Well, so now it's election day. And again, let's not kid ourselves: no, it ain't over until it's over, but every poll seems to indicate that Barack Obama will become our nation's first African-American president-elect later tonight...
For conservatives, it's not what we wanted. Barack Obama is most decidedly not a conservative.
But that doesn't mean there's nothing to look forward to. Let's remember some fundamentals, both today in the days to come. We can start with:
1] Remember, we're conservatives. We don't believe that happiness or fulfillment comes from the state, or from this or that party being in control of the state. We believe that happiness comes from higher things and from within ourselves. Elections come and go. Meanwhile, we go about our business...
And 2] Let's remember too that, hey, it can be a good thing for us to be in opposition for a while. We can do some re-thinking and analyzing. We can watch the Obama-style moderate-to-hard liberalism fail, as surely it will, in many ways. Maybe the American people will need to see liberalism fail again. They've forgotten what it's like. It's important to remind them.
Chin up, conservatives...
Showing posts with label Barack Obama; John McCain; election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama; John McCain; election 2008. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
For Obama supporters, it's about....er, what exactly?
This guy says it's about "hope"---but read carefully:
"I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about
what we think of as the "big things." It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected. It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get
out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White
House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there
anymore. I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers.
...I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's
about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have
been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and
never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for
their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they
often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways."
Never mind his (mistaken, in my view) belief that there are no differences regarding taxes or foreign policy between the candidates. What this man does say is that this election is about "hope", about the "promise of America", about having "a chance."
Hmmm. "Hope" for what? And the "promise of America" is or should be what? A "chance" to do what? The man never says. Few Obama supporters say. I suspect, unfortunately, it's because they can't.
And thus these people may be very disappointed after this election. For a government can't grant you hope, or a chance.
Only you, the individual, and your efforts can truly secure that.
"I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about
what we think of as the "big things." It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected. It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get
out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White
House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there
anymore. I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers.
...I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's
about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have
been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and
never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for
their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they
often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways."
Never mind his (mistaken, in my view) belief that there are no differences regarding taxes or foreign policy between the candidates. What this man does say is that this election is about "hope", about the "promise of America", about having "a chance."
Hmmm. "Hope" for what? And the "promise of America" is or should be what? A "chance" to do what? The man never says. Few Obama supporters say. I suspect, unfortunately, it's because they can't.
And thus these people may be very disappointed after this election. For a government can't grant you hope, or a chance.
Only you, the individual, and your efforts can truly secure that.
It's the final day of the campaign, and...
...hey, let's face it, the polls seem to indicate a high likelihood that Obama is going to win.
This NBC poll for example has him up by 8 points nationally.
I'm not surprised. Way back when, when John McCain secured the GOP nomination, you might recall that I thought he was not the best choice for Republicans, and that his age and his inability to excite the GOP base would lead him to defeat. Now, Sen. McCain did surprise me a bit; I continue to believe that his choice of Sarah Palin was an inspired one, and for a time there, after the Republican convention, when McCain either equaled or even surpassed Obama in the polls, I thought he had a shot.
But I think that the poor economy, and the additional financial meltdown of late September, just made it too easy for the Democrats to bash the economy and blame it all on Republicans. And I also think this, and this is very important: the McCain campaign at time sounded too much like...Obama. After late September, you had McCain too blaming Wall Street, blaming "greed", calling for more regulation. That's Democratic territory. That's me-tooism. Republicans can never out-Democrat and/or out-regulate Democrats. Voters will simply say: why not vote for the real thing, the real regulators, the real believers in bigger government--Democrats.
All this having been said, the election isn't over yet, the people haven't yet voted, and thus anything can happen. And we must continue to point out the vast flaws in the policy prescriptions and thinking of Senator Obama. But we shouldn't pretend that the reality we see, isn't there.
This NBC poll for example has him up by 8 points nationally.
I'm not surprised. Way back when, when John McCain secured the GOP nomination, you might recall that I thought he was not the best choice for Republicans, and that his age and his inability to excite the GOP base would lead him to defeat. Now, Sen. McCain did surprise me a bit; I continue to believe that his choice of Sarah Palin was an inspired one, and for a time there, after the Republican convention, when McCain either equaled or even surpassed Obama in the polls, I thought he had a shot.
