Liberals

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

mccain is jealous

Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist and self-appointed expert on human behavior, says that’s the reason McCain has been acting so mean toward poor Barack Obama and hitting him with those frivolous ads.

She says:

Now John McCain is pea-green with envy. That’s the only explanation for why a man who prides himself on honor, a man who vowed not to take the low road in the campaign, having been mugged by W. and Rove in South Carolina in 2000, is engaging in a festival of juvenilia.

The Arizona senator who built his reputation on being a brave proponent of big solutions is running a schoolyard campaign about tire gauges and Paris Hilton, childishly accusing his opponent of being too serious, too popular and not patriotic enough.

Sure.  That’s it.  McCain is jealous of Barack Obama, and wishes he were as popular as the Senator from Illinois.  That’s not quite it…but she’s in the neighborhood.  McCain is resentful of Obama, just the way he was of Mitt Romney during the Republican primary.  McCain thinks that he is entitled to the presidency because he has earned it, and he doesn’t view Obama as worthy of the job.  He seems to believe that Senator Obama doesn’t deserve to be that close to becoming President of the United States without a long record of public service or a military record.  Senator McCain has struggled through a few fierce political battles in addition to his well-publicized captivity in Vietnam.  The press has now turned their backs on him in favor of Senator Obama.  Conservatives are agnostic about his candidacy, even though they are aware of the risks of embracing any other alternative choice.

It’s hard being John McCain.  He has lost the media love.  His opponent is popular and has drawn quite a few large crowds.  In addition to that, the Republican brand has been badly damaged by scandal and mismanagement in Congress, and he must run against them and the sitting Republican president.  Tough environment.  No wonder McCain is a little frustrated with Barack Obama and the media circus surrounding him.

Some of his ads were better than others.  I wasn’t thrilled with the ‘celeb’ ad, but it asked the right question: Is Barack Obama ready to lead?  That’s the area of the sharpest contrast with McCain, and even with the flawed execution of that message, people are starting to understand Barack’s limitations as a candidate.  Why else would this race be too close to call in early August?

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

the one

Sometimes Barack unknowingly descends into self-parody, and all John McCain and my fellow Republicans are trying to do is to help him set more realistic expectations for himself.  The reason many of McCain’s ads are about Barack is because that’s the decision the voters are making here — whether Senator Obama is ready to lead and whether he has the best solutions for the country.    That’s the question McCain is asking in this ad, and in the ‘celeb’ ad.  John McCain has gone out of his way to avoid anything that could even remotely be considered racist or anything playing into the stereotype of folks who still believe that Obama is a Muslim.  If Senator Obama really wants us to stop talking about his race, then he should stop bringing it up.

I know there are some random people who want our main objection to Barack to be about that, or about the rumor that he is secretly a scary Muslim, but this has never been the position of the McCain campaign.  McCain has thrown people under his bus for just using Barack’s middle name.  How can Senator Obama honestly say that all this talk is McCain’s fault?  I think the senator needs to get a thicker skin, or he will never survive 4-8 years in the White House.

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

the ‘s’ word

Investor’s Business Daily is brave enough to go there — calling Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act suspiciously similar to a government redistribution of US taxpayer wealth.  Well, technically they use the ‘s’ word.  Socialism. That’s a heavy charge, and it’s one that needs to be backed up with specific examples.  This op-ed makes a convincing case that the Global Poverty Act could qualify as a socialist proposal.

While I know that one example of bad policy wouldn’t brand someone like Barack with the socialist label, it’s troubling that this Global Poverty Act would redistribute our wealth to those in other countries.  We wouldn’t even benefit from all this increased spending, unless international good will can be bought with this high price.  That premise is highly questionable.  If the world’s affection can be bought with enough foreign aid money, we should have the receipt for it already.

Here’s how Investor’s Business Daily first described this bill:

Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts, which is at least $30 billion over and above the exorbitant and wasted sums we already give away overseas.

The bipartisan bill would require the president “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

To say that the United States government has far exceeded its Consititutional mandate would be understating the case.  Charity shouldn’t (and doesn’t) begin and end with the federal government.  Americans are generous people.  Through non-profit charitable organizations and our own churches, we are reaching out to people here in this country and around the world, and it’s having an impact.  This shouldn’t be a role of the federal government.  That’s the flaw in this legislation — requiring United States taxpayers to subsidize some mandate thrown down by the U.N. and the international community.  The financial obligation of the federal government should be first and foremost to the citizens of the United States — not to the world community or the U.N.

