Exclusive: Monday, July 7

by PRESIDENTIAL WATCH July 7, 2008

Interesting website for a broad range of info on Barack Obama - GO HERE.

Remembering What the Swift Boat Vets Actually Said

Jim Geraghty, NRO.com

I'm not the first to make this point, but it seems the attacks on John McCain's war service stem from prominent Democrats completely misreading what happened with the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. The Democrats' conventional wisdom is that A) everything the group said was a lie and B) they attacked Kerry's wartime service.

Go back and reread what they charged. (Take a walk down memory lane from the Kerry Spot here, here and here and Byron's assessment of the impact here.) A lot of their stories came down to their word against John Kerry's. Some of the points of contention were inconclusive, and some of the reactions their comments triggered, like convention delegates wearing "purple heart band-aids" on the floor of the convention, were crass. But they scored several major points. The first was when they pointed out the impossibility of Kerry's story of "Christmas in Cambodia" that was "seared, seared" into his memory. When one of Kerry's oft-cited war stories had such a glaring impossibility at its heart (Richard Nixon wasn't president, and thus couldn't be denying bombing in Cambodia, on Christmas 1968) it raised doubts about all of his other accounts of the war.

Second, no Kerry supporter could dispute the candidate's postwar "Genghis Khan" testimony before Congress, which many Vietnam veterans saw as a betrayal. When it became clear that Kerry was referring to secondhand accounts, and had not himself seen soldiers cutting off heads and ears, many veterans saw that as reckless at best and most likely slander. I'd argue that this was the Swift Boat Vet argument that really gained traction, and I suspect many voters saw it as a situation that revealed Kerry's character.

Third, there were about 200 members of Swift Boat Vets for Truth. Maybe some of them had faulty memories, or were down-the-line Republicans, or just plain didn't like Kerry. But all of them? Many Americans looked at the sheer volume and detail of their stories of Kerry, and concluded that where there was smoke, there was most likely fire.

If we see hundreds of men who served with McCain come out and denounce him, the American people will reconsider their opinion of him, as well. But I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Read article.

Kirchick: The only smears are coming from Obama

Ed Morrissey, Hot Air.com

James Kirchick does not exactly fit the bill as a right-wing ideologue, although he is more of a centrist than his center-left colleagues at The New Republic. That gives his Politico column on political smears in the presidential race significantly more heft than if similar observations were made by a Robert Novak or a Charles Krauthammer. Kirchick disputes the notion that Republicans have engaged in smear tactics against Barack Obama - and points the finger instead at Obama's campaign and supporters:

"Thus far, no one with any serious affiliation to John McCain's campaign has resorted to the alleged "scare" tactics in which Republicans - and, apparently, only Republicans - have been perfecting since Richard Nixon was first elected. On the contrary, if the past few months have showed us anything, it's that the Obama campaign is the one dealing in crude smears. . .

"It's curious how anyone could argue that a man with such visceral understanding of the capacity for what America's enemies will do to our men and women in uniform doesn't fully appreciate the cost of war. But even more troubling is the unmistakable pattern of these smears, all of them unsubtly alleging that McCain is an unhinged, mentally unstable warmonger who would deploy soldiers capriciously because he hasn't truly experienced the horrors of ground battle. Indeed, the claims of these four men - and the short period of time in which they were all uttered - are so similar in tone that one would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility they were coordinated by the Obama campaign.

Kirchick emphasizes the series of attacks and smears on McCain's military record coming from a range of Democrats, most of which AP and I have extensively documented. He sees this as a coordinated effort to paint McCain as temperamentally unsuited for leadership, somehow without getting Obama's hands dirty in the process. Read article.

Lt. Col. Allen West and Michelle Obama

James Lewis, American Thinker.com

I just sent my first political contribution to the Congressional campaign of former Army Lt. Colonel Allan West, who is running on the "R" ticket in Florida House District 22 --- that's in Broward County. Colonel West is a man who has proved himself, not just in the rigors of combat, not just in leadership, not just in the technical craft of military tactics and strategy, but in the most difficult life-and-death dilemma a human being can face.

