No Runny Eggs

Photoshop from Geepers of LGF via lawhawk

Jim Geraghty found an ancient bus-tossing incident in Barack Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope. Quoting from the book:

Increasingly, I found myself spending time with people of means – law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart,interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class; the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured with a high SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by movements of global capital. Most were adamantly prochoice and were vaguely suspicious of deep religious sentiment…

I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population – that is, the people I’d entered public life to serve.

While Jim focuses on what Obama thinks of those donors, I’ll point out that they’re using Obama and his friends to keep the numbers of those that can afford the $2,000 (now adjusted for inflation) donations to the absolute minimum. After all, some animals are more equal than others, even though the grease is the same.

The latest proof of the Jim Geraghty Maxim – Obama flip-flops on filibustering any bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity.

Folks, remember the words of The Indispensible One – “All Barack Obama statements come with an expiration date. All of them.” It’s just a matter of figuring out when a particular utterance curdles and sours.

Now, who do I give the hat tip to? I’ll go with Allahpundit. It’s a shame I missed out on Photoshopping the Obamination Seal, because it just got itself clubbed under the bus.

Let’s see if my feed has the non Cliff-Notes’ version of the history of the clubbing:

– William Teach jumped the gun just a bit on the 19th with a Pooh pop-gun.
– Matt Lewis broke the news Friday afternoon.
– Ace released the hounds (or more-specifically, Slublog).
– John McCormack wondered if it was illegal.
– William Teach (with not 1, not 2, not even 3, but a 4-post special), Jim Lynch, Jim Hoft, B.C. the Imperial Torturer, and Mondoreb, among others, had a lot of fun.

Just as a reminder to those Photoshop geniuses, lawhawk is still looking for a cover illustration for Bus and Driver.

In yesterday’s tete-a-tete over terrorism policy, Barack Obama was quoted:

"What they are trying to do is what they’ve done every election cycle which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid, to win elections, that’s what they’re trying to do," Obama told reporters on a flight to Washington D.C.

Barack doesn’t understand the difference between talking candidly about issues and reality and waving the spectre of a boogieman in the dark.

Pot meet thyself!
Take a look at this new Democrat ad put out by Moveon.org:

See, this is waving a boogieman in the dark. Barack and any other “thinking” individual knows exactly what McCain’s comment was on the issue of “100 years in Iraq,” yet they won’t discuss the policy candidly.

Change? Twisting words and libeling your opponent…nope, looks like the same old Chicago politics that we’ve all come to laugh at.

Reuters reports  on yesterday’s back and forth between Obama and McCain regarding the War on Terrorism.

WASHINGTON – A defiant Barack Obama said Tuesday he would take no lectures from Republicans on which candidate would keep the U.S. safer, a sharp rebuke to John McCain’s aides who said the Democrat had a naive, Sept. 10 mind-set toward terrorism.

Well yes, why listen to anyone who isn’t you? Barack doesn’t want to hear about or go to Iraq, he knows those answers. He doesn’t want to hear about drilling for oil, he knows only more taxes will solve the energy problem. Barack doesn’t want to get insight from anyone…unless you happen to be a dictator or terrorism sponsor in some country that he considers “no threat.”

"In part because of their failed strategies, we’ve got bin Laden still sending out audio tapes, so I don’t think they have much standing to suggest that they’ve learned a lot of lessons from 9/11."

Yeah, I guess failure is what you would call the ability to prevent any domestic terror attacks since 9/11. Or that the number of total terrorism victims is down worldwide. Yup, sounds pretty awful!

“Let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated,” Obama said in the interview.

“And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world,” he said.

Ummmmm, Barack, You do know that the guys who flew the planes died that day right? You also know that the folks in Guantanamo were captured on foreign soil right? I’m hoping you know that the one person suspected of being involved with 9/11, who was caught on US soil, Zacarias Moussaoui, plead guilty and is spending the rest of his life as a guest of the Federal Prison System? You claim to be a Professor of Constitutional Law…I’m guessing even you should be able to understand (5 small brains on SCOTUS not withstanding) the difference between those situations?

Obama’s “Nay, nay, nay, nay” moment was from CBS:

"What they are trying to do is what they’ve done every election cycle which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid, to win elections, that’s what they’re trying to do," Obama told reporters on a flight to Washington D.C.

Why Barack, you almost got one right! Yes, we on the Right do intend to use terrorism as separating point in this election. However, I can’t give you full points for your answer. Americans are not afraid to win elections. They are however, afraid of giving elections to people who have a view of the world that is myopic and pollyannish to the point of putting the safety of their families at risk.