Continue reading →

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

barack and michelle’s excellent adventure

If you want to read Barack’s Berlin speech, go here.  No average citizen of the world gets to make that speech.  I can’t call Chancellor Merkel and book time to speak to the people of Germany in a historic place.  So it’s somewhat disingenuous of Obama to insist that he has this opportunity to speak in Berlin and that it has nothing to do with being a candidate for President. There are a few problems with what Obama had to say,  but the bigger problem I have is with his whole European tour.   The Obama campaign is taking a huge risk by keeping their candidate off of the domestic campaign trail to meet with all of these world leaders and to press the flesh with his European fans and his buddies in the media.  No doubt there is huge press that goes with a world tour, as well as much adulation from foreigners because they know he won’t be a “cowboy” like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.  But is this the way to win an American election?

Greatness and legacy are not borrowed by copying phrases or words.  They are earned, and Barack has done nothing to claim the mantle of either Ronald Reagan or JFK.  That’s why the comparison of Barack’s speech to similar speeches made by these two men is inaccurate.  Both Reagan and JFK said stuff that was unpopular at the time, and didn’t apologize for it.  When was the last time Barack said something unpopular that he hasn’t apologized for?   He doesn’t admit mistakes very often. (Does this sound like anyone the left has consistently hammered the past 7 years or so?)  Most importantly, both men had been elected by the people of the United States to speak on their behalf and to shape the foreign policy of this country.    Barack Obama has no such mandate from us.  He hasn’t been elected yet, and he and his advisors would do well to remember this.

For the must-read of the weekend, check out Gerard Baker’s absolute skewering and mockery of Barack Obama.  It’s hilarious.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

stubborn

I’ve said from the very beginning that I don’t believe that John McCain ever changed his mind about comprehensive immigration reform, so Byron York’s column in The Hill doesn’t surprise me.  McCain is quoted as saying that he learned his lesson from the immigration fight.  On the other hand, he still says that he’s glad he proposed the reform and would do it again.  We should be perfectly clear where McCain stands on this because he still believes that he was right on this issue.  Don’t be fooled.

That said, Barack Obama might want to reconsider attacking McCain on this issue. There’s no way Barack can say he’s to the right of McCain on illegal immigration — although he might be able to claim credit for not writing any comprehensive immigration reform bills. He hasn’t demonstrated any ability to improve upon McCain’s sad record, and at one point even supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.  In addition to that, he voted for McCain-Kennedy before he supported some “poison pill” amendments to kill it.  Any discussion of McCain’s record on immigration would bring counter-attacks from the McCain camp about Barack’s record — and he might not want to go there.  John McCain and Barack Obama sometimes say the right things about securing the borders first, but I don’t believe either one of them, and there’s no reason to, based on their record in the Senate.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

misdirection

We all want to believe in something greater than ourselves.  That’s a natural human desire.  When we see the imperfect world around us, and the struggles we face as Americans, we want to believe that it can be resolved in the striving of mere human effort — by electing politicians who share our desire to improve this country.  This is where the myth of Barack Obama started — that he wasn’t just any other politician.   We were asked to believe that Barack Obama, in addition to being a historical transformative figure as the Democratic nominee, was some kind of savior.   Who could forget Michelle Obama’s comment about our souls being broken, and her solution to those broken souls being her husband Barack?  Senator Clinton was right to mock this kind of talk.  No elected official will ever be a saint, much less a savior of all of us.   It’s interesting that so many people believe that this kind of spiritual void can be filled by a politician.

In the process of a campaign, we put our faith in a human being, who is just as imperfect as the rest of us (although possibly more photogenic).  Idealism gets shattered once in a while.  That’s just the nature of the game.  It’s unfortunate, but we all need a little bit of healthy skepticism when it comes to politicians, because even the good ones disappoint us on one issue or another.  If you want someone who can represent you well on policy matters,  do your homework and vote for the best candidate.  If you want someone to fix your soul, that’s beyond the ability of human politics.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

oh ye of little faith

Fear not, liberals progressives.  Barack hasn’t abandoned you.  He still believes in all those progressive ideas he started out believing at the beginning of his primary campaign.  Pay no attention to the appearance of centrism you may think that you see.  The progressive Barack is the real Barack…and you can trust him on that.  For the record, I believe him. I think that all these attempts to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on Iraq are misguided, because his position has always been somewhat nuanced…except for the times he implied that he supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  This was the position progressives liked very much and many of them supported him over Hillary because they thought he was for immediate withdrawal.  Joke’s on them I guess.  It’s an unusual talent some of these Democrat politicians have — to convince each person that the politician actually shares their values.  Barack is especially good at doing this, and it shouldn’t come as a shock that he hasn’t been exactly what progressives expected him to be.

Those who bought into Barack’s promise of a new kind of politics must not have been around the game long enough to be cynical about promises like that.  It’s still hard to condemn the idealism that all these young voters have brought to the process.  We would all like to believe a candidate that we work for has the ability to be transformative and bring needed change to the Washington establishment.  When we find out that the guy or gal we campaign for isn’t everything we expected, it does cause some to be disallusioned with the process. But in this case, did these progressives believe that Barack was going to continue to speak their language going into the general election against John McCain?  Surely they know deep down Barack is still one of them, no matter what he’s saying right now. If not, they should believe it.  It’s far more likely that Barack will stay left once elected than it is that he will embrace some kind of new centrism that is closer to George W. Bush than it is to Bill Clinton.

