Bill wrote:

"You think Obama won't get the white vote? How do you figure? "

His North Carolina victory and Indiana loss continued to expose his failure to get white, middle class voters. His coalition consists of the heavy majority of blacks and upscale liberals. That's the same coalition, in almost the same numbers, that the losing campaigns of McGovern, Kerry and Gore had. The prophet Obama has yet to expand his base and that does not bode well for November. It's not a racial issue. It's a cultural one: he looks down on those that must "cling" to God and guns. How elitist (and wrong!).

"My friends who are all welders, longshoreman, firemen, mechanics and other workingclass heroes are WHITE and are all voting for Obama and view Hillary as the racist."

It's not about race. We, on the right, truly understood Martin Luther King's call to a race-blind America. We don't care about the color of a person --we care, unlike the left, about the content of one's character. Thus far, Obama has shown little of that, in associating with an unrepentant terrorist (William Ayres) and choosing as a father figure, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who clearly hates America, whites and Israel.

But, go ahead and vote for Mr. "hope" and "change". YOU will be the one who needs to "hope" he's not the complete charlatan I know he is -- AND -- you will have a lot less "change" in your pocket after he raises our taxes.

"Good luck with your support of McCain and I find your political writings interesting to say the least."

Thanks, Bill.

Lev wrote:

"Chris Matthews is a leftist?

You mean Chris "I get a thrill up my leg when listening to Obama" Matthews? Case (easily) closed.

"Matthews fell all over himself to effusively endorse the initial invasion of Iraq by the US. I've seen the clip and find it nauseating."

I find Matthews to be a not very bright, easily gullible person --but that's kinda' the definition of those on the left. They throw out reason, facts, and any sense of historical perspective all in favor of...drum roll.. their "feelings". Oy!

"Obama is a centrist Democrat"

Really? Not according to the bi-partisan National Journal which ranked him the #1 --not #10, or 55th -- liberal in Congress. Number 1. That is not "centrist". Nor, is being the candidate of the deeply anti-American,Moveon.org. The prophet Obama sat in Reverend Wright's church for 20 years listening to rants, heavily marinated in Marxist philosophy. That, is hardly centrist. so, fool yourself all you want" the prophet Obama is a far leftist at the very least. No wonder his mantra is "change". He just doesn't want to tell you what that change would be. The left is too inured with his style to demand to know what he wants to change (and we're not talking "healthcare" here.). The right, this fall, WILL ask him what kind--specifically -- of change he proposes. I guarantee you, it won't be very centrist.

"maybe he would turn back some of the more egregious excesses of the Bush administration."

And those excesses of the Bush administration are keeping your taxes low? That's an "excess" that's good for the country.

"But fear not, he will not drastically change anything."

And you know this, how? Because the prophet Obama tells you that? You've been succored in by a guy who has not a single accomplishment in his career. Not one. He has surrounded himself with unsavory characters like Rezko the Fixer, Ayres, the Terrorist and Wright, the Black nationalist -- but, fear not, you say. I tend to look at someone's record and who they are associated with and it's not a pretty picture for Mr. Obama.

The previous commenter wrote:

"...your candidate--John McCain--vigorously OPPOSED the creation of Martin Luther King Day and voted against it."

As a freshman Senator, 25 years ago, McCain did, in fact, vote against MLK Day, as did many Senators. But, he recognized that this vote was wrong. Is he not human -- is it not better to recognize an error and correct it? I think that's a healthy trait. Recently, Senator McCain said:

"Even in this most idealistic of nations, we do not always take kindly to being reminded of what more we can do, or how much better we can be, or who else can be included in the promise of America."

"We can be slow as well to give greatness its due, a mistake I made myself long ago when I voted against a federal holiday in memory of King. I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona."

I give the Senator credit for admitting the error and correcting it. He's a good man.

The commenter continued:

"Second, you say the right truly understands the call to a "race-blind America" yet the right has made race a central factor of Obama's candidacy."

Really? How? Willie Horton? That wasn't about 'race' --it was about furloughing killers, as candidate Dukakis did. It became a major issue in 1988, justifiably.

"The right will no doubt keep working the Rev. Wright angle, which the voters are now weary of and the majority of voters (polls show) no longer see it as a viable issue."