He made an agonizing moral decision to save his men from a likely ambush. To do so, he shot off a pistol next to the head of a suspect, forcing him to confess vital lifesaving intelligence. Col. West didn't do that to punish the man, but to save lives. It worked.

When Col. West reported his own actions to superiors, he must have known that his decision would cost him his military career. He might have ended up in prison for years. He knew it would lead to months and months of personal agony. But he made the right decision in the face of a life-and-death moral dilemma.

I think I know what kind of a human being Colonel West must be, and I'm deeply pleased to support him. We need many more like him in the US Congress, because he is an adult who can make a moral decision under immense pressure. Far too many of our politicians just slip around real moral decisions; those are the people we don't need as leaders. Read article.

Monsieur Obama's Tax Rates

Review & Outlook, Online WSJ.com

And speaking of tax rates, celebrity chef Alain Ducasse changed his citizenship this month from high-tax France to no-income-tax Monaco. He says it wasn't a financial decision but an "affair of the heart." Of course. Nonetheless, plenty of other Frenchmen have moved abroad to escape their country's confiscatory taxes.

Americans should be so lucky: Ours is the only industrialized country that taxes its citizens even if they live overseas. That hasn't been a big problem as long as U.S. tax rates have been relatively low. But with Barack Obama promising to raise rates to French-like levels, this taxman-cometh policy could turn Americans into the world's foremost fiscal prisoners.

And make no mistake, taxes under a President Obama would be à la française. The top marginal tax rate on income - including federal, state and local income and payroll levies - could reach 60% for many self-employed New Yorkers and Californians. Not even France's taxes are that high now that President Nicolas Sarkozy has capped the total that high-earning Frenchmen like Mr. Ducasse can pay in income, social and wealth taxes at 50% of earnings. Read article.

A President who is history deficient?

Paul Greenberg, JWR.com

Barack Obama now has cited the Nuremberg trials after the Second World War as a model of the way Osama bin Laden should be tried in the (unlikely) event he's ever taken alive. He recommends Nuremberg as an example to follow because, he says, those trials embodied universal legal principles.

The Nuremberg trials a model of international law? Those stone-faced judges in Red Army uniforms peering down from the bench at Nuremberg, shoulder boards in place and guilty verdicts at the ready, must have been there as representatives of Comrade Stalin's well-known devotion to universally accepted legal principles.

This is not to say that the judges at Nuremberg couldn't demonstrate exquisite tact. For example, not a one noted the Soviets' responsibility for the Katyn Massacre, a war crime none dared accuse them of at the time.

In 1946, the Soviets were still Our Fighting Russian Allies. And so the mass execution of the Polish army's officer corps in the Katyn forest was pinned on the Nazis, who were conveniently at hand. What would one more war crime matter in a record already so monstrous? Read article.

Obama Flips and Flops

Charles Krauthammer, Townhall.com

You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after 9/11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism."

So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee. Read article.

The South Will Fall Again

Thomas F. Schaller, NY Times.com

The interim between the primaries and the parties' nominating conventions is, according to ancient writ, a fertile period for presidential campaigns to talk about how they plan to expand the political map in the fall. This year is no different. Barack Obama's strategists are suggesting that the first African-American presidential nominee of a major political party can parlay increased turnout among black voters into a string of victories in the South.

Given that roughly half of all African-Americans live in the 11 former Confederate states, the idea seems intuitive enough. It's also wrong. Prying Southern electoral votes away from the Republicans is not so simple.

Two pervasive and persistent myths about racial voting in the modern South are behind the notion that Mr. Obama might win in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi.

The first myth is that African-American turnout in the South is low. Black voters are actually well represented in the Southern electorate: In the 11 states of the former Confederacy, African-Americans were 17.9 percent of the age-eligible population and 17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004, analysis of Census Bureau data shows. Read article.

Obama site urges: 'Revolution' against U.S. 'oppressive' regime:

Marxists, socialists, communists form group to plot on official campaign blog

Aaron Klein, WND.com

Marxists, socialists and communists have created a safe space online to congregate, exchange ideas - including a stated revolution against the U.S. "oppressive" regime - and support their favored presidential candidate.

Their meeting spot? Sen. Barack Obama's official campaign website, which allows registered users to form groups and post content in online "community" blogs.

