Hillary Clinton giving advice to her door-to-door campaign workers in Philadelphia, April 19: "Well, I think, just knock on the door and say 'She's really nice,' or you could say it another way, 'She's not as bad as you think.'"
"Seventeen percent of Pennsylvania voters said they will either not vote if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination or will vote for Mr. McCain; 25% said they will do likewise if Mr. Obama wins the nomination." (The Economist, April 26 - May 2, 2008)
If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he absolutely must prevail in Pennsylvania -- the nation's sixth largest state -- if he hopes to win the election. But the exit polls in the recent primary show that the Illinois Senator is unlikely to win the Keystone State.
Consider the views of Catholic voters -- about one-third of registered Democrats -- in Pennsylvania. Of the ones who voted in the primary, six-out-of-10 say they'd vote for Obama in the general election. However, more than two-out-of-10 (21%) say they'll vote for John McCain.
Among white voters, almost one-in-six (16%) said that race had an influence on their vote. And of those, nearly one-in-twelve (8%-plus) said they would not vote for Obama in November.
When Gov. Ed Rendell make a similar observation months ago, he was condemned as uttering racially insensitive comments. Insensitive? Perhaps. Correct? Absolutely.
In the Pennsylvania exit polls, many Democrats made sarcastic references to Obama's "bitter" comments (about people clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia). Some of those voters joked that they were much too "bitter" ever to vote for Obama. Others, according to The Economist, accused Obama of "clinging" to a religious figure (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) notable for hating America and white people.
Especially in Rust Belt States (including Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan), Obama has a real problem attracting white voters. According to the Senator's campaign managers, that's because the the voters don't "know" him.
But whose fault is that? Many Caucasians are evaluating Obama on the principle that you know a man by the company he keeps. As long as that company includes Rev. Wright, terrorist William Ayers, and influence-buyer Tony Rezko, the electorate doesn't like what it sees.
Obama's problems run deep. For example, four weeks ago -- as the Wright controversy -- approached white heat, Obama delivered what his minders called "a major speech on race." I saw the entire speech and paid careful attention, but now -- less than a month later -- I can't recall a single phrase. Can you?
Showing posts with label The Economist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Economist. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Obama: NOT Presidential Material
IMPORTANT NOTE: IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT BLACK CONSERVATIVES -- ESPECIALLY YOUNG BLACK CONSERVATIVES -- ONE IMPORANT WAY YOU CAN DO SO BY VISITING A KEY WEB SITE: http://hiphoprepublican.com/ Today, HipHop has a great video destroying the Democrats' arguments on the Iraq War. Please go there and write a comment of encouragement. "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." (Benj. Franklin)
Today in Pennsylvania, there's a lot of excitement about the primary. This afternoon, I'll be writing about a devastating article in The (London) Economist. It discusses Barack Obama and his now-famous comments about average Americans who "cling" to religion, guns, racism, and anti-immigrant feelings.
Right now, on TV an Obama commercial is running that says, "Barack Obama doesn't take money from 'Big Oil' or lobbyists." That's of course not true, as a recent USA Today expose pointed out. Obama has many lobbyists raising funds for him, and he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil industry executives. Go figure!
You’ve already heard a lot about Barack Obama’s so-called “bitter” comments. As columnist Jack Kelly said Sunday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the national media – strongly pro-Obama -- emphasizes the word “bitter” because it’s the least objectionable part of the candidate’s statement. The most objectionable part is where the candidate says that typical Americans cling to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia (hatred of foreigners).
The best analysis I’ve seen of Senator Obama’s statement is in The Economist (April 19-25 , 2008, p. 44 ). Here are some excerpts:
“Barack Obama has a magic way with word, but when the magic deserts him, it deserts him big time. April 6th saw Mr. Obama making the worst verbal gaffe of this seemingly endless campaign. He told a group of fat cats in San Francisco that the reason why he is finding it hard to appeal to blue collar voters in Pennsylvania is because they are ‘bitter.’ They have suffered from so many broken promises that they prefer to ‘cling’ to God, guns, and xenophobia rather than reaching out for a helping hand from the government.
“ . . . Conservative radio talk show hosts have been bellowing 24/7 that Mr. Snooty knows nothing about the real America.
“And no wonder! Mr. Obama has always been in danger of coming across as an elitist. He was educated at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He not only reads books but writes them [Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope]. He once urged a group of Iowa farmers to check out the price of arugula in Whole Foods – an upmarket store that has no branch in the entire state. His Ivy League educated wife [Michelle] – who is paid nearly $300,000 a year for promoting ‘community outreach’ – is in the habit of telling audiences how difficult it is to afford ballet classes for their daughters.”
Those of us in America might ask: Why do we have to rely on a British journalist to provide such insights? Why is our own national media seemingly mesmerized by such a flawed candidate as Barack Obama? Perhaps because they’re easily mesmerized?
In Pittsburgh, about 15 miles from where I live, the Post-Gazette recently endorsed Obama on the grounds that he would take America “beyond partisanship.” Oh really? The (non-partisan) National Journal recently assessed Obama as the most liberal – and thus among the most partisan – member of the U.S. Senate. The Post-Gazette editorial board (alas, Jack Kelly is not a member) knows Obama’s record, but they chose to misrepresent him to their readers.
In Dreams From My Father, Obama describes his remarkable grandmother, whom he’s now using in ads, as “a typical white person.” What if John McCain, or any other Caucasian, had described ANYONE as a “typical Black person?” That white American would no longer be seen as a serious candidate for the presidency.
Media outlets like the Post-Gazette are engaging in a journalistic form of Affirmative Action. They’re holding Obama to much lower standards than they are Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
In fact, the media’s failure to live up to its obligations is a major reason people are turning to the new media for information. In fact, it’s one reason you’re here rather than relying on a manipulative news organ like the Post-Gazette.
