If so, thank Barack Obama for helping to make it possible:
Barack Obama's a swell guy, always willing to help out Chicago museums with federal taxpayer money… whether they need it or not.
In 2007, after he began his presidential campaign, Obama sought a $1 million federal earmark for the Chicago Children’s Museum to build a new facility. The museum, as of the end of fiscal 2007, had revenue in excess of expenses of $23 million, and net assets of $37 million.
If a museum is sitting on millions in profits, shouldn't they spend some of that before taxpayers nationwide are asked to kick in?
(That's from Jim Geraghty.)
Most people in the city don't actually want the museum to move, but darned if they can always find a way at the ballot box to keep re-electing the politicians who screw them.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Why was this blog labeled spam?
Last week, this blog was frozen for a day or two (that's why there were no posts on Friday). I also received an e-mail telling me that this space was designated as a potential "spam blog". I don't know what that is, but I guess it's bad. I replied to the e-mail, and on Saturday we were back in business. I had no idea why this was designated as such.
Then I read this article this morning:
Web loggers who are campaigning against Senator Obama's presidential run are accusing Google and Obama supporters of silencing them after their Web logs were marked as spam and their accounts temporarily frozen.
On Thursday, hours after publishing a post about an online petition demanding that Mr. Obama publicly produce his birth certificate, an associate professor of business administration at Brooklyn College, Mitchell Langbert, found that he could no longer access his Web log.
It goes on to describe the whole scenario. I'm not one to get into conspiracy stuff, and I doubt Google did this to go after anti-Obama blogs. I mean, sure, I don't like the guy, but it's not like I am pro-McCain. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I think:
A spokesman for Google, Adam Kovacevich, said in a statement that an overzealous antispam filter was responsible for the blocks.
"We believe this was caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the 'Just Say No Deal' network of blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam," he said. "We have restored posting rights to the affected blogs, and it is very important to us that Blogger remain a tool for political debate and free expression."
..."I don't think" Google has "malicious intentions at all, it's just that spammers can literally overrun a service if you're not careful, so their defenses have become overzealous," a spokesman for WordPress, Matthew Mullenweg, said in an e-mail.
"We always have human review before turning off an active blog," he said. "People invest so much time into their blogs, to treat it with anything less than the utmost respect is criminal."
I can understand the conspiracy-peddling from these guys since Google has shown a distinct left-leaning bias in the past. However, no one reads this except some people I know. Also, I am certain I have zero influence over anyone from anything I write here.
Then I read this article this morning:
Web loggers who are campaigning against Senator Obama's presidential run are accusing Google and Obama supporters of silencing them after their Web logs were marked as spam and their accounts temporarily frozen.
On Thursday, hours after publishing a post about an online petition demanding that Mr. Obama publicly produce his birth certificate, an associate professor of business administration at Brooklyn College, Mitchell Langbert, found that he could no longer access his Web log.
It goes on to describe the whole scenario. I'm not one to get into conspiracy stuff, and I doubt Google did this to go after anti-Obama blogs. I mean, sure, I don't like the guy, but it's not like I am pro-McCain. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I think:
A spokesman for Google, Adam Kovacevich, said in a statement that an overzealous antispam filter was responsible for the blocks.
"We believe this was caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the 'Just Say No Deal' network of blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam," he said. "We have restored posting rights to the affected blogs, and it is very important to us that Blogger remain a tool for political debate and free expression."
..."I don't think" Google has "malicious intentions at all, it's just that spammers can literally overrun a service if you're not careful, so their defenses have become overzealous," a spokesman for WordPress, Matthew Mullenweg, said in an e-mail.
"We always have human review before turning off an active blog," he said. "People invest so much time into their blogs, to treat it with anything less than the utmost respect is criminal."
I can understand the conspiracy-peddling from these guys since Google has shown a distinct left-leaning bias in the past. However, no one reads this except some people I know. Also, I am certain I have zero influence over anyone from anything I write here.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Like high energy prices?
Keep voting Democratic, says Jeffrey Lord.
Lord lays out the case against Democrats on this issue, and why they can't even say what they really believe. There is so much good stuff, I hate to only excerpt a small part. Here's his conclusion, but anyone who votes should read the whole thing and keep it in mind:
Do you think Senator Obama wishes to acknowledge that the liberal philosophy he and his liberal (and frequently very rich) friends champion has gotten us to this exact point in American energy history? Of course not. If the American people figure out the connection between the price of gas and liberalism, they won't put a liberal in the White House. Which is why Obama, as with Dukakis, has to hide his liberalism. Connecting the dots between what we see in our everyday lives and illustrating the folly of whatever liberal idea got us here is what the rest of us have to do.