That's a lie: 50% of the exit data from Indiana and North Carolina said that the Reverend Wright issue --borne out of Obama's incredibly poor judgement, which IS an issue-- mattered in the casting of their vote. It was an issue, it is an issue and it will be an issue in the fall. It deserves to be an issue: Obama CHOSE this man to be his spiritual mentor as well as his de facto father figure. 20 years he spent listening to Wright's extremist "views --his clearly, anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jewish views. And somehow you think the Right is "exploiting race" by bringing it up and keeping it an issue?" Next subject.

"Meanwhile, the left has not even started their assault on McCain. Let's see what's in the ol' ammo bunker that hasn't been used. We have the Keating-Five":

For which Senator McCain was exonerated...

"...his explosive temper":

Yes, the Left doesn't like someone with a "temper". Well I do. I like someone who gets a little pissed off at things like Iran's Hitler, Ahmadinejad, calling for Israel's erasure!" A little MORE anger from a president, Harry Truman-style, would go a long way!

"..an immigration policy abhored by the right, he's flip-flopped on most major issues--including abortion..."

Immigration is a contentious issue --except to Democrats who want to open the floodgates. McCain is anti-abortion, plain and simple.

"...his willingness to stay in Iraq for 100 years..."

Now, you're just swallowing Huffington Post-type silliness. The U.S. has troops in Germany and Japan --hundreds of thousands of them -- since the end of world war II. That's almost 70 years. They are there to KEEP THE PEACE, not make war. That is what McCain spoke of. Are you that gullible to believe that McCain *wants* war for 100 years? Don't answer: those on the left's minds have been conditioned to believe Republicans want war and are greedy and evil. It's one of the reasons the left has only elected 2 democrats in 44 years --and one of them, Clinton, was basically a Republican. The other, Jimmy Carter, was by far the worst president in U.S. history, his inept actions in office vis a vis "Iran" having led us to where we are with them today. His ineptitude in office is only matched by his ineptitude out of office. His recent tea taking with the terrorist organization Hamas is only his most recent stupid act. He's a bad guy.

"..his confusion of Sunni and Shite..."

Yes, McCain mixed something up momentarily. You ever do that? Next issue.

"...his admission of not knowing how to deal with a faltering economy.."

So. A president need not be an expert on all issues: he needs to hire experts on those issues. George W. Bush hired the right people and the economy has put in a great performance under his stewardship including 59 straight months of growth (59 straight months!); a very high stock market; very low unemployment (5%, lower than when Clinton ran in 1996); more home ownership for minorities, low inflation and on and on.

"how he called his wife a cu** in public..."

This is what you've "got" on McCain? Next issue.

"...not to mention his age..."

His age is an asset: I want an adult going up against our enemies like Ahmadinjad, not a 46 year-old, like the prophet Obama -- a man who has accomplished exactly NOTHING.

"and his voting demographic which are primarily older white men who are in dwindling supply these days..."

Um, not. He not only appeals to those on the right, but to those in the MIDDLE, where the election will be decided. He has great crossover appeal and that is why many states, not normally in the Republican column, will be in play.

"the core of the republican party "can't stand the guy" Rush Limbaugh's words, not mine."

The Right will vote in droves for McCain. They will not crossover for the far left Obama (ranked the #1 liberal by the bipartisan National Journal). And because of Obama's direct associations with the terrorist Bill Ayres and his spiritual mentor Reverend Wright, the Right will come out to vote against Obama, out of fear of his marxist leanings.

"So like I said previously good luck to you with your support for McCain. You're gonna need it."

Proud to be FOR a true American hero, an acknowledged and experienced foreign policy expert and well respected, by both sides, 25-year Senator. The one who is going to need all the "luck" in the world is the prophet Obama who still cannot figure out why the white middle class won't for him. And, it's not because they are racists: it's because they don't trust liberals in the White House.

Lev wrote:

"But I know that you and the folks at Fox News probably think that Obama wants to form a Soviet in DC. If only that were true."

