A Second Hand Conjecture

For those of us not living in the concentrated sprawl of the coastal and Midwestern metropoli, it is often extremely perplexing how urban Democratic mayors in places like Chicago and Philadelphia can compile lengthy and embarrassing records of incompetent and failed policies, yet remain wildly popular within their urban constituencies. Even as these mayors accumulate massive public debts while governing with a seeming indifference to economic and developmental realities, there is often a certain immutability to their popularity. It is doubly surprising how mayoral characters of this sort are consistently reelected to office in enormous majorities, frequently over vastly superior Republican opponents.

It occurs to me that as the United States becomes ever more urban concentrated, is it not conceivable that we should expect to see this bizarre phenomenon replicated in national politics?

(more…)

No Comments »

Rick Santelli just went off on Obama’s housing proposal live on CNBC from the commodities trading floor in Chicago.

It’s now the headline on Drudge:

VIDEO: ‘The government is promoting bad behavior… do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages… This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It’s a moral hazard’… MORE…

TRADERS REVOLT: CNBC HOST CALLS FOR NEW ‘TEA PARTY’; CHICAGO FLOOR MOCKS OBAMA PLAN

Who is John Galt?

1 Comment »

Somewhat tortuously, the State Department has congratulated the victory of Hugo Chavez’s referendum to revoke term limits on his rule as a victory for participatory democracy, while faintly recommending a new respect for multiparty pluralism. Consider for a moment if you were to receive official foreign congratulations for your civic virtue, upon learning that a president of the United States had just succeeded in repealing the 22nd Amendment, allowing him to serve forever as permanent head of state. A cold experience, surely.

Congratulating this referendum is an insult to liberal forces in Venezuela which have been battling mightily against long odds and at risk of arrest, to preserve some semblance of a liberal society in a country deeply mired in the grip of crypto-fascist hysteria.

One of the most regrettable ideas of the Bush years was the then president’s bizarre belief that any political outcome was ultimately justifiable if it were arrived at by course of a general election. Something that even the experience of an elected Hamas government in Gaza apparently failed to completely dissuade him of. It’s a pity to learn that we’ve traveled even further down this misbegotten path with a new administration.

It should be understood that it is the liberal dispossition –one that supports and informs constitutional restraint on state power– not the democratic procedure, that distinguishes Western democracy from being the will of a fanatical mob. Liberalism is the soul that makes democracy moral and viable. The United States should not praise any democratic outcome as instinsically worthwhile, as Bush once did. What it should praise are liberal democratic outcomes….and Chavez’s coupling of potential permanence with his already near autocratic authority, is no victory for liberalism.

4 Comments »

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are 11.6 million unemployed persons in the United States today. Meanwhile, the current estimate of the total cost of the spending package passed to alleviate this distress is $827 billion.  President Obama has framed his defense of this expenditure largely on job loss grounds. Lately he has gone so far as to warn that without passage of the package in full, the unemployment rate  (currently at 7.6%) could hit double digits.

Let’s assume he’s right. Let’s even assume the total unemployment figure doubles to 23.2 million persons — a number which would likely require massive business failure and the collapse of entire industries to achieve. But for the price of the recovery package to head this off, we could afford to pay each of these 23.2 million future unemployed persons over $35,000 a year…which is almost exactly what the average individual income in the United States was in 2008. But here’s the thing, we wouldn’t have to pay them that, because there aren’t 23.2 million persons unemployed yet. Maybe there will be at some point in the future, but then again maybe there won’t.

The staggering expansion of government spending we are witnessing from those who used to restrict their advocacy to social safety nets for if someone happened to fall, is enough to make you nostalgic. Nostalgic for the days of profligate and wasteful welfare benefits, which seem positively frugal compared to this new invoice. Bring back the caricature welfare queen says me, with her Cadillac in a public housing garage. Incidentally, the base price for a Cadillac CTS is about $35,000 too. We could buy every currently unemployed person two of them with that recovery bill’s price tag.

Looking backward, the great value of the welfare system is that it is reactive, individual and conditional. That is to say, you have to personally lose your job in order to receive federal benefits. Now we’re apparently shifting to a model where massive indirect economic assistance is rendered for people who are currently still employed, because they might become unemployed at some point in the future. I prefer the old model in retrospect.