Thanks for visiting this site – and keep coming back. Thanks especially to regular visitors from Pittsburgh, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Cranberry Township, PA; Jefferson, Maryland; Rome, Georgia, Ewa Beach, HI; Anchorage, AK; Eagle River, AK; Wasilla, AK; Colorado Springs, CO; Queensland, Australia; Houston, TX; Austin, TX; St. Augustine, FL; Oklahoma City, Ok; Baton Rouge, LA; Rochester, NY (my birthplace); Dover, DE; Boston, MA; and Manchester, NH. There are many more regular visitors, and I'll mention them in my next column. Your comments are welcome!
The following message is from Craig Bardo, a Black conservative, radio talk show host, and pro-life activist. I hope you'll read it and do what you can to support Craig's efforts.
So often, we who oppose the practice of contraceptive abortion are accused of not caring for those that survive the abortion decision. For many black folk, the right to life movement is seen as a largely white effort and one that we may intellectually support but haven't found a way to contribute our time or limited financial resources.
I've had occasion to visit Grace Pregnancy Resource Center here in Nashville, which supports 200 young women who have made the decision to bring their children to term rather than abort them. This center is 3 buildings down from the second largest abortion clinic in the city. 47 of the women in the program were deterred from having an abortion by the staff at the Center.
One young woman visited this morning, thinking that she was entering the abortion clinic; the counselor had an opportunity to visit with her,but she went up the street anyway, I don't know what she decided to do. 39% of these young women are black 22% are Hispanic.
I host a radio program here in the city and tomorrow, I'm kicking off a fund raiser for the Center that will go through next Wednesday. We're on the air from 6-8 am CST, M-F, Brian Harris the president of Tennessee Right to Life along with their spokeswoman Carolyn Smith, who happens to be Emmett Till's cousin. They'll be in the studio at 7:00 am to talk about the good work they're doing.
These girls need your help.You can listen in on the program via live streaming audio @ WVOL1470.com or WVOL1470.net. You can call in with your pledge of support to (615) 737-9865 or (615)227-1470. Make your checks payable to Tennessee Right to Life (Grace Pregnancy Resource Center).
If you want to donate on line, go to their website, www.TNRTL.org and make sure to put The Craig Bardo Show in the memo box so they can track your contribution.Thanks for your support and please pray for this effort, these young women are counting on it!
Today in Pennsylvania, there's a lot of excitement about the primary. This afternoon, I'll be writing about a devastating article in The (London) Economist. It discusses Barack Obama and his now-famous comments about average Americans who "cling" to religion, guns, racism, and anti-immigrant feelings.
Right now, on TV an Obama commercial is running that says, "Barack Obama doesn't take money from 'Big Oil' or lobbyists." That's of course not true, as a recent USA Today expose pointed out. Obama has many lobbyists raising funds for him, and he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil industry executives. Go figure!
You’ve already heard a lot about Barack Obama’s so-called “bitter” comments. As columnist Jack Kelly said Sunday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the national media – strongly pro-Obama -- emphasizes the word “bitter” because it’s the least objectionable part of the candidate’s statement. The most objectionable part is where the candidate says that typical Americans cling to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia (hatred of foreigners).
The best analysis I’ve seen of Senator Obama’s statement is in The Economist (April 19-25 , 2008, p. 44 ). Here are some excerpts:
“Barack Obama has a magic way with word, but when the magic deserts him, it deserts him big time. April 6th saw Mr. Obama making the worst verbal gaffe of this seemingly endless campaign. He told a group of fat cats in San Francisco that the reason why he is finding it hard to appeal to blue collar voters in Pennsylvania is because they are ‘bitter.’ They have suffered from so many broken promises that they prefer to ‘cling’ to God, guns, and xenophobia rather than reaching out for a helping hand from the government.
“ . . . Conservative radio talk show hosts have been bellowing 24/7 that Mr. Snooty knows nothing about the real America.
“And no wonder! Mr. Obama has always been in danger of coming across as an elitist. He was educated at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He not only reads books but writes them [Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope]. He once urged a group of Iowa farmers to check out the price of arugula in Whole Foods – an upmarket store that has no branch in the entire state. His Ivy League educated wife [Michelle] – who is paid nearly $300,000 a year for promoting ‘community outreach’ – is in the habit of telling audiences how difficult it is to afford ballet classes for their daughters.”
Those of us in America might ask: Why do we have to rely on a British journalist to provide such insights? Why is our own national media seemingly mesmerized by such a flawed candidate as Barack Obama? Perhaps because they’re easily mesmerized?
In Pittsburgh, about 15 miles from where I live, the Post-Gazette recently endorsed Obama on the grounds that he would take America “beyond partisanship.” Oh really? The (non-partisan) National Journal recently assessed Obama as the most liberal – and thus among the most partisan – member of the U.S. Senate. The Post-Gazette editorial board (alas, Jack Kelly is not a member) knows Obama’s record, but they chose to misrepresent him to their readers.
In Dreams From My Father, Obama describes his remarkable grandmother, whom he’s now using in ads, as “a typical white person.” What if John McCain, or any other Caucasian, had described ANYONE as a “typical Black person?” That white American would no longer be seen as a serious candidate for the presidency.
Media outlets like the Post-Gazette are engaging in a journalistic form of Affirmative Action. They’re holding Obama to much lower standards than they are Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
In fact, the media’s failure to live up to its obligations is a major reason people are turning to the new media for information. In fact, it’s one reason you’re here rather than relying on a manipulative news organ like the Post-Gazette.
