MucheDumbre

Because he knows that we are all Americans and it doesn’t matter if we live in small towns or big cities…”We All Love This Country”

You can either search congress for the ‘anti-americans’.Travel only in the ‘real’ America while dividing yourself from the rest of America..You can keep throwing every attack you can find, whether that be visiting his dying grandmother on a campaign plane, or because he said in down times people hold on to their religion.

Or, you can unite and believe “in the future we can build together..”

Why Obama?

…if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city it can change a state, and if it can change a state it can change a nation, and if it can change the nation it can change the world...

If you can listen to end of that and not feel hope. Not feel inspiration, not feel that “Yes, we can…” Yes, we can be better, we can do better, we can do anything if we stand together…. then Vote for McCain because there is nothing more I or anyone else can do to help you decide.

If you would rather listen to the same old attacks that lost McCain the Republican nomination in 2000? Tune into Fox news or watch any McCain ad, because he has hired the same attack dogs that George Bush used against him.

But if you want change, If you want unity, if you want an end to the last 8 years of division. Vote Obama.

Why Obama?

Sure, it’s easy to be cynical and say it can’t be done… One voice can’t do anything. One man can’t change anything. Why should we hope for anything?

There has never been anything false about hope…. When we have faced down impossible odds, we we’ve been told we’re not ready or we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t.. Generations of Americans have responded……. Yes we can!

Why Obama?

Because… with him we can be the America that is prosperous, caring, respected, feared and envied.

Don’t roll your eyes… Yes, we can.

Breaking news: The Surge worked.

Actually it’s not so breaking.  The results have been apparent for several months now.  Civilian casualties are down, military casualties are down, and acts of violence in general are down.  Iraq is no paradise, but on the other hand it’s not quite the hell on earth that could have safely described it in 2006.  It’s hard to argue now that it was the wrong strategy, so let’s take a look down memory lane and see who opposed it eh?

Senator John Kerry:  “The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn’t the answer–in fact, it’s a tragic mistake. It won’t end the violence; it won’t provide security; …it won’t turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won’t deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won’t rein in the militias.”

Kerry’s fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, declared the surge, “an immense new mistake.”  Kennedy actively tried to fight sending any more troops.

Senator Christopher Dodd, former Presidential candidate and onetime threesome partner with the previously mentioned Senator Kennedy:  “We don’t need a surge of troops in Iraq–we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years–Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers–has drawn the same conclusion–there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (really, is that his real name?), when asked is she was worried that the gains of the surge might be lost if the troops were removed too hastily, “There haven’t been gains, Wolf…The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.”

Governor Bill Richardson, former Presidential candidate and yapping Vice Presidential wannabe had this to say on the surge:  “The president is wrong. We don’t need anymore troop surges, we need a diplomatic surge. We must get all our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.”

Senator Joseph Biden, yet another former Presidential nominee, and currently running for either Obama’s Vice President or his Secretary of State, whichever will put him in front of the cameras the most, told this to Secretary of State Rice on the surge:  “We heard a plan to escalate the war, not only in Iraq but possibly into Syria and Iran as well…I believe the President’s strategy is not a solution, Secretary Rice, I believe it is a tragic mistake.”

And of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who tried to play the man in her ultimately failed Presidential race against Senator Barack Obama:  “Based on the president’s speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq…The President simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course. The president has not offered a new direction, instead he will continue to take us down the wrong road, only faster.”

There was some Democratic support however.  Senator Lieberman said this in support of the surge:  “it’s just unfair to our troops implementing the surge, to Gen. Petraeus, who helped create this totally different strategy — which is working — to essentially pull the rug out from under them, to take away their reason for fighting before they even have a chance.”

Oh wait, Lieberman is an independent now.  Although he caucuses with the Democrats he is regarded as traitor.  Quite a fall from being the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate 7 plus years ago.  But I don’t want to make it sound like only Democrats opposed the surge.  There was some Republican opposition as well. 

Retiring fence sitter and amateur historian Senator John Warner had this to say, “Young men and women of US forces and coalition forces should not be caught in the crossfire of a civil war prompted by who should have succeeded Mohammed in — what is it? — 650 AD?”

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who teased the country on his decision to think about deciding to consider whether to entertain the notion of running for President, had this to say:  “This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq.”

But right now, the opinions of those who matter most are the two Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.  Come January of next year, no matter who wins, George Bush will be packing his bags and whatever White House towels he can get away with.  As he leaves, his policies leave with him.

