► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘John McCain’

McCain’s Libyan Heroes out of control

by Phantom Ace ( 74 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Blogwars, Islamists, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, LGF, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia (Islamic Law) at February 17th, 2012 - 8:30 am

The darlings of the Progressive Democrats and Wilsonian Republicans are out of control. This assessment was done by the Tranzi Progressive organization, Amnesty International. After being lauded as heroes by John McCain and his girlfriend, Lindsey Graham, their ugly nature comes out. These are the same thugs with links to Al-Qaeda and one of the groups the False Messiah wants to give 800 Million to.

(CNN) — Armed militias in Libya are committing human rights abuses with impunity, threatening to destabilize the country and hindering its efforts to rebuild, Amnesty International said Thursday.

Militias have tortured detainees, targeted migrants and displaced entire communities in revenge attacks, according to a report the organization released a year after the start of popular uprisings that eventually ended Moammar Gadhafi’s 42-year rule.

“Hundreds of armed militias, widely hailed in Libya as heroes for their role in toppling the former regime, are largely out of control,” the report says.

Detainees at 10 facilities used by militia in central and western Libya told representatives from Amnesty International this year that they had been tortured or abused. Several detainees said they confessed to crimes they had not committed in order to stop the torture, Amnesty International said.

If Amnesty International, which is usually Pro-Islamic, is condemning the Libyan Islamists that should ring alarm bells. The media no longer reports on Libya. In fact, the Regime of the False Messiah claims this is a victory. Well they are not lying. It’s a victory for the unborn Caliphate done at the behest of their Pasha: Barack Hussein Obama.

Libyan rebel cheerleaders ProLifeLIberal, Dark Falcon and Charles Johnson are unavailable for comment.

(Update: Link added.)

Use Obama’s playbook against him – Ten Rules for Republicans

by Mojambo ( 273 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Elections 2012, Republican Party at January 4th, 2012 - 6:30 pm

An excellent analysis on why Republicans have electorally  failed far too many times and how to beat Obama. The authors point out  that if the country was looking for safe,  non threatening “moderates” then John McCain would have clobbered the ultra liberal  Barack Obama back in 2008. I still think that in their own ways – Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu showed how to beat Obama – by relentlessly telling the truth and calling him out as a failure.  I found Rule 2 to be most enlightening – if we were selling something that was accomplished in the past – then Rick Perry would hands down be POTUS in 2013 based on his record of achievement in the Lonestar State. However, the authors call attention to the fact  that voters are more interested in where you will be  taking them in the future then what you have done in the past – Barack Obama had previously done nothing in his political career to  even merit being considered for high office, yet he sold the Hopey McChange B.S. to enough fools to become the commander-in-chief. More then anything  else – there must be an absolute commitment towards victory and not the Rovian  50.1% strategy because that leaves zero margin for error.

by Jeff Bergner and Lisa Spiller

The two of us​—​a marketing professor and a political analyst​—​have just published a book about the highly successful Obama presidential campaign of 2008. We have distilled a number of lessons from our research. Since the Obama camp already knows these lessons firsthand, we call them “rules for Republicans” and have presented them to a number of the 2012 Republican presidential campaigns. In summary, here they are:

Rule 1: Define your “big idea.” What is the overarching theme of your campaign? What is the first thing you want people to think and say about you? What do you stand for? What does your candidacy mean? This is harder than it looks. In answering these questions​—​which are really all the same question​—​you are creating your brand. In doing so, remember two things. First, a successful brand will reflect what people actually want, not what you think they should want. Your campaign needs to be voter-centric, not candidate-centric. You are a vehicle for responding to the hopes and fears of the American electorate. Second, your brand must connect with voters emotionally, not just rationally. Your campaign must speak to voters personally and create an emotional bond between you and them. “Change” was a beautiful brand in 2008.