How revealing. So, you would want Obama to be a socialist. Let me go on record as saying that I wouldn't, nor, would the American people. Why would you want to go to a failed system that killed tens of millions of human beings? Democracy is the only system that works --thank God for the greatness of president Bush gifting Iraq with it. of course, the Left , racists that they truly are, don't think Iraqi's have the capacity to "handle" democracy/freedom. But, the old saying is in fact true: "Freedom isn't free." and Iraqi mothers and fathers, when they put their children to bed every night pray that the world in which their children grow up in will be a free one for them --and that is only thanks to President Bush and out extremely brave soldiers, who the left --despite their parsing--DO NOT SUPPORT. It isn't an easy mission. But, ridding the region of Saddam Hussein (which the left rues) AND putting on the truly evil Iran's border another democracy is worth it. The president made the right decision to go into Iraq then and it is the right decision now.

Bill wrote:

"how he called his wife a cu** in public..."

I responded: "This is what you've "got" on McCain? Next issue."

Bill: "God help us if Obama did this. We'd never hear the end of it!"

It's such a deeply minor thing, it's hard to fathom that you even mentioned it. What Obama did say that was, in fact, relevant was that small town folk clung to their guns and their god out of frustration. Talk about a relevant statement that outed the prophet Barack's truly elitist sentiments to the lowly small town folk. It hurt him in the states he couldn't afford to be hurt in --and, it will hurt him in the general, justifiably. He and Michelle are elitists who think they are better than small town folk, no matter how hard they try to spin their way out of it.

"When the internet bubble burst at the end of Clinton's 2nd term the right went to town with it. Now the housing bubble has burst under Bush, with far more dire consequences and John McCain's response is:

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. ... I've got Greenspan's book." Scary."

Um, the housing bubble has burst? How can that be when 96% of the homes in this country have their mortgages paid on time. yet another leftist dart at their ultimate nemesis: the big 'ol. bad 'ol president, Mr. Bush. Remember in the 204 election all the leftists were saying the economy was the 'worst since the depression.' Another ridiculous overstatement by ridiculous people. Just pure silliness. Until only recently, there was a staggering 59 straight months of growth under Bush. Any president would give anything for that record!

"As for Rev. Wright, I got this quote from NewsMax, a site I'm sure your familiar with:

"Asked if Rev. Wright's statements made them (voters) more or less favorable toward Obama, only 2 percent said more favorable and 22 percent said less favorable, while 75 percent said they made no difference."

McCain has his own crazy pastor issues, only they're double. He has not only John Hagee, but Rod Parsely--two nuts who make Rev. Wright look like Mr. Rogers."

McCain didn't sit in Hagee's pews for 20 YEARS, have his children baptized by him, get married by him and name one of his books after a sermon of his!" I'm not a Hagee fan, but he isn't in the same universe as the deeply anti-american, anti-white, anti-Israel "Reverend" Wright. He's Obama's father figure. But, get ready for him because he's going to blanket the airwaves n the fall, justifiably. He IS an issue and 50% of voters leaving polling places in Pennsylvania and Indiana and N. Carolina said he was an issue.

"McCain will also have to explain why he doesn't want a the New G.I. Bill. This alone will cost him the veteran vote."

McCain will trounce his opponent amongst veterans: he's a true war hero from a long family history of them. It's a slam dunk.

"McCain is totally wrong on staying in Iraq for 100 years. The occupation of Iraq is much different than having bases in Germany, Japan, etc. In those countries they aren't continually trying to kill us as they are in Iraq."

Note to Bill: the warhas yet to conclude in Iraq that's why they are "continually trying to kill us" --as they did in WWI and II, etc. That's what wars are. McCain was talking about having a presence there for 100 years and he's right to say it and know that it's the correct move. By the way, as opposed to the feckless, cut and run 'strategy' of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and most depressingly, the prophet Obama.

"A McCain presidency would be a disaster. When Oregon is done and Obama is the candidate, McCain will be the one having bombs dropped on him for a change."

I'll take a guy (McCain) who is a grown up; who has experience and isn't afraid to tell it like it is, in an increasingly complex world.

"On another note, I'm looking forward to the next Red Button CD. Love the first one."

That is much appreciated Bill --thank you. We're having a good time making the 2nd record--about 5 songs in right now. Probably ready early, '09.

Lev wrote:

"The question always is, democracy for whom? In this country, it is democracy in the service of huge corporations."