Thanks for visiting this site – and keep coming back. Thanks especially to regular visitors from Pittsburgh, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Cranberry Township, PA; Jefferson, Maryland; Rome, Georgia, Ewa Beach, HI; Anchorage, AK; Eagle River, AK; Wasilla, AK; Colorado Springs, CO; Queensland, Australia; Houston, TX; Austin, TX; St. Augustine, FL; Oklahoma City, Ok; Baton Rouge, LA; Rochester, NY (my birthplace); Dover, DE; Boston, MA; and Manchester, NH. There are many more regular visitors, and I'll mention them in my next column. Your comments are welcome!
The following message is from Craig Bardo, a Black conservative, radio talk show host, and pro-life activist. I hope you'll read it and do what you can to support Craig's efforts.
So often, we who oppose the practice of contraceptive abortion are accused of not caring for those that survive the abortion decision. For many black folk, the right to life movement is seen as a largely white effort and one that we may intellectually support but haven't found a way to contribute our time or limited financial resources.
I've had occasion to visit Grace Pregnancy Resource Center here in Nashville, which supports 200 young women who have made the decision to bring their children to term rather than abort them. This center is 3 buildings down from the second largest abortion clinic in the city. 47 of the women in the program were deterred from having an abortion by the staff at the Center.
One young woman visited this morning, thinking that she was entering the abortion clinic; the counselor had an opportunity to visit with her,but she went up the street anyway, I don't know what she decided to do. 39% of these young women are black 22% are Hispanic.
I host a radio program here in the city and tomorrow, I'm kicking off a fund raiser for the Center that will go through next Wednesday. We're on the air from 6-8 am CST, M-F, Brian Harris the president of Tennessee Right to Life along with their spokeswoman Carolyn Smith, who happens to be Emmett Till's cousin. They'll be in the studio at 7:00 am to talk about the good work they're doing.
These girls need your help.You can listen in on the program via live streaming audio @ WVOL1470.com or WVOL1470.net. You can call in with your pledge of support to (615) 737-9865 or (615)227-1470. Make your checks payable to Tennessee Right to Life (Grace Pregnancy Resource Center).
If you want to donate on line, go to their website, www.TNRTL.org and make sure to put The Craig Bardo Show in the memo box so they can track your contribution.Thanks for your support and please pray for this effort, these young women are counting on it!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Obama & Clinton: "Demolition Derby"
"You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price."
If you want to see the best material about the American political scene, stay away from CNN and MSNBC -- and instead go to a London-based publication, The Economist. There are several good political writers on the magazine's staff, but the best one goes by the name of "Lexington." Here's what he says in the April 5-11, 2008 issue (page 39):
"It looks as if Pat Robertson and his cohorts were right all along: God really is a Republican. The Democrats ought to have little problem retaking the White House this November, given the unpopular war, the weakening economy, and the anti-Republican backlash. But instead of measuring the White House drapes, they are engaged in what Bill Kristol, a Republican commentator, has gleefully dubbed a 'rollicking demolition derby.'"
In the essay, Lexington adds, "The Democrats are all too aware that their civil war [in the primaries] could spell disaster. A cavalcade of senior Democrats, including senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd, have advised Mrs. Clinton to retire to her room with a glass of whisky and a loaded revolver." In his piece, Lexington gives some very good reasons why Mrs. Clinton should NOT withdraw from the race -- and provides some insights you haven't seen before.
Why you haven't seen such analysis in America -- and especially, why the Clinton campaign isn't heralding it -- are the big questions.You've heard that Obama has won the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the most popular votes. All that is true (although it doesn't include popular votes from Michigan and Florida, both of which Clinton won), but it is one of those truths that may contain a larger falsehood.
Here's "Lexington's" unique analysis of Senator Clinton's situation: "She can . . . make a plausible case that she is the stronger candidate."How? "She [can make the point that] she so far [has] won 14 states with 44% of the country's population (16 states with 53% of the population if you include Florida and Michigan) compared with [Obama's] 27 states with 34% of the population. She has won Florida and Ohio, two battleground states, and will almost certainly win [another,] Pennsylvania."
Steve adds: The main mistake the Clinton campaign made was to pay little attention to the caucus states, starting with Iowa and extending to places like Wyoming and Idaho. Obama wounded her with a thousand cuts in the smaller states, and that's a major reason he's ahead in pledged delegates. Another element that hurt her was the bloc voting by Blacks in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Is Senator Obama going to win SC, GA, MS, and LA? He's not going to come close to winning any of them. In the general election, he's going to have real problems winning most of the large states Mrs. Clinton carried in the primaries (such as TX, OH, and PA). Obama will do better than Kerry in many of the "red states," but he looks unlikely to win any of them.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, as looks likely, he will be a "sure thing" in three states: Illinois, Rhode Island, and Vermont. He's likely, though not a certainty, to win Maine, Connecticut, and perhaps Delaware. In every other state, McCain should be the favorite. As Lexington explains the poor position of Senators Obama and Clinton: "You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price." Overall, things are looking very good for John McCain.
Over this weekend, I'll have additional material about how The Economist sees the emerging race for the presidency. A yearly subscription to the publication costs an imposing $99, but it's worth it.
If you want to see the best material about the American political scene, stay away from CNN and MSNBC -- and instead go to a London-based publication, The Economist. There are several good political writers on the magazine's staff, but the best one goes by the name of "Lexington." Here's what he says in the April 5-11, 2008 issue (page 39):
"It looks as if Pat Robertson and his cohorts were right all along: God really is a Republican. The Democrats ought to have little problem retaking the White House this November, given the unpopular war, the weakening economy, and the anti-Republican backlash. But instead of measuring the White House drapes, they are engaged in what Bill Kristol, a Republican commentator, has gleefully dubbed a 'rollicking demolition derby.'"
In the essay, Lexington adds, "The Democrats are all too aware that their civil war [in the primaries] could spell disaster. A cavalcade of senior Democrats, including senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd, have advised Mrs. Clinton to retire to her room with a glass of whisky and a loaded revolver." In his piece, Lexington gives some very good reasons why Mrs. Clinton should NOT withdraw from the race -- and provides some insights you haven't seen before.
