The blogspot version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Australian Politics, Socialized Medicine, Recipes, Food & Health Skeptic, Tongue Tied, Immigration Watch. and Education Watch. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is accessible here.
****************************************************************************************
21 August, 2008
More on the Obaliar and abortion
Obama and his staffers are attempting to cloud the issue of his past stand on abortion so there may be some need to put the facts as simply as possible. I think Pat Buchanan does a clear and succinct summary of the track record of the Obaliar on the abortion issue:As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death." Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste. How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?
If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath? How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.
When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."
Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right? Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Square that with this:The presumptive Democratic nominee responded sharply in an interview Saturday night with the Christian Broadcast Network, saying anti-abortion groups were "lying" about his record.The link above gives more detail of the matter and reports how Obama staffers are trying to wriggle out of it but I think it is now perfectly clear who is the liar and that the Obama campaign is just one big attempted con-job. The guy couldn't lie straight in bed.
"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."
He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.
More on Obama's changes of story here
The un-American Obama
This is a torturous month of what-ifs for Hillary Clinton and her still substantial number of followers. First, they have to wonder if the Democrat-friendly media that helped her for so long may have doomed her by refusing to follow a John Edwards adultery story that could have given her the Iowa win that Barack Obama used as his nomination springboard. Instead, Hillary and her followers will have to make do with a Tuesday night convention speech the week after next. But she could have accepted the nomination that Thursday night if only she had followed the instincts of discarded communications director Mark Penn, cast aside for a lobbying controversy no one cared about.
What she and her handlers should have cared about was the wisdom of his advice, laid bare in an upcoming issue of The Atlantic Monthly. It details numerous e-mails that reveal the depth of the internal squabbling that stalled the Clinton campaign. But a larger question looms: What if she had followed Mr. Penn's inclination to focus strongly on voter unease with Barack Obama's far-flung upbringing and resulting lack of mainstream American values? "His roots to basic American culture and values are at best limited," Mr. Penn wrote in March 2007. "I cannot imagine America electing a president at a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and values."
(And they say Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything.) He continues: "Let's explicitly own 'American' in our programs, the speeches and the values ... he doesn't."
Predictably, those now tasked with paving the way for an Obama ascendancy are awash in contrived indignation. "It's an appeal to prejudice. I think it's ugly," frowns Democratic consultant Bob Shrum. "If Hillary Clinton had done that, she would permanently besmirch her reputation, her legacy and her place in American politics." Or she might have been delivering a Thursday night convention speech.
In state after state, primary voters who like their presidents to cleave to their country's roots and culture gave Mrs. Clinton victories that almost allowed her to rally. Had she been more aggressive in this regard, I believe she would have won. Now, her torment will be complete, as John McCain uses exactly that strategy to reveal Mr. Obama as insufficiently woven into the tapestry of the nation he seeks to lead. And it will work.
Along the way, there will be more of the same prattling that such criticism is unfair, even racist. But after candidates tell you their views on health care or oil prices - every word changeable with the wind - you arrive at the vital questions: What kind of person is this candidate? Does he cherish the things I cherish? In which ways is he like me? Or not?
One of the ways Mr. Obama differs from most Americans is his breezy indifference for the nation, which may extend, at times, to active distaste. The flag pin as Kryptonite, failing to place his hand over his heart for the national anthem in Iowa - these are symbolic, but symbolism means something. They reveal a man who gladly tolerated two decades of America-bashing in his church and even worse among his friends and associates. It is, in fact, more relevant than any position paper you might find at his Web site. Even when he attempts to praise America, it is in terms of his magical ability to lift it from a mediocrity imposed by less lofty predecessors.
John McCain will use such observations to beat Barack Obama in November. If Hillary Clinton had summoned the nerve to do the same, she would be addressing the convention crowd 15 days from now instead of 13.
Source
Obama Played by Chicago Rules
Democrats don't like it when you say that Barack Obama won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities. By clearing out the incumbent and the others in his first Democratic primary for state Senate, Mr. Obama did something that was neither illegal nor even uncommon. But Mr. Obama claims to represent something different from old-style politics -- especially old-style Chicago politics. And the senator is embarrassed enough by what he did that he misrepresents it in the prologue of his political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."
In that book, Mr. Obama paints a portrait of himself as a genuine reformer and change agent, just as he has in this presidential campaign. He attributes his 1996 victory to his message of hope, and his exhortations that Chicagoans drop their justifiable cynicism about politics.
When voters complained of all the broken promises politicians had made in the past, Mr. Obama writes that he "would usually smile and nod, and say that I understood the skepticism, but that there was -- and always had been -- another tradition to politics, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done."
Mr. Obama writes that even if the voters were not impressed by this speech, "enough of them appreciated my earnestness and youthful swagger that I made it to the Illinois legislature."
In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama's petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents' signatures on various technical grounds -- all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that "[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don't live in the 13th district."
One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.
In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents -- including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.
The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.
But Mr. Obama's offenses against the idea of a "new politics" are many, and go well beyond hardball election tactics. It is telling that, when asked at the Saddleback Forum last weekend to name an instance in which he had worked against his own party or his own political interests, he didn't have a good answer. He claimed to have worked with his current opponent, John McCain, on ethics reform. In fact, no such thing happened. The two men had agreed to work together, for all of one day, in February 2006, and then promptly had a well-documented falling-out. They even exchanged angry letters over this incident.
The most dramatic examples of Mr. Obama's commitment to old-style politics are his repeated endorsements of Chicago's machine politicians, which came in opposition to what people of all ideological stripes viewed as the common good.
In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago's Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.
The since-deceased Stroger's self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.
When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County's government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.
After the primary, when Stroger's son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him -- to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals -- a "good, progressive Democrat."
Mayor Richard M. Daley -- who would receive Mr. Obama's endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago's city government -- was invested in the Stroger machine's survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama's friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger's finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko's wife on the county payroll).
Mr. Obama has never stood up against Chicago's corruption problem because his donors and allies are Chicago's corruption problem. Mr. Obama is not the reformer he now claims to be. The real man is the one they know in Chicago -- the one who won his first election by depriving voters of a choice.
Source
Distorting McCain's Remarks
More dishonesty. An Obama ad uses dated and out of context quotes to portray McCain as clueless on the economy
Summary
Obama's campaign is running a TV ad in Indiana that asks the question: "How can John McCain fix the economy, when he doesn't think it's broken?" But the ad uses quotes from McCain that are old and taken out of context:
* The ad shows McCain saying, "I don't believe we're headed into a recession." But McCain said that in January, and he also acknowledged at the time that the American economy was in "a rough patch."
* The ad then shows McCain saying in April, "[T]here's been great progress economically." But the quote is lifted from a much longer response; McCain went on to say that the "progress" made during Bush's tenure still wouldn't console American families who are facing "tremendous economic challenges."
* The third quote from McCain, "[W]e have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment," also comes from January. In his full response, McCain went on to say "things are tough right now."
Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is running an ad in Indiana that tries to paint Sen. John McCain as being out of touch with Americans' concerns about the economy. It contrasts remarks from McCain with comments from residents of Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Obama's ad, however, used dated remarks from McCain and takes his words out of context.
The ad opens with video of McCain saying, "I don't believe we're headed into a recession." But the clip comes from a response to a question at a Republican primary debate in South Carolina back in January. The date is shown in the ad, in the lower-right hand corner. McCain's quote is followed by a clip of a man from Ohio saying, "I think we're absolutely in a recession." While that man and others shown in the ad are talking about economic conditions now, this quote from McCain and another in the ad are from seven months ago, a fact that may not be apparent to viewers if they miss the fine print. Here's more of what McCain said in January:McCain, Jan. 10: ... And by the way, I don't believe we're headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong. This is a rough patch, but I think America's greatness lies ahead of us.While McCain clearly said the country wasn't headed into a recession, he also acknowledged that the U.S. was in "a rough patch." At the time, unemployment was 5.0 percent, and it has since climbed to 5.7 percent, as of July. McCain's comments on the economy, in fact, have been more critical of late. In an August 1 speech before the National Urban League, McCain said the economy is "struggling" and "troubled."
The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: "[T]here's been great progress economically." The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. But the Obama campaign's selective use of McCain's words leaves out what the Republican had to say about families' economic hardships:Cook, April 17: I'm going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during Bush's time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldn't be enough to comfort families "facing these tremendous economic challenges." His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites "challenging times" and "enormous difficulties." The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks.
McCain: Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they're going to be able to keep their home or not. They're figuring out whether they're - why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There's no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties.
I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time. But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.
In the third quote in the ad, the Obama camp also uses something positive McCain said about Bush's tenure but leaves out his not-so-rosy comments about the economy. The video is of McCain at a CNN Republican debate in late January saying: "[W]e have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment." But that's not all he said:CNN's Anderson Cooper, Jan. 30: Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?Following McCain's response, Cooper responded: "It sounds like that we're not better off is what you're saying." To which McCain replied: "I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, et cetera." McCain added, "What I'm trying to emphasize, Anderson, that we are in a very serious challenge right now, with a lot of Americans very uncertain about their future, and we've got to give them some comfort."
McCain: I think you could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created.
But let's have some straight talk. Things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis. Americans are uncertain about the economy, as we see the stock market bounce up and down, but more importantly, the economy particularly in some parts of the country, state of Michigan, Governor Romney and I campaigned, not to my success, I might add, and other parts of the country are probably better off.
But I think what we're trying to do to fix this economy is important. We've got to address the housing, subprime housing problem. We need to, obviously, have this package go through the Congress as quickly as possible.
As for McCain's comment that there was low unemployment at the time, he was technically right. The 5.0 percent unemployment rate in December 2007 was still below the 5.6 percent average for all months since the late 1940s. The rate has since climbed to just above that average. McCain was wrong about inflation, however: Two weeks before McCain spoke the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the Consumer Price Index had risen 4.1 percent in 2007 alone; it was the fastest increase in prices since 1990.
Source
Barack Obama Is Not a Radical??
Last night on one of the talking head shows Dick Morris casually stated that Obama is not a radical. Perhaps not. But consider that according to recent polling, Obama's positions on the following issues are opposed by a median of 76% of respondents:
* Obama supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants
* Obama supports racial preferences in public employment, contracting and school admissions
* Obama opposes a ban on partial birth abortions
*Obama would cut funding for research and development of "unproven" missile defense systems
* Obama opposes making English the official language for doing business with the U.S. government
* Obama opposes the Supreme Court decisions prohibiting racial assignments of grade school children
* Obama opposes parental notification for minors obtaining abortions
Moreover, Obama
would talk without precondition with the leaders of state sponsors of terror
is the only U.S. senator to vote against the language of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
supports giving foreign terrorists habeas rights
contends William Ayers is a mainstream member of the community
for twenty years belonged to a church whose pastor, Obama's mentor, was prone to making, well, somewhat radical statements
plans to raise payroll, income, capital gains and estate taxes
despite recent rhetoric, never opposed a gun ban
has received the following ratings:
NARAL - 100%
NEA - A
ACORN - 100%
Planned Parenthood - 100%
National Taxpayers Union - F
Family Research Council - 0%
Citizens Against Government Waste - 13%
NRA - F
Obama may not be a radical, but the National Journal's assessment that he's the most liberal member of the U.S. senate is well-deserved. Nonetheless, I'd like to know how Morris defines "radical."
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
20 August, 2008
Be Not Cool
A Leftist writer says that, for Barack Obama, the presidential race right now demands a sense of urgency. And that's hard to convey when you never seem to sweat.
In a way arguably unlike any previous presidential contender (yes, okay, fine: JFK, maybe), Barack Obama personifies cool. He's young. He's hip. (Check out that iPod playlist.) He's black. He's got that whole smooth-talking, fist-bumping, "What, me worry?" vibe going. His oratory uplifts without inflaming. He talks of hope and change and endless possibility, but always with an edge of restraint and composure that soothes even as it inspires. The "No Drama Obama" label suits him. Long, lean, and always perfectly turned out, the man looks as though he could withstand a nuclear staredown without breaking a sweat.
All of which strikes me as a bit of a problem at this point. While the cool, composed, no-drama demeanor helps Obama appear presidential--and no doubt allays some subliminal white racial anxieties--it also threatens to make him look a bit detached from the many and multiplying crises around him. These are not, to put it mildly, the most soothing of times for Americans. The economy is shaky. Unemployment is up. Growth is down. Oil prices have hit the roof just as home prices have crashed through the floor. Detroit is facing a full-fledged meltdown. We are still embroiled in two wars, neither of which offers much hope for a happy ending. Al Qaeda is running wild in western Pakistan. And now, like some bad acid flashback, Russia is acting like it wants to restart the Cold War.
Confronted by these dramas, Obama offers thoughtful, balanced, pragmatic responses. He does not promote quick-fix schemes to make it look as though he is a man of action, pounding his chest and vowing to Drill Now! or to declare a tax holiday to ease our gas pains. (Hell, even John McCain admits that more off-shore drilling would provide nothing more than a "psychological" balm for years to come.) When Russia invaded Georgia, his initial statement counseled restraint on the part of both parties. As it became clearer that Russia was up to no good, Obama's denunciations grew more pointed. But in this, as in most matters, he did not act or speak with a great deal of emotion. He stayed, if you will, cool.
Whether discussing health care or energy or foreign threats, what Obama almost invariably fails to convey is a sense of urgency. Yes, he seems sincere enough--earnest even. But all that equanimity can make you wonder if perhaps he quite gets it. Certainly, the average American is feeling like his or her issues could use some urgent attention. Gas prices need to come down now. The housing market needs to stabilize now. The international chaos bubbling up around us needs to be dealt with now. Something needs to be done about health care, and global warming, and illegal immigration, and the fact that every time you turn around it seems like another factory has closed and another 3,000 manufacturing jobs have been shipped to Jakarta. Now.
At the other end of the spectrum, John McCain positively vibrates whenever he speaks. The guy is old, but he is feisty--at times to a fault. (One does not earn the moniker "The White Tornado" by being low-key.) He blusters, he panders, he flies off the handle. He has a reputation for acting on emotion rather than reason. Looked at dispassionately, this is exactly the type of leader that should make the voting public anxious. But the voting public is already anxious. And under such circumstances, McCain's constant flappability may come across as downright comforting.
This is not to argue that Obama should try to alter his basic nature or pretend to care deeply about issues that are not important to him. And, of course, most problems do not have an immediate solution. But he does need to recognize that unrelenting cool may not be what voters are longing for this election. Make no mistake: Obama is not some spiritless wonk burying us in figures but unable to fit them into a compelling narrative (the usual Democratic pitfall). It's just that his delivery of the narrative is a bit even-keeled and high-toned for a nervous nation. Bill Clinton made a career not out of simply feeling voters pain, but out of showing them he was feeling it. Obama needs to find a way to do something similar. Fast. For all its attractions, cool has its limitations.
Source
The child of light ignores the real America
By Carol Platt Liebau
There's one more point about Barack's performance in last night's forum that bears mentioning. According to the transcript, during a discussion of moral failures -- first his own, and then America's -- Barack had this to say:
"I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic [p]recept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. And notion of - that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having - not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. I mean, there is a purvasive [sic] sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don't spend enough time thinking about the least of these."
I don't know what country Barack Obama is living in, but it has no relation to the America that I know. Could we do better? Of course -- always, in fact, until America is Heaven on Earth. But where is the "pervasive sense" that we are "not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class"?
What does he think that the very generous government funding of higher education -- along with an extensive system of student loans -- is about? Why, pray tell, do more people want to come here than to any other country in the world, and why is America known as the "land of opportunity"?
As for his assertion that "we still don't spend enough time thinking about the least of these" -- well, clearly, Barack is a lefty who defines "thinking about" in terms of tax money spent. But even on that level, in America, as economist Walter Williams has noted:In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four. Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care.And although the system isn't optimal, keep in mind that even illegal aliens can break our laws, yet enjoy free medical care and education for their children. See how many other countries offer that deal.
Finally, consider the tradition of American voluntarism. More than a quarter of Americans volunteered their time in 2007, for more hours than those of which a typical workweek is comprised. For a society that "doesn't spend enough time thinking about the least of these," that's impressive.
In fact, it's impressive, period. Many languages don't even have a word for "volunteer" because the concept of donating one's time for the good of others, without government coercion, is a foreign concept. (The Russian language is one of them).
No one is saying that America is perfect. We have a sad legacy of racial discrimination -- but again, one that virtually all Americans regret and have been willing to spend our treasure and our time to rectify.
If Barack Obama wants to condemn the USA for its failure to provide opportunity or its selfishness, he can only do it if he's envisioning socialist governments -- where the government "gives" everyone everything by dint of exorbitant and coercive tax rates -- as the exemplars of compassion.
Source
Obama twists the Bible
A graduate of the John Kerry Bible College, Barack Obama is true to form. Like his mentor, Obama cites Scripture to bolster his socialist view of the world and make himself seem more "Christian." Unless you live in a cave, you heard about Saturday's Q&A between Rick Warren of "mega-church" Saddleback and presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. For this post, I want to focus on a few statements Obama made (from an unedited transcript - emphasis added):"I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic [p]recept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. And notion of - that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having - not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. I mean, there is a purvasive [sic] sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don't spend enough time thinking about the least of these."The Scripture is Matthew 25, starting at verse 31, whose titles are variants of "The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations," "Judgment of the Gentiles," etc. The passage deals with the coming judgment after Christ returns. Sitting on his throne, Christ separates believers (sheep) from the unrepentant (goats). He tells believers that what they've done for the least of the brethren, fellow believers, they've done for him.
Though Christians disagree on this, I think what's clearly in view here is not charity for all the less fortunate. It's about Christians attending to the legitimate needs of other Christians. But more about that later.
The Unborn: The Least of My Brothers
With a straight face, Obama chastised others for not abiding by the precepts of Matthew 25, when he had a chance to do the same and failed. For example, instead of choosing to protect and care for the least of his brothers, the unborn, by supporting a bill that would protect those born alive after failed abortion attempts, he voted against the bill. (Obama can't keep straight his reasons for voting against the bill. Also see Life Lies.) Who among us is more vulnerable and needy than an infant, unborn or otherwise? Obama the "Christian" said he would not yield when it comes to a woman's right to have her baby slaughtered.
To Obama, America's "greatest moral failure" isn't that babies are murdered; it's that our "wealthy and powerful" country isn't giving more money to the poor. (See Carol Platt Liebau's comment on that.) Never mind that Americans give billions of dollars in charity each year, uncoerced by the government. I wonder what Obama will say on Judgment Day if Christ asks, "Why didn't you protect the least and most vulnerable of your brothers, those in the womb?"
Obama Echoes Kerry
During his failed bid for the presidency in 2004, John Kerry implied that George Bush was neglecting to do "good works," biblically speaking, because he wanted to cut spending, and that spending more tax dollars was evidence of fruits of salvation. See Kerry Cites Scripture To Battle Bush View and John Kerry and James 2.
Socialist types trying to appeal to Christians often cite Jesus' earthly ministry of physically feeding the poor and healing the sick. Never mind that these acts were signs pointing to spiritual feeding and healing or that these social types conveniently leave out all that scary stuff about God's judgment against the unrepentant. They can quote chapter and verse on helping "the least of my brothers" with more taxpayer-supported government programs, but ignore the reality of Christ's judgment on the world or the need to accept Christ to avoid that judgment.
But I digress. The point is this: Christian acts of charity are to be done on an individual level, and the nature of that giving is voluntary. In Matthew 25, Christ wasn't commending believers and condemning unbelievers based on what they rendered unto Caesar; he was referring to individual acts of kindness those who love God are willing do.
Does Obama really believe Christ had government in view in Matthew 25, that spending even more tax dollars on the "needy" fulfills God's requirement for Christians to care for the poor in their congregations? From what I've read and heard, Obama believes in a jumbled social gospel mess that's based on theological ignorance.
Source
Huge bias in media coverage
Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.
In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates' agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.
This dovetails with Obama's dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it's 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9.
This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.
Obama's dominance on Page 1 is partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton and his trip overseas in July. The coverage of June 4, 5, 6 and 7 led to six Page 1 stories in The Post, including Obama's nomination victory, his strategy, elation among African Americans over the historic nature of his win and his fundraising advantage. Then he made an appearance at Nissan Pavilion with Virginia's Gov. Timothy Kaine and Sen. James Webb, and it became a local Page 1 story. During those few days, there was one Page 1 reference to an inside-page story about McCain going after Clinton's disgruntled supporters.
When Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe, the coverage dwarfed that of McCain -- six Page 1 stories from July 19 to July 27, plus an earlier front-page story announcing the trip. McCain managed one Page 1 story and one Page 1 reference; the July 25 story said he might pick a vice presidential candidate soon, but that didn't happen. While there was no front-page story about Obama on July 25, it seemed wrong not to count that day because a photo of him in Berlin dominated the front page. I also counted a story about a Post-ABC News poll concerning racism and its potential impact on the election; 3 in 10 of those polled acknowledged racial bias.
Not all Page 1 coverage has been favorable. Obama was hit right away with two Page 1 stories about Washington insider James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO, who was criticized for mortgage deals and then withdrew from vetting Obama's potential running mates. A story about Obama's former Chicago church reminded readers of the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. There were also stories with a favorable cast -- about his patriotism, his first appearance with Clinton and the coverage from his foreign trip.
McCain's Page 1 stories were a mix -- a story about the flap over former senator Phil Gramm's comment about a "nation of whiners" over the economy and a story about conservatives wanting to battle McCain on the party platform. But there also were stories about plans to make the federal government more environmentally responsible and McCain's proposal for offshore drilling.
The single most revealing story about McCain -- and one of the best Post stories on either candidate -- was a top-of-the-front-page look at McCain's intellect. The story, by veteran reporter and editor Robert G. Kaiser, was the kind of analysis that tells readers something they didn't know. It was neither positive nor negative, just revealing and insightful.
Another favorite was by Business reporter Lori Montgomery on how both candidates will have trouble lowering the deficit with their spending plans. A Style & Arts change of pace was movie critic Stephen Hunter's look at McCain and Obama as film icons-- McCain as John Wayne and Obama as Will Smith.
Page 1 coverage isn't all that counts, but it is the most visible. Certainly there were many stories on the Politics page and elsewhere in the paper. (I'm not counting opinion columns.) The Trail, The Post's politics blog, had dozens of short items about both candidates, all interesting to political junkies. Post inside coverage has been a mix of horse-race coverage -- stories about endorsements, advisers, who can win where -- and issues stories.
Style stories have dealt with the Internet, voters and volunteers, and the cultural aspects of the campaigns. Cindy McCain was featured in a big Style spread and Michelle Obama in a Metro story about her recent visit to Virginia.
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.
"The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time."
Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.
Source
Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan
Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities. Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.
Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.
On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%
The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere.
Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Then there is the spending side of the ledger. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.
His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers."
Currently existing tax credits would also become spending programs in the Obama tax program. The Savers Credit would be made fully refundable, and would be expanded, according to the campaign, "to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000." The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses."
The Earned Income Tax Credit is already refundable. Mr. Obama would expand it to "increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to noncustodial parents who fulfill their child support obligations, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families." In short, welfare spending is to be increased by paying more money out to low-income income tax filers.
The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.
Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.
Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate's tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
19 August, 2008
AP photo of school register reveals "Barry Soetoro" as a Muslim Indonesian
A 2007 Associated Press photograph, suppressed until now, shows the school register of the child who is today known as Barack Hussein Obama but was officially listed then as Barry Soetoro, whose citizenship was listed as "Indonesian" and whose religion was listed as "Islam." The visual evidence starkly contradicts the Obama campaign's claim that he was not a Muslim and confirms that he is a national of at least one other country.
In addition, it raises the highly problematic issue of what is Obama's official name. If it turns out to Barry Soetoro, and no official change of name was ever made, Obama may face an array of charges of deception and misprision that may throw into doubt, at the very least, his fitness to run.
Deep doubts remain about the veracity of the "certificate of live birth" image produced for his campaign by the radical left-wing Daily Kos blog. There are reports that investigative teams -- from the Republican and Democratic parties as well as various intelligence agencies -- are seeking out the details of his murky childhood from Kenya to Indonesia. There are indications of growing disquiet in the circles of power that the so-called "smears" may have understated the gravity of the candidate's identity problem: he may not be American, he was not raised Christian and, it appears, he was not Barack Hussein Obama.
The evidence of the candidate's un-American, un-Christian upbringing is nothing new, and has been documented by bloggers as early as 2007 and by Israel Insider in our very first report on this subject in June of this year. But until now the photograph of his school record has been lacking. The image is dated from 2007 and was apparently taken to accompany an AP article that appeared in January of that year. Ironically, that article was about how Obama was rejecting the untrue charge that the public school he attended was a radical Indonesian madrassa.
Some excerpts:
"We will not be swift-boated," said Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. "And we won't take allegations that are patently untrue lying down."
"Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant. Gibbs said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim."
Gibbs may not have been sure, but it appears that the Obama campaign made sure that this image did not see the light of day, because the photographic listing of the candidate, even as a child, as an Indonesian whose religion was Islam was worth, well, a thousand words. "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim," Gibbs said in the article. "As a six-year-old in Catholic school, he studied the catechism."
That may be Gibbs' assertion, but evidence from grown-up school chums of little Barry Soetoro indicates that he studied, and excelled in, the teachings of the Koran in the original Arabic and could recite the Shehada, the Islamic article of faith, by heart, and with a decent tune, according to the New York Times roving columnist Nicholas Kristof, to whom "Obama" remarked that the sound of the Muslim call to prayer was one of the world's most beautiful sounds.
The AP article quoted Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama's kindergarten teacher, who "remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. 'He wrote an essay titled, "I Want To Become President,"' the teacher said." She didn't indicate which country he wanted to become president of.
The AP caption reads: "This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam. (AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana)" Syuflana is a well-known and frequently published photographer, specializing in Indonesia.
A representative of the AP confirmed that the photo is authentic.
The most damaging revelation in the AP photo (registration required to see the large-scale image. A derived image is here.) may turn out to be the listing of his name as Barry Soetoro. It has been reported that he used the name Barack Hussein Obama and failed to mention Barry Soetoro when asked to provide any former names. (He reportedly also did not respond honestly when answering negatively to a question concerning illegal drug use, which he has since admitted.) It is believed that failure to report his previous name is not an isolated instance, and may have contributed to the perceived need to manufacture a forged birth certificate listing Obama's preferred identity as if it were present from the start.
The listing of Barry Soetoro as a Muslim contradicts what appears on his campaign's Fight the Smears website, where he says that "I have never been a Muslim." In a private meeting with Jewish leaders in February, Obama emphatically re-stated the claim, but with a bit of a twist, declaring: "I am not, nor have I ever been, a Muslim (especially an anti-American one)."
Does the candidate protest too much here? Indeed, he is echoing language used in the 1950s by those who denied Communist ties. No one is claiming, here, that Obama is anti-American. But the image of his school registration doesn't lie, and indicates clearly that he was registered as a Muslim, and thus, despite the claim of his spokesman, he didn't study the catechism. Barry Soetoro studied the Koran.
Source
You can see the full photo on the AP Images site if you can be bothered to register. Registration is free but tedious -- JR
Birth Certificate Issue is Beyond Politics
Recently, Candace de Russy followed up on developments in the drama of Obama's fraudulent birth certificate and possible dual citizenship. The existing images of Barack Obama's alleged birth certificate on the Daily Kos site and his own campaign site Fight the Smears have been proven forgeries according to diligent forensic detective work which I discussed here. De Russy reports:It appears that Barack Obama's official birth certificate actually reads Barry Soetoro. His named was changed from Barack Obama to Barry Soetoro when his mother's husband Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack. Therefore, the original birth certificate provided by the Barack campaign, is either a fake or his name has been changed back to his birth name. Considering this new development, is Barack a dual-citizen of Indonesia and the United States? And did he use his Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981?It is important to look into this because Barack Obama has purportedly deceived the public regarding his true identity and dual citizenship. He may still be a citizen of Indonesia or not. But naysayers and those who argue that this is not a substantive issue miss the point. A reader responds to de Russy's report as follows:The Constitution simply states the requirement that a president be a natural-born citizen, but sets forth no requirement to prove it. That's hardly surprising: it's not like the Framers were familiar with Departments of Vital Statistics or Birth Certificates.The point is that this issue is not about Obama. It is a much more weighty issue than apparent political attacks to derail the Obama presidential campaign by either right-wing bloggers or supporters of Hillary. Clinton supporter TexasDarlin reveals a report that a Republican operative in Hawaii has in his possession the real Obama birth certificate with the name Barry Soetoro, and is waiting until after the convention to drop the bomb. But Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs takes the news as the straw that breaks the camel's back, alleging this and possibly other revelations about Obama are planted by stealthy Clinton operatives in order to steal the nomination while pinning the blame on Republicans. Not wanting to further aid and abet the greater threat, Hillary, she chooses to wait until after the nomination for further investigation. Similarly she misses the critical point of holding all public officials and candidates accountable to the Constitution, whether they are an Obama, Clinton or McCain. No one is beyond reproach.
Absent any formal question concerning his citizenship status - and there is none - you might as well chalk this up to innocent until proven guilty. Mr Obama does not have to provide a birth certificate; his opponents have to provide evidence that he does not qualify.
The reader above says that this is a matter of "innocence until proven guilty." However, the "presumption of innocence" is only true in criminal law where the court system is required to prove the guilt of a criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in vetting candidates for public office the American public must take a critical stand and make informed choices. This entails investigating documentation of natural-born citizenship for eligibility to be President of the United States as stated in Article II of the Constitution.
Mitchell Langbert argues the point best saying that there is an issue here that is beyond politics:The issue of the birth certificate is a matter of ethics, not just politics. The public has a right to know. Whether that results in Hillary Clinton's nomination or not is not the core of the issue.We must reclaim the moral high ground that both Republicans and Democrats lost in the turmoil of partisan politics. Thus Langbert is forging ahead to empower the public with the right to know and the duty to hold political candidates accountable. He has been circulating an online petition requesting that the Federal Elections Commission and Mr. Donald McGahan, FEC chairman verify the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States. The petition will close in another day or two and he has put out a last call for signatures. The fact that nearly 5000 people have already signed the petition is a heartening indication that more than a handful of people have risen to the occasion to say that they will not be deceived and to insist that the citizens of the United States have a right to know about their elected officials.
.in a nutshell, the American public has the right to an electoral system that functions coherently. Partisanship created an electoral system that does not require identification, birth certificates and fingerprinting of candidates. This is a more important problem than Hillary v. Obama.
There is another, more crucial point. I see no need to suspend coverage of this or to avoid attacking the most likely Democratic nominee. The Republicans should aim to win with good ethics, integrity and principle, not venom and anger at Democrats.
Source
Obama's Weirdness
The interview on faith and religion I mentioned the other day is a gold mine of weirdness. Let's look at what Obama thinks is going on when he is speaking to crowd as a political leader:OBAMA: IT's interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I'm talking to a group and I'm saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I'm just being glib or clever.So, it seems clear that when Barack Obama feels strongly about something it is because he views it as touching something of the divine. So, if you hold a different political position on one of those matters you are at best a fool and at worst evil. Either way you are standing against the will of God, which happens to coincide with the political principles of Barack Obama. Aren't we lucky? Now, this I just found interesting:
GG: What's that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?
OBAMA: Well, I think it's the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.GG: Who's Jesus to you?So what have we got here? Obama thinks Jesus is A) an historical figure, B) a bridge between God and man, and C) a wonderful teacher. The truth is there is nothing particularly Christian about those views. Muslims, for example, hold much the same view of Jesus. It is Christians who believe Jesus is the son of God, the redeemer of our sins, the maker of a new covenant.in short the Messiah. All of the specifically Christian views of Jesus seem to have escaped Obama's notice, or they have been rejected.
(He laughs nervously)
OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
Which is it? I don't know, but it sure seems like Barry Obama is one weird guy.
Source
The egotist
This sure does fit a pattern many vainly try to claim doesn't exist. From The Dude Abides:At 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, 2004, when I was the religion reporter (I am now its religion columnist) at the Chicago Sun-Times, I met then-State Sen. Barack Obama at Caf‚ Baci, a small coffee joint at 330 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago, to interview him exclusively about his spirituality. Our conversation took place a few days after he'd clinched the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that he eventually won. We spoke for more than an hour. He came alone. He answered everything I asked without notes or hesitation. The profile of Obama that grew from the interview at Cafe Baci became the first in a series in the Sun-Times called "The God Factor," that eventually became my first book, The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People (FSG, March 2006.) Because of the staggering interest in now U.S. Sen. Obama's faith and spiritual predilections, I thought it might be helpful to share that interivew.The money quote:GG: Do you believe in sin?Don't share the O's values? Welcome to sin my friends.
OBAMA: Yes.
GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
Source
The usual Christian definition of sin would be disobedience to the will of God. So it would seem that Obama regards himself as God. Is anyone surprised? The video below is an oldie but I still love it -- JR
Even a birdbrain understands Obama's message. LOL.
Obama on Clarence Thomas
Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.
Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential resume by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliche that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.
Source
Barack Obama's elitist campaign alienates the South
The sea of shining, hope-filled faces that routinely flood Barack Obama's rallies would be an alien environment for the grizzled features and tobacco-stained temperament of Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. His preferred habitat is up a tree gunning down deer or on the mud flats - which lent him their name - catching catfish, part of an endless struggle with Appalachian wildlife. Along with his Confederate flag bedspread, the stag heads on his walls, his preference for profanity over punctuation, he would horrify what he calls the "northeastern elitist, Metropolitan Opera wing of the Democrats".
But, as one of the party's few (some say only) rural strategists, this might just be part of Mr Obama's problem. "The Democrats talk of tolerance, but in reality the only tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own intellectual arrogance - and they don't have tolerance for my culture," says Mudcat. "They think we're a bunch of hillbilly heathens who go out and burn crosses and do crazy bullshit. "They don't give a f*** if we're with them or not, because it doesn't matter. The f***ing Republicans have stolen the individual liberties thing and that's why the gun thing is such a big deal."
After a summer marked by soaring hyperbole about electing America's first black President, the sweep of Obama-mania across Europe and a generally feeble Republican campaign, Mr Obama's poll lead has evaporated. Many white, rural and working-class voters are stubbornly refusing to share the excitement about Mr Obama.
Yesterday The New York Times carried a front-page article in which more than a dozen senior Democrats urged Mr Obama to climb down from his sermonising mount and tell ordinary voters how he would improve their lives.
Nowhere does he have a bigger problem than in the Appalachians, a vast, rugged, mountain region. It was here, in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky that Mr Obama was beaten badly by Hillary Clinton - and his strategy towards them has altered little since.
Although Mr Obama won Virginia and has since identified it as a prime target in November's general election, Mudcat cautions that Democrats cannot rely on urban liberals and African Americans in the north of the state. He describes his hometown of Roanoke as "a trading post, like Tombstone", belonging to a different culture west of the Blue Ridge mountains of which Mr Obama has no more understanding than Al Gore and John Kerry before him - who lost the rural vote by 16 and 19 per cent respectively.
Mudcat has previously helped both Mark Warner, the former Governor, and Senator Jim Webb win in traditionally Republican-leaning Virginia. He was also a senior strategist on the failed presidential campaign of John Edwards, a close friend. Has he been asked to help Mr Obama? "I got a call from them right after Johnny got out. I never heard back." What does he think of the Illinois senator's campaign? Mudcat pauses and lights another Camel. "Sometimes they remind me of another bunch from Chicago, the Blues Brothers: they seem to think they're on a mission from God."
He is scathing about the reliance on registering new voters. "If that's how he runs his campaign, he is going to lose. I'd rather bet on those who voted before. When he stands up and says that I'm gonna get 30 per cent more black voters - I'm gonna get 30 per cent more of my people to turn out for me - what is Joe Six-Pack thinking?"
Mudcat suggests that John McCain could win Michigan while holding Ohio and Florida. And, unless Mr Obama changes course, "he ain't gonna win Virgina either. "Instead of all the high-falutin' exhortation about listening to the better angels, Mr Obama has gotta come out here - and time is short - and emphasise social justice. "He should say, 'I'm a black guy. I'm not gonna take the Michael Jackson treatment, but the problems of South Side Chicago are the same problems of the Appalachian mountains'. Big sonsofabitches are kicking the little sonsofabitches in the ass. Now I'm one of the little sonsofabitches, so I'm pissed off. Inside every rural Republican is a rural Democrat begging to get out. But we always trip over our johnsons."
"The campaign," he says scornfully, "think this election will be won on the internet. But here, at 5.30 in the afternoon, they don't go on the goddamn internet, they go watch The Andy Griffith Show [a 1960s sitcom]."
The nominee's difficulties are not about the colour of his skin but the tin in his ear. "White people in the South and throughout the Appalachians love black culture. I mean, Southern-style cooking is black food. Everything I eat is fried. Your swing vote in the Appalachians comes down to common-sense thinking people who have strong faith, and what Barack Obama needs to do is embrace his culture. Because we like his culture. But nobody knows anything about him; over 10 per cent of the rednecks out here - and I'm a redneck - think he's a Muslim 'cause nobody's ever told 'em any different."
His own Appalachian method of persuasion is best summed up in his campaign against a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage in Virginia. "I'm pretty sure I ain't a queer. And I've never had queer thoughts," he told a newspaper, "but God loves them queers every bit that he loves the Republicans." Or, as he says these days: "It's their mouth, they can use it to haul coal if they want to."
The Confederate bedspread is a tribute to "the gallant kids from around here who lost their lives" - not a racist symbol, says Mudcat, adding that he has no doubt "the right side won" the American Civil War.
He says a "cultural wedge" has been placed between Democrats and Scots-Irish voters just as Hadrian built a wall to keep them back in Britain. "It is the same exact people. It's the same f***ing bunch of fight, sing, drink, pray people who are over there who are over here in these mountains."
And the Democrats are on the wrong side of it? "You're damn right. They're on Hadrian's side of the wall is where they are. And they want the Scots-Irish vote. Well it's true. It's f***ing genes. It's who we are as a people. We'll say 'f*** you' to Bush, Longshanks [King Edward I of England] or Maggie Thatcher. F*** any of 'em."
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
18 August, 2008
The Clinton Coup
The Obama campaign was in full spin mode this week touting its decision to allow Hillary Clinton to have a roll call vote at the convention so her delegates can register their support of her. "It's an olive branch that we think will pay dividends in party unity," one Democratic congressman told me. I'm not so sure. Many Clinton supporters will be appreciative of the symbolic gesture, but others such as those who unofficially call themselves Pumas (Party Unity My Ass) may see it as an opportunity to make more trouble for Mr. Obama both on and off the convention floor.
"The one thing that Obama should never have agreed to is a roll-call vote with Hillary Clinton," says Jeff Birnbaum, a Washington Post columnist. Mr. Birnbaum nonetheless admits to being "so grateful that we are going to have a story, which is Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly to take over the Obama victory, and that [story] will go through virtually every day of the convention" given how frequently Bill and Hillary Clinton are scheduled to appear before delegates.
