Scott R. Sullivan

June 19th, 2008 by Scott

Obama. The “candidate of change.”

Just a few months ago (Nov 2007), Obama reiterated that he would “return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

Today, when he realized that the Republicans have been raising more money (Republican National Committee has $40 million on hand, a compared to the $4 million on hand in the Democratic National Committe as of this writing) and he needed to catch up, the candidate of change decided to change his position and said, “We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election.”

So the candidate of change means HE’s going to CHANGE HIS POSITION. Now I get it.

How are we to trust his comments on the War on Terror when he can’t even keep a promise about funding his own campaign?

May 16th, 2008 by Scott

I have found the most recent events involving a certain political candidate to be very revealing. Allow me to back up a minute and give some background.

This is Israel’s 60th anniversary as a nation. As part of the celebration, President Bush traveled overseas to Israel to speak. While there, he said the following:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
(Source: My Way)

First of all, he is one hundred percent correct.

Also, this is something the President has been saying for, oh, maybe seven years, starting back when he stood on the pile of rubble on Ground Zero with a megaphone in his hand telling the world that the men who blew up those buildings will soon hear from the United States.

Since that day, President Bush has maintained a consistent message: we don’t negotiate with terrorists. The Dems have never liked this. Too much of a “cowboy” approach.

So when he made these recent comment in Israel, immediately afterwards, a certain senator felt very vulnerable.

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
(Souce: ABC News)

Now, call me silly, but I didn’t hear President Bush mention anyone by name. He was saying the same thing he’s been saying, talking in broader strokes.

But Obama obviously feels vulnerable since he responded so quickly and defensively about this. For him to turn this into a political issue so quickly and defend himself so dramatically just shows how self-conscience he is about his position on national security.

Why would he be self-conscience about his position on this? It might have something to do with a statement he made not too long ago. In fact I published an analysis about this just one month ago.

For example, take Iran (the “most active state sponsor of terrorism” according to the United States State Department, Turkey, and Britain).

In dealing with a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, Obama has said, “My approach to Iran will be based upon aggressive diplomacy.”

So Obama is weak on national security. He has reason to feel self-conscience. And the funny thing is that I actually AGREE with what Mrs. Bill Clinton has been saying on this issue, since she’s on the same page as the Republicans; don’t negotiate with terrorists.

But it is telling that he felt that President Bush was talking about him. It is very telling.

I find the far-left to be so predictable. They think the world revolves around them. I’ve got a message to you: be a little more humble. Accept that the world doesn’t revolve around you.

UPDATE:
As of 3:00 pm Eastern, the White House has spoken about this eruption that has occurred. As I wrote above, it had nothing to do with Obama, despite his desire to be the center of attention.

Instead, the White House was speaking of former president, Jimmy Carter, and his meeting with terrorist group, Hamas. Here’s their statement:

“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. … There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”

Time for Obama to insert foot into mouth.

May 5th, 2008 by Scott

Glenn Beck has just written a brilliant analysis of Barack Obama’s character.

Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend. The ongoing sprint from such a polarizing figure is far from a surprise, it’s just the timing of it that is so odd.

Do I think for a second that Obama believes the government created the AIDS virus to kill African-Americans? No. But at this point it’s rational to wonder whether he is either lying or has an awful sense of judgment. He either knew Wright’s views and didn’t tell the truth about them, or he somehow missed the core beliefs of the man who was spending his Sunday mornings teaching core beliefs.

I’m glad Obama has come to the same conclusion that Wright’s critics came to long ago. I just wonder why it took me two minutes and him two decades.
(Source: CNN)

Brilliant.

May 2nd, 2008 by Scott

I’m a bit late on this one, but wanted to expand just a little on my post on April 16, about Obama being “just another politician.” I wrote on April 16:

He isn’t the new ‘change’ everyone wants. He is just a politician, just like Clinton, twisting words, distracting and blaming others.

Obama’s paster, Jeremiah Wright, continues to stoke the flames. First, it was his quotes, “God Damn America” days after September 11. Now, he is going after Obama. On April 28, just 12 days AFTER MY ANALYSIS, Wright said:

He’s a politician. And he says what he has to say as a politician. He had to distance himself, because he’s a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American. (Source)

Yup. Obama’s just another politician. In fact, according to Rasmussen Reports, 58% Say Obama Denounced Wright for Political Convenience, not Outrage.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s Clinton 46% Obama 44%. That’s the second straight day that Clinton has held a statistically insignificant two-point edge over Obama. However, that represents a ten-point swing since Wright’s press conference. Before Wright appeared at the National Press Club, Obama led Clinton by eight points. (Source: Rasmussen Reports)

As I’ve said many times, this is a fun election. *grin*

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 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 3rd, 2008 by Scott

Tonight the results came in from the Iowa caucus and we have our first primary result. Republican Gov. Huckabee and Democratic Sen. Obama lead the pack, at this very early stage.

As I mentioned in my previous post about these results, we now have a preliminary result of a Democrat Senator versus a Republican Governor.

Though I missed the exact result (I called for Gov. Romney to win, and he came in second, winning 12 delegates to Huckabee’s 17), I still stand by my analysis of the 2008 presidential election. I still see Gov. Romney taking the White House this November. Of the Republican candidates, Romney is, perhaps, the strongest conservative running.

On the Democratic side, what will be interesting is to watch Mrs. Bill Clinton over the coming weeks now that she is no longer the “inevitable” candidate that she tried to portray. And with a third place ranking, it will be hard for her, even if she does win, to claim to have a “mandate.”

Of course, remember that winning Iowa doesn’t mean you win the White House. Remember several years back, one Gov. Clinton came in fourth in Iowa, and second in New Hampshire only to be the “comeback kid” and win the presidential election in 1992. It is an election and, as history has shown, anything can happen!

Only time will tell.

Update: 8 Jan 08
The New Hampshire primary has finished and Gov. Romney took the “silver” as he called it. This, combined with Iowa and Wyoming, place him at the top, with the most delegates.