Scott R. Sullivan

August 2nd, 2008 by Scott

Once upon a time (back in May), when he was still fighting Clinton and before be became Lord Obama with the media, the Democratic presidential hopeful was asked about debating in town hall meetings across the country with John McCain.

In fact, he said, “That’s a great idea.” And later in May, he said:

“If I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that’s something that I am going to welcome.”

But now he has flip-flopped and has reversed his position on this, avoiding debating McCain at all except for the three official network debates in the fall.

So much for welcoming a healthy debate. Is he scared? I think so. He is so used to the media treating him like the Messiah that he has become a brand. He reads these rock star speeches from a teleprompter and wouldn’t be able to debate a real issue if placed into the situation.

Which is why he’s avoiding a town hall style debate. He knows he wouldn’t stand a chance.

I think Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, had the best idea back in June:

In June, Plouffe had suggested Obama-McCain meetings more along the lines of the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates. In 1858, during Abraham Lincoln’s Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas, the candidates met seven times across Illinois. One spoke for an hour, the other for an hour and a half, and the first was allowed a half-hour rebuttal. (Source)

So much for Obama’s promise.

July 17th, 2008 by Scott

They based their entire election campaign on the ‘failure’ in Iraq. They claimed we couldn’t win when Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stood at the steps of the White House and said that “this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything” (source).

They’ve maintained that position. Obama has said the same thing. Just this week, though, he erased his own comments off his website criticizing the troop surge.

Why did he want to erase his comments? Might have something to do with this story:

The nation’s top military officer Wednesday declared the security situation in Iraq “remarkably better,” so good in fact that he expects to recommend more U.S. troop reductions this fall if conditions hold. (Source)

The Democrats have based the campaign on the United States losing in Iraq. Well, Bush and the generals stayed the course and didn’t falter even when public opinion did.

The result? The Troop Surge worked. And we’ve already reduced the number of troops in Iraq to pre-surge levels due to its effectiveness.

We’ve been winning and the troop withdrawal the Democrats promised would be their mission when sworn in in 2009 could now begin before they get in the White House.

Take that, and add the following:

• The IMF said the U.S. economy will expand 1.3 percent in 2008, rather than 0.5 percent it estimated in April.
• The US Federal Reserves said today the latest data “reduced odds” for “an appreciable contraction of economic activity” (Source)

It’s good news. True, its not all roses. We’ve got a way to go, but I’m optimistic.

June 24th, 2008 by Scott

It is reported that another Democrat, Baltimore Mayor Dixon, had a personal relationship with a property owner. She even admitted to it.

And now reports are that an investigation is underway regarding personal gifts to the Mayor in exchange for her voting for zoning and tax breaks.

Hmmm.

BALTIMORE (WJZ) ― New information is released in the investigation into Mayor Sheila Dixon as she admits having a personal relationship with a prominent developer.
Mike Hellgren reports prosecutors are now investigating whether Dixon received thousands of dollars in gifts from developer Ronald Lipscomb when she voted on tax breaks and zoning for his projects.
In one case, the document states Dixon voted on a $13 million tax break for Doracon–for the Spinnaker Bay building in Harbor East– the same day she and Lipscomb went on a lavish trip to New York.
(Source)

I thought the Republicans were the corrupt ones? I really believe that there should be a limit to the number of years politicians serve. It seems the longer they stay in office, the more corrupt they get.

The funniest one was when federal investigators found tens of thousands of dollars in Democrat congressman William Jefferson’s freezer. He’s still under investigation. He’s still a member of congress.

May 21st, 2008 by Scott

Three cheers. For what? Three candidates on the short list for McCain’s running mate.

I’ve been clear in the past that McCain wasn’t my first choice for the Republican nomination. There are many attributes that I do like about McCain, but I feel there are many others that represent the conservative base much more than he.

I have always maintained that Romney was more closely aligned with the conservative base than McCain.

In fact, I even posted an article back in March about the very real possibility of Romney being selected as the Vice Presidential running mate.

Well, the names are starting to surface and just as I had predicted, Romney’s in the top three. Not only that, but there are some very interesting things about the top three veep candidates.

First, all three are Governors. Gov. Romney (MA), Gov. Crist (FL), and Gov. Jindal (LA). I wrote a lengthy article in December of 2007 about how Governors have an advantage when running for the White House.

While anything can happen, I think this is very telling on how the 2008 general election will turn out in November. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama both have history against them against Sen. McCain and GOVERNOR Romney, Jindal or Crist.

I think part of this advantage comes from the fact that a Governor of a state is like a mini-federal government. They preside over a House and Senate of the state. They have state budgets they work with. They have State Departments, Departments of Commerce, Transportation, etc. and are in control of the state militia, the National Guard.

Compare this to a Senator, like Obama and Clinton. They are just one of 100 of a group. They are part of the “problem” of Washington, not the solution. That’s why even though the President has an all-time low approval rating, Congress’ approval rating is even LOWER!

Back to the top three names. I’ll skip Romney for now, since I’ve discussed him in depth before.

