Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Hypocrisy?: Obama Doesn’t “Spread the Wealth Around”

Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber when they were talking in Joe’s neighborhood the other day that by raising taxes on people making $250,000 or more, which is an amount many small businesses make each year, he could spread the wealth around so that more people could benefit from Joe’s success, were he to buy the plumbing business he mentioned and be successful enough to earn $250k.

But Sen. Obama’s not playing by the rules he sets up for everyone else; he’s not spreading his own wealth around.

Having backed out of his stated intention to pursue public financing, the Obama campaign has been setting records in raising money, while his opponent, John McCain, who stuck to his word and went the public financing route as he pledged to do, has to work with the limited amounts of money available through public financing.

Since Sen. Obama has many times more money than Sen. McCain, to be true to his stated philosophy, Mr. Obama needs to “spread the wealth around” and help his opponent by giving him some of his campaign booty.

It’s only fair.

Click Here to Comment

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Businesses Prepare for Obama's America

Two pieces of communication have been brought to my attention by friends who own small businesses, and are excited about the new opportunities presented to them by the election of Barack Obama.

Dear Fellow Business Owners

As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama may be our next President, and that my taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that the customer will have to see an increase in my prices of about 8%. I will also have to lay off 6 of my employees. This really bothered me as I treat my employees like family here and I will have a hard time choosing who will have to go. So, here’s what I’m going to do. I strolled thru the parking lot and found Obama bumper stickers on some of my employee’s cars. I have decided the folks that own these cars will be the FIRST to be laid off.

I can't think of a better way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.


To: All Employees

From: Management

Subject: New Company Policies

As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will institute some new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring call for change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pot that will be divided equally between all of them, leveling the playing field.

2. All hourly workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, which will be divided equally amongst all hourly workers, enabling those who are too busy to work overtime to share the rewards with those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

4. Management knows that workers will to continue to work hard for the good of all, and that you will be excited about these new policies that will help to spread the wealth around. Those of you who have underachieved will finally get your fair share, and those of you who have worked hard and been successful will have the opportunity to feel more patriotic in giving to your fellow workers.

5. Unfortunately, the last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. While management regrets this necessary step, we feel somewhat better because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even, if you can't pay your mortgage.

Thank you for your continued support of our company, and God bless America!

Click Here to Comment

2008: The Year the National Media Self-Destructed

One of the saddest developments of the 2008 election is the death by suicide of the national news media. Any lingering questions of a liberal media bias have been laid to rest since the party conventions.

That the media is biased is not news to objective observers, who have been saying so for years. But this year’s fawning favoritism shown Barack Obama has caught the attention of everyday Americans, 49 percent of whom said in a Rasmussen poll last July they believed the media would slant their coverage toward Barack Obama in the race for the White House. They were right. Only 14 percent said they thought the media would benefit John McCain.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project confirms media favoritism for Sen. Obama in an October 14 statement. CMPA, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization affiliated with George Mason University, found that “since the party conventions kicked off the final phase of the presidential campaign, comments about Senator Barack Obama on the network evening news shows have been 65% positive, compared to only 36% positive comments about Senator John McCain.” CMPA also found that “despite a brief flurry of good press during the GOP convention, comments about [Alaska] Governor Sarah Palin have been only 42% positive.”

While the statement didn’t go into detail about the treatment of Gov. Palin when she came out of the blue to be John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, it was evident that the media didn’t know how to react, and resorted to spending time and ink on allegations against Gov. Palin’s husband and children, her newborn Down syndrome baby boy, and accusing her of being an unacceptably fundamentalist Christian.

And, it’s not only the news media that are biased, as late night comedians heaped ridicule upon Gov. Palin and John McCain along with the humor, and the two were more frequently the target of such humor than Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden. It is a sad commentary on American culture that millions of Americans allow late night TV to form or affect their political opinions, but that is reality.

From January through September of this year, CMPA found that John McCain was the butt of late night jokes 790 times to Barack Obama’s 502, 57 percent more often.

Sarah Palin only collected 185 jokes, but then she only came to prominence when she was named the VP candidate August 29. In September alone Palin was the subject of jokes 168 times, the most in a single month of all politicians in the report. Biden was the subject of jokes only 24 times in August and September combined.

