Obama exploits his still living white grandmother. James Taranto of the WSJ thinks simple decency dictates that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones with discretion, but come on, he’s a politician!
Archive for the 'Politics' Category
Victor Davis Hanson writes about Obama and the poor track record of Northern liberal Democrats in the presidential races: none have won since JFK. The only Dems that have taken the White House were from the South: Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
Hanson goes on to explain why Obama might think this time it will be different. First, there is no incumbent president or vice president running and second, Hanson writes that “Obama offers Americans a sort of collective redemption at home and admiration abroad” due to his African-American status. I was surprised to see Hanson leave out a third reason why Obama thinks he is special, which is that I think Obama thinks he is the next JFK.
In summary, Hanson says that Obama needs to start being more honest with the voters and explain in detail his message for change. Hanson sees Obama as way more liberal than he portrays himself to be, which is why Hanson writes, “The irony is that Obama really does offer a change — not just in matters of youth, race and eloquence, but also in that we have not seen such a leftish philosophy on the national scene in over a generation.”
I totally agree with Hanson and I think as the campaign progresses, we will slowly begin to see what Obama really stands for as the press and conservative groups begin to criticize and question.
I don’t know how she did it, but she did it.
Hillary is still in this race against Obama. Last night she won Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas, snapping Obama’s winning streak. Here’s an explanation of how she won two of the most important races of her campaign.
I think its everyone’s belief that McCain will have an easier time against Clinton as opposed to Obama. I agree with that sentiment, but I’d also like to add that McCain can win over Obama and that it would not be a landslide as I think most Obama supporters would imagine. As talk radio continues to suggest, Obama is unknown and barely has any sort of record. Reporters have just started to ask him really tough questions and he wasn’t able to satisfy them.
If Obama does get the nomination soon, there will be many months for people and reporters to ask him even more tough questions and there will be plenty of opportunities for McCain to attack Obama. There will be plenty more time for Obama’s wife to make a fool out herself and her husband. 2008 will be another very close presidential race.
During the Tuesday night debate between Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of the topics of debate was NAFTA. Tim Russert was the questioner and he did a good job of trying to force both of them to choose a side: are you for NAFTA or against it? Both tried to have it both ways. Even the New York Times is not afraid to point out that both candidates haven’t always been free-trade foes.
But most distressing to me is the fact that both spoke in ways that were highly insulting to Mexico and Canada. As this editorial on IBD states, “Sure, they’re pandering for Rust Belt votes. But do they ever consider the impact of their statements on our allies?”
Both candidates threaten to leave NAFTA unless its “labor and environmental standards” are strictly “enforced.” Enforcement? Hammer? What kind of criminals are these would-be G-men talking about? Evil ruffians out there committing . . . trade.
This not only insults our allies and trading partners, it signals to everyone else that America’s capricious, chest-thumping protectionist ally, Mexico, a third-world nation that is trying hard to transform itself into a first, bears the brunt of this coded jingoism.
That’s because trade pacts these days are about more than just trade — they represent long-term strategic partnerships. But after this talk, who’ll want to sign a permanent trade deal knowing they’ll be threatened by ambitious politicians every election season?
Mexico is not on the same level as the United States and it is probably much harder and more cost prohibitive for them to enforce labor and environmental standards. These candidates are ignoring reality if they think they can force Mexico to meet our higher standards.
Yesterday I read a long post from Market Ticker detailing some of the recent, distressing economic and business news. Here are some things that stuck out for me.
First, durable goods orders decreased 5.3% on the month and inventories are rising. Market Ticker says this is always a sign a recession is on the way (or at least evidence that people are cutting back on spending), which makes sense to me. People used to be buying lots of crap, manufacturers ramped up production bit by bit to meet demand. Now that the demand is no longer there because people are limiting their spending, inventories will naturally rise and products will not get shipped.
Second, he berates the short-sighted politicians for setting America up for an energy crisis. The fools have prohibited any nuclear energy development for the past 30 years. We’ve turned our food into energy and we have refused to drill for oil off our coasts, oil which we know is there.
Also, and a most interesting and scary prediction that there will be a war between China and Russia in the future:
Let’s talk geopolitical risk - what’s really driving metals prices. Its not talked about, but it should be. China has north of 1.2 billion people. Russia, which shares a border with China, has 140 million, or about 1/10th of China.
