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.

Well, That Did a lot of Good!

Señator McCain and his supporters have a tin ear. They come off very condescending and end up hurting the cause of conservative unity. Fred Barnes penned an article for The Weekly Standard entitled "Let's Grow Up, Conservatives" (And defeat the Democrats in November.) Even if Fred is quoting Barry Goldwater the following is dumb to say:

If he [Señator McCain] continues to reach out to them [conservatives] while running as a conservative, they need to heed Barry Goldwater's advice in 1960. "Let's grow up, conservatives," he said. "If we want to take this party back, and I think we can, let's get to work."

Source: The Weekly Standard – "Let's Grow Up, Conservatives" (And defeat the Democrats in November.) by Fred Barnes

What else do we have? Early on Fred says:

Bringing conservatives on board won't be easy for McCain. (Nor would uniting Republicans of all stripes be easy for Mitt Romney, should he upset the McCain bandwagon and win the nomination.) Republicans are in a sour mood, especially the talk-radio mafia that regards McCain as anything but a reliable conservative. (They harbor qualms about Romney, too.)

Source: The Weekly Standard – "Let's Grow Up, Conservatives" (And defeat the Democrats in November.) by Fred Barnes So, twice in the article (at least) Fred essentially condescends to those who do not like Señator McCain. At least he does concede the fact there is legitimate cause for conservative unease with Señator McCain:

McCain's touchiest problem--his scourge--is talk radio. Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and others raise legitimate complaints about his flirtations with Democrats and his apostasy on campaign finance, guns, immigration, and embryonic stem cell research.

Source: The Weekly Standard – "Let's Grow Up, Conservatives" (And defeat the Democrats in November.) by Fred Barnes While his supporters compare ACU ratings and say he really is a conservative his biggest marks with the public seem to be in sticking it to Conservatives.

Señator McCain's past actions have conservatives uneasy and then listening to Señator McCain on the campaign trail is doing little to convince conservatives of Señator McCain's conservatism. Then Señator McCain's supporters write columns like Fred's telling his detractors to grow up? That will win over friends, let me tell you!

Senator McCain has not yet locked up the nomination now is not the time to be telling his opponents to be quiet. If Señator McCain gets the nomination and a month afterwards he still has similar problems with conservatives then we can revisit, but if that is the case then is it not too late?

Is Conservatism About To Enter The Desert?

And roam for 40 years? Well, maybe not 40 but you get the idea.

I think it is very possible. The distaste many conservatives have for John McCain is very strong. Strong conservatives are talking about not voting for McCain. Now, maybe the reality will eventually hit them and they will do the nose pinch. Maybe not. After all, Ann Coulter is on record saying she prefers Hillary Clinton over John McCain.

Yeah, it is true McCain can not win without the "moderate voter" but he certainly can not win if conservatives do not vote for him.

Here is what I can see will happen. Hillary and her mud machine will eek out the nomination over the JFK Lama. She will then ask the JFK Lama to join her ticket as VP. That in my mind guarantees sixteen years of Dems in the Whitehouse.

The JFK Lama (the reincarnation of the mythical JFK as opposed to the real JFK) is very much like our own Russ Feingold. Despite his votes and his positions he has fooled many people into believing he is just another moderate. Oh, he is so nice!.

If one does not pay attention one might think the JFK Lama a moderate, just like our own Russ Feingold. So we will see moderates parading around with material promoting (for instance) John Gard and the Hillary -- JFK Lama ticket. Just like I saw people with gear pushing President Bush and Russ Feingold back in '04.

Howard Dean or Rudy Giuliani?

Rudy Giuliani tells conservative voters to get over certain issues.

And then I think our party, our party has to get beyond issues like that [abortion & other such social issues] where we can have people who are very good people who have different views about this, they can all be Republican because our party is going to grow and we’re going to win in 2008 if we’re a party that is characterized for what we are for and not if we’re a party that’s known for what we are against. …

Source: The Corner – Full Rudy Context I want to be for Rudy, but I can not bring myself to do so, especially when I like what I hear Senator McCain saying of late. Rudy Giuliani deserves a cabinet seat as the AG, or Sec of Homeland Security, or Secretary of Defense, but I can not bring myself to support him as President. With another quip like that I will bust out the GIMP and photoshop a photo of him with Howard Dean like I did with Howard Dean and Ann Coulter.

John McCain has his problems too. None of these candidates have me going.

Also, apparently Tommy Thompson was one of two candidates who earned a standing ovation at this event.