But I think that the poor economy, and the additional financial meltdown of late September, just made it too easy for the Democrats to bash the economy and blame it all on Republicans. And I also think this, and this is very important: the McCain campaign at time sounded too much like...Obama. After late September, you had McCain too blaming Wall Street, blaming "greed", calling for more regulation. That's Democratic territory. That's me-tooism. Republicans can never out-Democrat and/or out-regulate Democrats. Voters will simply say: why not vote for the real thing, the real regulators, the real believers in bigger government--Democrats.
All this having been said, the election isn't over yet, the people haven't yet voted, and thus anything can happen. And we must continue to point out the vast flaws in the policy prescriptions and thinking of Senator Obama. But we shouldn't pretend that the reality we see, isn't there.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Good point
Jay Nordlinger on NRO yesterday:
"Senator Obama said this about John McCain: “By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.” That’s interesting. Obama evidently thinks of communists as people who share. I think of them as people who kill."
Yep. It sure wouldn't surprise you if Mr. Obama was a little forgetful about communism's totalitarian nature...
(He'd probably want to sit down with them with no "preconditions", too...)
"Senator Obama said this about John McCain: “By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.” That’s interesting. Obama evidently thinks of communists as people who share. I think of them as people who kill."
Yep. It sure wouldn't surprise you if Mr. Obama was a little forgetful about communism's totalitarian nature...
(He'd probably want to sit down with them with no "preconditions", too...)
Friday, October 31, 2008
Booted
Reporters from three newspapers, all three of which just happened to endorse John McCain, all get booted from the Obama campaign plane.
The Obama people claim there just isn't enough room. Funny that only now does it become an issue. The truth is, this fits right in with a pattern we're seeing from the Obama folks--they don't like criticism, whether it be trying to pressure WGN radio from airing the views of an Obama critic, cutting off a Pennsylvania TV station from further interviews when it didn't like an anchor's questions, to this. And when they don't like criticism, they retaliate.
A real good way to "unite" the nation, that.
The Obama people claim there just isn't enough room. Funny that only now does it become an issue. The truth is, this fits right in with a pattern we're seeing from the Obama folks--they don't like criticism, whether it be trying to pressure WGN radio from airing the views of an Obama critic, cutting off a Pennsylvania TV station from further interviews when it didn't like an anchor's questions, to this. And when they don't like criticism, they retaliate.
A real good way to "unite" the nation, that.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama and friends
Bill Sammon on Fox News today digs out a revealing paragraph from Barack Obama's autobiography:
"...Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
So does this prove that Obama is some kind of radical Marxist or Socialist in disguise? No, folks.
That's not the point here. Rather, this proves instead that Obama is all about appearances. He wanted to look good to the black community, wherever he lived. He didn't want to appear as a "sellout" (read: too close to whites). He was being political. He wanted to rise and be a big fish in whatever pond in which he found himself. In college, that meant associating with hard leftists. Elsewhere, it meant other things (for example, once elected to office in Illinois, he nurtured a view of himself as a centrist).
The question then becomes: is there really any there there? Or does he simply shape himself to fit any context, will he simply be whatever he has to be, in order to...well, gain power?
Is this all about gaining power for Barack Obama? Will he do or be anything to get it?
Is there really a core to this guy? Or is he really a...yes, say it...FAKE?
The evidence begins to add up.
"...Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
So does this prove that Obama is some kind of radical Marxist or Socialist in disguise? No, folks.
That's not the point here. Rather, this proves instead that Obama is all about appearances. He wanted to look good to the black community, wherever he lived. He didn't want to appear as a "sellout" (read: too close to whites). He was being political. He wanted to rise and be a big fish in whatever pond in which he found himself. In college, that meant associating with hard leftists. Elsewhere, it meant other things (for example, once elected to office in Illinois, he nurtured a view of himself as a centrist).
The question then becomes: is there really any there there? Or does he simply shape himself to fit any context, will he simply be whatever he has to be, in order to...well, gain power?
Is this all about gaining power for Barack Obama? Will he do or be anything to get it?
Is there really a core to this guy? Or is he really a...yes, say it...FAKE?
