of story. Anyone hoping for an upset during the convention is merely “hoping”. And bringing up that popular vote argument leads us no where. The only person saying Hillary won by popular votes is Hillary and her group. The facts on ground dont support that. By what calculation is she making that argument? It’s a subjective view point. It does not stand the test of hard scrutiny.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  39. He simply didn’t win anything by a landslide. He was heavily stroked by the media and the nauseating bias continues. The ‘distractions’ to real headlines are getting annoying (the airplane in St. Louis; the kids on Access Hollywood; Obama on an effing basketball court). I guess we should be glad the sycophants aren’t filming McCain on a basketball court. We know he can do it, we expect Barry can do it and the media should quit with the diversionary tactics on this guy. Let the news spill out. Let his mistakes pile up and let him artfully avoid troops and military talk and head-on chats with the opponent.

    But check and see if your team can get Hillary’s heavy backers to open their pocketbooks. His ‘win’ isn’t bringing them around, and I doubt his bulging stack of mistakes is giving great confidence to the DNC. (Posted here yesterday re the Buyers Remorse issue . . .)

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  40. #36
    So lets just fold our hands and let the fire burn? No effort to contain it? By your comment you are saying that all muslims hate america. That would also include american muslims. Since they all read the same quran. Are you also saying that Islam and Islamofascism are the same? That is, to be a muslim is to hate and kill america and all those who love freedom. That would also mean that OBL was simply carrying out an islamic mandate. In that case, why look for him? Why not just bomb all those hate-filled muslim nations who read the Quran and hate America?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  41. all muslims hate america.

    All EXTREMISTS hate America. That’s why the left is a huge abcess on the rump of this War.

    So lets just fold our hands and let the fire burn? No effort to contain it?

    Uh, that’s why the UN resolution and numerous votes and data showed that we had to be proactive. Or post-active, if you want to consider 9/11. Where people died. On American soil.

    And cool it with the civil rights-Muslim thing. That’s your game. No one’s playing here.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  42. The IndyMac implosion is another example of President Bush totally obliterating the Republican brand. Really, is it that difficult to hire medium competent FDIC officials who can organize a line of people wanting to withdraw money? Is it really so difficult to keep the banks open extra hours, so we don’t have video of angry voters standing in the sun arguing about what line to stand in? Only now is Bush pushing through the rule where bogus income claims on mortgages are no longer allowed. “Golly, who saw this coming?!”

    Is it really so difficult for Bush to propose a huge energy compromise which concedes the need for massive green technology in exchange for immediately starting new nuke, coal, oil, and natural gas operations? How do the liberals get away with saying we need to get oil out of existing leases, but not where the big oil reserves have proven to actually BE? Bush’s press conference yesterday really needs to be watched by everyone. The guy is a total zero.

    It will be a miracle if McCain can squeak out a victory from this crap.

    Wesson (f6c982)

  43. Wesson,

    The IndyMac lines are disappointing but not because of the actions of the federal government. Is the media explaining to people that account deposits up to $100,000 are protected in FDIC-insured banks? And what about the depositors? They also have a responsibility to educate themselves with the facts about their bank accounts. I suspect that most people standing in those lines are reacting based on ignorance and hysteria.

    DRJ (92ca6f)

  44. Half of what his campaign said they would raise in June.

    bill-tb (26027c)

  45. Love2008 @ 16 — July was the month of the FISA reversal and the reminder to have your kids learn Spanish.

    Not exactly calling cards for great fundraising from the grassroots.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  46. Love2008 @ 5 — I’m going to put up another post explaining why his particular $52 million reveals a lot more weakness on Obama’s part than his Kool-Aid drinkers seem to understand.

    And I’m not the one who said that for a general election they could raise $100 million on June — Obama’s people said it. Now those comments are being dismissed as having come from people outside the campaign and were never taken seriously by people inside the campaign.

    Here’s a hint about what my post is going to be about — what’s the significance of the fact that $50 of the $52 million was raised in “primary” money and not “general” money?

    WLS (68fd1f)

  47. “…why do you think this anti-American sentiment in the middle east has grown considerably especially during the last five years?”