Tell the deca-millions that work for corporations, that they are "evil" as you think they are. In fact, they employ people,which usually translates into food on the table for lots of American children.

"If Bear Stearns is in trouble, the Fed reaches in and saves them. If Joe Blow is defaulting on his mortgage, well that's too bad for him and his family."

I'm not for Bear Stearns being bailed out anymore than I am for someone buying too high. But, Bear Stearns was a special case: the markey was receding at that point and bad news like that could have really frightened moneylenders, investors, even more than they were. Actually, Treasury Secretary Paulson did an incredible (and unappreciated job) in calming many nerves (around the world) and helping prevent a disaster.

"Regarding Iraq, you are almost delusional. Do you think the MILLIONS of displaced people or the millions of people who have lost family members are thanking their lucky stars or George, W.? How can you defend that position with a straight face. The war is even less popular there than it is here."

War isn't a pat event. It doesn't go smoothly, like the history-challenged LEFT thinks it must (or , then it's a failure). It's not like the kazillion TV shows and movies you were overrun with your whole life, where it has a beginning, middle and end. It's a struggle --and it ain't pretty. But when the reward is Freedom and democracy, it's worth it. And, it's worth it to the vast majority of Iraqis who are now "with us" in our fight with al-Qaeda and Iran. Pssst: in case you haven't heard while you've been waving the white flag: the surge is working!

"For the record, as a real leftist, I have always thought that Saddam Hussein was a butcher."

Congrats.

"But why is it that you, and the mainstream media never discuss his rise to power in Iraq or the fact that he was backed by the US -- He was consistently the same -- don't give me any of that "gosh we made a mistake" business. Until 1989 the US seemed blithely unconcerned with Saddam's highly unsavory policies"

That was then, this is now. This country was allies with Joseph Stalin --our natural foe-- during World War II, to bring down our common enemy. Saddam, to us in the 80s, was a different Saddam for us in the 90s.

"How come the US supports the House of Saud? Now there's a sterling democracy!!!"

And who would be the alternative to the House of Saud? Virulently anti-American radicals, that's who. And you'd be paying $12./a gallon for gas.

"Hey, if you think war heroes make great presidents, why did you support George "awol" Bush over Kerry, who although I thought he was also a jerk, was actually a war hero (he fought on the ground, not just bombing villages from a jet)?"

First, as the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth exposed, Kerry wasn't a war hero. And "yes", his war record was an issue because he ran as a "hero". The Swift Boaters just exposed him.

In fact, Kerry damned our troops with his self-important testimony in front of Congress in 1971 (?). He did it again after he lost the '04 election. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. But I very proudly voted for him in 2004 and would, in a second, vote for him over any candidate today. He's got vision, guts and an outstanding moral compass --unlike, almost the entire Left (except Joe Lieberman).

"You really don't see the mess the Bush administration has made"

If anything, Bush clarified, not muddled. But, when you read the Huffington Post, N.Y. Times, and watch NBC, I don't expect you to think anything other than "Bush is Hitler!" (Or, was it "Bush is stupid!" Or was it "Bush lied and millions died?" Or was it...

Lev wrote:

"OK, just a couple of points to clarify -- I'm not just talking about the US supporting Saddam in the war against Iran in the 80s. He was "our guy" in the Baathist party and we helped him come into power (with predicitible results)."

So. Stalin was "our guy" during WWII and he helped win that conflict. Saddam helped fight Iran in the 80s, which was a good thing. Then, after his unprovoked attack on Kuwait in August, 1990, he was "with us" anymore. Remember, you're either 'with us' or against us'. It's very, very simple.

"You are actually using the swift boaters to make a point."

Yup. They did a great job exposing the phony "war hero", John Kerry. My hat's are off to them.

"And you are calling Joe Lieberman a leftist? "

He is a standard liberal on all social issues. But, he happens to be for the war in Iraq -- Now, the so-called "big tent" of the Democratic party won't let him in.

"Yeah, and I read the Economist and the Wall Street Journal. I like the Bloomberg news service, too. Do you think your news sources are unbiased?"