The evidence begins to add up.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama and the constitution--why it matters
So in a 2001 interview, we now know that Barack Obama said this:
"...as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
And that's what was important about that interview--that Obama criticized a Court for failing to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." (I'm not convinced the other comments on "redistribution" are as important as others make them.) It's an amazing statement. It's also a radical statement. Why? It's simple: yes, indeed, there are "constraints" placed in our Constitution by the Founders--on the state, largely. The Constitution says the state can't abridge the right to free speech, that it must allow the people to possess their own firearms, etc.
Now here's the thing: do you want future Courts to decide, based on the whim of their new "interpretations" of the Constitution as a "living" document, that those old "constraints" no longer exist? Bam, they're gone? In a sense, a Court has already done that, inventing a "right" to abortion that the Founding Fathers had no intention of providing. Our society has been divided by that ever since. How has that worked out for us? Not well. Yet Barack Obama apparently thinks it'd be cool for future Courts to break free of the Founders (as long as the changes they'd make would be "progressive").
See, that's how an activist judiciary works--important changes in law and public policy enacted without democratic debate, without legislative debate, without a chance even to vote in or out the persons who made the changes. Barack Obama in this interview signals he's okay with it. has he changed since then? Heh. He was 40 years old, not 8, when he made the comments...
(hint to the McCain campaign, too: if you make the above case, believe me, the average Joe will understand exactly what you're getting at and will, I think, recoil from the Obama position. But time is short...)
"...as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
And that's what was important about that interview--that Obama criticized a Court for failing to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." (I'm not convinced the other comments on "redistribution" are as important as others make them.) It's an amazing statement. It's also a radical statement. Why? It's simple: yes, indeed, there are "constraints" placed in our Constitution by the Founders--on the state, largely. The Constitution says the state can't abridge the right to free speech, that it must allow the people to possess their own firearms, etc.
Now here's the thing: do you want future Courts to decide, based on the whim of their new "interpretations" of the Constitution as a "living" document, that those old "constraints" no longer exist? Bam, they're gone? In a sense, a Court has already done that, inventing a "right" to abortion that the Founding Fathers had no intention of providing. Our society has been divided by that ever since. How has that worked out for us? Not well. Yet Barack Obama apparently thinks it'd be cool for future Courts to break free of the Founders (as long as the changes they'd make would be "progressive").
See, that's how an activist judiciary works--important changes in law and public policy enacted without democratic debate, without legislative debate, without a chance even to vote in or out the persons who made the changes. Barack Obama in this interview signals he's okay with it. has he changed since then? Heh. He was 40 years old, not 8, when he made the comments...
(hint to the McCain campaign, too: if you make the above case, believe me, the average Joe will understand exactly what you're getting at and will, I think, recoil from the Obama position. But time is short...)
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Liberalism watch: taxes
The Washington Post says Senator Obama is winning the debate over taxes. But how is he winning it?:
"For the first time in decades, Democrats appear to have the upper
hand in the debate over taxes. Independent analysts estimate that only
a small fraction of small-business owners would see their taxes
increase under Obama's plan, and polls show that voters are beginning
to accept Obama's argument that more Americans would see their taxes
cut under his proposals. Even some Republicans said they worry that
Obama has more than neutralized a signature GOP issue with the promise
of a tax cut for middle-class Americans."
Which actually is a great point for conservatives.
Once again, we see a great masquerade ball--the only way for Obama to
win is for he and his running mate to disguise themselves as
conservatives and pretend to run to McCain's right on this issue.
I guarantee, if Obama gets elected--we must remind him of this
95%-of Americans-will-get-a-tax-cut promise every single day.
And if he gets elected and then breaks
this promise, as Bill Clinton did after he broke his middle-class-tax
cut promise after 1992, as I expect Obama would break this one, we
will hammer him on it every single day. And use it to defeat him.
"For the first time in decades, Democrats appear to have the upper
hand in the debate over taxes. Independent analysts estimate that only
a small fraction of small-business owners would see their taxes
increase under Obama's plan, and polls show that voters are beginning
to accept Obama's argument that more Americans would see their taxes
cut under his proposals. Even some Republicans said they worry that
Obama has more than neutralized a signature GOP issue with the promise
of a tax cut for middle-class Americans."
Which actually is a great point for conservatives.
Once again, we see a great masquerade ball--the only way for Obama to
win is for he and his running mate to disguise themselves as
conservatives and pretend to run to McCain's right on this issue.
