Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Friday, November 25, 2011
Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog
Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog: Reported by ABC News’ Kimberly Launier: It was an overcast day in Newport, N.H., when a simple “20/20″ shoot turned into something that made me wonder about life after death. I was filming soldier Justin Rollin’s parents Skip and Rhonda playing with their dog Hero,...
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Coulter: Libya intervention ‘kind of stupid,’ Gadhafi was ‘George Bush’s bitch’
Ann Coulter expresses her opinion of Obama and Libya
Hat Tip Daily Caller
"...Ann Coulter is not applauding President Obama for the killing of Moammar Gadhafi. In a Monday appearance on “Good Day LA” on Fox affiliate KTTV 11 in Los Angeles, Coulter told host Steve Edwards that she was willing to give Obama credit, but not for the Libyan intervention. “Sure, for some things, though I’m more for killing bin Laden,” Coulter said. “I thought our intervention in Libya — I mean, there’s good feeling because he’s a bad guy so maybe I should wait two weeks to say this, but I thought it was kind of stupid because once we invaded Iraq, Gadhafi became George Bush’s bitch. They all did. Gadhafi goes running to the British and says, ‘Is he going to invade me next?’” Read more: ..."
Monday, May 30, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Bla...
HotAirPundit: "Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Bla...: "Farrakhan goes on a rant on Chicago radio about Obama calling for Qaddafi to step down, this is from yesterday Louis Farrakhan with radio ..."
Hat Tip: HotAirPundit
Hat Tip: HotAirPundit
Friday, March 18, 2011
Palin Doctrine Emerges as Arab League Echoes Her Demarche on Libya
Benyamin Korn at the NY Sun details the emergence of the Palin Doctrine
The call by the Arab League for Western military intervention in an Arab state — in this case asking that a UN “no-fly zone” be imposed over Libya – is not only without precedent but it puts in formal terms what Governor Palin stated three weeks ago should have been America’s response to the political and humanitarian crisis now unfolding there.Hat Tip: NY Sun
The former GOP vice presidential candidate was being interviewed on February 23rd on national television by Sean Hannity on a range of issues. On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly-zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin’s formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week when it was echoed by the man who, before the Iraq war, had led the Iraq democratic movement in exile, Ahmed Chalabi...Read More
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Davis Release Signals Recalibration of U.S.-Pakistan Intelligence Relationship
Thank Goodness...BTW Blood money is a normal cultural thing in middle east, so this is not surprising. People even buy insurance for it.
Davis Release Signals Recalibration of U.S.-Pakistan Intelligence Relationship The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Davis Release Signals Recalibration of U.S.-Pakistan Intelligence Relationship The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
...After spending almost two months in a Lahore jail for killing two Pakistanis, CIA contractor Raymond Davis was released today, ending one of the most serious diplomatic standoffs between Islamabad and Washington in nine years of partnering in the fight against terrorism.Hat Tip: Heritage Blog
Davis was set free after family members of the Pakistanis killed by Davis told a Pakistani court that they were dropping charges in exchange for financial compensation, often referred to as “blood money” in Pakistan...Read More
Saudi Arabia emerges as key policeman in region
This is what happens when there is a vacuum in leadership from the most powerful man in the world.
Saudi Arabia has moved decisively to bolster Bahrain's embattled royal family, sending military forces across the causeway linking the two kingdoms after violent weekend pro-democracy protests by Shia demonstrators all but overwhelmed police.Saudi Arabia emerges as key policeman in region - English pravda.ru
Although the deployment on Monday was at Bahrain's request and came under the guise of the Gulf Co-operation Council, whose other members also sent troops, it marked another stage in Saudi Arabia's reluctant emergence as the key regional policeman, at a time when the Arab world faces unprecedented turmoil...Read More at Pravda
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Who can win the presidency? It’s not necessarily who you think.
Who can win the presidency? It’s not necessarily who you think. Conventional wisdom says that Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama could not win.
Lincoln - 1860:
In 1860 Lincoln only won 39.8% of the vote, but was elected largely in part because of dual political schisms.
The Democrats were divided over the concept of “popular sovereignty” in the case of slavery. In the decades before the American Civil War, the term "popular sovereignty" was often used to suggest that residents of U.S. territories should be able to decide by voting whether or not slavery would be allowed in the territory. This concept was associated with such politicians as Lewis Cass and Stephen A. Douglas. Note: neither faction was in favor of ending slavery.
Die-hard former Southern Whigs and Know Nothings who felt they could support neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party formed the Constitutional Union Party. They wanted to compromise on slavery but otherwise were “similar” in other ways to the republicans.