FoxNews is quite fair, but because they don't serve the standard poisoned lemonade the Left is used to, they are "evil" and biased. They have guests on from all political stripes and present all sides of the news. Most of my friends on the left even admit watching it now (not just because they have the hottest female anchors, either), but because it's not silly, like the auto-angry jerk Keith Olbermann, or the just plain stupid, Chris Matthews. How many editors has the NY Times fired for poor reportage , these past few years? I think 2. CBS news producer Mary Mapes: gone. Dan Rather: gone. The head shot caller at CNN: gone. And on and on. That's what happens when you bend the news.

"You are the one who makes comparisons to Hitler."

No, the Democrats 2nd in command, Dick Durbin compared our country (he meant "Bush and Cheney") to the Soviet Gulags and the Nazi's. This is how the Left thinks. The #2 guy in the majority. I don't even think of the Left as stupid as much as I think of them as silly. Constant silliness: from the crock of "global warming" (instead of the reality of "global jihad"; to saying that Bush was spying on us"...it's a party of silly people.

"Me, I think Bush is one deeply disturbed..."

Proving my point of how silly leftists are

"...moderately intelligent, truly incompetent man. Certainly no worse than Saddam Hussein -- unfortunately he wields a lot more power than Saddam ever did."

And the silliness continues. Here come the standard (and again, silly) Dem equivocations: Bush= Saddam". You sure you want to stick with that one? Did Bush gas his own people? Did Saddam tear the limbs of people in public squares? Did Bush set up rape rooms for women in the US? Lev: stop being silly: when you have, come back to me.

Lev said:

"Seth there is no such thing as "The Left.""

Really? What is Nancy Pelosi, a centrist? What isTed Kennedy --he's not on the Left? What is Barack Obama, ranked the #1 liberal by the non-partisan National Journal? A middle of the roader? What does middle of the road mean in the Democratic Party? If you're a complete social liberal but just so happen to believe that the war in Iraq is just, you cannot be in the party: witness, Joe Lieberman. There is a clear "Left", it's important to label it, recognize it and defeat it: it's a reactive party, NOT a party of ideas, vision or boldness.

"But since you seem to include almost everyone to the left of Newt Gingrich in this so-called entity, it seems kind of unlikely that they would all share the same positions. This is your main mode of argument -- you attribute some position to this amorphous "left" and then refute it."

If you're "for" the war, you can't be a democrat. As I mentioned, Joe Lieberman found this 2 years ago. No, the Democrats have been wrested by the far leftists like Moveon.org. To deny that is to deny reality. And thusly, they have delivered (almost) on putting a far leftist as the Nominee, in Obama.

"It seems that you basically would approve of anything that Bush and his administration might do. Root root root for the home team, Seth."

Untrue. I was against the "Dubai ports" deal. I opposed Harriet Miers to be on the Supreme Court, as two examples.

"I tend to agree with the Times more often (not very often, mind you"

My sympathies.

"so I guess I might conclude they are less biased. But that would be a mistake."

Let's see: when the incredibly minor story (in the context of a war) of Abu Ghraib occured, the N.Y. Times put it on its front page for 44 consecutive days. As disgusting as the goings on there were --and Bush got on national television that day to harshly condemn them -- no one was killed. The agenda of the Times was to make Bush look bad.

When the vaunted Times published our secret program to freeze the bank accounts of terrorist groups, that was responsible?

Or, when -- without any proof -- the Times put front and center a story recently, of an alleged affair between McCain and a woman lobbyist, was that not over-the-top, irresponsible partisanship? You bet it was. I cancelled my subscription to the The New Left Times and never looked back. And, no, I don't miss the Style section.

"No, Bush commits his atrocities at Guantanamo and in Iraqi prisons (and against the civilian population of Iraq)."

Oh, spare me the 'Bush is evil' bit, please....For the record, not a single prisoner has died at Guantanamo. They are amongst the most coddled prisoners in the world.

"Is Bush capable of using public dismemberment? I don't know (my guess is that Cheney would love that, George might just wet himself in fear)."

This statement is beneath a comment by me.

"Clearly Bush has no problem with ordering the torture of humans (if you don't think waterboarding is torture, I suggest you try it yourself sometime)."