I guarantee, if Obama gets elected--we must remind him of this
95%-of Americans-will-get-a-tax-cut promise every single day.
And if he gets elected and then breaks
this promise, as Bill Clinton did after he broke his middle-class-tax
cut promise after 1992, as I expect Obama would break this one, we
will hammer him on it every single day. And use it to defeat him.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Destroying Joe the Plumber
It was actually a very neat tactic last night from John McCain--introduce Joe the plumber, use the conversation he had with Barack Obama a few days ago (Joe wants to start his own small business soon; Obama's plans would lead to higher taxes for him; Obama apologizes but vows to plow ahead anyway, saying it's needed in order to spread the wealth around), and show how that makes Obama's policies, well, dangerous to the economy.
And so now, as Jim Geraghty shows today, our friends on the left are after old Joe:
"Thank God we live in a free country, where you can speak your mind on public issues, without fear that those who disagree will respond by exposing anything you've ever done that you regret or that could embarrass your family. Oh, wait, never mind. We have to know, according to some, about Joe the Plumber's tax lien, and how he doesn't have a license - which, if the smear artists bothered to check the law, he only needs for commercial work, not residential work.This is the way our opponents operate now. Destroy anyone who stands in your way. Humiliate them. Make sure that anyone else who ever wants to skeptically question Barack Obama knows that every last bit of their dirty laundry will be aired for all the world to see."
We shouldn't be surprised.
Look at the smear job they did on Sarah Palin. I'm glad she's fought back.
And so now, as Jim Geraghty shows today, our friends on the left are after old Joe:
"Thank God we live in a free country, where you can speak your mind on public issues, without fear that those who disagree will respond by exposing anything you've ever done that you regret or that could embarrass your family. Oh, wait, never mind. We have to know, according to some, about Joe the Plumber's tax lien, and how he doesn't have a license - which, if the smear artists bothered to check the law, he only needs for commercial work, not residential work.This is the way our opponents operate now. Destroy anyone who stands in your way. Humiliate them. Make sure that anyone else who ever wants to skeptically question Barack Obama knows that every last bit of their dirty laundry will be aired for all the world to see."
We shouldn't be surprised.
Look at the smear job they did on Sarah Palin. I'm glad she's fought back.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Beware the latest polls...
I noticed yesterday there was a lot of huffing and puffing (especially on ABC) about a new ABC/Washington Post poll that had Obama 10 points ahead. A CBS poll shows a similar lead.
But if you go look at all the daily state/national polls, look closely...
Note that Rasmussen, Zogby, the Hotline poll, and the daily Gallup tracking poll all have this presidential race as only a 5 or 6 point race. That's still pretty close. Don't forget that...
But if you go look at all the daily state/national polls, look closely...
Note that Rasmussen, Zogby, the Hotline poll, and the daily Gallup tracking poll all have this presidential race as only a 5 or 6 point race. That's still pretty close. Don't forget that...
The McCain campaign (contd)
So today Senator McCain announces a new economic plan, including the following statement:
"McCain said President Bush's $250 billion plan to buy shares in the nation's leading banks should be short-term and last only until the institutions are reformed and put on a sound footing again. "When that is accomplished," McCain said, "government will relinquish its interest in these private companies. We're going to get the government out of the business of bailouts and equity stakes and back in the business of responsible regulation."
Great. Sounds to me like he's trying to sound like a Democrat on the economy, only a little bit less so. It's me-tooism, and it won't work.
And then there's also this coming out today:
"John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is “probably ensured” that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday’s debate. “I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn’t have the guts” to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station. “I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.”
Great. Again, one day he's not talking about it, the next day he is. Not a clear message; no clear distinction between he and Obama. Not a way to win a campaign.
"McCain said President Bush's $250 billion plan to buy shares in the nation's leading banks should be short-term and last only until the institutions are reformed and put on a sound footing again. "When that is accomplished," McCain said, "government will relinquish its interest in these private companies. We're going to get the government out of the business of bailouts and equity stakes and back in the business of responsible regulation."
Great. Sounds to me like he's trying to sound like a Democrat on the economy, only a little bit less so. It's me-tooism, and it won't work.
And then there's also this coming out today:
"John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is “probably ensured” that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday’s debate. “I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn’t have the guts” to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station. “I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.”