An explanation of why Gov. Palin has attracted so much negative attention among comedians was explained by “The View’s” Joy Behar, an Obama worshiper reputed to be a comedienne herself, who told Larry King that Palin is a joke and has oodles of things to make fun of. Of Obama, she said, “he’s not funny; he’s not a joke. There’s nothing to make fun of with the guy.” Maybe it all depends upon your perspective, Ms. Behar.

The fawning and favorable treatment Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden have received must have lulled them into a sense of warm, fuzzy security, which perhaps explains the crazy events of last week.

Appearing on an Orlando, Florida television station Thursday, Sen. Biden was asked some pointed questions by WFTV anchor Barbara West. It is apparent from watching the interview that Mr. Biden expected to be asked the usual puffball questions he is accustomed to, and when Ms. West referenced the Karl Marx dictum “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” when asking if Senator Obama’s comment about “spreading the wealth around” was a socialist mechanism, Mr. Biden responded by asking, “Is this a joke? Are you joking? Is this a real question?” Told that it was a real question, the Senator laughed and then denied that Sen. Obama’s plan is “spreading the wealth around.”

Other appropriate questions were equally unappreciated, and the Obama-Biden campaign responded to this brazen act of responsible journalism by cutting WFTV out of future interviews during the campaign, the first of which was the cancellation of a scheduled interview with Sen. Biden’s wife Jill. This immature and petulant reaction strongly indicates that the campaign expects to not be asked tough questions by the media, and won’t stand for anything else. That reflects a troubling attitude that has no place in the White House.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, not the least of which is that of the press. It guarantees the press the freedom to tell the American people the unbiased and objective truth, and provide them the information to make sensible, informed decisions in life and in elections.

Through its disgraceful abandonment of its duty to the American people the media has been it’s own undoing, and perhaps that is justice of a sort.

But what do we do about its role in trying to elect a President of the United States, and how do we restore the media to its honorable and proper station?

Click Here to Comment

Monday, October 27, 2008

Bush Sends Strong Signal to Syria and Iran on Foreign Fighters

From Fox News:

A U.S. strike on a network of foreign fighters in Syria led to the capture of an Al Qaeda coordinator who was wanted for sending operatives, weapons and cash into Iraq.

Abu Ghadiyain, Al Qaeda's senior coordinator operating in Syria, was captured after Sunday's attack in Sukkariyeh, which left eight dead about 4-5 miles away from Syria's border with Iraq, the official said. Ghadiyain was believed to be associated with the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Ninety percent of foreign fighters enter Iraq through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence estimates, bringing cash to Al Qaeda in Iraq's chief. They also are deadly — trained in bomb-making and willing to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks.

With the U.S. election just days away, President Bush has fired a shot across the bow of both Syria and Iran, warning them that the U.S. won’t put up with further interference in Iraq from the two nations.

A military official in Washington said the U.S. is taking matters into its own hands after Syria failed to control fighters crossing the border into Iraq.

The attack lets Syria and Iran know that the Bush administration still calls the shots, and that the election will not deter the U.S. from going after foreign fighters entering Iraq.

Indeed, President Bush has nothing to deter him from taking on the fighters in either Syria or Iran, since he is not running for re-election, and not much that he does will have any effect on the elections or candidates. The election, in fact, may set the President free to pursue more aggressive measures against foreign fighters and the governments that enable them.

Click Here to Comment

Which Candidate Does Our Military Support for President?

There have been reports that military personnel support Barack Obama over John McCain in both fundraising and who they will vote for. Given the positions of the two candidates, this flies in the face of reason.

The following information was reportedly published in the New York Post:
“Obama has collected $335,536 from 859 enlisted men and women, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain - a decorated former Vietnam POW - has received $280,513 from 558 military personnel.” Another quote said that of military personnel stationed in Iraq the margin of contributors to the Obama campaign was six times as large as to the McCain campaign.

All of that may be true, but the idea that more military personnel support Barack Obama than John McCain isn't supported by the broader opinion of support reported by the Military Times.

Here are the results of the military personnel regarding the upcoming election, and they show that in all but one category military personnel overwhelmingly believe John McCain is the right man for the job. The first figure in each category is for Mccain, the second figure is for Obama.