McCain’s views on the surge are well known.  In fact, you could argue that he risked his political career on the surge.  But what did fellow contender, Barack Obama have to say?

Before the surge: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.”

After the surge was announced:  “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Of course you will have to look a little bit for Obama’s earlier comments now.  He scrubbed his website to clear out his previous anti surge comments.  Now, guess what?  The surge worked:  “In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda–greatly weakening its effectiveness.”

Hey, anyone can be wrong.  It’s possible that someday I might be wrong about something.  It’s not likely, but never say never.  But it’s stunning when an entire political party is wrong about something so important.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream media was as one on the idea a year and a half ago that the surge couldn’t work and shouldn’t be tried. 

In this election, Barack Obama isn’t running on the experience card.  McCain has that locked up.  He’s running on his judgment. Because he opposed the war on Iraq, he is somehow supposed to have better judgment?  Sean Penn opposed the war too and he thought it was a good idea to marry Madonna.  His supposedly superior judgment had him opposing the surge too.

It wasn’t judgment that had Obama opposing the war,  it was the reflex of the anti-war left.  The same reflex that had him oppose the surge.  I’m still waiting for an example of his good judgment.

This from the Muche Forum today… It’s a post from a newbie named Dave

“Michelle Obama’s alleged use of the term “Whitie”?”

I guess there is a rumor out there that the GOP has a video of Michelle Obama at Jeremiah Wright’s church standing next to Louis Farrakhan and raving against ’whitey’.

HA!
HA!HA!HA!

I’ve said for weeks now that Jeremiah White will do Karl Rove’s job for him and release a video like this. I can only pray to the God that Obama took into his heart that this is true.

Let me say first, for full-disclosure purposes.. I am a Hillary supporter and I am pissed at the treatment she’s been given. It’s a sad day for a liberal when they have to acknowledge Fox News as the only Fair and Balanced news source on a Clinton. But I’ve accepted that and moved on. What I haven’t accepted, what I won’t accept is the blind faith the rest of the media is putting into their darling Obama.

Over the weekend Hillary won Puerto Rico by a 40 points. The headline that ran all weekend on that reclusive-hack’s opinion driven wanna-be-newsman webiste read The End! Well yes, of course anyone who keeps putting a 40 point victory up would indeed be the loser. Sounds implausible doesn’t it? In the last few primaries Hillary has lead by an overwhelming majority. Even in the 1st primaries her losses weren’t by huge landslides. And yet, because of the treatment she gets from hack bloggers and other MSM sources… she’s lost the race.

Here’s what I don’t get. Isn’t Matt Drudge a republican? Don’t both sides agree that he has a “a preference for Republican candidates” as stated in a Politico article out today?

So what is Drugde doing? I mean besides picking the Democrat Nominee. Make no mistake about it, this slime decides what is and what isn’t good for Hollywood movies and is now deciding what is and isn’t good for this country. But the question is why? If “his own reporting — have reflected a rightward tilt” then what exactly is his agenda? Has he been won over by the smooth talking Obama? Or is he picking the canidate that he knows is the only candiate that won’t get elected, in a time when there is no way the Democrats can lose.

Think about this. People are sick of Bush. They are sick of the lies and mistakes and they are tired of the crimes and cover-ups. This is an election where people would just go into the booth and check Democrat all the way down. It’s the election the Democrats can’t lose, with a candidate that can’t win, against the party that can’t possibly win, with a candidate they don’t even like who will win.

Yeah, take a hit of acid and let that simmer for a minute..

I hope this “whitey” video comes out in October. I don’t want to see it until then. I want Barrack to be up on his white pedestal when it all comes crashing down on him. Yes, I know that would mean McCain in the White House. But right now I want revenge for the media’s treatment of Hillary, the candidates whose last 30 years are well documented and whose records have been gone over with a Ken Starr comb.
I don’t wish harm upon America… and I think McCain will harm us. But I wish the death of the “Running Man/American Idol” media evolution. I understand that today with the 24 hr news cycle there is a need for new news. But when wannabe Howard Hughes types are the ones deciding what is and isn’t important. Something needs to break.

Barrack’s initial ” I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother “

Didn’t do it.

His friendship with Bill Ayers

Didn’t do it.

HIs 20 year friendhip with another Pastor, Michael Pfleger

Didn’t do it.

so maybe a video of Michelle standing next to Farrakhan… mimicking him, Pflger and Wright will do it. At the very least, maybe it will make people ask the question that has not been asked, Who is Barrack Obama and what does he stand for.

discussion