In February, Michelle Obama visited a day care center  in Zanesville, Ohio.   While there, she  encouraged Americans to eschew careers in corporate America.   Instead, she encouraged folks to go into “helping” jobs…jobs that obviously wouldn’t pay as well but that made everyone more zen like:

"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do," she tells the women. "Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."

In essence, Michelle was telling America to give up on “doing your best,” “striving to achieve,” or working to better themselves. Michelle was telling America that settling for less than everything you wanted to be was OK and should be expected.

In May, as he was trying to gain the last few delegates to gain the nomination, Barack told an Oregon audience “to settle” and not expect that the life styles we have in America can continue:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …

Today, Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by giving an address at the Apostolic Church of God. After calling on black father’s to become active in raising their children, Barack gave some additional parenting advice:

He said parents who proudly tell him their child gets great grades, all B’s, should encourage them even more.

“All B’s? Is that the highest grade?” Obama said. “It’s great that you can get a B, but you can get a better grade. It’s great that you’ve got a job, but you can get a better job.”

Let’s see, should I settle or aspire? Should I give in or do my best? Should I just “get by” or is the possibility of the “American Dream” something that we can still pursue in America?

I’m so confused!

Chuck Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, has been a vocal proponent of the windfall profits tax.   In fact, Schumer was co-sponsor of the bill that was defeated this week in the Senate.   Schumer’s rationale for the windfall profits tax was pretty straight forward:

"Oil companies are wracking up obscene profits while American families are stretched to the limit by skyrocketing gas prices," Schumer said. "It’s not asking too much to redirect a portion of these companies’ windfalls to rebuilding our roads, bridges, and tunnels that are in serious need of repair."

Schumer actually believes that some level of profit is unwarranted.

Interestingly, a year earlier, Schumer had a different perspective about obscene profits. In 2007, Schumer stood in the way of a windfall profits tax on investment fund executives who reaped enormous incomes.

From the NY Times:

But there is another way Mr. Schumer has been busy with hedge fund and private equity managers, an important part of his constituency in New York. He has been reassuring them that he will resist an effort led by members of his own party to single out the industry with a plan that would more than double the taxes on the enormous profits reaped by its executives.

Schumer’s hypocrisy is not noteworthy. What is noteworthy is the advice he was giving his Democrat colleagues when they wanted to increase the executive’s taxes:

"Unintended consequences often occur when you do major tax work. And you have to be careful," Mr. Schumer said in the interview, held in his office just off the Senate floor.

Wow, unintended consequences! Obviously Chuckie had figured out all of the consequences of a windfall profit tax on the oil companies…or maybe there was nothing that was unintended?

But wait, the best is this…Schumer had found a way to ensure that the bill would fail. He tied other industries to the tax. Industries he knew no one would possibly look to increase taxes on:

But in his conversations with Wall Street executives about the tax proposals, Mr. Schumer said, he has told them that he would oppose a tax increase as long as it did not also apply to other industries, like energy and real estate.

So let’s recap:
A year ago, it wasn’t fair to impose a windfall profit tax on one industry
A year ago, Schumer thought that energy companies were off limits for increased taxes
In the last year, Schumer has continued to fleece Wall Street execs for contributions to the Democrats

Maybe Schumer should be planning Obama’s campaign strategy. At least Schumer’s hypocritical and self serving change in position over the past year is change we can believe in!

Moron Pundit decided to fire up his mad programming skillz and create a Obama Policy Generator. My favorite (so far):

Live From Spread Eagle
by Moron Pundit

Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama gave a speech here today detailing his breathtaking new policy proposals:

Hello! It’s so wonderful to be here in Hell today!

You see, the thing is er… um… I can’t hear myself think… The cost would be… I’m glad you’re fired up… this misguided War in Iraq has taken money away that we could be spending on something important, like Palestinian/American toddler exchange.

Bravo Zulu, MP.

(H/T – Jim Hoft)

A few days after the Democratic Party ignored the will of its voters and selected Barack Obama as its Presidential candidate, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida) introduced a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College, which actually elects the President and Vice President, in favor of a nationwide popular vote.

My underlying thoughts on the elimination of the Electoral College remain unchanged from 2006, when an outfit called National Popular Vote made significant inroads on its unconstitutional scheme to have a sufficient number of states join in a compact to neuter the Electoral College. While it is still wrong as wrong can be, at least Sen. Nelson is doing it the way prescribed by the Constitution.