Overall: 68% - 23%

Army: 68% - 23%

Navy: 69% - 24%

Air Force: 67% - 24%

Marines: 75% - 18%

Retirees: 72% - 20%

White Non-Hispanic: 76% - 17%

Hispanic: 63% - 27%

Black/African-American: 12%- 79%

Enlisted: 67%- 24%

Officers: 70% - 22%

Click Here to Comment

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Petulance the By-Word of the Obama-Biden Campaign

It’s not enough that the media have been giving the Obama-Biden ticket a pass on legitimate questions, Obama’s highly questionable past and odd relationships, and has been giving the Democrats favorable coverage to a level that would make a Chicago politician blush, but now, in a fit of grade school pique, the campaign has shut a Florida TV station out of future interviews because the station’s news anchor dared to ask uncomfortable questions of Joe Biden.

Biden was absolutely flummoxed when anchor Barbara West asked how Obama's "spreading the wealth around" is different than Karl Marx's dictum "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Then she had the temerity to ask ol' Sen. Foot-in-Mouth about his remark about Obama being challenged by some serious event soon after taking office.

Undoubtedly, these questions came as a shock to Biden and the campaign, since no one has dared to ask such questions before and they no doubt have become accustomed to having a free ride to the White House.

This bodes ill for the future if these two "children" get elected.

Congratulations to WFTV and anchor Barbara West for having the courage to do her job. She is a rare creature in today’s discredited media world.

Click Here to Comment

Saturday, October 25, 2008

How Deep Does Obama’s Dishonesty Go?

That headline will undoubtedly anger Sen. Obama’s supporters, who believe he walks on water. But it reflects a characteristic of his that those who are not under his spell see as a substantial and all-too-real problem.

Following along with its common practice of ignoring the warts on their candidate’s nose, the mainstream media has failed to hold Mr. Obama responsible for reneging on his vow to accept public financing for his campaign after the primary season. Both he and John McCain said they would forgo traditional financing of their presidential campaign, and would rely instead on federal money. Doing so limits a candidate to $85 million.

But on the heels of his record-setting fund raising success, Sen. Obama decided he could make far more money than the federal financing limit, and broke his vow, while Sen. McCain has remained true to his pledge. Consequently, the Obama campaign expenditures dwarf those of Mr. McCain, giving him a substantial advantage. Crime may not pay, but dishonesty apparently does.

Barack Obama’s duplicitous behavior on campaign financing and other flip-flops demonstrate convincingly that he isn’t above breaking his word when it suits him.

I wonder what other promises he will renege on if he’s elected.

Click Here to Comment

Friday, October 24, 2008

Spreading the Wealth

A man and his wife went out for a nice dinner at a locally owned restaurant. Their waiter was sporting an "Obama 08" tie.

They ordered dinner and a nice bottle of wine, and enjoyed the excellent food and service provided by the waiter.

As they were preparing to leave the restaurant after having dessert, the man called the waiter over to the table and explained that they appreciated the good service and the excellent food, but were going to follow Barack Obama’s policy to spread the wealth around, and instead of giving the waiter a 15 percent tip, which would have come to about $15, he was going to give the waiter only $8, and give the rest to a homeless man who was camped out on the sidewalk outside the restaurant.

On the way to the car, the man dropped $7 into the homeless man’s bag.

The results of this exercise were that the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that he lost about half of his tip due to the customer’s decision.

Morale of the story: Redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in
theory than in practice.

Click Here to Comment

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

You Go Joe! Biden Re-inserts His Foot

Speaking at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley today, Joe Biden was trying to tie John McCain to George Bush, and used the “if it walks like a duck” analogy to try to compare the two. Pointing to the past associations between McCain and Bush, Biden crowed, “If it looks like a Bush, if it sounds like a Bush, if it votes like a Bush, it is a Bush economic philosophy.”

But Senator Foot-in-Mouth should not start down the road of past associations, given the shady, nay, shocking associations his running mate has in his closet with the likes of a domestic terrorist, convicted felon and a number of racist and anti-America preachers.

So, using Biden’s model: “if he worked with a terrorist, if he sat in the church of a racist preacher, if he had dealings with a convicted felon, he must be a terrorist/racist/felon.”

Thanks, Joe.

