Friday, May 23, 2008
This may be hard for some of you who read my blog (and you know who you are) but some people are seeing *whisper* victory in Iraq. Don't say it too loud now. The mainstream media might hear. (emphasis mine)
Mileposts: As President Bush's term winds down, signs are there that the war on terror is being won. The conflict in Iraq is ebbing, and worldwide terror attacks are down. When will someone call it what it is? VICTORY.
Back from the front, Gen. David Petraeus called on Congress Thursday to begin considering a drawdown of U.S. troops after five years of war. Violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest levels since 2004, and al-Qaida is a tattered shadow of its formerself — key leaders dead, successors weak and recruiting down.
This is no Saigon-style exit, but a coming victorious end of a long conflict. U.S. forces have pounded al-Qaida into irrelevance.
Using highly disciplined Special Forces strikes, advanced intelligence and communications, and local allies in the right places, 155,000 U.S. troops have been crushing a vicious enemy motivated by no rational forces in a war with no precedent.
They are winning against all odds, overcoming not just terrorists, but other obstacles such as a lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy and weak-kneed Western intelligentsia whose media toadies trump every military error and harp on every isolated bad deed.
The good news doesn't stop there: (emphasis mine)
Worldwide terror attacks have fallen off 40% since 2001, according to a study by Canada's Human Security Report Project, and support for al-Qaida in the Arab world has collapsed. The study found terror attacks had been overcounted because Iraq War atrocities distorted the figures. Security gains elsewhere included even sub-Saharan Africa, where the improvement was called "extraordinary."
On this Memorial Day weekend, this is very good news indeed. Don't fight the feeling, even if you disagreed with this war. Be happy for this, ok?
God bless the men and women in uniform. We are grateful for your service and your sacrifice. You rock.
*note: I'll be out of town this weekend, so if you don't see your comments, be patient! (and try to be nice too!)
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:35 PM
Obama spoke in front of a Jewish audience in Florida on Friday. Here in part:
"My father was from Kenya and Barack actually interestingly enough means the same as Baruch. It means one who's blessed. And the reason-the reason that that's interesting is that it's the same Semitic root.
And it's true they called me Barry when I was young, but as I got older, I thought it was important to acknowledge this other side of my heritage and so I was called Barack,"… "You've had a prime minister named Barack in Israel. It should be pretty familiar to this audience."
He added, "Some of my best friends are Jews."
Ok, not exactly, but pretty much:
He also ticked off a few names of friends and advisors who are known to be pro-Israel. "I have to be very cautious about this, because you know, you remember the old stereotype about somebody says, 'well I'm not prejudice, some of my best friends are Jewish.' Right? Or, 'I'm not prejudice, some of my best friends are black.' So I hesitate to start listing them out," he said. But since the man asked…
He also added this tidbit in his answer to a question about his being committed to Israel:
Obama said part of his job as an elected official was to listen to different perspectives - even if he does not agree with them. "We gotta be careful about guilt by association," he warned.
Oh yeah. I'll just bet you want that.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:47 AM
As the latest spat between him and McCain clearly shows. Obama dares to chastise McCain on the GI funding bill (never mentioning that McCain has his own version). McCain responds:
"It is typical, but no less offensive that Sen. Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said in the statement. "Let me say first in response to Sen. Obama, running for president is different than serving as president. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Sen. Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."
Read the whole statement here. Here is how it ends it:
"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."
It does my heart good to see that McCain is not afraid to challenge the oh most high Obama. Not that I ever expected anything less from McCain.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:46 AM
Did you see them on Jay Leno last night? Jenna is simply down to earth and adorable. You can clearly see that that mother and daughter have a wonderful relationship. And when Jenna talked about her father you could tell that Jenna adored him.
If you judge a man by the people who love him, George Bush is one of the most blessed men on earth.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:32 AM
Thursday, May 22, 2008
WASHINGTON – In case there was any confusion, Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff this morning made very clear her path to the Democratic nomination.
She is taking it to the convention. No doubt.
"We're Just Not Even Going To Entertain The Possibility Of Anything Other Than That." Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, a few moments ago, emphasizing his faith that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.
I have such mixed feelings about this! I mean, I want Obama to win the nomination because I think he will be easier to beat in the general, but to see Hillary snatch victory from the jaws of defeat would be political theatre that would not be repeated in my lifetime!!!!!!!!!!!!
And just imagine the Obamamanics EXPLODING!
Even better? The Obamamessiah losing it. You don't think that would happen? He is too calm, too serene, you say?
Not so fast.
When Obama was an Illinois State Senator he had a disagreement with another State Senator, Rickey Hendon. You can read the reasons here, but the interesting part of the story is here:
Soon, the two men were shouting at each other on the senate floor. They took their disagreement into a nearby room, and a witness said that Obama had to be physically restrained.
