Wish you were here ...
Posted on 05/29/2008 5:53:04 AM PDT by Salena Zito
It's all about George W. Bush. Really Pittsburgh Tribune-Review By Salena Zito Taking advantage of the Scott McClelland sour grapes book tour which is directing even heavier than usual negative George W. Bush vibes, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign sent out an e- mail to supporters titled "You vs. George W. Bush". Keeping with the Obama campaign motto of conjoining Bush with Sen. John McCain, Obama urged supporters to be, well, more supportive and give money to the campaign because George W. Bush helped John McCain raise money.
Do you think that Barack Obama is going to spend the next five months saying "Bush -- McCain, or McCain-Bush, or Bush third term, or failed foreign policies of Bush, or Bush, Bush and more Bush? Uh, yeah. In fact it probably is going to be pretty hard to explain to those less informed that George W. Bush isn't really on the ballot this November when all the DNC and Obama ads are going to be all about Bush.
-- Salena Zito
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
That would suggest the MSM will ignore McCain and focus on Bush.
McCain will be treated like Bush I’s re-election campaign, lots of articles about the lack of a Bush campaign or the weakness of the campaign while ignoring stump speeches and pressers.
Or like Dole, for that matter, articles were abundant talking about his “lack of traction”.
You would think people would know by now that Obama and the rest of the libs lie period.
McCain should say that yes, in some ways I am like Bush in that I will allow the working man to keep a larger percentage of his paycheck as where Obama is going to make your paycheck smaller.
For the Dems, a side benefit would be that associating McCain with Bush may push McCain to emphasize his left-wing stance on many issues (in contravention to Bush’s “bad” policies). This could end up diminishing the GOP turnout.
BDS bump
I’m stunned, stunned I tell you, that ANY party would use this tactic.
The media has spent 8 years painting McCain as the anti-Bush. If he handles this even moderately well, it is a non-issue. The left mistakenly believes that the American people think Bush is wrong on every issue. This is not true. The lefties pea-brains are too clouded to understand how ‘typical’ Americans think.
Since you were a RootyBooster, I have a strong sense that you’re pulling for Obama to win in November. You liberals sure stick together. LMAO
It worked in the primaries when the media shut out the conservative candidates. “I’m sorry, you don’t have enough ‘traction’ to get face time at a debate...”
All McCain needs to say is, “No, I’m not like George Bush. I believe in limited government because YOU, American people, should keep more of your tax dollars. Uncle Sam needs to allow Americans to decide how to spend their paycheck. Conservatism is compassionate when it lets Americans lead the way toward economic prosperity. The problems that ail America will be best solved by letting YOU take charge and by getting government out of the way.”
Of course, I don’t think Rino McCain believes this for one second, unfortunately.
Yep.
We can’t give you publicity. We checked, and frankly, you don’t get enough publicity for us to consider running articles about you and your little campaign.
lol NYT headline “McCain to Obama: Yes, I am like Bush”!
McCain should say that yes, in some ways I am like Bush in that I will allow the working man to keep a larger percentage of his paycheck as where Obama is going to make your paycheck smaller.American's aren't stupid. If Jorge actually cut government instead of spending like a drunken sailor on his little illegal buddies people might trust him more. Cutting taxes only work if you've got a balanced budget to go with it.
And he never apologizes to the UnAmerican Dems and their media, like McCain is constantly doing.
But, this is what Republican voters have chosen, they have litmus tested their way to McCain.
Directly from the book:
McClellan says Bush’s reason for war always was “an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the middle East through the spread of freedom”. But Bush and his advisers made “a marketing choice” to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.
So Bush’s reason for going to war with Iraq was “an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the middle East through the spread of freedom”. I guess this knocks the wind out of the sales of the Bush haters, and blows the ‘conquer Iraq for oil’ theory, doesn’t it?
McClellan writes: “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder.”
In fact, “history” is poised to do no such thing. Al-Qaida is on the run, and the U.S. is on the cusp of victory in Iraq (for another view of our success in the War on Terror, see “Verbatim,” page A11). Years from now we think Americans will see this as a turning point in history, a time when an American leader stood up to protect Western Civilization following the barbarous attacks of 9/11.
We don’t have space here to refute everything. But one charge in McClellan’s 341-page tome stands out, so we’ll focus on that: The Bush White House conducted a dishonest “political propaganda campaign” to sell the war to the American people.
Start with the obvious: Wasn’t it McClellan’s job to resign in protest if he thought the American people were being misled? If so, this was his own failing, not Bush’s.
Moreover, contrary to the common wisdom, Bush’s rationale for taking out Saddam Hussein was about many things — not just one.
Yes, he expressed concern Saddam would get a nuclear weapon with which to blackmail both his neighbors and the West.
But Bush also wanted to halt the spread of terror, deny a possible haven for al-Qaida, and promote democracy in the Mideast, among other things. As ex-Pentagon official Doug Feith recently noted, Bush delivered 24 major speeches on Iraq from Sept. 2002 to Sept. 2004. In them, he made a wide-ranging, nuanced case for getting rid of Saddam. It wasn’t only about WMD.
Yet, McClellan claims Bush was “shading the truth.” Well, what truth did he shade? WMD? In fact, the CIA assessment of Iraq that Bush used was made during President Clinton’s final year in office. It said that Saddam had a WMD program and, quite possibly, a nuclear weapon. Every major intelligence agency — Britain’s, France’s, Russia’s, Germany’s, Israel’s, even the U.N.’s — agreed.
Yes, as it turns out, some of that intelligence was wrong. Even so, reasons for getting rid of Saddam were too numerous to ignore. In October of 2002, Congress cited no fewer than 23 reasons when it overwhelmingly gave Bush the right to remove Saddam.
Bush was clear from the start, and dead honest: This was about defending our nation from the insane jihadists who had declared war on us from their safe-havens in the Mideast. McClellan, blinded by his anger, can’t see this. The American people someday will.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=29
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.