    Sorry, but this “growing anti-American sentiment” is greatly exaggerated. The past five years have actually seen a growing anti-terrorist sentiment:

    > Support for homicide bombing among Muslims in predominately Muslim countries worldwide shows a dramatic decline. Support for suicide bombing in Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Indonesia dropped 50% or more in the past five years according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

    > Support for Islamist political parties – linked or sympathetic to the Taliban or al-Qaida – has dropped dramatically. In Pakistan, Islamist parties garnered only 3% of the vote, down from 11% in the previous election.

    > Muslim support for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan fell in the six months before February ’08 by as much as 50% – to 24% – with some former followers now renouncing him. In Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, where many believe bin Laden hides, polls show support for him falling to single digits.

    Would any of these tectonic shifts in sentiment been possible if we had followed the white flag leadership of Senators Reid & Obama 18 months ago? In the Middle East, and much of the world, people respect strength and will abandon a weak horse – every day it becomes more apparent that AQ is that nag.

    Pietro (dfa2ab)

  48. Let’s start with the ones who are chanting “Death to America!” on international TV. Does that work for you?
    But Drumwaster, why do you think this anti-American sentiment in the middle east has grown considerably especially during the last five years? Why do you think that is?

    I’m curious about how old you are. Do you recall the US Embassy takeover of 1979 ?

    That was the declaration of war.

    The assassination of Sadat was another blow. He had kicked out the Russians and made peace with Israel.

    Then the 1983 Marine barracks bombing. The Marine sentries had unloaded rifles so they could not stop the bomber even though they saw him coming. That was a huge mistake by Reagan.

    Then came the embassy bombings in Africa. No response.

    Then came the Cole bombing. These were all attacks that we did not respond to except to attempt to arrest the “criminals.”

    The only case in which the legal approach was tried was the 1993 WTC bombing and the mastermind got away.

    We had 23 years of your approach and all we got were new bombings. Then Bush went after the epicenter of middle east terrorism. Iraq. And indirectly, Iran. They know how dangerous a victory in Iraq would be for them so they are doing everything short of war to stop us.

    And fools are trying to help them. Just like they did in Vietnam.

    We don’t need a president who wants to lose a war.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  49. Mike K…
    You’re quite correct that we don’t need a President that wants to lose a war.
    Unfortunately, we will likely get (if the MSM has any influence at all) a President who has no idea how to win a war – or any interest in such an outcome.

    Since a techincal “state of war” has existed since 1979 between the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the U.S.A., there is only one acceptable outcome:
    The total destruction of the Government of Iran! – Better late than never.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  50. After reading of Obama’s lauded foreign policy speech in Colorado Springs, I still can’t believe that this moron is considered a presidential candidate – he would not be in any political party of adults.

    His comments about having a foreign policy that does not rely only on the military is just a lie on his part – the Bush administration has some brilliant diplomatic successes on record. And his comment about having a “civilian” national security force was just junior high debate rhetoric.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  51. Mike K #48,

    I completely agree and well said.

    DRJ (92ca6f)

  52. #48
    We don’t need a president who wants to lose a war.
    Obama is not planning to “lose” a war. But you can keep twisting that tripe till you are black and blue. He is going to end the war. McCain wants to keep the war going on indefinitely. Ending the war is not important to him. (he said so himself) He doesnt mind staying in Iraq for another 100 years. Voting mccain is voting for a war that has no end plan. Obama wants to end it. why is that cowardice and surrendering to you? Okay, one question, what is your measuremnet of success? Where are you going to get to before being able to say we have succeeded? Iraq will never convert to a xtian nation. (Except by some miracle. I believe in miracles.BTW.). No matter how long you stay there, you will never achieve a complete destruction of Islamic fundamentalist. You will only breed more of them. As long you stay there, the Iraqis will not rise up and take control of there own security. Asserting that Obama wants to lose a war is a mischievous misrepresentation of the issue at hand, It is malicious and complete BS. And you know it but your republican pride just wont help you see how wrong you are. What is more, even the Iraqis are getting tired of your stay in their country. They want to know when you are leaving. One thing my mum taught me growing up, know when to leave a party. Dont overstay your welcome. It’s a big shame to stay until your host asks you to leave. Folks, its time to leave. mission accomplished. Saddam has been ousted. Check! A new democratically elected government is now in place. Check! The Iraqis now have a sizeable army to stand and defend their liberty and democracy. Check. Some level of stability has been achieved and political reconciliation underway between the warring factions. Check. Al qeada has been dismantled in Iraq. check.
    folks. Its time to pull out. Obama has a plan that makes sense. Open your partisan eyes and see it. it’s not losing a war, it is ending it to be able to fight again, somewhere else.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  53. Take a breath, love2008.