2 Comments »

Here’s a site to add to your bookmarks and check every once in awhile. It’s a site called PolitiTruth.com set up by the St. Petersburg Times to keep track of all 510 of might as well call him President now Obama’s campaign promises. He’s already got 2 listed as completed and none as broken. So far so good. No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy is still listed as “in the works.” though. Guess he hasn’t decided whether to follow through with that poodle poll yet.

(H/T Ronald Bailey at Reason)

No Comments »

Here’s a bit of good news from earlier. As you may have seen, reports have been swirling about a plan by Obama to open direct talks with Hamas. Those reports are evidently groundless, as a statement from Brooke Anderson was quite strong:

“The President-elect has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements. The President elect’s repeated statements are accurate. This unsourced story is not.”
(Haaretz)

A question would then enter though. If it is so unacceptable to negotiate with Hamas absent these conditions, why is it forgivable to open diplomatic dialogue with its chief sponsor, Iran? It can’t escape notice that Iran similarly fails Obama’s preconditional test: it does not recognize Israel, nor does it renounce violence.

No Comments »

You know you’re in an American recession when British observers start reflecting on the inevitability of American decline, and volunteering their allegedly privileged perspective gained from the fall of the British Empire (Mark Steyn, as always, excepted). So it is that Matthew Parris joins an old tradition and writes this of the incoming Obama administration:

Though he may not yet know it, the role for which the US President-elect has been chosen is the management of national decline.
(The Times)

It should still be within our memory of course, that it was widely believed that Richard Nixon held this dubious distinction in 1968. Indeed, Nixon himself believed it, and his assessment that the United States had passed into decline informed almost all of his foreign policies. Mr. Parris’ countryman, the historian and strategist Paul Kennedy, had thought even more seriously on this issue and concluded in 1987 that the apex of American power had been reached in the 1970s, after which the United States had passed into another ultimately nonexistent long-term decline.

Retrospectively, this is all rather embarrassing. The United States is naturally vastly more powerful today than it was in the 1960s or 1970s, and the structure which enabled those gains commercially, socially and politically, remains unassailed. Given past experience, it’s entirely likely in coming years that we will feel similarly embarrassed by the current declinism.

But Mr. Parris is obliquely correct on one matter though:

Mr Obama will have to find a way of being honest with Americans about their country’s fall from predominance. Reading, as I often do, the furiously chauvinistic online reaction from US citizens to any suggestion that their country can be beaten at anything, I quail for him.
(The Times)

The experience of Nixon –pursuing policies to cushion the fall of an America which was just beginning to scale new heights– might suggest that it doesn’t really matter what Obama thinks. But if Americans themselves genuinely started to believe in their impending decline, and shelved their ambitions in favor of the crowded retirement home of great powers, they could actualize the prediction.

As with American greatness in light of her continental scale, vast and growing labor force, enormous capital resources and limitless dreams, a prophecy of American decline is largely contingent on whether or not Americans can be persuaded to self-fulfill it. If they cannot, that faint light on the horizon is another dawn, not an inevitable sunset. After all, the retirement home for the false futurists of American decline is an even more crowded house.

No Comments »

Roland picks up an interesting piece by Jacob Heilbrunn for the National Interest, describing an ongoing purge of neoconservative intellectuals from the American Enterprise Institute, allegedly instigated by Vice President Danielle Pletka. So far Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht are gone, with Joshua Muravchik soon leaving. Others are said to be soon in following.

This could signal the reemergence of an old conflict over machtpolitik and just war doctrine, which used to exist in Republican security policy circles (ie, coercion-for-values vs. coercion-for-interests). If Pletka is indeed purging with intent, we may even expect AEI to shift its attitude toward the Middle East, Asia and Africa, given how much more amenable authoritarian regimes tend to be to interest pressure.

And the idealism of the AEI departed is considerable. Gerecht for instance wrote a fascinating but bizarre book I read in the late 1990s under the pen name Edward Shirley, in which he smuggled himself into Iran in the trunk of a car, essentially for the romance of it.

(more…)

2 Comments »

If Rahm Emmanuel falls, it’s “what did the president-elect know, and when did he know it” time. You cannot get any closer to Obama. An ugly business. 

2 Comments »

By Fred Thompson. With only the most minor quibbles I not only laughed, but cried. Pretty much dead on:

The sad thing is that it isn’t only “liberal” economists, it is the meat of the profession and plenty of so called “conservative” politicians.