Great. Again, one day he's not talking about it, the next day he is. Not a clear message; no clear distinction between he and Obama. Not a way to win a campaign.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Dropping ACORNS and other nuts on Obama's head
I'm glad to see John McCain beginning to talk about this--this is a group with close ties to Obama, and it's very vulnerable to charges of vote fraud, as today's reports indicate:
"Republicans allege Democrats and their allies are trying to subvert the voter registration system, and perhaps the election itself, with an avalanche of inaccurate or fraudulent new voter registrations....Republicans have made a group called ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the chief villain in the home stretch of the campaign.
Their allegation: that ACORN has been flooding election officials in states from Nevada to Connecticut with thousands of erroneous and fraudulent voter registration forms.
In Jackson County, Missouri, (which includes Kansas City) election officials said this week that fraudulent registration forms had been handed in by ACORN canvassers. In Las Vegas, investigators from the office of Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat, served a search warrant Tuesday on the ACORN office, as part of an investigation into allegations of voter registration fraud. Miller’s agents seized computer hard drives and boxes of documents....Campaigning in Mosinee, Wisc., on Thursday, McCain responded to shouts of “ACORN!” in the crowd by saying, “There are serious allegations of voter fraud in the battleground states across America…. You’ve seen these are serious allegations, my friends, and they must be investigated, and they must be investigated immediately, and they must be stopped before November the 4th so Americans will not be deprived of a fair process in this election.”
This has been building for several days. Keep an eye on it. And by the way, today was not a great day for the Obama campaign; in addition, the NY Times raised questions about Obama's fundraising:
"Last December, someone using the name “Test Person,” from “Some Place, UT,” made a series of contributions, the largest being $764, to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign totaling $2,410.07. Someone identifying himself as “Jockim Alberton,” from 1581 Leroy Avenue in Wilmington, Del., began giving to Mr. Obama last November, contributing $10 and $25 at a time for a total of $445 through the end of February. The only problem? There is no Leroy Avenue in Wilmington. And Jockim Alberton, who listed his employer and occupation as “Fdsa Fdsa,” does not show up in a search of public records. An analysis of campaign finance records by The New York Times this week found nearly 3,000 donations to Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, from more than a dozen people with apparently fictitious donor information. The contributions represent a tiny fraction of the record $450 million Mr. Obama has raised. But the questionable donations — some donors were listed simply with gibberish for their names — raise concerns about whether the Obama campaign is adequately vetting its unprecedented flood of donors."
Keep an eye on this too. Remember one of the first major ethical problems to plague the Clinton administration? Think October 1996, and $50,000 coffees, along with the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign cash. Maybe Democrats never change.
"Republicans allege Democrats and their allies are trying to subvert the voter registration system, and perhaps the election itself, with an avalanche of inaccurate or fraudulent new voter registrations....Republicans have made a group called ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the chief villain in the home stretch of the campaign.
Their allegation: that ACORN has been flooding election officials in states from Nevada to Connecticut with thousands of erroneous and fraudulent voter registration forms.
In Jackson County, Missouri, (which includes Kansas City) election officials said this week that fraudulent registration forms had been handed in by ACORN canvassers. In Las Vegas, investigators from the office of Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat, served a search warrant Tuesday on the ACORN office, as part of an investigation into allegations of voter registration fraud. Miller’s agents seized computer hard drives and boxes of documents....Campaigning in Mosinee, Wisc., on Thursday, McCain responded to shouts of “ACORN!” in the crowd by saying, “There are serious allegations of voter fraud in the battleground states across America…. You’ve seen these are serious allegations, my friends, and they must be investigated, and they must be investigated immediately, and they must be stopped before November the 4th so Americans will not be deprived of a fair process in this election.”
This has been building for several days. Keep an eye on it. And by the way, today was not a great day for the Obama campaign; in addition, the NY Times raised questions about Obama's fundraising:
"Last December, someone using the name “Test Person,” from “Some Place, UT,” made a series of contributions, the largest being $764, to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign totaling $2,410.07. Someone identifying himself as “Jockim Alberton,” from 1581 Leroy Avenue in Wilmington, Del., began giving to Mr. Obama last November, contributing $10 and $25 at a time for a total of $445 through the end of February. The only problem? There is no Leroy Avenue in Wilmington. And Jockim Alberton, who listed his employer and occupation as “Fdsa Fdsa,” does not show up in a search of public records. An analysis of campaign finance records by The New York Times this week found nearly 3,000 donations to Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, from more than a dozen people with apparently fictitious donor information. The contributions represent a tiny fraction of the record $450 million Mr. Obama has raised. But the questionable donations — some donors were listed simply with gibberish for their names — raise concerns about whether the Obama campaign is adequately vetting its unprecedented flood of donors."