More here on the same theme:
Assaulting the standard of living of the middle class is what Barack Obama is all about. For you can search through all of his position papers, speeches and talking points and not find a word about reducing the price of gas or oil. He clearly has no intention of trying to reduce the price of gas at all. He has said, in fact, that the high price of gas and oil is good for the environment, and the only problem is that the prices increased too suddenly. This is the Marie Antoinette school of energy policy.
Remember Obama's famous quote:
"We can't just keep driving our SUVs, eating whatever we want, keeping our homes at 72 degrees at all times regardless of whether we live in the tundra or the desert, and keep consuming 25 percent of the world's resources with just 4 percent of the world's population, and expect the rest of the world to say you just go ahead. We'll be fine. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen. "
What he means by this is that the current standard of living of the American people is unfair. It represents massive inequality in comparison to the rest of the world. So here we have a leading Presidential candidate who thinks truth and justice requires a reduction in our opulent middle class living standards. Good luck, and good night.
Lord lays out the case against Democrats on this issue, and why they can't even say what they really believe. There is so much good stuff, I hate to only excerpt a small part. Here's his conclusion, but anyone who votes should read the whole thing and keep it in mind:
Do you think Senator Obama wishes to acknowledge that the liberal philosophy he and his liberal (and frequently very rich) friends champion has gotten us to this exact point in American energy history? Of course not. If the American people figure out the connection between the price of gas and liberalism, they won't put a liberal in the White House. Which is why Obama, as with Dukakis, has to hide his liberalism. Connecting the dots between what we see in our everyday lives and illustrating the folly of whatever liberal idea got us here is what the rest of us have to do.
More here on the same theme:
Assaulting the standard of living of the middle class is what Barack Obama is all about. For you can search through all of his position papers, speeches and talking points and not find a word about reducing the price of gas or oil. He clearly has no intention of trying to reduce the price of gas at all. He has said, in fact, that the high price of gas and oil is good for the environment, and the only problem is that the prices increased too suddenly. This is the Marie Antoinette school of energy policy.
Remember Obama's famous quote:
"We can't just keep driving our SUVs, eating whatever we want, keeping our homes at 72 degrees at all times regardless of whether we live in the tundra or the desert, and keep consuming 25 percent of the world's resources with just 4 percent of the world's population, and expect the rest of the world to say you just go ahead. We'll be fine. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen. "
What he means by this is that the current standard of living of the American people is unfair. It represents massive inequality in comparison to the rest of the world. So here we have a leading Presidential candidate who thinks truth and justice requires a reduction in our opulent middle class living standards. Good luck, and good night.
Post of the Day
Michelle Malkin has a great one on the blinding insanity held by the left, and rapper Nas in particular, in regards to Fox News Channel. To wit, they want a boycott of FNC due to its supposed racist coverage toward Barack Obama.
Malkin's demolition of their grievances is a beautiful thing.
Malkin's demolition of their grievances is a beautiful thing.
Obama cannot be this stupid
The Barack Obama nerds think he walks on water and such, but I don't even think he's the brightest guy around. I mean, he's probably smarter than me, but that's not saying much.
Still, he couldn't possibly be dumb enough to name (or even consider) John Edwards as his running mate. Let's go through the reasons:
1. He's run for president twice and lost each time.
2. He ran as the VP nominee only four years ago, and lost. In campaign manager Bob Shrum's book, John Kerry did not have flattering things to say about him.
3. He served a single term in the Senate, and he was one of the most non-descript members of that body. In fact, despite his silly two Americas presidential campaign speech, he was fairly moderate in the Senate and ran as such.
4. He's served in no other elective position.
5. Obama's problem (or one of them, which may or may not even end up being a problem) is that he's inexperienced. Edwards is the only possible nominee who is even less experienced. His selection would do nothing to help satisfy voters who are concerned about that.
6. Edwards is a southerner, but he's moved too far to the left for him to do any good there any more. Kerry won no southern states in 2004. (I know that Obama isn't Kerry, and also that McCain isn't Bush, but it's worth remembering by anyone who thinks Edwards would help there.)
I don't know who he should choose, as he has a lot of very different options that could help accomplish different things. I just don't see how Edwards helps any of that. Can anyone think of reasons why he would be chosen?
Still, he couldn't possibly be dumb enough to name (or even consider) John Edwards as his running mate. Let's go through the reasons:
1. He's run for president twice and lost each time.
2. He ran as the VP nominee only four years ago, and lost. In campaign manager Bob Shrum's book, John Kerry did not have flattering things to say about him.
3. He served a single term in the Senate, and he was one of the most non-descript members of that body. In fact, despite his silly two Americas presidential campaign speech, he was fairly moderate in the Senate and ran as such.