As a result of this four way election, an unattractive failed lawyer managed to get enough votes to win the 1860 election, thanks to being the only choice of abolitionists. Keep in mind that in 1859 the biggest story in the country was the trial and execution of John Brown. This in no small part made slavery the trunk issue of 1860.
Therefore, thanks to political schisms, Ole’ John Brown, and other ancillary issues, Lincoln (who should not have been able to win) won.
Nixon – 1968:
Nixon who failed to win against Kennedy in the razor thin election 1960, came back to win against Hubert Humphries and George Wallace in 1968. Again this resulted on no small part to the split democratic ticket. Wallace represented the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party ran as an Independent when he failed to get the nomination from his party.
The Democrats, who wear the incumbent party in 1968, were also severely hurt do to anti-war sentiment bubbling up among their own constituents. The anti-war protests and the schism over segregation were the trunk issues of 1968.
Reagan – 1980:
Reagan ran for the Republican nomination ion 1976 and nearly defeated the incumbent president. However, despite this near success many did not consider him a serious candidate. He was vilified by the media in a time before there were any significant conservative outlets. There was no Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Internet, etc. He was also under attack from the dominate moderate/liberal wing of his own party. At best he was in a close race with Carter in late October; some people have suggested he was down 8% but a closer analysis suggest it was fairly even in the polls prior to the Oct 29 debate. Yet despite being an “amiable dunce”, just an actor, and too conservative… he came back and demolished Carter.
The horrible economy and the problems in the middle-east, both of which could be lain at President Carter’s feet, were the trunk issues that Reagan road to his victory.
Clinton – 1992:
Bush 41 had a 90% approval rating coming out of Desert Storm; there was serious media chatter that the Democrats should nominate him from president even though he was an incumbent Republican president. Many of the obvious choices from the Democratic nomination decided not to run.
However, Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy was in a recession, and Bush's perceived greatest strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate in the Middle East after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.
Just as in 1860 and 1968 the election of 1992 had an additional candidate who drew enough support to impact the elections result.
The public's concern about the federal budget deficit and fears of professional politicians allowed the independent candidacy of billionaire Texan Ross Perot to explode on the scene in dramatic fashion—at one point Perot was leading the major party candidates in the polls. Perot crusaded against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), internal and external national debt, tapping into voters' potential fear of the deficit. His volunteers succeeded in collecting enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.
The trunk issues of the economy, the end of the cold war, and Perot’s candidacy resulted in Clinton winning with only 43.01% of the vote.
Obama – 2008:
The election of 2008 what noteworthy because it was the first election since 1972 that did not have an incumbent president or vice president on the ballet.
Barrack Obama, a junior senator from Illinois, decided to run against the Democrat’s presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Conventional wisdom held that his lack of experience, ultra liberal views, and even in mixed racial heritage made him unelectable.
He was however, able to ride enormous support from the old guard media, a recession, and waning support for two ongoing wars, to victory over a moderate Republican John McCain.
I have listed five unlikely winners of the Presidency and some of the reason why they won, what commonalities are there between the examples I have listed and how does this apply to today.
In three of the five (Lincoln, Nixon, Clinton) there were more then two candidates that received enough votes to sway the election. The other two (Reagan and Obama) had two had trunk issues of a bad economy and unrest in the Middle East.
What can we learn from this? How do five (by conventional wisdom) unelectable men get elected.
The simple answer is this. Despite any negatives a candidate may have, if he or she can articulate a message that resonates with the electorate. Then that candidate can win. That is not to say “any” message well articulated can be a winner that is not the case.
A candidate can not come across as “crazy.” Seeming crazy is easier to do than one might expect when in the sport light of a Presidential Campaign. Ross Perot, Howard Dean, and Ron Paul all have fell victim to the “sin” of appearing somewhat crazy. Opponents and their supporters in the media and blogosphere will pounce on a candidate who does or says something crazy.
A candidate can not be short or ugly. This might be unfair but the reality is short and or ugly candidates are less viable in these days of visual media. Height is often said to be the single physical characteristic that most often correlates to victory in a Presidential elections.
So can Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich…et al win. The answer is absolutely, but it depends.
How is the economy?
What is the national security situation?
How do they deal with their negatives?
How do they appeal to independents and single issue voters?
How do they handle a hostile media?
Can they articulate their message well?
Can they get their message out?
Lincoln - 1860:
In 1860 Lincoln only won 39.8% of the vote, but was elected largely in part because of dual political schisms.
The Democrats were divided over the concept of “popular sovereignty” in the case of slavery. In the decades before the American Civil War, the term "popular sovereignty" was often used to suggest that residents of U.S. territories should be able to decide by voting whether or not slavery would be allowed in the territory. This concept was associated with such politicians as Lewis Cass and Stephen A. Douglas. Note: neither faction was in favor of ending slavery.