Why you haven't seen such analysis in America -- and especially, why the Clinton campaign isn't heralding it -- are the big questions.You've heard that Obama has won the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the most popular votes. All that is true (although it doesn't include popular votes from Michigan and Florida, both of which Clinton won), but it is one of those truths that may contain a larger falsehood.
Here's "Lexington's" unique analysis of Senator Clinton's situation: "She can . . . make a plausible case that she is the stronger candidate."How? "She [can make the point that] she so far [has] won 14 states with 44% of the country's population (16 states with 53% of the population if you include Florida and Michigan) compared with [Obama's] 27 states with 34% of the population. She has won Florida and Ohio, two battleground states, and will almost certainly win [another,] Pennsylvania."
Steve adds: The main mistake the Clinton campaign made was to pay little attention to the caucus states, starting with Iowa and extending to places like Wyoming and Idaho. Obama wounded her with a thousand cuts in the smaller states, and that's a major reason he's ahead in pledged delegates. Another element that hurt her was the bloc voting by Blacks in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Is Senator Obama going to win SC, GA, MS, and LA? He's not going to come close to winning any of them. In the general election, he's going to have real problems winning most of the large states Mrs. Clinton carried in the primaries (such as TX, OH, and PA). Obama will do better than Kerry in many of the "red states," but he looks unlikely to win any of them.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, as looks likely, he will be a "sure thing" in three states: Illinois, Rhode Island, and Vermont. He's likely, though not a certainty, to win Maine, Connecticut, and perhaps Delaware. In every other state, McCain should be the favorite. As Lexington explains the poor position of Senators Obama and Clinton: "You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price." Overall, things are looking very good for John McCain.
Over this weekend, I'll have additional material about how The Economist sees the emerging race for the presidency. A yearly subscription to the publication costs an imposing $99, but it's worth it.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
MCCAIN CAN'T WIN WITHOUT INDEPENDENTS
A GREAT MOMENT IN AMERICAN POLITICS!
Above, Barack Obama's supporters in Texas give him a standing ovation for blowing his nose. Then, the entire audience pulled their handkerchiefs, chanted "Yes we Can!" and blew their own noses in solidarity with the candidate. As you may already know, this web site is the best place to go for humorous photos of Barack Obama.
How important are Independent voters to John McCain's efforts to win the presidency? They are absolutely crucial. There is no way McCain could even come close by relying mainly on conservative Republicans.
Consider the following anecdote from the Febuary 16 - February 22 issue of the The Economist:
"One of the most interesting political videos on YouTube features a young Obama supporter, Derrick Ashong. A camera-wielding interviewer collars Mr. Ashong in the street and starts to pepper him with questions. The interviewer assumes that his victim's casual appearance -- he is wearing a baseball hat, a shell necklace and is chewing gum -- betokens an equally casual approach to politics."
"'Do you have any specifics?' he demands aggressively. 'What are their policies?'"
"Mr. Ashong delivers a series of carefully argued replies that could form the basis of an editorial in a serious newspaper. The interviewer is increasingly abashed. But, having delivered his defense of Barack Obama, Mr. Ashong concluded the interview by saying, 'I'm independent. I'm not a Democrat. I might vote for McCain.'"
Of the 10 Republican men who started out running for the presidential nomination, only John McCain has the ability to attract a significant number of Independent and Democratic voters. Some of the talk show hosts and others who have criticized McCain tend to dismiss questions about electability. They ignore the fact that, nationally, there are a lot more registered Democrats than Republicans.
As The Economist points out, "Over 30% of American call themselves Independents -- more than call themselves Republicans and about the same as call themselves Democrats. These Independents are younger and better educated than average Americans. They are pragmatic, anti-ideological and results-oriented, hostile to both Big Labor and Big Government, but quite prepared to see the government take an active role in dealing with problems like global warming."
How will such Independents align themselves when they find out Obama is a believer in Big Government and has a 100% favorable voting record in favor of Big Labor? Clearly, John McCain believes most of them will vote for him -- and there's no reason now to dispute his view.
Currently, Obama has a high approval rating (62%) among Independents.
However, when voters discover that Obama doesn't have an independent bone in his body, his approval rating should go down -- perhaps resembling a rock thrown in a pond. When it becomes clear that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate, he will lose much of his current standing with Independents.
What is McCain's potential appeal to the critical bloc of Independents? As The Economist explains, "The very qualities of Mr. McCain that infuriate Republic conservatives endear him to Independents. . . . Mr. McCain has demonstrated his [voting] strength among Independents: he led the field among them by ten points in New York, 23 points in California and 31 points in Illinois."
As Independents go, so goes the election. John McCain knows that, and he is prepared to exploit his advantages with people who identify themselves as neither Republicans nor Democrats. The fact that he's clearly not a right-wing ideologue is going to help him greatly in the General Election.
Friday, February 22, 2008
New York Times Disgrace, "Obamanomics"
New York Times: Disgraceful Behavior
Michael Schuyler, who administers McCain Victory 08, which, if you're a blogger, you should join today, wrote the following letter to the New York Times regarding its smear-campaign against Senator John McCain.
Well, it's painfully obvious Jayson Blair [the reporter who made up many stories and whose activities resulted in the firing of the Times’ executive editor and the managing editor} is still working for the New York Times, a venerable name in American newspaper history that has fallen to the depths of the National Enquirer with unsubstantiated, sensationalistic stories such as the one today on John McCain. As they say: "You got nothin'!" and the fact that they ran such a story shows to what depths of journalistic malfeasance the Times has fallen.