4. He's served in no other elective position.
5. Obama's problem (or one of them, which may or may not even end up being a problem) is that he's inexperienced. Edwards is the only possible nominee who is even less experienced. His selection would do nothing to help satisfy voters who are concerned about that.
6. Edwards is a southerner, but he's moved too far to the left for him to do any good there any more. Kerry won no southern states in 2004. (I know that Obama isn't Kerry, and also that McCain isn't Bush, but it's worth remembering by anyone who thinks Edwards would help there.)
I don't know who he should choose, as he has a lot of very different options that could help accomplish different things. I just don't see how Edwards helps any of that. Can anyone think of reasons why he would be chosen?
Friday, July 18, 2008
The ultimate Obama profile
The Onion is in on the joke:
NEW YORK—Hailed by media critics as the fluffiest, most toothless, and softest-hitting coverage of the presidential candidate to date, a story in this week's Time magazine is being called the definitive Barack Obama puff piece.
"No news publication has dared to barely scratch the surface like this before," columnist and campaign reporter Michael King wrote in The Washington Post Tuesday. "This profile sets a benchmark for mindless filler by which all other features about Sen. Obama will now be judged. Just impressive puff-journalism all around."
The 24-page profile, entitled "Boogyin' With Barack," hit newsstands Monday and contains photos of the candidate as a baby, graduating from Columbia University, standing and laughing, holding hands with his wife and best friend, Michelle, greeting a crowd of blue-collar autoworkers, eating breakfast with diner patrons, and staring pensively out of an airplane window while a pen and legal pad rest comfortably on his lowered tray table.
NEW YORK—Hailed by media critics as the fluffiest, most toothless, and softest-hitting coverage of the presidential candidate to date, a story in this week's Time magazine is being called the definitive Barack Obama puff piece.
"No news publication has dared to barely scratch the surface like this before," columnist and campaign reporter Michael King wrote in The Washington Post Tuesday. "This profile sets a benchmark for mindless filler by which all other features about Sen. Obama will now be judged. Just impressive puff-journalism all around."
The 24-page profile, entitled "Boogyin' With Barack," hit newsstands Monday and contains photos of the candidate as a baby, graduating from Columbia University, standing and laughing, holding hands with his wife and best friend, Michelle, greeting a crowd of blue-collar autoworkers, eating breakfast with diner patrons, and staring pensively out of an airplane window while a pen and legal pad rest comfortably on his lowered tray table.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Comics: Hands off Obama!
The late-night talk-show hosts have apparently decided that Barack Obama cannot be made fun of in their monologues. The reasons are numerous (or so they say), including that the audience members don't like it and that a bunch of white (guilty liberal) people are uncomfortable making fun of him since he's black. I guess the Obamessiah is beyond criticism.
Then there is this:
Why? The reason cited by most of those involved in the shows is that a fundamental factor is so far missing in Obama: There is no comedic "take" on him, nothing easy to turn to for an easy laugh, like allegations of Bill Clinton's womanizing, or President George W. Bush's goofy bumbling or Al Gore's robotic persona.
"The thing is, he's not buffoonish in any way," said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson's monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Letterman. "He's not a comical figure," Barry said...
Jimmy Kimmel, the host of the ABC late-night talk show "Jimmy Kimmel Live," said of Obama, "There's a weird reverse racism going on. You can't joke about him because he's half-white. It's silly. I think it's more a problem because he's so polished, he doesn't seem to have any flaws."
What?
Oh dear, people have lost their minds about this guy. Here's some easy stuff that's non-political: he's inexperienced, and there is also the way his followers swoon over his every utterance. That's not too controversial, I would think, even to Obama supporters. I could come up with lots more that many people wouldn't agree with, but then I've never agreed with the cartoonish depiction of our current president, not that it ever stopped these guys from continuing that.
The worst part is this:
But Barry said, "I think some of us were maybe too quick to caricature Al Gore and John Kerry and there's maybe some reluctance to do the same thing to him."
Wow. I mean, wow. I can't believe he actually came out and said it. He gets honesty points, at least, for admitting that he doesn't want to doom his favored candidate. After all, he didn't mention how much these writers screwed over Bob Dole in 1996, did he?
Then there is this:
Why? The reason cited by most of those involved in the shows is that a fundamental factor is so far missing in Obama: There is no comedic "take" on him, nothing easy to turn to for an easy laugh, like allegations of Bill Clinton's womanizing, or President George W. Bush's goofy bumbling or Al Gore's robotic persona.
"The thing is, he's not buffoonish in any way," said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson's monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Letterman. "He's not a comical figure," Barry said...
