Is General Petraeus Planning a 2012 Run?

Conservatives around the blogosphere so:

“THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010.”

So reports Michael Goldfarb, late of the McCain campaign, on the magazine’s blog.

Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address–and Petraeus must know this–it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.

Previously, it has been thought that Petraeus would not run against a president who had been his Commander in Chief. But there are reports of tension between Petraeus and Obama over both Iraq and Afghan strategy.

Is it just me or there something unseemly about a general gearing a potential presidential run while serving the commander and chief he would be running against. If that’s not a conflict of interest i’m not sure what is.

Admittedly, a Petraeus/Romney or Romney/Petraeus ticket definitely has potential. Maybe even a Petraeus/Gingrich ticket.


McCain’s Economic Blunder: Almost Too Funny To Be True…


A few days ago, the McCain campaign released a letter signed by 300 economists expressing support for the McCain economic agenda. Only…turns out a lot of those economists don’t support the McCain agenda. Or McCain. And weren’t aware the statement — which they were asked to sign months ago, before the campaign had released McCain’s economic plans — was still going to be issued…

John McCain’s remark that he’s no expert on the economy = understatement of the year

Barack Obama Spends 1.3 million campaigning in Florida!

Uh oh. There goes that Obama talking point about “not campaigning in FL”

Apparently the prodigal child spent $1.3 million on campaigning in FL. Which is more than any democratic candidate and more than any other Republican candidate. So much for that “FL doesn’t matter” line

Ron The Racist

This was too funny not to post:

Read more about Racist Ron’s comment’s here…actually I’ll post a few golden nuggets.

“”we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

“”Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,” Paul wrote.

Of course Paul supports argue that Paul didn’t write or know about the comments in the newsletter. Of course the problem is that

1. He didn’t fire the person who wrote the letter.
2. He didn’t disavow the comments
3. He defended the comments in 1996

Obama’s Folly: Why just showing up isn’t enough

I’ve been trying to lay off the Obama bashing lately because despite what it may seem like I think he’s an okay guy. Certainly on his worst day better than any of the Republican candidates on their best day. But its things like this that piss me off about Barack Obama, Obama politics and Obama supporters.

Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases…

On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.

Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill passed 112-0-0 in the House and 58-0-1 in the Senate.

But of course this is just ONE of the many present votes Obama cast on important issues like children’s safety, abortion rights, and fair sentencing. (And these are just the times where Obama alone voted present of his own accord)

So what was Obama’s defense? :

WTF kind of answer is that? (HINT: It’s not a good one)

I’m a big fan of constitutional law so I can relate to Obama on some levels, though I don’t think the law was unconstitutional.

HOWEVER, this represents an intrinsic flaw with Obama the politician. Politics is a game. Not in a delegitmizing way, but in the cat and mouse, try to out manuever your opponents and “win” sort of way.

In order to win in a high stakes game like this you need boldness and vision. Most importantly, you need to realize YOUR ROLE in the game.

As a legislator, and more importantly an alleged “supporter”, of this bill Obama shouldn’t be highlight perceived weakness of his side.

If you think the bill is unconstitutional voice your concerns in private.If the changes you advised for aren’t made then SHUT UP AND VOTE FOR THE BILL. Unless there is some major negative side effect to voting for the bill then the advantages of passing a bill that MIGHT be unconstitutional outweigh the disadvantages of allowing the victims in need of the bill to suffer.

As a legislator you legislate. Let the court decide whats unconstitutional or not.
If the courts strike down the bill then you rewrite it better the next time.

This is just bad politicing by Obama. Don’t get me wrong. If your opponents are bringing up a bill you disagree with then by all means question the constitutionality of the bill. But you never shoot your own side in the foot. Futhermore, going on public record and using the senate floor to question the constitutionality of a bill you support risks undermining the entire bill. Obama could have very well given opponents of the bill the ammo they needed to kill the bill in the courts.

This would be like an engineer for the Empire going on public record saying “while I support the Death Star, I think that we should have fixed the lone structural weakness which if exploited will blow up the entire ship.”


In Public Relations there’s a saying. If you’re explaining you’re losing. If Obama can’t give even give a concise anwser WHY he just voted present for THIS particular bill then imagine how bad that will look in November whe the Republican Attack machine is in full force. If they can swift boat an actual war hero imagine what they’ll do to someone who won’t stand up for rape victims or children being sheltered from pornography.

This is so good you can’t even make it up

I wasn’t expecting to get any gifts this year. This just goes to show that Christmas still does come early…

Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll

Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.

The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).