It's no secret that newspapers have fallen on hard times as the Internet sucks advertising revenue and readership away from printed paper. Not only is Craig's List cheaper, it's more effective. The number of laid off news and support staff from newspapers around the country is nothing short of alarming. Unfortunately, newspaper management resorts to sensationalism to gain back readers by making every two-sentence tidbit in Police Blotter into a 'front page' story. Newspapers have done it to themselves by reacting this way, and by making up stories as the Times has done today.
The New York Times has become an institution without honor, without integrity. It's sad to see this happen, but the Times is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is no longer the case that any thinking person looks to the Times as a source of unbiased information. The Times, it seems, can no longer be trusted.
Well, it's painfully obvious Jayson Blair [the reporter who made up many stories and whose activities resulted in the firing of the Times’ executive editor and the managing editor} is still working for the New York Times, a venerable name in American newspaper history that has fallen to the depths of the National Enquirer with unsubstantiated, sensationalistic stories such as the one today on John McCain. As they say: "You got nothin'!" and the fact that they ran such a story shows to what depths of journalistic malfeasance the Times has fallen.
It's no secret that newspapers have fallen on hard times as the Internet sucks advertising revenue and readership away from printed paper. Not only is Craig's List cheaper, it's more effective. The number of laid off news and support staff from newspapers around the country is nothing short of alarming. Unfortunately, newspaper management resorts to sensationalism to gain back readers by making every two-sentence tidbit in Police Blotter into a 'front page' story. Newspapers have done it to themselves by reacting this way, and by making up stories as the Times has done today.
The New York Times has become an institution without honor, without integrity. It's sad to see this happen, but the Times is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is no longer the case that any thinking person looks to the Times as a source of unbiased information. The Times, it seems, can no longer be trusted.
Read The Economist Instead of the Times
Michael, an excellent letter. I may be one of the few people in the nation (even the liberals are holding their noses) that isn't "disappointed" by the Times. But that's because my expectations for the paper are extremely low. It’s little more than a propaganda sheet.
A year ago, I started subscribing to The (London) Economist, which is far superior to anything I see in the U.S. Oh, in 2000, The Economist endorsed John McCain for President, and in 2008 they're getting ready to do so again. They see him as an honorable man who doesn't share the foreign policy fantasies of, say, Barack Obama. I keep quoting The Economist in my blog, hoping to influence a few other people to shell out $99 a year for it.
The Economist recently had a story discussing the fact that many things 40-45 years ago were a lot better than they are now. For example, we had one-third the rate of teen suicides. The divorce rate was much, much lower. The population in the penitentiaries was about 40% of today’s number of inhabitants in the lock-up. The rates of murders and violent crimes generally were a fraction of what they are today -- as were the number of abortions.
Someone like Barack Obama can't handle such facts, which they are of course. i doesn't lead to audience chanting, Hare Krishna style, "Yes, we can." An Obama can't -- while a McCain can -- say, you know, we used to do a lot of things better than we do them now -- or will perhaps do them in the future.
I hear the commercial with the far-left Harvard Law professor, Lawrence Tribe, talking about Obama's "brilliance." I don't see it. I see a person demanding that we redistribute more income and concentrate less on securing this nation from people who hate us.
Stephen Moore has an article in Friday's Wall Street Journal about Obama’s disastrous economic policies. Last night on the Glenn Beck show, More said that "Yes, we can" means, among other things, yes we can raise the effective tax rate for people in NJ, NY, and CA to 60%. See, the government gets sixty cents, and the people working their butts off get 40 cents. "Yes, we can?" But "No, we absolutely should not.” Call it Obamanomics.
Those of us who strongly support John McCain have a lot of work to do. And it's critically important that we begin today!
Friday, February 15, 2008
OBAMA: THE SENATOR'S NEW CLOTHES
Is change in the abstract good? Not unless you're Senator Obama.
Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard Law professor who regularly mistakes left-wing ideology for intelligence, appears in a commercial where he calls his former student Barack Obama "brilliant." In fact, both Professor Tribe and Senator Obama look at the U.S. Constitution as an Etch-a-Sketch on which liberal jurists should scrawl their political prejudices. Brilliance and balderdash aren't compatible.
Obama, despite the free rides he took through various prestigious institutions (especially Harvard), isn't brilliant. He's a highly skilled manipulator of people, especially the young. He has two powerful mantras, hope and change, which he uses to fire up unsophisticated audiences.
Last night, I was gnashing my teeth about Obama's skillful use of the concept of change. My thinking went this way: of course, even the Senator's youthful audiences know in their heart-of-hearts that change is a coin flip. About half the time it's bad. Hillary Clinton has been trying lately, with limited success, to make that point.
As I was thinking about the suspect use of the word change, I began to read an article in The Economist (my favorite magazine). It was a review of Eric Weiner's provocatively titled new book: The Geography of Bliss: One Grump's Search for the Happiest Places in the World.
Senator Obama would not like Mr. Weiner. Why? Because Weiner points out that change isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Understand that Obama was born in 1960. Of course, some good things have happened since then, such as the country's repudiation of segregation and Google's development of Blogger.
However, Weiner points out that many changes -- perhaps most of them, if I may utter a heresy -- have been bad ones. Comparing 1960 to the present, Wiener notes that the "divorce rate has doubled, the teen-suicide rate tripled, the violent-crime rate has quadrupled, and the prison population [largely Blacks and Hispanics] quintupled." The Economist adds, "Also, depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems are on the rise . . . ."
Senator Obama, meet Mr. Weiner (an NPR reporter). Of course, people at NPR are mainly liberals, but Weiner appears to have snuck in, perhaps through the back door. He asks the critical question about the change mantra: are the changes that have taken place for the good -- or not?
In 1960, Black female teenagers had an "illegitimacy" rate lower than that of white teens. Currently, however, Black females aged 15-19 have children out-of-wedlock at twice the level of white females. The pregnancy (and abortion) rates for Hispanic females exceed even the rate for Blacks. When a society basically pays teenagers to have babies, they will do so. The end result will be a disruption of families, which is exactly what's happened in Black communities.