Jimmy Kimmel, the host of the ABC late-night talk show "Jimmy Kimmel Live," said of Obama, "There's a weird reverse racism going on. You can't joke about him because he's half-white. It's silly. I think it's more a problem because he's so polished, he doesn't seem to have any flaws."
What?
Oh dear, people have lost their minds about this guy. Here's some easy stuff that's non-political: he's inexperienced, and there is also the way his followers swoon over his every utterance. That's not too controversial, I would think, even to Obama supporters. I could come up with lots more that many people wouldn't agree with, but then I've never agreed with the cartoonish depiction of our current president, not that it ever stopped these guys from continuing that.
The worst part is this:
But Barry said, "I think some of us were maybe too quick to caricature Al Gore and John Kerry and there's maybe some reluctance to do the same thing to him."
Wow. I mean, wow. I can't believe he actually came out and said it. He gets honesty points, at least, for admitting that he doesn't want to doom his favored candidate. After all, he didn't mention how much these writers screwed over Bob Dole in 1996, did he?
Monday, July 14, 2008
The enthusiasm gap
Stephen F. Hayes has written a Weekly Standard piece on the difference in support for the two presidential candidates. Here are some polling results:
There are risks to this strategy and the enthusiasm gap is chief among them. A Washington Post/ABC News poll last month found that nearly half of the liberals surveyed are enthusiastic about supporting Barack Obama, while only 13 percent of conservatives are enthusiastic about McCain. More generally, 91 percent of self-identified Obama supporters are "enthusiastic" about their candidate; 54 percent say they are "very enthusiastic." Seventy-three percent of such McCain supporters say they are "enthusiastic" about his candidacy, but only 17 percent say they are "very enthusiastic."
A USA Today/Gallup poll reported similar findings last week. That survey shows that while 67 percent of Barack Obama's supporters are "more excited than usual about voting" for their candidate, only 31 percent of John McCain's supporters can say the same thing. More troubling for the McCain campaign is that more than half of those who identified themselves as McCain backers--54 percent--say they are "less excited than usual" about their candidate.
Hayes then goes on to list some of the issues that McCain disagrees with conservatives. He doesn't really dig and get to the biggest one, though.
You know what's coming: immigration. It's not mentioned once. I presume that's because The Weekly Standard is basically for open borders. Hayes must have had to sift through a bunch of people to interview before be found a "typical voter" who didn't bring up the issue.
Yes, McCain believes in the global warming nonsense. He's also squishy on all kinds of other issues. That's annoying, but the reason I will not support him is his open-borders/amnesty stance. The thing is, Obama's no better on it, but for Obama it's just another issue. For McCain amnesty is more of a personal quest, and when he becomes president he will fight hard for it starting on day one. Obama will be more concerned with having the government take over our health care industy.
There are risks to this strategy and the enthusiasm gap is chief among them. A Washington Post/ABC News poll last month found that nearly half of the liberals surveyed are enthusiastic about supporting Barack Obama, while only 13 percent of conservatives are enthusiastic about McCain. More generally, 91 percent of self-identified Obama supporters are "enthusiastic" about their candidate; 54 percent say they are "very enthusiastic." Seventy-three percent of such McCain supporters say they are "enthusiastic" about his candidacy, but only 17 percent say they are "very enthusiastic."
A USA Today/Gallup poll reported similar findings last week. That survey shows that while 67 percent of Barack Obama's supporters are "more excited than usual about voting" for their candidate, only 31 percent of John McCain's supporters can say the same thing. More troubling for the McCain campaign is that more than half of those who identified themselves as McCain backers--54 percent--say they are "less excited than usual" about their candidate.
Hayes then goes on to list some of the issues that McCain disagrees with conservatives. He doesn't really dig and get to the biggest one, though.
You know what's coming: immigration. It's not mentioned once. I presume that's because The Weekly Standard is basically for open borders. Hayes must have had to sift through a bunch of people to interview before be found a "typical voter" who didn't bring up the issue.
Yes, McCain believes in the global warming nonsense. He's also squishy on all kinds of other issues. That's annoying, but the reason I will not support him is his open-borders/amnesty stance. The thing is, Obama's no better on it, but for Obama it's just another issue. For McCain amnesty is more of a personal quest, and when he becomes president he will fight hard for it starting on day one. Obama will be more concerned with having the government take over our health care industy.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Robert Redford is a dumbass
Sorry for the profanity, but it's true:
Asked by Michael Dwyer, film correspondent of The Irish Times , if he was looking forward to "regime change" in the US, Redford said: "Yes. Where my country is at the moment, I'm not confident of anything. I'm hopeful.
"I think Obama is not tall on experience . . . but I believe he's a really good person. He's smart. And he does represent what the country needs most now, which is change.
