Obama is set to speak about the end of combat operations in Iraq at 8:00 pm ET, and I’m sure it will be… interesting. The big question is, will Obama be graceful, do the right thing, and acknowledge George Bush’s role in the success of Iraq? George Bush made a bold move with the troop surge, one that Barack Obama — and most Democrats — fought every step of the way. Sarah Palin lays out the facts:

Iraq in 2010 is indeed a very long way from Iraq in 2006, when violence and sectarian conflict threatened complete chaos. But then-candidate Obama did not support the course that brought us here as his press secretary now claims. On January 10, 2007, when President Bush announced the surge, Senator Obama insisted that the surge would actually increase sectarian violence: “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.” Barack Obama was clearly in opposition to the surge strategy.

Had we followed the course advocated by then-candidates Obama and Biden, the Iraq war would be remembered now as a crushing defeat for the United States and our allies. Al Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian supported extremists would have claimed victory over America – with grave implications for us throughout the region and the world. Iraq would have descended into full-scale civil war. Iraq’s neighbor would have likely been drawn into the conflict. Parts of Iraq would have been made a safe haven for terrorists to train and plan for attacks far beyond Iraqi borders.

Fortunately for all of us, these events did not occur. They did not occur because America changed strategy in Iraq. President Bush decided to increase our forces in Iraq and pursue a counterinsurgency strategy – a course long advocated by Republicans in Washington. This “surge” policy in 2007 was opposed by many – most notably and adamantly by Senators Obama and Biden. In October 2006, as the violence was spiraling out of control, Senator Obama actually advocated reducing our troop presence: “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.”

In response to President Bush’s State of the Union address on January 23, 2007, Senator Obama said: “I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work…My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.”

Senator Joe Biden, just before the surge was formally announced, actually declared: “If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake.”

In May 2007, Senator Obama voted against funding our troops in Iraq. Reporters have insinuated that I haven’t been telling the truth on this fact, but consider the fact: he did not support additional troop funding. Had his position prevailed, our troops would have been forced to leave Iraq precipitously and chaos would have ensued. Goodness, even Senator Biden voted for the funding and had to admit this about Senator Obama and others who opposed it: “My colleagues voted against the funding to make a political point. There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anyone’s life.” As the mother of a soldier who spent his year in Iraq recently, I have to agree with Biden on that point.

As it became clear in the summer of 2007 that the surge strategy was working, Senator Obama was still stubbornly in denial about the success our American troops were having, saying: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” What willful blindness he showed with that assessment.
And even in November 2007, when everyone could see the success of the surge in reducing violence and increasing political space in Iraq, Senator Obama said: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

We do owe President Obama credit, though. While he did oppose the surge, he ultimately did the right thing in Iraq. And despite all of his blathering, he’s done it again in Afghanistan (although he certainly didn’t send enough troops, just the bare minimum). He also put General Petraeus in charge in Afghanistan, also a very good move. The question is, will he be humble enough to give Bush the credit he deserves?

Yeah, I won’t hold my breath.

YouTube will be streaming the speech live, so you can watch online there. I’ll update as the speech goes live.

I’d suggest you keep a barf bucket nearby.

UPDATE: Well, here is Obama’s weak Bush acknowledgement.

As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

How about, I was wrong and Bush was right?

(5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Stacy McCain has been covering the election results on location in Anchorage, Alaska.

The good news? Miller is still in the lead. The bad news? Murkowski has narrowed that lead. The results are being published here, and Miller is leading by less than 1,300 votes. Most of the absentee ballots counted today came from Murkowski strongholds, however; as Stacy pointed out, absentee ballots in the Miller area, the Mat-Su Valley, will not be counted until Wednesday.

I’ll keep updating as results come in.

UPDATE: CNN is reporting that Murkowski might concede. Interesting turn of events, huh?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski could concede the GOP Senate primary as early as Tuesday night after election officials in Alaska finish counting the day’s absentee ballots.

In an interview with CNN, Murkowski campaign spokesman Steve Wackowski was emphatic that the vote could still swing their way. “We’re being hopeful, we want to make sure that all the votes are counted,” he said.