Gov. Jindal looks very promising. He’s the youngest Governor in the country and has been hailed as the next Ronald Reagan! His voting record backs up these claims. He has voted for gun rights, to lower taxes, and most importantly, understands the global war on terror. This is a man we need in the White House.

Gov. Crist is right up there as well. He’s a hardliner when it comes to law and order: he’s for the death penalty, and was called “Chain Gang Charlie” because he favored using convicts to be used for roadside labor.

There is much more to both of these Governors. Of these two new names, I personally favor Jindal. He’s likable, young, VERY conservative, and brings some energy and enthusiasm to the table.

If McCain chooses any of these three, I’ll be happy. If he chooses Jindal or Romney, I’ll be VERY happy. Because, in all likelyhood, this Governor turned Veep will run for President in 2012. Its just a hunch, but I just don’t see McCain running for two terms, due to his age.

And… as I’ve said before, my Governor v. Senator race will mean so much more. Can’t wait!

May 2nd, 2008 by Scott

While many in the media and the far Left-winged wait with anticipation for an official word that we are, indeed, in a recession, their faces only turn blue waiting.

You see, as I have mentioned many times over the past several months, there was no such thing as a 2007 or 2008 recession like so many claim.

Yes, many say that we are already in a recession. Some might acknowledge that while we are not, technically, in one yet, it is bound to show up sooner or later, so lets just call it one already.

Some are even saying that because for some, it “feels” like a recession, then it is. By extension, because it feels like leather, it is leather and not plastic.

A little background for those on the left that can’t stand my continual correct observations regarding the state of the United States’ economy.

recession n. - Two consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product (GDP).

According to the BEA:

Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 0.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP also increased 0.6 percent. Source

So, in Q4 2007, the GDP INCREASED. In Q1 2008, the GDP INCREASED AGAIN.

According to every definition of the word, there was NO recession during this economic slowdown.

I can hear you now, though. Ahah! So we ARE in a slowdown.

Of course we are in a slowdown. No one is denying this. But the slowdown has slowed, and has possibly reversed and is looking very much like stronger growth is in the near future.

After all, the unemployment rate fell to 5% last month (Source). And the job losses (yes, there were some 20,000 job losses) were 55,000 FEWER than expected. Only 25% of the expected job losses materialized. MUCH better than anyone had predicted.

They continued in that article:

In other economic news, the Commerce Department reported that orders to U.S. factories rose a bigger-than-expected 1.4 percent in March.

AND, the dollar isn’t doing to bad either. In fact, in a sign that the American Dollar is showing signs of a recovery and growth:

Futures traders are betting for the first time since December 2005 that the dollar will gain against the euro. (Source: Bloomberg)

With an economy turning around already, by November, we should have an even better economic outlook and the Democratics will have not a leg to stand.

The funny thing is, in order for the Democratic candidates to continue criticizing President Bush and the Republicans, they NEED a poor economy, which is why they have all been PUSHING for a recession for close to a year.

It’s gotta suck to be a Democrat in a position where you are rooting for Americans to suffer.

April 17th, 2008 by Scott

I am extremely disappointed in Obama’s statements yesterday in a speech. It is consistent with his previous remarks, which is all the more troubling.

First, he gives the standard boilerplate, “must not negotiate with terrorists groups intent on Israel’s destruction” statement.

I agree with this statement, and this is the Bush Doctrine, too.

But then he states his desire to sit down with Iran for diplomatic talks! Just to get ourselves up to speed. Here’s what Iran’s president has said at various times.

President Ahmadi-Nejad

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” - October 8, 2005

“If this year you [Isreal] repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will cut the root of the Zionist regime from its stem.” - May 25, 2007

So should we negotiate with someone like this? Someone who just recently claimed that 3,000 never died on September 11 and said the government never released the names.

“An event was created in the name of the attack against the twin towers. It was said that 3,000 people were killed. But the names of the 3,000 people were never published and nobody was able to respond to the main question, which is how is it possible that with the best radar systems and intelligence networks the planes could crash undetected into the towers. “(Source)

Did he forget to watch the all day coverage of the September 11 memorial services where family members READ ALOUD EACH NAME?

But I digress. Listen to the first part of Obama’s speech:

Barack Obama

“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

- Barack Obama, Wednesday, April 16, 2008 (Source)

Now read a direct contradiction in the same speech. And keep in mind the comments of Ahmadi-Nejad in the back of your head as you read this:

“My approach to Iran will be based upon aggressive diplomacy.”

- Barack Obama, Wednesday, April 16, 2008 (In the SAME speech as above!)

Wow. That’s the problem with many on the left. They want to talk to people and make them like us. I’m sorry, but some people will never like us.

It is a hard truth, but many people hate the freedom we represent. They hate that we give women an equal standing as men (even letting women learn to read, unlike some middle east countries).

But we see now, Obama would rather negotiate with these people. Which is the same as Democratic Jimmy Carter:

Former President Carter is meeting with a Hamas delegation from Gaza, part of a series of talks with the Islamic militant group that has drawn sharp criticism from U.S. and Israeli officials.