Click Here to Comment

Voter registration drives: The good, the bad, and the ugly

A lot of people think voter registration efforts are a good thing. After all, shouldn’t every American participate in the electoral process that is such an important part of our nation and what makes it special?

A voter registration drive seeks to register to vote those who are eligible but not registered. Such drives are sometimes undertaken by non-partisan groups and are aimed at the general population.

Sometimes, however, they are undertaken for partisan purposes, and are aimed at specific demographic groups that are likely to vote for a particular candidate. One such effort so ubiquitously in the news lately is that of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The goal of ACORN and its Project Vote voter registration drives is “to empower low-income and minority communities by giving them a voice in the political process” and “working to increase public participation in our democratic process,” according to the organization’s Web site. ACORN also says that it “hopes that expanding the electorate will result in more candidates who appeal to historically underrepresented voting populations.”

Although it has a highly partisan edge, ACORN’s motive seems to be aiming to help people who are outside the mainstream of society by bringing them into the election process. But as you likely have read and heard, the foul stain on ACORN’s image goes much deeper and is far more sinister than mere partisanship.

In the past few years, eight of the organization’s employees pleaded guilty to federal election fraud in Missouri, and five others in Washington State. Reports of phony registration forms are legion: ACORN often turns in hundreds or thousands of fraudulent registrations during its drives, overloading state election officials who must sort the good registrants from the bad. ACORN’s efforts represent all that’s wrong with voter registration drives.

We might argue that those organizations that register legitimate and eligible voters without sparking a criminal investigation are doing good work, but we must realize that there is far more to exercising one’s right to vote than merely registering to vote and going to the polls.

Voting is a right, but like all rights it carries with it responsibility and people who vote must put out the effort to be sufficiently informed to make a reasoned decision about candidates and issues. One can argue that they might also be expected to take the initiative to register on their own if they are truly interested in participating in the election process. So, if people who are otherwise able don’t care enough about voting to register themselves and go to the polls, they probably shouldn’t be encouraged to vote.

This may be especially true for young people, many of whose abysmal ignorance of the candidates and issues should disqualify them from voting. This phenomenon has been recently demonstrated by John Stossel of ABC News. He went to a college campus and asked young people there basic questions about the United States government. Some showed substantial knowledge about their country, but most did not know basic information like how many states are in the union, how many U.S. Senators represent each state, and how many Senators are in the U.S. Senate. Do we want people with so little basic knowledge about their country helping to pick its president?

Thinking that perhaps a college campus was not the best place to find educated voters, with all that implies, Mr. Stossel moved to Washington, DC, and did a man-on-the-street survey showing photographs of prominent people to participants, most of whom were young people. The photographs were of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, candidates Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, and also Judge Judy of television fame.

Senators Obama and McCain were routinely recognized; Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden less so, and some confused Mr. Biden with Mr. McCain. None recognized Justice Ginsberg, but most recognized Judge Judy.

Mr. Stossel spoke with Marc Brownstein and Andy Bernstein, the co-chairs of HeadCount, an organization that registers voters, and suggested that perhaps people who are uninformed really ought not to be voting. Mr. Brownstein called that “an argument that really, really smacks against everything we hold dear as Americans.” “Democracy,” opined Mr. Bernstein, “is not about taking the most educated portion of society and having them decide.” Presumably, he thinks those who recognize Judge Judy or think there are 12 U.S. Senators from each state are as able as educated voters to make good decisions at the ballot box.

However, despite the myopic view of Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Bernstein, being knowledgeable about candidates and issues is an essential element in an electoral system that truly reflects the will of the populace, and is so transparently obvious that it ought to be unnecessary to mention it.

Uninformed voters are easily manipulated, and as likely to make a bad choice as a good one. These people are more than just uninformed, they are dangerous.

People must demonstrate that they know how to drive a car before they get a drivers license. Should we do less for something as important as voting?

Click Here to Comment

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Joe the Plumber: An American Hero

Why is Joe the Plumber an American Hero? Read on.

Is it because that as a guy who was minding his own business playing ball with his young son in his yard in Ohio the other day when Barack Obama strolled down the street to meet the regular folk who live in Joe’s neighborhood and find out what was on their minds, Joe decided to go over and talk with Sen. Obama?

Well, not specifically, but that’s part of it.