Hat Tip: McQ

No Comments »

In commenting on Barack Obama’s renewed pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, Con Coughlin observes that most of the assembled army of Al Qaeda jihadists currently confined there would likely be released for lack of evidence, if the United States mandated their transfer to the civilian court system for trial. He then wonders aloud:

There have already been suggestions that former Gitmo detainees have carried out terror attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq after being released from Gitmo. What if one of those released by President Obama then masterminded a repeat of the 9/11 attacks?
(Daily Telegraph)

For some of us, it is astonishing that there can be an assumption made by anyone that future terrorist attacks wouldn’t happen, should one precipitate the release of the Gitmo rogues gallery. The question before us would seem to be merely one of scale and target location. It is after all extremely implausible that upon their release, the detainees would suddenly and collectively renounce their violent religious war or its tactics, as an act of reciprocal beneficence.

(more…)

No Comments »

Pretty neat video visualization of edits to the Barack Obama Wikipedia entry from 2005 to election day.

No Comments »

You may have noticed there’s an ugly and unfortunate current developing in some of the protests against Proposition 8 in California. Namely white gays, blaming blacks for its passage. Even Andrew Sullivan, who has been blaming blacks for a couple of days now, has noticed that perhaps things are getting a little out of hand.

Altogether, as Mark Steyn puts it, this wasn’t quite the possibility for post-election civil discord people were anticipating:

The media were warning that if the election went the wrong way there’d be riots, but I didn’t realize they meant Klansmen in Abercrombie polos roaming West Hollywood itching for a rumble.
(NRO)

One of the most visible recurring problems here is the frustration many gay men and women are experiencing with the question of how blacks could “betray” the cause of universal civil rights, after such a long and noble struggle of their own to secure them. Confronting this matter directly in an opinion in the Los Angeles Times, Jasmyne Cannick raises several worthwhile points of explanation. Most notably, a misunderstanding on the part of white gays about both the origins and requirements of an appeal to the black community:

[T]he black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity — not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.

[...]

Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park — the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification — to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn’t effective outreach either.
(LAT)

In a consistent vein she adds on her site:

[G]ays are headed to Long Beach tonight to protest. I wonder though why they are moving from Westwood to Long Beach and skipping past Compton, Watts, and South L.A.?
(Jasmyne Cannick)

While fear and conceit are definitely in evidence, more pertinent is the matter of misdirection in the division between political friends and enemies. In ordinary times, the necessary accord for putting these two parties back into a grudging spiritual alignment would be to unify against the common enemy: the invidious conservative power structure.

Thus the real trouble is that simultaneous with the passage of Proposition 8, this conservative power structure and government has been quite visibly thrown down by the election of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The once titanic foe is now in pieces, scattered and preoccupied with internal reexamination and a painful reconsolidation project. It isn’t a party to this debate, it isn’t even a party with an agenda of any kind at the moment. So it is that without a Tito to oppose in common struggle, the Balkan coalition of Yugoslavian dissidents become Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, almost eager to turn on each other. Head north to peaceful Slovenia says me. Call it Oregon.

6 Comments »

Delighted with the American election result for whatever reason, Kurdish villagers in Cavustepe, Turkey to honor Barack Obama. They also smeared the blood of the offering on Obama campaign posters, purportedly for good luck. Now there’s a weekend project for the press corps.

On a similar note, here’s another reminder that conservatives desperately need a new commentariat in addition to new leadership in the congress. Krauthammer sees Obama as the next Reagan striding across the globe, and Mary Katharine Ham reminds us of David Brooks in October, confessing to being warm quivering goo in the hands of the giant. One should always demand more than surrogacy from the opposition. One might even insist on opposition.

No Comments »

Ben Armbruster at ThinkProgress is upset Fred Barnes and Dick Morris are blaming Obama for the post-election declines in the stock market. Armbruster’s case is a little defensive and misjudged (he cites the New York Times’ opinion, as if that would mollify critics), but then the transition from implacable critic of a government to determined apologist for a proto-government has been swift for all at TP.