Keep an eye on this too. Remember one of the first major ethical problems to plague the Clinton administration? Think October 1996, and $50,000 coffees, along with the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign cash. Maybe Democrats never change.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obama's contradictions (contd)
Even the NY Times sees them, concerning his economic proposals:
"...Mr. Obama continues to promise that everything will get better once he is president, but does not explain how his programs and governing philosophy will adjust to new economic realities. He said Wednesday that Americans needed to unite to avoid “a dark and painful recession,” even though many economists say that a recession has already begun, and that pain may be inevitable."
The NY Times seeing reality! Too bad it happens so rarely...
"...Mr. Obama continues to promise that everything will get better once he is president, but does not explain how his programs and governing philosophy will adjust to new economic realities. He said Wednesday that Americans needed to unite to avoid “a dark and painful recession,” even though many economists say that a recession has already begun, and that pain may be inevitable."
The NY Times seeing reality! Too bad it happens so rarely...
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Barack Obama's contradictions
James Taranto at the WSJ online points out a couple:
"All of us are going to make sacrifices," he says--but he is going to raise taxes only on Fortune 500 CEOs other really rich people; and his spending cuts will spare "people who need help." It doesn't add up when you think it through, but the casual listener gets to feel noble while responding to an appeal to his self-interest....[and, on another subject] it seems to us incoherent to criticize the Bush administration both for being too "reactive" and for failing to restrict its post-9/11 focus to Afghanistan."
Don't forget another one: on the one hand, Senator Obama says we no longer have the respect in the world that we used to, we need to use more diplomacy and multilateralism, we need to seek diplomatic solutions, so let's sit down with Iran (without preconditions, mind you!), sit down with Cuba, etc.
And yet at the same time, he publicly announces that we'll go into Pakistan and launch attacks against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, whether Pakistan is on board with that or not.
"All of us are going to make sacrifices," he says--but he is going to raise taxes only on Fortune 500 CEOs other really rich people; and his spending cuts will spare "people who need help." It doesn't add up when you think it through, but the casual listener gets to feel noble while responding to an appeal to his self-interest....[and, on another subject] it seems to us incoherent to criticize the Bush administration both for being too "reactive" and for failing to restrict its post-9/11 focus to Afghanistan."
Don't forget another one: on the one hand, Senator Obama says we no longer have the respect in the world that we used to, we need to use more diplomacy and multilateralism, we need to seek diplomatic solutions, so let's sit down with Iran (without preconditions, mind you!), sit down with Cuba, etc.
And yet at the same time, he publicly announces that we'll go into Pakistan and launch attacks against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, whether Pakistan is on board with that or not.
Monday, October 6, 2008
More bad news for McCain--and how to turn it around
More state polls show the electoral map definitely leaning Obama's way, says MSNBC's Chuck Todd and co.
Okay--so that makes tomorrow night's second McCain/Obama debate all the more important.
One thing McCain needs to do is to continue to be on the attack, and to draw larger distinctions between he and Sen. Obama. There's a little bit to much me-tooism sneaking into the McCain campaign, it seems to me. See the recent responses to the federal bailout package. Obama wants more regulations--McCain seems to me to be saying, "me too." Obama blames Wall Street--McCain too often is saying "me too."
McCain needs to draw big distinctions with Obama on the war on terror, on energy policy, on spending, on taxes. And hey, what about immigration??? McCain says he wants to secure the border first, so talk about that and challenge Obama to spell out how HE would secure the border.
Attack, Sen. McCain, and do so from a conservative point of view.
By the way, Sarah Palin agrees:
"I asked at the end of our conversation whether Palin, fresh off her own debate, had any advice for McCain. “I’m going to tell him the same thing he told me. I talked to him just a few minutes before I walked out there on stage. And he just said: ‘Have fun. Be yourself, and have fun.’ And Senator McCain can do the same.” She paused, and I was about to thank her for the interview, but she had one more thing to say. “Only maybe I’d add just a couple more words, and that would be: ‘Take the gloves off.’ ”
Okay--so that makes tomorrow night's second McCain/Obama debate all the more important.