Does waterboarding kill anyone. Answer: no. If an al-Qaeda terrorist might have information about a suitcase nuke on an American city, would you feel better if we didn't waterboard him, but the city lost 4 million innocent Americans in an attack? Next question-

"I can imagine your response, admonishing me that they torture people to preserve my freedom. What a load! You think they have made the world safer. I strongly disagree -- I think Bush is Bin Laden's wet dream of a president."

Bush has been the biggest thorn in the side of al Qaeda and it's why vicious terrorists like Hamas openly endorse Obama. This isn't rocket science: Bush went after them where they live and now bin Laden is living in a cave. McCain will keep the pressure on and THAT is what has kept us safe for going on 7 years.

"But since you buy EVERYTHING this administration says ("nothing up our sleeves") and ignore most of what they actually do you'll continue to love them."

I don't buy everything, but the important things like our safety --and the president gets an A+ on my scorecard for that.

Lev wrote:

"Yup. Those Guantanamo prisoners live off the fat of the land. Ooops, except the ones who have committed suicide. And some of them have died in captivity."

Um, and how should those prisoners --you know, the ones planning mass attacks on our cities or trying to kill our soldiers supposed to live? Sorry that you feel bad for the enemy --but considering your political tilt, it surprises me not.

"Be that as it may, torture is defined as:
tor·ture
-noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain or suffering, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

Yup.

"Hamas is stronger, Iran has greatly expanded its influence and al queda which did not exist in Iraq is now a viable organization."

Whether al Qaeda "existed" or not in Iraq, pre-our taking out of Saddam. is immaterial: the threat of radical Islam is interconnected. Saddam funded Hamas; Iran subsidizes Hezbollah; Syria assassinates pro-democracy leaders like Hirari in Lebanon and on it goes. It's interconnected and it needed to be attacked back, aggressively, like the president did.

"The amount of destruction and misery that the US has engendered to no apparent end tends to create a great deal of resentment and even hatred."

The first Arabs in world history --outside of those that live in Israel, of course -- voted in Iraq in 2005. Three times Iraqis went to the polls and will go again this fall (in time to remind American voters of the double edged victory Iraq had the promise to become and slowly, is becoming). Freedom is free, as was true of our "birth" as well.

"Terrorism is the politics of the desperate -- vastly increasing people's desperation is dangerous."

The Palestinians have been given tens of billions of dollars by the U.S. and E.U. to make a peaceful, modern society but instead, THEY CHOOSE WAR EVERYTIME. So don't tell me they are"DESPERATE". The only thing they are ddesperate for is Israel's destruction and they LOVE that you're on their side.

Ask yourself: if Hamas didn't fire rockets into Israel everyday, would there be quiet in the region? Next issue....

"Meanwhile ship containers are not inspected and nuclear and chemical plants are not terribly secure. And even airports are awfully porous except for passengers. I recently had the shoes taken off my 2 year old (she is part of a sleeper/nap cell)."

And if they didn't take a 2-year olds shoes off, and a (god forbid) bomb went off on a plane...and if the bomb was planted on asmall child, you would have the president brought up on charges of malfeasance.

You can't have it both ways: if there had been 5 terrorist attacks (even 1) since 9/11, you would have had Bush impeached. But, there are ZERO attacks and you still bitterly hate him.

This is a symptom of the disease known as B.D.S., or "Bush Derangement Syndrome". The main symptom is where people, mostly leftists, take anything George W. Bush does and viciously attack it as destructive or stupid or evil and on and on.

"I don't know why you keep on tarring me with the brush of the Democratic Party -- I don't like them either. I believe they are just as invested in the Republicans in maintaining a lousy status quo."

I think the system is working perfectly. This is what the Framers wanted -- non-violent , hard-headed debate. These political battles, they understood, would take place. It's a vicious cultural battle that's occurring now and both sides have won some and lost some. But, it's the Right that will eventually win because in the end, the Left of the 60s, didn't stand for too much but it's LSD-fueled Utopian vision.

"Well the Bush Republicans would like to go back to the 1920s or maybe the 1820s (actually given the anti-enlightenment bent of the Bush crew maybe the 1520s)."

Not me. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I was a liberal until 9/12/01. I'm very proud of my vote for Bush in 2004: he continues to be the most moral, intelligent, visionary in Politics today. I haven't agreed with everything, but on the big stuff, he's right on.