But Wackowski also addressed the harsh reality that Murkowski might fall to the once lesser known, Tea Party Express-endorsed Joe Miller.

“I think we should know … by our calculus, we should know by tonight,” Wackowski said.

Wackowski was asked if Murkowski might concede the race to Miller once Tuesday’s ballot counting ends. “Unfortunately we’ve got all our options are on the table,” he lamented.

Officials with Alaska’s Division of Elections spent Tuesday counting thousands of absentee ballots and looking over others that might present potential challenges. Currently, Miller leads the vote tally by just under 1,300 votes, a lead that has shrunk, slightly, since counting began in the morning.

Big Government is reporting that the trend has swung that Murkowski cannot overtake Miller. Interesting news indeed. Will she concede to move on to something she sees as something bigger and better, or does she simply know that she’s been defeated and doesn’t want to pull an Al Franken? Stay tuned…

UPDATE: Murkowski will be holding a press conference within fifteen minutes. Conceding to Miller? ADN is reporting the the latest absentee ballots counted increased Miller’s lead. It’s not looking good for her… will she bow out? Stay tuned…

It’s looking bad for Lisa Murkowski.

The latest count of absentees increased Miller’s lead to 1,469 votes. That’s about 200 more votes for him than the last count. Fairbanks probably helped Miller, although the votes were also from Southeast and the Kenai Peninsula.

The Murkowski campaign was really counting on a big boost from Southeast.

That didn’t happen. The latest batch was a count of 2,760 votes. It brings the total counted today to about 15,700 votes. Most were Republican primary votes that impact the Miller Murkowski race. The rest were Democratic and Libertarian votes. Still awaiting some more Kenai absentee votes and that will be all that is counted today.

UPDATE: Stacy McCain had the news first — Murkowski concedes, and Joe Miller is victorious in Alaska’s GOP primary!

(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is narrowly trailing Palin-endorsed Joe Miller. She was flirting with the idea of a third-party run, and the Libertarian Party was her only chance. Unfortunately (for her), the libertarians don’t want her.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) will not be on the AK Libertarian Party ballot line this fall, according to the secretary of the party.

Murkowski, who is trailing GOP primary to challenger Joe Miller by 1,688 votes with about 23K ballots still to be counted, has reportedly been seeking another way onto the ballot this fall. The Libertarian Party was considered her best option.

Rob Clift, the state Libertarian Party’s secretary, told Hotline On Call that the executive committee of the party met over the weekend. When asked if the decision to keep Murkowski off the ballot line was final, Clift said: “That’s correct.”

Eric Dondero has the scoop on how it all went down:

On Sunday morning, over coffee and donuts, the ExComm voted unanimously, 5 to 0 to deny the Senator the ballot line. There was no malice intended. ALP Chair Kohlhaas has repeatedly stated that she is a nice lady, and the ALP was flattered by the offer.

The meeting was contentious at first. Two board members who were clearly on the Tea Party friendly Joe Miller side were combative before they realized that the other three board members agreed with them on the essentials. At a number of points the meeting even digressed into name-calling. The ‘F’ bomb was even tossed around a number of times. One board member was hellbent on holding an immediate statewide meeting open to full membership or registered Libertarians to decide the matter. That idea was shot down 4 to 1.

The vote on Murkowski was taken at about halfway through the meeting which lasted a total of 3 hours. After the result was clear, tempers calmed down, and the 5 member board moved forward with plans on how to announce the results to the media.

This is bad news for Murkowski, but the death knell hasn’t sounded yet. There are still 25,000 ballots to be counted, after all. Still, it doesn’t look good for her.

In other news, the NRSC got the message that they shouldn’t repeat their Florida disaster with Charlie Crist, and they’re pulling out of Alaska. They’ve pledged neutrality in the race from here on out.

The question is, will Murkowski indeed pull an Al Franken and demand a full recount if she ends up trailing Joe Miller? Stay tuned for more updates…

(4 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

The media narrative is focused completely on the people who oppose the Ground Zero mosque. The mosque’s opposition has focused almost exclusively on Imam Rauf. But what about the actual developer of the mosque? Sharif Al-Gamal is its developer, and he doesn’t seem like such a trustworthy guy. On top of having been arrested seven times, it turns out that Al-Gamal is also a tax cheat.