One thing McCain needs to do is to continue to be on the attack, and to draw larger distinctions between he and Sen. Obama. There's a little bit to much me-tooism sneaking into the McCain campaign, it seems to me. See the recent responses to the federal bailout package. Obama wants more regulations--McCain seems to me to be saying, "me too." Obama blames Wall Street--McCain too often is saying "me too."
McCain needs to draw big distinctions with Obama on the war on terror, on energy policy, on spending, on taxes. And hey, what about immigration??? McCain says he wants to secure the border first, so talk about that and challenge Obama to spell out how HE would secure the border.
Attack, Sen. McCain, and do so from a conservative point of view.
By the way, Sarah Palin agrees:
"I asked at the end of our conversation whether Palin, fresh off her own debate, had any advice for McCain. “I’m going to tell him the same thing he told me. I talked to him just a few minutes before I walked out there on stage. And he just said: ‘Have fun. Be yourself, and have fun.’ And Senator McCain can do the same.” She paused, and I was about to thank her for the interview, but she had one more thing to say. “Only maybe I’d add just a couple more words, and that would be: ‘Take the gloves off.’ ”
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The road back
So how can conservatives make some solid rejoinders to the left in this campaign season?
How can we counterattack against the liberals right now?
Here's some ideas:
First--Obama and co. say the current financial mess is due to "de-regulation", that it's all because Republicans wanted markets to "run free" and let them "run wild."
On, no it isn't, as Jim Geraghty points out today:
"This is one of the areas that Team McCain has to thoroughly and relentlessly refute: That the market wasn't running free; the government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, loaned billions of dollars to people you wouldn't loan $200 to because you didn't trust them to pay it back. Then, through the Community Reinvestment Act, they punished banks that didn't make enough loans to people who do not have the credit, assets, income, or down payment to qualify for a normal mortgage, a.k.a. the subprime market. No one in their right minds loans money to somebody who they think won't pay it back. But the government said banks had to, for reasons of "fairness". We have to pound these points into the public consciousness, or else we're going to make the exact same mistake again, not too far down the road."
Exactly. And conservatives (along with, hopefully, the McCain camp) need to remind everyone about the energy situation, and that we need to drill, and build more nuclear power plants. We need too to pound home the idea that spending at the federal level must be cut. That Obama's judgment concerning Iraq has been WRONG. And so forth.
How can we counterattack against the liberals right now?
Here's some ideas:
First--Obama and co. say the current financial mess is due to "de-regulation", that it's all because Republicans wanted markets to "run free" and let them "run wild."
On, no it isn't, as Jim Geraghty points out today:
"This is one of the areas that Team McCain has to thoroughly and relentlessly refute: That the market wasn't running free; the government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, loaned billions of dollars to people you wouldn't loan $200 to because you didn't trust them to pay it back. Then, through the Community Reinvestment Act, they punished banks that didn't make enough loans to people who do not have the credit, assets, income, or down payment to qualify for a normal mortgage, a.k.a. the subprime market. No one in their right minds loans money to somebody who they think won't pay it back. But the government said banks had to, for reasons of "fairness". We have to pound these points into the public consciousness, or else we're going to make the exact same mistake again, not too far down the road."
Exactly. And conservatives (along with, hopefully, the McCain camp) need to remind everyone about the energy situation, and that we need to drill, and build more nuclear power plants. We need too to pound home the idea that spending at the federal level must be cut. That Obama's judgment concerning Iraq has been WRONG. And so forth.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Last night's debate
Honestly, I expected McCain to come in a bit tired, a bit off his game, given the events of last week, his push first to not debate and suspend his campaign, then resume and debate; the tiring work of negotiating with Republicans and Democrats in Washington over the bailout.
But he surprised me--I thought he was on his game, had good specificity in what he said, told some good stories that connected with the points he was making...and of course it helps that I agreed with him on many of the foreign policy issues up for discussion. He had a strategy, stressing that Senator Obama "doesn't understand", several times, and he executed it.
That said, I still think it was more or less a draw; Senator Obama is a good debater, too, and is learned on several issues. Which will make the debates coming up even more important.