I fear that Prof. Tribe's "brilliant" Obama will never get the point that conservatives grasp almost intuitively: that the past was in some ways (not all) better than the present. Obama will bore us all half-to-death pointing out how he's The Ghost of Christmas Future, while John McCain is the Ghost of Christmas past.
In fact, the change Obama advocates (basically income redistribution, inertia in education, and involuntary health programs) will aggravate the problems Weiner outlines. The Senator believes that change -- in the abstract -- is good. Obviously, he's wrong. When he and his student audiences are chanting "Yes we can!" we need to chant back, "But you shouldn't!"
John McCain is a man of my own generation, when many things (including the teen pregnancy rates) frankly were much better. In fact, the best thing McCain could do is to take us "back to the future." That is, he could find out what we were doing right in 1960 -- and that we've been doing wrong since that time.
That's certainly not Obama's approach. The programs he advocates -- more spending, more dependence on government, less emphasis on families -- are the same ones that have caused many of the problems we face. The statistics Weiner cites about divorce, teen suicide, violent crime, and prison populations all derive from the unintended consequences of what Lyndon Johnson called "The Great Society."
Obama, supposedly an agent of positive change, is really advocating more of the same -- and the result would of course change for the worse. Tomorrow isn't always better than yesterday, and the past isn't always superior to the future. And when the Emperor -- or a Senator -- has no clothes, it's essential to proclaim that fact.
Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard Law professor who regularly mistakes left-wing ideology for intelligence, appears in a commercial where he calls his former student Barack Obama "brilliant." In fact, both Professor Tribe and Senator Obama look at the U.S. Constitution as an Etch-a-Sketch on which liberal jurists should scrawl their political prejudices. Brilliance and balderdash aren't compatible.
Obama, despite the free rides he took through various prestigious institutions (especially Harvard), isn't brilliant. He's a highly skilled manipulator of people, especially the young. He has two powerful mantras, hope and change, which he uses to fire up unsophisticated audiences.
Last night, I was gnashing my teeth about Obama's skillful use of the concept of change. My thinking went this way: of course, even the Senator's youthful audiences know in their heart-of-hearts that change is a coin flip. About half the time it's bad. Hillary Clinton has been trying lately, with limited success, to make that point.
As I was thinking about the suspect use of the word change, I began to read an article in The Economist (my favorite magazine). It was a review of Eric Weiner's provocatively titled new book: The Geography of Bliss: One Grump's Search for the Happiest Places in the World.
Senator Obama would not like Mr. Weiner. Why? Because Weiner points out that change isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Understand that Obama was born in 1960. Of course, some good things have happened since then, such as the country's repudiation of segregation and Google's development of Blogger.
However, Weiner points out that many changes -- perhaps most of them, if I may utter a heresy -- have been bad ones. Comparing 1960 to the present, Wiener notes that the "divorce rate has doubled, the teen-suicide rate tripled, the violent-crime rate has quadrupled, and the prison population [largely Blacks and Hispanics] quintupled." The Economist adds, "Also, depression, anxiety, and other mental health problems are on the rise . . . ."
Senator Obama, meet Mr. Weiner (an NPR reporter). Of course, people at NPR are mainly liberals, but Weiner appears to have snuck in, perhaps through the back door. He asks the critical question about the change mantra: are the changes that have taken place for the good -- or not?
In 1960, Black female teenagers had an "illegitimacy" rate lower than that of white teens. Currently, however, Black females aged 15-19 have children out-of-wedlock at twice the level of white females. The pregnancy (and abortion) rates for Hispanic females exceed even the rate for Blacks. When a society basically pays teenagers to have babies, they will do so. The end result will be a disruption of families, which is exactly what's happened in Black communities.
I fear that Prof. Tribe's "brilliant" Obama will never get the point that conservatives grasp almost intuitively: that the past was in some ways (not all) better than the present. Obama will bore us all half-to-death pointing out how he's The Ghost of Christmas Future, while John McCain is the Ghost of Christmas past.
In fact, the change Obama advocates (basically income redistribution, inertia in education, and involuntary health programs) will aggravate the problems Weiner outlines. The Senator believes that change -- in the abstract -- is good. Obviously, he's wrong. When he and his student audiences are chanting "Yes we can!" we need to chant back, "But you shouldn't!"
John McCain is a man of my own generation, when many things (including the teen pregnancy rates) frankly were much better. In fact, the best thing McCain could do is to take us "back to the future." That is, he could find out what we were doing right in 1960 -- and that we've been doing wrong since that time.
That's certainly not Obama's approach. The programs he advocates -- more spending, more dependence on government, less emphasis on families -- are the same ones that have caused many of the problems we face. The statistics Weiner cites about divorce, teen suicide, violent crime, and prison populations all derive from the unintended consequences of what Lyndon Johnson called "The Great Society."
Obama, supposedly an agent of positive change, is really advocating more of the same -- and the result would of course change for the worse. Tomorrow isn't always better than yesterday, and the past isn't always superior to the future. And when the Emperor -- or a Senator -- has no clothes, it's essential to proclaim that fact.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
MCCAIN & SUPREME COURT NOMINEES
That will be the title of my piece on Monday. I'll be emphasizing the very favorable view of John McCain expressed by my favorite publication, The (London) Economist, which is very good at capturing the reasons why certain political figures -- McCain in this case -- catch on so well with large segments of the public. On the right, by the way, you see a picture of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska, one of my favorite people on the planet. John McCain would do very well to consider her for the vice-presidency. The Monday column will be up by noon, ET.