The New York Post reported that Al-Gamal owes over $200,000 in back property taxes on the proposed mosque site.

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.

El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel.

We’ve established a lot of troubling information about the people behind this Ground Zero mosque. You’ve got Imam Rauf, an advocate for sharia in America. Now it appears that the developer has a long record of multiple arrests and is a tax cheat. Yet somehow, Al-Gamal is getting the money to pay millions of dollars for this and other New York City properties over the last year.

Why isn’t anyone investigating this? We’ve got some very suspect Muslims wanting to build a mosque at the spot where Islamic terrorists have left a lifetime imprint of jihad in America. These two men aren’t exactly coming across as trustworthy, moderate Muslims, yet New York bureaucrats are falling all over themselves to ensure that this mosque is built. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi even said she wanted to investigate the people who opposed the mosque, and not the developers of the mosque itself!

Where is the mosque developer getting the money for this project? Why are they so set on building a mosque at Ground Zero? How do we know that Imam Rauf or Sharif Al-Gamal don’t have ties to Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East? We have the answers to none of these questions, yet lefty politicians are ready to go full-speed ahead with this mosque. It’s a disgrace. These are questions that we need to know the answers to, and we need them before this mosque is allowed to be built.

9-11, one of the darkest days in American history, happened less than ten years ago. Part of the reason why it happened was because we as a country were blissfully unaware of the dangers of Islamic terrorism. Have we really learned so little since then?

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

A Muslim Disneyland Resort hotel employee, Imane Boudlal, has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over Disney’s refusal to let her wear a hijab in front of customers. Now, the Council on American-Islamic Relations is involved, and they’re crying religious discrimination. But is it? Unfortunately for CAIR and Boudlal, the case isn’t quite so cut and dried. This seems to be yet another case of Muslim bullying, this time at the happiest place on Earth.

Boudlal, and her extremist friends at CAIR, are busily spinning the truth about her employment with Disney to try to bully the company into accommodating sharia. The truth is that Disney has tried to work with Boudlal, and every time, she refused.

A Muslim employee is refusing to wear a hat and bonnet that Disney provided in place of a head scarf, which she wants to leave on at work for religious reasons.

Imane Boudlal, a restaurant hostess at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel, last week in a press conference accused Disney of religious discrimination for refusing to let her wear a hijab, a head scarf, in public view.

On Monday, Disney offered Boudlal a bonnet with a hat to wear at work in public.

Boudlal rejected the new headwear and went home for a seventh time, according to the hotel workers’ union, Unite Here Local 11. Disney has offered to let her work behind the scenes with the head scarf, but Boudlal has refused.

“The hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me,” Boudlal said in a prepared statement. “It’s unacceptable.”

Suzi Brown, a Disneyland Resort spokeswoman, said managers are still trying to meet Boudlal’s request after providing options, including alternative costumes. The company also offered her four different jobs that would allow her to wear her own head scarf.

“We provided Ms. Boudlal with several options, including a modified costume that includes a blouse with a higher neckline and a newly designed head covering that meets our costuming guidelines and which we believe provides a reasonable accommodation of Ms. Boudal’s religious beliefs,” Brown said in a prepared statement.

Boudlal could not immediately be reached for further comment. Her attorney also could not be reached.

So Disney does everything they can to work with Boudlal, to keep her as an employee without making her compromise her religious values. They gave her alternate costuming, they offered her a job backstage, and yet everything they offered, she refused. Now she’s suing Disney and filing a complaint against them. And we’re supposed to find Boudlal at the victim here?