However, in a general way he does have a point to object on I think. People are out to make cash gains where and when they can in this market, and opportunities have been rather few lately. To the extent that there was a specific macro cause, it seems to me the abrupt election day rally was the more likely culprit for the subsequent sell-off. That is what we’ve seen in other isolated spikes on events this year. The Saturnian habit for feeding yourself by eating your children, rather than letting them grow up to sow the fields, if you will.

Although it should be said that Dick Morris’ point that provoked Armbruster’s ire is not entirely unreasonable either. There’s certainly some incentive for selling on a small gain now, if you expect capital gains taxes to be substantially higher later. Comprehensively rejecting that as a buried motive is not reasonable.

No Comments »

If the public outpouring of mourning for the loss of fascist sympathizer Jörg Haider were not enough to injure your esteem for contemporary Austrian public affairs, here’s another such moment. Klaus Emmerich, the highly esteemed former editor of Austria’s state television broadcaster, took the occasion of the election of Barack Obama to disgrace himself and embarrass his country:

“I do not want the western world being directed by a black man. And if you say this is a racist remark, I say you are damn right it is.”

“[Barack Obama's election is] a highly disturbing development [because] blacks are not as far advanced in the civilization process nor in their political progress.”
(Daily Mail)

He also described Obama as possessing a “devil-like talent” as well as being a man “branded” by his race. I think it goes without saying that we Americans should tolerate no lessons in the making of devils or the branding of human beings from Austria.

But there’s always hope for the salvation of the national reputation of course. As the tired old joke goes, Austria did convince the world that Hitler was German and Beethoven Austrian. Given such a “devil-like talent”, we might expect to hear Angela Merkel forced to apologize for Herr Emmerich’s remarks in coming days.

(HT: Foreign Dispatches)

2 Comments »

Apparently we’re assigning the .gov domain extension used by federal agencies to campaign slogans now. Although, there is a certain literalism to this one I suppose.

No Comments »

South Korea is getting jittery about prospects for its long sought Free Trade Agreement with the United States, which is still yet to be approved by both countries, and is now under threat from a potentially protectionist Obama administration.

In the past Obama has criticized the agreement as deeply flawed, but has proven somewhat idiosyncratic about that at other times. South Korean Trade Minister Kim Jong-hoon must not like the trend of things though, as today he took the remarkable step of categorically ruling out any renegotiation of the agreement to placate the incoming administration, despite renegotiation talks being something Obama has insisted on.

(more…)

1 Comment »

Barack Obama has been president-elect for exactly one day and James Carville is already arguing for an inevitable Democratic majority for the next 40 years. Imagine predicting Jim’s claim to fame, the 1992 election, from the vantage of 1952, and you get a sense of the stupendous absurdity of this assessment in the light of history. But he’s not alone of course, Karl Rove and company were quite fond of these sorts of preposterous predictions just four years ago.

One grows weary of the taste such men have for these imperturbable majorities, lasting for decades which will predictably prove impervious to all future events and leaders. It’s not so much the unreality of it which is tiresome, but the very desire for it. Democracy has its own will, events their own timetable, voters change their minds on a dime, and wanting to grind the gears of history to a halt so that your party can rule forever, is a grotesque and contemptible ambition to begin with.

1 Comment »

So we had an election. For those in the new opposition the outcome was variously enviable, troubling, or contemptible. For the victors it was…what else, an occasion for gathering an enormous outdoor rally at an urban theatrical stage to chant.

For my own part, I’m always somewhat reluctant to criticize the phenomenon of Barack Obama, because I cannot do so without confessing I miss the point itself. That’s because I possess a certain immunity to his allegedly irresistible charm. I miss the intimate personal connection supposedly conveyed through elaborately choreographed and cinematically lit mass spectacles, I find his celebrated speeches largely barren of purpose, and perhaps above all, I remain permanently unmoved by the emotional ecstasy his presence provokes in so many.

It should be acknowledged as true that if these impressions precondition your criticism, you do miss the point of Obama as political leader and cultural phenomenon on a profound level (and I surely do). For the critic, this can pose a difficulty that one must become an opponent of the phenomenon itself, rather than just its policy projects. And for the moment, that is to be the adversary of a powerful political tide.
(more…)

No Comments »

Filipino writer Benjamin Pimentel is surprised to discover that his countrymen were among the very few foreign populations to prefer John McCain to Barack Obama in a Gallup international survey. A happy place for Republicans in a lonely world apparently, as in the Philippines the outgoing Bush administration enjoys a 66% approval (more than twice its abysmally low domestic support).