Rule 2: Sell your benefits, not your features. Electoral success is not a reward for past services rendered; it is about promises for the future. Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has correctly said, “It’s not where you are that matters, it’s where you’re headed.” Do not put your biography, however eminent, at the center of your campaign. Your “experience” is not important in itself; what’s important is how your experience can get voters where they want to go. You have to explain the benefits of voting for you, not tediously list your qualifications. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain found this out the hard way in 2008. If your campaign is centered around your “experience” or your “record” or your “competence,” you are on the road to defeat. Your biography is useful only in a supporting role. You need to put front and center what President Bush 41 dismissed as “the vision thing.”

Rule 3: Do not dilute your positions to win over middle-of-the-roaders. If that worked, the moderate John McCain would have defeated the very liberal Barack Obama. And Jimmy Carter would have defeated Ronald Reagan. You will never win the presidency by being the lesser of two evils; you have to attract voters to win. Boldness, directness, and honesty will trump subtlety and nuance every time. Just ask Mike Dukakis, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, or John Kerry. Stand for something.

Rule 4: Do not let the Obama campaign brand you. Brand him. Your campaign must clearly shape the choices for the American voter. If you do not, the Obama campaign will do it for you​—​to your detriment. You must relentlessly advance your own brand, and you must relentlessly aim to brand President Obama. If you are not on the offensive, you will be on the defensive. You may not like this, but you have no choice about it if you want to win.

[…]

Rule 6: Develop an electoral strategy with multiple avenues to success. You can’t take for granted the states that John McCain carried in 2008, but you can reasonably expect to win them. The 2012 election will be all about the same 16 “battleground states” it was in 2008. Compete aggressively in all of them. You have good reason to think that the Republican nominee can recapture Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. Beyond these three states, you need to pick up only Florida, Ohio, and one other state to prevail with 270 electoral votes. Give yourself multiple ways to reach 270. A corollary: Don’t waste your time and resources where you can’t win. And don’t waste your time with demographic groups you will never win over. Choose the markets that are advantageous to you; it is a mistake to try to convert your clear opponents.

Rule 7: Quickly and categorically reject public financing. Do not be defensive about this. If a longtime champion of public financing like Barack Obama can turn his back on public financing when it suits him, this should be easy for you. Be as cavalier about it as he was in 2008. Raise as much money as you can. Cede no financial advantage to the Obama campaign; there’s nothing in it for you to participate in another lopsided financial contest like 2008. Focus especially on the Internet to raise funds​—​it is the quickest and easiest way to do so.

[…]

Rule 9: Consider someone like Marco Rubio as your running mate. You need to bring energy and freshness to your campaign. Choosing Sarah Palin was not wrong in 2008; letting her twist in the wind in the face of media attacks was. A positive, Reaganesque running mate like Marco Rubio will help you. The fact that he is Hispanic will help even more. And the fact that he is from Florida makes choosing him a trifecta. A bit of the “cool factor” will be a big help, especially with younger voters who will not be as monolithically for Obama the second time around. Choose someone obviously fit to succeed you as president if necessary, and neither the Obama campaign nor the press will get traction in suggesting otherwise.

Rule 10: Go all in. The vast majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. A sizable number believe the country’s very future is at stake in this election. Act like it. Do not pull your punches, especially in a vain and benighted effort to curry favor with the media. The days of neutral media, if they ever existed, are over. The media are partisan, as in the early days of the republic; they have chosen sides. You must​—​or at least your campaign and surrogates must​—​take on Barack Obama directly. When you are criticized for doing so, know that you are having an effect. Double down on it. Your media critics are not your friends​—​they are on the other team. Be absolutely insensitive, even impervious, to any and all media criticism. Your market is the electorate, not the media. And one more thought: The most devastatingly effective form of negative campaigning is ridicule. This is liberalism’s tool against Republicans, and the left hates it when it is turned against them. That’s why the Paris Hilton “celeb” video was the most effective ad of the McCain campaign. Ridicule exposes how joyless, humorless, and brittle is today’s political left