Is it because Joe asked a question of Mr. Obama and became the subject of tremendous attention from the media and Mr. Obama’s opponent John McCain, garnering for himself an examination of his private life out of all proportion to his role in the political circus swirling around him, and becoming a symbol for media bias, bullying, and out-of-control unfairness?

Yes, partially.

But Joe is an American hero because as a regular guy who works hard for a living to raise his family he asked a very intelligent question of Barack Obama, and Mr. Obama in a moment of rare honesty revealed what he really believes. Responding to Joe’s question that the Obama plan would raise his taxes, Mr. Obama said that, yes, his plan would raise Joe’s taxes, and that he thinks it is important to “spread the wealth around.”

Karl Marx would be proud of the concept Sen. Obama let slip out, but he would be horrified that the candidate would have been so careless as to express that idea so plainly.

Since that fateful day Joe has told us that he disagrees with the Obama concept of spreading the wealth around. He believes it is immoral to take money from someone who has earned it and give money to those who have not earned it. He believes that it is up to each individual to decide to whom to give assistance with the money they have earned, not for the government to decide.

Joe understands so well what Barack Obama and so many of his followers understand so poorly: that America is the land of individual freedom, not the land of government control, and not the land of dependence upon government. America is an opportunity state, not a welfare state. America thrives on capitalism, not on socialism.

And that is why Joe the Plumber is an American hero.

Click Here to Comment

Friday, October 17, 2008

And Now for Something Completely Different ...

Everyone likes George Carlin, right?

Here's one of his more recent masterpieces to help you slide into the weekend.

Click Here to Comment

Joe, the “Plumber”: What a Phony

When Barack Obama walked into the Ohio neighborhood the other day, all he wanted to do was to talk to the regular folks, find out what they are thinking about America. Seeing the Democrat candidate in his neighborhood, Joe Wurzelbacher, who was playing ball with his son, decided to go and talk to Sen. Obama.

Instead of blubbering the usual and expected “golly-gee” commentary people normally offer, Joe viciously attacked the candidate about his proposed tax plan that Joe feared would raise his taxes, based on his plan to buy the company he works for. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" Joe dared to ask.

What gall. What audacity. Who does Joe think he is? And playing ball with his son; how does that qualify him to talk with “The One?”

Someone should look into Joe’s past and see what prompted him to lie in wait for The One. Is he on the McCain payroll? Was he put up to it?

This man deserves to have made public all the dirt the media can find on him, or create. He must be destroyed. Uppity people like Joe the “plumber” are the ones responsible for the sad shape America is in today.

The media has to quit diddling around and turn its resources on this arrogant “plumber” and bring him to his knees. That is a far more important role for the media to play at this critical time in the election than covering irrelevancies like ACORN voter registration irregularities, and dumb questions about The One and his past alliances with university professors, innocent political fund raisers, and Christian and Catholic ministers, and trying in vain to tie Democrats to the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.

The media has disgraced itself by ignoring “Joe the plumber.”

Click Here to Comment

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Case Against Citizen Obama

Many troubling questions remain unanswered about the past of Barack Obama, and answers to these questions either don't exist or are insufficient.

The video below lays out in systematic and unemotional terms the most important of those questions: Is Barack Obama eligible to run for and be elected President of the United States by virtue of his citizenship status; is he a natural born citizen?

The video is presents a very interesting case,
so please take the few minutes required to view this video, consider the case against Mr. Obama, and you can then decide if you believe this issue is legitimate, or not.

Click Here for Comments

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Obama's Dance of Avoidance

In this week’s column, Ann McFeatters addressed the current state of the campaigns, and suggested that they are bogged down in irrelevancies, leaving important issues unsatisfactorily dealt with.

“I’m upset that the candidates want me to get upset about Newsweek’s non-airbrushed close-up of Palin on its cover, the 40-year-old crimes against society of Ayers, a nutty radical turned university professor, Obama’s middle name and votes by both Obama and McCain against funding the troops because various bills did or did not have a timeline to end the war in Iraq,” she wrote.

We obviously need know that a candidate can understand the myriad of problems he will inherit, but she decries focusing on things that tell us “who” the candidates are, how they think, what influences made them who they are. Knowing the background and philosophy of the next president is the most important single factor in this election, because “who he is” is what will guide him as he leads the nation over the next four or eight years.