Indeed, the Clinton people I spoke with appear emboldened by the Obama concessions. They have already secured language in the Democratic platform denouncing the mainstream media for its "sexist" coverage of the Democratic primaries. You can bet one of the few genuinely newsworthy stories the hordes of reporters in Denver will chew on is just how much Hillary Clinton is supporting Barack Obama -- and how much merely laying groundwork for a comeback effort in 2012 if he loses in the fall.
Source
Darragh vs. the Obama Bots
If he can't face down the Pumas, how will he ever face down Putin? That question may have been in the back of a few Democratic minds last week, but Hillary Clinton's fans were all smiles over their success in rolling a possible president-to-be before he ever takes office. "We're very happy with the news," Darragh Murphy, executive director of PumaPAC, tells us. "This is the first time in six months the DNC has stood up for the Democratic process."
"Puma" in her case stands for People United Means Action," though Ms. Murphy is happy to acknowledge the more common pre-existing meaning ballyhooed in the blogosphere (see here). She says the group has gathered 10,000 members and more than a million page views just since its launch in June. An early John Edwards supporter -- "to my everlasting shame at this point," she says -- Ms. Murphy has enjoyed her own meteoric rise to fame. We reached her by phone yesterday just as she was coming from an appearance on "Hardball."
A product of the Dorchester section of Boston, "I've always been a Democrat," she says. "But the most I'd ever do come election time would be to hold a sign at the Rotary." That hasn't stopped some from noticing that she voted for John McCain in the 2000 GOP primary and muttering about suspect motives. "People try to paint me as a Republican," she sighs.
How much Mr. Obama should worry remains to be seen. The New York Observer recently surveyed several wealthy Clinton backers like Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild who claim to be committed to making the case for Hillary in Denver. Ms. Murphy says her own members are "hoppin' mad" and "convinced" that Mr. Obama's nomination is "coming from above," forced down the throats of the Democratic rank-and-file by Howard Dean.
"Fall in line, get on the Obama train, go to the Obama indoctrination session and don't mention Hillary Clinton" is the message Ms. Murphy says the DNC leadership is pushing. "The Obama campaign has become a movement of transcendence that is practically religious, with a wave of money and religious fervor taking over the party."
Ms. Murphy happily acknowledges hosting "secret" strategy sessions in a northern Virginia hotel last weekend, shielded from infiltrators she calls "Obama Bots." But she says any protests in Denver are intended to be peaceful. "Who knows what will happen on the convention floor? Many of our members hope there will be a spark of some kind."
Source
Obama must convince America he's one of us
By Ruben Navarrette
During his vacation in Hawaii, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama eats shave ice, part of the local cuisine in his native state. While vacationing in his native Hawaii, Barack Obama said he wanted to enjoy some local cuisine - a plate lunch, shave ice, the noodle dish Zip Min - and relax with a little bodysurfing "at an undisclosed location."
Good for him. Obama needed the rest and refueling. He has a lot of work to do at the Democratic National Convention, which begins Aug. 25. The presumptive presidential nominee has at least three herculean tasks awaiting him in Denver.
First, he has to win over the Hillary holdouts, especially those women over 50 who think he's more style than substance and insist that he got this far only because the male-run media sabotaged the first woman with a serious shot at the White House. Those women treat Obama like the flashy pretty boy they warned their daughters about. Some of them want to put Hillary's name in nomination at the convention and demand a roll-call vote.
Next, Obama needs to use the convention to dispel lingering doubts about who he is and where he would lead the country, if elected. That is the one thing missing from an otherwise well-run campaign. Maybe Obama is too cerebral and needs to show more emotion. And, as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did in their election campaigns, he needs to let down his guard and invite us into his private life. It could make him more likable - and more real.
The exotic candidate
Finally, Obama must again confront a suspicion that he probably thinks he dispelled months ago when he disowned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his Trinity United Church of Christ. Not a chance. Many Americans still have an unfortunate and unfounded prejudice about Obama not being "American enough." Background too exotic. Name too foreign. Religion too cloudy. It all plays into the fear that Obama cannot be trusted because, supposedly, his allegiance lies elsewhere.
It gets absurd in a hurry. Even Obama's choice of vacation spots makes him suspect, according to a nearly incoherent Cokie Roberts on ABC's "This Week." While the journo-pundit was graciously willing to acknowledge that "Hawaii is a state," she also insisted that Obama's vacation there "has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place" - this from a woman who should know better because she grew up in the wonderfully foreign, exotic city of New Orleans.
Mark Penn speaks the same code. A recently surfaced memo that Hillary Clinton's former chief political strategist sent to the candidate in March 2007 shows that Penn was more than ready to launch a cultural strike against Obama. That meant playing on people's fears and painting Obama as someone "who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Such creepiness makes you wonder whether Penn has any values.
Note the irony. All this talk about Republicans allegedly playing the race card against Obama, and it was a Democratic operative who was ready and eager to do some real damage by dabbling in demagoguery and dropping "the American card."
Cultural, racial insecurity
Minorities should remember the Penn memos, especially since - according to new population projections by the U.S. Census Bureau - they will soon be coming into greater prominence. The Census estimates that minorities will be the majority in America by 2042, or eight years ahead of earlier projections. Such a dramatic change on the horizon was bound to stir fears, and it has. Check out the immigration debate, which is fueled not by concerns over border security or economic competition but by insecurities over the changing face and the shifting culture of America.
Penn wanted to tap into that insecurity with his evil plan to paint Obama as a foreigner and Hillary Clinton - even though she rejected that advice - made a play for it with her comments to USA Today about how she did better than Obama with "hardworking Americans, white Americans." It's an insecurity that lets some people think a person of color born into less-than-privileged circumstances, who studied hard, took risks and lived the American Dream, is somehow less American than someone else. And it's an insecurity Obama must confront in Denver once and for all.
To do that, he has to continue hammering away at what being an American means to him and how his life story, and America's story, go together like, well, a plate lunch and shave ice.
Source
National 'gay' leaders credit Obama for Dem's pro-homosexual platform
'Unprecedented partnership' nets new 1sts for LGBT community
The release of the proposed platform for the Democratic Party's national convention has leaders of homosexual advocacy groups thanking presidential candidate Barack Obama for helping create a platform that aligns with "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender" (or LGBT) activists' vision of American values. "It is a forward-looking platform in so many areas, including those relating to LGBT people," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a released statement. "For the first time the platform explicitly calls for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."
"The 2008 Democratic National Platform will be a guiding document for policy and legislation that embodies the values of our Party," said Jon Hoadley, executive director of the Stonewall Democrats, a network of homosexual activists named after violent pro-homosexual demonstrations that began at New York City's Stonewall Inn in 1969. "These advancements in our Party's binding document are thanks to the work and input of LGBT delegates, Senator Obama and his campaign, LGBT advocates, and Stonewall Democrats across the country," Hoadley said.
The Democratic National Platform, called "Renewing America's Promise", was submitted and made public on Aug. 7 by the Platform Drafting Committee, chaired by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. The full text of the platform can be read here.
According to the homosexual news site Temenos, two members of the LGBT community played a key role in drafting the platform: U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Diego Sanchez, director of Public Relations & External Affairs for the AIDS Action Committee, the first-ever transgender member of the Platform Committee.
While the platform itself does not use the terms "gay" or "homosexual," it contains language clearly advocating positions long called for by homosexual advocates. For example, in the opening paragraph of a section called "A More Perfect Union", the platform states: "Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age and disability in every corner of our country, because that's the America we believe in" (emphasis added). Later in the same section the platform states, somewhat ambiguously, "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections."
The application of that sentence specifically to homosexual unions is made clear, however, by the two sentences that immediately follow it: "We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us."
The federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, allows states where homosexual marriage is not recognized to disregard those unions performed in other states that do perform 'gay' marriage. It also forbids the federal government from treating same-sex relationships as marriages, even if considered so by an individual state.
Even if the platform doesn't specifically mention the LGBT community, the clarity of its intent and application was not lost on Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT lobbying group and political action committee in the nation. "The 2008 Platform reiterates and strengthens past support for legislation that would protect our community, including calls for the passage of hate crimes and comprehensive employment discrimination legislation, and the repeal of the discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in our nation's military," Solmonese said in a released statement.
Solmonese added, "The platform also supports the full inclusion of same-sex couples and their families, with equal rights, benefits and responsibilities. For the first time, the platform opposes the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of even those same-sex couples legally married under state law. "The platform also supports other issues of importance to for GLBT, and all Americans, including a call for a national strategy to combat HIV/AIDS, support for fair and impartial judges not driven by ideology, and requirements that faith-based programs not use federal dollars to discriminate."
Source
Obama says pointed abortion query "above his pay grade" (!)
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by "mega-pastor" Rick Warren during a televised forum. Asked at what point a baby gets "human rights," Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: ". whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity . is above my pay grade." He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who followed Obama onto the stage of the nationally televised event, was more blunt and more emphatic. He said a baby's human rights began "at the moment of conception . I have a 25-year pro-life record."
Both candidates were vying for the "faith vote," in particular the one in four U.S. adults who count themselves as evangelical. Obama took questions first from Warren and McCain followed. The two shared the stage together briefly.
Some centrist evangelicals have said they appreciate moves by the Democratic Party to "soften" the edges of its pro-choice stand by stressing the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions - and by also working harder in areas like adoption. But for many conservative evangelicals - a key part of the evangelical base - life begins at conception and the argument ends there. The issue remains one of the most divisive and partisan in America - as Obama and McCain highlighted on Warren's stage.
Source
McCain on Obama: 'The taxman cometh'
Heading into the televised Saddleback Civil Forum tonight, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are waging a less civil duel on paid television, with McCain rolling out a new ad today calling Obama the "taxman'' and Obama accusing McCain of reading from the same economic book as President Bush, paying the price of a costly war. "Celebrity, yes... Ready to lead, no,'' says the female narrator of the new McCain ad today. It warns that Obama's taxes "could break your family budget.'' With a nod to both Eugene O'Neill and the Beatles, the McCain ad warns of Obama: "The Taxman Cometh.''
Obama has acknowledged that it will take higher taxes to pay for the health care coverage that he is proposing for all Americans, but vows to tax wealthier Americans more while offering the middle class and lower-income taxpayers a break. McCain, who has opposed federal funding of prescription drugs under Medicare and proposes tax incentives to help uninsured people find health care, has pledged to avert new taxes during his term as president. Obama supports a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, promising to use the money for middle-class tax relief. McCain opposes such a tax.
The contrast is one of the key divisions that McCain hopes to exploit during a campaign which he maintains will reveal "stark'' differences between the two. "The press warns,' the taxman cometh,''' says the narrator, quoting from the Wall Street Journal. Calling Obama's plans a "recipe for economic disaster,'' it cites the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "Higher taxes, higher gas prices, an economic disaster... "That's the real Obama.''
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
17 August, 2008
Media Covered Up Rev. Wright's Extremism
The three major network news outlets "censored and manipulated" Barack Obama's longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright's sound bites to cover up his extremism, a new study by the Media Research Center charges. In a report scheduled for release Wednesday, the MRC states: "Rev. Wright's noxious recorded sermons suggesting that America deserved 9/11 and that the federal government created AIDS as a tool of black genocide were widely viewed on YouTube and discussed on talk radio and cable TV. But what about the network news shows, the programs most watched by the least politically involved viewers?...
"A Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS, and NBC news broadcasts from the formal announcement of the Obama campaign on February 10, 2007 through July 15 reveals that a viewer watching only broadcast TV news would have received a much more limited (and even censored) version of Wright's sermons." Among the key findings of the study:
A Fox News Channel report on March 1, 2007, delved into the "black value system" of Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the name of Rev. Wright did not surface on the Big Three networks until a year later, on CBS on Feb. 28, 2008. The first story with excerpts from a Wright sermon did not air until two weeks later, on ABC on March 13. By that time, 42 states had already voted in the primaries.
Snippets of Wright's sermons drew only 72 seconds of evening news coverage in all of March, an average of 24 seconds per network. None of the Big Three aired any of Wright's 2003 sermon accusing the federal government of hiding the truth about their "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," and all three "mostly ignored" his remarks calling the 9/11 attacks "America's chickens coming home to roost."
On March 18, the evening news shows carried nearly six minutes of highlights from Obama's "race speech" that day, in which he discussed race in America and defended his relationship with Wright, saying: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother." That was about five times the air time they devoted to Wright sound bites in the entire month of March.
Wright's April 28 comments at the National Press Club reiterating his claims about an AIDS conspiracy and America deserving 9/11 went virtually unreported, with the AIDS comments receiving no air time and the 9/11 charge just 23 seconds. The same Big Three aired nearly six minutes of clips of Wright's "softball interview" with Bill Moyers on PBS, the MRC disclosed.
The report concludes: "In today's rapid-fire political atmosphere of cable news, talk radio, and the Internet, media analysts can easily make the mistake of believing that the leading network news outlets were tough on a candidate because of the general perception of how the entire media - Old Media and New Media - brought a controversy to the public's attention.
"But voters who sampled only a light menu of news from Big Three network TV could easily have missed the depths of Reverend Wright's outrageous remarks. No one could find in these stories a scouring scrutiny of Obama's decades of membership in his controversial church."
Source
The Corsi book: Obama confirms relationship with Communist party member
With the release of a 40-page "Unfit for Publication" report attacking Jerome Corsi's new book, The Obama Nation, it should be obvious that the media-backed presidential candidate, Barack Obama, is terrified of having his carefully concealed communist and foreign connections exposed to public view.
However, the Obama campaign's attack on Corsi's book and Corsi personally acknowledges on pages 9 and 10 of its report that the mysterious "Frank" in Obama's 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, is in fact the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis. This identification by AIM and others hasn't been disputed by the media, which has desperately tried to ignore the Obama-Davis relationship, but the Obama campaign has not responded to it until now.
The admission that Obama's mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, an identified CPUSA member, can only add to growing public concern about Obama's relationship with a Communist pawn of Moscow who was the subject of security investigations by the FBI and various congressional committees which examined Soviet activities in the U.S.
According to these official documents, cited first by AIM and also by Corsi in his book, Davis was a secret CPUSA member who became a member of an underground communist apparatus in Hawaii. As late as the 1970s, Davis was involved with a CPUSA front organization, the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born, dedicated to keeping foreign communists such as labor leader Harry Bridges from being deported from the U.S. Davis, a friend of Bridges, a secret CPUSA member, became Obama's mentor during the years 1975-1979.
But the Obama report makes no admission that Davis was a communist and doesn't dispute anything Corsi documents about Davis's membership in the Communist Party. Instead, the report picks and chooses from Obama's book in order to try to put some distance between Obama and Davis. The report attempts to play down instances in which Obama soaks up Davis's anti-American thoughts and pro-communist "poetry."
But if the relationship were so innocent, why didn't Obama identify Frank by his full name in his book and denounce his communist and anti-American views? Why doesn't he denounce those views now?
At this point, it is clear that Corsi is to Obama what the National Enquirer is to admitted adulterer and liar John Edwards. The Enquirer exposed Edwards secret life when the rest of the media were refusing to investigate the candidate and making fun of the Enquirer.
It is noteworthy that the Obama campaign's "Unfit for Publication" report begins with citing negative "reviews" of the Corsi book from various publications, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Time magazine. The media are angry and jealous because Corsi did the heavy lifting that the media refuse to do.
While Obama's communist and foreign connections are of serious and ongoing concern, Corsi's treatment of Obama's admitted drug use has emerged as a special raw nerve for the Obama campaign and his media acolytes. They realize that many Americans, whose families have been decimated and destroyed by illegal drugs, may recoil at the thought of having an admitted user of marijuana and cocaine occupy the oval office.
Acting on information provided by a left-wing group known as Media Matters, which functions as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party, the New York Times attacked Corsi for charging that Obama has "yet to answer" whether he ever dealt drugs and when he stopped, if indeed he ever did. The Times protested that Obama has answered that charge, at least the part about quitting marijuana and cocaine, by saying that he hasn't used drugs since he was 20 years old.
So why did Corsi raise the subject when it supposedly has been put to rest? It's because, as an experienced investigative reporter, he knows that a few perfunctory denials, which could be expected from someone running for office, do not constitute any form of proof or convincing answer that he in fact ever did quit drugs. As Corsi has suggested in defending his book's account of Obama's admitted drug use, self-reporting by drug users about when they quit is notoriously unreliable. Every drug addict claims to have quit at one time or another. That's what drug testing is all about.
Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge, points out that recovering cocaine addicts say that the high from cocaine is so intense that you never stop wanting it. She points to the case of former Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, who was caught twice using cocaine. Barry was caught in one case as a result of a police sting and another because of court-ordered drug testing. Don't you believe Obama when he says he quit drugs? "No," replied Nalepka. "And I didn't believe Mayor Barry either."
Regarding the Davis-Obama relationship, now confirmed by the Obama campaign, the Post, as well as its "conservative" competitor, the Washington Times, recently ran a dishonest Associated Press story that portrayed Davis as a positive influence on Obama who had no affiliation with the CPUSA. This was the real lie.
Prior to that, the only time the Post came close to mentioning Davis was after I held a May 22 news briefing on the subject and Post reporter Dana Milbank attended and then attacked our event without mentioning that the main subject was none other than Frank Marshall Davis. Of course, dishonest coverage like this helps explain why Corsi's book is meeting a pent-up demand for facts about the candidate and is so successful. The American people understand that they are not getting the truth about Obama from the mainstream media.
Another line of attack-that Corsi is doing the bidding of the Republican Party and the John McCain campaign-makes no sense because Corsi writes very critically of McCain and is a member of the Constitution Party, which is fielding its own presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin, this fall. Plus, Corsi's editor at WorldNetDaily, where he writes regularly, is Joseph Farah, whose book, None of the Above, argues against Obama and McCain.
The pro-Obama media emphasize that the Corsi book is published by Simon & Schuster's Threshold Editions, whose main editor is former GOP strategist Mary Matalin. The 40-page Obama report dishonestly claims the Corsi book is "brought to you by the Bush/Cheney Attack Machine." But it is clearly the case that Corsi and Farah are independent conservatives who have no allegiance to the GOP. Corsi has written articles and even a book attacking the Bush/Cheney Administration's secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership, a forerunner for an emerging North American Union.
Corsi has written a book on Obama for the obvious reason that little is known about the Democratic candidate, and there is no evidence that the major media are interested in uncovering or publicizing the hidden facts about him. On the other hand, the media are doing a good job covering McCain's controversial connections, such as his ties to lobbyists for foreign countries.
Post reporter Eli Saslow writes that the Corsi book "lacks major revelations." Wouldn't it be nice if the Post let us decide that for ourselves? Why not run a true and accurate story about Frank Marshall Davis and let the readers decide? But Saslow must figure that such a story would only hurt the media's candidate.
Saslow let the truth slip: "Until recently, he [Obama] had the luxury of presenting his story alone." Since when should a presidential candidate have the ability to present his own story without critical comment and investigation by the media? And especially on the subject of admitted use of marijuana and cocaine and connections to communists? But that has been the case with Obama, and that is why Corsi is being attacked.
Source
Distorting the DHL Deal
An AFL-CIO flier and Obama campaign ads say that McCain cost Ohioans 8,000 jobs. We say that's a distortion of the record
Summary
Ads from the AFL-CIO and the Obama campaign claim that McCain is partly to blame for the loss of more than 8,000 jobs in Ohio. They paint a false picture.
There's at least some truth in both ads: German-based DHL announced a deal that could result in 8,200 lost jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. And McCain did in fact oppose an amendment that would have kept DHL from buying Wilmington-based Airborne Express. McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was also a DHL lobbyist charged with easing the merger through the Senate.
But the ads go too far. Some statements about McCain are misleading and some of the inferences the ads invite are unsubstantiated:
* The ads charge that McCain opposition to a 2003 amendment helped DHL and amounted to turning his back on workers. That's misleading. McCain said he opposed a version of the amendment because it was a special project inserted into an unrelated bill, not to help DHL. And the Teamsters union praised the merger at the time, saying that it would lead to more jobs. And at first, more jobs indeed followed.
* The ads also imply that the DHL merger is a direct cause of the job losses in Ohio, which we find to be both unlikely and unsubstantiated. Airborne Express had laid off 2,000 employees before the merger, and analysts at the time said that the struggling carrier would need to make expensive investments in its international infrastructure to remain competitive.
Analysis
The AFL-CIO and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama are blaming John McCain for the loss of more than 8,000 jobs in southwestern Ohio. The AFL-CIO mailer is the most explicit, saying that "McCain helped cut a deal that sent over 8,000 jobs to a foreign-owned company." Obama's television ad, which began airing on Aug. 14, charges that "John McCain helped pave the way for foreign-owned DHL to take over an American shipping company." An Obama radio ad, which began airing in Ohio over the weekend, repeats the message that McCain "used his influence in the Senate to help foreign-owned DHL buy a U.S. company and gain control over the jobs that are now on the chopping block in Ohio."
The Backstory
In 2003, DHL, a company owned by Deutsche Post (the German equivalent of the U.S. Postal Service) announced that it would purchase the ground fleet of Seattle-based Airborne Express. The merger gave DHL a fleet of more than 15,000 trucks, as well as ownership of Airborne's Wilmington, Ohio, hub, which consisted of a sorting facility and the world's largest privately owned airport.
Legal challenges from United Parcel Services and FedEx prevented DHL from purchasing Airborne's air freight service. That's because federal law prohibits foreign ownership of any U.S. airline. As a result of those legal challenges, DHL had to sell the airline it had already owned to American investors. That airline became ASTAR Air Cargo. Moreover, when DHL purchased Airborne Express, it had to spin off the air cargo portion into a separate business, ABX Air, which remained under the ownership of the original Airborne Express stockholders.
The upshot is that DHL cannot fly its own packages. It collects packages on the ground and transports them to airports, but it has to contract the air transport of those packages to U.S.-owned airlines. DHL had used ABX Air (which also operated the sorting facility in Wilmington) and ASTAR Air Cargo to move packages by air. But, in May 2008, DHL announced that it would no longer use ABX or ASTAR and would instead pursue an agreement to contract its sorting and air freight to UPS. ABX Air President John Graber says that the move could cost his company 6,000 jobs. Wilmington's mayor, David Raizk, told the Dayton Daily News that another 1,000 ASTAR employees as well as 1,200 DHL workers could face unemployment as well.....
There is some truth to the ads. As we said, as many as 8,200 workers in Wilmington are likely to lose their jobs as a result of DHL's decision to outsource to UPS. It's also true that in 2003, some senators supported legislation that was designed to make German-owned DHL's purchase of U.S.-owned Airborne Express less attractive. McCain did in fact oppose the legislation. And it's true that DHL paid $185,000 to the firm of Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, to lobby for the merger (the $590,000 cited in the AFL-CIO mailer represents the entire amount that Davis' firm collected from DHL during Davis' tenure, most of which went for lobbying on other measures). But it's misleading to say, as Obama does, that McCain "used his influence" to help DHL "buy a U.S. company and gain control over" the 8,200 jobs in question. The AFL-CIO's claim that McCain "could have stopped the deal" is one we find dubious, to say the least.
More here
Obama's Well-Oiled Machine
While Barack Obama and his family were sunning on the beach in Hawaii last week, it was full speed ahead at his headquarters here. When I visited for the first time, the suite of rooms on the 11th floor of a rather posh office building on North Michigan Avenue -- known as "The Magnificent Mile" -- was filled with young people, most of them engrossed with the laptops on their desks.
I went there in part to take the temperature of Obama's senior aides before next week's opening of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Having seen the Obama "machine" at work in places from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina and elsewhere during the nomination fight, I was curious how they were gearing up for their first national campaign.
The answer to the first question is that they seem very confident. As for the second, they appear to have expanded the scope of their efforts without losing the purposeful focus that was so important in the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the other challengers.
I had just come from listening to George McGovern lament the lack of discipline that wrecked his 1972 nominating convention and, perhaps, his chance of challenging Richard Nixon. "My acceptance speech was the best speech I ever gave," he said, "and it went on at 3 a.m. Eastern time, so nobody saw it." That is unlikely to happen to Obama. Now that he and Clinton have agreed -- sensibly -- on giving her the roll-call vote her ardent supporters demanded, no contentious issues of policy or procedure remain to be ironed out.
One of the people I interviewed, senior adviser Anita Dunn, said that the convention goal is to present a "very future-oriented agenda, focused on solving key problems like health care. We'll leave the negative messages to the Republicans." We'll see. I will not be shocked if many of the Democratic speakers take shots at John McCain -- but some of the partisan rhetoric may not make the one hour of prime time the networks have allocated to the Democrats each night.
The Obama people believe that McCain has squandered an opportunity to make a positive case for his own election in the many months since he secured the votes for the Republican nomination. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, argues that McCain is already feeling a backlash to his "negative attacks" and that the resulting skepticism may undercut any potential benefit he derives from the debates this fall.
But the Obama folks are not leaving it to chance. Plouffe said that "turnout is the big variable," and the campaign is devoting an unusually large budget to register scads of new voters and bring them to the polls. "That's how we win the Floridas and Ohios," he said, mentioning two states that went narrowly for George W. Bush. "And that's how we get competitive in the Indianas and Virginias," two of six or seven states that long have been Republican -- but are targets this year. "That's why I pay more attention to the registration figures than to the polls I see at this time of year," Plouffe said. "The polls will change, but we know we need 200,000 new voters to be competitive in Georgia, and now is when we have to get them."
Source
Obama interrupts vacation to raise $1.3 million from home state donors
Hawaiian vacations aren't usually money makers, but Barack Obama's has been, as his home state supporters contributed $1.3 million to his campaign at a sold-out fundraiser Tuesday.
Obama interrupted his weeklong family getaway for the event at the Kahala Hotel & Resort, where 500 people donated at least $2,300 apiece to his presidential campaign to hear him speak. Posted at the entrance was a photo collage of Obama's youth in Hawaii, featuring his poofy teenage hairdo and his jump shot on the high school basketball team. Donors who gave $10,000 or more were included in a VIP reception where they got to mingle and pose for pictures with Obama and his wife, Michelle. The pair didn't get too buttoned-up on their vacation and went uncharacteristically casual for a high-dollar fundraiser, him in a short-sleeve shirt and her in a sun dress.
Obama joked that his wife married him only when she found out he was from Hawaii. He said he's been yearning to get back to Hawaii ever since he began running for president a year and a half ago. "I kept on telling my staff, I'm worried about Hawaii," he said. "It's going to be really embarrassing if we don't pull it out. I think I need to spend two or three days campaigning. They said no." He thanked Hawaiians for campaigning for him in his absence.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
16 August, 2008
The Obama Push Back: "Ayers and Dohrn Are Members Of The Establishment"
I am reading through the Obama push-back on the Corsi book to get ready for an appearance on Hannity and Colmes tonight, and the shoddy work product put out by Obama could well throw fuel on the fire. Corsi's certainly got errors in his book, but Obama's team is trying too hard when they assert about unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in response to Corsi that "AYERS AND DOHRN ARE MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT WITH TIES TO THE MAYOR" (p. 16 of the Obama document) or that with regard to Alice Palmer --the Illinois State Senator that Obama's team had removed from the ballot in his first race for state office, that "PALMER PULLED HER OWN PLUG." (p. 18.)
On page 9, Obama's defense brief asserts: OBAMA HAS MADE CLEAR REPEATEDLY THAT HE STOPPED USING MARIJUANA IN COLLEGE, WHICH PEERS HAVE AFFIRMED." But the Corsi assertion being responded to here also pointed out that Obama has yet to answer questions of whether he ever dealt drugs, and the single assertion about quitting that Obama's team cites is from an interview in '03, which is hardly "repeatedly."
I am just getting started, but Obama seems to have made a huge mistake in attempting to spin many of these charges. Most of them are matters of opinion --such as the interpretation of Michelle Obama's "not been proud of America" comment or whether Hamas endorsed Obama. By throwing this much fuel on the fire, the fire gets bigger and all of these stories/charges./assertions get more attention. Corsi is the happiest man in the world tonight because Obama's team not only gave him a few million dollars of publicity, they also failed to discredit him completely.
But the key error is that now Obama will have to do the same thing forDavid Freddoso's extremely well-researched and documented book. Looking forward to that "push-back" as well.
UPDATE: Yuval Levin shares my instinct that the Obama camp has blown this response. It may be a case of believing too much in the myth of the "Swift-boating of John Kerry." Kerry's credibility took a hit because he indeed had not been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve --one of the central charges of the Swift Boat Veterans. By believing in the myth that nothing the SBVT put out was true, the Obama people have stumbled into a response that asserts nothing damaging from Corsi could be true when it fact lots of it is.
And the response to Freddoso's book comes when?
Source
The Audacity of Nope; Obama's oil policy
To plan a long and challenging journey, would you reject Mapquest and GPS and only consult an atlas from the 1970s? Unlikely. But to pinpoint America's offshore oil deposits, Congressional Democrats, starting with Senator Barack Obama, love disco-era maps. Despite his conditional, latter-day support for limited offshore drilling, Obama is the sole sponsor of legislation that would block geological research to locate offshore oil.
Federal officials currently employ estimates based primarily on two-dimensional, black-and-white maps that oil-industry surveyors produced in the 1970s and furnished to the Interior Department. Since 1981, Congressional appropriations amendments effectively have barred Interior from financing or permitting survey expeditions - particularly and precisely in the 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf where oil production and exploration are verboten.
In 2005, Congress mandated new, quintennial inventories, then gave Interior six months and $0.00 to assess how much oil and natural gas undergird the 1.76 billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf - a laughably impossible task. "They couldn't even board a research vessel," explains a congressional staffer who studies these issues. Interior's "paper inventory," the aide adds, "examined Canadian and West African coastal data, imagined where those sediments pooled before the Continental Drift, then extrapolated to guesstimate what's off our Atlantic coast today."
The resulting document states: "Resource estimates are highly dependent on the current knowledge base, which has not been updated in 20 to 40 years for areas under congressional moratorium. . . . " Translation: "We have no idea what's really out there."
Obama's "Oil SENSE Act" would repeal the 2005 Energy Policy Act's authorization of these inventories. Introduced in January 2007, S.115 would leave decision makers with Carter Administration maps drawn with pre-PC technology. This is like engineering a Space Shuttle mission with slide rules.
Obama's bill would prohibit expanded use of 3-D, color seismic techniques that locate and measure underwater oil deposits - even though those tools are in wide use where offshore drilling is allowed, such as the western Gulf of Mexico. In October 1999, President Clinton's Energy Department evaluated the environmental quality of 1970s' 2-D equipment against last decade's 3-D technology. With the latter, Energy concluded, "Overall impacts of exploration and production are reduced because fewer wells are required to develop the same amount of reserves." In 1970, 17 percent of offshore wells struck oil. By 1997, that figure was 48 percent.
Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Drill policy spurns these marvels and embraces outdated information gathered with obsolete instruments. This is the audacity of ignorance. Adults should not make decisions in willful obliviousness. Democrats like Obama prefer not to know what riches rest off America's coasts - since, from their perspective, only bad things can arise politically from finding good things scientifically. They resemble kindergartners who cover their ears and hum loudly to muffle their parents' unwelcome words.
Meanwhile, Americans struggle to fuel planes, trains, and automobiles. Despite this national nightmare, Congressional Democrats fled on a five-week summer vacation, rather than vote on Republican amendments to extend offshore drilling. Democrats chose suntan oil over oil production.
Instead of voting on Republican energy proposals, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., California) dispatched her colleagues to build sandcastles. Nevertheless, GOP representatives unofficially are pleading their case to tourists inside the House chamber.
Moreover, ten Republican senators wrote President Bush on August 1 to request an executive order for an onshore seismic survey of the hydrocarbon resources beneath the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge's 1.5 million acres. "The last seismic survey of the area is 25 years old (winter of 1983-84), and the United States government is operating with outdated information of America's energy inventory," the letter states. "This would be purely informational and environmentally non-intrusive," it continues (emphasis in the original). "Modern seismic testing . . . is roughly equivalent to photography in terms of its environmental impact on land."
This letter was signed by Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, and six other GOP senators, including ranking Republicans of four committees. According to Jim Guirard - president of Washington, D.C.'s TrueSpeak Institute and former chief of staff to the late Senator Russell Long (D., Louisiana) - who encouraged senators to send this letter, other senators were eager to sign on, but ran out of time to do so as Congress' careened toward adjournment.
Senate Democrats favor doubling gasoline prices rather than considering further fuel-supply development, as Human Events' Jed Babbin has observed. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R., Kentucky) asked to debate pro-energy legislation. Senator Ken Salazar (D., Colorado), representing majority Democrats, objected. And if gasoline reached $5.00-per-gallon? Salazar said no. $7.50? McConnell wondered. Salazar: Nyet. McConnell continued, "I would renew my request with the modification that the trigger be $10 a gallon at the pump." Salazar replied: "I object."
Late last month, Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York) complained, "It's Christmas in July" as he denounced oil-industry earnings, even though that sector's 8.3 percent margin for 2007 lagged the chemical and electronics industries' 12.7 and 14.5 percent respective returns. "Big Oil is plowing these profits into stock buybacks instead of increasing production," Schumer huffed.
Naturally, it's hard for Big Oil to generate more petroleum when it cannot open new refineries, develop the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, broaden offshore production, nor even modernize its underwater maps. This is like screaming at Mom because dinner is late - while blocking the kitchen door.
For all their supposed sophistication, Obama, Pelosi, Salazar, Schumer, and their caucus-mates are anti-intellectual eco-Luddites. Democratic bullheadedness deserves the republic's scorn.
Source
It's a Tough Cycle to Run Young/Fresh Face' Against 'Trusted and Tested.'
Steven Stark, over at RCP:History shows that the Democrats are up against an experienced, steady Republican candidate who is unlikely to make major mistakes. And their nominee, after a brilliant start in January and February to launch his candidacy and cement his base, hasn't had a terrific six months. Obama continues to show few signs of extending his support to the demographics that are likely to decide the election - principally the working-class voters concentrated in industrial states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.This ties into a conversation with Mrs. CampaignSpot last night.
If you had to pick two words most often used to promote modern Republican nominees - Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain - they would be "trusted" and "tested." The only one on that list who comes close to being a "fresh face" on that list is George W. Bush, and he began the 2000 election cycle with extremely high name recognition and the Bush family Rolodex. People felt like they knew him already from his father.
By comparison, the Democrats are much more inclined to go with the fresh face/dark horse:. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. The only old political veterans on that list are Mondale, Gore, and Kerry, and the party flirted with Hart in 1984 and Dean in 2004. (McGovern was 50 when he ran in 1972, but he was associated with the young anti-establishment, "amnesty, abortion and acid", etc.)
If Obama loses, many of his fans will take it as ipso facto evidence of deep and pervasive racism in America. But it is more likely to be that this wasn't the cycle to run "young/fresh face" against "trusted and tested."
We may be on the verge of winning in Iraq, but Afghanistan is getting tougher. Pakistan is still an unstable cauldron of extremism where America has limited options. Iran is seeking nukes and the Israelis have an itchy trigger finger. The Russian bear is in the woods again, stomping on Georgia. China is rising and showcasing authoritarian capitalism as an alternative to Western-style democracy. If the FBI is right, one guy with no state or group backing managed to terrorize Americans in fall 2001 by slipping poisons in envelopes. Gas prices are dropping, but Americans won't quickly forget $4 a gallon prices, nor the recognition that faraway pipelines and Nigerian political stability can suddenly affect them at the pump. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac ran aground, the housing bubble burst, the border's not secure...
Maybe 1992, and perhaps 2000 were good cycles to run "young/fresh face" against "trusted and tested." But this isn't 1992 or 2000.
Source
McCain's Boots Defeat Obama's Suits
A man, they say, can be judged by his friends. If that's the case, then Barack Obama can surely be judged by George Clooney. The UK Daily Mail reported this week that the "Ocean's Eleven" actor regularly speaks with and text messages the presumptive Democratic nominee, advising him on everything from fashion to foreign policy. "George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East," stated a Democratic Party insider. "George is pushing him to be more 'balanced' on issues such as U.S. relations with Israel. George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins."
In my last book, "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House," I highlighted perhaps the chief deciding factor for voters in presidential elections: suits versus boots. I explained that Americans always prefer the cowboy candidate -- the boots candidate -- to the glitzy, arrogant urban type -- the suits candidate. Americans like tough guys. We don't like candidates who consult with actors on foreign policy.
Americans prefer boots to suits for one simple reason: Americans prefer action to rhetoric. Arrogant bombast -- the traditional preserve of the big city lawyers -- is not our style. We like determined policy-making. We like candidates who take no crap rather than candidates who spout bull-crap.
If the McCain campaign can highlight the fact that Barack Obama is the suit-iest man ever to run for president, Obama will lose the 2008 election. And it will not be close.
When John Kerry ran for president in 2004, I thought he was the biggest suit the nation had ever seen on the presidential stage. Barack Obama surpasses him exponentially. Obama is a former law professor and "community organizer" (i.e., a rabble-rousing grievance-monger). Obama thrills to the cheers of Berliners but shuns visiting wounded troops if he cannot be accompanied by campaign staff and cameras. He hangs out with terrorists-cum-professors, racial radicals-cum-pastors and actors-cum-politicians, but he demeans rural voters as simpletons who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." He recommends that hard-working Americans fight high gas prices with tire gauges, but complains about the price of arugula. He proclaims himself "a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," creates his own presidential seal and labels his chair on his campaign airplane "President," but says that America is no longer "what it could be, what it once was."
John McCain, by contrast, is a boots candidate in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt. He spent over five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, refusing a ticket home if it meant leaving his men behind. He has a long tradition of voting the way he believes, even if it means ticking off his own base. He hails from Arizona, owns a ranch and doesn't look uncomfortable donning a Stetson.
The biggest contrast between the suity Obama and the booty McCain isn't image, though -- it's substance. When the chips are down, Obama plays rhetorical games. McCain shoots from the hip, and he shoots straight.
Last week, in the mold of Hitler's Czechoslovakian annexation, Vladimir Putin claimed that a breakaway province of Georgia required Russian protection. He then sent Russian troops into Georgia in an attempt to take control of Georgian oil pipelines.
Barack Obama responded by recommending a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russian aggression, as well insertion of a UN peacekeeping force -- a ridiculous suggestion, considering that Russia has a permanent seat on the Security Council and can veto any such resolution. His campaign stated, in Neville Chamberlain-esque fashion, that the situation in Georgia is "both sides' fault -- both have been somewhat provocative with each other." Obama called for restraint from both sides.
McCain, by contrast, demonstrated the moral clarity of the maverick. Russia, he said, needed to immediately withdraw from Georgia. Georgia, he said, should be admitted to NATO forthwith, which would force NATO to intervene in order to maintain Georgia's borders. "Today," McCain said, "we are all Georgians."
There is a reason Americans prefer boots to suits. We don't want George Clooney advising on foreign policy. We don't want a president who sees every international conflict as an exercise in moral equivalence. We don't believe in politicians who see talk as the be-all, end-all.
