Lincolnesque? Hardly.

I saw multiple presskopfs talking about how the JFK Lama's speech was like Linconln's Gettysburg Address.

Here is what the contemporaneous Chicago Times had to say about the Gettysburg Address:

The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."

Source: Dishwatery Utterances – MOO2 Ironically, the presskophfs talk about like this when it comes to W. So, the JFK Lama has already received his kudos.

Another interesting comparison is Lincoln's talk was at time somewhat similar to Rev. Wright's. Lincoln called the referred to the Civil War as pennance for America's sin of slavery.

Spinning Jeremiah Wright

Ah so much fun listening to the left attempt to justify and minimize Jeremiah Wright.

There is a set of standard talking points I am hearing over and over.

He is Mild Compared To Others

Yeah and so what for it? This is an attempt to change the subject. Variations on this theme are there are many more like him.

Neither argument is a reasonable defense of Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric, in fact neither claim attempts to defend or explain. It is an illusionist's trick trying to distract people from the very inflammatory rhetoric of one close to a man who is potentially the next president of the USA. What Mr. Wright says is key not what some other preacher down the street says. It is Jeremiah Wright who is close to Barak Obama not any other preacher.

Candidate X did not have to explain away his religious affiliation.

Really? How about Mitt Romney? Seems to me John McCain just disowned a preacher whose church Mr. McCain is not a member of, was not married by, whose children were not baptized by nor has any other association with.

To say Republican candidates do not have to answer for their religious affiliation is either a lie or willful ignorance. Do you think if John McCain had close ties to Pat Robertson the left would not be screaming about this?

The statements are taken out of context

This is the stupidest defense of all. This man accuses white people of inventing AIDS to destroy the black race and that is not his only stupidity. How is that to be taken out of context?

Radio talk show host Doug Stephans was in Jeremiah's church over the weekend (according to his talk this morning) and Doug notes how nice it all was. Well, yippy-skippy again the problem is Jeremiah's association with Barak Obama and it is clearly more than that of the crazy uncle. Doug says everyone was so nice in the church. Again, this is not about everyone it is about Jeremiah Wright.

Jeremiah Wright is a racist pure and simple. Plain folk can see that however many are blinded by the transfiguration of Obama.

Not Just the QB But the Team Too!

I am not commenting specifically on Brett Favre but will refer to him.

When Brett did not have a good team around him, his numbers looked terrible. Large numbers of interceptions, reduced touchdowns, reduced wins, etc. This is because football is a team sport. Don't get me wrong, the quarterback is very important to a team's success but a QB who tries to do it all by himself throws a lot of interceptions.

Same too with a presidential effort. The President relies a whole lot on the team they work with and recruit. It is not enough to look simply at the QB (the candidate) and make a determination based solely on the candidate, you have to look at the team they surround themselves with.

To a large extent this is what I believe is going on with Obama & the Canadian Fiasco (Blame Canada! Blame Canada!), Obama in his naivety may actually believe he is going to rip up NAFTA or renegotiate it on terms more favorable to the USA. His advisers apparently do not nor do I. This is quite normal and do not believe it necessarily a bad thing, teams and their leaders in liberal societies do have a fair amount of give and take about where the team goes.

However, this sort of thing is going to happen again before Obama is out of the race or in the Whitehouse.

Changing the Story

Is that what Barak Obama means by change?

National Review's Byron York reports on the trouble the Obama campaign is in, over its discussions with the Canadian government on NAFTA. Of course, none of this will matter to those attending the revival meetings, but there are a lot of people who have genuine concerns on both sides of the NAFTA debate.

Those criticisms have been particularly intense in the run-up to today’s primary in economically struggling Ohio. At last week’s debate in Cleveland, Obama and Clinton dueled to see who could be more anti-NAFTA; Obama won, at least rhetorically, by promising to “use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage” to renegotiate NAFTA on his own terms.