Read the rest: Rules for Republicans

Al-Qaeda to beef up its Libyan Presence

by Phantom Ace ( 30 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Libya, Progressives, Sharia (Islamic Law), Tranzis at December 30th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

We here at Blogmocracy were the first Conservative blog to come against the Libyan War. Other blogs like the Progressive Republican blog Hot Air, were all gung ho for another Wilsonian Democracy building project. As usual, they had eggs on their face. Our resident Islamic scholar Phillip Daniels pointed out that Al-Qaeda had created an Emirate in Eastern Libya. Once again, thanks to our knowledge of Islam we have been vindicated. The Popular Uprising, was just a mask for a Jihadi takeover of that nation.

Reports are now circulating that Al_Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is sending veteran fighters to beef up their presence in Libya. Despite attacking us on 9/11, the US/NATO backed AL-Qaeda’s Libyan branch takeover of Libya. Seeing an opportunity to establish more training camps and get more recruits AL-Qaeda is concentrating in the Eastern regions on the Libyan border.

(CNN) — Al Qaeda’s leadership has sent experienced jihadists to Libya in an effort to build a fighting force there, according to a Libyan source briefed by Western counter-terrorism officials.

The jihadists include one veteran fighter who had been detained in Britain on suspicion of terrorism. The source describes him as committed to al Qaeda’s global cause and to attacking U.S. interests.

The source told CNN that the al Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, personally dispatched the former British detainee to Libya earlier this year as the Gadhafi regime lost control of large swathes of the country.

The man arrived in Libya in May and has since begun recruiting fighters in the eastern region of the country, near the Egyptian border. He now has some 200 fighters mobilized, the source added. Western intelligence agencies are aware of his activities, according to the source.

Read the rest: Al Qaeda leader sends veteran jihadists to establish presence in Libya

I wonder what John McCain and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham have to say about their heroes being in cahoots with AL-Qaeda? I’m sure Islamic sympathizer Barack Hussein Obama and Palestinian terror supporter Hillary Clinton love the idea of an Islamic Caliphate. The Progressive movement is allied with Islam. Both are Transnational and Totalitarian in nature. However, I will never give a pass to so called “conservatives” like McCain an Ms.d Graham or blogs like Hot Air that give cover to the False Messiah.

Libya will soon be Afghanistan on the Mediterranean,. How’s that Islamic Democracy working out?

We are closing in on the anyone but Obama nominee

by Mojambo ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Election 2008, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney at December 16th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

The Knish analyzes the Republican candidates and thinks that Romney is more electable but that he (the Knish) would be more comfortable with Gingrich  in the Oval Office (particularly regarding Foreign Affairs). He also says that for all their faults, Romney, Gingrich,  and Perry would be far superior to Obama. That should be obvious.

by Daniel Greenfield

A year ago today few of us probably thought that the primaries would come down to debating whether Romney or Gingrich are more conservative. It’s a rather thankless and pointless debate currently being settled by cherry picking statements on single issues. The bottom line is that neither man is particularly conservative, certainly neither man is a small government conservative. But the odds of anyone like that getting to the finish line were never very good.

[…..]
Over the last several weeks we have gotten a thorough grounding in each man’s negatives. But we have also gotten a reminder of how each man got here. And we have gotten heavy doses of hysteria.

Gingrich and Romney are both widely hated. Gingrich is hated by the insiders, Romney is hated by the outsiders. As Speaker, Gingrich was a convenient way to make Clinton look better. Now he’s being used for the same purpose again, to make Romney look better. And Republican voters are being asked to choose which of the men they hate less. This is not a particularly good process for choosing a nominee. But it’s also how we have consistently ended up with poor nominees.

The game isn’t over yet. People still have a chance to unite around an alternative candidate. Perry is still hanging around looking for support. He’s marginally more conservative than Romney and Gingrich, but with a much lower profile on the national stage, it’s hard to say how much. Bachmann and Santorum are also still in the race and they may surprise everyone.