Russia has a net surplus of both oil and natural gas, and in addition has a surplus of land per-capita. China has a dearth of all three. So long as China can pay for what they need, this is not a serious problem.
But as we flush, to believe that China can turn to internal consumption and pick up the slack, with a per-capita income of under $2,000, where ours is more than 10 times as high, is pure fantasy.
I wouldn’t take that bet at any odds.
What I expect to happen is that China will eventually run out of ability to subsidize, and will turn to what nations have always historically turned to when faced with severe internal pressures and a resource-rich nation sharing a border with them.
Quite distressing news overall, but good news if you happen to be a bear.
A Republican president today proposed a record-setting budget of $3.1 trillion:
WASHINGTON - President Bush sent the nation’s first-ever $3 trillion budget proposal to Congress on Monday, contending that the spending blueprint will fulfill his chief responsibility to keep America safe.
ADVERTISEMENTThe $3.1 trillion proposed budget projects sizable increases in national security but forces the rest of government to pinch pennies. It seeks $196 billion in savings over five years in the government’s giant health care programs — Medicare and Medicaid.
But even with those restraints, the budget projects the deficits will soar to near-record levels of $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, driven higher in part by efforts to revive the sagging economy with a $145 billion stimulus package.
Granted, we have a war on terror to support, but still, a good Republican president would have left office with total government spending as a percentage of GDP nearly unchanged. Ryan Ellis of American Shareholders Association says that for a Republican president to grow the size of government, as an opening bid in his last year of office, is not a good harbinger of where we’ll end up.
If a Republican president thinks its fine to grow government, just think how much the two Dem frontrunners will grow government. Another worry of mine is that people are growing accustomed to the idea of government entitlements. People have no conception of what three trillion is like. The number is hard to put into any sort of meaningful context. This is a dangerous situation when we’re talking about your, mine, and our money because I feel it gives the false impression that money is no object. Tim over at The Mess Greenspan Made says, “[N]o one really has any concept of just how big a number that is and, therefore, no one really seems to know or care if it is too big, too small, or just right.”
The fact that people might not care whether $3.1 trillion is too big, small, or just right is a scary prospect.
Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay:
WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC’s “This Week,” she said: “I think there are a number of mechanisms” that are possible, including “going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment.”
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, “it will be affordable for everyone.”
Of course it will be affordable for everyone, especially when you STEAL from the most productive citizens and when you STRIP their liberties from them. These Dems make the silliest fuss about how our government should not be “spying” on us, how we should not be in this stupid war in Iraq, about how we shouldn’t sacrifice our freedoms for security, yet they go on to say in the same goddamn breath that we should sacrifice our freedoms so everyone can have cheap health care, which is a form security and wellbeing.
To me, the biggest difference in the government doing what it thinks it needs to do to protect us from terrorists and the government doing what it thinks it needs to do to give us cheap health care is that people are largely incapable of insulating themselves from the threat of terrorists. I can’t collect foreign intelligence, I can’t tell the State or Defense Departments to work whatever magic they might have. I am extremely dependent on this government to protect me from military threats, whereas I and other people are less dependent on the government in regards to health care.
Has any of these Dems explained why taking away freedoms and liberties for cheap health care better than taking away freedoms and liberties in order to kill terrorists before they kill me?
Despite how he hates how Iraq has long been mismanaged, Ralph Peters writes that there is not a sensible way of leaving Iraq that won’t undercut American security and won’t produce massive innocent casualties. Continue reading ‘What Will Happen If/When We Leave Iraq?’
This is not the first time a liberal newspaper has misportrayed what is actually going on in Iraq, nor will this be the last. Those against the presence of our soldiers in the Middle East will continue to do or say what they think will continue to sway public opinion even more against the war on terror taking place. Continue reading ‘WaPo Iraq Reporting Conflicts With Reality’
On July 2, 2007, President Bush granted Scooter executive clemency, thereby commuting Libby’s prison sentence and leaving him with probation and a hefty $250,000 fine.
I don’t really have any problem with Bush’s decision mainly because the whole mess behind Libby’s indictment and conviction was a non-issue to me. But I am happy for Libby and believe that Bush certainly did nothing wrong by his decision. Much worse people than Libby have received pardons and commutations from the President.  Which obviously brings me to the Clintons. Continue reading ‘The Libby Pardon’