But he surprised me--I thought he was on his game, had good specificity in what he said, told some good stories that connected with the points he was making...and of course it helps that I agreed with him on many of the foreign policy issues up for discussion. He had a strategy, stressing that Senator Obama "doesn't understand", several times, and he executed it.
That said, I still think it was more or less a draw; Senator Obama is a good debater, too, and is learned on several issues. Which will make the debates coming up even more important.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The November election: Georgia
It appears that the Obama campaign is about to pretty much abandon hope of winning Georgia:
" Georgia is another state in which the campaign once had very high hopes but is now unsure whether it should continue to invest in it. The campaign stopped advertising there before the conventions and last week redeployed some of its 75 staff to neighboring North Carolina..."
" Georgia is another state in which the campaign once had very high hopes but is now unsure whether it should continue to invest in it. The campaign stopped advertising there before the conventions and last week redeployed some of its 75 staff to neighboring North Carolina..."
A close race
The Washington Post finds that, in a new poll, the races in several battleground states--Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Minnesota--are very close (Obama and McCain either essentially ties or Obama slightly ahead) and haven't changed much in the last 3 months or so.
The Post seems surprised that the race hasn't changed much in 3 months.
But there are easy explanations for that. First of all, remember that most Americans aren't that interested in politics, and don't follow it all that closely (unlike me, or folks like you who read blogs like this). Second: I think what many Americans do, though, when it comes to voting, is they wait for a few big events in the campaigns. And those would be, first, the two parties' conventions (out of which both candidates got a boost, but I think McCain got a slightly bigger buzz coming out of his, thanks to Sarah Palin); and second, the presidential debates.
The debates always get huge audiences, especially the first and last debates; and I think a lot of Americans tell themselves that they will make up their minds after the debates.
So no wonder things haven't changed much. Americans are waiting for the debates.
The Post seems surprised that the race hasn't changed much in 3 months.
But there are easy explanations for that. First of all, remember that most Americans aren't that interested in politics, and don't follow it all that closely (unlike me, or folks like you who read blogs like this). Second: I think what many Americans do, though, when it comes to voting, is they wait for a few big events in the campaigns. And those would be, first, the two parties' conventions (out of which both candidates got a boost, but I think McCain got a slightly bigger buzz coming out of his, thanks to Sarah Palin); and second, the presidential debates.
The debates always get huge audiences, especially the first and last debates; and I think a lot of Americans tell themselves that they will make up their minds after the debates.
So no wonder things haven't changed much. Americans are waiting for the debates.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Karl Rove advises Barack Obama
I don't think, though, that he expects he'll take his advice. But read Rove's column today.
In fact, I'd advise you, if you're a political junkie like me, to always read Rove's columns.
The guy knows a heck of a lot about American politics, and he makes insightful points.
Today, for example, he has two valuable points:
First, as to why Obama isn't doing better in the polls: don't forget the Democratic congress. It's approval rating is in the toilet. And that may be dragging down the entire Democratic "brand"--and thus Obama with it.
Second: a fundamental mistake being made by the Obama camp is this--it's trying to win undecided voters by roaring at them that "McCain is another George W. Bush." But any voter who could be won over that way would already BE in the Obama camp. Rather, now what we're dealing with are undecided voters who won't be persuaded that way. Polls show they still have doubts about Mr. Obama. Obama can only win them by talking positively about himself--not dragging down the other guy.
Luckily for Mr. McCain, I doubt the Obama-ites even bring themselves to read Rove.
In fact, I'd advise you, if you're a political junkie like me, to always read Rove's columns.
The guy knows a heck of a lot about American politics, and he makes insightful points.
Today, for example, he has two valuable points:
First, as to why Obama isn't doing better in the polls: don't forget the Democratic congress. It's approval rating is in the toilet. And that may be dragging down the entire Democratic "brand"--and thus Obama with it.
Second: a fundamental mistake being made by the Obama camp is this--it's trying to win undecided voters by roaring at them that "McCain is another George W. Bush." But any voter who could be won over that way would already BE in the Obama camp. Rather, now what we're dealing with are undecided voters who won't be persuaded that way. Polls show they still have doubts about Mr. Obama. Obama can only win them by talking positively about himself--not dragging down the other guy.
Luckily for Mr. McCain, I doubt the Obama-ites even bring themselves to read Rove.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)