We DO want a president who will stand up to the Hitlers, the Stalins and yes, the Putins. We want a president who understands that talk is cheap and action is valuable. We want a boots president. John McCain will be that president.
Source
Obama supports "Special interests"
We take it for granted that a vote means a secret ballot but it was not always that way. Moreover, it will not remain that way for workers who vote on whether or not they want a labor union, if legislation sponsored by Congressional Democrats and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama becomes law. Before there were secret ballots, voters dared not express their true preferences if those who watched them vote could retaliate-- whether by firing them, beating them up or in other ways. Anyone who is serious about people being free to express themselves with their votes wants a secret ballot.
The problem for labor unions is that workers in the private sector increasingly vote against being represented by unions. The proportion of workers in the private sector who are represented by unions has fallen below 10 percent.
Since unions are losing the game under the current rules, their obvious answer is to change the rules. Specifically, they want to do away with secret ballots when the government conducts elections to determine whether the workers in a particular company or industry want to be represented by a union.
With labor unions being major supporters of the Democratic Party-- spending hundreds of millions of dollars in this year's election campaign-- it is hardly surprising that Congressional Democrats have lined up solidly behind legislation to let union organizers simply collect signed cards from a majority of workers, in order to be certified as the officially recognized union for those workers.
Of course, the union organizers will then know who did and who did not vote for them. And they may have long memories or short fuses, or both. Moreover, the workers themselves know that, so they may find it prudent to sign up for a union, whether they want one or not.
This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year but did not make it through the Senate. "I will make it the law of the land when I'm President of the United States," Barack Obama has said to the AFL-CIO.
Senator Obama has also said many times that he is against "special interests." But, like most politicians who say that, he means that he is against other politicians' special interests. His own special interests are never called special interests.
Neither are the environmental extremists who support the Democrats called special interests. But the green zealots who have for decades blocked the country from using oil within our own borders-- more oil than in Saudi Arabia, by the way-- are also among the special interests with a big voice in the Democratic Party.
They are also a major factor in shutting down the democratic voting process-- in this case, in the House of Representatives, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a vote on drilling for oil in places where the green zealots don't want drilling.
The Congressional Democrats could of course vote to continue forbidding drilling in those places. But voters paying $4 a gallon for gas are not likely to agree with the green zealots-- and recent polls show that they do not.
Rather than lose votes in the November elections by voting with the green zealots, or lose the money that the green zealots contribute to the Democratic Party coffers, Nancy Pelosi simply shut down the House of Representatives, so that there could be no votes, and turned off the lights so that C-SPAN could not broadcast Republicans' speeches protesting what happened.
After all, what is democracy compared to support from the green zealots?
It is the same story when it comes to the teachers' unions, the biggest special interest of all in the Democratic Party. They not only contribute money, they can contribute people who walk the precincts on election nights, rounding up the faithful to go vote.
Even the Congressional Black Caucus dares not vote for vouchers or any other form of school choice that the teachers' unions oppose. Better to let a whole generation of black children be trapped in failing schools that employ union teachers.
But special interests? Not at all.
Source
Is the undead Hillary a threat to Obama?
It seems like just yesterday that our beloved Bambi was all dressed up like a kid on the first day of school, jaunting off to strange places with names even funnier than his. And although wet behind the ears, he wowed `em wherever he went. There he was, marching smartly beside Afghan president Karzai, smiling that winningly goofy smile of his, and every media outlet I saw said that he was "polishing his foreign-policy credentials." It was like that scene in Evita where Evita sails off to Europe to show Franco and Mussolini that she's not just some cheap tart, but the high-flying, adored First Lady of Argentina on a rainbow high!
There he was again, patting Nouri al-Maliki on the back at the presidential palace in Baghdad and gesturing to the Iraqi leader to sit down, like al-Maliki was visiting the Obamas at their mansion in Hyde Park or something. I mean, the man looked very comfortable ordering Bush's stooge - excuse me, the brave Iraqi leader who's enthusiastically endorsed the Obama Peace Plan - around. Downright presidential, in fact.
Sure, he shot hoops instead of visiting the jackbooted thugs - excuse me, the maimed and wounded victims of Bush's misguided foreign-policy blunder - in that military hospital, but he made up for it by cozying up to Sarkozy in France and trying on No. 10 Downing St. for size while in London.
The trip all culminated, of course, in the great speech at the Siegess„ule in Berlin (which poor New York Times columnist Bob Herbert mistook for both the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa), which sent 200,000 Germans into paroxysms of ecstasy not seen since Leni Riefenstahl was toting a camera. Nobody feels more like a citizen of the world than the Germans, especially when they're hungry and don't have time to phone ahead to Paris or Rome for reservations.
And yet. where was the bounce? Obama's statistically insignificant lead over that wrinkly old white dude, what's his name, barely budged. And then the usual Rethuglican Smear Machine critics starting carping that the former Barry Soetero didn't have what it takes, wasn't a closer, blah blah blah. Luckily, the major media took Che's suggestion from the Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's musical, when Evita comes a cropper before her London visit: "You'd better get out the flags and fix a parade. Some kind of coming home in triumph is expected."
[cue music from Jaws]
So it was three cheers for BO Jr., and then it was off to Hawaii, where he could revisit the scenes of his youth as a poor half-black sharecropper, or a pampered half-white kid attending the tony Punahou School, or some combination of both, while a leggy Paris Hilton in a bikini was making goo-goo eyes at John McCain and proposing the most perfectly sensible energy policy anyone ever heard. Do both? Now that's bipartisanship.
And then.
[Jaws music gets louder]
I get back from frisking and frolicking with the caribou in Alaska - who, by the way, totally agree with Harry Reid that no way we should drill there - to learn that Hillary is actually going to have her name put in nomination at the Denver convention. Worse, Obama has agreed. When even Maureen Dowd can see at a glance that this is not a good idea, brother Obi-wan - you've got a problem!
I mean, my goodness, has the man never seen one of my movies? Has he never seen any horror movie? This may well turn out to be the dumbest move since the president of Georgia double-dog dared the old KGB goon, Vlad "the Impaler" Putin, to do something about South Ossetia while George Bush was fanny-patting the American women's beach volleyball team in Beijing.
Yes, my friends, the lady senator from the great state of New York, Eliot Spitzer, Governor - excuse me, I mean what's his name, no, not McGreevey, the other guy, you know who I'm talking about - will be formally nominated as one of the two Democrat candidates for president of these United States.
On paper she has no chance. But the Clintons, like the Yankees, don't play the games on paper. They play them for real and they play them for keeps. Bill Clinton didn't grow up at the feet of the greatest gangster of the Prohibition era, Owney Madden, hanging out at the Southern Club & Grill down there in the delightfully corrupt little city of Hot Springs, Ark., and not learn a thing or two about how to mug a fellow and yet maintain plausible deniability.
And while Barack Hussein Obama II Barry Soetero Barack Hussein Obama Jr., may in fact be a card-carrying Chicago/Daley-machine hack - did you notice how he dredged up an Irish ancestor the other day? - he's got nothing on the former Goldwater Girl with an accent flatter than the real place in Kansas where Barry's mom, Stanley, grew up.
Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives pantsuits a bad name. Sure, she's the kind of gal my dad's generation knew back in college in the Sixties, the one who wore granny dresses and never shaved her legs and slept with the poetry professor and had a "War is Harmful to Children and Other Living Things" poster on her dorm room wall and gave the Black Power salute to the other white kids and worshipped Saul Alinsky and Herbert Marcuse and always argued in class that communism had never really been given a proper try, so why not here and why not now?
But that generation was pretty tough. O.K., they lost Vietnam to a bunch of guys in pajamas but they took to the streets in Hillary's hometown of Chicago and bloodied the pigs pretty good. They blew up buildings - Bambi's mentor, Bill Ayers, comes to mind - and even killed some people. Charlie Manson gave the whole movement a bad name and the Rolling Stones didn't help when that black guy got murdered at Altamont, but you see what I'm driving at: Hillary's minions know how to party.
[Jaws music is deafening now. We may or may not glimpse a Great White Shark swimming menacingly toward the camera.]
So that's why I'm not going to Denver. Not only do I already know the ending of this movie - Gidget Goes Hawaiian vs. Predator - but I'm already back to work on a new picture.
For, sure enough, no sooner was I back home in my palatial pad in Echo Park when the phone rang and what do you know it was my agent, asking whether I could get right to work on a new picture: The Morning After the Morning After the Night of the Return of the Living Undead: This Time, It's Personal.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
15 August, 2008
Not Pictured Here
To the Left, "There is no such thing as truth", of course
An Obama ad features video of McCain walking toward the camera with a group of people in power suits, as the narrator says, "the lobbyists, running his low road campaign." None of the people pictured are lobbyists, however.
The ad also repeats a misleading claim that McCain favors "billions in tax breaks for big oil and drug companies." But McCain's tax policy doesn't target those industries. He calls for lowering the corporate tax rate for all companies.
Barack Obama's campaign has been very forthright about criticizing John McCain for having lobbyists work for his campaign. Yet a new Obama TV ad, released Aug. 11, gives a false picture - quite literally - of who exactly they are.
The ad features a shot of McCain walking with a serious-looking group of people in power suits as the narrator says, "The lobbyists" - dramatic pause - "running his low road campaign." But none of the folks pictured are actually lobbyists. Not even former lobbyists. And two of them are Secret Service guys.
The Washington Times' Christina Bellantoni noted the discrepancy in the ad Aug. 11, identifying those pictured as, from left to right, "an unidentified Secret Service agent, eBay executive Meg Whitman, McCain, another Secret Service agent, traveling press aide Brooke Buchanan and Greg Wendt, a San Francisco Democrat and volunteer adviser who travels with McCain." The McCain campaign confirms that those are the identities of the people pictured.
The Obama campaign justifies the ad's statement that "the lobbyists" are running McCain's campaign by citing various press reports about McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, who is a former telecommunications lobbyist; senior adviser Charlie Black, who was chairman of the lobbying firm BKSH & Associates and who recently stepped down to work for McCain; and several other McCain advisers that have worked as lobbyists. McCain said in February that while lobbyists serve as his advisers, "they're honorable people, and I'm proud to have them as part of my team," as reported by the Associated Press. In May, the McCain camp announced a new conflict-of-interest policy saying that no one working for the campaign could be a currently registered lobbyist. There are now former lobbyists in the campaign.
When we asked the Obama camp about its use of an image lacking any actual lobbyists, former or otherwise, spokesman Tommy Vietor told us, "I think everyone knows which lobbyists are running his campaign." If so, everyone should also know they're not pictured in this ad.
Source
Obama camp still can't verify return of Arab cash
More questions than answers in illegal Middle East donor affair
One week after WND reported Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip illegally contributed to Barack Obama's campaign, the Democratic presidential candidate's team has not responded to repeated WND requests for a clarification regarding how purported refunds were returned. The brothers told WND their money was not refunded.
Last week it was exposed Palestinian Gazans Monir, Hosam and Osama Edwan made a series of donations online at Obama's official campaign website totaling more than $30,000. The donations violate election laws, including prohibitions against receiving contributions from foreigners and accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.
The Wall Street Journal reported it spoke to Obama officials who said the nearly $33,500 in donations were received between Sept. 20 and Dec. 6 of last year and that most of the money was returned by Dec. 6. The campaign claimed, however, the refunds were not reported to the Federal Election Commission due to a technical error. The Obama camp insisted the remaining $2,500 was refunded Aug. 4 and that all the refunds will be reflected soon in an amended report. The campaign said new controls are in place to prevent any similar attempts in the future.
But WND spoke to the brothers, who denied the Obama campaign refunded their money. "No, we did not receive any money back from the Obama campaign at any time," said Monir Edwan. The Edwans continue to maintain their financial transactions made on Obama's campaign website were not actual donations but purchases of "Obama for President" T-shirts. The transactions, however, were listed as donations in U.S. government election filings.
More here
Polls show landslide scenario unlikely
From the fever swamps of the blogosphere to the halls of academia, there is a chorus of voices who have come to the same conclusion about the presidential election: Barack Obama is going to win in November, by something resembling a landslide. Yet for all the breathless analysis and number-crunching that has convinced observers Obama is en route to an epic victory, there is one key historic fact that is often overlooked - most popular vote landslides were clearly visible by the end of summer. And by that indicator, 2008 doesn't measure up.
In five of the six post-war landslides (defined as a victory of 10 percentage points or more) the eventual winner was ahead by at least 10 percentage points in the polls at the close of August, according to a Politico analysis of historical Gallup polls. Over the past week, however, Gallup's daily tracking poll pegs Obama ahead of John McCain by a margin of 2-5 percentage points. The one exception to the August rule was 1980. Ronald Reagan was trailing slightly in the August polls before surging forward to win by roughly a 10-point margin.
By comparison, the biggest post-war landslides - 1964, 1972 and 1984 - were signaled by a large, double-digit advantage held by the eventual winner at the close of August. Lyndon Johnson was trouncing Barry Goldwater in one late August 1964 Gallup poll, 67 percent to 26 percent, taken on the opening day of the Democratic convention. A July poll showed Johnson also winning by a two to one ratio. Johnson went on to win the race 61 percent to 38 percent.
While Richard Nixon in the summer of 1972 was not faring as well as Johnson in late summer 1964, it was nevertheless clear in Gallup's polling that the incumbent was on his way to a rout that would have been hardly imaginable just four years before. In mid-July, Nixon was only ahead by about 10 percentage points. But by early August, Gallup tracked that his lead had grown to twice that much. He went on to win by 23 percentage points, nearly his exact margin in August.
Reagan, in his 1984 reelection campaign, also was ahead by a modest 10 points in August. But he won in the fall by nearly twice that margin.
In the past two months, Obama's polling has held steady, remaining in a narrow single-digit band. "There certainly was a definite cockiness that Democrats felt once they regained control of Congress, and I've also felt it was a misplaced cockiness," pollster John Zogby said. Still, he acknowledged why there was such optimism. "You've got a lot of conditions that are similar to 1932 and similar to 1980, a very unpopular president and the party brand badly hurt."
More here
Ohio allowing residents to register and vote for president on same day
To benefit Obama
Never mind the last days of the presidential campaign. The busiest days for Barack Obama's campaign in this perennial swing state are likely to be a month before Election Day. Ohio has created a window in the election calendar that would allow residents instant gratification - register one minute, vote the next. It's also given the campaigns of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain a chance to bank thousands of first-time voters during that Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 window.
The move will benefit Obama, who enjoys a 2-to-1 lead over McCain among 18- to 34-year-olds, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month. If Obama's campaign were able to tap into college campuses with one-stop voting, it would add thousands of votes to his tally in a state where, in 2004, John Kerry lost to President Bush by only about 118,000 votes, putting Bush over the top in the electoral count.
Of the more than 470,000 students enrolled in Ohio's public colleges and universities in 2006, the most recent figures available, nine out of 10 were Ohio residents, the state Board of Regents said. To register to vote in Ohio, a person must be a resident of the state for at least 30 days immediately before an election.
Ohio elections officials say they are working out potential kinks, such as questions about whether a vote counts when it is cast or when it's counted. They also are trying to address potential fears of massive voting fraud, and what effect this influx is going to mean on vote security.
Allowing voters to cast their ballots weeks before Election Day is a growing trend. More than a dozen states permit early voting, and more than two dozen provide an absentee ballot to any registered voter for any reason. The battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico allow voters both options. In Ohio, Republicans are clearly not pleased with same-day registration and voting and have not ruled out a lawsuit against Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's office. "You have to wonder, when they look at what they consider a loophole with such excitement," said Jason Mauk, the Ohio Republican Party's executive director. "That would suggest manipulating the process, and I think opens the door to suspicion."
The voting window, so far, is only being implemented in some counties - typically, urban areas or those with college campuses - leading Republicans to cry foul. "The prospect of someone coming in with no ID and registering and voting is contrary to every sort of protection that legislators and lawmakers have built into this system for decades," said Kevin DeWine, a Republican lawmaker who is poised to take over the state party after the election. "The processes and the law and the systems in our 88 counties are not equipped to handle same-day registration." People in Ohio can register without identification, but they have to show some sort of ID to vote.
State lawmakers accidentally made the window before the 2006 elections. Obama's campaign is eager to take advantage of it this year. "This is one of many ways we'll be encouraging our supporters to skip the lines on Election Day and make sure their vote is cast early," said Isaac Baker, an Obama spokesman.
The move is likely to bring Obama to Ohio for nonstop campaigning that week. Also, television ads are expected to be in heavy play as both campaigns try to take advantage of the electoral oddity. And the early push could help neutralize any last-minute attacks by one campaign on the other. Outside, independent groups also are looking at spending a lot of time on campuses that week. Organized labor and liberal activist groups see a chance to build their numbers.
Obama, 47, has been attracting a strong following on campuses, something his campaign has aggressively targeted. McCain, 71, has made attempts but has struggled.
Ohio has been a must-win state for presidential candidates during past cycles, but Obama advisers had been weighing a move to skip it. He lost 83 of 88 counties during his fierce primary campaign against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Some Democrats privately fear the map in the general election against McCain will look very similar.
Obama has trailed in support from rural voters and white, working-class voters. He hasn't campaigned in rural areas, despite advice from Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, whose aggressive rural strategy helped him win his job in 2006 and was repeated for Clinton during March's primary. But Obama advisers now look at Ohio's campuses as a possible way to offset the losses. It has Ohio Republicans frustrated. Traditionally, young people make a lot of noise about elections and then stay home. If they don't actually have to turn up at the polls on Election Day, then they might take a greater interest. Mauk said if Brunner doesn't apply the "loophole" in all counties, lawsuits are an option Republicans have to consider.
The secretary of state's spokesman acknowledged the window exists. "Instructions are being developed and being sent to boards of election across the state to make sure voting is consistent," said Jeff Ortega, Brunner's spokesman.
Its impact is going to be felt in non-presidential races as well. For instance, Ohio State University is the largest college in the country, with more than 52,000 students enrolled on its main campus in Columbus. Democrats are eyeing it as key to helping Mary Jo Kilroy win her House seat to replace Republican Deborah Pryce, who is not seeking re-election. "There is no question that the huge effort to register and turn out voters at Ohio State University is going to have a positive impact on our race," said Brad Bauman, a spokesman for Kilroy.
Ohio election law for the first time will allow voters to cast a presidential ballot by mail for any reason. In the past, there were specific provisions by which voters could cast a ballot early. But the law was changed; this is the first national general election in which it will be in play. In 2004, more young people cast ballots than any other time since 18- to 20-year-olds earned the right to vote in 1972. Turnout in 2004 was up 11 percentage points over 2000. Even so, 47 percent of eligible 18- to 24-year-old voters didn't cast a ballot that year. During 2002's midterm elections, 82 percent of that group said they did not vote.
Source
A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Pat Buchanan
In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown. But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.
For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary." Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure." And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."
As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death." Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste. How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?
If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath? How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.
When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."
Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right? Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?
And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
Source
The Galbraith Effect?
by Thomas Sowell
Many years ago, when I was a college student, I took a course from John Kenneth Galbraith. On the first day of class, Professor Galbraith gave a brilliant opening lecture, after which the students gave him a standing ovation. Galbraith kept on giving brilliant opening lectures the whole semester. But, instead of standing ovations, there were now dwindling numbers of students and some of them got up and walked out in the middle of his lectures. Galbraith never got beyond the glittering generalities that marked his first lecture. After a while, the students got tired of not getting any real substance.
Senator Barack Obama's campaign this year reminds me very much of that course from Professor Galbraith. Many people were ecstatic during the early primaries, as each state's voters heard his glittering generalities for the first time. The media loved the novelty of a black candidate with a real chance to become president, and his left-wing vision of the world was largely their vision as well. There was a veritable media honeymoon for Obama.
There was outrage in the mainstream media when ABC anchor man Charles Gibson asked Obama a serious question about the economic effects of a capital gains tax. Who interrupts honeymooners to talk economics? The fact that Senator Obama did not have a very coherent answer made things worse-- for Charles Gibson. Since Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of many of his supporters, they resented Gibson's having asked him such a question.
The question, incidentally was why Senator Obama was advocating a higher capital gains tax rate, when experience had shown that the government typically collected more revenue from a lower capital gains tax rate than from a higher rate. Senator Obama acted as if he had never thought about it that way. He probably hadn't. He is a politician, not an economist.
Politically, what matters to the left-wing base that Obama has been playing to for decades is sticking it to "the rich." What effect that has on the tax revenues received by the government is secondary, at best. What effect a higher capital gains tax rate will have on the economy today and on people's pensions in later years is a question that is not even on Senator Obama's radar screen.
Economists may say that higher capital gains tax rates can translate into lower levels of economic activity and fewer jobs, but Obama will leave that kind of analysis to the economists. He is in politics, and what matters politically is what wins votes right here and right now.
The kind of talk that won the votes-- and the hearts-- of the left-wing base of the Democratic Party during the primaries may not be enough to carry the day with voters in the general election. So Senator Obama has been changing his tune or, as he puts it, "refining" his message. This was not the kind of "change" that the true believers among Obama's supporters were expecting. So there has been some wavering among the faithful and some ups and downs in the polls.
Despite an impressive political machine and a huge image makeover this year to turn a decades-long, divisive grievance-promoting activist into someone who is supposed to unite us all and lead us into the promised land of "change," little glimpses of the truth keep coming out.
The elitist sneers at people who believe in religion and who own guns, the Americans who don't speak foreign languages and the views of the "typical white person," are all like rays of light that show through the cracks in Obama's carefully crafted image.
The overwhelming votes for Obama in some virtually all-white states show that many Americans are ready to move beyond race. But Obama himself wants to have it both ways, by attributing racist notions to the McCain camp that has never made race an issue.
The problem with clever people is that they don't know when to stop being clever-- and Senator Obama is a very clever man, perhaps "too clever by half" as the British say. But maybe he can't keep getting by with glittering generalities, any more than Galbraith could.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
14 August, 2008
Obama chooses a foreigner to record his theme song
No Americans good enough? How about Ludacris?
The British soul singer Joss Stone is recording a theme-song for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Mr Obama is said to have approached the 21-year-old from Devon personally to ask her to write a one-off track, partly because he believes her music has cross-racial appeal. Stone, who spends up to nine months a year in the US, was said to be "honoured" to have been asked and is now in a recording studio working on the song.
Alicia Keys and Jay-Z have also dedicated songs to Mr Obama in the lead up to his November election battle with the Republican senator John McCain.
Miss Stone is well-known in the US, where her third album, Introducing Joss Stone, debuted at number two in the Billboard album chart - the highest new entry by a British female artist in US chart history.
Source
The doubts starting to rein back Obama
Even Andrew Sullivan has doubts. He says that Obama has stalled in the polls as voters start to fear handing both the presidency and Congress to the left. See below
Why is it so close? That's been the chatter after these past two weeks in the three-month run of the Obama-McCain smackdown. The Obamaphiles are nervous that their man has stalled in the polls after what, objectively, was a successful trip overseas. The McCainites, terrified of a Democratic wave, are taking solace in the failure of Barack Obama to break away. The straggling Clintonites are busy preparing their told-you-sos.
There are any number of theories offered for the tightness. One is that Obama is too temperamentally aloof for most Americans. According to the columnist Maureen Dowd, he is the Mr Darcy of American politics, too proud, while Americans are still a little too prejudiced. Or maybe Obama is too popular with Germans for his own domestic good (he's lucky he didn't hold a rally on the Champs Elys‚es). Or is his orthodox liberalism in many areas seeping through, while America remains a centre-right country? Others posit that the only halfway normal Americans who focus on the campaign in early August are the elderly, and they are demographically more in tune with John McCain.
Who knows for sure? My view is that McCain was always the most appealing Republican in the current atmosphere and Obama is, for many people, a less well-known and riskier bet. But two factors are undervalued. The first is Iraq. It's easily forgotten but Obama's candidacy would never have gained the slightest traction were it not for his opposition to the war from the start. It's what distinguished him from Hillary Clinton and, in the midst of apparent chaos and drift in Mesopotamia, his campaign gave voice to those who simply wanted to cut American losses and move on.
However, there's a difference between Iraq in mid2006 and Iraq in mid2008. The swift decline in violence and the growing confidence of the government of Nouri al-Maliki have changed the debate from how to leave as quickly as feasible to the costs and benefits of staying longer or leaving sooner, and the tactics of each option. The catastrophe endures, of course; the political progress in Baghdad remains fitful, as the Iraqis' failure last week to compromise on plans for provincial elections this autumn demonstrates; and the financial costs grow all the time. However, the sharp decline in American deaths has rescued the neo-imperial project from universal obloquy. McCain can rightly claim that he was more right about General David Petraeus's tactical shift than Obama was. In some respects, he was more right than even Petraeus was.
To be sure, Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal timetable was a big blow to the McCain effort to describe the Democrat's policy as surrender or betrayal. However, any news that takes the edge off Iraq as a total fiasco helps the Republican. Americans don't like to admit defeat and the face-saving qualities of the surge give McCain an opening to end the war with less disgrace than might have been the case. McCain's position, after all, was to hang in while Iraq burnt because the alternative was worse. His new position is to hang in and somehow turn a strategic blunder into a strategic success. This is a much, much better place for McCain to be than he was just five months ago. Still not great; but no longer awful.
The second factor, I'd argue, is, paradoxically, Democratic strength. The shift away from the Republicans is pronounced everywhere and few doubt that the Democrats could make big gains in both House and Senate this autumn. This is partly behind the worries about Obama: he's trailing his party by a significant margin. However, it may be that the margin is precisely what's giving voters pause. The threat of the kind of Republican agenda that propelled George Bush from 2002 to 2006 is, after all, much diminished. McCain, moreover, is not so bad a figure to deal with a Democratic Congress from the perspective of many independent voters, especially since Congress is pretty much reviled as well.
The choice has evolved to that between an all-Democratic government, headed by a senator whose newness is still one of the most striking things about him, and an old, familiar warhorse who irritated all the right Republicans at one point or another and has a record of bipartisan achievement. Seen in that light, the voters' reluctance to swing behind Obama in landslide numbers is understandable.
Obama has huge liabilities. He has never held real executive office and has been in Washington barely for a single senatorial term. He came out of nowhere to dominate the scene in ways that many Americans are still trying to process. He has been criticised as a far-left extremist, a prissy elitist, a cynical centrist and a secretly Muslim fraud. Examining this figure who is asking to be president at the tender age of 47, watching him adapt and move on the national state, is a sensible precaution. Americans are a prudently cautious lot and it speaks well of them that many are reserving final judgment.
And, as we learnt all too brutally in 2000, the US election is decided by the electoral college, not the national vote. There, a small advantage can translate into big wins, as the system is first past the post. Obama is now ahead by only two points or so in several key states: Colorado, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia. If he were merely to maintain his lead, he would snag 322 electoral votes to McCain's 216. That's a bigger victory than anyone since Bill Clinton's second term and bigger than Jimmy Carter's victory in 1976.
Put like that, and considering the racial Rubicon that Obama is hoping to cross, perhaps what's striking is that a young black liberal Democrat is still the clear favourite. Nationally, McCain has yet to get much more than 44% of the vote, while Obama hasn't sunk below 46% since May. Moreover, McCain has never led Obama in two months of a national match-up. That's why it's still Obama's to lose. There will be some swings ahead, if the past is any guide, but so far the basic dynamic hasn't really changed. And it's McCain who has to change it. And soon.
Source
Don't Barack for Georgia
WE have just had a lesson in how the next president of the US would react to a real menace to the world's peace. Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain were set a test with Russia's invasion of Georgia. The results? Be terrified that Obama leads in the polls.
Russia has driven deep into Georgia on the excuse of defending separatists in the Georgian territory of South Ossetia - a pro-Russian statelet that Georgia has tried to bring back under its control. But the truth is Georgia is being punished for its sins against Russian pride and power. Those sins? Let me count them.
Georgia is such an ally of the United States that it even sent troops to Iraq. It is also pro-European, seeking to join NATO - the military alliance between the United States and Europe. And it is an economic irritant to the new Russian empire, having pipelines that carry oil and gas from the Caspian to Western markets -- pipelines that challenge Russia's stranglehold on exports. And on Europe's heating.
But Georgia, Stalin's birthplace and a former Soviet satellite, represents a wider threat to Russia, too. If it manages to break free of Russian domination and join Europe, it may inspire other former Soviet satellites to look West, too - just when Russia is dreaming of buffing up again as a superpower. That's why the presidents of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - all once "captive nations" of the Soviet Union - pleaded this week for Europe and NATO to help defend Georgia from "imperialist" Russia. They know how this war threatens them, too.
Those are the high stakes, so how did the two men vying to become president of the United States - and leader of the free world - respond? Here's McCain: "Tensions and hostilities between Georgians and Ossetians are in no way justification for Russian troops crossing an internationally recognised border." Russia had "to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces". NATO should swiftly accept Georgia as a member, which would oblige Europe and the US to come to its aid.
Now here's Obama's camp: "It's both sides' fault -- both have been somewhat provocative with each other." The United Nations should step in and send a peacekeeping force under "an appropriate UN mandate".
Knock, knock. Excuse me, Mr Obama, sir. But Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and would veto any UN move in Georgia it didn't like. And, sir, why do you treat invaded Georgia as just as guilty as invading Russia? That's blaming the victim.
It's true that, stung by criticism of his stand, Obama later toughened his rhetoric against Russia. But take stock. McCain instinctively supported an American ally against a Russian aggressor and rallied to its defence. Obama instinctively palmed off the problem to an international talkshop guaranteed to do nothing but sit on its hands while Russia brought a pro-Western nation to heel.
One of these two men will next year take charge of the US - the greatest guarantor of freedom in a world increasingly threatened by freedom's enemies. Pray the right man wins.
Source
McCain, Obama Respond To NAACP
Roger Clegg points to the very revealing responses from McCain and Obama to a questionnaire from the NAACP. McCain was refreshingly straightforward, direct, and hard-hitting. Noting that "[t]he affirmative action remedies designed forty years ago should be re-examined," he identified himself completely not only with the philosophy of "without regard" colorblind equality but also with the actual language of the pending anti-preference state initiatives:I believe that government should "not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, and individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.""Obama's answer," as Clegg drily noted, was, "as usual, anything but categorical." Actually, as usual, Clegg was too kind. Obama's answer was actually what one scold has variously characterized in other contexts as "waffling obfuscation, muddled, lacking any commitment to his own announced vision." He said, in part:Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minorities without having an adverse impact on the opportunities for whites. Given the dearth of black and Latino Ph.D. candidates in mathematics and the sciences, for example, a scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields won't keep white students out of such programs, but can broaden the pool of talent that need to prosper in the new economy. To suggest that our racial attitudes play no part in the socio-economic disparities that we often observe turns a blind eye to both our history and our experience - and relieves us of the responsibility to make things right.If this tripe sounds familiar, it's because you've heard virtually these same words before, quoted here. And after quoting them, I posed a series a questions about what he meant, questions that are still unanswered and hence still relevant. Two of them:How can affirmative action programs that treat race in a preferential manner be "properly structured" so that they give additional opportunities to blacks without "without diminishing opportunities for white [or Asian] students"?Obama still hasn't explained how it is possible to discriminate in favor of blacks and Hispanics without discriminating against whites, but in addition he appears oblivious to the fact that the main victims of the racial preference policies he supports are not whites but Asians. His position might also be more credible if he could identify any "opportunities" that would be "closed to qualified minorities" in the absence of race preferences for them.
How would "a scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields ... broaden the pool of talent that we need to prosper in the new economy" more than a scholarship program that was not racially restrictive? If such a program were racially restrictive, why would it not "keep white [and Asian] students out of such programs" who could not attend without a scholarship?
It is of course true that "qualified" applicants of all races are quite often rejected ... in favor of applicants who are deemed more qualified. Since Obama obviously believes that less qualified black and Hispanic applicants should be preferred over more qualified Asian, white, Arab, Indian, Pakistani, etc., applicants, he should have the courage to say so.
But that is about as likely to happen as some journalist from the mainstream media pressing him to explain exactly which race preferences he supports and to identify some, if there are any, he opposes.
Source
Obama's $1000 Rebate Plan Won't Work
Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has proposed a plan to ease the pain of high gas prices by granting an "emergency" $1000 tax rebate to consumers. Intending to finance it with a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies, Senator Obama's plan may be astute politics, but it is bad economics.
Obama's proposal was designed to counter Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain's plan to expand offshore drilling. He has criticized the McCain plan, which would ultimately increase the amount of oil available and therefore reduce gas prices. In contrast, basic supply and demand analysis shows that Obama's plan is likely to have little if any effect on the burden of high prices. In fact, demand for gas after the rebate will lead to a price increase, all other things equal, which is the opposite of what Obama is intending to achieve.
As our take-home pay increases, our demand for certain goods and services will increase while our demand for others will decrease. People tend to drive and consume more when they have additional money, so gas is one of those goods for which demand is likely to rise. When taken at face value, Obama's plan to offer a $1000 tax rebate is not necessarily objectionable, but it will only increase our demand for gas. And of course, it will increase gas prices.
With the federal government facing a half-trillion dollar deficit, there is little room for further entitlements. The tax rebates have to be "financed" either through spending cuts or tax increases. Curiously, Obama proposes fixing high gas prices by making it more expensive to supply gasoline. He proposes taxing oil producers, who are precisely the people you don't want to tax if your end goal is to lower gas prices. On net, Obama's plan will subsidize gas consumption by taxing gas production. This plan will not reduce gas prices. All other things equal, it is a recipe for higher gas prices and greater "pain at the pump."
This is not the first time in this election season that a presidential candidate has proposed a "solution" to high gas prices bound to be ineffective at best. During the primaries, Hillary Clinton and John McCain independently proposed suspending the federal tax on gasoline between Memorial Day and Labor Day in order to ease consumers' fuel cost burdens.
Economists of all ideological persuasions went on record to correctly point out that because the supply of and demand for gasoline are inelastic in the summers-meaning that they are relatively unresponsive to price changes-the tax rebates would not translate into lower prices. When pressed on the issue, Clinton chose to disparage these economists instead of reexamining her proposal. While Obama's ideas on oil have drawn similar criticism from economists, how he will respond remains to be seen.
Perhaps more importantly than basic supply and demand, policies like those proposed by Obama create an institutional climate in which investment is less attractive than it otherwise would be. Such proposals reduce the expected profitability for people entering industries such as oil and gasoline. In the long run, they will result in less economic development and higher prices, as firms are less willing to invest in extra production.
As economic historian Robert Higgs argues, anti-market, anti-business rhetoric created the "regime uncertainty" that facilitated the unnecessarily long lasting Great Depression. If we aren't careful, we may allow similar rhetoric to guide our decisions and stifle our economy. Quite obviously, proposing policies that will make us all poorer is no way to promote economic growth.
Inadvertently, Senator Obama has inspired a homework assignment and a test question for Econ 101 this fall: "Using appropriate diagrams, show how a tax on gasoline production and a subsidy for gasoline consumption will affect gas prices." Here's a hint: the answer isn't "prices will go down."
Source
Obama's Non-Plan for Ending the War in Iraq
Comment from a Leftist source
Over the last month, Barack Obama's comments about withdrawal have raised major questions about the U.S. commitment to occupying Iraq. The statements Obama has made over the past year, when taken in total, leave no doubt that he is a master of ambiguity and deception.
Obama has made wonderful rhetorical statements aimed at placating the majority of Americans, who have viewed the Iraq war as "not worth it" since late 2004, and supported a timetable for withdrawal since mid-to-late 2005. Obama recently promised: "Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war - responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." This statement was made in response to media complaints about Obama's perceived flip-flopping on the Iraq issue. It's not difficult to see why this confusion has arisen. Obama has claimed that he is open to "refine[ing]" his policies on Iraq after meeting with military commanders, should he win the presidency. The New York Times described Obama's posturing as driven by his desire "to retain flexibilitiy as violence declines [in Iraq] without abandoning a central promise of his campaign: that if elected, he would end the war."
But has Obama really promised to end the Iraq war? The evidence is not very convincing. Obama has vaguely stated that "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability." It is true that in the past Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007." That plan, however, was precisely what its name suggested, a blueprint for de-escalation, not for withdrawal or for ending the war. The bill promised only to remove all "combat" troops by March of 2008. It did not promise to remove all troops from Iraq, or prohibit plans for permanent military bases - requirements that Democrats have refused to demand. Rather, the plan has always been to retain an extended troop presence in Iraq (perhaps permanently), allegedly in order to train Iraq forces and "fight terrorism."
Opposition on the part of Obama to a full withdrawal was also reflected in the admission (during a primary debate) that he could not guarantee a full withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. This claim demonstrates the full extent of Obama's commitment to misrepresenting his views to the American public. His promise to "end this war now" amounts to little more than propaganda in light of claims that U.S. combat operations will continue for at least the next five years, perhaps indefinitely. It is difficult to see how substantively different this is from Republican presidential front-runner John McCain, who recently claimed he would remove most troops by 2013 as well.
It is true that Obama recently announced a 16 month timetable for the withdrawal of "combat" troops (presumably, sometime in 2010). However, this promise has again been tempered by fuzzy claims that withdrawal is contingent upon conditions on the ground in Iraq - as they are perceived by American political elites. Obama repeated (following the 16 month announcement) that there were "deep concerns" about a timetable "that doesn't take into account what they [military leaders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions." Presumably, changing assessments on the part of military leaders would lead to more revisions regarding the prospects for a concrete timetable for withdrawal.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
13 August, 2008
Really good talker Barack Obama loses mind on stage
We've had some fun here at The Ticket in recent months over Barack Obama's 57-state remark and his promise to meet with the president of Canada and his shouted greeting to one city when he was actually in another. (Yes, and John McCain's and Sam Nunn's shared fondness for good old Czechoslovakia.)
The poor famous guy in this video from an Indiana TV station may be a regular rock star in Germany and have just turned 47 last week. Which, admittedly, is getting up there in years.
And he did not have his usual teleprompter. But it sure does sound like he's not very happy with this America that he wants to be the president of, if he really doesn't want his daughters to grow up in it.
Now, we understand why the freshman senator ended up dodging that summertime series of joint townhall meetings with the veteran McCain.
But whatever Obama meant to say, the guy really, really needs a vacation. May he and his family thoroughly enjoy and soak up the warmth from the sands of Hawaii together this whole week and not even use the word townhall in a vicious game of S-c-r-a-b-b-l-e.
Source
Georgia: More Obama flip-floping
The presidential candidates had strikingly different responses to the Georgia crisis. "John McCain quickly issued a statement that was far more strident toward the Russians than that of President Bush, Barack Obama and much of the West," reports Politico's Jonathan Martin:But, as Russian warplanes pounded Georgian targets far beyond South Ossetia this weekend, Bush, Obama and others have moved closer to McCain's initial position.Gateway Pundit has details of Obama's shift. Here's the initial mealy-mouthed Friday statement:I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.A day later, Obama was sounding like McCain:I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire. . . . Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia.Martin notes that McCain--in contrast not only to Obama but to President Bush--has long been a critic of the Russian leadership:Speaking about Chechnya in an appearance at Arizona State University in 1999, McCain said: "The mindless slaughter is being conducted by a Russian military that seeks to reassert itself not only in the former Soviet Union but also to extend its reach throughout what used to be the former Soviet Union in an attempt to fold back into the Russian empire those countries that have broken away from it, most notably Georgia."An international crisis anywhere, possibly excepting Iraq, has to be bad news for Obama. As Peggy Noonan observed last week: "In a time of high stakes, do we want Mr. Untried and Untested?"