Jim Geraghty kicked it off by asking why Barack Obama would “overpay” Rita Rezko (Tony’s wife, and yes, THAT Tony) $64,000 for a strip of land on a vacant property she owned next to his Chicago home. Headless Blogger jumped on it and asked why Rezko would “overpay” the previous owner of both parcels $384,000 for that piece of vacant land. I burned much of last night trying to do some digging through both the City of Chicago’s online GIS map and the Cook County Assessor’s office website to see what could be discerned from that.

First, I have to thank Headless for refreshing my memory on some of the specifics of the same-day purchases by Obama and Rezko:

• There are actually 3 parcels involved; two listed by the Cook County Assessor’s office as 5046 S. Greenwood Ave. (the house Obama purchased and an outlot behind the house and garage containing a second, small house also presumably purchased by Obama), and one listed as 5050 S. Greenwood (the vacant lot purchased by Rezko). At that time, the “main” 5046 parcel was about 10,400 square feet and the 5050 parcel was about 9,600 square feet (side note; CBS2Chicago said that it was 7,500 feet; guess they didn’t check city records too closely).
• The previous owner of all 3 parcels was looking to sell them all for $2.575 million. On the same day in June 2005, Obama purchased the two parcels at 5046 for $1.65 million ($300,000 less than the asking price), while Rezko bought the 5050 parcel for $625,000 (the full asking price).
• In January 2006, Obama bought 1/6th of the 5050 parcel from Rezko (about 1,600 square feet) for $104,000 (precisely 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it) despite it being appraised at only $40,500.
• That purchase not only increased the “main” 5046 parcel size to its current 12,047 square feet and reduced the 5050 parcel to 8,002 square feet, but it caused the combined 5046 southern property line to “jog” south (so much for the claim that he was trying to “balance” the property lines).

Now, the “why”s. Do bear in mind that this is complete speculation, but I suspect that Obama wanted the entire parcel, but didn’t yet have the ability to come up with $2.275 million (the total amount paid to the previous owner). He got his friend Tony Rezko to have his wife buy the vacant parcel with the understanding that he would pay her back as the additional money from his new job as US Senator came in by buying pieces of the parcel and attaching them to his property. That scheme fell apart after Tony was indicted on federal corrpution charges in October, 2006.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know whether that scheme violated federal law, Illinois law or Senate ethics rules in addition to smelling as bad as Jones Island after a 3-day rain. However, I do know that, had a Wisconsin politician participated in that scheme, he or she would have faced at a minimum a criminal investigation and likely prosecution.

Revisions/extensions (10:58 am 6/6/2008) – Some more info from a March 2008 article in the Chicago Tribune (H/T – Headless):

The house and the adjoining yard had been owned as a single property, but the owners were listing them separately and asking $1.95 million for the house and $625,000 for the landscaped side lot.

Obama disclosed Friday that someone else already had an option to buy the garden lot. But he said Rezko took over that option after Rezko learned Obama was bidding for the house. Obama said he knew next to nothing about those transactions and does not recall when he learned that Rezko was interested in buying the side lot- or even how Rezko learned it was for sale….

At some point before the property sales closed, Obama toured the home with Rezko for 15 to 30 minutes. Obama said he asked Rezko to assess the property because he was a real estate developer in the area. “He said, ‘I’d be willing to go inside and take a look,’ ” Obama recalled….

Rezko later sold the rest of the lot to one of his former attorneys, who now has it listed for more than $900,000. “It appears,” Obama said, “a sale is about to be consummated.”

Curiouser and curiouser.

I suppose, with both halves of the Presidential ticket now set, now is as good a time as any to outline the three choices conservatives have with regard to John McCain. I will say out front that I am still undecided on which course I will personally take because all three choices involve the highest of risks with at best a minimal chance of a reward, and I cannot yet see which course offers the better chance of reward.

First, we have to understand how we got where we are. The Republican National Committee and its leadership, from President Bush on down, has made its goal the supplanting of conservatives with moderates as its “base”. While the state parties didn’t quite follow the script as far as the Presidential nomination is concerned, they got the message to promote moderate-to-liberal candidates to the mutual exclusion of conservative ones loud and clear. The folly of that achieved goal is something that deserves its own post, but in case that post slips into the memory hole, I’ll state that there are far more conservatives that can be and are being turned off than there are moderates that can reasonably be expected to become part of the party.