It used to be the case that in America, a business could be run however the owner saw fit. In today’s politically correct world, that’s apparently no longer the case. Let’s take the obvious example: Disney. Disney looks at their entire operation as a “show”, and as such, their employees aren’t even called employees. They’re called cast members, and cast members sign a contract upon employment agreeing to adhere to Disney’s incredibly strict dress code. Believe it or not, the dress code has been loosened in recent years; it used to be even stricter than it is now. Until recently, men couldn’t have moustaches and women had to wear pantyhose if they wore shorts or a skirt (imagine that during summertime in Orlando at DisneyWorld). Women can also now have bare arms while at work. Disney even has a dress code for visitors — for paying customers! This is all because there is an image that Disney is trying to uphold of a clean-cut, family-oriented place. It’s also to keep up with the various Disney themes throughout the parks (in Liberty Square at Disney World, for example, cast members wear full colonial costumes, including bonnets, dresses, and petticoats for women). Cast members are not given uniforms, they’re given costumes, and they are required to wear these costumes to keep the Disney look uniform. This would seem to make sense to reasonable people, especially when a cast member works in front of the public. When an employee is hired, they are made aware of the stringent dress code and are expected to comply.

And for two years, Boudlal worked at Disney with no complaint. Then suddenly, she became an American citizen and decided she wanted to start wearing a hijab. What made her change her mind and why was it suddenly so important to her? This obviously goes against the Disney dress code and yet, Disney still tried to accommodate her. There’s a long paper trail of proof of all the different ways Disney tried to make her happy, but she refused every one of them. And now she’s trying to cash in. This isn’t religious discrimination; it’s nothing more than a case of a greedy woman and a scheming organization trying to bully a multi-million dollar company.

(10 votes, average: 4.70 out of 5)

 Loading ...

On a September day in 2001, our country was ripped apart by the unspeakable horrors of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 Americans. For many of us, the attack came out of nowhere. Many Americans couldn’t understand why we had been attacked. We didn’t even realize we were at war. But Islamic jihadists had been trying for decades to kill us, and there was a warning of what was to come on October 12, 2000. On that day, a terrorist blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring many more.

Abd al-Rahim Al-Nashiri is the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing. Before his capture in 2002, he headed Al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf. In 2009, the Obama administration dropped charges against al-Nashiri, and now, they’ve shelved the prosecution altogether.

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.

In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that “no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future.”

… Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.

“It’s politics at this point,” said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.

Interestingly, the only two cases being prosecuted out of Guantanamo Bay are two cases that were set in motion during the Bush administration. In January 2009, though, Defense Secretary Gates had the brilliant idea to stop referring cases for trial. Over a year later, that order still stands. Is it all just politics? It certainly seems like it. What practical reason does the Obama administration actually have to not prosecute al-Nashiri? This is the man who allegedly took the lives of 17 men who were serving their country, 17 men who deserve justice. But hey, it’ll bring up that whole argument of whether or not we should be prosecuting terrorists in civilian trials or in military commissions, and it’s right around election time. Can’t have that, can we?

What message does it send to the families of the men whose lives were taken that day? It’s been almost ten years, and now the Obama administration is basically telling these families that they don’t care. It’s outrageous, and a huge slap in the face. 17 men serving our country killed, and all the Obama administration can think about is how not to infringe on the “rights” of the terrorist. It’s despicable.

Never forget the USS Cole, and always remember the heroes who gave their lives that day.

Electronics Technician 1st Class Richard Costelow
Mess Management Specialist Lakina Francis
Information Systems Technician Tim Guana
Signalman Seaman Recruit Cherone Gunn
Seaman James McDaniels
Engineman 2nd Class Mark Nieto
Electronics Warfare Technician 3rd Class Ronald Owens
Seaman Recruit Lakiba Parker
Engineman Fireman Joshua Parlett
Fireman Apprentice Patrick Roy
Electronics Warfare Technician Kevin Rux
Petty Officer 3rd Class Ron Santiago
Operations Special 2nd Class Timothy Sanders
Fireman Gary Swenchonis Jr
Ensign Andrew Triplett
Seaman Apprentice Craig Wibberly
Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class Kenneth Clodfelter.

(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Um… OK. Is this some kind of Levi Johnston payback or something? Levi will struggle with some lame reality show that no one watches, while Bristol looks amazing in sparkly skimpy outfits on a show that’s already proven to be ratings gold. Is this her thought process?