And, in the memorable South Carolina primary debate in 2000, McCain offered grave skepticism about the new Russian leader, referring to [Vladimir] Putin as an "apparatchik."
Source
Welcome to Nannyfornia
Could the frenzy of puritanical edicts from California's politicians - banning everything from trans fats to plastic bags - be a foretaste of what Barack Obama's America will be like?
It was one o'clock in the morning. John Lutz had just left the Grand Palace Stadium cinema complex in the wealthy LA suburb of Calabasas and was standing next to his Mini, smoking a cigarette. As he did so, a massive SUV - the kind that does 10mpg - pulled up alongside him. The driver opened his window, leant out, and said: "Hey, buddy, you can't smoke here." John, a staff writer for a popular American TV show, was unaware that an hour earlier, at midnight, the Calabasas Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance - the most restrictive anti-smoking policy anywhere in the world-had gone into effect.
"You don't read the news?" chided the SUV driver, wagging his finger. "You can't smoke outdoors anymore. Put it out." John paused for a second, unable to believe that his decision to smoke a Camel Light in an empty car park in the wee hours of the morning was of so much interest to a complete stranger. He exhaled slowly. He balled his fists. And then he told the driver - using language not suitable for publication in this newspaper, that no, actually, he wouldn't put it out. Welcome everyone, to Nannyfornia: Birthplace of the Ban, Capital of the Clampdown, Mecca of the Moratorium. Or you could just call it the new Mild, Mild West.
The outdoor smoking ban of which John Lutz ran foul is just one example of a frenzy of puritanical edicts from California's politicians that in the past few weeks has outlawed trans fat in all restaurant food, prevented LA supermarkets from handing out plastic bags, and put a halt to fast-food joints opening in the suburb formerly known as South Central. Other recent bans -and attempted bans - have challenged such monumental threats to human wellbeing as helium balloons, camp fires, circuses, swearing, texting while stopped at traffic lights, anything made from a dead kangaroo, dogs sitting on drivers' laps, homeschooling, rodeos, unordered tapwater in diners, spanking, nude beaches, and (this is true) the use of sexually-discriminating terms such as "Mom" and "Dad" in school classrooms.
Of course, some of these things deserve to be discouraged. But criminalised? "It's becoming almost like an arms race as to who can ban more things," says Jim Ross, the veteran California political consultant who managed the campaign to elect Gavin Newsom as Mayor of San Francisco. "San Francisco bans plastic bags, then LA bans plastics, then everyone else has to. It's ironic, because the US was founded as a reaction to the colonists telling them what to do. I mean, hey, when are we gonna start banning alcohol again?" It is true, of course, that the Golden State has always had a reputation for well-intentioned meddling - hence the reason they call it "the Left Coast". But until recently, with Arnold Schwarzenegger serving as the Republican governor, California seemed to have avoided many of the worst examples of nanny-stateism inflicted on, say, Britain. For example: California's ban on smoking in restaurants and bars was largely avoided when establishments built outdoor decks. Schwarzenegger himself built a "cigar tent" outside his office in Sacramento, the state capital.
California remains more laidback than Britain in other ways, too. People in LA still drive after a glass or two of wine. Tax on petrol isn't designed to punish you for not wanting to get on a bus. Speed cameras remain unheard of, and CCTV is so rare that when you land in London from Los Angeles you feel as though you have been transported from the 1970s to a dysfunctional 22nd-century dictatorship.
But things began to change a couple of years ago - around the time the Democratic Party seized control of the US Congress. The Left's confidence has grown exponentially since then with the astonishing rise of Barack Obama, and even Schwarzenegger - whose popularity has vanished along with Californians' home equity - appears to be giving in to the Democratic Party's belief that only enlightened politicians can save the idiot masses from themselves.
Take California's ban on trans fats, which essentially turned puff pastry into public enemy No 1. "We are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California," declared Schwarzenegger, a man whose very appetite for the unhealthy things in life - cigars, Hummers, marijuana, badly scripted movies involving the gratuitous use of automatic weapons and explosive devices - endeared him to the US public and ultimately won him the governorship that he is now using as a tool to prevent people from eating chicken pot pies. And this week, a new law will be introduced that intends to force restaurants in LA to display the number of calories of each item on their menus.
All this raises a disturbing question, of course: is Nannyfornia providing us with a glimpse of what Obama's America might look like? After all, Obama is a classic banner. He recently proposed banning all toys from China. He banned his own staff from wearing green clothing during his recent trip to the Middle East (green is the colour of the Hamas flag). He banned the New Yorker magazine from his press plane after it depicted him as a terrorist in a political cartoon. He wants to ban "excessive" profits by raising capital gains tax. Why? Because he thinks it's fair. No matter that the state's revenues from the tax have always gone up whenever the rate has been lowered.
Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Association, is one of many Americans who fears all this prohibition is going too far. "The Government here in California is banning a food product simply because it's not healthy," he complains. "What do you ban next? Bacon fat? The possibilities are limitless." But is it all the fault of emboldened Democrats? Without a doubt, he says. He describes the Democratic-controlled legislature in California as "an activist government that thinks it knows what's best for us".
"It's not just trans fat," he says. "They're banning fast-food restaurants in parts of LA because they think we're too fat and therefore they're gonna help us." Not that he thinks trans fat is a good thing. "Trans fat raises bad cholesterol and lowers good cholesterol so, yeah, it's a double whammy," he says. "But in two years' time, it's gonna be a thing of the past, not because of the Government but because consumers are voting with their feet. You don't need to criminalise it. The Government has created a dangerous precedent."
John Lutz, the cigarette smoker, says the real problem with bans is that they tend to be selective - and they usually focus, conveniently, on the vices of other people. "The people who think they have the right to tell you what to do are usually the exact same people who drive around in SUVs and drink bottled water every day," Lutz says. "I'm pretty sure both of those things are very worst things you can do to the environment. Yet they'll go crazy if they see me stubbing out a cigarette butt in my own backyard."
The double standards are sometimes even more dramatic than SUV-driving, health-Nazis. Take Calabasas: it might have successfully outlawed tobacco use practically anywhere within its city limits, but it was happy to be home of the headquarters of Countrywide Financial, now the subject of a federal investigation into its lending practices during the mid-2000s real estate bubble. Countrywide was at one point making so much money from home loans that there was a Ferrari dealership located almost directly across the street.
Aside from the accusations of hypocrisy, however, isn't there just something inherently un-California about trying to ban everything that's allegedly bad for you? After all, this is a state that has always faced the prospect of imminent annihilation from earthquakes, fires, floods, droughts and a multitude of other natural catastrophes. Indeed, it's often hard for Britons to understand the attitude in LA that you enjoy the good times while they last, and when things go catastrophically awry - as they always tend to do, every so often - you tough it out, you learn, and you wait for the good times to come around again. Hence the fact that in London people are convinced the credit crunch is the next Great Depression, while in LA people are just as likely to be worried about missing out on the next pre-bubble investment opportunity.
So why does California feel the urge to micro-manage people's lives - to the point were helium balloons were almost made illegal because every now and again they get caught up in power lines? Shouldn't Californians know better than anyone that a life without risk is no life at all?
"I think there's actually a little bit of one-upmanship going on," explains Jim Ross, the political consultant, adding that West Coast politicians like to think that radical bans help them to pioneer national trends. For example: because California is the largest purchaser of school textbooks, when it passed a Senate Bill requiring "nondiscrimination" against sexual orientation in classrooms (conservatives say this essentially bans the use of the words "Mom" or "Dad"), publishers began to change the wording in all US textbooks. But Ross thinks the system has a knack of stopping things getting out of hand.
"The moderating effect of a democracy will always stop bad laws from happening," he says. "A great example of that was when the speed limit was rolled back to 55mph. It got to the point where if you were sticking to it, you were the slowest person on the road, and you'd be creating a hazard. If a law is going to work, people have to live up to it. There's a great quote from Calvin Coolidge [the 30th President of the US] that good laws are not made, they're discovered." In other words, says Ross, a good law is never the result of a politician feeling holier-than-thou - it's a result of the overwhelming will of the people being served.
Lutz prefers to quote that other hero of American politics: Jesse Ventura, the ex-Navy SEAL turned professional wrestler turned Governor of Minnesota. Whenever a particularly meddlesome piece of legislation turned up on his desk, he would dismiss it with a line that went on to become his personal catchphrase. "You can't legislate against stupidity," he would say. It's a lesson that Nannyfornia - not to mention Barack Obama - might do well to learn.
Source
Change Obama does not believe in
McCain Should Take The Initiative... No, make that the initiatives, as in the initiatives that will be on the ballots of Colorado, Nebraska, and Arizona in November that would prohibit those states from awarding preferential treatment based on race.
As I argued here (and many other places), McCain could gain additional support in several highly contested "battleground" states - including, as it happens, Colorado, as well as Michigan (which passed a similar initiative by a wide margin in 2006) and Virginia - is he would take a strong stand in favor of colorblind equal treatment. (No doubt showing the power of a compelling argument combined with the Internet, several days after my post cited above appeared McCain did in fact come out in favor of the Arizona initiative, and by extension the others.)
Now comes Peter Brown, the assistant director of the respected Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, who suggests that Obama's continued support for race preferences is indeed likely to hurt him in Colorado.The success of similar measures in other states and polls showing very strong support for it in Colorado suggest the proposal is likely to pass. Quinnipiac University/Wall Street Journal/washingtonpost.com polls in June and July found that roughly two-thirds of Colorado voters support the proposal, and less than one-fifth oppose it.Ending state-sponsored discrimination based on race or ethnicity is one change we desperately need, but that is one change Obama and his supporters do not believe it.
Source
Obama's abortion lies
There's a newly uncovered paper trail demonstrating Barack Obama's abortion militancy you can believe in:Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.The NRLC's Obama paper trail index is here.
And here's a related howler about the Party of Planned Parenthood: ABC NEWS: Are Democrats Now Pro-Life? As Convention Draws Near, New Talk of a Pro-Life Presence
Source
Joe Klein writing about Obama in Time magazine:
Over the past month, a foolish narrative has been abroad in the land: that this election is going to be a "referendum" on Barack Obama. This is not uncommon in presidential politics -- John Kerry's consultants fantasized that the 2004 election was going to be a referendum on George W. Bush -- but it is usually peddled by weak campaigns that want to avoid dealing with their own candidate's deficiencies. Presidential elections are never referendums. They are, ultimately, a choice. Two candidates stand on a stage in debate: they talk; you decide. . . .
Which is why I'm almost as puzzled by Obama's debate strategy as I am by McCain's advertising. Obama's decision not to accept McCain's offer of 10 summer debates -- or, at least, to negotiate a more manageable total -- always seemed wrong to me. After all, Obama is supposed to be the fresh breeze, and that would have been a brand-new, high-road way to engage the public. Obama's refusal made him seem less than courageous. It played into the notion that he wasn't a very good debater and that McCain was at his best in town meetings -- an argument with elements of truth but also a fair amount of mythology. Obama has command of more facts on more issues than McCain does; McCain's strength at town meetings feeds off friendly crowds who roar at the jokes he's been telling for years. Obama's demeanor will show well on the debate stage; McCain's feistiness may not. . . . It is true that debates often turn on one-liners and flubs, but more often they turn on sustained, vivid demonstrations of character.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
12 August, 2008
Another update from Hawaii
When Barack Obama first showed up in a Hawaii classroom at the age of 10 in 1971, the white kids tittered at his dark skin and a red-haired girl tried to touch his curly black hair. On learning that his father was an African tribesman, one of his classmates asked him if he ate people. A very different reception awaited Obama when he returned to the islands of his birth on Friday to begin a week-long family holiday. It was the first time the Democratic presidential contender had returned to his childhood home since he declared himself a candidate for the White House; he has since become, by a wide margin, the most famous Hawaiian native in history.
In his memoir Dreams from My Father, he painted a lyrical portrait of his upbringing with Gramps and Toot, the white grandparents who raised him while his mother worked in Indonesia: "Even now, I can retrace the first steps I took as a child and be stunned by the beauty of the islands ... the trembling blue plane of the Pacific ... the moss-coloured cliffs ... the North Shore's thunderous waves." His wife, Michelle, has said you "can't really understand Barack until you understand Hawaii". His half-sister, Maya, whom he will be seeing in Honolulu this week, calls Hawaii "such a generally sweet place ... you can come back here from almost anywhere and refresh yourself mentally".
It sounds the perfect place to cure the affliction that is becoming known as "Obama fatigue". It's not just that the 47-year-old Illinois senator is weary after a year of campaigning; it's more that Americans seem to be wearying of too much news about him. Apart from an obligatory public meeting, a Democratic fundraising dinner and a string of photo opportunities, Obama hopes to spend his week swimming in the Pacific, practising basketball [Is it racist to mention that?], eating ice cream with his daughters, playing Scrabble with his family and avoiding all questions about awkward issues such as his vice-presidential choice, his relations with Hillary Clinton and his big speech to the Democratic convention, which will open in Denver on August 25.
His aides hope a low profile will help to reverse a disturbing trend in opinion polls and media reporting that has portrayed Obama as over-exposed and increasingly vulnerable to mocking attacks by his Republican opponent and late-night comedians. David Letterman joked last week that Obama had become so confident he was proposing to change the name of Oklahoma to "Oklabama". Jay Leno quipped that when Obama was asked about perceptions he was arrogant, "he said he was above having to answer that question". A survey from the Pew Research Centre last week found that 51 per cent of independent voters felt they had been "hearing too much" about Obama.
Republican rival John McCain revived his moribund campaign with a series of crude but effective videos comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and other celebrities, and has scored again with a web video that likens Obama to Moses and mocks him as "The One", which has had more than a million hits. McCain's hard-hitting advertising campaign has turned the 71-year-old Republican into an improbable success on YouTube, the video-sharing website, where Obama has long ruled as the US's most-watched politician. McCain's videos attracted more viewers than Obama's for seven days in a row last week, and on 11 of the previous 14 days. He attracted even more attention when Hilton weighed in with a video of her own about "that wrinkly white-haired guy ... the oldest celebrity in the world".
All this has sent a frisson of doubt through the Democratic ranks, where memories of senator John Kerry's implosion against George W. Bush four years ago are still raw. "Democrats are worried," said Tad Devine, a former Kerry strategist. "We've been through two very tough elections at the national level and it's easy to lose confidence."
Even though Obama edged back into a slim lead in the opinion polls last week, some Democrats remain concerned that by sticking to the high road and refusing to "go negative" on McCain, he is allowing a Kerry-like image of aloofness to stick. "I would answer back hard," said senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who is renowned for his street-fighting instincts. "What do you mean, Obama isn't one of us? It's John McCain who wears $500 Italian shoes, has six houses and comes from one of the richest families in his state. It's Barack Obama that climbed up the hard way."
Obama sent his wife to argue his case on television chatshows. "It's funny to have anybody characterise Barack as an elitist," she said. "You know, this kid who was raised by a single mother ... has walked away his entire life from lucrative careers to work in the community."
What worries many Democrats is that Obama's success in raising campaign funds directly from donors through the internet and elsewhere has in effect marginalised the independent groups who might instead have acted as surrogates in attacking McCain. The Republicans have long relied on surrogate supporters to do their dirty work -- notably the Swift Boat veteran group that smeared Kerry's Vietnam War record. But at least one Democratic group that formed with the intention of attacking McCain has disbanded for lack of funds.
Relaxing at his luxury hotel in Hawaii this week, Obama will survey a battlefield that has changed dramatically since he addressed 200,000 cheering Germans last month. Even that iconic moment has become grist to McCain's mill -- in one of his best lines in the campaign so far, the Arizona senator told a rally of all-American Harley-Davidson motorcycle fans in South Dakota: "As you may know, not long ago a couple of hundred thousand Berliners made a lot of noise for my opponent. I'll take the roar of 50,000 Harleys any day."
The good news for Obama is that Hawaii seems to offer a blissful respite from the campaign grind. Not all his childhood memories were magical -- he was once derided as a "coon", and by his own admission, "dabbled in drugs and alcohol". He may also have some apologising to do to his 86-year-old grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, whom he incautiously described earlier this year as "a typical white woman" who feared black crime.
Source
Stars & Stripes Dumped for Obama Symbol
Presumptive Democrat candidate Barack Obama recently remodeled his campaign airplane at a cost of $500,000. Changes included new paint and removal of the Stars and Stripes from the tail. In place of the American flag, his personal crest/icon, the Obama symbol, is now displayed.
Before and after above
I believe it would be hard to dispute the contention that Barack Obama is displaying a high, arguably outlandish, degree of arrogance. He has replaced a revered symbol of the United States of America with his personal icon while in the middle of an election campaign for the job of President of the United States of America.
Previously, Obama arrogantly refused to put his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem and he also scoffed at the practice of wearing an American flag lapel pin. Now, he replaces the Stars and Stripes with his personal symbol.
I'm certain that Obama wants to be the leader of the free world, however, I'm not at all certain about whether Obama has an innate love and reverence for the United States as a nation.
In contrast to Obama, I personally could never nonchalantly disrespect the symbols of freedom and democracy and I'm not running for public office.
Source
The generally Left-leaning Snopes site does its best to downplay the change.
A small rant about Snopes: Moral tales that reinforce conservative thinking are described by Snopes using a specially invented derogatory term -- as a "glurge". Note also here where Snopes did their best to cast aspersions on a wonderful true story about President Bush. Their description of the story as "multiple" (meaning "partly true") is a disgrace. See also here for another demolition of Snopes
Obama's Dual Citizenship Disaster: an Overview
Since the story broke late Saturday that Barack Obama's real Birth Certificate, now in Republican hands, has the name Barry Soetoro and not Barack Obama, as we predicted a couple of weeks ago, I notice that many people are still confused about the implications of dual citizenship for Obama. The matter is somewhat complex, so I've decided to try to provide a summary, with the help of resident expert "Judah Benjamin."
Indonesian Connection
Soetoro is the name on Obama's Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. His original BC, which we assume was issued for Barack Hussein Obama at birth, would have been sealed at the time of the adoption.
Barry Soetoro probably acquired Indonesian citizenship in approximately 1965-1966, and may still hold it. He possibly changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama as an older child, teenager, or adult, possibly never did - but even if he did, this procedure would not result in a change to the BC. (If he never legally changed his name back, I imagine his current name on the Presidential ballot would be invalid.)
The Birth Certificate published by Obama on his campaign website (still there, by the way) and distributed to the media was forged because the real BC on file is in the name Soetoro, an identity he apparently wanted to hide from the American people. I am getting reports from different sources that Obama traveled to Pakistan in `81 with an Indonesian passport.
Prior to 2007 (and possibly earlier), Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged. I suspect that Obama may have dumped his Indonesian citizenship at some point along the way, to advance his political career. But I would not be shocked if he still holds it. This question, however, should not overshadow the serious problem of hiding his Indonesian identity from the electorate.
Kenyan Citizenship
I personally doubt that Obama holds Kenyan citizenship. If he did, he could be stripped of his US citizenship under US law. Barack Hussein Obama probably was a citizen of the British Crown (first two years of his life) and, effective 1963, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of his father's nationality.
Under the Constitution of Kenya, he would have automatically forfeited his citizenship at the age of 21 unless he affirmatively "claimed" it. If he took some action to keep his citizenship, that's a big problem because 1) Kenya prohibits dual citizenship and 2) the US does not recognize dual citizenship with Kenya. Further under the Kenyan Constitution, given his circumstances, he could only have kept Kenyan Citizenship, if he had it, by means of a Ministerial, Prime Ministerial, or Presidential Decree. (Of course, Raila Odinga is Prime Minister of Kenya and Odinga's father, Oginga Odinga, was Vice President of Kenya and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a close ally of the older Odinga.)
If Obama retained his Kenyan citizenship and helped campaign for his cousin Odinga, that is especially problematic under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the relevant language of which is:a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-Again, I don't think that Obama has Kenyan citizenship. I think that the Rocky Mountain report and Andy Martin's work are poorly sourced on this point. I sometimes get the impression that Kenya serves as a diversion from the REAL PROBLEM, which is his Indonesian connection. It would be shocking to get actual confirmation of current Kenyan citizenship.
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years.
Electability & Eligibility Issues
These revelations raise several troubling issues for Obama's electability and eligibility. Foremost, there is the concerted attempt to cover up his Indonesian background and dual citizenship/identity from the electorate. Secondly, there is a potential Constitutional problem with a POTUS having held dual citizenship, and Obama knows it; thus, the deception.
The "natural-born" clause of Article II is commonly understood to relate to the place of birth, but more accurately relates to loyalty to country as Commander in Chief. That was the original intent of the founding fathers. In McCain's case, there is no question because of his circumstances (born on military base to 2 US citizens, later joined the military, never had anything to do with Panama, etc.). In Obama's case, it's not nearly so clear, especially given his travels, relatives, and associations in some of these other countries.
In my mind, however, the biggest problem is that Sen. Obama has intentionally concealed his background, Indonesian identity, citizenship, and the fact that he was at one time Muslim. What else is he hiding?
Source
Inflated Tires Are Not a National Energy Policy
Now that John McCain has ever so slyly maneuvered Paris Hilton into the Presidential race to drain feminist votes from Barack Obama, we can only hope her stunning announcement video - delivered pool side in a stylin' leopard print swimsuit - will elevate the debate. It certainly cannot get much sillier. Who knew when the McCain campaign made that commercial featuring Barack Obama, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, Obama would turn out to be the more vacuous celebrity?
Britney has seemingly declined public service in favor of making a lesbian killer stripper movie with Quentin Tarantino. But Paris struck immediately with her energy policy statement: "We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars..Energy crisis solved, I'll see you at the debates."
The McCain campaign was quick to commend her for supporting drilling, putting Obama in the same lunch meat sandwich that McCain and Mrs. Clinton used, reasonably effectively back during the primaries.
It must be remembered that Obama's first response to $4.00 a gallon gasoline was to propose no solution at all but merely to remark on the disruption of the abrupt rise to that point. Back then, he opposed just about everything except some weird concept of a "green economy" based on "green jobs" etcetera. He hadn't even thought about buying votes with oil company money at $1000 a pop. Back then, though, 70% of the people weren't getting all grumpy and unruly over energy policy.
Only when electoral handwriting was covering the wall did Obama come forth with his plan that Americans should stop whining about more production of American energy resources and just properly inflate our tires. In the beginning, we thought that was just some Obama throwaway line, used to dodge the hard issue. But the guy seems serious and keeps on harping on it.
It is far too boring to no good end to elucidate the specific flaws in Obama's energy policy brainstorm, ever so reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter's turn-out-the-lights absurdity. Let's accept that it is a good idea to keep our tires properly inflated, as most Americans do, for numerous reasons. But that, friends, is a matter of individual conservation. It is not a national government energy policy, which impacts far more than how you drive and care for your vehicle of choice or necessity, far more than temporal energy prices, whatever they are.
Whatever Obama says about energy policy, remember this. He is joined at the political hips to Nancy Pelosi, who will allow no vote on oil drilling in the House, and Harry Reid, who believes that "oil makes us sick." That is the troika who will rule the federal government if Obama is elected. Obama is joined by philosophy and political necessity to every radical environmental group that can be named - those that have prevented reasonable national energy policies for decades.
Are John McCain's currently enunciated energy positions better than Obama's? Yes, but he's not yet near where he should be either. Arguing to drill offshore but not in a tiny desolate sliver of ANWR, for example, is both strange and incongruent. A true national energy policy is that which encourages and allows development of each and every form of U.S. energy production that is feasible, cost effective and safe in the least amount of time. National security and national economic sustenance are far more important than any other factors.
Is conservation an element of a reasonable policy? Of course it is. Should legitimate environmental concerns be factored in? Of course they should. But the former won't get us near the end zone and the latter should not be used as a blunderbuss to stop even a first down.
In her announcement video, Paris Hilton said, "I want America to know I'm, like, totally ready to lead." How's that different from what the major candidates are saying, with only marginally more substance?
Source
Obama's No. 1 Media Problem
MarketWatch Media Columnist Jon Friedman Says Democrat Better Get Used To Probing, Critical Coverage
I'm starting to worry about Barack Obama. From a journalistic perspective, he seemed like such a refreshing departure from the oft-paranoid media relations practiced by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the two George Bushes. Now I'm not so sure.
Too often, Obama and his handlers have overreacted to what we've come to accept as frivolous, basically harmless "coverage" by the celebrity-obsessed mainstream media. Two examples of him getting his back up: Obama made a federal case of the appearance by his daughters on "Access Hollywood" and he was snippy with reporters when he was pressed about his unexpected email friendship with actress Scarlett Johansson. Sure, these are minor events. But if he is going to be anal about the small stuff, it may get ugly if he loses his composure about something important.
Obama has staked his claim by offering American voters a fresh voice and a strong sense of optimism about the future. When he was on the way up, he was the favorite son of the media, who heaped almost unprecedented praise on him. Now that he has all but secured the Democratic nomination, Obama has shown little patience for standard media practices, which can range from silly to stupid.
The Obama team may still think the "old" rules apply. By old, I'm referring to the kid-gloves treatment the media gave him when he was an up and comer and Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to secure the Democratic nomination. Even before Obama stunned Clinton by winning the Iowa caucus, the first high-profile showdown between the rivals last fall, the media had all but decreed that Obama would be their darling, the one who could do no wrong. If Obama was designated "hero," the media had to find a "villain" to complete the convenient story line and, of course, Hillary Clinton was consigned to wear the black hat.
That was then. Now, Obama and his staff must accept the reality that the game has changed as he prepares to battle John McCain. As PBS anchor Jim Lehrer told me a few weeks ago, it wasn't so long ago that McCain was the media's darling. The story line the media love best is to hail the candidate who was down, but not out, and somehow rallied to achieve a stirring victory. This is McCain's saga over the past year.
Obama has to realize that he will be subject to increasing scrutiny as the campaign really heats up. What we've seen so far is the orchestra tuning up. The real show begins after Labor Day, as the Obama-McCain debate season begins to take shape.
The mainstream media, as well as bloggers who have a point of view, will seek to exploit any situation as a way to create news. Don't forget that all hell broke loose when the New Yorker, which you'd think was solidly behind Obama in his fight against McCain, published (I thought) a biting and witty look at the stereotypical way many Americans view Barack and Michelle Obama. Still, some accused the magazine of exploiting Obama and his wife. Others said it was a racially insensitive cover. These critics completely missed the point that the New Yorker was mocking bigots in the strongest fashion. Or, perhaps, they wanted to miss the point as a way to advance their arguments.
Members of Barack Obama's campaign thought he got a raw deal from the media during his battle with Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. Perhaps they were just trying to stir an argument because any fair-minded observer could see that Clinton was the one should have felt mistreated by the press. Obama had better toughen up -- fast. The media spotlight -- or is it a glare? -- will only get brighter in the months leading up to Election Day. Expect the incessant charges that Obama is too inexperienced and unprepared to be president and a Pollyanna cockeyed optimist to get more shrill, too.
Obama has resented the media for treating him like a presidential candidate -- someone with a personal life, a family and a past. He had better get used to it. The pace is sure to quicken between now and Election Day. And if you win, Mr. President-Elect, look out. Things can only get worse.
Source
Barack Obama, Movie Star
The Los Angeles Times has a doozy of an op-ed today by Neal Gabler - "Obama: star of his own movie" which makes the case Obama's "'celebrity' comes from an emotional identity with voters, not from 'rock star' hysteria." I suppose it's possible that sometime between now and November I'll read a more shallow op-ed preening with self-satisfaction over its lofty conceit. But I'm thinking that's unlikely:Critics, not least of all John McCain, have complained that this is merely windy rhetoric - high-blown but ultimately empty. Eventually, they say, Obama will come back to Earth the way rock stars do when the concert ends. But this misses the point of what Obama has tapped into, as well as the point of movie stardom itself. Yes, politicians can declaim themes, and Obama is doing that. Yet Obama is not just declaiming his theme the way most politicians have. He has lived it, which is why it has been so effective.Now the writer is correct - the criticism of Obama is that he's just declaiming themes, but what pray tell is the evidence that Obama has lived such "high-blown" themes as change and hope, much less led the rescue of anything? Is he referring to his accomplishments in the Senate, of which there really are none? Is it how he spent years valiantly railing against the corrupt Chicago political establishment, which never happened?
Of course McCain is a hero in his own right, but his narrative is familiar - it's a war movie after all - and his feat is that of having survived, which in a Hollywood film is not the same thing as having led the rescue.
As for the inane movie star conceit, is Gabler really dissmissing John McCain's narrative as a P.O.W. as familiar and a pedestrian tale of "survival"? Because the stories of courageous P.O.W.'s have never been fodder for classic movies. Or is Gabler just unaware that McCain's life story is more compelling than most, such that they've already made a movie out of it?
I presume Gabler thinks what we really need is a movie about a sensitive young man who, despite being raised in relative affluence, overcomes a negative self-image brought on by his racist grandmother before going on to a triumphal and dynamic episode as editor of the Harvard Law Review, eventually rising through the ranks of the Illinois legislature where he succeeds by mastering the art of voting "present," before dipping his toe in the Senate so he can be crowned leader of free world. For my money, that sounds about as exciting as Phonebook: The Movie.
Or more likely, McCain pegged Obama yesterday when he said, "Taking in my opponent's performances is a little like watching a big summer blockbuster, and an hour in realizing that all the best scenes were in the trailer you saw last fall."
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
11 August, 2008
Report from Hawaii
Let's hope he manages to pick up a copy of his real birth certificate while he is there
Democrat Barack Obama, beset this week with new attacks from Republican rival John McCain, says there will be little or no politicking over the next seven days as he takes a vacation in his childhood home of Hawaii. ``I'm going to go body surfing at some undisclosed location,'' Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told the crowd at a welcoming rally yesterday in Honolulu. ``I'm going to go get some shaved ice.''
Obama, 47, the first major party White House candidate to visit Hawaii since Richard Nixon in 1960, today began his first full day of a weeklong vacation on the island of Oahu. While he plans to relax, see his grandmother and visit old hangouts, Obama also said he will work on his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this month. Obama, joined in Hawaii by his family as well as strategist Robert Gibbs, campaign treasurer and longtime friend Martin Nesbitt and others, is likely to announce his pick for a running mate some time after returning to the campaign trail on Aug. 16.
So far, Obama's only official campaign event next week is a fundraiser to be held Aug. 12 in Hawaii. Today he took a walk on the beach and played golf with Gibbs and others.
The trip marks Illinois Senator Obama's first extended holiday since declaring his candidacy in February 2007. It follows a week in which his campaign organization sought to remain focused amid the hubbub over McCain's advertisements tweaking the Democrat about his celebrity and media exposure.
Energy Proposals
Arizona Senator McCain, 71, also hammered Obama throughout the week over his energy proposals, particularly the Democratic candidate's advice that Americans make sure their tires are fully inflated to conserve energy.
Today, the Obama campaign went on the energy offensive with the release of a television ad criticizing McCain's support for storing nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, a longtime issue of dispute in the battleground state. McCain's campaign fired back by noting that in 2005 Obama voted twice for a measure that would have provided funding to the Yucca disposal site. ``Apparently Barack Obama is also taking a vacation from the facts,'' McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement. ``Either Barack Obama is too inexperienced to understand that his votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate are recorded for Americans to review, or he's simply showing incredible hypocrisy.''
Party Unity
Obama's campaign this week also faced renewed questions about whether Democrats are sufficiently united behind him. Obama rejected suggestions that supporters of former Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, a senator from New York, might disrupt the party's display of unity at the nominating convention in Denver. ``I don't anticipate any problems,'' he told reporters on Aug. 7. He declined to say whether he expects Clinton delegates to place her name in nomination at the Aug. 25-28 convention as a way to acknowledge her level of support in the party and move toward the November election.
Obama also dismissed speculation that former President Bill Clinton is less than enthusiastic about his candidacy. The Illinois senator said this week that Clinton has been ``very supportive'' and ``gracious.'' New questions about the former president's support arose after he was asked in an ABC interview that aired on Aug. 4 whether he thought Obama was ready to be commander-in-chief. ``You could argue that no one is ever ready to be president,'' Clinton responded. He added that Obama is ``smart as a whip, so there's nothing he can't learn.''
Meanwhile, national polls show the presidential contest has been mostly static, with Obama holding a lead over McCain ranging from 2 to 5 percentage points. Still, taking time off could be potentially helpful as Obama and his campaign faces questions about ``Obama fatigue.'' A poll released last week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 48 percent of survey respondents said they have heard too much about Obama lately while 26 percent said they had heard too much about McCain.
Obama yesterday appeared happy to step out of the spotlight. He also suggested that any photographs of him surfing or enjoying similar activities might be hard to get. In 2004, pictures of then Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry windsurfing off the coast of Massachusetts were used in ads against him by President George W. Bush's campaign. ``I'm going to watch my girls play on the beach,'' Obama said at yesterday's rally. ``Maybe once in a while I'll go in the water but mostly I'm just going to sit there and watch them.''
Obama, who won the Hawaii caucuses in February with about 75 percent of the vote, also spoke at length about Hawaii's ``Aloha spirit'' and what it means to him ``We look out for one another and deal with each other with courtesy and respect,'' he said. ``When you come from Hawaii you start understanding that what's on the surface, what people look like, that doesn't determine who they are.''
Source
Obama Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds
Democrat's Promise to Cut Taxes Without Adding to Debt Relies on Bush Fiscal Policy
On the campaign trail, Sen. Barack Obama bashes President Bush for "reckless" economic policies that are "mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt." But the Democratic presidential candidate has adopted a key component of Bush's fiscal policy: A novel bookkeeping method that guarantees that the $9.5 trillion national debt will get much bigger.
When Obama promises to cut taxes for the middle class without increasing the deficit, he is measuring his proposals against the large deficits that would result from Bush's plan to extend his signature tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date. Because Obama wants to eliminate some of the Bush tax cuts, he would bring more money into the Treasury, permitting him to pay for new programs without increasing the deficit even more.
But under current law, all the tax cuts expire and the deficit disappears completely. Democrats in Congress have vowed to preserve the Bush tax cuts only if they can cover the cost and keep the budget in balance. Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits. According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.
"Obama has criticized Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, and now he's using Bush's baseline as a yardstick by which to measure fiscal responsibility," said Leonard E. Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "Congress hasn't agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because they don't have the money to pay for it."
By adopting Bush's bookkeeping system, Obama has frustrated deficit hawks who say government should live within its means, especially given a new White House forecast that the next president will face a record $482 billion deficit during his first year in office. Obama also appears to undercut congressional Democrats who have made pay-as-you-go budgeting a central tenet of their leadership, insisting that new policies should be paid for instead of adding to the nation's debt.
"It's not unreasonable to say, 'We're inheriting a budget that's going to have substantial deficits into the future' . . . But after we've been saying, 'Bush has irresponsible policies we can't afford,' he will be asking us to replace them with different policies we can't afford,' " said a Democratic congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity so he could speak candidly.
Privately, some Democrats acknowledge that they may be forced to follow Obama's lead and abandon their pay-as-you-go pledge if they want to keep the Bush tax cuts that benefit the middle class, including a $1,000 child tax credit, a reduction in the marriage penalty and a new 10 percent tax bracket. Beginning in 2011, those provisions will increase the deficit by at least $100 billion a year unless lawmakers can raise the money elsewhere.
"Leaving some of the tax cuts in place would cost us a small fortune," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a member of a group of conservative House Democrats known as the Blue Dogs who have been adamant about following pay-as-you-go rules. "I don't know that any Blue Dog has a good way to pay for that."
Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Obama has never made balancing the budget a priority. He concedes that he would not be able to do it during his first term, and probably not during his second, either.
More here
Elitism on Parade: Ignorance Edition
Over at Townhall.com, Amanda Carpenter points us to another new and devastating elitist insult from Barack Obama:Barack Obama called Republicans "ignorant" for making fun of him because he encouraged Americans to properly inflate their tires to conserve gasoline. "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant!" Obama told an audience in Berea, Ohio on Tuesday.Whoa nelly! Them's fightin' words. Seriously, maybe the pressure has gotten to Obama, but he certainly seems to have lowered the discourse a notch. Calling someone "ignorant" is not something casually thrown about in civil conversation. Probably because it is normally, and rightly, considered an insult. Is his new message is "Vote Democrat, or Vote Ignorant"?
So while McCain is a racist for calling Obama a "Celeb", I am sure that Obama will be considered 'brutally honest' for calling McCain, and by extension the right side of the political spectrum, "ignorant". Seems like a strange way to heal a divided nation.
Ultimately this is a grand case of the pot calling the kettle..errrr..anyhow.. This label of 'ignorant' comes from a man who's very own energy plan called for a major reduction in electricity consumption, AND an increase in cars the you can plug into an electrical socket and recharge. Does he even notice the conflicting goals here, or did they just quickly poll the interns for good energy ideas, and stick the list in a brochure without proof-reading it?
It seems to me that this could well be another "clinging to guns and religion" moment. He has just handed the GOP a great sound bite to hound him with until November. McCain should flood Ohio, PA and other flyover states with ads using the message: "John McCain and 75% of America are calling for more drilling here in America to lower oil prices. Barack Obama wants you to inflate your tires. And if you don't agree with him, he says you must be ignorant. [CLIP] So much for the message of hope and change."
I guess we should re-write that now famous line to read "Clinging to their guns, religion, and gasoline..."
Source
Obama's energy plan could spark trade war
Buried within Barack Obama's energy plan is an industrial policy that is even more naive and disturbing
Obama says that changing our energy mix requires an economic transformation as well. According to Obama, his plan will create 5 million "green jobs." These will be American jobs. They will be high-paying. And, according to Obama, they will even be union jobs. Obama also claims that the new flex-fuel and hybrid plug-in cars his plan calls for will be produced in the United States. He would give American car manufacturers $4 billion in taxpayer money and guarantees to retool their plants to make the new cars.
Now, there are some jobs in the renewable-energy field that have to be domestic: installing solar panels, assembling concentrating solar plants or windmills. Basically, construction jobs. However, there is nothing about using renewable energy that gives the United States a competitive advantage in manufacturing the components for it. Nor is there anything about using flex-fuel and plug-in cars that gives American automakers a competitive advantage in making them.
The only way to ensure that these jobs are as Obama is promising is to erect trade barriers against foreign manufactured renewable-energy components and alternative-fuel cars. That, of course, would invite retaliatory actions against U.S. manufacturing exports, which have been one of the bright spots in the American economy. In short, if Obama means what he says, he's threatening a trade war.
This is the most disturbing feature of Obama's energy policy. Even as president, he simply wouldn't have the power to command the production of energy from specific sources at precise times in the future, as his plan calls for. However, Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress would have the power to adopt ruinous trade policies.