We know a lot about John McCain, but much less about Barack Obama. We know a lot about Joseph Biden, but not so much about Sarah Palin. How can voters cast an informed vote about people they don’t really know much about? How can they in good conscience vote for someone if they don’t know where they come from? How can they have any confidence in them if they don’t know what makes them tick?

We didn’t know much about Mrs. Palin when she was cast into national politics seven weeks ago, but we are learning quickly due to the intense media scrutiny she has had since then. We have literally seen the wrinkles on her face, as Ms. McFeatters lamented.

Barack Obama is a different story; the media glosses over uncomfortable questions about his past.

Mr. Obama has a remarkable set of alliances with unusual people. One is a former unrepentant domestic terrorist who is now a professor; one has been convicted of fraud and money laundering; one is a professor who is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel; three are racist and /or anti-America clergymen; and there’s the political involvement in Kenya with his politician cousin Raila Odinga.

It is safe to say most Americans have none of these sorts of people as their friends.

The Obama campaign doesn’t like questions about their candidate’s background, and goes to inordinate extremes to avoid talking about it. Asked by a TV anchor Saturday about the nagging issue of his candidate’s relationship with William Ayers, the terrorist/professor, Obama spokesman Bill Burton danced around a response that was more filibuster than answer, repeating in lawyerly fashion that this question had been “asked and answered.” He ignored the follow-up indicating that given new information since Sen. Obama’s original answer—that Bill Ayers is “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood”—may not be accurate or adequate. Mr. Burton, dancing and filibustering, added that Ayers is a diversion from the economic crisis.

Mr. Burton might rather talk about the economy, and that is undoubtedly a more fertile campaign topic than Barack Obama’s questionable friends, but his avoidance dance has the distinct aroma of abject fear and the unmistakable appearance of utter desperation.

It is imperative that our presidents hold the same values as, and think like most Americans. They can’t represent us and lead our country if they are substantially different in their fundamental makeup than most Americans. There is a lot in Mr. Obama’s past that casts doubt on how much he is like most Americans, and his collection of friends is at the top of that list.

Click Here to Comment

Thursday, October 09, 2008

What Happens If Obama Doesn’t Win?

When it became official that Barack Obama was the Democrat’s nominee for President of the United States of America, you could almost feel the simultaneous relief and joy of so many. The mainstream media, long fawning for the African American candidate, at last had its choice validated, and all those who have lamented for so long that the closest thing to a black president America has had in the decades since slavery was abolished was Bill Clinton, now could breathe easy: the historic moment was now within sight, now within the nation’s grasp.

Abroad, all those nations who so warmly embraced Mr. Obama were beginning to believe that America may at long last renounce its racist attitude and do what it should have done years ago: elect an African American president.

Suddenly, the contest for the presidency morphed from a mere political contest into a grand question of morality.

Not long thereafter it became clear that not all Americans had jumped on board the Barack Obama Bandwagon, that there was someone else vying for that position and that other person had a lot of support. John McCain threatened America’s opportunity to show that it is not a racist nation and to deny what must not be denied.

Gradually, the message emerged that if Barack Obama loses in November it will in fact underscore just how racist America is. The most innocent comments were labeled “racist,” and those who were careless enough to have uttered one of them were guilty of “racism.”

As Election Day grows nearer, the heat is being turned up. Despite polls showing an Obama lead, desperation is beginning to set in, and the Obama camp feels the need to strengthen its message so that no one can fail to understand what the stakes are in this election.

Even before the heat went up, columnist Pat Buchanan predicted what is now occurring. In a column near the end of August, Mr. Buchanan said the following: “No candidate has ever been nominated by a major party with fewer credentials or a weaker claim to the presidency, or more doubts as to his core beliefs. If Obama wins, the country could be in real trouble. And if he loses, the country could be in real trouble.”

In one terse statement, Mr. Buchanan told us that since Sen. Obama is unprepared for the job, things could get worse if he’s elected, and that if he isn’t elected, things could get worse.

What does that mean?

Let Democrat operative James Carville explain: “But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.”

Is Mr. Carville predicting racial strife if John McCain wins? Is that what Pat Buchanan was getting at?

Seems so.

After first trying to shame Americans into voting for Barack Obama, now they are trying to scare Americans into electing him with the specter of race riots.