Pimentel then speculated somewhat interestingly that had the Philippines ever applied for US statehood or multi-statehood (the most recent proposals call for the country to be broken into three states: Luzón, Visayas, and Mindanao), McCain would handily win the general election. The Philippines 91 million plus population would easily dwarf the combined advantage of Democratic California and New York in the electoral college.

(more…)

2 Comments »

Alan Reynolds at Cato asks “How’s Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?”

Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 — roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.

How is he going to pay for it?

Read the whole thing for an overview of what Obama is promising in inscreased spending and loss of tax revenues and how his rational for paying for it falls far short of the goal. How will we pay for all this? It’s something I’ve wondered for a long long time and have only found hand waving about corporate loopholes and better efficiencies savings that seem absurd on their face.

That leaves 3 options as I see it. We will do one or some combination of

1. Increase the national debt
2. Raise taxes
3. Cut Spending

Increasing the national debt may not be as politially feasible in the near future as it has been in the past (at least I hope), so it’s clear that can’t account for all of it. I’m not sure how much more the democrats will be able to tax the rich and corporations. I mean, they might try, but I don’t think it will give them the returns they would hope for. So that leaves raising taxes on the rest of us and cutting spending. Any whats the only part of the budge the democrats have been known to favor spending cuts for? The military.

No Comments »

Under McCain and Obama's tax plans 43% and 44% would pay no income tax respectively

Fewer and fewer people are paying income tax and even less will be with either candidates tax plan. I don’t think this would be such a problem if we didn’t have such high spending, growing entitlements, and if so many of these zero income tax filers weren’t getting additional handouts from the government (especially under Obama’s tax “cuts” ie. handouts).

It has been said by an unknown author “[Democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury…” and this is where we’ve been heading for awhile. I think just as a tax plan can be too regressive, it can be too progressive in that it places too high a burden on “the rich” resulting in them leaving (atlas shrugs) or seeking tax shelters, and at the same time having too much of the population with no civic tax obligation leaving them no incentive to constrain public spending (hey, it’s not their money right?)

(HT Greg Mankiw)

No Comments »

You’ve probably heard that John McCain has denounced Barack Obama’s ’spread the wealth’ formulation for tax policy as . It’s an inflammatory but not unjustified charge, as a good definition for socialism is the equitable distribution of wealth to the community, coercively enforced by law.

But here’s a troubling aspect: suppose the electorate doesn’t mind if it is socialism?

(more…)

2 Comments »

interrogating Christopher Hitchens over his rather weakly supported endorsement of Barack Obama for president.

Hitch’s primary position in this chat is that Obama should be supported because he is “evolving” toward support of a more aggressive policy against international terrorism. Hardly the most persuasive pitch to say the least. Perhaps all those years of arguing for evolution through natural selection may have given him too much of a preference for the word itself.

His auxillery case is that McCain has become senile and temperamentally unfit for leadership. That’s something which is supposedly entirely and exclusively demonstrated by his “irresponsible” selection of Sarah Palin for vice president. Hardly more persuasive.

But in reading Hitchens’ recent writing on this matter, one tends to think that last point is what is actually driving the others (something Laura instantly zeroes in on). There is a certain reflexive personal hostility to Mrs. Palin in Hitchens’ writing, which is far closer to a definition of political irresponsiblity than McCain’s selection of her allegedly is.

5 Comments »

According to a new Associated Press poll 46% of the public thinks Barack Obama is too inexperienced for the presidency, and only 36% say the same of Governor Palin. So much for that line of attack.

In contrast with both, a staggering 80% feel Senator McCain has the right experience for the job. An almost unbelievable contrast of opinion in a presidential election.

1 Comment »

Panic grips the Hill, with Democrats planning to distance themselves from Obama and/or abandon criticism of McCain. Geez. Snap out of it guys. You have the most compelling presidential candidate you’ve had since perhaps John F. Kennedy. Almost every conditional variable in the election is heavily slanted in your favor. If you can’t win this one, you can’t win a presidential election.

No Comments »

It was early and he’s modified his views somewhat (and somewhat not), but young state senator Barack Obama couldn’t have been more mistaken about the causes and conditions of the 9/11 attacks.