Source
3am and Obama didn't hear the phone
John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain's direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis. "Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here," he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia's move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia."
He also criticized Obama for calling on both sides to show "restraint," and suggested the Democrat was putting too much blame on the conflict's clear victim. "That's kind of like saying after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that Kuwait and Iraq need to show restraint, or like saying in 1968 [when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia] ... that the Czechoslovaks should show restraint," he said.
A foreign policy adviser for Obama, Ben Rhodes, said Obama was deliberately measured in response to the conflict, balancing his disapproval of Russia's "troubling behavior in its near-abroad region" with "the fact that we have to deal with Russia to deal with our most important national security challenges."
Rhodes declined to discuss McCain's statement directly, but did indirectly criticize it. "The temperature of your rhetoric isn't a measure of your commitment to Georgian sovereignty," he said, noting that the two candidates' statements shared a substantive commitment to Georgia's borders. "You don't want to get so far in front of a situation that you're feeding the momentum of an escalation."
Critics of McCain's stance said he'd imposed ideology on a complicated situation in which both sides bear some blame. "McCain took an inflexible approach to addressing this issue by focusing heavily on one side, without a pragmatic assessment of the situation," said Mark Brzezinski, a former Clinton White House official and an informal adviser to Obama. "It's both sides' fault - both have been somewhat provocative with each other," he said.
A fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Ariel Cohen, praised McCain's statement as "robust and tough." The candidates' stances also reflected their broader goals in the region. Obama, Rhodes noted, has argued that the American interest in controlling nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and in other national security concerns means that the country should maintain a constructive relationship with Russia, even when Russia mistreats its population and threatens its neighbors.
McCain, meanwhile, has offered more sticks than carrots, and suggested that Russia will respond primarily to American toughness and resolve. He's also called for Russia to be expelled from the Group of Eight industrial nations, a move unlikely to be supported by its other members, but one that makes his disapproval of Russia's conduct very clear. Friday, as the crisis unfolded, he reiterated that stance.
Source
Reparations By Another Name
Barack Obama says Washington shouldn't just offer apologies for slavery, but also "deeds." Don't worry, he says, he's not talking about direct reparations. Relieved? Don't be.
'I consistently believe that when it comes to . . . reparations," Obama recently told a gathering of minority journalists, "the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds." A few days later, he clarified his remarks, saying he's not calling for direct cash payments to descendents of slaves, but rather indirect aid in the form of government programs that will "close the gap" between what he sees as white America and black America.
He says government should offer "universal" programs - such as universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s - that "disproportionately affect people of color." In other words, reparations by another name.
Obama knows that if he pushes too hard on reparations, he might scare off white voters. So he couches race-specific welfare as "universal" social programs that appeal to broad-based political coalitions - "even if they disproportionately help minorities," he confides in his book, "Audacity of Hope."
Obama has a name for his scheme: "universal strategies." "An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn't just good policy," he wrote. "It's also good politics."
Maybe so. But not all his plans for reparations are roundabout. His book and Web site outline a separate plan calling for essentially a government bailout of the inner cities. Among other things, he proposes:
Doling out faith-based grants "targeting ex-offenders."
Subsidizing supermarket chains that relocate to the inner city to deliver "fresh produce" to blacks, helping wean them off unhealthy fast food.
Imposing "goals and timetables for minority hiring" on large corporations whose work forces are deemed too white.
Continuing to fund the Community Development Block Grant program, Head Start and HUD public housing subsidies.
Funding Small Business Administration loans for minority businesses who train ex-felons, including gangbangers, for the "green jobs" of the future, such as installing extra insulation in homes.
Doubling the funding for federal after-school programs such as midnight basketball.
Subsidizing job training, day care, transportation for inner-city poor, as well as doubling the funding of the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program.
Expanding the eligibility of the earned income tax credit to include more poor, and indexing it to inflation.
Adopting entire inner-city neighborhoods as wards of the federal government.
Spending billions on new inner-city employment programs, including prison-to-work programs.
This is just a down payment on the "economic justice" Obama has promised the NAACP - financed by "tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth," he says in his book.
And the indirect aid he's proposing now could quickly turn into cash transfers once Obama is safely ensconced in the White House.
Claiming "blacks were forced into ghettos," Obama is certainly sympathetic to the idea of reparations. His church has actively petitioned for them for decades. And he's strongly suggested there's a legal case to be made for them.
"So many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow," he said. "We still haven't fixed them."
He assumes the economic gap is a legacy of discrimination and largely unrelated to personal responsibility. He also makes it seem things haven't gotten better for blacks.
In this, Obama is intellectually dishonest. In his book, he cites statistics showing a 70% rise over the past two decades in the number of "Latino families considered middle class," but never cites one stat showing the even more impressive gains of the black middle class. He complains about low black wages, but never mentions the quantum leap in black home-ownership rates.
Why? Such stats would undermine his case for roundabout reparations. Even if it were true, he says, "better isn't good enough." "The problems of inner-city poverty arise from our failure to face up to an often tragic past," Obama said.
Now it's payback time.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
10 August, 2008
No vacation for Obama
With Barack Obama stepping off the playing field for a week-long Hawaiian vacation, John McCain's campaign released three new attack ads yesterday, signaling that the senator from Arizona would use the void to continue pummeling the character of his rival for the White House. Obama's trip to Hawaii, where he spent much of his youth, comes after a week in which his Republican opponent dominated the news with his negative assault. Obama aides said the senator from Illinois is maintaining his lead in polls and will not be goaded into responding with character attacks of his own.
But the assaults on him continued yesterday, with new television ads and a radio spot portraying Obama as a lightweight celebrity intent on raising taxes across the board. "Life in the spotlight must be grand," a female announcer declares to paparazzi-like images of Obama and adoring chants in the background. "But for the rest of us, times are tough." That advertisement and a Spanish-language ad and radio spot claim Obama voted to raise taxes on families earning just $42,000, a claim based on his vote for a nonbinding, Democratic budget resolution that allows all of President Bush's tax cuts to expire in 2011, something Obama has promised he would not let happen.
Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan called the ad "a lie" and "part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam." But McCain aides showed little concern for such niceties. "Like it would have crossed our minds to let up on the guy just because he's on vacation?" asked Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain's top advisers, as McCain flew from Iowa to Arkansas yesterday.
Many Democrats are increasingly worried that trying to debunk the McCain attacks will not be enough, particularly with the candidate on vacation. The Republican National Committee mocked Obama with "Barack Obama's Hawaii Travel Guide," noting the elite prep school he attended on scholarship and highlighting a Chevron station selling gasoline for $4.78 a gallon.
Obama did counter by airing a radio advertisement in Ohio taking McCain to task over the fact that his campaign manager lobbied on behalf of a German freight-shipping company, DHL, that is laying off over 8,000 Ohioans and moving its operations to Kentucky.
But an issue-based counterattack to McCain's character assault is not enough, worried Democrats say. "It literally is the same old Democratic, consultant-driven politics," said Matt Stoller, a Democratic political consultant and blogger. "It's the same attempt not to tell a story about the country and the other guy, but to prove you're right, like an academic debating seminar."
The McCain campaign challenged Obama's ad in a conference call with Wilmington, Ohio, resident Mary Houghtaling, who in July tearfully challenged McCain to help with the job losses, then yesterday praised the Republican while castigating Obama and calling for his campaign to take the radio ad off the air. The hospice founder, whose husband is a pilot for DHL facing a layoff, joined in the attack, saying that "Obama's going to be in Hawaii, swimming."
More here
Ten reasons why Barack Obama will not win the 2008 presidential election
Some excerpts from the 10 below
Reason #10: Racist white voters will not support Obama
No, this isn't a condemnation of white, Southern, toothless, gun-toting Republicans. It's an observation about the rank and file of the Democrat party. Whether it'sangry older white women who feel that the election was stolen from Hillary by an upstart younger black man, or just your average Joe Six Pack union worker who made it clear in the Democrat primaries that Bill Clinton was speaking for him when he floated his racist trial balloons on Hillary's behalf, the so-called party of the average guy has repeatedly shown its true colors; pure white, not half-white.
This shouldn't be much of a surprise. A former Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan is now the respected Dean of the Senate Democrats. Any effort to break the cycle of black poverty and illiteracy through welfare reform and school vouchers has been repeatedly opposed by Democrat party officials who prefer their constituency to be completely dependent on the largess of their white elected leaders, rather than even the tiniest bit self-sufficient. Even Democrat fellow travelers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are less interested in bridging the divide between blacks and whites than they are in filling their own pockets with money from guilty white liberals and blackmailed corporations. Al Gore may have invented the carbon credit scam where his companies profit by selling hypothetical indulgences to hypocritical environmentalists who want everyone but themselves to change their lifestyles, but he doesn't hold a candle to the organized race-for-hire politics of Jackson and Sharpton. The Democrat party is about preserving racial politics, not ending it, so it comes as little surprise that those who live by that sword may also die, at least metaphorically, by that same sword.
Take away the small cadres of limousine liberals and idealistic youth who will vote for Obama to assuage their guilt over being born wealthy and white, or just think it would be really, really cool to have a Black Guy in the White House even though it's not all about skin color, and you have the naked face of race-based politics rearing its head in the Democrat party.The “Bradley Effect” is alive and well among Democrat voters, so named because they have a distinctive habit of lying to pollsters about their support for black candidates, only to act differently on election day. When their decisions actually count, all their progressive, liberal pabulum goes out the window as they reach for the lever and vote for the white guy like they did repeatedly in California, Chicago, New York and other cities. It's why Obama needs to be 10-12 points ahead of McCain in the battleground states on November 4 — not statistically tied like he is today — or he'll end up losing the election by double digits.
Reason #7: Gas is $4/gallon
Never mind that it costs more to fill up the average car in Europe than it does in America. Americans don't want to drive a golf cart with an AM-FM radio like they do in London, or squeeze themselves into a tin can on wheels like they do in Paris, Berlin and Rome. We're not looking to justify $9/gallon gas by riding in a cardboard box that gets 40miles/gallon, so that the cost of filling up a mini-Cooper in Europe is equivalent to filling up your SUV in America. This is America, and we don't give a rat's rear end what they do in Europe and why they do it. If it makes sense on its own merits we'll adopt it — and undoubtedly improve on it. If it can't pass the common sense test, then no amount of high-minded preaching by the self-appointed elite will turn a bad idea into a good one.
And while we're on the subject, let's not forget the hypocrisy of Al Gore and other liberals who decry the high price of gasoline as a failure of the Bush administration; all of whom have been advocating $4/gallon gas for years in an effort to force Americans to abandon their cars and turn to mass transit. Trains and busses are great in a place like New York City, which is a densely populated island the size of DFW Airport. But in Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, or even a lot of the East Coast itself, mass transit is impractical. On occasion, and for specific tasks like commuting to work in an urban environment, mass transit may be great. But in a nation the size of the United States with a lot of distance between points even when it's a “local” drive, we still need our cars. Paying four bucks a gallon is nuts when we have plenty of domestic oil reserves that are off limits thanks to our Democrat friends in Congress, regardless of how good it will be for “the planet” in Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi's distorted view of reality.
One day we'll all be driving solar powered wind mobiles, and the cost of a barrel of oil will no longer be an issue. (Actually, one day our great-grandchildren will be doing this, since new technologies don't arise with the snap of a finger because Nancy Pelosi wants to demagogue the issue.) But until then we need oil; and not just a three-day supply from the Strategic Oil Reserve. Or, a nation-wide program to check the air pressure in our tires as Obama suggested, and thus supposedly alleviate the need for any further drilling.
There's plenty of oil in ANWR that's off limits because Democrats don't want to risk potentially spoiling a pristine, 80-below-zero landscape the size of a few football fields. They'd rather have you pay through the nose to fill up your gas tank, and hopefully be pissed off enough at Bush to not elect John McCain. But as one person on the street said in a recent TV interview after she was shown an actual picture of ANWR while filling up her gas tank, if drilling there will threaten the local wildlife, then put all the animals in a zoo and pump the oil so my gasoline bill will be lower! The same goes for drilling offshore the US coast. China is going to drill 60 miles from the US coastline on behalf of Cuba while Nancy Pelosi “protects the planet” by preventing the US from developing these same oil fields, so we can buy this oil at a premium from the Chinese.
People aren't stupid. They may be lazy and ill-informed at times, and willing to save the environment when the cost to them is $2.15 a gallon of gas instead of $2.05. But crank that cost up to $100 a tank-full, and you can almost hear their collective cry of “screw the polar bears!” Obama and the Democrats have turned a deaf ear to this outrage, lamenting only that the price of gas went up “too fast”, instead of “too high.”
Economic issues will drive the 2008 election. However, the people will not blame Bush and McCain for their misery, but rather Obama and Pelosi who have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the pain.
Reason #5: Obama's friends and supporters
Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, Ludacris, and Tony Rezko. Any one of these associations would have sent the media into a death-watch feeding frenzy if they were even indirectly linked to the Republican Party nominee.
And yet, while the press continues to make excuses for Obama, the American people are starting to take a long hard look at the man about whom the terrorist group Hamas said, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election.”
In the real world you are known by both your friends and your enemies. In Obama's case, his friends seem to have several things in common with America's enemy Hamas: from damning America for its policies and actions, to spewing race- or religious-based hatred, to blowing up government property and killing innocent civilians, to saying stupid and idiotic things in support of his candidacy, to simply being a crook.
With friends like these, Obama doesn't need any enemies.
Reason #4: 57 States, and counting
Every candidatemakes gaffes. Some mangle their words. Others momentarily conjoin similar sounding words (Iran/Iraq). Some even put an “e” at the end of “potato.” Thank God I have spell check on my computer.
If you're a Republican, this means you're an idiot. Bush (take your pick — 41 or 43) can't complete a coherent sentence. Dan Quayle was, and still is, a national laughing stock for his famous misspelling. But Barack Obama can speak about a “bomb” that fell on Pearl Harbor (confusing it with Nagasaki), think he'll be President for “eight to ten years,” or most famously of all lament that he hasn't yet visited “all 57 states” and, well, we're supposed to understand that the guy was tired or having an off day, so give him a break.
The painful fact is that, like the anchors who report the mainstream news, Obama is a good reader and public speaker. Give him a teleprompter with a prepared script by one of his many speechwriters, and the man can turn a captivating phrase. But give him a microphone in an unscripted setting, and he's as dumb as the proverbial box of rocks.
We can accept personal flaws — and even the occasional peccadillo — in our leaders. But we can't accept outright stupidity. It's the reason the nuclear peanut farmer Jimmy Carter lost to the B-movie actor Ronald Reagan. The press in 1980 had little love for the supposedly mentally challenged movie actor who won the Republican Party nomination. But as it turned out, the American people saw that Reagan was no dummy. And even more to the point, they had absolutely no love for retaining the professed super smart White House incumbent who gave us long lines and gasoline rationing, hyper-inflation, American civilians held hostage in Iran, a “national malaise” blamed on the American public, and the boycott of the Moscow Olympics as a substitute for any coherent foreign policy.
Obama is a train wreck waiting to happen, from his tax-happy domestic proposals to his third-grade grasp of international relations. McCain's recent ad showing him as just another media-created celebutard has resonated with the public because, like so many things that tend to hit home, in addition to being witty and funny, it has the added advantage of being true.
Reason #3: One Messiah is enough for most people
There's something disturbing about a person who equates his inevitable ascendency to the Office of President of the United States with shimmering light, epiphanies of the spirit, and a command over the world's oceans.
Now, no one seriously believes that Barack Obama seriously believes that he is the actual messiah. But most people who don't believe they are the product of the Second Coming avoid speaking about themselves in messianic terms, and therein lies the problem. Whether it's the serial fainters at his rallies being handed the serial water bottles to revive them, the religious-like metaphors he embraces to talk about a new beginning for all mankind that will arise from his election to office, or the just plain creepy way a number of his supporters liken him to a biblical figure, none of this wears well with the majority of the American public.
We've been conditioned by decades of liberal-speak to automatically avoid anyone who wants to mix politics and religion. Google “Obamassiah” and you get a few hundred thousand hits. Google “McCainassiah” and it asks you if you actually meant a different word.
Obama runs the very great risk of alienating the voting public by mixing the presumed inevitability of his election with the pseudo-religious undertones he creates through his own words and actions. Americans don't want to elect a pope any more than they want to elect a king.
Reason #2: There's no there, there
Exactly what the hell is “change,” except the coins I get back after giving the coffee shop attendant five bucks for my $3.95 frappuccino?
There are only so many times a candidate can repeat a platitude like “change” before the voting public will eventually require him to define what he means. The problem is, every time Obama tries to put some flesh on his pronouncements he runs into trouble, like he did recently with his on again/off again support for an undivided Jerusalem. After being raked over the coals by Jews and Arabs alike for his equivocal statements, Obama fell back on his best Rodney King impersonation and answered all further questions with his own version of can't we all just get along? That may work well in Hollywood or the vacuousness of TV news, but Americans normally demand a bit more than empty rhetoric and slogans from their prospective leaders.
Source
Pro-Obama Group Threatens Republican Donors
A new left-wing organization that wants to help elect Barack Obama president is sending letters to nearly 10,000 major donors who contribute to Republican causes, threatening them with potential legal problems if they finance conservative groups. The nonprofit organization, Accountable America, is even offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the criminal conviction or fines of at least $10,000 for violations of campaign finance laws or other statutes by a conservative group, according to The New York Times.
Accountable America is led by Tom Matzzie, former Washington director of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, and its research director is Judd Legum, who served that role in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Matzzie called the organization's effort "going for the jugular." He told The Times, "We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground."
The warning letter being sent to potential donors "is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives," The Times reports. If a conservative group do run ads attacking Obama, Matzzie says his group plans to run ads countering it exposing the donors behind the anti-Obama message.
Matzzie's group has so far raised only $200,000, but he said he hopes to raise more than $500,000 by next week and $2 million overall.
Republican strategist Chris LaCivita doubts the group will succeed in scaring off donors, saying "they're not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left."
Matzzie previously headed the Campaign to Defend America, which has run ads against Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Source
Ex-Moveon leader's planned 'warning' letters to donors 'could fall under the KKK Act'
A public interest group that prosecutes government corruption announced an investigation into a left-leaning group that is warning contributors to conservative causes this election year about "potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."
Officials with Judicial Watch today said its investigation into Accountable America would focus on a nationwide effort by the "liberal activist group to intimidate supporters of Republican and conservative causes," because those activities may fall under a key federal civil rights law known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. That law, Judicial Watch said, may come into play if "two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for president or vice president, or as a member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy."
"Threats and intimidation have no place in our democratic elections and are a violation of the law. This new front group, Accountable America, seems have crossed a legal line," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
The New York Times said the group plans to send "warning" letters to nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country in coming days in an effort to prevent similar groups from the right from getting off the ground this fall. The group is led by Tom Matzzie, who has been involved with prominent left-wing efforts in recent years....
The report said Accountable America already has singled out major Republican donors such as Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul, and Mel Sembler, a real estate magnate, who both have donated to Freedom's Watch. A spokesman for Freedom's Watch, Ed Patru, said he wasn't particularly concerned about Matzzie's plan. "This idea sounds even more sloppily though out than his last venture, which, of course, went belly-up for lack of financial support," Patru told the Times.
Source
Suspicious ties force Obama adviser's resignation
Former coordinator for Muslim affairs has links to Hamas, CAIR
Ten days after the announcement of his appointment as the Obama campaign's coordinator for Muslim affairs, Chicago lawyer Mazen Ashabi resigned, saying he didn't want investigations into his past associations to become "distracting." Mazen Asbahi became the campaign's coordinator of outreach to Muslims on July 26, but earlier this week a report by the Internet newsletter Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report was surfaced by the Wall Street Journal that linked Asbahi to Jamal Said, a man thought by the U.S. Department of Justice to be involved in racketeering and fundraising for the Palestinian terror organization Hamas.
A pair of Detroit Free Press articles this week also revealed Asbahi spent part of the day of his appointment at a fundraiser at the home of Dr. Jukaku Tayeb, president of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. CAIR has been accused in the book "Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out", published by WND books, of being a co-conspirator in funneling $12 million to Hamas, operating as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and extensive connections to terrorist organizations.
The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, which initiated the events leading to Asbahi's resignation, is published by a Washington think tank that tracks the Muslim Brotherhood, a world-wide Sunni Islam fundamentalist group based in Egypt. The Report revealed Asbahi had briefly served in 2000 on the board of an Islamic investment fund called the Allied Assets Advisors Fund with Jamal Said, imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois. Said, in turn, was named last year by the U.S. Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in a racketeering trial surrounding alleged Hamas fundraisers, which ended in a mistrial.
According to the Wall Street Journal, after it learned of Asbahi's connection to Said, the newspaper submitted a list of questions to the Obama campaign about Asbahi's background. Rather than answers, however, Asbahi responded with his resignation.
Source
2 campaigns seek 'truth' about Obama's birth
Eligibility for presidency hinges on American citizenship
Israel Insider is reporting that analysts working separately have determined the birth certificate posted on the Daily Kos website and later on Sen. Barack Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign website is fraudulent, and now two different actions have been launched to try and obtain the truth about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's birth.
The Israel Insider report said the two analysts it interviewed both have been "able to independently discern the name 'Maya Kassandra Soetoro' from artifacts left behind in the process of forging a new fake document for Barack from an image of Maya's original document." Maya is Obama's younger half-sister. The report follows a posting from another researcher, identified by the news publication as Techdude, that the birth certificate is a forgery because it originally documented the birth of a woman in the 1970s.
Blogger Mitchell Langbert now has launched an online petition to the Federal Election Commission in which signers are asking the agency to "take responsibility to verify the eligibility of Mr. Barack H. Obama to be president of the United States." Wrote Langbert, "Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically displayed imaged displayed by his official campaign website has alleged to have been a forgery. . We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtain an official copy of his birth certificate."
Ted Moran, who said he wished to be contacted at brotherbear@solomonsstables.org, said he also was launching a campaign to discern the truth about Obama's birth certificate. "I am looking for 50 brave men or women from 49 states and the District of Columbia to join me in suing the secretaries of state in our respective states to prevent them from posting the name Barak H. Obama on the November 2008 ballot until he presents incontrovertible proof that he is a . U.S. citizen," he said. "The secretaries of state are the ones who by placing a person or initiative on the ballot certify that the candidates or initiatives meet the legal requirements to be on the ballot.
"The office of the president is simply too important to trust to someone other than a person whose loyalties are 100 percent American, and while it is impossible to read into the heart of a man or woman we do have the test our forefathers gave us. Which is this office is not to be entrusted to anyone but a natural U.S. citizen," he said.
Multiple requests over a period of several days by WND to the Obama campaign for a comment or explanation of the birth certificate issue did not generate any response.
The Israel Insider said, "The revelation that [the birth certificate] of Obama's own sister was evidently used to create the electronic forgery represents what supporters of this analysis claim is a 'smoking gun' that appears to implicate Sen. Obama directly. Hawaii law limits access to vital records to family members only, a fact which slowed down the ability of researchers to compare the purported Obama 'birth certificate' - which displayed from the start a peculiar provenance and inexplicable features - to genuine specimens. Therefore, it would seem that either Maya K. Soetoro-Ng (as she is now called) supplied the document or its image to half-brother Barack or his campaign, or Obama/his campaign used it without her permission.
"The stakes couldn't be higher. Even the Snopes anti-rumor site acknowledges that Obama's constitutional fitness to be president depends solely on his being born in the United States, because his mother - not yet 19 at the time of his birth - would not have had a sufficient number of years as an adult citizen, according to the laws prevailing at the time, to pass on 'natural born citizenship' automatically," the report said.
"There have been reports, so far unconfirmed, that Obama was born outside the country, either in Kenya, his presumed father's native land, or in Canada. The fact that the Obama campaign has been touting as genuine a forgery since June 12 will likely increase pressure to not only account for the fake but produce a genuine paper birth certificate. Obama, in his book 'Dreams from My Father,' specifically mentioned having such a document in his possession, but it has not been submitted for public inspection or analysis if it in fact exists," the report said.
The forensic computer investigators interviewed by the news publication concluded there are two obvious possibilities for the birth certificate image: A real certificate was scanned and digitally edited or a real certificate was scanned for the graphic layout, then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. The certificate was published by the Daily Kos June 12 following initial reports questioning Obama's place of birth. He's stated he was born in Hawaii, but if that was not the case, his citizenship could be uncertain, since his father was not a citizen and his mother was not old enough to pass along American citizenship automatically.
The issue originally was raised by Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, a National Review blog. He cited the "unlikely" possibility that Obama's 1961 birth was not within the U.S. At the time, he wrote, "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen . because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for 10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'" He then pointed out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born, "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16." When the Daily Kos website posted an image that appeared to be Obama's birth certificate, Geraghty announced he was satisfied.
The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., already has gone through a similar challenge, and the U.S. Senate responded with a resolution in April declaring him to be a "'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." The article declares "no person except a natural born citizen . shall be eligible to the office of president." McCain was challenged because he was born to two U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.
Source
Obama's Tactical Gift to McCain
There is now one question in American politics: With the Republican Party in such bad shape -- measured by polls, voter registration and general enthusiasm -- why isn't Barack Obama in better shape? (Most national polls show him slightly ahead.)
For some, the answer -- or at least part of the answer -- is simple: because Obama doesn't look like the presidents on American currency. But race in America is anything but simple, and polls seem powerless to measure its political influence. There is clearly an undercurrent of prejudice in parts of the electorate, evident even among some Democratic primary voters. There is also massive enthusiasm among younger voters to break the color barrier in the Oval Office, coupled with large increases in African American primary turnout. These unpredictable factors may well balance in Obama's favor, which would speak well of the country.
There are explanations enough for a close presidential race without recourse to race. First, while John McCain still lacks a unifying theory for his campaign, his tactics show marked improvement -- progress that coincided with campaign personnel changes that included the elevation of Steve Schmidt to head day-to-day operations.
Sometimes the right issue can be even better than the right theory, and for McCain the energy issue has been a gift. There is perhaps no other topic in American politics today on which the public is angry, seeks action and agrees strongly with Republicans. McCain's approach is to do it all: drilling, nuclear, alternatives and conservation. Obama's approach has been reactive and irrelevant. What would his redistributed windfall profits tax do to produce energy or reduce the need for it? And Obama is hamstrung by a coalition that insists we will not drill our way out of this problem -- which is true but beside the point. No single approach will solve the problem in the short or medium term. And a nation in an energy crisis has every justification to extract its oil and natural gas while it pursues alternatives to oil and natural gas.
Second, Obama's tactics are undermining the unifying theory of his campaign. During the primaries, Obama presented himself as someone different, better and special. He would not only improve the economy and the health-care system, he would transcend old divisions and heal a broken land. Supporters embraced him as inspirational; detractors criticized him as messianic. Few doubt that he set the highest rhetorical goals since the New Frontier.
Since the primaries, Obama has made a tactical decision: He refuses to be painted as a liberal. America may be a discontented country, but it remains a center-right country. Democrats who understand this fact -- such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- become president. Democrats who don't lose elections.
But since Obama's short public career has been conventionally -- in some cases, extremely -- liberal, his tactical shift to the center has been startlingly obvious, on issues from guns to terror surveillance to Iraq, and now (reluctantly) to oil drilling. Says Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center: "Obama's political calculation may be correct, but it still involves a price. It has shattered his claim to be different. It calls into question his political character and leaves the impression he is consumed and defined by ambition."
At least temporarily, Obama's tactics have raised a damning political question: Who is this man? And the McCain campaign has begun to cleverly exploit these concerns, not with a frontal attack on his liberalism or his flip-flops but with a humorous attack on his "celebrity" -- really a proxy for shallowness. The argument is powerful: McCain has roots and convictions. Obama has fans and paparazzi. And Obama's European trip -- more Princess Diana than John Kennedy -- served only to confirm these impressions.
All this sets up a fascinating convention season. Will McCain be able to describe some compelling vision -- some combination of maverick, reformer and patriot -- that unites and justifies his campaign? Will Obama be able to reignite the inspiration of his campaign without overreaching into self-absorbed, second-rate Ted Sorensen? Will he be able to define an idealism that offers something more than himself as the ideal?
Even after his worst few weeks of the general election campaign, Obama remains in the lead. And he remains a far more talented and compelling figure than either John Kerry or Al Gore. McCain still swims upstream, but the current may run weaker than we thought.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
9 August, 2008
Obama looking more vulnerable
You're in a plane and you're flying over the campaign at a level of about 10,000 feet, and you look down and see: Not much has changed. Battle lines fixed, topography the same, troops pretty much where they were. But land the plane, walk around and talk to people, and you realize: This thing is moving. Things are shifting around a bit. That's what I see looking back at the past four weeks.
For the first time the idea began to take hold that John McCain can win this thing. You saw the USA Today-Gallup poll this week, with Mr. McCain gaining six points since late June among those Gallup dubbed likely voters. Mr. McCain took the lead, 49% to 45%. Among registered voters, it's still Barack Obama, 47% to 44%. A poll came out saying people are tired of hearing about Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain took the lead in YouTube hits. Small stuff, and there will be a lot of twists and turns before this is over, but there's movement down there beneath the crust of the Earth.
Mr. Obama got tagged the past month as something new, not the candidate from Men's Vogue but arrogant, aloof and somehow ethereal. There is no there there. Everyone I know plays the game of "This election is just like 1932," or '52, or whatever. "It's 1960-the youthful charismatic JFK versus the boring and so Republican Nixon." "No, it's '92 and the youthful charismatic Clinton versus the tired old Bush." This election is, in fact, exactly like the 2008 election. But the other day a friend said something I hadn't heard before: "This is 1948, and Obama is Tom Dewey"-the sleek, well-groomed, inevitable one who lost. I pondered this and said maybe he's Dewey, but Mr. McCain's not Truman, not so far. He is still, on the trail, his scattered self, not "Give 'Em Hell Harry." But the point is, even the clich‚s have begun to shift.
The daring and exciting European trip was probably a wash, and possibly a mistake in the bridge-too-far sense. During the coverage, pundits were always saying the trip leveled the playing field on foreign affairs between Sens. Obama and McCain. But Mr. McCain isn't Mr. Obama's problem in foreign affairs. Mr. McCain early on positioned himself, reasonably or unreasonably, depending on your view, as the candidate of possible new wars. I don't think people want new wars. Mr. Obama's problem on foreign affairs is his own youth and inexperience. In a time of high stakes, do we want Mr. Untried and Untested?
What Mr. Obama has been doing, and this started before the European trip and continued throughout, is making people see him as president. He's doing this when he ambles back to the back of the plane and leans over the reporters, in his shirtsleeves, speaking affably into their held-up mics and recorders, at the end of the victorious tour. That's what presidents do. He speaks to rapturous crowds in foreign capitals. That's what presidents do.
He isn't doing this to show he's inevitable and invincible. He's doing it to give voters the impression that they've already seen President Obama. That he's kind of already been president, he's done and can do all the things presidents do, to the point that by the middle of October a certain portion of the country is going to think he already is president.
And he needs to give them this impression because he's a young black man from nowhere who's been well-known for less than a year. And he knows one of his biggest problems with older white voters is they just can't imagine a young black man from nowhere as president. He's helping them imagine. It's not vanity, it's strategy.
However. Mr. Obama consistently shows that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. It's a theme with his talented, confident staff. They don't know what they don't know either. Because they're young and they've never been in power and it takes time to know what you don't know. The presidential-type seal with OBAMA on it, the sometimes over-the-top rhetoric about healing the earth and parting the seas. They pick the biggest, showiest venue for the Berlin speech, the Brandenburg Gate, just like a president, not realizing people would think: Ya gotta earn that one, kid. Going to Europe was fine, but they should have gone in modestly, with a modest venue, quietly spread word that his speech was open to the public, and then left the watching world awed by the hordes that showed up. For they would have. "We couldn't help it, they love him!" It would have looked as if Europe was coming to him, and let that sink in back home.
Anyone can carp like this in retrospect, but when you know what you don't know, you can plan like this in advance.
Two weeks ago a journalist, a moderate liberal, spoke to me of what he called Mr. Obama's arrogance. I said I didn't think it was arrogance but high self-regard. He said there's no difference. I said no, arrogance has an air about it of pushing people around, insisting on your way. Mr. Obama doesn't seem like that. He took down a machine without raising his voice. Extremely high self-regard, though, can itself be a problem. "What's wrong with that?" my friend said. "You want a self-confident president."
I said yes, but it brings up the Churchill question. Churchill had been scored by an acquaintance for his own very high self-regard, and responded with what was for him a certain sheepishness. "We're all worms," he said, "but I do believe I am a glowworm." He believed he was great, and he was. Is Mr. Obama a glowworm? Does he have real greatness in him? Or is he, say, a product of the self-esteem campaign, that movement within the schools and homes of our country the past 25 years that says the way to get a winner is to tell the kid he's a winner every day? You can get some true people of achievement that way, because some people need a lot of reinforcement to rise. But you can also get, not to put too fine a point of it, empty suits that take on a normal shape only because they're so puffed up with ego.
Is Mr. Obama's self-conception in line with his gifts, depth, wisdom and character? That's the big question, I suspect, on a number of minds.
As for Mr. McCain, I think he had the best moment of the month this week at the big motorcycle convention in Sturgis, S.D., when he was greeted with that mighty roar. And his great line: "As you may know, not long ago a couple hundred thousand Berliners made a lot of noise for my opponent. I'll take the roar of 50,000 Harleys any day." Oh, that was good.
There's a thing that's out there and it's big, and latent, and somehow always taken into account and always ignored, and political professionals always assume they understand it. It has been called many things the past 50 years, "the silent center," "the silent majority," "the coalition," "the base." The idea of it has evolved as its composition has evolved, but the fact that it's big, and relatively silent, and somehow always latent, maintains. And watching that McCain event-vroom vroom-one got the sense it is perhaps beginning to pay attention to the campaign. I see it as the old America, and if and when it reasserts itself, the campaign will shift indeed, and in ways you can even see from 10,000 feet.
Source
Is Obama's Slump From McCain's Ads? Or From Overall Barack Fatigue?
Tom Daschle - who hopefully is feeling some sense of relief or justice at the developments in the anthrax case - says McCain's ads mocking Obama are having an effect. I find myself less certain...
I do wonder, however, if we're seeing something Walter Shapiro discusses in Salon today - a sense of Obama fatigue. Obama's speech at the 2004 convention? The best debut of a politician in a generation, we were told (and it probably was). He won his Senate seat, and Newsweek put him on the cover of their 2004 year-end issue as the man of Purple America (for beating Alan Keyes). By 2006 Time was putting him on the cover and explaining "Why Barack Obama Might Be Our Next President." Then he won Iowa, and it was a major breakthrough in American political history. Then he gave his speech on race after the Jeremiah Wright sermons surfaced, and we were told it was the greatest speech on race since Abraham Lincoln. Then he gave his speech in Berlin, and we were told it was the greatest speech by an American overseas in anyone's memory. There's been a lot more advertising in my media market (Washington, D.C.) presumably because of the expectation that Virginia is winnable. Now we're told he's going to give the most amazing convention speech the world has ever seen, a speech so big it needs to be in a football stadium...
It's easy to imagine 51 percent of voters, as the Pew Research Center found, saying, "enough already." We get it. He's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Every speech is the greatest address he's ever given... since the last one.
Sports fans got sick of hearing about What Will Brett Favre Do for a solid month. We're now on several years, with particular intensity in the past few months, about how swell Obama is. In light of that, one wonders if the $6 million in McCain advertising and $5 million in Obama advertising during the Olympics is such a great idea...
Source
Obama Attack on Congressional Term Limits "Utter Nonsense"
U.S. Term Limits president Philip Blumel today called Barack Obama's recent attack on term limits "utter nonsense," adding that the putative Democrat presidential nominee "needs to stick to topics on which he has shown real expertise, like rent collecting and designing logos." Blumel's statement came in response to Obama's recent reply to a question about the need for term limits on members of Congress. Obama, labeling the question "kind of tricky" said, "I'm generally not in favor of term limits. Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They're called elections."
Taking strong issue both with Obama's analysis and with his understanding of the issue, USTL's Blumel said, "As is the case on so many issues about which he has made similar ill-informed pronouncements, Mr. Obama needs to do his homework before he portrays himself as an authority. " Explained Blumel, "In the first place, to compare lobbyists with politicians is utter nonsense. Lobbyists are nothing more than supplicants. That's why they're stuck in the lobby, while Mr. Obama and his cronies own the building. For him to make believe that he doesn't know the difference between favor seekers and power brokers is insincere -- and insulting. As to `slick operators walking around the halls of Congress,' Mr. Obama needs to look in the dictionary under `career politicians.' Or in the mirror.
"As to elections being the only form of term limits in which he believes," Blumel continued, "that's pithy, glib -- and thoroughly duplicitous. As an incumbent, Mr. Obama knows full well that members of Congress have now skewed the laws to give themselves a virtual guarantee of a lifetime job. And as the self-appointed apostle of change, he ought to be taking the lead to change all that inequity."
Blumel pointed to figures showing that in November of 2006, of the 407 members of the U.S. House of Representatives seeking reelection, 383 were returned to office. That translates into better than a 94% success rate. In the U.S. Senate, 23 of 29 (79%) incumbents running for office were reelected. "Mr. Obama is undoubtedly well aware of these figures," Blumel said, "just as he is well aware of the advantages incumbents have given themselves to render it all but impossible for sitting members to lose elections. That's why he wants to make sure the pernicious system as it now exists remains sacrosanct."
Blumel said that since the 1960s, when members of Congress voted to substantially enlarge their personal staffs, such staffs - both in Washington and in the states and districts - have largely become campaign organizations. According to the Legislative Studies Quarterly, since that time, the advantage of incumbency has increased to roughly 7 to 10 percentage points of the vote. "Mr. Obama also knows that incumbency inordinately provides sitting members with a vast - virtually insurmountable -- monetary advantage over challengers," Blumel said. "And he should stop trying to fool people into thinking it doesn't."
In 2006, on average, a candidate challenging an incumbent House member in 2006 was outspent by more than $600,000. The average Senate challenger was outspent by more than $2 million. "Will Rodgers once observed that `Everybody is ignorant, only about different things,'" Blumel concluded. "Mr. Obama would do well to refrain from pontificating on those things about which his ignorance is overwhelmingly obvious. He needs to stick to topics on which he has shown real expertise, like rent collecting and designing logos."
In response to Senator Obama's statements, U.S. Term Limits has launched a citizens petition to place term limits on the US Congress. To view and sign the peition, visit http://www.termlimits.org.
The above is a press release from US Term Limits, of 9900 Main Street Suite 303, Fairfax, VA 22031 -- which describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization that works to promote term limits at all levels of government". Email: info@ustl.org
More anti-Americanism from Obama
That missing lapel pin said it all -- depite the subsequent attempts at spin
When presidential candidates answer questions from children about why they want the job, most will give an answer that uplifts the child and the candidate. Not Barack Obama. At a campaign stop in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked the Democrat why he wants to be President - and he told her that America has gone downhill:"America is ., uh, is no longer, uh . what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children."Sound familiar? Michelle Obama sounded similar themes earlier in the campaign:"Sometimes it's easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That's America."Everyone feels that we can improve ourselves, but we don't usually cast it in terms of the country no longer being what it once was. Coming from the Obamas, that doesn't even make sense. They have talked about how difficult it was to break through barriers, not without some justification, to reach this point in their lives and American history.
"Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback."
Doesn't that speak to the point that we continue to grow and to learn? And if not, which "good old days" did Obama mean? The 1980s? I doubt it, and if he means the Clinton era, then why did he run against Hillary in the first place?
Once again, Obama got off the teleprompter and put his foot directly in his mouth. He's not selling Hope, he's selling Despair, and himself as the snake oil that will cure us of all our ills. Rush says it all in this:LIMBAUGH: Alright, now here's he's brought it home. He had trashed his country in Germany, he has seen the result of that in his plummeting poll numbers. And now he does it again in Elkhart, IN. A 7 year old little girl. You're running for President Sen. Obama, a little girl asks you a question, "Why did you start running for President?"Source (With video)
It's a 7 year old Senator. Ya tell her because you love the country. You tell her because this is the greatest place on Earth. That we've got challenges, but you want to help the country through it. You don't tell a 7 year old that her country isn't what it once was. You do not lie to 7 year olds and tell them that your country sucks. You just don't do it Senator.
America's no longer what it could be? What it once was? How the Hell would you know Sir? Your experience has only been in one part of America. Elite, leftist academia.
So You Think Barack Can "Dance"
Today Thursday, August 7, 2008 Barack Obama told a 7 year old in a classroom that America is not doing well - that it is NOT an exceptional country - letting his enormous black racist resentment bubble to the surface on national television. Tonight two Hip Hop street dancers, who happen to be black were the finalists on "So You Think You Can Dance". They beat out over 100,000 dancers who tried out for the show in that America Barack so despises. They garnered over 60 million votes for the finale. Hey Barack - some racist unexceptional country - right?
Barack is racially disconnected from both dancers who were from welfare families who never had the money to pay for dance lessons much less be go to college and become a stuck up better-than-everyone elite snob lawyer. On top of that Barack doesn't even wear the meanest racist pants in the family - that is reserved for Michelle who has never been proud of "mean" America.
Somewhere there is a message for this pretender who preaches hope for an America gone wrong - who arrogantly thinks he and he alone can solve its problems. Obama is a charlatan who stumps for reparations - then claims he is not talking about cash reparations. The "change" he preaches is only the change you'll have in your pocket after he imposes his new punishing street organizer's tax regime on America.
Delightfully "Joshua" and "Twitch" are men - strong men with an abiding faith in God. Joshua upon winning praised God above all others. Apparently they did not go to Trinity United and whine like a bunch of babies. They got to work with what they had and performed ballet, contemporary, jazz, ballroom, Latin better than and with more heart than all those with years of training and experience.
It is the strength of Twitch and Joshua that makes America great. Joshua's final thought was "Don't let anybody say you can't do it." Now that is an American. Obama on the other hand tells grammar school kids their country is crap. What a loser the Democrats have nominated as their candidate for President.
Too bad Barack Obama is not from the America we love and cherish and truly believe to be an exceptional country and society. He is from a distant place not worthy of recognition or comment.
Source
Federal Officers to Obama: We're No Terrorists
The president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has sent a blistering letter to Barack Obama castigating him for a remark he made that the organization says equates its members with "terrorists."
Speaking at the National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego on July 13, Obama told the largely Hispanic audience that the nation's immigration system "isn't working." According to Obama, the problem with the system is that "communities are terrorized by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] immigration raids" and "nursing mothers are torn from their babies."
The letter from the Association's National President Art Gordon states: "On behalf of the 26,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), I take great exception to your disparaging remark, `.communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids.'
"While the dedicated men and women of ICE endeavor to carry out their dangerous and noble missions, you somehow felt compelled to characterize their efforts as something akin to terrorizing.
"It's one thing to remark intelligently on the need for immigration reform, but it's quite another to berate ICE law enforcement officers who are risking their lives to enforce the laws passed by Congress."
Charging that Obama and his fellow members of Congress have not passed any "meaningful legislations" on immigration reform, Gordon goes on to say: "Your bi-partisan fumble should not translate into labeling our members as terrorists by implication.
"ICE employs patriotic men and women who are outstanding law enforcement officers, not rampaging home-wreckers." Gordon concludes by inviting Obama to meet with FLEOA officers, saying he would come away with an understanding "that those carrying the ICE shield are heroes, and not terrorists."
Source
Enviromania
For years, hyperactive environmentalists have burned votive candles to the spirit in the sky, hoping she'd levitate energy prices high enough to make alternatives to oil economically feasible. That day has come. Result: The oil has hit the fan. With gasoline over $4 and with life as they love it in the suburbs being shut down, did people call for the windmills? Nope. A heavy majority want to drill the bejeezus out of anywhere in America we can find familiar black slop.
No one has been hit harder by this unexpected truth than Nancy Pelosi and her green brigades. Fearful of an up-or-down vote on drilling for oil in, of all places, our own country, the Pelosi House and Harry Reid's Senate shut down Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner calls drilling the greatest issue Republicans have had in his political lifetime. A party flat on its back is ready to run on oil pumps. Why stop there?
Republicans shouldn't settle for making the world safe for SUVs. What's going on here is about more than $4 gasoline. When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats spent a week holding the people's chamber under house arrest, they made plain a political vulnerability beyond drilling. To achieve greenhouse gas goals in the out-years, they are willing to risk a slowdown now in the American economy. How else can you interpret what happened this week? These Democrats aren't environmentalists. They're enviromaniacs.
An environmentalist with two feet on the planet is someone who admits that fixing what economists call "externalities," such as air pollution or climate effects, requires a balance between those goals and protecting the productive economy. An enviromaniac is the sort of person who would say: "Breaking our oil addiction . . . will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy."
The complete transformation of our economy? So said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in his major energy statement this Monday. Though the speech had hedged bows to oil, coal and nuclear, it was overwhelmingly a Goreian jeremiad about "building" a new economy on a promise called renewables.
"We can see shuttered factories open their doors to manufacturers that sell wind turbines and solar panels that will power our homes and our businesses," he said. "We can watch as millions of new jobs with good pay and good benefits are created." This will "meet our moral obligations to future generations."
Whoa. "Millions" of new jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, and this is to "meet our moral obligations?" Virtue aside, here's the biggest problem with Sen. Obama and Democratic enviromania: It's a risky roll of the dice with the U.S. economy. The economy we've got works. We know that carbon makes the U.S. economy run like a Swiss watch (transportation, distribution, production, commuting). The bet between carbon inputs and growing American outputs is virtually 1:1.
Mr. Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress want a "complete transformation" of an already successful economy. Not partial. complete. Can any of them say what the odds are that all this economic activity, including the nation's electrical grid, will work as well with their new fuels? Assuredly, growth's odds aren't as good as the ones we have now. Sen. Obama: "I will not pretend we can achieve [my goals] without cost or without sacrifice." Might this mean foregoing some GDP for five to 10 years? "Growth" appears in Mr. Obama's speech only to describe the "clean energy sector."
The problem with Democratic enviromania is that it's uncoupled from the realities of a nation whose economy has to compete now with the Chinas and Indias of the world, whose high growth rates use proven energy sources.
Republicans this fall should push their argument beyond drilling. Drilling is mainly a proxy for one's understanding of the U.S. economy. The Democrats and Mr. Obama showed this week they are so in thrall to Al Gore's big climate bet that they'd risk having a slow-growth economy. The GOP should run on High Growth America as a better bet than Democratic Slow Growth. Instead of enviro-messianism, they should propose a drill-to-transition for whatever energy source can prove it works at a nonsacrificial price -- shale, coal gasification, nuclear, solar or some combination. (Windmill farms are a pox on the land.)
Don't be oil-industry deniers. Mr. Obama and Rep. Pelosi want to hammer and punish the only players on the field who actually know how to put massive amounts of energy on the grid. Don't we want them using their resources to drill here, rather than off in some godforsaken place producing gushers of cash for people who want to pound us into a hole? We need Smart Oil on our side for at least 10 years. Democrats this week chose the prayer of alternative energy over proven prosperity. They've handed prosperity in the here-and-now to the Republicans. Run with it.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
8 August, 2008
Another miracle: Obama Promises to 'End the Age of Oil in Our Time'
Talk about a hot-air merchant!
A day after saying the U.S. could produce enough renewable energy within 10 years to replace all U.S. imports of Middle East oil -- a goal even he admitted sounded "pie in the sky" -- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said "for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we must end the age of oil in our time."
At the beginning of his town hall meeting focused on energy policy at the Austintown Fitch High School this morning, in this blue-collar burg in a pivotal swing state, Obama told the estimated crowd of 2,400 Ohioans, "I can tell this is a feisty group."
But the senator's feistiness was on display as well, as he mocked his Republican opponent's campaign tactics and energy plan, and pushed an aggressive "use it or lose it" strategy for offshore oil leases. Seeking to shift focus away from the debate over whether oil companies should be permitted to conduct more offshore drilling exploration, Obama said, "Right now, oil companies have access to 68 million acres where they aren't drilling. So we should start by giving them a choice: use it or lose it. Use the land you have, or give up your leases to someone who will."
After Obama noted local gas prices -- $3.70 a gallon, "two and a half times what it cost when President Bush took office" - a member of the audience yelled out: "They had a plan!" "They had a plan," agreed Obama. "Problem was it was the oil company plan. It was the gas company plan. We need a people plan! And that's why I'm running for president."
Source
CBS hearts Obama
Is CBS showing bias toward Barack Obama? The "Late Show with David Letterman" has removed a spoof on Obama from website archives but opted to keep a "Top Ten" list ripping John McCain from the previous evening - and show representatives are denying any knowledge of the missing clip. "The Late Show" recently featured a countdown called "Top Ten Signs Obama is Overconfident About the Presidential Campaign" on July 29. Letterman listed the following signs:10. Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to "Oklobama"But the clip is missing from CBS' July archives. Instead, it jumps from a July 28 "Top Ten" poking fun of McCain to a July 30 list about Jerry Lewis. The McCain spoof, "Top Ten Ways McCain Can Appear More Youthful," offers the following advice for the senator:
9. Offered Bush $20 for the "Mission Accomplished" banner
8. Asked guy at Staples, "Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?"
7. The affair with Barbara Walters
6. Having head measured for Mount Rushmore
5. Guy sits around eating soup all day
4. He's voting for Nader
3. Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama presidential library
2. Announced his running mate will be Andy Dick
1. Been cruising for chicks with John Edwards10. Campaign in a batsuitWhen WND contacted a representative of "The Late Show with David Letterman," he denied any knowledge of the omitted Obama "Top Ten" list. "I don't know why it's gone," he said. "I have no idea why, to be honest with you."
9. Instead of Lincoln, pepper speech with quotes from Broday Jenner
8. Get his Miracle Ear pierced
7. Stop yelling at reporters to get off his lawn
6. Play breakdancing vice prinicpal in "High School Musical 3"
5.Take a page from Jason Giambi and grow a cool mustache
4. Wrestle a gator
3. Change name of "Straight Talk Express" to "J-Dawg's Booty Wagon"
2. Stop promising a Packard in every garage and a goose in every icebox
1. Never hurts to nail a few interns
Source
Obama's Faith-Based Initiative Pledge Rings Hollow
Barack Obama's pledge to embrace President Bush's faith-based initiative is "hollow," Jim Towey, who headed the White House initiative from 2002 to 2006, tells Newsmax. The reason, Towey says, is that Obama undercut his claim to support the initiative by saying he would prevent any religious group that only hires people of the same religion from receiving federal funds. "It's a hollow pledge to embrace President Bush's faith-based initiative while abandoning one of its core principles," Towey says. "It's dead on arrival with evangelicals, with many African-American churches, with orthodox Jews, and I think it's a disappointment to a lot of Catholic charities out there that right now are forced to secularize their hiring to take federal money."
Before Bush hired him, Towey was Florida's secretary of health and social services under Gov. Lawton Chiles. For 12 years, Towey was legal counsel to Mother Teresa. In 1990, he lived as a volunteer in a home she ran in Washington for people addicted to drugs or alcohol, many of whom had AIDS. In 1996, Towey founded Aging with Dignity, a Tallahassee organization that promotes better healthcare for people with terminal illness. Because of President Bush's faith-based initiative, programs that help the needy and that are affiliated with religious groups now receive $2.2 billion a year in federal grants, according to White House spokesperson Rebecca Neale. Before Bush took office, many faith-based programs were discouraged from applying for them.
In recent remarks, Obama claimed that Bush's promise to "rally the armies of compassion" through the faith-based initiative had gone unfulfilled because of too little financing and too much partisanship. The presidential candidate said he would expand the program. But, describing himself "as someone who used to teach constitutional law," Obama enunciated "a few basic principles" so that such partnerships between religious groups and the government would not threaten separation of church and state. "If you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion," Obama said.
While the initiative may seem like a way of mixing church and state, further examination reveals that it is simply a way to make sure that social service organizations are not deprived of federal funds simply because they are affiliated with the Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, or Muslim faith. Because the money is given to existing organizations often staffed by volunteers, it is channeled to help those who are hungry, addicted to drugs, or illiterate in the most efficient way possible. Thus, taxpayers do not have to pay for new layers of bureaucracy to distribute the aid. In effect, the faith-based initiative leverages the government's money. The faith-based initiative is an example of Bush's compassionate conservative approach - a practical way to attack social problems without massive federal spending.
"Obama gets points for talking about the faith-based initiative and embracing President Bush's foundation," says Towey, who is president of St. Vincent College in Pennsylvania. "The problem is that you can't embrace the Bush faith-based initiative and abandon one of its core principles. I think he has succumbed to pressure from members of his own party who block charitable choice legislation at every turn."
That core principle is that "faith-based groups should not have to forfeit their civil rights when taking federal money," Towey says. "They should be able to hire on a religious basis. It's established law that faith-based groups are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. After all, how can an orthodox Jewish group stay orthodox Jewish if they can't hire on a religious basis?"
Towey acknowledges that the courts have never ruled either way on the issue Obama raised: whether religious groups that discriminate may receive federal funds. He says Congress itself has passed legislation that both supports and undercuts the proposition that organizations that receive federal money may discriminate. "Some laws, like welfare-to-work legislation, expressly permit a faith-based charity to take federal money and to hire on a religious basis," he says. "But Congress also has laws such as the Workforce Investment Act, which is a job training program that expressly prohibits a faith-based group from receiving their money and hiring on a religious basis."
Ironically, Towey says, President Clinton signed into law the first legislation that allows such federal funding of groups that discriminate. "Obama is taking a position that's more radical than President Clinton took," Towey says.
While many faith-based charities do not discriminate, "Historically, evangelical groups have not taken any government money, because they want to hire on a religious basis. President Bush opened the doors, and some evangelical groups like rescue missions have walked through." For the same reason, many African-American churches have not taken government money. Because the faith-based initiative was never endorsed by Congress and is often confusing to organizations, many other religious groups shy away from taking federal money.
"When I first heard that Senator Obama was going to wade in and embrace the faith-based initiative, I said, `Fantastic,'" Towey says. "But when you look at the details of it, it looks like he's actually undercutting his message and taking us back to where we were before the faith-based initiative started." Towey sees Obama as aligning himself with congressional Democrats who have blocked any new legislation to allow federal funding of religious groups that want to hire members of their own religion. "They're pressured to do this by groups like the NAACP, ACLU, and Human Rights Watch, which have made it abundantly clear they would never, ever permit legislation to move forward that had religious hiring protections," Towey says.
"Never mind that Planned Parenthood receives over $300 million a year, and they discriminate in their hiring in broad daylight, by only hiring like-minded people," he notes. "If you're pro-life, try getting a job at Planned Parenthood. So why can't faith-based groups hire on the basis of their ideology and vision?"
Source
Defining anti-Americanism downwards
It’s one thing to point out what our country could do to become superior to its former self, but quite another to preface such counsel with the implication that it’s inferior to every other nation.
If Barack Obama sought to win the votes of Germans, he need seek no more. Of course, his new image was all the rage in the Old World long before he gave his July 24 speech in Berlin. Along with the mainstream media and murderer Dale Leo Bishop, Senator Sweetness and Light is the man the Europeans want as our leader.
Although Obama certainly has a stateside cult following as well, one reason Americans’ enthusiasm pales in comparison may be that we – at least some of us, anyway – can decipher his words better than foreign-language speakers. As to this, there is a certain segment of the Berlin speech I’d call your attention to:I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.It might be pointed out to Senator Obama that if he finds a perfect country, he should be sure not to go there. For then it will cease to be so. But allow me to lend further perspective. Imagine that you gave a speech in which you “honored” your mother and said:I know my mother has not perfected herself. At times, she has struggled to keep the promise of fairness for all of her children. She has made her share of mistakes, and there are times when her actions around the town have not lived up to her best intentions.Wouldn’t this strike you as odd? My first thought would be, wow, you really must not think very highly of your mother. After all, since we’re all sinners, it goes without saying that no one is perfect. So why would you feel compelled to state the obvious about her? It could only be because you consider her unusually flawed, so much so that she falls outside the boundaries of normal human frailty; thus, a disclaimer is necessary before homage can be paid. It’s the kind of thing you do when you’re embarrassed by someone – or something – you’re obligated to praise, when you feel the object of the compliments is, relative to others, unworthy of unqualified laudation and that rendering such would tarnish you. It’s kind of like if you needed to defend a brother on death row or who had been convicted of rape; since he was guilty of heinous acts, you’d feel compelled to issue an “I know he has fallen from grace, but . . .” statement. It is the most a good person can muster when talking about a bad one. And Obama’s “but” came right after his disclaimer, as he said:But I also know how much I love America.Note that he didn’t actually reveal how much.
Lest I be thought a hypocrite, I agree with G.K. Chesterton’s sentiment, “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’” I’ve often lamented America’s intoxication with sin, issuing indictments of various aspects of our declining culture. Yet the difference is context. It’s one thing to point out what our country could do to become superior to its former self, but quite another to preface such counsel with the implication that it’s inferior to every other nation. In the first instance you’re talking about making a relatively good thing better; in the second you’re talking about why a relatively bad thing might at least deserve some scraps from the table of man.
Of course, honesty is a virtue. So if Obama really believes America is that bad, shouldn’t his words reflect that? Yes, without a doubt, but being honestly wrong is not a virtue. Remember that Obama was speaking in the nation that birthed the Holocaust, a Maginot-line away from that which spawned the Napoleonic Wars, not too far from the land of the Stalinist purges, and just across the North Sea from an empire that colonized much of the Earth. In this drunk-on-power world, Senator Obama, do you really believe your motherland is an embarrassment?
Getting back to mothers, mine often instructed, “Don’t wash your dirty laundry in public.” I mention this because Obama also rendered more explicit criticism of his beloved nation, asking:Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?This is, of course, an allusion to our military’s use of waterboarding during coerced interrogation. And, to be fair, I don’t say good people cannot oppose it. Journalist Christopher Hitchens actually volunteered to undergo the procedure and emerged firm in the conviction that it is, in fact, torture. This warrants consideration as Hitchens, for all his militant-atheist zealotry and faults, has been nothing but honest regarding the war against Islamism.
Yet, as per my mother’s injunction, there is a time and a place for criticizing family – this includes national family. Obama can argue against waterboarding, but it should be done in-house, not overseas in front of a throng of screaming, anti-American foreigners.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about Obama’s implication that America is uniquely damnable is that he was oblivious to it. Sure, you may say that few would connect those dots, but that is what makes the remark so telling. It’s one of those unthinking comments that give you deeper insight into a person’s heart and mind.
To fully grasp this, understand where Obama is coming from. This is an individual who sat in pews for 20 years and imbibed the preaching of a man who disgorges sentiments such as “G*****n America!” and calls her the “US of KKKA!” Wouldn’t it strain credulity to say that such a politician doesn’t have a negative view of his country? Even Oprah Winfrey, not a woman known to wrap herself in the flag and belt out “The Star-Spangled Banner,” left Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ after being assailed with such vitriol.
They say that how a son treats his mother speaks volumes about his character. We should bear this in mind when evaluating Barack Obama, this son of America who is lauded by Europeans. There are people who just wouldn’t issue the “my country has not perfected itself” disclaimer, and then there are those who would. In the cases of those who utter it instinctively – the son of America and his brethren – it’s an example of a very common phenomenon: Defining anti-Americanism downwards.
To the Left, America is the black sheep of the world, that brother who raped the Earth and only escapes death row because he is also the law. To leftists, a statement like Obama’s is patriotic – thoughtful, honest, introspective patriotism. Self-flagellation is a sign of enlightenment (although, leftists never actually whip themselves, only the “country,” which is the bane of humanity because of regrettably-live conservatives and thankfully-dead white males). It is the “Of course, we’re not perfect” meme. It has become Bolshevik boilerplate.
In other words, leftists have lowered the bar for patriotism and raised it for anti-Americanism. The bile of a Reverend Wright, well, it is anti-American (but understandable and excusable); it is a bridge too far. But their confession-of-sin disclaimers are no-brainers because the United States really is a bad country, and they’re positively charitable when they follow-up with mention of her few redeeming qualities. It’s the most a good person can muster when talking about a bad homeland.
The question is whether any of this will hurt a candidate who racks up style points like Yves Saint Laurent. Many citizens don’t even care what Obama actually says, never mind what must be inferred. Even pollster Frank Luntz asserted that we have to give him credit for capturing the imaginations of “250,000 people” in Berlin. Perhaps, but it occurs to me that he isn’t the first ambitious orator to capture the imaginations of a quarter-million Berliners.
Style can be blinding, but I suspect that Americans who actually pay attention to substance won’t be quite as taken with Obama’s rhetoric as Otto the Old Worlder.
Source
Deconstructing Obama
Deconstruction, I'm told, is still all the rage on college campuses throughout the Land. Part of the broader movement of postmodernism which has attempted to tear down the old certainties upon which Western Culture is founded
Perhaps nowhere outside academia itself have the deconstructionists had more powerful sway than within the once-august body that calls itself the Democratic Party. I have, myself, for years now refused to bestow the adjective, democratic, upon the Democrat Party. It has been so thoroughly infiltrated since the early 70s by leftist deconstructionists that it has become a thoroughly undemocratic institution, giving heaps of advantage to everyone other than white males, and has thusly reduced itself to a committee dictatorially run by a rainbow proletariat. The dictatorship of the minorities. How democratic is that?
Because the deconstructionists have thoroughly taken over the Democratic Party in America, it is now incumbent upon us, the citizenry, to deconstruct the candidate they are promoting for President, the not-even-through-his-first-term Senator, Barack Obama.
Deconstructing the Democratic Party Brand
Sadly, we can no longer assume that anyone promoted by the Democratic Party has been properly vetted for disqualifying scandalous behavior, or even on the most fundamental level of actually possessing barely minimal qualifications for public office.
As many have noted during this protracted Democrat primary race, the rules for nominating a Presidential candidate under this Party's label are mystifying in their complexity. Prior to 1968, the Democrats used, by and large, the same winner-take-all formula for primaries that the Republican Party still uses.
This formula is not unlike the wisdom of our Electoral College, which ingeniously allows for majority votes to count by localities and states. It's simple, uncomplicated, clean-cut. Under this old, tried-and-true system the majority rules and life goes on without a whole heap of fuss, which has allowed this Republic of ours to transfer power without bloodshed, uninterrupted for going on three centuries.
Of course, as anyone with a lick of political, historical knowledge already knows, the Democratic Party's system had for the last few decades taken a low-road, backroom approach to party politics that favored insiders and machine bosses over the will of ordinary voters. Their system was already primed for the comeuppance it got in 1968.
The Democratic National Convention of 1968 was a quite raucous and bloody affair, with mobs of young leftist agitators rioting in the streets of Chicago, demanding their way. These home-grown Marxist revolutionaries, many of whom went on to become domestic terrorists and bombers and universal nihilists of all variety, didn't get their way that year. But they did make enough of a dent in the bastions of Democratic Party authority to rewrite the nominating rules around what they considered more egalitarian principles. What resulted from the radical changes to the nominating process is the convoluted mess that formed the basis for this year's slugfest between two affirmative-action candidates.
To be sure, a great many journalists have already tiptoed through this affirmative-action mine field upon which I am about to brazenly march, but so far their dainty ruminations have had scanty effect upon polling numbers.
Actually, that may be a bit understated, since it seems nearly miraculous that the Republican candidate, John McCain, is within shouting distance of the Democrat after a full eight years of leftist press bombardment aimed at the Republican brand, effectively polarizing a sitting Republican President. I personally believe McCain's strong showing so far is owed not to racism, as has been suggested, but due to the obvious affirmative-action nature of the Democrats' candidate, Barack Obama.
The truth is that neither of the Democrat front-runners for the nomination this year would have ever been considered for the highest office in the Land had they not received the benefit of 30 years' worth of postmodernist/deconstructionist machinations that gave them undue advantage owing to their presumed mantle of past grievances on account of race and gender.
One woman who unabashedly leapfrogged her way into the Senate on the back of a still-sitting President, her husband. And the other frontrunner, Obama, has absolutely nothing on his resume but stints in academia, political organizing, a do-nothing state senate gig, and the office of a Senator, which he has shamefully used as nothing more than a launch pad for his audacious attempted catapult into the White House.
By offering us two nominees and a presumed candidate whose demographic background outweighs considerations of experience and merit, the Democratic Party is undermining, deconstructing really, its own brand, traditionally built on the pose of championing the little guy.
Deconstructing Obama
We, the citizenry, are being asked at this juncture to literally turn our time-tested demand for a presidential resume check completely on its ear. We are asked to give advantages to Barack Obama on account of his racial mix that we would never give to a white male, and as some have surmised even to a white female, in the same position. We are being asked to deconstruct the most powerful political position in the world.
One of the pet "methods" of deconstruction, I'm told, is the critique of binary oppositions. It's proposed by deconstructionists that there are classic dualities in Western thought, which give privileged position to one term over the other, the favored position always going to the meaning most associated with the phallus. Puh-lease. But, okay, let's play along. A few of the most oft noted binary oppositions in Western thought are: fullness over emptiness, meaning over meaninglessness, identity over difference and life over death.
And, yes, as a mere product of my wholly Western thought, I do tend quite naturally to give a positive weight to fullness over emptiness, meaning over meaninglessness, identity over difference and life over death. Mere common sense would seem to dictate these positive connotations, in my own mind, whether one is Western, Eastern or anything else.
But according to the deconstructionists, if I want to throw my full support to candidate Obama, then I must literally force myself to go completely athwart these Western tendencies, and opt to reverse them.
I must accept that Obama's nearly empty resume for the Presidency is actually better than McCain's full resume.
I must accept that Obama's meaningless, non-defined rhetoric is actually better than McCain's meaningful, painstakingly defined rhetoric and plans.
I must accept that Obama's difference, in terms of his racial makeup is actually better than McCain's common identity with my own. Whatever happened to Martin Luther King's insistence on a colorblind society?
So far, Obama's only plans worth noting are to disarm America and turn over vast amounts of our wealth to refortify failing dictatorships in third-world countries. If accomplished, this will amount to nothing less than handing over our sovereignty and liberty in favor of bondage to international consensus.
I must accept that Obama's death plan for America, the Land that I love, is actually better than McCain's life plan to preserve and protect our liberty.
I might as well go a bit further with the deconstructionists and throw in another purely Western assumption. Liberty over bondage. Yes, it's true. Color me prejudiced to the core of my being.
I actually will prefer to my dying day, with the last breath I draw, as God is my witness, liberty over bondage.
I'm hopelessly, irretrievably, to the marrow of my bones, an American. And I will not give my one vote, earned by the precious sacrifice of millions before me, to a deconstructionist, affirmative-action candidate. The Presidency of the United States of America is not now, nor should it ever be, an entitlement.Whatever precautions you take so the photograph will look like this or that, there comes a moment when the photograph surprises you. It is the other's gaze that wins out and decides. - Jacques Derrida, Father of Deconstructionist TheorySoon enough, the voters' gaze will be on Barack Obama -- the unblinking eye of a people choosing their leader in perilous times.
More here
Barack Obama's Lost Years
The senator's tenure as a state legislator reveals him to be an old-fashioned, big government, race-conscious liberal.
Barack Obama's neighborhood newspaper, the Hyde Park Herald, has a longstanding tradition of opening its pages to elected officials-from Chicago aldermen to state legislators to U.S. senators. Obama himself, as a state senator, wrote more than 40 columns for the Herald, under the title "Springfield Report," between 1996 and 2004. Read in isolation, Obama's columns from the state capital tell us little. Placed in the context of political and policy battles then raging in Illinois, however, the young legislator's dispatches powerfully illuminate his political beliefs. Even more revealing are hundreds of articles chronicling Obama's early political and legislative activities in the pages not only of the Hyde Park Herald, but also of another South Side fixture, the Chicago Defender.
Obama moved to Chicago in order to place himself in what he understood to be the de facto "capital" of black America. For well over 100 years, the Chicago Defender has been the voice of that capital, and therefore a paper of national significance for African Americans. Early on in his political career, Obama complained of being slighted by major media, like the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Yet extensive and continuous coverage in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald presents a remarkable resource for understanding who Obama is. Reportage in these two papers is particularly significant because Obama's early political career-the time between his first campaign for the Illinois State Senate in 1995 and his race for U.S. Senate in 2004-can fairly be called the "lost years," the period Obama seems least eager to talk about, in contrast to his formative years in Hawaii, California, and New York or his days as a community organizer, both of which are recounted in his memoir, Dreams from My Father. The pages of the Hyde Park Herald and the Chicago Defender thus offer entr,e into Obama's heretofore hidden world.
What they portray is a Barack Obama sharply at variance with the image of the post-racial, post-ideological, bipartisan, culture-war-shunning politician familiar from current media coverage and purveyed by the Obama campaign. As details of Obama's early political career emerge into the light, his associations with such radical figures as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend James Meeks, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn look less like peculiar instances of personal misjudgment and more like intentional political partnerships. At his core, in other words, the politician chronicled here is profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan. Elected president, this man would presumably shift the country sharply to the left on all the key issues of the day-culture-war issues included. It's no wonder Obama has passed over his Springfield years in relative silence.
THE CENTRALITY OF RACE
Any rounded treatment of Obama's early political career has got to give prominence to the issue of race. Obama has recently made efforts to preemptively blunt discussion of the race issue, warning that his critics will highlight the fact that he is African American. Yet the question of race plays so large a role in Obama's own thought and action that it is all but impossible to discuss his political trajectory without acknowledging the extent to which it engrosses him. Obama settled in Chicago with the declared intention of "organizing black folks." His first book is subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance," and his second book contains an important chapter on race. On his return to Chicago in 1991, Obama practiced civil rights law and for many years taught a seminar on racism and law at the University of Chicago. When he entered the Illinois senate, it was to represent the heavily (although not exclusively) minority 13th district on the South Side of Chicago. Indeed, race functions for Obama as a kind of master-category, pervading and organizing a wide array of issues that many Americans may not think of as racial at all. Understanding Obama's thinking on race, for example, is a prerequisite to grasping his views on spending and taxation. Thus, we have no alternative but to puzzle out the place of race in Obama's broader political outlook as well as in his legislative career.
When it comes to issues like affirmative action and set-asides, Obama is anything but the post-racial politician he's sometimes made out to be. Take set-asides. In 1998, Obama endorsed Democratic gubernatorial hopeful John Schmidt, stressing to the Defender Schmidt's past support for affirmative action and set-asides. Although Obama was generally pleased by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 acceptance of racial preferences at the University of Michigan, he underscored the danger that Republican-appointed justices might someday overturn the ruling. The day after the Michigan decision, Obama honored the passing of former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson Jr., eulogizing Jackson for creating model affirmative action and set-aside programs that spread across the nation.
In 2004, a U.S. District Court disallowed the ordinance under which Chicago required the use of at least 25 percent minority business enterprises and 5 percent women's business enterprises on city-funded projects. In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, Obama and Jesse Jackson were among the prominent voices calling for a black leadership summit to plot strategy for a restoration of Chicago's construction quotas. Obama and his allies succeeded in bringing back race-based contracting.
Prominent among those allies were two of Obama's earliest and strongest political supporters, Hyde Park aldermen Toni Preckwinkle and Leslie Hairston. These two are known as fierce advocates of set-asides and key orchestrators of demonstrations and public-relations campaigns against businesses that question race-based contracting. When, in 2001, construction work was planned for South Lake Shore Drive, a major artery that connects Hyde Park to the rest of Chicago, Preckwinkle and Hairston seized the occasion to call for an extraordinary 70 percent minority quota on contracts for the project. They even demanded that, for the sake of race-based hiring, normal contractor eligibility requirements be waived. Then when work on South Lake Shore Drive was not awarded to minority contractors, a group consisting of Preckwinkle, Hairston, two neighboring aldermen, and numerous activists staged a surprise raid on the construction site, shutting it down and forcing the contractor to hire more blacks. A raid on a second construction site collapsed when several blacks were found already at work on the project. (The aldermen said these African-American laborers had been hired at the last minute to stymie their protest.)
Biographical treatments of Obama tend to stress the tenuous nature of his black identity-his upbringing by whites, his elite education, his home in Chicago's highly integrated Hyde Park, personal tensions with black legislators, and questions about whether Obama is "black enough" to represent African Americans. These concerns over Obama's racial identity are overblown. On race-related issues Obama has stood shoulder to shoulder with Chicago's African-American politicians for years.
Occasionally, Obama has even gotten out in front of them. In 1999, for example, he made news by calling on the governor to appoint a minority to the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), a body that had previously attracted little notice among Chicago's blacks. In 2000, the Chicago Defender named Obama one of a number of "Vanguards for Change," citing him for "focusing on legislation in areas previously unexplored by the African-American community including his call that a person of color be appointed to the ICC." Obama did bring a somewhat different background and set of interests to the table. Yet the upshot was to expand the frontiers of race-based politics.
And the story doesn't end with Obama's support for set-asides. A Chicago Defender story of 1999 features a front-page picture of Obama beside the headline, "Obama: Illinois Black Caucus is broken." In the accompanying article, although Obama denies demanding that black legislators march in perfect lockstep, he expresses anger that black state senators have failed to unite for the purpose of placing a newly approved riverboat casino in a minority neighborhood. The failed casino vote, Obama argues, means that the black caucus "is broken and needs to unite for the common good of the African-American community." Obama continues, "The problem right now is that we don't have a unified agenda that's enforced back in the community and is clearly articulated. Everybody tends to be lone agents in these situations."
Speaking in reply to Obama was Mary E. Flowers, an African-American state senator who apparently broke black caucus discipline and voted to approve the casino's location in a nonminority area. Said Flowers: "The Black Caucus is from different tribes, different walks of life. I don't expect all of the whites to vote alike. Why is it that all of us should walk alike, talk alike and vote alike? I was chosen by my constituents to represent them, and that is what I try to do." Given Obama's supposedly post-racial politics, it is notable that he should be the one demanding enforcement of a black political agenda against "lone agents," while another black legislator appeals to Obama to leave her free to represent her constituents, black or white, as she sees fit.
Obama's fight to unify the black caucus on the casino vote was undertaken in partnership with state senator Donne Trotter. Yet nearly every biographical account of Obama lavishes attention on Trotter's claim that Obama was just a "white man in black face." The significance of that bit of campaign hype, offered while Trotter was running against Obama for Congress, has been exaggerated, perhaps because Trotter's epithet helps to defuse the notion that Obama himself practices race-based politics. Yet Obama does exactly that. His public legislative cooperation with Trotter, and with other black Illinois politicians, yields more insight into Obama's political plans than any electoral rhetoric or private intra-black-caucus backbiting. To the extent that Obama can be accused of having shaky "black credentials," that very accusation pushes him to practice race-conscious politics all the more energetically.
When the 2000 census revealed dramatic growth in Chicago's Hispanic and Asian populations alongside a decline in the number of African Americans, the Illinois black caucus was alarmed at the prospect that the number of blacks in the Illinois General Assembly might decline. At that point, Obama stepped to the forefront of the effort to preserve as many black seats as possible. The Defender quotes Obama as saying that, "while everyone agrees that the Hispanic population has grown, they cannot expand by taking African-American seats." As in the casino dispute, Obama stressed black unity, pushing a plan that would modestly increase the white, Hispanic, and Asian population in what would continue to be the same number of safe black districts. As Obama put it: "An incumbent African-American legislator with a 90 percent district may feel good about his reelection chances, but we as a community would probably be better off if we had two African-American legislators with 60 percent each."
Obama's intensely race-conscious approach may surprise Americans who know him primarily through his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention of 2004. When Obama so famously said, "There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America-there's the United States of America," most Americans took him to be advocating a color-blind consciousness of the kind expressed in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that his children would one day be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Anyone who understood Obama's words that way should know that this is not the whole story. In an essay published in 1988 entitled "Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City," Obama tried to make room for both "accommodation and militancy" in black political engagement. He wrote,The debate as to how black and other dispossessed people can forward their lot in America is not new. From W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, this internal debate has raged between integration and nationalism, between accommodation and militancy, between sit-down strikes and board-room negotiations. The lines between these strategies have never been simply drawn, and the most successful black leadership has recognized the need to bridge these seemingly divergent approaches.However his views may have evolved in the ensuing 20 years, Obama surely knew that the King-like rhetoric of his keynote address would be taken by most Americans as a repudiation of the kind of race-based politics he and his closest allies have consistently practiced throughout his electoral career. It's difficult to gauge the extent to which Obama may have consciously permitted this misunderstanding to take hold, or the extent to which he still believes that the opposition between "integration and nationalism, between accommodation and militancy" is a false one. Neither alternative is particularly encouraging.
Throughout the 2008 campaign, Obama has made a point of refusing the liberal label. While running for Congress against Bobby Rush in late 1999 and early 2000, however, Obama showed no such compunction. At a November 1999 candidate forum, the Hyde Park Herald reported that "there was little to distinguish" the candidates, who "struggled to differentiate themselves" ideologically. Acknowledged Obama, "[W]e're all on the liberal wing of the Democratic party." Indeed, the common political ideology of the candidates was a theme in Herald coverage throughout the race. Rush's background suggests what that ideology was: A Chicago icon and former Black Panther, Rush received a 90 percent rating in 2000, and a 100 percent rating in 1999, from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. Both years the American Conservative Union rated him at zero percent.
So how exactly did these two liberal candidates "struggle to differentiate" themselves in debate? During a candidate forum, for example, when Rush bragged that since entering Congress, he hadn't voted to approve a single defense budget, Obama pounced, accusing Rush of having voted for the Star Wars missile defense system the previous year. Since that contest, Obama's liberalism hasn't exactly been a secret to the folks back home. In 2002, Obama himself could speak hopefully of plans "to move a progressive agenda" through the state legislature, and local observers commonly identified Obama as a "progressive." When it endorsed him for the U.S. Senate in 2004, the Chicago Defender proclaimed Obama "represents renewal of the liberal, humanitarian cause." The Defender went on to assure readers that Obama would support "progressive action" in Washington.