The question is: will America allow itself to be pushed into this decision out of fear?

Click Here to Comment

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Barack Obama:
Important Questions Remain

As Election Day 2008 nears, important questions swirl around Democrat nominee Barack Obama, questions that scream out for answers. But answers are not forthcoming, and that ought to create just a little curiosity and concern among voters.

Barack Obama’s people are trying very hard to convince voters that nagging questions about his past are irrelevant. His associations with such nefarious characters as William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, Jr., Rashid Khalidi, Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to name a few, raise legitimate questions not only about Mr. Obama’s mindset and judgment in associating with these people, sometimes for years on end, but also what effect they had on his philosophy, the philosophy he will take to the White House with him if he is elected. No one should be surprised at the Obama campaign preferring to ignore the questions, because there are no satisfactory answers to those questions.

You have likely heard the flap about whether Mr. Obama is really a citizen of the United States. Obama supporters think this issue is an absurd charge, but Phillip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, believes Sen. Obama is not eligible to be president, and has filed suit in Federal District Court in Pennsylvania to force Mr. Obama to show proof by virtue of a legitimate birth certificate that he is indeed a U.S. citizen. You might expect the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee to be anxious to put this question to rest, but instead of producing a valid birth certificate, they have chosen to try to delay the court proceeding. Why not just produce a valid birth certificate, Senator?

Are you one of the 95 percent of Americans who will supposedly get a tax cut from Barack Obama? Or, are you one of the five percent of Americans making $250,000 or more a year that will be forced to be patriotic and pay higher taxes to fund everybody else’s tax cut? Or, are you one of the 42.5 million income tax filers who pay no taxes, but are lumped into that 95 percent that will get a tax cut? Or, are you one of those people who work for a small business that will see a hefty tax increase from Mr. Obama, and whose job will thus be put in jeopardy?

How do you feel about Barack Obama’s role in sowing the seeds of the raging financial crisis through his work with ACORN, the community organization that provoked Chicago banks into giving more loans to low-income residents who were not qualified borrowers until the Community Reinvestment Act came along? Do you realize Sen. Obama helped to increase the number of bad loans that were made?

Do you believe that Mr. Obama’s economic socialism is the right path for America to follow during this economic emergency (or ever?), raising taxes on capital gains and dampening investment at the precise moment investment is so badly needed? Increasing the maximum total tax rate to 47 percent or more on the country’s most productive citizens, those who provide about half of the jobs in the nation? Increasing government spending, taking more money from the private sector and shifting more power to the federal government? Do you believe that taking up to half of someone’s earnings is ever justified? Is it fair?

It is a difficult to think about those questions, to think about Sen. Obama’s positions on those and other issues, and vote for him next month.

Click Here to Comment

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Joseph Biden: Experience Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up To Be

Nobody really cares who the Vice President is, right? What’s important, after all, is who the President is. That’s normally the way people think during a presidential election, but not this year. Because of Republican John McCain’s age and Democrat Barack Obama’s inexperience, in this election the choice of a VP running mate is a truly important issue.

The two major contenders have chosen someone to balance their perceived weaknesses, with Sen. McCain choosing a younger VP candidate in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and Sen. Obama choosing someone with long experience in Washington in Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden.

Sen. Biden’s 36 years in Washington as a member and one-time chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and as a member and current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, leads many folks to believe that he is more qualified to be vice president than Gov. Palin.

The media emphasizes that Mrs. Palin has only been the mayor of a small town, the governor of a large but low-population state, and the mother of five children. She has been on the national scene for a mere five weeks, and has been criticized for answering questions in a way that creates doubt about her knowledge of issues.

Given that stark comparison, Sen. Biden ought to have walked away from last week’s Vice Presidential debate having won handily on substance. He didn’t.

The man known for a “gaffe a minute” and as a “barrel of gaffes” didn’t commit another magnificent flub in last Friday’s debate, but he certainly was confused about certain facts, and that is surprising from someone so well qualified. Observers counted no less than 10 outright misstatements of fact from the Delaware Senator, and other statements from him of questionable veracity.

We will discuss two of them.

An outright misstatement by Mr. Biden came after this question from moderator Gwen Ifill: “Let me clear something up. Sen. McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Sen. Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.” To which the Senator said, “I have always supported it. That's a fact.” And a little later he tried to explain away an earlier comment that contradicted that answer. “A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context,” he said. “I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.”