"I hope he'll win. I think he will. If he doesn't, you can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye. I think we need new voices, new blood. We need to get a whole group out, get a new group in."
Wait, what?
Parties do disappear, even in our system of winner-take-all elections (as opposed to the European parliamentary system). See the Whigs. They don't happen because of a single election loss of one person. They occur because of internal dissention over issues, or even a single issue. The Whig link above mentions how they collapsed, for example.
To pound the point home further, even if McCain beats Obama, the Democrats are still almost assured of majorities in both houses of Congress. Are they just going to become independents?
Asked by Michael Dwyer, film correspondent of The Irish Times , if he was looking forward to "regime change" in the US, Redford said: "Yes. Where my country is at the moment, I'm not confident of anything. I'm hopeful.
"I think Obama is not tall on experience . . . but I believe he's a really good person. He's smart. And he does represent what the country needs most now, which is change.
"I hope he'll win. I think he will. If he doesn't, you can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye. I think we need new voices, new blood. We need to get a whole group out, get a new group in."
Wait, what?
Parties do disappear, even in our system of winner-take-all elections (as opposed to the European parliamentary system). See the Whigs. They don't happen because of a single election loss of one person. They occur because of internal dissention over issues, or even a single issue. The Whig link above mentions how they collapsed, for example.
To pound the point home further, even if McCain beats Obama, the Democrats are still almost assured of majorities in both houses of Congress. Are they just going to become independents?
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Obama wants everyone to speak Spanish
Anybody who thinks he's not left-wing (as opposed to merely liberal) needs to follow Barack Obama more closely:
Obama starts off this clip by opposing English as an official language, seems to emphasize that teaching kids Spanish is more important than teaching them English, and then says Americans are an embarrassment because they only know one language when they go to Europe. It may be the one of the most grotesquely arrogant, out of touch displays that I have seen from someone running for President in the last decade.
The video shows it all.
UPDATE: Transcript:
You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."
Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this.
Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they'll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.
You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?
You know, no, I'm serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable.
So, not only does he want everyone here to know English (and for what purpose? So we can tell illegals how to mow our lawns? Spanish isn't exactly useful in international commerce.), but who gives a crap what Europeans think of us? If it wasn't for us they would have been overrun by the Soviets. If they don't like us maybe they could build the biggest and baddest economy and military in the world like we did.
Obama starts off this clip by opposing English as an official language, seems to emphasize that teaching kids Spanish is more important than teaching them English, and then says Americans are an embarrassment because they only know one language when they go to Europe. It may be the one of the most grotesquely arrogant, out of touch displays that I have seen from someone running for President in the last decade.
The video shows it all.
UPDATE: Transcript:
You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."
Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this.
Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they'll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.
You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?
You know, no, I'm serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable.
So, not only does he want everyone here to know English (and for what purpose? So we can tell illegals how to mow our lawns? Spanish isn't exactly useful in international commerce.), but who gives a crap what Europeans think of us? If it wasn't for us they would have been overrun by the Soviets. If they don't like us maybe they could build the biggest and baddest economy and military in the world like we did.
Monday, July 7, 2008
McCain's running mate
Here's an e-mail to KJL at The Corner on why McCain should pick Bill Bennett as the Republican VP nominee.
Lots of good reasons are given, and I think he'd make one the top few choices possible. (I think disaffected social conservatives would flock to McCain if Bennett was with him.) I'd like to see Mitt Romney picked, but then I have a bit of an irrational politi-crush on him. Voters just don't really like him very much, which is a hindrance. I do wonder if he would be a better VP candidate than presidential candidate, though, as he would be able to focus on his core strengths that McCain would want him for, such as economic experience.
On the other hand, Amnesty John isn't getting my vote anyway, and I'd hate to see Romney's political career destroyed by having to back McCain's immigration plans.
On a final note, I think Obama's VP pick is going to be a much more interesting decision, as he's kind of blank slate to many people beyond the "hope/change" stuff.
Lots of good reasons are given, and I think he'd make one the top few choices possible. (I think disaffected social conservatives would flock to McCain if Bennett was with him.) I'd like to see Mitt Romney picked, but then I have a bit of an irrational politi-crush on him. Voters just don't really like him very much, which is a hindrance. I do wonder if he would be a better VP candidate than presidential candidate, though, as he would be able to focus on his core strengths that McCain would want him for, such as economic experience.
On the other hand, Amnesty John isn't getting my vote anyway, and I'd hate to see Romney's political career destroyed by having to back McCain's immigration plans.
On a final note, I think Obama's VP pick is going to be a much more interesting decision, as he's kind of blank slate to many people beyond the "hope/change" stuff.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
What if Obama was a Republican?
Good question!