Further, their apparent strategy continues to be “Dem Lite”, with but a couple of not-overwhelmingly-popular differences between the two flavors of what I term the bipartisan Party-In-Government in the forms of the War on Terror and socialism-lite versus socialism-heavy. Again, an expansion on those points is something left to its own thread.

So, what now? The first option is to say, “Screw McCain and the RNC this year; let the RNC come back to me.” That will undoubtedly, even with concentration on individual Congressional races, give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. I may not have a lot of memories of the Carter administration, but those that I do have are uniformly bad. Further, I do believe we tried that in 2006, and look at what it got us even with but one statewide/Congressional “R” pickup (Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen) and a whole host of “R” losses.

On the flip side, the RNC will, in all likelyhood, finally understand that they can’t win without conservatives. Of course, if McCain does beat Barack Obama under this scenario, we are truly a group without a home.

The second, related option is to say, “Screw McCain and the RNC; I’m doing a third party.” I strongly believe that it would kill the Republican Party, which in a vacuum would not necessarily be a bad thing. However, we aren’t in a vacuum, and the Democrats have spent the last 75 years preparing for the destruction of the Republican Party. I doubt they’ll make the same mistakes as they did after killing the Federalists in the 1810s and the Whigs in the 1850s and allow either one of the current fringe third-parties or a brand new party to take root.

Also, in the lag time between the mass exodus and the final twitches, I doubt we’ll get a lot of support from the conservatives that have really hitched their wagons to the GOP structure.

The third option is to say, “I’ll swallow the bitter pill and don my noseplugs for McCain so I can get a chance of a seat at the table.” That is generally how politics works. However, once again, we tried that in 1988, 2000, and 2004, and look at what it got us; a party that voted for the largest (in absolute dollars) expansion of welfare in the history of the country, a party that continues to push for amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens in the face of 80% opposition, a party that has adopted the Gorebal Warming line of Bravo Sierra in the face of collapsing scientific support, and a party that is increasingly hostile to conservatives, now going so far as to support center-left candidates to the mutual exclusion of conservative ones for open Congressional seats.

Moreover, McCain is not as accomodating toward conservatives as Bush. Even if we delivered for him, I doubt he’ll even give us the lip service Bush did.

Tuesday night was the unofficial beginning of the Mano  a Mano Presidential Campaign.   Speeches from John McCain and Barack Obama set a framework for what we can expect the respective campaigns to focus on.

Obama began his positioning by recognizing McCain as a maverick:

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

But went on to paint McCain as “George Bush Lite”:

It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

McCain responded by quickly pointing to his maverick status:

You will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it’s so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it’s very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn’t get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They’ve seen me put our country before any President "” before any party "”

And there’s the problem.

McCain continues to run on a platform that is neither fish nor fowl. He wants to reign in spending but supported the housing bailout. McCain recognizes the impact that ethanol has had on our food prices but is blind to the cost increases that his cap and trade plan will cause. Unlike being bi-sexual where you have twice the chance for a date, being bi-political does not increase your chances, it decreases them.

Barack Obama tipped his hand in his speech when he approved of McCain being a maverick but derided him for not being maverick enough. Obama will use McCain’s bi-political record against him.    Obama cause Conservatives to sit out reminding them that McCain is the poster child for the problem within the Republican party where it has become acceptable to call yourself a Republican, and even argue that you are a Conservative, if you vote for Conservative issues 50.01% of the time. On the other hand, Obama will use McCain’s inability to be bipartisan on EVERY issue to ultimately separate him from the Hillary Democrats who are currently upset but will eventually rally to the party. After all, what better place for a group of people who feel like they’ve been victimized than back in the bosom of the Party of Victimization?

Obama doesn’t need to do much to affect the Conservatives. Simply putting McCain in a position of explaining why he isn’t President Bush will put the wedge in for them. For the Hillary Democrats the message is simple; the attached bumper sticker should sum up his argument to them:

Since we’re still missing the emptying of the HamNation vault, I had to expand my horizons just a bit. See-Dubya cranked this little look at history repeating itself out….

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OudveBP_Nso[/youtube]

No wonder why Michelle Malkin grabbed him to be a full-time co-blogger. If only the Pubbies had listened to Zombie Reagan,….

Oh, If I was capable of dubbing the video…

From Scene 17, The Tale of Sir Lancelot.   After the slaying of the party guests.