    DRJ (92ca6f)

  54. love2008, amusing that you call the above “tripe” and then follow up with a fabrication of your own. McCain does not want to keep the war going on indefinitely.

    The claim that McCain’s comments about being in Iraq for 100 years as the same as being at war in Iraq for 100 years is an outright fabrication common to Democrats these days. Because you’ve all copied the same lies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. He is going to end the war.

    And when the other side decides to not end it? It only takes one to wage a war. If Obama says “I will end the war”, will he bother to respond to renewed acts of war?

    Iraq will never convert to a xtian nation.

    Why are you so scared to use the word “Christ”? Are you afraid that he might pop up and tickle your conscience for all of the dumb things you’ve done over the years?

    Obama has a plan that makes sense.

    Brave Sir Robin had a plan, too, and the two are remarkably similar.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  56. #53
    DRJ. Thanks. I just went out for walk in the park. Had to let it out. Thanks.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  57. Good idea, love2008. I went for a walk earlier but it’s hot and muggy here. Next time I think I’ll go for a swim instead.

    DRJ (92ca6f)

  58. #55
    Why are you so scared to use the word “Christ”? Are you afraid that he might pop up and tickle your conscience for all of the dumb things you’ve done over the years?
    LOL. Make no mistake about it, Drum, I am as conservative as they come. I am not a liberal. Not by any measure. But I am also open to common sense. My comments are partisan. I am not an Obamabot (whatever that means. i know not) as some have alleged. I have yet to visit an Obama site. I dont get my information from partisan sources.
    I love and honour George Bush. I still believe he will go down in history as one of the most significant Presidents America has known in years. He is decisive, stubborn, smart and principled. Everything you want in a commander in chief. I will miss his presidency. He also has a great sense of humour. I also love his wife Laura. I think she is a model of what a wife of a public official should be. Very meek, mild and very confident in what she believes in. So you see, I could easily be a republican. I just dont agree with him on Iraq.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  59. It is pretty hilarious that Obama thinks that his wife should be immune to criticism. If he or she can’t take the heat, then they should not be on the campaign trail.

    These people don’t have the character to be in the White House.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  60. He is going to end the war.

    No, he isn’t. The war will be over before he’d have the opportunity. And we’ll have won it, despite his insisting that we surrender just last year.

    He had the opportunity to assess the situation, and he didn’t just vote on it, he introduced legislation that would have found all of our combat troop out of Iraq by now. He got it wrong. The surge worked, largely because the Iraqis surged too. We won and the Iraqis won, when Obama would have had both lose.

    This was an opportunity to display outstanding judgment, and he got it 100% wrong.

    Pablo (99243e)

  61. Oops! A correction on my last comment. “My comments are not partisan…”

    love2008 (1b037c)

  62. All that unbelievable bullshit and unnecessary verbiage, and you still avoided the question.

    I don’t know why I should expect truth from you, so you can run along, having erased any credibility you might have gained.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  63. Love2008:

    Patterico did you read my post on this to WLS? This was the same question I posed to him.

    How the fuck could he not have seen it? You spammed it all over the goddamned universe.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  64. #60
    So you agree that saying Obama wants to lose the war is not accurate. Seeing by your comment, the war has been won. If the war is already won, how can Obama want to lose it? Right? Its even a plus for him that he had been talking about ending the war long before now. It looks as though the recent events are confirmations of his earlier position. So he was right. McCain seems not to wake up to the present reality. He is still talking about not surrendering when what he should be talking about is how to end the ending war and bring those troops back. But I understand why he cant make that sudden swicth in policy. With all these charges of flip flopping. Better a flip flopper who gets it right than a stubborn fool who wont change his wrong position.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  65. love2008, Obama has never gotten anything about Iraq right … that’s why he’s erasing his old positions.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. #63
    I did. I apologise. I was over excited maybe. Patterico, Love2008 apologises.
    #62
    And drum, what question did I avoid please? Maybe I missed the meaning. Maybe you can rephrase it a bit.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  67. So you agree that saying Obama wants to lose the war is not accurate. Seeing by your comment, the war has been won. If the war is already won, how can Obama want to lose it?