One popular community group on the Illinois senator's official MyObama website calls itself "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama."

"This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat," states the groups charter. Read article.

Freedom and the View from Obamaland

Jeffrey Lord, Spectator.org

Pull back for a moment from the day-to-day and see the pattern.

Talk radio. Oil. Guns. Global warming. Smoking.

On the surface this is a seemingly unconnected laundry list of issues, their connection one to another tangential at best. Or is it?

In the increasingly disturbing view we are all getting of the messianic world that is Obamaland, these subjects in fact have a chilling commonality.

* Talk Radio: Think back for a moment to that threatening letter sent earlier this year to Rush Limbaugh's business partners at Clear Channel Communications by Senator Harry Reid, the Democrats' Senate leader. It was signed by all Senate Democrats, prominently including Barack Obama. While Limbaugh famously turned the attempt to intimidate him into a hilarious charity bidding war that raised four million dollars for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, make no mistake. The idea behind the letter was an attempt by government officials to intimidate a private citizen into silence. To shut down Limbaugh's freedom to run his radio show the way he sees fit.

Silencing freedom is also the point with the push by Obama supporters to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a move that would effectively shut down the free-market world of talk radio as Americans by the millions have so enthusiastically come to know it. Read article.

Can Barack Buy the Presidency?

Karl Rove, Online WSJ.com

The savvy Obama team believes they can raise considerably more than the $84 million Mr. McCain will receive by taking public financing in September for the general election. They realize this is likely to be a close, hard-fought contest and they want every advantage - their candidate's previous pledges to take public funds and criticism of money in politics notwithstanding.

Then, too, unions will give Mr. Obama an edge. The AFL-CIO has committed $53.4 million for the Democratic nominee, up $6 million from 2004. Other unions will chip in. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee has pledged $50 million.

There are other third-party groups. While the GOP may be seen as the party of Big Money, recent presidential contests have shown that - taking unions, George Soros's wealth, and organizations like MoveOn.Org into consideration - Democrats have a large financial advantage. In 2004, when each side's spending by candidates, national committees and third-party groups was totaled up, Democrats outspent Republicans in the presidential race by $119.4 million. Read article.

Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin?

Mary Starrett, NewsWithViews.com

Being For the Constitution SOME of the Time And Not All Of The Time Is Like Being ‘A Little Bit Pregnant'

Bob Barr, former Republican Congressman and US Attorney and now the Libertarian Party candidate for president has held many positions that constitutionalists can agree with. Many see Barr as the natural movement forward of the Ron Paul campaign, but even the most cursory examination of Bob Barr's past political positions show he doesn't pass the smell test.

In other words, you can't be for adherence to the Constitution some of the time and against it some of the time, as we shall see Bob Barr clearly is.

Close enough is not close enough at all when it comes to our civil liberties and the rights guaranteed in the founding documents.

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin2008.com) believes the US Constitution was then and is now designed to tie down the tentacles of the Federal government and that any and all powers given to the Federal government are clearly outlined in and limited by that document.

Bob Barr has not held fast to that single absolute and that is why you should know there is a very large distinction between Barr and Baldwin. Read article.

Why more Jews won't be voting Democrat this year

Jennifer Rubin, Jpost.com

Defenders of Barack Obama, and sometimes Obama himself, seem frustrated that some American Jews refuse to assume their traditional role of support for the Democratic presidential nominee. The Obama defenders are irked that not all Jews accept at face value Obama's expressions of devotion to Israel and commitment to her security.

Why can't these contrarians just take Obama at his word (he is a Zionist, he really is, they insist)? The answer is "1973."

But the explanation starts in 2008. Many Jewish Obama doubters are convinced that Israel faces a true existential threat unlike any in 35 years. From nation states like Iran, which threaten to destroy Israel, to Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists, Israel may in the next decade be pushed to the brink of its existence. Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah in 2006 demonstrated the limits of Israel's historic military advantage.

With the spread of nuclear weapons and other deadly technologies a second Holocaust - that is, the annihilation of a substantial portion of world Jewry - is not out of the realm of imagination.

These Obama skeptics recall a similar time, 1973, when Israel also faced extermination. Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat's willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat.

So what does this have to do with Obama? Read article.