The original:

FATHER: Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion!    Let’s not  bicker and argue about who killed who. We are here today to  witness the  union of two young people in the joyful bond of the holy wedlock.  Unfortunately, one of them, my son Herbert, has just fallen to his death.

GUESTS: Oh! Oh no!

FATHER: But I don’t want to think I’ve not lost a son, so much as… gained a daughter!

Now rewritten for “The Democrat Holy Grail”…

Rewritten as…

HOWARD DEAN: Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion!   Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who. We are here today to crown one of  our candidates and wish him well on his ascendency.   Unfortunately, one of them, Hillary, has just had a house fall on her.

GUESTS: Oh! Oh no!  

HOWARD DEAN: But I don’t want to think we’ve lost a candidate, so  much as….gained a messiah!

I’ve got to bump this back to the top….it makes more sense today than on 5/24 when I originally posted it.

Ah….it all makes sense now!

H/T BooBooKitty

Last revision/extension (9:48 pm 6/3/2008) – I probably should’ve spent more time on the Brewer game. Hooray beer! Let’s just say that drunkenblogging with Labatt Maximum Ice is not recommended for the amateurs or the tired. See you tomorrow, though the Scramble may be late.

R&E part 5 (8:52 pm 6/3/2008) – Hillary Clinton won’t be making any decisions tonight, and invited people to write her. NO SLEEP TILL DENVER!

R&E part 4 (8:03 pm 6/3/2008) – Even though South Dakota’s too close to call, CNN and MSNBC follow the DNC script and wait until the South Dakota polls close to award Barack Hussein Obama the ‘Rat nomination. Needless to say, they broke away from the McCain speech to get their up-the-leg thrills out.

R&E part 3 (6:51 pm 6/3/2008) – CNN let loose the reason why they aren’t following Fox and AP in declaring Barack Obama the nominee – they want the “voters” to decide”. Horse hockey – the deciders did.

Also, Sister Toldjah is live-blogging, and she notes John McCain will be dueling Obama with a major speech.

R&E part 2 (5:24 pm 6/3/2008) – Fox News now has Obama at 2,123 delegates, 5 more than needed. CNN has him at 2,106 and MSNBC has him at 2,105. Also, do scroll below the latest update and the CoverItLive window for the previous updates.

Revisions/extensions (4:25 pm 6/3/2008) – I thought I hit “save” on this version just short of 4, but if you’re here, you know I started the popcorn early. Fox News is reporting the Associated Press’ numbers say that Barack Obama has clinched the nomination ahead of the results of the final primaries.

I’ll start this popcorn party by 7 pm (Central for those of you not in the Midwest), or earlier if somebody actually calls the nomination for Barack Obama. CNN has him at 2,088 delegates, leaving him 30 short, while Fox has him at 2,111 (7 ahort) and MSNBC has him at 2090.5 delegates (27.5 short).

It’s been a heck of a ride for the NRE Spring Hill campaign. Unfortunately, it fell short of its ultimate goal of a weakened Clinton as the nominee, but by every other metric that can be measured now, it’s a wild success. We put a huge dent in the Obama coffers, caused not a few skeletons to emerge from the closet, and left much dissention in the ‘Rat corner.

I didn’t see the interview but according to Jonathan Martin,Scott McClellan indicated that he hadn’t decided who to vote for this year but was “intrigued by Obama’s Message.”

According to Martin, McClellan further said, “It’s a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000.”

I wonder what part of Bush’s 2000 campaign that McClellan finds similar to Obama’s?   Could it be…

Bush’s strong prolife stance?   Nope, Obama has even voted to allow late term abortions

Bush’s pledge to assign strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court?   Nope.

Bush’s pledge to a strong military?   Nope, Obama is more the cut and run type.

Bush’s desire to improve educational choice through school vouchers?   Nope, wouldn’t wash with the NEA.

Bush’s campaign to lower taxes?   Nope, Barack wants those increased.

Bush’s advocating for expanded free trade?   Nope, Barack wants to kill NAFTA

Bush actually accomplishing things in Texas on a bipartisan basis? Nope, Obama has the most consistent liberal voting record in the Senate.

Oh, wait, I think I’ve got it.   As with numerous  events in his new book, McClellan appears again confused on the facts.   I think he’s referring to Bush’s 2004 campaign not his 2000 campaign.   In 2004, one of the Bush campaign slogans was:

Yes, America Can

which does sound an awful lot like Obama’s 2008 Campaign slogan:

Yes, We Can

I guess Scott is right.   Obama does sound a lot like Bush.   Yup, and Roseanne Barr sounds a lot like Maria Callas!