Could you imagine the horror if it was the Republican party swooning over an oratory candidate in massive rallies with messianic overtones? The comparison to Hitler would be immediate and relentless. MSNBC would have a constant split screen showing how it was the 1930s all over again.
Could you imagine the horror if it was the Republican party swooning over an oratory candidate in massive rallies with messianic overtones? The comparison to Hitler would be immediate and relentless. MSNBC would have a constant split screen showing how it was the 1930s all over again.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Obama and his Social Security tax proposal
The details and political effects of Obama's plan to expand the Social Security payroll tax to income above $250,000 are pretty well spelled out by Mickey Kaus. I find it fascinating, though I don't agree with it all. It's worth a read.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Now here's a boring post
I am tired and near the end of my day, but I'd like to point out a couple of articles I read that I enjoyed today. They are long, so be warned.
The first is by Noel Sheppard on how our national energy policies are the main driver behind $4 per gallon gasoline. Here's an excerpt:
Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent.
Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period?
Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage.
Think oil would be $135 a barrel if that were the case?
The second is by Noemie Emery on why Obama, along with most other Democratic presidential candidates over the past 40 years, has trouble with blue-collar white Democrats (who he calls "Jacksonians"). It's also why I think McCain is going to win in November. Hint: it's not race:
Now let us imagine a different candidate, one who looks like Barack Obama, with the same mixed-race, international background, even the same middle name. But this time, he is Colonel Obama, a veteran of the war in Iraq, a kick-ass Marine with a "take no prisoners" attitude, who vows to follow Osama bin Laden to the outskirts of Hell. He comes from the culture of the military (the most color blind and merit-based in the country), and not the rarefied air of Hyde Park. He goes to a church with a mixed-race congregation and a rational preacher. He has never met Bill Ayers, and if he did he would flatten him. He thinks arugula is a town near Bogota and has Toby Keith on his favorites list. Would he strike no chords at all in Jacksonian country? Does anyone think he would lose 90 to 9 in Buchanan County? Or lose West Virginia by 41 points? For those Jacksonians who would be fine with a black man in the White House (not as tiny a group as Newsweek thinks), Colonel Obama is the one we are waiting for. When we will get him is anyone's guess.
The first is by Noel Sheppard on how our national energy policies are the main driver behind $4 per gallon gasoline. Here's an excerpt:
Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent.
Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period?
Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage.
Think oil would be $135 a barrel if that were the case?
The second is by Noemie Emery on why Obama, along with most other Democratic presidential candidates over the past 40 years, has trouble with blue-collar white Democrats (who he calls "Jacksonians"). It's also why I think McCain is going to win in November. Hint: it's not race:
Now let us imagine a different candidate, one who looks like Barack Obama, with the same mixed-race, international background, even the same middle name. But this time, he is Colonel Obama, a veteran of the war in Iraq, a kick-ass Marine with a "take no prisoners" attitude, who vows to follow Osama bin Laden to the outskirts of Hell. He comes from the culture of the military (the most color blind and merit-based in the country), and not the rarefied air of Hyde Park. He goes to a church with a mixed-race congregation and a rational preacher. He has never met Bill Ayers, and if he did he would flatten him. He thinks arugula is a town near Bogota and has Toby Keith on his favorites list. Would he strike no chords at all in Jacksonian country? Does anyone think he would lose 90 to 9 in Buchanan County? Or lose West Virginia by 41 points? For those Jacksonians who would be fine with a black man in the White House (not as tiny a group as Newsweek thinks), Colonel Obama is the one we are waiting for. When we will get him is anyone's guess.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Spot the media whitewash
I shouldn't expect much from his hometown paper, but could they at least pretend to have some objectivity when it comes to covering Barack Obama? I don't think I have to spell out out how ridiculous this article is.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
ScarJo isn't dumb, but she is naive
Scarlett Johansson is an Obama supporter. Unlike most dopey celebrities, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she actually thinks about issues before she speaks. She reads The Economist, for example. I'm not trying to say that The Economist is a paragon of intelligent writing, but it's an interesting, well-written magazine that's not completely beholden to left-wing ideas.
So she e-mailed Obama once, and he replied. They have since had correspondence via e-mail (this can't make Michelle Obama very happy). Anyway, this "shocked" Johansson. Victorino Matus at The Weekly Standard has a list of other things that shock her:
Her personal trainer has time for hands-on demonstrations.
Her masseur cancels other appointments to prolong his massages free of charge.
Her cable installer shows up 30 minutes early and checks and double-checks the cable connections. In her bedroom.
Bartenders make her fancy cocktails on the house and they never skimp on the alcohol.
Air-conditioning repairman returns her call in minutes, offers same day service as well as dinner.
Auto mechanics offer to reupholster her carseats for free and keep the old ones for themselves.