Source: National Review Online – Is Obama Lying About NAFTAGate? (He certainly doesn’t seem to be telling the whole truth.) by Byron York The story is essentially Barak Obama is talking trash about NAFTA (a somewhat trendy thing to do among the left) and threatening to withdraw or to force a renegotiation. Of course, this talk disturbs our NAFTA treaty partners, but the Canadian trade minister thinks it might be a good idea:

Ottawa — Trade Minister David Emerson suggested the United States has a sweet deal over access to Canada's oil under the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying the two Democratic presidential candidates calling for renegotiations may not know just how good the U.S. has it under the deal.

Source: ViveleCanada.ca Emerson Says Oil On The Table If US Wants To Renegotiate NAFTA (Oil would be on table if NAFTA reopened: Emerson hints) by Julian Beltrame of The Canadian Press Anyway, it is clearly not something Canada wants and Canada is just reminding us it is probably something we really do not want either.

However, the story goes on. Anyway there were denials from Canada and from the Obama campaign and then a memo turns up showing the meeting did take place. Byron's piece details the evolving story complete with continued denials, more reporting on the meeting, an official memo from the Canadian Government, an oh-yeah from the Obama official, and continued story evolution from the Obama campaign. The only side presenting a dead story (i.e. non-changing/non-evolving) is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the only changing aspect of that reporting is on the scrambling by the Canadian Goverment and the Obama campaign.

One further dodge the Obama campaign and Austan Goolsbee (an Obama adviser from the University of Chicago) tried to foist on the public was the notion Mr. Goolsbee was visiting the Canadian Consulate as an official from the university and not the Campaign. However, CBC published memo indicates Mr. Goolsbee was there representing the campaign.

The point of the meeting was to assure the Canadian Government Obama's trashing of NAFTA is nothing more than words. Now, the only thing in doubt now (according to Byron's investigations and reporting) is exactly what was said between the parties.

The Obama campaign is in a quandary here. The campaign promising to bring change and hope is now appearing to be using the lofty rhetoric with a sly wink. Not unheard of, but hardly anything that could be change (in fact, this is they type of back room dealing the Obama campaign is trying to tell us they want to change).

Of course, the Obama campaign may issue a tough and detailed policy they would pursue in harmony with the revival meeting rhetoric. Canada, of course being a foreign entity, has little they can do to steer the our elections one way or another, but then this goes against all sorts of Democrat rhetoric about playing nice with the nations of the world.

Do not hope Obama will change much of anything.

BO is an Idiot

By BO I mean Barak Obama and yes I believe him an idiot.

VINTON, Iowa - Ever since Barack Obama suggested Hillary Clinton's eight years as first lady were a glorified tea party a few days back, she's looked for an opening to strike back.

On Saturday night in Dubuque she pounced, arguing she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers.

"I don't remember anyone offering me tea," she quipped.

Source: Hillary says she risked life on White House trips – Newsday.com (Glenn Thrush) Of course I have yet to discuss his ideas about attacking Pakistan.

First, regarding his ideas about attacking Pakistan. I wonder if he has cracked an atlas lately (a Google search for Pakistan/Afghanistan map will do)? Like most Democrats he believes Afghanistan to be the fight we should be directing all of our war fighting assets too so surely he would not want not want to jeopardize operations there, right? If so, then he should not so flippantly suggest we attack a Pakistani province. Yeah, I agree Waziristan is a problem and my guess is the Invade-Pakistan plans have a lot less dust on them than the invade Soviet Canuckistan plans, but it is never a good idea to be indiscreet with one's indiscretions. I do not think it is a matter of revealing dark secrets, but communicating an open secret. Open or not communicating it is a bad idea.

Now, as indicated above BO (phew!) is expressing disdain on the position of First Lady. Far be it for me to stick up for Hillary Clinton (and the article I quote does note the flight Hillary was not as dangerous as she makes it out to be), but fact is as first lady she too was a prominent target for all sorts of groups domestic or foreign; large or small; right or left wing (of course that is nutty left wing). HIllary's life as first lady was not as one of simply organizing teas. Hillary even if she was not involved with policy (which she was) would understand the intricacies and complications of dealing with other national leaders something a bit above of getting the local Masons & Elks talking.