Can't wait for Super Tuesday. How about you? Also, thanks to the visitor from Vienna, Austria, who stayed a long time -- and to Cole from Mobile, Alabama, a great supporter of John McCain. Note: The piece analyzing The Economist's (positive) views on McCain will come up later today. For now, I'd like to reprint the important piece in The Wall Street Journal on McCain and the judiciary.
Wall Street Journal: McCain And The Supreme Court
By Steven G. Calabresi and John O. McGinnis
The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.
Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the "Living Constitution" -- in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.
We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.
We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.
The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits. The fundamental dynamic of this race points in Mr. McCain's way as well. He appeals to independents, while Mr. Romney's support is largely confined to Republicans.
With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate. Thus, even if we believed that Mr. Romney's judicial appointments were likely to be better than Mr. McCain's -- and we are not persuaded of that -- we would find ourselves hard-pressed to support his candidacy, given that he is so much less likely to make any appointments at all.
In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.
We recognize that there are two plausible sources of disquiet. Mr. McCain is perhaps the foremost champion of campaign-finance regulation, regulation that is hard to square with the First Amendment. Still, a President McCain would inevitably have a broader focus. Securing the party's base of judicial conservatives is a necessary formula for governance, as President Bush himself showed when he swiftly dropped the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers.
Perhaps more important, because of the success of constitutionalist jurisprudence, a McCain administration would be enveloped by conservative thinking in this area. The strand of jurisprudential thought that produced Sen. Warren Rudman and Justice David Souter is no longer vibrant in the Republican Party.
Others are concerned that Mr. McCain was a member of the "Gang of 14," opposing the attempt to end filibusters of judicial nominations. We believe that Mr. McCain's views about the institutional dynamics of the Senate are a poor guide to his performance as president. In any event, the agreement of the Gang of 14 had its costs, but it played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster. It also led to the confirmation of Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, three of President George W. Bush's best judicial appointees to the lower federal courts.
Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.
Can't wait for Super Tuesday. How about you? Also, thanks to the visitor from Vienna, Austria, who stayed a long time -- and to Cole from Mobile, Alabama, a great supporter of John McCain. Note: The piece analyzing The Economist's (positive) views on McCain will come up later today. For now, I'd like to reprint the important piece in The Wall Street Journal on McCain and the judiciary.
Wall Street Journal: McCain And The Supreme Court
By Steven G. Calabresi and John O. McGinnis
The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.
Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the "Living Constitution" -- in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.
We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.
We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.
The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits. The fundamental dynamic of this race points in Mr. McCain's way as well. He appeals to independents, while Mr. Romney's support is largely confined to Republicans.
With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate. Thus, even if we believed that Mr. Romney's judicial appointments were likely to be better than Mr. McCain's -- and we are not persuaded of that -- we would find ourselves hard-pressed to support his candidacy, given that he is so much less likely to make any appointments at all.
In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.
We recognize that there are two plausible sources of disquiet. Mr. McCain is perhaps the foremost champion of campaign-finance regulation, regulation that is hard to square with the First Amendment. Still, a President McCain would inevitably have a broader focus. Securing the party's base of judicial conservatives is a necessary formula for governance, as President Bush himself showed when he swiftly dropped the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers.
Perhaps more important, because of the success of constitutionalist jurisprudence, a McCain administration would be enveloped by conservative thinking in this area. The strand of jurisprudential thought that produced Sen. Warren Rudman and Justice David Souter is no longer vibrant in the Republican Party.
Others are concerned that Mr. McCain was a member of the "Gang of 14," opposing the attempt to end filibusters of judicial nominations. We believe that Mr. McCain's views about the institutional dynamics of the Senate are a poor guide to his performance as president. In any event, the agreement of the Gang of 14 had its costs, but it played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster. It also led to the confirmation of Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, three of President George W. Bush's best judicial appointees to the lower federal courts.
Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.
Friday, January 25, 2008
IMMIGRATION; GOOD FOR WELCOMING COUNTRIES
This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I've have one of those columns that goes on . . . and on . . . and on about John McCain and immigration. However, I urge you to read the previous column, borrowed from Sanity102. She writes about some thoroughly misguided criticisms of McCain, including those by Hugh Hewitt, a talk-radio shill for Mitt Romney. In previous columns, you'll also see my comments about future President Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska.
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
- The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:
- Roughly one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in Physics in the past seven years were born abroad; and,
- About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants; and,
Approximately one-third of Silicon Valley companies were started by foreign-born individuals (mainly Indian or Chinese).
However, what about low-skilled workers, many of them from South of the U.S. border? In fact, their skills levels are about the same as those of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents. There's a tremendous need in our country for people who will do work that native-born Americans avoid.
What The Economist is saying is what John McCain believes. Oh, and those beliefs happen to be accurate.
More to follow on Saturday . . .
A SANE VIEW OF IMMIGRATION
In The Economist, January 5-11, 2008, the London-based publication has a fascinating 14-page special report on “migration” (called “immigration” in the U.S.).
In our country, immigration has been an extremely contentious issue, and Senator John McCain’s support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) has hurt his candidacy. He’s been accused – falsely, I believe – of favoring “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, and that kind of accusation can be the kiss of death in Republican politics.
The Economist’s position is that immigration is a good thing – a source of diversity, technological advances, and prosperity. In other words, it thinks people like McCain (which the magazine generally favors) are right, while their critics are wrong.
The publication says, “. . . Most often, migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work.” It adds, “History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of millions of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign-born are doing in America today.”
Much of the debate over immigration involves sloganeering, such as “the rule of law.” In fact, the U.S. has modified many laws that were irrational or immoral, such as the “law” that Black people counted for three-fifths as much as White people. It also eliminated the law that said women couldn’t vote. In the past generation, the country modified the law for those fleeing Communist Cuba, allowing those who reached our shores to stay.