Waiters are constantly bringing her free food and feeding her by hand because it’s “family-style.”
So she e-mailed Obama once, and he replied. They have since had correspondence via e-mail (this can't make Michelle Obama very happy). Anyway, this "shocked" Johansson. Victorino Matus at The Weekly Standard has a list of other things that shock her:
Her personal trainer has time for hands-on demonstrations.
Her masseur cancels other appointments to prolong his massages free of charge.
Her cable installer shows up 30 minutes early and checks and double-checks the cable connections. In her bedroom.
Bartenders make her fancy cocktails on the house and they never skimp on the alcohol.
Air-conditioning repairman returns her call in minutes, offers same day service as well as dinner.
Auto mechanics offer to reupholster her carseats for free and keep the old ones for themselves.
Waiters are constantly bringing her free food and feeding her by hand because it’s “family-style.”
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Obama's chief economic advisor hearts Wal-Mart
This is quite an interesting development. I had Obama pegged as basically a socialist on economic policy. Today he hired his chief economic advisor on his campaign, and it's a guy who likes Wal-Mart (from a liberal point of view):
So there's quite a lot of grumbling in labor circles today about his bringing on Jason Furman as his chief economic policy advisor, because Furman wrote a key, 2005 defense (.pdf) of Wal-Mart from the left, titled, unironically, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story."
The piece makes two arguments. The first is that Wal-Mart lowers prices, so low-income people (and others) can buy more. The second is that Wal-Mart's low-wage jobs are consistent with the Clintonite philosophy of making work pay, and that the right fix is to have government subsidize the low-wage workers' salaries and help provide them healthcare. He denies that Wal-Mart lowers local wages.
Except for having government throw tax money at poor people, I agree with the rest of the points as summarized here. Organized labor, which hates Wal-Mart with a passion even as many of its members love shopping there, is less than thrilled:
Furman's arrival is one more mark of the transition to a general election in which labor may grumble, but really has nowhere else to go, and in which virtually all major unions backed his rivals in the primary -- . giving them seriously diminished clout on his campaign.
Here is the kicker, which helps to soften my anti-Obama stance somewhat, at least given that he's a Democrat:
But is the hire reflective more broadly that Obama's more a Clinton-style centrist than a man of labor? The case has been made that that's a false distinction, but there's not much evidence (aside from a couple of weeks in Ohio) for Obama as an economic populist.
Indeed Austan Goolsbee, another economist and key Obama advisor, also seems capable of mentioning Wal-Mart without spitting. He wrote in his Times column last year, in making the case that American workers are more productive htan others, that "companies like Wal-Mart seem to be more adept at translating technology into productivity than anyone else."
So there's quite a lot of grumbling in labor circles today about his bringing on Jason Furman as his chief economic policy advisor, because Furman wrote a key, 2005 defense (.pdf) of Wal-Mart from the left, titled, unironically, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story."
The piece makes two arguments. The first is that Wal-Mart lowers prices, so low-income people (and others) can buy more. The second is that Wal-Mart's low-wage jobs are consistent with the Clintonite philosophy of making work pay, and that the right fix is to have government subsidize the low-wage workers' salaries and help provide them healthcare. He denies that Wal-Mart lowers local wages.
Except for having government throw tax money at poor people, I agree with the rest of the points as summarized here. Organized labor, which hates Wal-Mart with a passion even as many of its members love shopping there, is less than thrilled:
Furman's arrival is one more mark of the transition to a general election in which labor may grumble, but really has nowhere else to go, and in which virtually all major unions backed his rivals in the primary -- . giving them seriously diminished clout on his campaign.
Here is the kicker, which helps to soften my anti-Obama stance somewhat, at least given that he's a Democrat:
But is the hire reflective more broadly that Obama's more a Clinton-style centrist than a man of labor? The case has been made that that's a false distinction, but there's not much evidence (aside from a couple of weeks in Ohio) for Obama as an economic populist.
Indeed Austan Goolsbee, another economist and key Obama advisor, also seems capable of mentioning Wal-Mart without spitting. He wrote in his Times column last year, in making the case that American workers are more productive htan others, that "companies like Wal-Mart seem to be more adept at translating technology into productivity than anyone else."
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Why Hillary lost
The Boston Globe has an article today with a solid wrap-up of how Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic Presidential nomination that a year ago looked inevitably hers. Here's the part that I think really nails it, at least on a practical grassroots level:
...Her campaign had not set up grass-roots organizations in states that came after the initial four contests, analysts said, and was counting on her superior name recognition to carry her to victory in the Super Tuesday contests.
On Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, while Obama concentrated on building support in smaller states with caucus systems, where he could take advantage of his more enthusiastic backers, Clinton set her sights on the big, traditionally Democratic states. She won most of the biggest voting that day - including California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts - but ended up no better than even with Obama in delegates.
The Democrats' proportional system of awarding delegates gives special advantages to candidates who win states by large margins - and Obama cleaned up in the smaller states that Clinton had ignored while remaining close enough in the larger ones to minimize her gains in delegates there.
While her remaining hope the last few months to superdelegates was to say that she would be the stronger candidate in November due to her having more popular votes in the primaries, caucuses reward candidates with very intense suport, even if it's smaller. Hillary's base of old people just isn't going to turn out for them. Obama did a great job of taking advantage of the system (and I don't mean that to be negative).
...Her campaign had not set up grass-roots organizations in states that came after the initial four contests, analysts said, and was counting on her superior name recognition to carry her to victory in the Super Tuesday contests.
On Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, while Obama concentrated on building support in smaller states with caucus systems, where he could take advantage of his more enthusiastic backers, Clinton set her sights on the big, traditionally Democratic states. She won most of the biggest voting that day - including California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts - but ended up no better than even with Obama in delegates.
The Democrats' proportional system of awarding delegates gives special advantages to candidates who win states by large margins - and Obama cleaned up in the smaller states that Clinton had ignored while remaining close enough in the larger ones to minimize her gains in delegates there.
While her remaining hope the last few months to superdelegates was to say that she would be the stronger candidate in November due to her having more popular votes in the primaries, caucuses reward candidates with very intense suport, even if it's smaller. Hillary's base of old people just isn't going to turn out for them. Obama did a great job of taking advantage of the system (and I don't mean that to be negative).
Friday, May 23, 2008
John McCain is a liar
John McCain saved his presidential ambitions last year by ditching his rhetoric about amnesty for illegal aliens. He started saying that he heard the American people, that they want border security first, and that he would work on that before he would push for amnesty as president.
I never actually believed this, but I was willing to at least believe him since despite his many flaws, he had a record of being a man of his word.
That's no longer true.
Here he is last night speaking to a business group:
He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.
John Hawkins reaches the following conclusion:
Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.
I agree completely. McCain WILL NOT have my vote in November, regardless of what happens from now until then. If we have amnesty (and we likely will, since Obama is also in favor of open borders), I'd rather it not have the support of a Republican president. Let the Democrats be blamed for its disastrous results.
Oh yeah, about that post the other day? Now Obama isn't the only one I'll be going after.
UPDATE: Ace is with me, and of course does a better job of saying it:
What surprises me is that John McCain fetishizes his own integrity and honor and yet apparently doesn't think a promise made to conservatives "counts" -- perhaps he imagines we're children, or perhaps legally incompetent lunatics, who cannot enter binding contracts, and thus the contract he made with us can be voided without consequence?
I don't know. For a man to whom integrity and honor is supposedly so important one would imagine he'd be slightly less cavalier about lying and breaking a promise, even if he didn't like that promise.
...and...
This is the nasty edge of McCain's conception of himself as impeccably righteous -- he believes he's so above the rest of us in terms of honesty and integrity he can also decide what constitutes a lie and what constitutes bad behavior and what represents a broken promise. As in, his mind, his presidency is absolutely indispensible to America, tiny deceptions like this are not merely excusable, but downright imperative, and thus justified.
I never actually believed this, but I was willing to at least believe him since despite his many flaws, he had a record of being a man of his word.
That's no longer true.
Here he is last night speaking to a business group:
He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.
John Hawkins reaches the following conclusion:
Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.
I agree completely. McCain WILL NOT have my vote in November, regardless of what happens from now until then. If we have amnesty (and we likely will, since Obama is also in favor of open borders), I'd rather it not have the support of a Republican president. Let the Democrats be blamed for its disastrous results.
Oh yeah, about that post the other day? Now Obama isn't the only one I'll be going after.
UPDATE: Ace is with me, and of course does a better job of saying it:
What surprises me is that John McCain fetishizes his own integrity and honor and yet apparently doesn't think a promise made to conservatives "counts" -- perhaps he imagines we're children, or perhaps legally incompetent lunatics, who cannot enter binding contracts, and thus the contract he made with us can be voided without consequence?
I don't know. For a man to whom integrity and honor is supposedly so important one would imagine he'd be slightly less cavalier about lying and breaking a promise, even if he didn't like that promise.
...and...
This is the nasty edge of McCain's conception of himself as impeccably righteous -- he believes he's so above the rest of us in terms of honesty and integrity he can also decide what constitutes a lie and what constitutes bad behavior and what represents a broken promise. As in, his mind, his presidency is absolutely indispensible to America, tiny deceptions like this are not merely excusable, but downright imperative, and thus justified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)