However, one year ago Senator Biden was interviewed by the environmental organization Grist, and the outdoor activity organization Outside, and was asked, “What role does ‘clean coal’ play in your vision for energy independence and climate security?” Mr. Biden responded, “I don’t think there’s much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there’s a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change,” he said. “Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives.”

That context seems very clear, doesn't it?

A little later he took Governor Palin to task over the duties of the Vice President after she said, “I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate …”

Mr. Biden responded: “The idea [Vice President Cheney] doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.” And, “the only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress.”

Sen. Biden, Mr. Judiciary Committee, is confused. Article I of the U.S. Constitution does indeed outline the duties of the Vice President, but Article I addresses the Congress, not the Executive. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitutions says: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

The Constitution assigns the Vice President the job of President of the Senate, formally presiding over Senate deliberations, in addition to breaking tie votes. The VP thus is assigned a role in the legislative function, as well as in the Executive Branch. In modern times the Vice President has allowed the President Pro Tempore to most often perform those duties, but that is the VP’s option.

So, Sen. Biden was wrong again, and—incredibly—is confused about the U.S. Constitution. For a lawyer who has been chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that is quite disturbing.

Joseph Biden’s long experience is supposed to balance the almost total lack of experience of Barack Obama. But as we’ve seen, long experience does not necessarily make a superior candidate.

Which begs the question: “is it better to have as Vice President someone who doesn’t know all the answers, or someone who knows the wrong answers?”

Click Here to Comment

Monday, October 06, 2008

The Palin Mystique

Lots of folks are flummoxed by Sarah Palin, especially liberals and Democrats. They don’t understand her. They don’t like her. They don’t understand her appeal. Some are afraid of her because of her appeal. She’s a true political phenomenon.

Writer Peggy Noonan’s latest column addresses the Palin appeal very effectively:

She killed. She had him at "Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?" She was the star. He was the second male lead, the good-natured best friend of the leading man. She was not petrified but peppy.

The whole debate was about Sarah Palin. She is not a person of thought but of action. Interviews are about thinking, about reflecting, marshaling data and integrating it into an answer. Debates are more active, more propelled—they are thrust and parry. They are for campaigners. She is a campaigner. Her syntax did not hold, but her magnetism did. At one point she literally winked at the nation.

As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic "talk over the heads of the media straight to the people," and it is a long time since I've seen it done so well, though so transparently. There were moments when she seemed to be doing an infomercial pitch for charm in politics. But it was an effective infomercial.

Joe Biden seems to have walked in thinking that she was an idiot and that he only had to patiently wait for this fact to reveal itself. This was a miscalculation.

Lot’s of people have miscalculated where Mrs. Palin is concerned.

More on Joe Biden tomorrow.

Click Here to Comment

Friday, October 03, 2008

Biden Was Against Clean Coal Before He Was For It

Joe Biden may not have made another gaffe in last night’s debate, but he certainly did show confusion about certain facts. Observers counted no less than 10 outright misstatements of fact from the Delaware Senator, and a few other questionable statements from him.

One of his outright misstatements came from this question from moderator Gwen Ifill:

IFILL: Let me clear something up, Sen. McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Sen. Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.

BIDEN: I have always supported it. That's a fact.

Not so, as we shall see shortly. But then Mr. Biden compounded his confusion of the facts with confusion about the question he was asked:

IFILL: OK. And on the clean coal issue?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely we do. We call for setting hard targets, number one...

IFILL: Clean coal.

BIDEN: Oh, I'm sorry.

IFILL: On clean coal.

BIDEN: Oh, on clean coal. My record, just take a look at the record. My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.

One year ago, Senator Biden was interviewed by the environmental organization Grist, and the outdoor activity organization Outside, and was asked, “What role does ‘clean coal’ play in your vision for energy independence and climate security?” Mr. Biden responded, “I don’t think there’s much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there’s a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change,” he said. “Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives.”

The context seems clear enough, doesn't it?

Sarah Palin hit the nail right on the head when she pointed out that “you're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it, or vice- versa.”

Click Here to Comment

More Levity

An update to A Little Levity has been posted for your weekend enjoyment.

Click Here to Comment