No Comments »

According to the Associated Press, a sequence of interviews with Democratic leaders has revealed this to be the political plan being recommended to the Obama campaign:

1. Tie the Republican to an unpopular President Bush.
2. Let no charge go unanswered.
3. Stress plans to fix the economy.

Well, I’m not sure any of these items is good advice, with a possible qualitative exception on #3.
(more…)

1 Comment »

“Tattered Hope” by Nathan Rupert

Jason at postpolitical and I often get into testy email arguments about Barack Obama’s alleged “arrogance.” He is quite Greek in the sense that he thinks hubris is the fatal flaw at the heart of all political downfalls. I don’t entirely agree with that, nor with his contention that Obama represents an emblematic example of arrogant leadership. At least no more so than any other politician.

On this matter Jason is of course much more in line with majority opinion on the right than myself. Many conservative bloggers have argued for Obama’s arrogance for so long, it once was merely a kind of premonition.

(more…)

2 Comments »

Some thoughts on why Barack Obama’s effort to portray Sarah Palin as “Pat Robertson with ovaries” (as Andrew Romano inelegantly puts it), isn’t working out so well.

No Comments »

Last week I noticed that Sarah Palin had exceeded Joe Biden slightly in Google returns. Understandably, that has now become an avalanche (Biden: 5.6 million | Palin: 22.4 million). Although it plainly doesn’t exceed John McCain or Barack Obama’s returns as Robert Legge strangely argues.

No Comments »

Boy, this is an unwise move. Perhaps my Tory colleagues are right and Gordon really is tempermentally unfit to govern. It’s an enormous risk and a pointless one, in that it cannot help Obama. British interference in American governance…well, we settled that one at the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

No Comments »

The American Left is about to blow a collective gasket at having Barack Obama’s celeb novelty instantly antiquated and cast aside in favor of Sarah Palin. Lots of posts are appearing all over the web damning not her record, views, or experience, but merely the fact of having to be subjected to obsessive reporting on her. They deserve every excruciating minute of it after subjecting the nation to mindless Obamania for two years. Sit in it and burn, says me.

1 Comment »

Obama’s concession on the surge will probably dominate discussion of the O’Reilly interview, but his increasingly hardline stane against the Iranian theocracy’s regional activities and nuclear program is what should be in line for praise.

No Comments »

Schwarzenegger’s former top strategist Steve Schmidt turned John McCain’s campaign from a dithering defensive wreck, into the aggressive machine that’s been taking the fight to Obama all summer. Most of all, he’s the man who finally got John McCain to stay on message after decades of failure by others.

No Comments »

Sarah will slam Barack Obama in her address tonight. An excerpt:

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”
(CNN)

Ouch. Yesterday, Obama attacked her experience as inferior to his own.

No Comments »

Be honest, wouldn’t you rather see Barack Obama vs Sarah Palin and John McCain vs Joe Biden in the debates?

No Comments »

He’s actually starting to run against Sarah Palin:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We’ve got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,”
(CNN via Adam’s Blog)

No, no, no. You say: “Sarah Palin? I’ll remind you I’m running for the presidency against Senator John McCain, who I’ve worked with and known in the United States Senate, and who on almost every issue of substance today is critically and completely dead wrong…blah, blah, blah”

Instead he bites the equivalent of a frayed fiberglass lure the dumbest bass in Kentucky would pass on.

3 Comments »

Looking at today’s stats, so far the number one search engine keyword bringing people to ASHC is “obama vs palin.” It’s amusing that people seem to think the Republican vice presidential nominee bears easier comparison and contest with the Democratic presidential nominee. I can only agree with them.

No Comments »

Little Miss Attila picks up a good line from Jas at postpolitical. An amusing reversal for the ‘Cheney is the brains of the White House’ school of commentary.

No Comments »

Apparently the teenage pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol has excited social conservatives even more about the candidate (for the when-it-counts demonstration of opposition to abortion). According to Grover Norquist, the soc-cons are “over the moon” in their support.

That’s interesting. It reminds me that historically a minor or unfair scandal that is politically survivable (as this one most certainly is), can often help a young candidate, as it compels his or her supporters to circle wagons and commit to advocacy, as well as forcing his or her opponents to commit to opposition and be proven either wrong or very petty and vindictive. It should also be said that it can have more obvious benefit in stripping the candidate of any illusions about comity in national politics.