We can report to you exclusively that Sarah Palin’s 19-year-old daughter Bristol Palin has been cast on the 11th season of DWTS, set to premiere Sept. 20, according to sources.

As for the reports that David Hasselhoff, Audrina Patridge, The Situation and Brandy will also be part of the cast, here’s the deal:

All true, according to sources.

Of course, since this is just according to “sources”, she might not even be a member of the cast. But if she is… well, I guess it’s good payback. She and Levi were supposedly going to have their own reality show together before Levi soaked up all of the “we’re engaged!” publicity and split. At least she’s on a show that’s a guaranteed hit, while Levi’s show will likely drift off somewhere into TV wasteland. (I hope, anyways.)

Meanwhile, can you just imagine the liberal heads exploding if Bristol does well on the show? Oh, boy. I hope she’s ready for the vitriol that’s sure to be aimed her way. On the other hand… it’ll be worth watching just for the hateful “ZOMG BRISTOL IS WINNING ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!11!!” commentary alone.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

The running meme on the Left has been that Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque are bigoted, anti-Islamic hatemongers. No attention is paid to the hate often present on the left, by the same activists who are usually the first to claim racism, bigotry, or violence. Interesting to see is their almost lockstep defense of Muslims and the Ground Zero mosque; meanwhile, they completely ignore the anti-Semitism that is so commonplace among Islamofascists. (Take, for example, the appalling practice of indoctrinating Muslim children to hate Jews.) At a rally attended by people who both supported and opposed the Ground Zero mosque, though, one activist took the anti-Semitism to a disturbing new level.

When confronted by the 82-year-old Holocaust survivor, the Ground Zero supporter went ballistic — swearing and tossing anti-Semitic insults. He even shouted that the man didn’t learn his lesson in the Holocaust. Here is the appalling footage (caution for VERY strong language):

Interestingly, according to this leftist nutjob, opposing the Ground Zero mosque is the same thing as murdering millions of innocent people because of their religion. Ironic, considering that this is exactly what Islamofascists do in the name of jihad? Anyone who isn’t a Muslim is an infidel and should be brutally murdered. Jihad against the Jews is especially widespread among Islamic terrorists.

The leader of the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Rauf, is no moderate Muslim either. He’s an advocate for Sharia law in America, even calling America a “Sharia complaint state”. The majority of Americans have plenty of reasons to oppose the Ground Zero mosque. Most of the people who oppose it understand that Muslims have the right to build a mosque wherever they want; they just wish that they would have the tact and sensitivity not to build a mosque so close to the spot where almost 3,000 Americans were murdered by violent Islamic jihadists.

It’s a disgusting example of the intolerance and the hate-filled vitriol present on the left. Yet for some reason, conservatives are the ones who are labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots. Ah, yes, those peaceful, tolerant, non-violent lefties! Yet the same thing seems to happen so often — a lefty goes absolutely insane anytime someone has the gall to disagree with them. This man in particular went so far as to hurl expletives at an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor just peacefully expressing his own opinion. It’s despicable. How much lower can these so-called liberals sink?

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The media narrative was that Joe Miller was a long shot candidate. Lisa Murkowski was ahead in the polls. She outspent him and outpolled him. Not many people thought that Miller had a prayer of winning, even with Sarah Palin’s endorsement.

But people forget that endorsements from Palin are like the anti-Obama endorsement. (If you want a candidate to lose, get him an Obama endorsement.) Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has a golden touch with almost every candidate she endorses. And, surprise! It looks like Miller pulled out a win over the big-government Murkowski.

A decorated Gulf War veteran was holding a narrow lead over Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Republican Senate primary, as ballots continued to be counted Wednesday in what could shape up to be a stunning political upset.

Polls taken before primary day had shown Murkowski, a two-term senator from an Alaska political dynasty, leading handily against the first-time candidate. But challenger Joe Miller insisted all along that the state’s polling was unreliable — as of Wednesday morning, Miller held a 2,000-vote lead.

With 98 percent of precincts reporting, he had 51 percent and Murkowski had 49 percent. The number of uncounted absentee ballots, though, exceeded the number of votes separating the candidates.