This is still an open process, which is why threatening third party runs or demanding that a candidate drop out of the race is unconscionable. If your candidate can’t win Republican primaries, then how is he going to win the general election? Particularly a three-way election.
[……]

Yes we are rapidly closing in on the “Anyone but Obama Nominee”. Whoever it will be will have major minuses. That’s life. If we can elect a right of center congress, then even a marginal Republican will do. If we can’t, then anyone is still better than Obama.

Back in 2008 the argument was that rather than voting for McCain, we should let Obama run the country into the ground for four years and radicalize the base. Mission accomplished. Obama has done more damage to America in four years than Fat Man did to Nagasaki in an hour. The base has been radicalized. And we’re still back at the table with the old McCain dilemma.

The people who told us to wait four years may now tell us to wait another four years. And then maybe another four, until a proper candidate stands for office and makes it to the nomination. Doing it that way is like trying to win a war by losing battle after battle until the right general comes along. The Union won the Civil War that way, but it doesn’t seem like the best strategy for the rebels.

Despite all his flaws, I think four years of McCain would have been much better for this country. I think four years of Gingrich or Romney or Perry will be better for the country than another four years of Obama. Anyone who wants to test that thesis can look back at the last four years and then imagine what they would have been like if Obama was a lame duck fowl.

Anyone who is unhappy with that choice, there’s no one stopping a Bachmann or Santorum surge. No one but the same conservative media that got us where we are now. And if that doesn’t happen, then we’ve still got the same calculations to make.

Romney is probably more electable. Gingrich is better on the issues. Gingrich currently seems better under fire but everyone keeps saying that he’s bound to implode. We’ll see. Romney hasn’t melted down either, though he has made some mistakes during the debates and in interviews.

On foreign policy Gingrich wins by a landslide. On domestic policy, Gingrich will go with his own ideas, which will have shades of Teddy Roosevelt to them. Romney will have his experts in the room to develop a centrist policy. The difference here is that Gingrich will go his own way, Romney will follow a practical variation of the liberal consensus.

Neither candidate is very conservative by Tea Party standards, both men are fairly conservative by the standards of the alternative. Anyone claiming that there is no difference between Gingrich and Romney and Obama except race is engaging in hyperbole. There’s no doubt that either man will do his own brand of damage and that the country will shift X degrees in the wrong direction, but it’s better than shifting Y degrees in the wrong direction.

Personally I like Gingrich well enough. I have no idea if he can get elected, he’s not the ideal man for the job, but he also bounced back from a trouncing by his own party, and won the debates without playing the ankle biter. He can speak intelligently about an issue and appears to think about them, instead of shoveling out a safe position. He isn’t afraid to take controversial stands or confront the invisible hand of the media.

Romney is probably a surer bet for winning the election, but, and this is not an endorsement, I would be more comfortable with Gingrich in the Oval Office, because when the 3 AM call comes in, I don’t think he’ll work out a consensus and then bring the least controversial response to the table.

[……]
We have seen Gingrich turned out for all the world to see and we know some of what drives him. Romney’s guts are still a mystery. When McCain tried to transform himself into a non-threatening smiling mannequin to win the election, he fumbled the ball badly. And yet I think the angry McCain, the direct to the point man would have done better. Romney doesn’t have those negatives, but he lacks positives. His only real appeal is a projected sincerity and a prospective electability. Is that enough? Who knows.

This is not going to be an ordinary election, but it has been a depressingly ordinary enough primary. We aren’t going to walk away from it with a man or woman that everyone believes in, but maybe we’ll walk away with a winner. It’s not much of a consolation prize, but there’s a joke about rather being right than being president. I would rather that the right man was president, but I will settle for any man other than the one already filling the office.

Read the rest – Anyone but Obama