(Source)

April 16th, 2008 by Scott

Obama’s been basing his campaign on the fact that he is “change” and isn’t the “typical” politician in Washington.

But listen to the progression of his statements, beginning with Saturday’s blunder when he spoke about small town Americans in Pennsylvania:

Saturday - First spoke the words

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.“

Monday - Twist meaning of word (ala what the definition of “is” is?)

“People may be bitter about their leaders and the state of our politics. That’s why they leave their homes…and travel—sometimes for miles, sometimes in the bitter cold—to attend a rally or a town hall meeting held by Senator Clinton, or Senator McCain, or myself.”

Tuesday - Bad word, but not backing down

“Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I’m out of touch, it’s time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.”

Wednesday - DISTRACT by claiming your opponent is doing the distracting!

“When we get past the politics of division and distraction and we start actually focusing on what we have in common, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.

He isn’t the new ‘change’ everyone wants. He is just a politician, just like Clinton, twisting words, distracting and blaming others. Republican and Conservative beliefs are based on personal responsibility. You make a mistake, you admit to it and work to make amends. That is also part of being a Christian.

You acknowledge your sins. You acknowledge that you are imperfect and pray for forgiveness. We don’t try and rewrite the past and pretend it never happened.

This might be why so many people are in love with Obama and Clinton. They don’t worry about taking responsibility for your actions, which seems a trend with many liberals today. Ignore morals and just do what “feels” good at the time.

Doing what is right and what is easy are never the same thing.

You don’t just pretend it didn’t happen, change the facts or blame the world for your mistake.

How very presidential, Obama.

April 16th, 2008 by Scott

Remember late last year before the election got into full swing (dare I say, back in more innocent times?). Back then, all the Democratics were so thrilled about Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton. They would get either a woman OR an African American. “How Cool” they were saying. Or even better…. a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Fast forward to today. This Democratic battle has become so bitter (to use the media’s word of the day thanks to Obama and Clinton).

In fact, look at the numbers. According to Rasmussen Reports, 22% of Democrats Want Clinton to Drop Out; 22% Say Obama Should Withdraw (source: Rasmussen Reports).

And even more proof of the anger within their party: If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain (Source: Gallup)

Source: Gallup

So the Dems don’t want to even support another Democratic candidate. They’d rather vote for MCCAIN instead!!! I just don’t see either one selecting the other for Veep because of this bitter anger.

I’m looking forward to seeing these two in tonight’s debate in Philly. They were even funnier trying to prove how they were each the more religious person at Messiah College in Harrisburg the other day.

I’ll more than likely have some analysis of the debate after it airs tonight.

Meanwhile, as the Democrats claw at each other and tell each other how bitter they are, McCain is the only one describing IN DETAIL, specific ideas for our country, like getting rid of the Federal Gas Tax to help with gas prices.

Love it!

April 14th, 2008 by Scott

You just can’t make this stuff up. According to several news reports, Obama’s pastor is at it again. The Rev. Wright made a few comments at a funeral that are in lockstep with his previous remarks. Speaking about the pastor who passed on:

[He] was not the jingoistic, chauvinistic ‘you’re either with us or against us’ demonizing kind of faith.

That was just the beginning of what seemed like a pep rally. Brings back memories of the other Democratic funeral/pep rally for the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who died in 2002. Remember the applause, the cheering and the inflammatory remarks at that funeral by all the Democrat speakers and attendees?

Deja vu.

“FOX News can’t understand that,” Wright said to rousing cheers and applause.

Here we go again! This week is going to be all about the funeral / pep rally. Add to the mix Hillary’s comments this past weekend about support for shooting guns.

I’m going to have to buy more popcorn. This is turning into a double-feature!

January 8th, 2008 by Scott

So who else is sick of every candidate calling for “change.” It seems as if the shallow slogans of most of the presidential candidates have now not only become more shallow, but they are all “change.”

For anyone who has been under a rock for the last few weeks, it seems that most every candidate has been campaigning on “change.” Obama was campaigning on change. Then Hillary. Now McCain, Huckabee and many others are saying they are the candidate of change.

Sigh.

This is the problem I had during the last election and the reason the Republicans lost some seats. No one was telling us specifics of what they would do.

Remember back when Sen. Kerry said he was against the war in Iraq (this was after he was for the war he was against)? Kerry kept saying he would fight a “smarter” war. Huh? Give us some specific examples. Tell us exactly where YOU stand. Tell us exactly what YOU plan to do to solve these problems you claim are so common.

Unfortunately, this has become a campaign based entirely on emotion, and real messages and ideas have been lost in the “I’m for change” theme.

I miss the days when candidates would lay out specific ideas and mandates that they want to promote. The days when each candidate would debate the other on their ideas, not on how much money they have raised or how their campaign is negative. Let’s get back on message so we KNOW who we are electing, so we KNOW for what they stand, not just how they make us “feel.”

What would our founding fathers say?