(more…)

5 Comments »

It has become a serious question to ask if there is any argument in Obama’s perceived interest that Andrew Sullivan will not advance. In the latest project for that question, Sullivan argues that Palin represents the most “irresponsible” pick for the office of Vice President since Dan Quayle, on grounds of her alleged inexperience. It’s left to John Podhoretz to indirectly remind Mr. Sullivan that Quayle’s twelve years in Washington prior to 1988 made him vastly more experienced than Mr. Sullivan’s own choice for president, Barack Obama.

At some point here Sullivan and the other proponents of this line of attack against Palin have to recognize the untenability of their charge, at least as active supporters of Mr. Obama. I’ve no serious objection to anyone rejecting Sarah Palin for her qualifications after all, I can only object when it’s done in the service of a candidate for higher office who possesses even less relevant experience.

It is impossible to believe that Barack Obama’s resume qualifies him as experienced to assume the presidency at the end of this year, whilst Sarah Palin’s resume does not qualify her to serve as vice president at that same moment. Either they are both unqualified, or neither is. Charles Krauthammer for instance quite logically argues that both are unqualified. To argue one over the other, is only to expose yourself as a fantastically obsequious partisan of the saddest sort.

No Comments »

When all else fails, just start making stuff up. You really have to feel for Barack Obama, who is at heart an enormously classy guy. The DailyKos diarists do him few favors in his efforts to elevate political discourse in this country. (via: Insta)

No Comments »

I was searching for an image on my backup drive today and came across a cache of header graphics I’d thrown together for posts over the years. The diversity of subjects was kind of interesting as a gallery. Here’s a few rather random selections:

The HIV Epidemic:

Eurabia:

Slobodan Milosevic:

(more…)

3 Comments »

CNN and Foxnews are reporting. Pretty surprising to me, but a pleasant surprise.

Discussion topic: I am hearing from Obama supporters that she’s a bad pick because she’s inexperienced. Is this an actual argument Obama wants to make? Does this preclude McCain from attacking Obama’s inexpience? Does the fact that Palin has over 100 times more executive expience than Obama help? (100×0=0)

7 Comments »

The Loft
This an interesting view of why Obama timed his VP announcement the way he did. And, if true, ascribes quite a bit of influence to conservative radio.

No Comments »

Every day, Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson reprints a Letter to the Editor from the New York Times.  This offering left me gape-jawed.

The Professor’s first point is well-taken.

Where is the evidence that Barack Obama is more intelligent than John McCain? Have they taken intelligence tests?

One might argue that because Obama performed better in college than McCain, he is the more intelligent of the two.  Yet, we all know many people where one individual had a superior college record to another, but the first is not more intelligent than the second.  Perhaps Obama is smarter than McCain.  But, I do not know of any overwhelming evidence that this is so.

In any case – let us grant the writer this point.  So what?  While a certain level of intelligence is assuredly required for someone to be a good President – it is but a necessary condition, and not a sufficient one.  A wide variety of other factors matter:  character, experience, leadership, voting record, viewpoints on issues and more.  Essentially, this is Keith’s second point:

Americans want an intelligent president, but not at the cost of good character and good judgment.

If people believe that Obama is a superior candidate to McCain – that is their decision.  Yet, their choice should be based upon this entire set of qualities – not simply which man is smarter than the other.

1 Comment »

That is the Obama campaigns response to McCains surprisingly (in their mind) strong performance in last nights Saddleback Civil Forum on Presidency

McQ finds the charge another in a long line of examples of misunderestimation by Democrats. I like this line from McQ:

First, you have to love the reemergence of “nuance”. Barack Obama was too nuanced for you rubes to understand.

Here is the key quote from Andrea Mitchell’s enabling of this childish display of arrogance:

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): Defeat it. Couple of points. One, if I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that done.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Andrea Mitchell, that’s a pretty clear contrast.

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, there was the crisp, immediate, forceful response by John McCain, clearly in a comfort zone because he was with his base. And Barack Obama, taking a risk in going there but seeing an opportunity. And a much more nuanced approach. The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that – what they’re putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.

I thought that was kind of the point of the event, to see how prepared the candidates were. Does that mean Obama wasn’t?

3 Comments »

No Comments »