The most interesting characterization came from Obama himself, who laid out his U.S. Senate campaign strategy for the Defender in 2003: "[A]s you combine a strong African-American base with progressive white and Latino voters, I think it is a recipe for success in the primary and in the general election." Putting the point slightly differently, Obama added, "When you combine an energized African-American voter base and effective coalition-building with other progressive sectors of the population, we think we have a recipe for victory." Obama consciously constructed his election strategy on a foundation of leftist ideology and racial bloc voting.
Much more here
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
7 August, 2008
Big donors are the key to Obama's record haul
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far. But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.
Behind those large donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.
While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago before the 2004 Senate race, and, once elected, set out across the country starting in 2005 to cultivate some of his party's most influential money collectors. He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.
The fruit of his efforts has put Obama's major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million that President George W. Bush's Pioneer and Ranger network raised in $1,000-and-larger contributions in 2004 during the primary season.
Given his decision not to accept public financing, Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his campaign for the general election and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.
An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group at about 130, with many working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses - nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real-estate industry.
The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to big-time political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James Torrey, a New York hedge fund investor; and Charles Rivkin, an animation studio head in Los Angeles.
"It's fairly clear that this is being packaged as an extraordinary new kind of fund-raising, and the Internet is a new and powerful part of it," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. "But it's also clear that many of the old donors are still there and important."
The care and feeding of top Obama fund-raisers underscores their significance to his campaign. Members of his National Finance Committee who fulfill their commitment to raise at least $250,000 are being rewarded with trips to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Finance committee members participate in biweekly conference calls with top campaign officials. The fund-raisers meet quarterly, often with Obama dropping in. He lingered after the meeting last month in Chicago, telling his staff he wanted to thank every person in the room. Some fund-raisers who knocked on doors for Obama in places like Iowa, Pennsylvania and Indiana got to spend time with Obama backstage before and after speeches on primary nights.
His fund-raisers invariably say their support for him is not rooted in any kind of promise of access but in their belief in him. "This is about Barack Obama and changing the direction of our country," said Jonathan Perdue, a business consultant in Mill Valley, California, who has raised more than $250,000 for Obama's campaign.
Obama has pledged not to accept donations from federally registered lobbyists or political action committees. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Obama at a time their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington.
Kenneth Griffin, chief executive officer of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, has collected more than $50,000 for Obama. But Griffin, whose $1.5 billion in income in 2007 made him one of the top hedge fund earners, has given generously over the years to Republicans and recently helped host a fund-raiser for McCain. Citadel has spent more than $1.1 million since 2007 lobbying against higher tax rates for hedge funds. (Obama has supported the higher tax rates.)
Similarly, Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire hedge fund manager from Connecticut, has raised more than $100,000 for Obama. But he also gave to McCain, and two of McCain's Republican rivals in the primary campaign, Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Jones, who has given more than $900,000 over the past decade to federal candidates and political organizations, helped form a trade association that has fought hedge fund regulation.
Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign's array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of Obama's, chairs the technology working group. Fund-raisers from private equity and hedge funds sit on Obama's economic policy group.
Even as Obama seeks to contrast himself with McCain as a political outsider, updated bundler lists released recently by their campaigns show they have a similar number of high-dollar fund-raisers. Despite Obama's newcomer image, many of his bundlers are Democratic stalwarts, including some of the top fund-raisers for the party's 2004 nominee, Senator John Kerry.
The Obama fund-raising operation is meticulously organized. Bundlers are assigned tracking numbers, and the finance staff sends them quarterly reminders of how they are doing in meeting their goals. "There's no price for admission," said Alan Solomont, a top Democratic fund-raiser in Boston who earned his fortune in the nursing home industry and has given more than $1.5 million to Democratic candidates and causes. "We value every donation and every donor equally, but we are a performance-based organization. We want everybody to feel like they're included, but at the same time we're not here to have tea together."
More here
The Green Hornet
Al Gore said the other day that "the future of human civilization" depends on giving up fossil fuels within a decade -- and was acclaimed as a prophet by the political class. Obviously boring reality doesn't count for much these days. Even so, when Barack Obama wheels out an energy agenda nearly as grandiose as Mr. Gore's, shouldn't it receive at least some media scrutiny?
On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the U.S. must "end the age of oil in our time," with "real results by the end of my first term in office." This, he said, will "take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy." Mark that one down as the understatement of the year. Maybe Mr. Obama really is the Green Hornet, or some other superhero of his current political myth.
The Senator calls for $150 billion over 10 years to achieve "energy independence," with elevated subsidies for renewable alternatives and efficiency programs. He also says he'll "leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy," euphemistically referring to his climate plan to tax and regulate greenhouse gases. Every President since Nixon has declared "energy independence," as Mr. Obama noted. But this time, he says, things will change.
They won't. And not because of "the old politics," or whatever. Currently, alternative sources -- wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal -- provide less than 7% of yearly domestic consumption. Throw out hydro and geothermal, and it's only 4%. For the foreseeable future, renewables simply cannot provide the scale and volume of energy needed to meet growing U.S. demand, which is expected to increase by 20% over the next two decades. Even with colossal taxpayer subsidies, renewables probably can't even slow the rate of growth of carbon-based fuel consumption, much less replace it.
Take wind power, which has grown rapidly though still only provides about two-thirds of 1% of all U.S. electricity. The Energy Department optimistically calculates that ramping up merely to 20% by 2030 would require more than $2 trillion and turbines across the Midwest "wind corridor," plus multiple offshore installations. And we'll need a new "transmission superhighway system" of more than 12,000 miles of electric lines to connect the wind system to population centers. A mere $150 billion won't cut it. Mr. Obama also didn't mention that this wind power will be more expensive than traditional sources like coal.
Wind, too, is intermittent: It isn't always blowing and can't be accessed on demand when people need electricity. Since there's no cost-effective way to store large amounts of electricity, wind requires "spinning reserve," or nonalternative baseload power to avoid blackouts. That baseload power is now provided largely by coal, nuclear and natural gas, and wind can't displace much. The same problem afflicts solar energy -- now one-hundredth of 1% of net U.S. electric generation. One of the top uses of solar panels is to heat residential swimming pools.
Mr. Obama also says he wants to mandate that all new cars and trucks are "flexible fuel" vehicles, meaning that they can run on higher concentrations of corn ethanol mixed with gasoline, or second-generation biofuels if those ever come onto the market. Like wind and solar, this would present major land use problems: According to credible estimates, land areas larger than the size of Texas would need to be planted with fuel feedstocks to displace just half the oil America imports every day. Meanwhile, the economic distortions caused by corn ethanol -- such as higher food prices -- have been bad enough.
And yet there's more miracle work to do. Mr. Obama promises to put at least one million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015. That's fine if consumers want to buy them. But even if technical battery problems are overcome, this would only lead to "fuel switching" -- if cars don't use gasoline, the energy still has to come from somewhere. And the cap-and-trade program also favored by Mr. Obama would effectively bar new coal plants, while new nuclear plants are only now being planned after a 30-year hiatus thanks to punishing regulations and lawsuits.
Problems like these are the reality of "alternative" energy, and they explain why every "energy independence" plan has faltered since the 1970s. But just because Mr. Obama's plan is wildly unrealistic doesn't mean that a program of vast new taxes, subsidies and mandates wouldn't be destructive. The U.S. has a great deal invested in fossil fuels not because of a political conspiracy or because anyone worships carbon but because other sources of energy are, right now, inferior.
Consumption isn't rising because of wastefulness. The U.S. produces more than twice as much GDP today per unit of energy as it did in the 1950s, yet energy use has risen threefold. That's because energy use is tethered to growth, and the economy continues to innovate and expand. Mr. Obama seems to have other ideas.
Source
Obama as a state senator
A close-up look at Barack Obama's years in the Illinois State Senate reveals someone different from the post-racial Barack Obama we thought we knew. Stanley Kurtz writes a must-read article on "Barack Obama's Lost Years", and it is in the Weekly Standard.
Kurtz has gone through old issues of the Hyde Park Herald and the Chicago Defender (the nationally prominent African-American Chicago newspaper) from the period of Obama's service in the Illinois State Senate. He appears prominently in the political coverage of both papers, and this Kurtz finds a portrait of his actual political positions and activities during those years. It's not the Barack Obama we knew from his national campaign. No post-racial Obama is to be found. Two samples:In 2004, a U.S. District Court disallowed the ordinance under which Chicago required the use of at least 25 percent minority business enterprises and 5 percent women's business enterprises on city-funded projects. In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, Obama and Jesse Jackson were among the prominent voices calling for a black leadership summit to plot strategy for a restoration of Chicago's construction quotas. Obama and his allies succeeded in bringing back race-based contracting.AndA Chicago Defender story of 1999 features a front-page picture of Obama beside the headline, "Obama: Illinois Black Caucus is broken." In the accompanying article, although Obama denies demanding that black legislators march in perfect lockstep, he expresses anger that black state senators have failed to unite for the purpose of placing a newly approved riverboat casino in a minority neighborhood. The failed casino vote, Obama argues, means that the black caucus "is broken and needs to unite for the common good of the African-American community." Obama continues, "The problem right now is that we don't have a unified agenda that's enforced back in the community and is clearly articulated. Everybody tends to be lone agents in these situations."Speaking in reply to Obama was Mary E. Flowers, an African-American state senator who apparently broke black caucus discipline and voted to approve the casino's location in a nonminority area. Said Flowers: "The Black Caucus is from different tribes, different walks of life. I don't expect all of the whites to vote alike. Why is it that all of us should walk alike, talk alike and vote alike? I was chosen by my constituents to represent them, and that is what I try to do."
Given Obama's supposedly post-racial politics, it is notable that he should be the one demanding enforcement of a black political agenda against "lone agents," while another black legislator appeals to Obama to leave her free to represent her constituents, black or white, as she sees fit.
Source
The Tax Rebate Was a Flop. Obama's Stimulus Plan Won't Work Either
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
Congress enacted the tax rebate program earlier this year because it perceived a growing risk of recession. In addition, it feared monetary policy alone would not be effective because of the dysfunctional credit markets. As American taxpayers know, most of the rebate checks have now been mailed and cashed.
Those of us who supported this fiscal package reasoned that the program would boost consumer confidence as well as available cash. We hoped the combination would cause households to spend a substantial fraction of the rebate dollars, leading to more production and employment. An optimistic and influential study by economists at the Brookings Institution projected that each dollar of revenue loss would increase real GDP by more than a dollar if households spent at least 50 cents of every rebate dollar.
The evidence is now in and that optimism was unwarranted. Recent government statistics show that only between 10% and 20% of the rebate dollars were spent. The rebates added nearly $80 billion to the permanent national debt but less than $20 billion to consumer spending. This experience confirms earlier studies showing that one-time tax rebates are not a cost-effective way to increase economic activity.
These conclusions are significant for evaluating the likely impact of Barack Obama's recent proposal to distribute $1,000 rebate checks to low- and middle-income workers at an estimated cost of approximately $65 billion. His plan, to finance those rebates with an extra tax on oil companies, would reduce investment in refining and exploration, keeping oil prices higher than they would otherwise be.
Here are the facts. Tax rebates of $78 billion arrived in the second quarter of the year. The government's recent GDP figures show that the level of consumer outlays only rose by an extra $12 billion, or 15% of the lost revenue. The rest went into savings, including the paydown of debt.
For a more comprehensive picture, we can see how households divided their overall increase in disposable personal income -- that is, household income including the rebates and net of income taxes and payroll taxes -- between additional consumer outlays and saving. The official GDP figures show that disposable personal income increased between the first and second quarters by some $98 billion (one-fourth of the annualized figure of $393 billion shown in the government report), up from an increase of $22 billion between the final quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008. So disposable personal income rose by an additional $76 billion, a bit less than the rebates because of declining employment and reductions in other sources of income. The corresponding rise in consumer outlays increased to $36 billion from $24 billion. So the additional $12 billion of consumer spending was less than 16% of the extra $76 billion of disposable personal income. By comparison, savings rose by $62 billion, or five times as much.
These quarterly GDP figures are supported by the more detailed monthly data on income and spending in May and June. According to the government statisticians, the tax rebates in May were $48 billion, accounting for almost all of the $50 billion rise in household disposable income between April and May. In contrast, consumer spending in May rose by less than $6 billion. In June, the rebates were $28 billion. Consumer spending rose by only $5 billion, showing no evidence of an additional delayed effect of the May rebates.
The evidence of a very limited effect on spending is also clear in the monthly retail sales -- a measure that is narrower than total consumer outlays because it excludes things like utility bills and rent. Retail sales were $342 billion a month in January through April and rose to only $346 billion in May and June.
Although press stories emphasizing that the rebates induced additional consumer spending were technically correct, they missed the important point that the spending rise was very small in comparison to the size of the tax rebates.
A recent, widely reported academic study by Christian Broda and Jonathan Parker showing that the rebates led to increased spending on nondurable items (like food and drugs) does not contradict the implication of the more comprehensive data -- on national retail sales and total consumer spending -- that the induced rise in consumer outlays was small relative to the size of the rebate.
The small rise in spending in response to these tax rebates is similar to what previous studies of one-time tax cuts found. It also corresponds to what both basic economic theory and common experience imply. Although someone who receives a permanent annual salary increase of $1,000 typically would increase his annual spending by an almost equally large amount, a $1,000 rise in wealth caused by a share price increase or a tax rebate would raise spending only gradually over a number of years.
All of the evidence on one-time tax rebates implies that the Obama plan to send $1,000 rebate checks would do little to raise consumer spending and stop the decline in employment. If the past is an indicator of what would happen, the $65 billion he proposes to spend on this plan would raise consumer spending by only about $10 billion, or less than one-tenth of 1% of GDP.
The distinction between one-time tax rebates and permanent changes in net income is also important for the debate about Mr. Obama's proposal to raise income and payroll taxes. Because those tax increases would be permanent, they would cause a substantial reduction in consumer spending and aggregate demand. Moreover, as taxpayers begin to focus on the possibility of such a future tax hike, they will reduce spending without waiting for such legislation to be enacted. If Mr. Obama is looking for a way to stimulate the economy, he could begin by discarding his proposal to increase future taxes.
Source
AP Lies About Obama's Red Mentor
The influential Associated Press (AP) wire service has belatedly run a story about Barack Obama's Marxist mentor without mentioning the smoking-gun evidence that the mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a Communist Party member. The dishonest story, which represents damage control for the Obama campaign, was written by AP writer Sudhin Thanawala. AP is one of the largest news agencies and serves thousands of print and electronic media outlets.
Under the innocuous headline, "Writer offered a young Barack Obama advice on life," the story calls Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) when it faithfully echoed the Stalinist line, merely a "left-leaning black journalist and poet" known for "leftist politics" and someone who might be accused by some of having "allegedly anti-American views."
Davis was not a "journalist" in any real sense of the term. He was a propagandist and racial agitator for the CPUSA. He was also a recruiter for the communist cause. The slanted AP story features quotes only from supporters or friends of Davis and Obama. But those picked to defend Davis are themselves interesting.
Ah Quon McElrath, identified as merely "a friend" of Davis's and quoted by AP, was actually an organizer for the communist-controlled International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). The ILWU was led by Davis's friend and associate, secret CPUSA member Harry Bridges. Davis wrote for a newspaper, the Honolulu Record, which was controlled by the CPUSA and subsidized by the ILWU. McElrath is quoted by AP as saying, "You could get a lot of strength from a person like Frank who had suffered all the discrimination...that a black man goes through in America."
Davis went to Hawaii in 1948 after consulting with Bridges and Paul Robeson, another secret CPUSA member. He was a mentor to Obama during the years 1975-1979 and died in 1987. Obama supporter Dr. Kathryn Takara is quoted in the AP piece as saying that "Frank was part of a group of black vanguard intellectuals." Takara was the associate producer of a program about Davis that, like the AP story, ignored his CPUSA affiliation. So while she knows a lot about Davis, she seems blind to the evidence of Davis's service to the communist cause.
In fact, Davis was a hard-core but secret CPUSA member with a history of involvement in CPUSA fronts who was so much of a Stalinist that he opposed U.S. participation in World War II during the Hitler-Stalin Pact, but then supported U.S. involvement after Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Russia.
Strangely, the AP article quotes John Edgar Tidwell, a University of Kansas professor who edited Davis's books, as declining by e-mail an interview request because Davis has allegedly become the victim of a "McCarthy-era strategy of smear tactics and condemnation by association." Tidwell knows that Davis was a secret CPUSA member and cites evidence in one of his books, including from one of Davis's private letters, to prove it. Davis refused to deny his CPUSA membership as late as 1956, when a congressional inquiry had named him as a member of the communist underground.
So "McCarthyism" has become telling the truth about communists? Why has Tidwell taken such a low-profile during the presidential campaign when he should have so much to offer about Davis?and possibly Obama? Why the silent treatment? ....
AP quotes John Edgar Tidwell in a book as saying about Davis, "He made his vision into a beacon, a light shedding understanding and enlightenment on the problems that denied people, regardless of race, national origin or economic status, their constitutional rights." But AP doesn't quote Tidwell as confirming that Davis was a Communist, a member of a political party funded and controlled by Moscow. And AP doesn't note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line.
What's more, AP doesn't note that Davis accused prominent black author Richard Wright of "treason" for breaking with and exposing the CPUSA. "In spite of his writings," AP says, "Davis scholars dismiss the idea that he was anti-American." Why not tell us what was in those writings? Like the private letter in the possession of Davis scholar Tidwell in which Davis tries to recruit a prominent poet to the CPUSA. Which of course raises the disturbing questions that must be asked:
- Did Davis recruit Obama?
- Was Obama, like Davis, Bridges and Robeson, ever a secret CPUSA member?
- Could Obama's possible secret relationship with the CPUSA help explain why the first person ever to publicly mention that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis, and that he had a relationship with Obama, was Gerald Horne, a writer for a CPUSA publication? .....
The blatant fraud and deception in the AP story may reflect thinking at the highest levels of the Obama campaign that, if the complete truth about the Obama-Davis relationship were made known, the candidate would be sunk. They must understand that Obama's baggage would prevent him from getting a security clearance in the U.S. Government (none is required for a presidential candidate). After all, they must be asking themselves, what American in his or her right mind would vote for a candidate who took "advice about race and college" ?to quote AP?from a Communist pawn of Moscow?
Viewed in a national security context, the Frank Marshall Davis scandal is far more serious than Obama and his wife and children hearing Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and anti-white sermons. Indeed, the Davis influence on Obama may help explain why Obama would attend Wright's church, take his children there, and be receptive to his message for many years. It also may explain why Obama would admittedly attend socialist conferences and pick Marxist professors as friends in college before launching his political career in the home of communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. But if you didn't know that Davis was a Communist, this pattern of associations with unsavory characters cannot be traced back to Obama's formative high-school years.
So the AP story looks like an attempt to put the best possible face on something that could fatally wound Obama and leave him in the position this November of being perceived as a fringe McGovern-style candidate without McGovern's legislative credentials and war record.
Much more here
Stall that Slide to the '70s
There aren't many who long for a return to the 1970s. Those of us old enough to recall that decade tend to think of gas lines, a hostage crisis and Watergate. President Carter never used the word "malaise," but he acted as if America was doomed to decline, and it was his job to make sure it went smoothly.
There's some malaise around today, too.
High gasoline prices are back. Petroleum-producing nations (such as Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia) again hold us hostage -- this time for petro-dollars, even as the value of our currency slides. And polls show both the president and Congress have their lowest approval ratings in decades.
With so much discontent, who would want to go back to the policies of the 1970s? None other than the self-professed presidential candidate of "change," Barack Obama.
Sen. Obama recently unveiled an economic plan that revolves around raising taxes on the wealthy. His plan would jack up the top marginal rate to roughly 50 percent for those making more than $250,000 a year. And that doesn't include state and local taxes.
Obama promises to "soak the rich" three times over by 1) repealing the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, 2) bumping the top two tax rates back up to 36 and 39.6 percent and 3) slapping them with additional Social Security taxes. The total tax pain would be greatest for those who live in high-tax cities and states, including New York, Maryland and California. Some there would have to pay up to 66 cents in taxes on every new dollar they earn. Confiscatory tax rates like that only encourage high earners to work less and produce less.
Those sort of tax rates would take us right back to the Carter era. That's the last time rates were that high.
Of course, when tax rates are high, wealthy people spend their time developing tax shelters instead of reinvesting in their businesses. That may be great news for lobbyists and tax attorneys, but it's bad news for everyone else.
It was a true "candidate of change" who rescued the U.S. from the doldrums of the '70s. "Reaganesque lower taxes and deregulation," economic historian John Steele Gordon wrote in The Wall Street Journal recently, "sparked an enormous economic boom that has now lasted, with two brief and shallow recessions, for more than 25 years."
The rest of the world learned Reagan's lesson, too. Most countries slashed tax rates after we did, and generated growth of their own. By reversing that policy, Sen. Obama would put the U.S. in with an ever shrinking group of nations that cling to the failed policies of the past, and are suffering for it.
Only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined that adds up to more than 55 percent. Obama's tax plan would give us a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. And these sorts of tax rates slow the economy.
Among those six high tax countries the average unemployment rate is 7.35 percent. Contrast that with our own unemployment rate, which recently rose to 5.5 percent -- still a low figure by historic standards.
The math is simple: Lower tax rates encourage more economic growth and lower unemployment. Higher tax rates lead to slower growth and lower wages. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush pressed Reagan's tax-cutting policies even further, slashing tax rates and boosting the economy into several more years of growth. The sensible policy today would be to make those cuts permanent, so business owners and entrepreneurs could plan for the future.
The only other option is a return to the discredited policies of the '70s. And that's a change we simply can't afford.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
6 August, 2008
Major DNC Donor to Party Treasurer: Obama is a Bad Investment
The following is a letter sent to DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias telling him why, from a rational investor's point of view, Obama has not earned the author's vote. The letter was sent by one of the DNC's biggest donors, a donor who has historically maxed out to the DNC and who was a maxed out donor in both the Kerry and Clinton campaigns, in response to comments by Tobias that she could not see the forest through the trees. You decide.
Dear Andy,
So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.
As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The "plots" change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar. You have seen the movie before. When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team. One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player. Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight. I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.
After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned. I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters. The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said. If they were bailing out, so was I. If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went of.
In the thirteen years that I have had audited results, I lost money in only one year, and then only in single digits. I am proud that I was able repay my investors' faith and confidence in me by compounding their funds assets, net of fees, at 18% over those 13 years. I took my responsibilities seriously and when I knew I could not give it 110% of my energies, I turned it over to someone who would. My investors deserved someone who would work tirelessly on their behalf, looking under every rock in support of their interests.
The fact that I became successful was not what made me proud. It was how I did it. My soul is intact. It was the self-imposed rules and standards that I adhered to. I believed in a win, win, and still do. My investors always came first. I never screwed anyone over. I made plenty of mistakes, but I always owned them, never blaming others. I treated everyone fairly and with respect, believing everyone has something to offer. I always tried to do the right thing.
So what does this have to do with me not falling in line and supporting Obama? Well everything as you can see.
Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.
Nor for political or any other reasons would I choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; the ends justify the means. He lacks character.
Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people's accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.
In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and 103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail? They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.
It was clear that what I saw and experienced was not a fluke or isolated incidents, but coordinated, deliberate and arrogant. I got to see him and his organization for who he is and what it is - not inspiring, to say the least. Not something I would have, in business, endorsed in any way. In fact, I would most likely have reported them to the appropriate regulators.
Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?
Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do?
Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the later part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.
Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.
At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink, wink. Andy, I heard remarks that still make my jaw drop.
You know I consider myself a centrist. The right wing of the Republican Party scares me, but so does the left. Ideologues of either side should not have control simultaneously of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of the government. Absolute power corrupts, be it on the left or the right. Ha, but you will say.... the courts. If you have the legislative branch, all will be fine. McCain voted Ginsberg in, he is not a stupid man and certainly not an Ideologue, and he took heat in the primaries for refusing to have a litmus test for judges. And need I remind you that Obama thought Roberts was an acceptable appointment until some more experienced hands in the Senate told him that would not do?
Painting him as Bush 3 is a little annoying, and what's up with the MoveOn Baby Alex commercial? Give credit where credit is due. McCain went against his own party twice on immigration reform, on ethanol subsidies, and campaign finance reform. He started talking about Global warming 8 years ago. I don't agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principles and a backbone. He is not willing to say anything to get elected.
I can't say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes, Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.
But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.
Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the mic over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.
All this might not bother me if so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.
Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm and fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then,
Source
Airhead's energy plan
Inflate your tires. Tune your engines. Here's $1,000 so you won't reduce your driving. Democratic Sen. Barack Obama is the smartest script-reader in Hollywood. But when it comes to policy. Well. It's all Jimmy Carter II.
With the price of oil at $4 a gallon, Americans are cutting back on driving. This is pushing oil prices down. It's called the marketplace. It works. This should please liberals because it puts less pressure to open up areas near their vacation homes to oil exploration. Instead Obama wants to give every family $1,000 so they can drive, drive, drive and use, use, use that foreign oil, foreign oil, foreign oil. Politico quoted Obama:"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months. Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt."Or it could be used to pay for more air in your tires. Just what he's rebating is unclear. I think he means the extra money people will have to pay for gasoline to cover the latest "windfall tax." So people will drive more, pay more and we will be more dependent on foreign oil. There is no problem so bad that the government cannot come in and make it worse.
Source
Obama's carelessness with the facts again
Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry.
The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.
Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He's proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion.
More here
McCain Not First to Compare Obama to Paris Hilton
The uproar of the media, serving as adjunct PR firms in defense of their beloved Sen. Barack Obama in response to Sen. John McCain's video comparing the Illinois Senator to Paris Hilton, was deafening. The ad was described as "nasty", "childish" and "juvenile", a "strange" "nuclear attack" for having dared to compare their anointed one to the brainless celebutant hotel heiress.
Sen. McCain and his camp responded that it was all in good fun, and was made only to point out the ridiculous Tiger Beat-squealing teenage girl nature of the over-the-top, all-encompassing coverage thus far afforded Obama by his Paparazzi. But it appears that someone years ago beat Sen. McCain to the comparison punch. Would all of this overwrought press hysteria be rendered even sillier were it to turn out that Sen. McCain was in actuality quoting Sen. Obama? Methinks that it would. A February 24, 2005, Washington Post article begins:There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken. "Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."That is pretty much the who and the why of Sen. McCain's explanation of his ad, is it not? It turns out he wasn't mocking Sen. Obama so much as channeling him. Or making a mini-documentary out of the Post's article. Either way, it is just another example of the elite media not liking a Leftist's own words being used against him in the court of public opinion.
Source
Under President Obama, CO2 hysteria would be a cornerstone of US policy
Obama speaks in Michigan:
We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges greater than any we've seen in generations. Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack. Our changing climate is placing our planet in peril. Our economy is in turmoil and our families are struggling with rising costs and falling incomes; with lost jobs and lost homes and lost faith in the American Dream. And for too long, our leaders in Washington have been unwilling or unable to do anything about it.Source
That is why this election could be the most important of our lifetime. When it comes to our economy, our security, and the very future of our planet, the choices we make in November and over the next few years will shape the next decade, if not the century. And central to all of these major challenges is the question of what we will do about our addiction to foreign oil.
Without a doubt, this addiction is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced - from the gas prices that are wiping out your paychecks and straining businesses to the jobs that are disappearing from this state; from the instability and terror bred in the Middle East to the rising oceans and record drought and spreading famine that could engulf our planet.
It's also a threat that goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation, and who we will be. Will we be the generation that leaves our children a planet in decline, or a world that is clean, and safe, and thriving? Will we allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of tyrants and dictators who control the world's oil wells? Or will we control our own energy and our own destiny? Will America watch as the clean energy jobs and industries of the future flourish in countries like Spain, Japan, or Germany? Or will we create them here, in the greatest country on Earth, with the most talented, productive workers in the world? ...
Back then, we imported about a third of our oil. Now, we import more than half. Back then, global warming was the theory of a few scientists. Now, it is a fact that is melting our glaciers and setting off dangerous weather patterns as we speak. ...
I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now. ... As your wonderful Governor has said, "Any time you pick up a newspaper and see the terms `climate change' or `global warming,' just think: `jobs for Michigan.'" You are seeing the potential already. Already, there are 50,000 jobs in your clean energy sector and 300 companies. But now is the time to accelerate that growth, both here and across the nation.
If I am President, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal - in ten years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela. To do this, we will invest $150 billion over the next ten years and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates five million new American jobs...
Senator McCain would not take the steps or achieve the goals that I outlined today. His plan invests very little in renewable sources of energy and he's opposed helping the auto industry re-tool. Like George Bush and Dick Cheney before him, he sees more drilling as the answer to all of our energy problems, and like them, he's found a receptive audience in the very same oil companies that have blocked our progress for so long. In fact, he raised more than one million dollars from big oil just last month, most of which came after he announced his plan for offshore drilling in a room full of cheering oil executives. His initial reaction to the bipartisan energy compromise was to reject it because it took away tax breaks for oil companies. And even though he doesn't want to spend much on renewable energy, he's actually proposed giving $4 billion more in tax breaks to the biggest oil companies in America - including $1.2 billion to Exxon-Mobil.
... We can watch other countries create the industries and the jobs that will fuel our future, and leave our children a planet that grows more dangerous and unlivable by the day...
Another flip flop
The latest edition of our continuing series, Obama's statements and their expiration dates.
OBAMA'S STATEMENT: "The reserve should only be used in the event of an emergency, and that we shouldn't be tapping the reserve to provide a small, short-term decrease in gas prices." - August 31, 2005
EXPIRATION DATE: Today: "Democrat Barack Obama called today for tapping the nation's strategic oil reserves to help drive down gasoline prices, a shift from his previous position on the issue." All Barack Obama statements come with an expiration date. All of them. Of course, the RNC notes Obama was arguing against tapping into the strategic oil reserves a lot more recently than August 2005:"I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point. I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said that we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency. You have a situation, let's say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market, we wouldn't just be seeing $4-a-gallon oil. We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that's what the strategic oil reserve has to be for." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Media Availability, St. Louis, MO, 7/7/08)Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
5 August, 2008
Is race a bigger factor than the polls suggest?
Mr. Obama's campaign concedes it has no clear example of a Republican attack that expressly cites Mr. Obama's name or race. Yet in the last few days some Obama supporters were at it again, suggesting that a McCain ad attacking Mr. Obama as little more than a "celebrity," by featuring young white women such as Britney Spears, is an appeal to white anxiety about black men and white women.
The race issue is clearly not going away. And the key reason -- to be blunt -- is because there is no telling how many white voters are lying to pollsters when they say they plan to vote for a black man to be president. Still, it is possible to look elsewhere in the polling numbers to see where white voters acknowledge their racial feelings and get a truer measure of racism.
In a Wall Street Journal poll last month, 8% of white voters said outright that race is the most important factor when it comes to looking at these two candidates -- a three percentage point increase since Mr. Obama claimed the Democratic nomination. An added 15% of white voters admit the candidates' race is a factor for them. Race is even more important to black voters: 20% say it is the top factor influencing their view of the candidates, and another 14% admit it is among the key factors that will determine their vote. All this contributes to the idea that the presidential contest will boil down to black guy versus white guy.
Consider also a recent Washington Post poll. Thirty percent of all voters admitted to racial prejudice, and more than a half of white voters categorized Mr. Obama as "risky" (two-thirds judged Mr. McCain the "safe" choice). Yet about 90% of whites said they would be "comfortable" with a black president. And about a third of white voters acknowledged they would not be "entirely comfortable" with an African-American president. Why the contradictory responses? My guess is that some whites are not telling the truth about their racial attitudes.
A recent New York Times poll found that only 31% of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama. That compares to 83% of blacks with a favorable opinion. This is a huge, polarizing differential.
But polling can be tricky. In May, a Pew poll asked voters about Mr. Obama but did not give them the option of saying they are undecided. In that poll, whites split on the candidate, 45% saying they had a favorable opinion, 46% unfavorable. When white voters had the option of being undecided, as they did in the Times poll, 37% of whites said they had an unfavorable opinion of him, but 26% said they were undecided.
To win this campaign, Mr. Obama needs to assure undecided white voters that he shares their values and is worthy of their trust. To do that he has to minimize attention to different racial attitudes toward his candidacy as well as racially polarizing issues, and appeal to the common experiences that bind Americans regardless of color.
Mr. Obama has shown an unprecedented ability to cross the racial divide in American politics. He did particularly well in managing caucus states, such as Iowa, where highly energized supporters, especially idealistic young white supporters, minimized the impact of negative racial attitudes with passionate participation.
But the white Democratic caucus voters in Iowa, where there are relatively few racial issues, are decidedly more liberal than white voters nationally. In primary states from New Hampshire to Texas and California, Mr. Obama lost when one of two things happened. Either working-class white voters did not participate in polls, or some white voters lied and told pollsters they planned to vote for him before casting their votes for another candidate.
There are going to be more of those wobbly white voters in November. The size of the white vote in a general election race dwarfs the white vote in the Democratic primary. Based on the 2004 presidential contest, whites make up about 77% of voters and blacks 11%.
In the Democratic primaries there were states, especially in the South, where blacks made up nearly half of the electorate. But in the general election there are no states where blacks make up so large a percentage. Even in Southern states such as Georgia and North Carolina, where blacks made up about a quarter of the vote in the last presidential election, it will be an upset if Mr. Obama manages to win. Those states have a history of Republican dominance in presidential contests. Even an energized black vote is unlikely to make Mr. Obama a winner anywhere in the South, although some Democrats hold out hope for Virginia.
In 2004, John Kerry had a 46% favorable rating among white voters, barely better than Barack Obama's. But Mr. Kerry lost. Mr. Obama needs to do better with whites. But the white voters' view of him is still clearly unsettled.
Polls show white voters struggling to identify with him as a fellow American who, to quote Bill Clinton, is able to "feel your pain." When the New York Times poll asked whether Mr. Obama cares about "the needs and problems of people like yourself," 70% of whites answered "a lot" or "some." But 28% of whites said Mr. Obama cared about them "not much" or "not at all." Compare that with the 72% of black voters who said Mr. Obama cared about them "a lot." The same Times poll had Mr. Obama leading Mr. McCain by six percentage points, 45-39, but trailing by nine points among white voters, 37-46.
After Jesse Jackson's vicious comments about Mr. Obama, some political strategists suggested that a split with Mr. Jackson and his racially divisive politics could help Mr. Obama with white voters. But polls have yet to reveal this.
Could a Jackson-Obama split cause black voters to lose enthusiasm for him -- dividing their loyalties between the two most prominent black political voices of this era? Opinion surveys do not indicate this is likely. Polling done by Gallup just before Mr. Jackson's outburst indicated that 29% of black Americans chose Mr. Obama as the "individual or leader in the U.S. to speak for you on issues of race." Mr. Jackson came in third with only 4% support (behind Al Sharpton, who had 6%). Last year, a Pew poll focusing on racial attitudes found 76% of blacks judged Mr. Obama a "good influence," a full eight points higher than Mr. Jackson.
Jodie Allen, a senior editor at Pew, wrote recently that a poll Pew conducted last November showed clearly that "the black community is at least as traditional in its views as the larger American public." Blacks in the Pew poll were just as likely as whites to take a hard line opposing crime (as long as black neighborhoods are not unfairly targeted), to condemn the shocking number of children born out of wedlock and express disgust with the violence and misogyny in rap music.
Mr. Obama needs to hammer home these conservative social values to capture undecided white voters. He might lose Mr. Jackson's vote. But he won't lose many black votes, and he will win the undecided white votes he needs to become America's first African-American president.
Source
Document Expert Discovers Another Person's birth certificate Used To Forge Obama's
The evidence that the certificate of live birth (COLB) produced to prove the date and place of Sen. Barack Obama's birth is a forged document just keeps getting more damning. A board-certified computer forensics examiner with more than 20 years experience, including clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice for sensitive work, has determined that the Obama COLB is a digitally modified forgery based on a COLB belonging to another person. The expert, using the pseudo name "Techdude", intends to disclose the identity of the person to whom the COLB belongs if the responsible person does not come forward and accept responsibility for the forgery. Techdude writes at the Texas Darlin blog, a pro Clinton blog, as follows:For a quick preview - the original COLB used to create the KOS COLB image belongs to a female and does not belong to Obama. Another follow up report will reveal exactly who the original underlying COLB did belong to. Trust me when I tell you it is going to be one hell of a major twist that no one would have seen coming. I had to quadruple check my results because I did not even believe it and I currently have a few other people double and triple checking my results as well just to be 100% sure.
That said, and in the interest of fairness, if the people responsible for forging the COLB come forward and admit their liability the name of the original COLB owner will not be released publicly. It is only fair to give the guilty parties a chance to take responsibility for their actions before it embarrasses a lot of people and ruins some people's reputations.
As a heads up to the guilty parties - the names and dates have already been restored - as has the fact the owner is a female born in the 70's. That is all that will be revealed publicly for now. Besides if I turn up in a ditch someplace the information is already in a few 3rd party hands and they will just release it in my place. If anyone still believes the KOS COLB is legitimate after reading this article they should seriously think about seeking professional help.
Techdude, since surfacing on the Texas Darlin blog in recent weeks to question the authenticity of the Obama COLB, has been criticized by pro-Obama supporters for refusing to identify himself. "My full name and contact information will be released shortly once the entire set of facts has been released to the public," Techdude writes. "This way if I end up at the bottom of a construction site someplace in NJ the world will still have all the information I was going to provide." Earlier, Techdude reported that pro Obama supporters had tracked down his home address, vandalized his car and hung a dead rabbit over his doorway.
Source
Co-operation with Europe: More Obama ignorance shown up
LAST weekend, Barack Obama dazzled crowds in Europe. Discussing international security, he spoke eloquently about needing an American-European partnership to defeat terrorism. In Paris, he said that "terrorism cannot be solved by any one country alone," and that we should establish partnerships. In Berlin, he expressed hope that Europeans and Americans "can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks" of terrorists worldwide.
But there's one problem. We already have a counterterrorism partnership with the European Union. And it works. Indeed, despite news media caricatures of aggressive Americans feuding with pacifist Europeans, both groups are quite serious about protecting citizens by working together. The urgency of this partnership became clear after investigators discovered that a cell in Hamburg, Germany, had helped in Al Qaeda's attacks against America on Sept. 11, 2001. After bombings in Madrid and London, the partnership expanded. Since then the number of attacks and plots aimed at our European allies has dropped. And here in the United States, of course, Al Qaeda has been unable to attack since 9/11.
Officials in the American and European military, intelligence and law enforcement communities created this success, and a strong counterterrorism partnership made it possible. The key pillars are better intelligence sharing and closer law enforcement cooperation. I have witnessed this success firsthand. In 2005, I was the Pentagon's lead intelligence specialist in Iraq focusing on terrorist networks that used improvised explosive devices. Many Americans may recall the increasing casualties from these homemade devices. Despite our huge investments in technology to combat them, terrorist networks kept learning to adapt.