    Because winning it means he was wrong. That’s tough to campaign on. Success in Iraq is bad for Democrats, especially Obama.

    Its even a plus for him that he had been talking about ending the war long before now. It looks as though the recent events are confirmations of his earlier position. So he was right.

    Uh, no. There would have been no surge over the last year, we’d have been pulling out. The Basra operation would never have happened. The subsequent Baghdad operation would never have happened. We’d have lost had Obama’s proposed legislation become law.

    The rest of your comment is silly.

    Pablo (99243e)

  68. And drum, what question did I avoid please?

    The question that I asked, and you first quoted, then ignored, in the resulting verbal diarrhea.

    Try actually reading what you are responding to, and your credibility wouldn’t suffer so badly in your hamhanded attempts to deny your own ideology.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  69. #68
    If that is the question you are asking, about whether I was avoiding using the word “Christ”? I thought I answered it by saying i was a conservative. Anything beyond that is basically none of your business. How i relate with my faith and my God is not on trial here. And I dont like your language.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  70. And I dont like your language.

    No doubt. English does seem to give you a lot of trouble.

    I thought I answered it by saying i was a conservative

    “Thought”? There you go, working without tools again.

    No, you didn’t answer anything. And I don’t believe you are a “conservative” anything, unless you are speaking comparatively, and were using Obama as your baseline.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  71. #70

    Iraq will never convert to a xtian nation.

    I think what she’s saying is she’s Muslim.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  72. Don’t you mean mXm?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  73. This Doom and Gloom has got to go. We need to focus on the primaries on Aug 5 for a lot of state races. Make sure that good conservative candidates get on the ticket. Put up decent candidate against the Democrats in Congress. The GOP has not done a good job.

    The Democrats have less favorable ratings in Congress. Pound on the oil drilling.

    McCain will win because simply Barry is clumsy when off script and he shows it daily. Without any effort on McCain part he is even in the polls. The polls do not take in the breakdown by state districts.

    Obama will get the black vote, which is 10%, and the liberal vote 25%. The other democrats the God and guns group will go to McCain. Women will go 55% to Democrats normally but will only go 40% due to his arrogance and condescension and the pro Hillary insults by his supporters. The women vote is part of the black and liberal so I think Obama will get 40% at most.

    He will not win in the Appalachian areas or the south. If McCain did an effort he could keep Kansas, VA, Co, and Montana. McCain has really good chance in Michigan and OH. McCain even has a chance in CA, Mass and NY. The only definite states for Obama is MD, DC, DE NJ HA, ILL, all others are toss ups.

    GOP needs to open the states office. The state GOP needs to do it without MCCain to coordinate the Congressional seats and the Presidential race. This cab be done but not if we moan and groan.

    RAH (f3b841)

  74. “Its even a plus for him that he had been talking about ending the war long before now. It looks as though the recent events are confirmations of his earlier position. So he was right.”

    He was wrong. If he were “right” Saddam would still be a Tyrant murdering, torturing and imprisoning 25 Million Iraqis. Yeeesh.

    What kind of stupid propaganda tool is this? PravdaBots by MicroSovietskya? I’ve never read such stupid drivel before in my life until the last few months. This is some kind of twisted Obamatron non-think propaganda software tool, or paid for fools infecting our networks directly from Gaza.

    What an idiotic statement. Great laughs though.

    Michael (44730a)

  75. FOR SALE – AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
    How about if we elect a President the old fashioned way, through fair and honest elections, based upon the candidate’s actual patriotism, experience, judgement, and service to country … instead of who is more of a showman, or who can raise more money … and therefore buy the Presidency … (like Barack Obama did in the primaries), and is trying to do in the general election.

    Gina (6261e4)

  76. based upon the candidate’s actual patriotism, experience, judgement, and service to country

    When was the last election in which those were the deciding factors? I don’t think I can say those were the deciding issues in any of the five presidential elections I’ve been able to vote in.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  77. McCain even has a chance in CA

    On what do you base that astonishing assertion?

    Field thinks that Sen. Obama is up by twenty-four points in California.

    Field could be wrong, of course. They’re generally regarded as the most accurate polling agency in California and one of the most accurate in the country, but they badly misread the California Democratic Primary, calling it for Sen. Obama. Yet it’s hard to imagine being wrong by that large a number.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1399 secs.