And they say McCain has temper issues! (This is confirmed by Hendon btw)
So we know that the Buddah like serenity of Obama can be broken. I'm thinking Hillary snatching this nomination from under his nose might just do that.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 3:21 PM
I think the biggest disappointment conservatives have with Republicans is the out of control spending they have allowed on their watch. It is beyond frustrating because where are we going to go? The Democrats are like Paris Hilton on a spending spree with our money. I think the Republicans thought it looked like fun to shop as well. Well, enough is enough!
Paul Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, is a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. Here is his scary assessment:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest of government will consume nearly 40% of the economy by the time my three young children reach my age (38). This will require more than doubling the average tax burden of the past 40 years just to keep the government afloat. Continuing down this path will eventually strangle our economy.
Read here his roadmap (real plan!) to stop this growing debt.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 3:14 PM
Washington, D.C. — Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday."I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Dangerous? You know what's dangerous? Congressmen who think that having been in the military colors your thinking in such a way that it's "dangerous."
Good grief. According to this list, 31 of our Presidents served in the military. 11 did not.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 2:44 PM
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The entire statement is here. But I like to focus on the really good parts:
“Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus’ new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the ’surge.’ He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi’ite extremist militias no longer control Basra — the Maliki government and its forces do. British and Iraqi forces now move freely in areas that were controlled by Iranian-backed militias. The fight against al Qaeda in Mosul is succeeding in further weakening that deadly terrorist group, and many key leaders have been killed or captured.
We continue to face challenges in Iraq, and we have a lot of work ahead. Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way. Each of these positive developments in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. Senator Obama consistently predicted the new strategy would fail, and at every step events have demonstrated his judgment was consistently wrong.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:52 PM
I've asked myself that question many times.
Joe Lieberman wonders as well:
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.
The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
I have many Democrat commenters at my Houston Chronicle blog and I am amazed almost daily by their animosity towards the United States. I am stunned by their refusal to see what the war on terror really means. To say that we have opposing worldview would be an understatement. If I write a pro-United States or a pro-military peace they immediately pile on. It's terribly sad to me, but I left the Democratic party long ago. I can only imagine how Lieberman feels.
h/t BigDog (again!)
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:22 PM
And I couldn't have said it better myself. It's Ed Koch and here are just a few of the good parts:
Recently, President Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th birthday as a nation and addressed its parliament, the Knesset. He said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Bush's remarks were heavily criticized by leading Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, who said, "Now that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world."
Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels - President to President without pre-conditions -- with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name - appeasement?
The reason I believe history will redeem President George W. Bush is that he is one of the few leaders on the planet today who understands the larger picture. He has not lost his courage and vision of the future. He knows what calamities await the world if it engages in appeasement and deserts an ally in order to buy an illusory peace. We will recognize his worth long after he is gone.
This is why Bush sleeps well at night and doesn't show the weariness of his task. He never cared what people thought of him personally. He always acted graciously to even his enemies. All he cared about was keeping the American people safe and defeating the enemy. This is not to say he didn't make mistakes. He is human, after all. But he never backed down on the fight that he saw as right and necessary. He never took opinion polls. He knew that sometimes doing the right thing wasn't the popular thing.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:14 PM
From her speech last night in Kentucky:
Now, I'm told that more people have voted for me than for anyone who has ever run for the Democratic nomination. That is more than 17 million votes.
Neither Senator Obama nor I have won the 2210 delegates required to secure the nomination. And because this race is so close, still separated by less than 200 delegates out of more than 4,400, neither Senator Obama nor I will have reached that magic number when the voting ends on June the 3rd.
So, our party will have a tough choice to make. Who is ready to lead our party at the top of our ticket? Who is ready to defeat Senator McCain in the swing states and among swing voters? Who is ready to rebuild the economy and the war in Iraq and protect our national security as Commander-in-Chief? Who is ready on Day One to lead?
This is basically her case, along with counting Florida and Michigan. She will claim the popular vote and hope/plan on Obama continuing to make gaffes. I think she honestly believes what she is saying. She is determined to convince superdelegates that the right thing would be to support her.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:54 AM
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Anybody know? Ralph Peters gives the mainstream media a smackdown. Oh, how they loved declaring any setback or any violence in Iraq, but it's all been so quiet on the news front now. I can't imagine why?? Ralph Peters gives us an idea:
DO we still have troops in Iraq? Is there still a conflict over there?
If you rely on the so-called mainstream media, you may have difficulty answering those questions these days. As Iraqi and Coalition forces pile up one success after another, Iraq has magically vanished from the headlines.