In October 2007, Barack Obama quit wearing a US flag lapel pin that he had been wearing since 9/11.   Obama’s explanation at the time was:

I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

While Barack has mostly held to not wearing his pin, it does show up from time to time. Interestingly, it seems to show up when he’s addressing groups who are generally known for their patriotism like a blue-collar group in West Virginia or Missouri or while touring a manufacturing plant in Michigan.

I’ll admit I’m a bit of a cynic. Maybe Barack’s flag wearing is just coincidence and not political pandering.

Then again, maybe not.

On Monday of this week John McCain criticized Obama for having been to Iraq only once during his term in office. McCain’s valid point was that he thought it was unfair for Obama to be making opinion about what was or wasn’t working in Iraq if he hadn’t been there since the surge, hadn’t visited with General Petraeus or with President Maliki. McCain, who has been to Iraq eight times, went so far as to offer to escort Obama should he choose to make the trip.

Barack’s response to McCain’s offer, given by his spokesman Bill Burton sounded vaguely familiar:

"John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt. And we don’t need any more "˜Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks-through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress. They deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military and cost the U.S. thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, without making us safer."

So, just like losing his flag lapel pin, Barack won’t go to Iraq because he believes it’s just another meaningless show. Well gee, the lapel pin didn’t stay off too long before Barack thought he needed to wear it again. Do you think he may change his mind on the Iraq trip?

WASHINGTON (AP)– Barack Obama is considering a visit to Iraq this summer, his first to the war zone since becoming a presidential candidate.
Obama revealed his plans to The New York Times. He has been under criticism from Republican rival John McCain for failing to visit Iraq since 2006. Obama also declined McCain’s invitation for a joint trip.

“I just don’t want to be involved in a political stunt,” Obama said, according to a report on the newspaper’s Web site Wednesday.

I guess he just might!

I’ve got to hand it to McCain, he put BO in a corner that there was no way out of.   If he didn’t go, McCain will pound him for making decisions without any first hand information.   If Obama goes he’ll be drawn and quartered by his own moonbat base…it’s a no win situation for poor Barack.

In honor of Barack’s trip to Iraq (and with Steve gone, this is the first music we’ve had all week):

SurveyUSA released their VP polling today for Iowa. Tim Pawlenty continues his trend of finishing last.

I mentioned yesterday that Lieberman was polling better than Pawlenty. In an even more troubling finding, Huckabee polls best of the 4 potential Republican VPs, in all but one situation.

If the Republicans think Denver could be a disaster for the Dems, can you imagine what would happen within the Minneapolis convention if McCain were to select Huckabee?

Included in names that have supposedly been on John McCain’s VP short list is, Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty’s name is on the list because he is a young, arguably successful and popular Governor who share’s most of McCain’s key views. While Pawlenty’s name comes up nearly anytime a “short list” is comprised, I think his is one name no longer on the list that McCain keeps

McCain held a barbecue this weekend that many folks were seeing as a “get-to-know-you” for potential VP candidates. Notably missing from this gathering was Pawlenty. Reports were that Pawlenty had a family event and that was at least one reason he wasn’t invited. I think that’s just a convenient cover.

SurveyUSA  has been doing a series of polls that will eventually cover 17 states. Each poll queries voters on their likelihood to vote for various combinations of McCain or Obama with 4 possible VP combinations for each. They’ve only completed 5 states but the results thus far aren’t good for Pawlenty. The results for Ohio, Virgina, California, Pennsylvania and New Mexico are in, and with only 1 exception, Pawlenty finishes last compared to the other three names polled. Perhaps the saddest part of this (for conservatives) is that Joe Lieberman is one of the VP names polled and he beat Pawlenty in 19 out of 20 combinations.

Another hit on Pawlenty is a recent Rasmussen Poll. This poll shows McCain trailing Obama by 15 points in Minnesota and confirms a poll done in April that showed a similar deficit. Some of the argument for Pawlenty being VP would be his ability to make Minnesota a competitive state and perhaps put it in the Republican category for the first time since 1972. If the Rasumessen poll is accurate, it’s unlikely that even Pawlenty as VP could close that large a gap.

It’s hard to say whether Pawlenty would really want a VP slot, opinions vary. If you get consistently beaten by Lieberman and deliver a winning margin only in New Mexico, it probably won’t matter if you want the job or not, you aren’t going to have it offered.