One challenge we had was to find where the research and testing of new bombs was taking place. Eventually, American intelligence and European law enforcement officials discovered together that much of the work was being done outside Iraq with the results transmitted via the Internet. Acting on this information, the police in France arrested electrical engineering students at a French university who had been recruited by their local mosque leaders. After these arrests, American tactical countermeasures and improvements in technology became more effective and the number of casualties from certain types of explosives declined.
Such close collaboration between the United States and France against terrorist cells in Iraq may surprise those accustomed to digesting easy sound bites of "cowboy diplomacy" and "unilateralism." But the partnership is real, and not just with France. The Germans contribute as well. I also worked on counterterrorism operations in southern Europe to stop a plot against American interests there. Thanks to German intelligence and law enforcement officials, a planned attack modeled on the 1983 truck bombing against United States marines in Lebanon - but several times larger - never happened.
Another Obama straw man is shredded. Democrats have tried to denigrate the Bush administrations achievements and its diplomacy. To do so they are willing to ignore the facts and focus on issues that have long ago been resolved. It is part of their politics of fraud.
Source
Obama's Gift to the Late Night Hosts
Blasting McCain's latest ad, Obama meant to say the 30-second spot featured Britney Spears. Instead he said Hillary Clinton. Oops, he did it again. Check it out:"Now we've got ads about Britney and Paris," Obama said referencing McCain's new ad comparing his opponent to the young celebrities, Spears and Hilton. "At a time when we've got bigger challenges than any time in our history and you're running ads with Hillary and er - with Britney and ah Paris in it. I mean come on. The American people deserve better."When McCain messes up, it's because he's old, he's confused, and he's possibly got Alzheimer's. But when Obama makes a gaffe, it's because he hasn't gotten his beauty rest. Fawning journalists are awash with concern about how tireless the One is working -- not just for the sake of America, but the entire world! Under the headline, "Is Obama Getting Enough Sleep," CBS News' Michelle Levi reports, "the Illinois senator is showing signs of fatigue." Well, perhaps White House schedulers -- I mean Obama's campaign staffers -- can work in a little nap time for Obama in between his trips to the gym.
Last year, after saying Kansas tornadoes killed 10,000 people instead of the 12, Obama told reporters (eager to lap up his explanations), "There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes." Obama used the same explanation when he said only nine or ten people died in the Holocaust -- omitting the crucial word million -- and journalists once again lapped it up. When Obama said there were 57 states too, the media didn't poke fun of him (was he thinking about varieties of ketchup?) so much as express concern with his physical well-being. Which isn't to say Obama's explanation is all that far-fetched. My problem is just that when McCain says Sunni instead of Shia, reporters leap on it as if it revealed a lack of expertise -- as if it were some window into McCain's soul.
Source
"Racially Tinged"? The New York Times Demonstrates Why It Is Bleeding Money
The McCain ad smacking Obama for his "all hat, no cattle" resume has generated a lot of controversy, but the New York Times' assertion that the ad is "racially tinged" tells you everything about the Times and nothing about John McCain.
No American with a brain seriously thinks John McCain would ever approve a "racially tinged" ad, and the attempt to smear McCain as a racist will backfire on the Times and Obama. There's lots to object to in McCain's record whether you are left, right or center --my writing throughout last year detailed the objections of conservatives-- but the idea that Senator McCain would ever countenance an appeal to base instincts will be instantly rejected by voters left, right and center. McCain's been around a long, long time, and voters know him. He's an honorable man, as honorable a man as has ever run for the office. The paper's credibility (and profits) have never been lower, but this sort of absurd attack proves you can indeed fall off the floor. Even as other MSMers are waking up to Obama's many flaws, the Times endorses the pathetic playing of the race card by Obama, and proves that the most elite of elite media is not merely biased towards Obama. It is owned by him.
"Dollar Bill" Obama had a bad few days and reflexively appealed to race, and not for the first time. ("And did I mention, he's black?") Because racism is immoral, the attribution of it to a person innocent of the charge is a slander, and Obama has slandered John McCain and a lot of people as a result. This will not sit well with voters who have deep reservations about the inexperienced, untried "citizen of the world" peddling pompous rhetoric to Europeans while skipping out on meetings with wounded troops. John McCain's "energizer bunny" campaign excites very few people even as it reassures millions, and Obama's impulse to self-destruct should not be under-estimated. Perhaps a majority of Americans still understand that we remain at war with a committed and ruthless enemy, and that sending in a rookie who can't even handle a hard-hitting television ad is not exactly the best bet for the country's safety.
Source
Rove protege unleashing Obama attack
DEMOCRATS are worried Barack Obama is not doing enough to hit back at John McCain in the face of a barrage of personal attacks mocking the candidate - crafted by the same people who helped scuttle John Kerry's presidential ambitions in 2004. Senator Obama's rival launched a new ad on the internet at the weekend that mocked Senator Obama as "the one", showing clips of the candidate at his more hubristic moments, which critics say have given his campaign a messianic quality. Amid crowd chants of "Obama!", the ad shows bright-lit stairways and notes 2008 will be the year the world will be "blessed". It also replays clips of Senator Obama's speeches claiming how his presidency could help put an end to global warming, cut-in with footage of the late Charlton Heston playing Moses and parting the sea. The narrator says "Barack Obama may be the one. But is he ready to lead?"
The McCain camp's tactical move in the past week to negative campaigning with biting advertisements has dominated the airwaves and is credited to Steve Schmidt, who is leading McCain's new push after formally taking up a role in the campaign last month. Mr Schmidt, 37, was a chief player in the George W. Bush re-election campaign in 2004 and seen as a Karl Rove protege, who President Bush dubbed "the architect" of his victories. Mr Schmidt was one of the masterminds of the attack ads on Senator Kerry in 2004, including the infamous windsurfing advertisement, which portrayed him as a weak leader going where-ever the wind blowed.
Senator Obama's speeches have given the McCain team plenty to work with as some party insiders urge him to tone down his rhetoric. In his victory speech on June 3, when he finally emerged victorious over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, Senator Obama spoke in now familiar epochal terms. "I am absolutely certain that generations from now," he said, "we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." On the internet, fawning blogs have even created sites dedicated to Obama as a "messiah", while others mock him.
Many Democrats are worried that despite this being an election for the Democrats to lose - given an imploding economy and the public disenchantment with the Iraq war - Senator Obama is only marginally ahead of Senator McCain in the polls. And in the past week, as the negative campaigning started in earnest, those poll numbers have slipped, too. In one poll last week, Senator McCain took a small lead among registered voters. "Some Obama backers are right to worry the relentless daily attacks on the candidate will take their toll on the campaign," says Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000. "These types of campaigns - which the media often helps todrive as it analyses the effectiveness of the attacks before questioning the accuracy of theinformation - will continue from now until election day (on November 4)," she said. "And it's time for the Obama campaign to build a political firewall by using outside surrogates unaffiliated with the candidate to debunk these misleading attacks."
The attacks also come as Senator Obama has announced several policy shifts in the past month that take him back to the centre of US politics, supporting, for instance, controversial domestic surveillance legislation as well as championing a more nuanced position on the Iraq Warthan he did during campaigning in the primaries against Senator Clinton.
Respected US political observer Michael Barone wrote at the weekend that polls now indicate "there is some evidence that the balance of enthusiasm has shifted and that young people - who seemed to turn out and vote for Senator Obama in unusually high numbers in the primaries and caucuses - are no longer so enthusiastic about him". An ABC/Washington Post poll last month asked registered voters if they were "certain" to vote. Only 46 per cent of voters under 30 said they were, which compared with 66 per cent in February when Senator Obama's victories against Senator Clinton electrified the electorate. And Mr Barone notes that the 46 per cent of young voters saying last month they were certain to vote was far lower than the 79 per cent of voters aged 65 and over who said they were. Senator Obama, at 46, is widely expected to sweep the youth vote while Senator McCain is 71 and appeals to older voters.
Asked yesterday about the McCain camp's portrayal of him as arrogant, Senator Obama said: "It's not really clear exactly what it's based on. "I think they are cynical and want to distract people from talking about the real issues." But he also admitted yesterday that his personality is ripe for attacks that try to redefine him, saying: "I'm young, I'm new to the national scene, my name is Barack Obama, I'm African-American, I was born in Hawaii, I spent time in Indonesia. "I'm sort of unfamiliar and people are trying to still get a fix on where I am, where I came from, my values and so forth in a way that may not be true if I seemed more familiar."
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
4 August, 2008
Obama gets a little clearer on reparations
No checks in the mail but lots of indirect favouritism for losers
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders. The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all. "I have said in the past - and I'll repeat again - that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.
Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations - that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by slavery.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters.
"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done." But this is not a position Obama adopted just for the presidential campaign. He voiced the same concerns about reparations during his successful run for the Senate in 2004. There's enough flexibility in the term "reparations" that Obama can oppose them and still have plenty of common ground with supporters.
The NAACP says reparations could take the form of government programs to help struggling people of all races. Efforts to improve schools in the inner city could also aid students in the mountains of West Virginia, said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau. "The solution could be broad and sweeping," Shelton said.
The National Urban League - a group Obama addressed Saturday without mentioning the issue in his speech - avoids the word "reparations" as too vague and highly charged. But the group advocates government action to close the gaps between white America and black America.
Urban League President Marc Morial said he expects his members to press Obama on how he intends to close those gaps and what action he would take in the first 100 days of his presidency. "What steps should we take as a nation to alleviate the effects of racial exclusion and racial discrimination?" Morial asked.
The House voted this week to apologize for slavery. The resolution, which was approved on a voice vote, does not mention reparations, but past opponents have argued that an apology would increase pressure for concrete action. Obama says an apology would be appropriate but not particularly helpful in improving the lives of black Americans. Reparations could also be a distraction, he said. In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."
Taking questions Sunday at a conference of minority journalists, Obama said he would be willing to talk to American Indian leaders about an apology for the nation's treatment of their people.
Pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, Obama said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations. "If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured," Obama said. "If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get - should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."
One reparations advocate, Vernellia Randall, a law professor at the University of Dayton, bluntly responded: "I think he's dead wrong." She said aid to the poor in general won't close the gaps - poor blacks would still trail poor whites, and middle-class blacks would still lag behind middle-class whites. Instead, assistance must be aimed directly at the people facing the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws, she said.
"People say he can't run and get elected if he says those kinds of things," Randall said. "I'm like, well does that mean we're really not ready for a black president?"
Source
Leftists think Obama's oil drilling pivot is a loser
Tokenistic though it is
Obama's flip on drilling strikes me as a major error. Even when analyzing it entirely as a political move, where the specifics of the legislation and the popularity of drilling are irrelevant, it still comes off very poorly. Straight up, it just looks like he caved. That is a terrible image for any politician to radiate. It isn't about moving to the left, right and center. It is about not moving away from yourself. That looks bad, no matter what the bill is, and no matter how popular is may be.
This won't help him get elected. This will do the opposite. Last week, after the Berlin speech, I thought there was no way Obama could lose the election. Now, I worry it might be a toss-up.
About the only thing that could save Obama in this case is that McCain did the exact same thing on this issue earlier in the year. So, they look equally bad, and it is mentioned in the coverage:Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon.But, that is in the third paragraph, while title reads "Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling."
Oh yeah, it is a really sucky idea, too. While allowing Republicans to go through with all of their sucky ideas has actually been an electoral boon for Democrats of late, since the ideas cause major problems. Then again, there is also the problem that those ideas cause major problems. In this case, Obama will help the creation of a major problem along, but actually receive a negative electoral benefit from it. And that is a big-time political error.
Source
Democrats anxious for Obama to widen lead
In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked voters whether they felt better off than four years earlier. He went on to defeat Jimmy Carter a few weeks later. On Friday Barack Obama raised the same question: "Do you think that you are better off now than you were four years ago or eight years ago?" he asked voters in Florida. "And if you don't . . . do you think you can afford another four years of the same failed economic policies that we've had under George W. Bush?"
With unemployment on Friday jumping by 51,000 to take this year's job losses to almost half a million, Mr Obama is mining a potentially rich seam. But a number of Democrats, including advisers to the Obama campaign, are worried that the Democratic party's overall electoral advantage this year has not yet translated into comfortable leads for Mr Obama. On Friday Gallup showed Mr Obama just one point ahead of John McCain - a significant tightening in the past two weeks.
Mr McCain's improving fortunes have coincided with a strikingly negative turn in his campaign's tactics, with the launch last weekend of an advertisement criticising Mr Obama for failing to visit wounded soldiers when he was in Germany because the Pentagon refused to permit the media to accompany him. That allegation has since been debunked.
But the signs are that Mr McCain's continuing attacks - most recently in a commercial that portrayed Mr Obama as a vapid celebrity against images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears - may be striking a chord with the white working class voters who shunned Mr Obama so emphatically in many of his primary contests with Hillary Clinton.
With just one month to go before Labour Day - the traditional beginning of the general election - and only three weeks before the Democratic convention, many Democrats fear that time is running out for Mr Obama to overcome the suspicions of this key swing vote.
"We have got to move away from these beautifully choreographed speeches which appeal to groups of voters who are unassailably in the Obama camp already," said a non-staff adviser to Mr Obama. "What plays well with the educated liberal voter sometimes grates with the blue-collar folk, whom we need on our side if we are going to win."
The numbers back up the concern. Although Mr Obama has a good shot at winning traditional Republican states such as Colorado, Virginia and even North Carolina, he cannot capture the White House if he loses more than one of Pennsylvania, Ohio or Michigan - the more traditional, blue-collar swing states, which Mrs Clinton won by huge margins in the primary contests. Polls suggest these states are too close to call.
At this stage in the 1988 presidential race, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate, had a 17 percentage point lead over George H.W. Bush, who went on to win the election. John Kerry emerged from the 2004 Democratic convention with a strong lead over George W. Bush only to lose the election as well. In 2008, conventional wisdom says Mr McCain is running a much less effective campaign than either of the Bushes.
That only reinforces disquiet about Mr Obama's inability so far to take a decisive lead. "Even on his worst day, Bill Clinton was able to signal that he understood voters' concerns and that he felt their pain," said Douglas Schoen, a Democratic consultant. "Obama has no trouble with the campaign stagecraft. But this isn't Harvard, it's the beer hall. He has to talk in language that people understand."
Conventional wisdom also suggests Mr McCain's campaign overstepped the mark by moving on to direct negative attacks on Mr Obama's character. But Mr Obama has also kept up a stream of material for them to exploit. At a meeting with Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday, he said he represented the world's hopes for America. "This is the moment the world is waiting for," he said when asked about his overseas trip. "I have become a symbol of restoring America to its best traditions."
The Obama campaign says the remarks were taken out of context. But reports such as this can still play badly in communities that pay little attention to foreign policy and are looking for empathy with their economic situation, say analysts. "Look, Obama has pulled off a good tour of Europe and it was probably necessary," says a Democratic consultant who backed Mr Obama against Mrs Clinton. "What we need now is campaign events in hospital emergency rooms and in unemployment offices and small town diners. These people have a vote."
Given the McCain campaign's barely concealed contempt for Mr Obama and Mr Obama's occasional tendency to present his candidacy in soaring, epochal terms, many believe the pattern of negative attacks is now here to stay. "Obama obviously thinks very highly of himself," says Juleanna Glover, an adviser to Mr McCain. "Not everybody shares that view."
Source
On the Offense
I have no idea what the general reception of McCain's "The One" ad about Barack Obama will be; but I thought it was clever and effective. Humor is one of the best and most under-utilized assets in a presidential campaign; when a clever and/or humorous charge embodies a widespread feeling or concern about a candidate, it can be extremely effective, and sometimes even crippling.
It's of course important to criticize Senator Obama on the issues and on his philosophy; but in politics, campaigns need to provide its supporters, and undecided voters, with a thematic - a broad truth about a candidate which is strengthened by evidence and by that candidates own actions and words.
Those who control the narrative often control the outcome of a race.
Obama is a very skilled campaigner, among the best we've ever seen, and a candidate who is frankly hard for his opponents to tag. He is, in the vernacular of boxing, a very good bobber and a weaver. But the McCain campaign is, I think, zeroing in on one of Obama's real weaknesses - the sense people have that he's a World Celebrity, glitzy and hip, and that his campaign is more about a mood than a set of ideas. There is the sense that Obama is about style and aesthetics rather than substance and solid judgment. And of course there is Obama's supremely high opinion of himself. As I pointed out here, Obama at times seems to view himself and speak of himself in almost quasi-Messianic terms (he is "the moment that the world is waiting for" and "a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," the healer of the planet and, to quote Charles Krauthammer, the Lord of the Seas).
This kind of thing ought to be mocked - and, in McCain's latest ad, it is. My sense is that in the last couple of days - as evidenced by Obama's deeply unfair and harmful (for Obama) use of the "race card" - the community organizer from Chicago is getting a bit rattled. The fact that the polls are closing when the Obama people must surely have thought the gap would be widening can't help matters.
John McCain, while still the underdog, has a chance to pull out this election. He's gotten more aggressive in the last week or so and it is, I think, beginning to pay dividends. Stay tuned.
Source
That Dollar Bill Thing? Obama admits it was racial -- letting down his defenders
After spending a couple days denying that obvious, Obama admits that his "You know, he's new, he's... doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he's got a, he's got a funny name" remark did refer to his being black."I don't think it's accurate to say that my comments have nothing to do with race," Obama said. "Here's what I was saying and I think this should be undisputed: That I don't come out of central casting, when it comes to presidential races. For a whole range of reasons. I'm young, I'm new to the national scene, my name is Barack Obama, I am African American, I was born in Hawaii, I spent time in Indonesia. I do not have the typical biography of a presidential candidate. What that means is that I'm sort of unfamiliar and people are still trying to get a fix on who I am, where I come from, what my values are and so forth in a way that might not be true if I seemed more familiar."I love the contorted double negative at the beginning. So, let's do the under the bus body count on this one...his own spokesman, the blogging editors of the NY Times and most of the rest of the media. Andrea Mitchell, who volunteered to serve as Obama's chief defender and attacker of McCain on this matter, was unavailable for comment.
A note to the Obama masses in the media...in case you haven't noticed you and what credibility you have are disposable. But fear not, for while you may be laughed at in this lifetime, the Obamassiah will surely reward you in the next.
Source
It is time to attack Obama's policies
McCain needs to make voters afraid of Obama. Not, as he suggests self-servingly, by emphasizing that he "doesn't look like all the other presidents on dollar bills," but by hitting him on the two fronts where it would really hurt -- the economy and national security. Obama's inexperience and the wildly liberal proposals he has made in his primary campaigning, both set him up for a crippling blow this month.
Oil drilling is an issue, but it does not provoke the fear that the McCain campaign needs to elicit to win. It's just an issue disagreement with bad consequences for the nation. Obama's position on the issue is not a recipe for national disaster.
But his tax plans and their likely economic consequence are very much a plan for catastrophe. Doubling the tax in invested capital, and ratcheting up the top tax bracket to an effective 60%, will plunge the nation into a real depression. Not a recession or a downturn or a correction or a slowdown. A depression. McCain needs to hammer this point home again and again and again in his advertising. He has to put top level economists on television talking about what the Obama tax program will mean to America. Obama is suspect as an ideological liberal, anyway. And nobody thinks he has the experience to be a good president. So the potential to scare voters by accurately elaborating what his tax plans will mean to the entire country -- not just the rich on whom the burden will directly fall -- is enormous.
When Obama says he will only tax the rich, it's like saying he won't shut down the entire ship, just the engine room. If McCain just talks about Obama's tax program in the abstract, most voters will shrug and note that the tax hikes won't really apply to them. Only 2% of Americans earn more than $200,000 a year and only 6% make more than $100,000. But if McCain explains the economic impact of Obama's tax proposals on all Americans, he will score points and could score a knockout.
The national security offensive should have two parts. First, McCain's ads should portray Obama as naive. By taking off on his comment that Iran is a "tiny country" that couldn't hurt the US much, he can show how the Democrat is not prepared to cope with the serious national security problems which will face the next president. The more the crisis with Iran ratchets up, the more dividends this approach will reap for McCain. But, as with the argument of an impending depression if Obama wins, McCain needs to begin the argument now and let it pile up by the fall.
Secondly, McCain should take Obama's proposed changes in the Patriot Act and show how they would weaken us in the face of domestic terror threats. Don't let the liberal media fool you. Bush's domestic security initiatives are very popular. How will Obama explain his legislation to notify suspected terrorist groups seven days after Homeland Security begins an investigation of them? Or how will he explain his opposition to the wiretapping that saved the Brooklyn Bridge from destruction. McCain needs to paint Obama as weak on homeland security.
I think McCain's celebrity ad was brilliant and has taken Obama off his game. It also discombobulated his media sycophants. It took what was seen as a positive and raised questions about it.
That said, Morris does suggest some lines of attack where Obama should be vulnerable and it would put him to the task of defending his liberalism. McCain needs to listen to this advice.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
3 August, 2008
Obama grudgingly endorses energy compromise that includes offshore drilling
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources. Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.
Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post. "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.
In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.
"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done." Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators - five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.
The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but retain an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles off Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development. Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise....
Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling. The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.
"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."
Source
Why is Obama foolishly evoking race time after time?
By Victor Davis Hanson
And it's still only July...
Obama's problems with race have nothing to do with his half -African ancestry or his own experience with racism and unfairness, but boil down to his deftly wanting it both ways: reminding the Germans he is a different sort of American from what they're used to (false, they knew Rice and Powell well enough), while preempting by suggesting others will evoke race, but in a negative context. But his polls, I wager, will begin to slip from all this, because all this sophisticated triangulation is about to blow up in the public mind.
1) The voter is starting to hear serially from Obama about race; they were promised a racially transcendent candidate, but so far Obama seems obsessed with identity, either accusing others of racism, or using heritage himself for political advantage. This is a tragic blunder.
2) He has the same want-it-both-ways with odious racists: Rev. Wright is a former spiritual advisor, and "brilliant" scholar who nevertheless serially slurs America, whites, Italians, Jews, etc. Ludacris is "a great talent" and "talented" to such an extent Obama wants him in his I-pod menu, and has met with him-but also a racist to be shunned. Ditto Pfleger. A pattern is emerging: Obama associates with or tolerates racists when such quasi-intimacy cements street-cred as an authentic minority or someone cool in the anti-Bush mode; but then when they inevitably revert to form, he not merely casts them off, but is "shocked" at their usual expression, and so like speed bumps they litter the roadway as he barrels ahead.
3). The "typical white person", grandma under the bus riff, Pennsylvania "clingers" rant etc. , 'no more disown Rev, Wright/ but now leaving Trinity Church', etc. themselves are immaterial, but in toto provide a thin margin of tolerance when something like Ludacris or Obama's latest accusation of racism surfaces.
4) Right now Obama does not need to solidify his 90% African-American base or the Moveon.org white liberal adherents; but instead he must remember why he lost all those primaries to Hillary and to what degree his campaign since then has addressed those concerns that lost him those electorates. When a West Virginian hears that Obama is accusing others of racism, or hears him promise that racial reparations will now be a matter of government deeds not words, or a rapper brags he is a favorite of Obama and then slurs Clinton, McCain, Bush in thinly disguised racist terms, it starts to create an image of someone who is not bringing people together, but precisely the opposite.
Why all this? Inexperience and hubris-the same overconfidence that makes him say we need a Pentagon-sized new civilian aid department, to inflate our tires to avoid drilling, and must stop merely talking about reparations and starting doing something about them. His handlers need to return to the teleprompter, since all these incidents have in common the impromptu moment.
Source
Some good Obamology from Taranto
This is rich. A dispatch by the Associated Press's Mike Glover, filed from Rolla, Mo., during the wee hours this morning (4:39 a.m. Eastern Time), seems to be the latest example of "accountability journalism." Glover credits Barack Obama for his high-minded, if possibly unpopular, approach to the problem of high gasoline prices:Obama is once again betting that his eloquence can persuade price-weary consumers--read that as voters--to take the long view and not jump at a short-term fix when it comes to soaring energy prices.Obama was right about the gas-tax holiday, a temporary measure that would have lowered the retail price of gasoline only temporarily and by only about 5%. But drilling would increase supply, and therefore lower prices, over the long term--and the mere promise of a change in policy vis-…-vis drilling has already reduced oil prices in the past few weeks.
It worked in his presidential primary contest against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when she proposed a "gas tax holiday" for the summer, a pitch he opposed despite its popularity with many voters. But that was in April before gasoline shot past $4 a gallon. . . .
At issue for Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, is opening up offshore drilling to boost production, a move McCain and others GOP lawmakers say would increase supply and help control soaring gasoline prices. Opponents, including Obama and many other Democrats, say new offshore oil would be years away from reaching consumers and even then would make little difference in prices and the ongoing U.S. need for foreign oil. . . .
Obama seeks to turn the issue on its head, arguing that McCain and Bush are practicing the old politics of simply promising people something that's symbolic without addressing the real problem. Discounting drilling, he proposes energy rebates, a crackdown on oil speculators who manipulate the market and a renewed focus on energy alternatives.
As for Obama's opposition to gimmicks, that promise lasted less than seven hours. In another Glover dispatch, filed from St. Petersburg, Fla., at 11:01 a.m. Eastern, the AP reports on Obama's latest brainstorm:Obama on Friday called for a $1,000 "emergency" rebate to consumers to offset soaring energy costs amid fresh signs of a struggling economy with the nation's unemployment rate climbing to a four-year high. Obama told a town-hall meeting the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry.It doesn't seem to occur to Obama that the oil companies would pass the "windfall profits tax" on to consumers. What a great plan: You get relief from $4-a-gallon gas, and the only downside is $5- or $6-a-gallon gas!
Celebrity-Americans Cry Foul
Barack Obama complained of racism when John McCain aired an ad calling Obama a celebrity. The Los Angeles Times reports from Hollywood that Celebrity-Americans are also aggrieved over the ad:Just for a start, industry types say the ad is wrong: In the Hollywood lexicon, Obama is not a celebrity. He's a rock star. . . .This sort of proves the point of the McCain ad, doesn't it? Meanwhile, the Denver Post reports on an exciting event planned for the Democratic National Convention:
McCain's latest attempt at discrediting his handsome, photogenic young rival particularly galls stars and executives with a memory, because only eight years ago, McCain was a fixture in Hollywood fundraising circles when he tried to raise money from the very people his ad now ridicules. . . .
Most of Hollywood won't return McCain's calls nowadays because many of the stars and executives he initially impressed now believe the maverick stance they found so attractive was just a pose. Hollywood doesn't object to a good pose--unless, of course, it doesn't work. . . .
Meanwhile, Hollywood is gearing up for pro-Obama events--concerts, parties and galas--between now and November. A soundtrack CD with songs dedicated to Obama is in the works (think of all that musical hope available for download to your iPod.) A black and white ball is planned for Aug. 21 in Beverly Hills where celebrities are being invited to celebrate Obama's candidacy. Some of the celebrities who've already signed up to attend the ball, which is being organized independently of Obama's campaign, include: Lucy Liu, Ashley Judd, Jessica Alba, Don Cheadle, Khaled Hosseini, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Dennis Haysbert, Kathy Griffin, Zach Braff, Regina King, Hill Harper, Ben McKenzie, Melanie Brown and "many executives and industry professionals," according event chairwoman Asal Masomi.In an historic pairing, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and acclaimed actor Ben Affleck will appear together at the 2008 Democratic National Convention to discuss international relations.It's a bit of a mismatch, pairing an acclaimed actor with a mere former secretary of state. What does the latter know about international relations, anyway?
Triumph der Aenderung?
Yesterday we noted that some liberal bloggers were complaining John McCain's "celebrity" ad was racist because it depicted Paris Hilton and Britney Spears in a negative light. Now other liberal bloggers have come up with a new complaint: The ad reminds them of the Nazis. Blogress Eve Fairbanks of The New Republic asks: "Was I the only one who thought it mimicked the end of 'Triumph of the Will'?":Play the beginning of "Celeb" and then cue this clip to 9:20. The two shots--featuring a rhythmically chanting crowd in a long, perspectival column--are practically the same."Triumph Des Willens" is, of course, Leni Riefenstahl's infamous 1935 Nazi propaganda film, frequently praised on technical grounds even though National Socialism has been discredited. Blogger Rick Perlstein of the Campaign for America's Future saves you the trouble of watching the YouTube videos by providing stills from the McCain ad and the Nazi film.
Somehow, though, a crucial distinction seems to elude both Fairbanks and Perlstein. Whereas "The Triumph of the Will" uses the crowd scenes to portray the speaker in a positive light, "Celeb" does exactly the opposite.
Source
A history lesson from Cuba
History has its lessons. A Fourth of July letter to the editor of the Washington Times-Dispatch became something of an internet sensation, forwarded via email and read aloud in a YouTube video. The writer, Manuel Alvarez Jr. of Sandy Hook, describes himself as a refugee from Castro and recalls what it was like back then:The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.Nobody is saying anything about Obama being like Fidel. Nobody even has to mention Obama. The point is that blindly placing your faith in an eloquent guy who offers promises of transformative change and sets hearts on fire is a bad bet in most cases. Where are all the successful examples of leaders who quickly swept to power based on a cult of personality and vague promises of tranformative change?
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
Source
Keep that policy gap wide
My goodness - was it only yesterday I was urging Team McCain to push his energy plan? And now Obama is tossing in the towel on his opposition to off-shore drilling. This may simply be another manifestation of an Obama campaign tactic - adopt every position held by McCain and then ask voters to choose their next President on the basis of youth, energy, and speaking skill. Could work!
But while I am still feeling eerily prescient, let me suggest that McCain's campaign should focus on a domestic agenda. Energy is a real problem requiring leadership from Washington on a number of fronts (trying building a nuclear plant without a Presidential wind at your back). McCain should be able to make the national security and economic cases for increased production, conservation, and alternative energy without annoying his base by getting sucked into Al Gore's global warming fantasies.
As a second topic I would urge McCain to talk about education reform. Yes, this takes us a long way from the days when Reagan promised to dismantle the department of Education, but...
Education is a high-impact mom-friendly issue that has a relatively low budget impact, so it can represent compassion and caring on the cheap. That said, it also represents a slow-motion crisis (or opportunity!) as David Brooks explained recently.
Finally, I think the McCain camp might enjoy taking the national press on a voyage of discovery down the mysterious waters of Obama's forays into education reform in Chicago. There was his failed effort as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995-2001 [my post, Wikipedia]. And dare we mention that Obama was tapped as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge by unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers, with whom he subsequently worked for about five years? Or a longer conversation about Obama and education would take us back to his first alliance with Bill Ayers back in 1987, an earlier failed stab at reform.
Obama's website offers a pleasing menu of high-minded platitudes on education. Back in reality, Obama teamed up with Bill Ayers twice on education reform and accomplished nothing twice. I wonder if voters will be more impressed by words (Just words?!?) or deeds? I think McCain ought to find out.
Source
McCain Report Rips "Hysterical" NYTimes Editorial
Michael Goldfarb tears into the New York Times editorial board for writing that the McCain campaign's "Celeb" ad was racist. He leaves nothing but a trail of Cheeto dust in his wake:That the Times made this allegation in a blog post rather than running it on the editorial page indicates that they either knew the charge was bogus or they didn't have the nerve to make their case in full view of the public. But in their new role as bloggers, the paper's editors seem to have all the intelligence and reason of the average Daily Kos diarist sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of dungeons and dragons.In case you missed it, the Times editors argued that the ad was a "racially tinged attack" on Obama because it juxtaposed the senator with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Oh, and the editors also wrote that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis peddled a subliminal racist message when he said that Obama had played the race card "from the bottom of the deck" -- because that phrase "entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson saga."
For what it's worth, though the phrase was popularized following the Simpson trial, a quick Nexis search shows that it was first employed by a Tulane law professor criticizing David Duke in a 1991 Chicago Tribune article.
And following Barack Obama's comments just last month that Republicans would employ racist attacks, Donna Brazile said on ABC's This Week that the race card is "always played ... from the bottom of the deck and sometimes in the middle of the deck." However you cut the deck, sounds like they need to do some reshuffling at the Times.
Source
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
2 August, 2008
My concerns for America
by Jon Voigt
We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up. Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.
The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.
The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.
Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.
Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.
If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.
Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.
This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.
Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work
Source
A Few Questions for Barack Obama
- In February, you said you might support vouchers and charter schools if empirical data showed that they improve education (some studies show that they do). Admirably, your position was, "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn." After pressure from the teachers unions, you quickly backed off from that position, stating that your campaign doesn't support vouchers "in any shape or form." What prompted that change? And if it's important that we not "throw up our hands" and "walk away from the public schools," why do you send your own kids to private schools?
- Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton intends to terminate D.C.'s federal school voucher program, even though those vouchers are paid through a separate fund that takes no money at all from D.C.'s public schools (which already spend $10,000 more per pupil per year than the city's private schools). Del. Holmes Norton says the program undermines the public schools. You've signed on to the plan to eliminate the program. But given that the program takes no money from the city's already bloated public schools, isn't it only "undermining" the public school system by exposing how unhappy D.C. parents really are with the schools' performance? Isn't that a good thing?
- You've expressed support for the idea of a "no fly" zone over Darfur because of human rights abuses. What's happening in Sudan is certainly tragic and abhorrent. But what is our national security interest there? Should we send the U.S. military every time there are wide-scale human rights abuses happening anywhere on the globe? Should we send troops to Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Turkmenistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
- You not only supported the latest federal farm bill, you commended it, stating that it "will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability." Critics have called that $307 billion monstrosity an orgy of earmarks, corporate welfare, and protectionism. It actually increases subsidies to huge agribusinesses in an era of record grain prices - subsidies that are already crushing farmers in the developing world. The New York Times called it "disgraceful." The Wall Street Journal called it a "scam." How does the "change" candidate justify supporting a bill larded with sweetheart deals for big agribusiness when just about everyone not getting a check from the bill opposed it?
- You continue to support ethanol subsidies despite the fact that corn-based ethanol is inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and part of the cause of rising food prices. Even liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls ethanol "[b]ad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet." Perhaps your support stems from you representing a corn producing state. But is supporting a wasteful policy to win votes "change we can believe in," or is it a good sign that you're just another politician?
- In your autobiography, you admit to using marijuana and cocaine in high school and college. Yet you largely support the federal drug war - a change from several years ago when you said you'd be open to decriminalizing marijuana. Would Barack Obama be where he is today if he had been arrested in college for using drugs? Doesn't the fact that you and our current president (who has all but admitted to prior drug use) have risen to such high stature suggest that the worst thing about illicit drugs is not the drugs themselves, but what the government will do to you if you're caught?
- In a speech to Cuban-Americans in Miami, you called the Cuban trade embargo "an important inducement for change," a 180-degree shift from your prior position. The trade embargo has been in place for 46 years. Did denying an entire generation of Cubans access to American goods, culture, and ideas induce any actual change? Wasn't the real effect just to keep Cubans poor and isolated? In communist countries like Vietnam and China, trade with the U.S. has ushered in economic reform, and vastly improved the standard of living. Why wouldn't it be the same if we were to start trading with Cuba?
- In addition to the drugs, Cuba, and school voucher issues, you have also changed or revised your position in recent months on the war in Iraq, government eavesdropping and immunity for the telecom companies, and holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Under some circumstances, changing or revising one's position can show admirable introspection - the ability to revise prior conceptions with new information. Some of your new positions are more conservative. Some are more liberal. But they do seem to have one thing in common: Should we be concerned that your shifts have been to those positions that give more power and influence to government? Are there any areas where you'd actually roll back the federal government?
- In October you asked a congregation in South Carolina to help you become "an instrument of God," and to join you in building a "Kingdom, right here on Earth." Is such lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric really appropriate from a would-be president? Why shouldn't we be suspicious of a man who believes politics - indeed, his politics - are God's politics? Isn't using the political process to build a "Kingdom on earth" the sort of thing we're used to hearing from the religious right? Should we be cautious of political leaders who believe they're agents of the Divinity?
- You have called for a "civilian national security force," essentially a non-military public service corps that in your words is "just as powerful, just as strong," and "just as well-funded" as the military. Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that your proposal would cost somewhere between $100 and $500 billion-or between 10 and 50 percent of all federal income tax revenues. How do you plan to pay for this program?
- Your wife said that as president, "Barack Obama will . . . demand that you shed your cynicism . . . That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual . . ." How is any of this remotely the responsibility of the president? Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should be our personal motivator and spiritual leader? Will you help us lose weight and eat our vegetables, too?
Source
McCain ad likens Obama to Britney
With a new ad comparing Barack Obama to celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, John McCain is launching a campaign aimed at portraying his rival as an international star without the heft necessary to become the US commander-in-chief. A 30-second advertisement that hit television and the internet overnight calls Senator Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world," then asks ominously, "Is he ready to lead?"
Senator McCain's strategy is to leverage the adoring crowds and personal charisma that have created excitement around Senator Obama's campaign and use this celebrity to raise questions about the Democrat's depth. Over the past week, Senator McCain has begun toughening and sharpening his message against Senator Obama. He suggested that Senator Obama would be willing to lose the Iraq war in order to win the election, and he ran a television ad blaming him for high petrol prices and criticised him for skipping a meeting with injured US troops in Germany because he couldn't bring television cameras along.
All of these charges were heatedly disputed by the Obama campaign, and all have been criticised by independent fact-checking organisations. "Senator McCain is an honorable man who is increasingly running a dishonorable campaign," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "He said he wanted a civil campaign about the issues. I think a lot of people are wondering what happened to him."
The harsher attacks create some risk for Senator McCain, analysts said, since he may come off as overly negative. But the Republican appears to be gambling that the public's image of him is firmly set and that its doubts mostly relate to Senator Obama, who has been on the national stage a much shorter time.
But even some Republicans question the tenor of the critiques. "The point of this campaign is not about personalities, it's about the contrast on the issues," said David Winston, a Republican pollster. "Where's McCain on taxes, where's Obama on taxes? That's a good contrast for McCain. If he focuses on the personality side, he's not arguing from his strong suit."
Ed Rollins, a longtime Republican strategist, said McCain sometimes appears frustrated and angry when he talks about Obama, especially when complaining that the press does not treat him fairly. "John needs to be the deliberate, experienced veteran and not the grumpy old man," Mr Rollins said. "If he's the grumpy old man, angry that the media is not in love with him anymore because they're in love with Barack Obama, that's not going to play well with the public." McCain officials say they are levying legitimate criticism as well as making up for the media's failure to do so.
Senator Obama has attained such a high celebrity status that the press has abstained from scrutinising his own words and actions, they say, even as he has done such things as speak behind a symbol resembling a presidential seal. McCain aides dismissed the accusation that McCain had become overly negative, saying he was only responding to Senator Obama's attacks.
Source
Obama's Bad Turn
Is there a way that Barack Obama and John McCain could reboot the Presidential campaign? Both men this week have locked up in modes that surely have little interest to voters. Senator McCain's latest "inexperience" TV ad about his opponent opened with fleeting images of celeb babes Britn