Want a real "inconvenient truth?" Progress in Iraq is powerful and accelerating.
But that fact isn't helpful to elite media commissars and cadres determined to decide the presidential race over our heads. How dare our troops win? Even worse, Iraqi troops are winning. Daily.
Today, Iraqi soldiers, not militia thugs, patrol the lanes of Sadr City, where waste has replaced roadside bombs as the greatest danger to careless footsteps. US advisers and troops support the effort, but Iraq's government has taken another giant step forward in establishing law and order.
My fellow Americans, have you read or seen a single interview with any of the millions of Iraqis in Sadr City or Basra who are thrilled that the gangster militias are gone from their neighborhoods?
Didn't think so. The basic mission of the American media between now and November is to convince you, the voter, that Iraq's still a hopeless mess.
Developments just keep getting grimmer for the MoveOn.org fan base in the media. Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who had supported al Qaeda and homegrown insurgents, now support their government and welcome US troops. And, in southern Iraq, the Iranians lost their bid for control to Iraq's government.
Bury those stories on Page 36.
Our troops deserve better. The Iraqis deserve better. You deserve better. The forces of freedom are winning.
Here in the Land of the Free, of course, freedom of the press means the freedom to boycott good news from Iraq. But the truth does have a way of coming out.
The surge worked. Incontestably. Iraqis grew disenchanted with extremism. Our military performed magnificently. More and more Iraqis have stepped up to fight for their own country. The Iraqi economy's taking off. And, for all its faults, the Iraqi legislature has accomplished far more than our own lobbyist-run Congress over the last 18 months.
When Iraq seemed destined to become a huge American embarrassment, our media couldn't get enough of it. Now that Iraq looks like a success in the making, there's a virtual news blackout.
Related. White House counselor Ed Gillespie sends a scorching letter to NBC. In part:
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.
On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"
I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?
Can't wait for the answer.
I would hope that the media wouldn't hide the truth about the war just because it's an election year and the news is good. Nah. Never.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:18 PM
I didn't comment on this when he went into the hospital because I always find it ridiculous to go on and on about a prominent figure just because they go to the hospital. You never know if it's just minor or serious. If you were watching the news shows you would have thought he had died that day the way they were interviewing everyone who knew him and commenting on his life. I found it morbid.
Now that we know he has a malignant brain tumor, it seems appropriate for the news to comment it on it a bit more.
This family has suffered a great deal. All of their tragedies on display for the world to see. It is sadly the price of their political celebrity. I pray for strength for him and his family as he fights what may be his last battle.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:46 PM
I'm proud to say that the woman in this NYT article is a member of The Cotillion and an online friend. Jane updates us by e-mail regularly about all things Yemeni. She is especially passionate about Abdul Karim al-Khaiwani, a Yemeni journalist who is on trial for sedition charges that could bring the death penalty. To you and me she may be just a stay at home Mom, but to the Yemeni govt she is much more:
And yet Ms. Novak has become so well known in Yemen that newspaper editors say they sell more copies if her photograph — blond and smiling — is on the cover. Her blog, an outspoken news bulletin on Yemeni affairs, is banned there. The government’s allies routinely vilify her in print as an American agent, a Shiite monarchist, a member of Al Qaeda, or “the Zionist Novak.”
Go visit Armies of Liberation and sign her petition!
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:04 AM
At least by the standards of their picky requests at the convention.
As a reader at NRO suggests, Mrs. McCain would do well to distribute some of that Bud Light on our convention floor and let's see who best represents America, wheat juice drinkers or beer drinkers? Heh.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:37 AM
As usual Victor Davis Hanson has it right on every score regarding Obama's world view. From talking to Iran to driving our SUV's, Obama gets it wrong every time. But Hanson really hits the nail on the head when it comes to Iraq:
He needs to update his doom and gloom on Iraq, in which, as the Mosul operation suggests, the final missing pieces — the Shiite-dominated constitutional government turning on Iranian-back Shiite militias, as Sunnis rejoin government and continue to rout al Qaeda — are falling into place. Iraqis are taking more and more responsibility for their future, violence is down, our own recruitments are up, our military is beginning to promote the mavericks, and we are close to having done the impossible of securing a constitutional state in a primordial region. All that for now is the best shot we have in tempering Iran's agenda, as a democratic Iraq can become as subversive to theocratic Iran as its militias are to Iraq.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:21 AM
Don't count her out yet:
Mrs. Clinton has sounded almost like a professor of political science on the trail, explaining how the popular vote should be calculated by her lights, as she did before an audience in Kentucky on Monday.