Die-hard former Southern Whigs and Know Nothings who felt they could support neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party formed the Constitutional Union Party. They wanted to compromise on slavery but otherwise were “similar” in other ways to the republicans.
As a result of this four way election, an unattractive failed lawyer managed to get enough votes to win the 1860 election, thanks to being the only choice of abolitionists. Keep in mind that in 1859 the biggest story in the country was the trial and execution of John Brown. This in no small part made slavery the trunk issue of 1860.
Therefore, thanks to political schisms, Ole’ John Brown, and other ancillary issues, Lincoln (who should not have been able to win) won.
Nixon – 1968:
Nixon who failed to win against Kennedy in the razor thin election 1960, came back to win against Hubert Humphries and George Wallace in 1968. Again this resulted on no small part to the split democratic ticket. Wallace represented the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party ran as an Independent when he failed to get the nomination from his party.
The Democrats, who wear the incumbent party in 1968, were also severely hurt do to anti-war sentiment bubbling up among their own constituents. The anti-war protests and the schism over segregation were the trunk issues of 1968.
Reagan – 1980:
Reagan ran for the Republican nomination ion 1976 and nearly defeated the incumbent president. However, despite this near success many did not consider him a serious candidate. He was vilified by the media in a time before there were any significant conservative outlets. There was no Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Internet, etc. He was also under attack from the dominate moderate/liberal wing of his own party. At best he was in a close race with Carter in late October; some people have suggested he was down 8% but a closer analysis suggest it was fairly even in the polls prior to the Oct 29 debate. Yet despite being an “amiable dunce”, just an actor, and too conservative… he came back and demolished Carter.
The horrible economy and the problems in the middle-east, both of which could be lain at President Carter’s feet, were the trunk issues that Reagan road to his victory.
Clinton – 1992:
Bush 41 had a 90% approval rating coming out of Desert Storm; there was serious media chatter that the Democrats should nominate him from president even though he was an incumbent Republican president. Many of the obvious choices from the Democratic nomination decided not to run.
However, Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy was in a recession, and Bush's perceived greatest strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate in the Middle East after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.
Just as in 1860 and 1968 the election of 1992 had an additional candidate who drew enough support to impact the elections result.
The public's concern about the federal budget deficit and fears of professional politicians allowed the independent candidacy of billionaire Texan Ross Perot to explode on the scene in dramatic fashion—at one point Perot was leading the major party candidates in the polls. Perot crusaded against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), internal and external national debt, tapping into voters' potential fear of the deficit. His volunteers succeeded in collecting enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.
The trunk issues of the economy, the end of the cold war, and Perot’s candidacy resulted in Clinton winning with only 43.01% of the vote.
Obama – 2008:
The election of 2008 what noteworthy because it was the first election since 1972 that did not have an incumbent president or vice president on the ballet.
Barrack Obama, a junior senator from Illinois, decided to run against the Democrat’s presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Conventional wisdom held that his lack of experience, ultra liberal views, and even in mixed racial heritage made him unelectable.
He was however, able to ride enormous support from the old guard media, a recession, and waning support for two ongoing wars, to victory over a moderate Republican John McCain.
I have listed five unlikely winners of the Presidency and some of the reason why they won, what commonalities are there between the examples I have listed and how does this apply to today.
In three of the five (Lincoln, Nixon, Clinton) there were more then two candidates that received enough votes to sway the election. The other two (Reagan and Obama) had two had trunk issues of a bad economy and unrest in the Middle East.
What can we learn from this? How do five (by conventional wisdom) unelectable men get elected.
The simple answer is this. Despite any negatives a candidate may have, if he or she can articulate a message that resonates with the electorate. Then that candidate can win. That is not to say “any” message well articulated can be a winner that is not the case.
A candidate can not come across as “crazy.” Seeming crazy is easier to do than one might expect when in the sport light of a Presidential Campaign. Ross Perot, Howard Dean, and Ron Paul all have fell victim to the “sin” of appearing somewhat crazy. Opponents and their supporters in the media and blogosphere will pounce on a candidate who does or says something crazy.
A candidate can not be short or ugly. This might be unfair but the reality is short and or ugly candidates are less viable in these days of visual media. Height is often said to be the single physical characteristic that most often correlates to victory in a Presidential elections.
So can Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich…et al win. The answer is absolutely, but it depends.
How is the economy?
What is the national security situation?
How do they deal with their negatives?
How do they appeal to independents and single issue voters?
How do they handle a hostile media?
Can they articulate their message well?
Can they get their message out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)