The Alaska race marked the second surprise from a Tea Party-backed candidate in Tuesday’s elections. Health care executive Rick Scott earlier defeated Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum for that state’s GOP gubernatorial nomination after polls also showed McCollum pulling away from Scott.

Miller had the added help of an endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has a history with the Murkowski family. Palin defeated Murkowski’s father Frank in the 2006 gubernatorial primary. Though there was speculation over whether she might challenge Murkowski for her seat, Palin instead endorsed Miller after leaving the governor’s office.

Murkowski has proudly touted her seniority after eight years in office, and said her roles on the appropriations and energy committees put her in a strong position to ensure Alaskans’ voices are heard. She denounced Miller for making what she considered deceptive statements about her votes and statements.

But Miller, standing behind his words, sought to cast Murkowski as being too liberal and part of the problem in an out-of-control Washington.

Miller told reporters he’s trying to be realistic about the early results showing him slightly in the lead. He spoke to reporters at election central headquarters in Anchorage, where his supporters chanted “Miller Time!” and “Go Joe Go!” Miller joked on Twitter, “What’s the moose hunting like in the Beltway?”

According to the Alaska Division of Elections 16,000 absentee ballots were requested and fewer than half have been received. The margin of error is small enough that Murkowski could still pull out the win. If Joe Miller does indeed win, though, that would make Palin 2-0 versus the Murkowskis.

What made Murkowski lose to a little-known attorney, though? Well, she’s a big-government Republican and is also pro-abortion. For me personally, the fact that she touts her experience as a career politician is grating enough in and of itself. If someone is touting their seniority in government, that’s probably a sign that they need to go.

Another big issue could potentially be energy tax hikes. Miller signed a pledge saying he would oppose any global warming bill that included a tax hike. Murkowski? Not so much:

Murkowski, on the other hand, refused to sign the pledge and openly discussed a carbon tax approach that could have a major negative impact on the oil and gas industry and the U.S. economy. In an energy state like Alaska, that’s not just a major economic policy mistake; as Murkowski has learned the hard way, it can end a Senate career.

It’s still too early to tell who will end up winning in Alaska. Even if Murkowski is victorious, though, it just goes to show that you can’t underestimate Sarah Palin’s influence. Murkowski refused to take Miller seriously as a candidate, and no one thought Miller had a shot at winning. If Miller loses at the last minute, it’s still a powerful lesson that no one is safe and guaranteed an easy ride to victory.

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The annual Blog World and New Media Expo is gearing up to take place this October in Las Vegas, and if you aren’t planning on coming, you should. This year, a free pass to the military track is being offered to all active duty military and veterans. Not a member of the military? Well, you should still consider coming, because it is going to be a great time. The amazing Greyhawk from the Mudville Gazette is the host/MC for this year’s military track.

And, OK, the entire military track doesn’t feature me. But I am going to be moderator for one of the panels. Here’s a little sneak peek of what we have planned for you:

Panel 1: Surprise for now
Panel 2: Social Media: Force Multiplier for Spouses?
Panel 3: Media and the Military: Myth versus Reality
Panel 4: Ideal versus Field: Social and New Media In Less Than The Best Circumstances

I was very kindly asked to be the moderator for the Panel 2, and I of course agreed. I’m really looking forward to being there. We also have two very exciting special guests on the panel with me!

Social Media: Force Multiplier for Spouses?
New and Social media have changed how spouses communicate with each other and share information within their companies and with other groups. It also is changing how spouses cope with the stresses of being separated and with having their other halves in harm’s way. Join spouse blogger and journalist Cassy Fiano, journalist and commentator Melissa Clouthier, and spouse blogger Cassandra of Villanous Company as they explore how changes in media and technology are changing the world of spouse blogging.

While Panel 2 will be amazing, of course, there’s even more excitement in store. A very interesting science fiction writer has agreed to be on Panel 3, and a surprise participant for Panel 4. It’s going to be a great time, you’ll get to meet a lot of new people, and learn a lot of interesting things about the military and new media. And hey, you get to meet me!

Hope to see a lot of you there!

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...