“I believe that with your help we will send a message to this country because right now more people have voted for me than have voted for my opponent,” she said. “More people have voted for me than for anybody ever running for president before. So we have a very close contest for votes, for delegates, and this is nowhere near over. None of us is going to have the number of delegates we’re going to need to get to the nomination, although I understand my opponent and his supporters are going to claim that.
“The fact is we have to include Michigan and Florida — we cannot claim that we have a nominee based on 48 states, particularly two states that are so important for us to win in the fall,” Mrs. Clinton said.
If all states with popular vote totals are counted — which would exclude four caucus states that have not released numbers — Mrs. Clinton would lead Mr. Obama by more than 26,000 votes out of more than 33 million cast. By other calculations, Mr. Obama is ahead in the popular vote.
Seriously, I have never seen anything like this. You are going to have to pry this nomination from Hillary's cold dead hands. So to speak.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:53 AM
Monday, May 19, 2008
The betrayal of Hillary by the NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) must have been especially painful to the Clintons. Abortion rights groups are probably the only constituency that the Clintons never let down in their eight years in the White House.
So why did they do it?
One reason that the national board of NARAL, the pro-abortion lobbying organization, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, and encouraged its state membership to do the same, was a series of behind the scenes conversations between the Obama campaign and NARAL.
"The message was, get on board or risk losing influence," says an Obama strategist. "We needed one of these [feminist or pro-abortion] groups to step up and walk away from Hillary. NARAL did it, and to its credit under great danger to its credibility with its membership."
Why would such a hardcore feminist group turn their back on a woman running for President that had always supported them? Because they could count on Obama being a bit more radical:
Obama advisers suggested that Obama was more likely to put in place key feminist and pro-abortion activists than Clinton. "The name that kept popping up was [San Francisco District Attorney] Kamala Harris. The campaign promised she'd become increasingly higher profile with Obama, and the women's groups love her," says another Obama strategist.Harris is viewed as one of the most radical local elective office holders in the country, a district attorney who has refused to seek the death penalty even against cop-killers, and who has won high praise from the homosexual and pro-abortion lobbies that have strong bases in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Obama keeps telling us who is really is. Is anyone listening?
One can't help but feel sorry for Hillary. It seems her whole life has been framed by betrayal.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:24 AM
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Shorter video: If you are female, shame on you if vote for Obama.
Far be it from me to defend Hillary Clinton in any way or to defend modern feminism, But I have to admit that Hillary has been treated in a very sexist manner by the press during this election. Now, maybe that has to do with a general dislike for Hillary, but it doesn't excuse it. No one disagrees with Hillary on just about everything more than I do, but I have not only felt sorry for her during this primary season, but I have felt offended on her behalf at times. Just in the comments sections at places like First Read at MSNBC I have been appalled at how sexist the Democrats for Obama have been.
No one will be happier than I will be when this process is finished and Hillary is NOT the nominee. But the reasons should always have been because of her past actions, not her gender.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:59 PM
Yeah, I'm talking to you and you know who you are.
Well, at least Obama knew who.
President Bush said this:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
And Obama and various other Democrats took great umbrage at that. It must have made them wince when the White House came out and said that President Bush was not talking about Obama at all.
So what is wrong with the idea of sitting down with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
This is what is wrong with it:
President Reagan talked with the Soviets while pushing ahead with the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. He spoke softly – after getting himself a bigger stick. Sen. Obama is proposing to reward a man who pledges to wipe Israel off the map with a presidential photo-op to which he will bring not even a twig. No wonder he's so twitchy about it.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:40 PM
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:15 PM
The French President Nicolas Sarkozy has a son who seems to want to fall into his father's footsteps. As TimesOnline points out:
........they are falling under the spell of his son Jean, whose eye-catching initiatives in an affluent suburb of Paris have put him under the spotlight.
With his golden locks and dazzling smile, Jean Sarkozy looks like a film star - he happens to be a keen amateur actor - and has inherited his father’s political ambition. Now he is playing the leading role in a drama that they are calling “the rise of the dauphin”.
As tens of thousands of students and teachers took to the streets last week to protest at the president’s plans to cut teaching jobs and streamline the civil service, Jean, a town councillor in Neuilly, the affluent Parisian suburb in which he was born, staged his own piece of political theatre. It was designed to show that not all young people were against his father’s economic reforms.
He launched the first in a series of meetings called “jeudis jeunes” - “young Thursdays” - in a cafe where young conservatives were invited to question prominent government members and other celebrity guests.
“The idea is to show young people that you can get involved in politics,” said Jean, 21, referring to youths who did not feel attracted to the left. “It irritates me that when you are young it’s always easier to carry the banner of the left or the extreme left. But it is possible for young people to have other convictions.”
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:02 PM