Posted on '08 Election, Liberals

out of touch

In case we have forgotten about the severe left-ward bent of the New York Times, a new editorial puts in all back into focus.  In “A Supreme Court on the Brink” they worry about the future direction of the Supreme Court, specifically that a McCain administration could undo all the liberal decisions the Supremes have made over the years, including Roe V. Wade.  This is a needless fear.   Not even Reagan managed to accomplish that goal, and McCain can hardly be accused of such extreme conservatism.  McCain will keep his word on this, if not on anything else, but conservatives shouldn’t get their hopes up that McCain could get a Samuel Alito or John Roberts through the expected Democratic majority in Congress.  Unless the Democrats inexplicably cave in, there’s no way this will happen.  A more plausible scenario is that McCain attempts to put through judges the base approves of, and he is brutally rebuffed by the Democrats.  Then he gives in and nominates someone like Harriet Miers.  Yikes.  Of course this all assumes McCain beats Barack Obama.  Is the New York Times worried about their golden boy’s chances in November?  Say it ain’t so guys.

Some of the Court’s rulings were questionable, and the assessment of their overall record this year as “muddled” is a fair way of describing it.  Even so, I shouldn’t be surprised that the New York Times wants to be on the record supporting the Court’s decision denying the death penalty to the child rapist.  The ruling was misguided to say the least.  If we are going to have the death penalty as a punishment for crime, not too many crimes are worse than child rape.  The child will be scarred for life.  I’m not sure that life in prison is a sufficient punishment for what the child went through at the hands of this monster. Then there’s the more well-known decision to give habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees who — may I remind everyone — are not American citizens.  It’s a bad idea to give foreigners access to American courts, and I still haven’t heard a great explanation of why Constitutional rights and protections can be given to non-citizens.  At least the New York Times is consistent in their worldview and we know what to expect from the majority of their columnists and their op-eds.

Those of us on the right always point to stuff like this as a example of how out of touch the mainstream media is (and the New York Times usually provides most of the ammunition for these critiques).  If we spent half as much time focusing on what we can do to fix what the Republican politicians have broken, we might have more of a reason for confidence going into November.  As it stands now, we have an uphill climb ahead of us.

5 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

silly democrats

Let me get this straight — John McCain’s military service doesn’t qualify him to be commander in chief, but John Kerry’s does?  That’s the unusual logic employed by Obama supporter, failed presidential candidate, and retired military guy General Wesley Clark.   Surely General Clark remembers his glowing comments about Senator Kerry and his war record, and let’s be absolutely clear about this — Kerry ran on that record until he was derailed by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.  The Democrats seem conflicted about whether military service matters to presidential candidates.  Clinton = No.   Kerry=Yes.  McCain = Absolutely not.  Curious how military service only adds to your qualifications for commander-in-chief if you are a Democrat.

That’s ok though.  This is a debate I’m comfortable having with the Democrats all day long.  While it’s true that having military service doesn’t automatically qualify you to be President of the United States, McCain’s long record of public service, including serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee,  speaks to much more experience than Senator Obama has.   So Senator Obama’s surrogates like Clark want to question McCain’s experience. Ha.  Go ahead.    Do you really want to compare Obama and McCain on overall experience?  Good luck.

6 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals

always a good idea

When there’s a serious problem that hasn’t been fixed in this country, the first thing we must do is blame all the politicians.  Not a bad source for a designated scapegoat. After all, that’s where many of the folks in a recent Consumer Reports survey placed the fault for the high oil prices.  I’m not sure how exactly they came up with these numbers, since they have 77% for the politicians and 75% for oil companies. (If anyone can figure out these numbers, let me know. ) We do need a comprehensive energy policy.  There are no quick fixes, but the American people understand that increasing domestic supply should be one of many ways we can decrease our dependence on foreign oil.  I’m not convinced that the impact of offshore drilling would be reflected in the price of gas immediately, but it would increase supply while we continue to pursue alternative fuels and more efficient cars.  For those who make the argument that it could take 10+ years to see the impact of offshore drilling on the oil market, I say why wait another minute to get started with it? In addition to that, do we have alternative fuels ready to replace gasoline right now? Or will that also take 10 years or more to develop? Right.

There is more to be done with energy policy.  However, the right approach should always be geared toward free-market solutions, because government has never been known for its innovation or its efficiency.  Most of the best inventions and innovations have come from the private sector.  Oversight is fine, I guess, to make sure that the oil companies are following the rules, but nothing good can come from punishing production with a windfall profits tax.  It won’t make gas cheaper — and that’s the goal, isn’t it? Democrats don’t have many solutions, just a long list of things that they won’t do.  That’s great leadership right there.