The real issue will immigration – legal or even illegal – boils down to this: Is it a good thing, or a bad one? That is, do people immigrating to this nation provide more benefits than debits?
The Economist admits there can be negatives associated with immigration. It notes that politicians have a tendency to pander to “xenophobic fears. Also, it admits that large numbers of immigrants can provoke job fears among natives. What’s more, it’s clear that huge disparities of income across borders could result in a stream of incomers turning into a flood.
Yet, the magazine sees immigration mainly as a plus. It notes that “many migrants return home with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion . . . Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world’s poor than [sending off charitable contributions.”
In addition, “The movement of people also helps the rich world. Prosperous countries with graying workforces [America, Europe, and Japan, among them] rely ever more on young foreigners . . . . Around a third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in physics in the past seven years were born abroad. About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.”
In short, The Economist disagrees sharply with the nativist wing of the Republican Party. The points the magazine makes are the same kind that motivated John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham and others to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In the face of persuasive arguments, anti-immigrant slogans aren’t enough.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Economist: GOP's Bad News
CONGRATULATIONS TO SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN FOR A GREAT VICTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA. ON TO FLORIDA! "For Mike Huckabee this means it's over." (Gloria Borger, CNN) Good riddance, Mike.
Later today (Sunday), I'll have some more comments about the candidacy of Pastor Mike Huckabee -- hopefully, my last comments on that unpleasant individual. In the comments section on my previous column, I respond at length (also for the last time) to Larry, who feels I'm treating him and Mike unfairly. I've pointed out how Huckabee has made comments that are anti-Mormon and anti-Black. I've also discussed how he has some virulently anti-American people around him, including Rev. Laurence Kuhn, author of "God and Ceasar," which compares contemporary America (unfavorably) to Nazi Germany. Huckabee has absolutely no chance of ever winning a general election in a free society (ours), but he doesn't seem to have grasped that obvious fact.
I received today The Economist magazine's "The World in 2008" issue today, and it contains a good story on the emerging political situation. In an article titled "The Democrats' Year," its sub-head is: "The Betting is on Another Clinton Presidency."
Here's the heart of the piece: "It looks highly likely that this will be the Democrats' year. The Republican Party is in serious disarray -- unpopular with the electorate, plagued by scandals, tarnished by incompetence, and unsure which way it is heading. Five years ago, America was equally divided by party identification: 43% for each party. By 2007 the arithmetic had evolved to give the Democrats an advantage of 50% to 35%."
The article continues: "By October 2007 Democratic presidential candidates has raised about 70% more money than their Republican rivals. Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado are leaning Democratic--Ohio, which tipped the election for George Bush in 2004, decidedly so. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely end up in the White House."
The Economist's view of reality is much like my own. I believe Barack Obama would be the Democrats' strongest candidate, rather than Hillary Clinton, but right now I have little doubt that one of them will be the next President. The magazine mentions that the next President will be the one to resolve three key issues: Iraq, Social Security, and immigration. They might also have included health care.
If The Economist's predictions are correct, Republicans (and conservatives) will have no say on those major issues. We can make all the calls we want to the big Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, and they will ignore us.
As I'll point out in future columns, we conservatives have brought much of this dismal situation on ourselves. We've turned off most of the American electorate, and we will live to regret doing so.
_____________
Juan Carlos Lopez of "CNN Espanol" says of Hispanic voters (nearly 10% of registered voters in the U.S.): "They consider the whole debate on immigration not just to be directed against illegal immigrants but against Hispanics as a whole." Unfortunately, Republicans, with the exceptions of Giuliani and McCain, have done nothing to clarify this situation. That means states like NV, CO, AZ, and NM will be very, very hard for Republicans to win next November.
Later today (Sunday), I'll have some more comments about the candidacy of Pastor Mike Huckabee -- hopefully, my last comments on that unpleasant individual. In the comments section on my previous column, I respond at length (also for the last time) to Larry, who feels I'm treating him and Mike unfairly. I've pointed out how Huckabee has made comments that are anti-Mormon and anti-Black. I've also discussed how he has some virulently anti-American people around him, including Rev. Laurence Kuhn, author of "God and Ceasar," which compares contemporary America (unfavorably) to Nazi Germany. Huckabee has absolutely no chance of ever winning a general election in a free society (ours), but he doesn't seem to have grasped that obvious fact.
I received today The Economist magazine's "The World in 2008" issue today, and it contains a good story on the emerging political situation. In an article titled "The Democrats' Year," its sub-head is: "The Betting is on Another Clinton Presidency."
Here's the heart of the piece: "It looks highly likely that this will be the Democrats' year. The Republican Party is in serious disarray -- unpopular with the electorate, plagued by scandals, tarnished by incompetence, and unsure which way it is heading. Five years ago, America was equally divided by party identification: 43% for each party. By 2007 the arithmetic had evolved to give the Democrats an advantage of 50% to 35%."
The article continues: "By October 2007 Democratic presidential candidates has raised about 70% more money than their Republican rivals. Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado are leaning Democratic--Ohio, which tipped the election for George Bush in 2004, decidedly so. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely end up in the White House."
The Economist's view of reality is much like my own. I believe Barack Obama would be the Democrats' strongest candidate, rather than Hillary Clinton, but right now I have little doubt that one of them will be the next President. The magazine mentions that the next President will be the one to resolve three key issues: Iraq, Social Security, and immigration. They might also have included health care.
If The Economist's predictions are correct, Republicans (and conservatives) will have no say on those major issues. We can make all the calls we want to the big Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, and they will ignore us.
As I'll point out in future columns, we conservatives have brought much of this dismal situation on ourselves. We've turned off most of the American electorate, and we will live to regret doing so.
_____________
Juan Carlos Lopez of "CNN Espanol" says of Hispanic voters (nearly 10% of registered voters in the U.S.): "They consider the whole debate on immigration not just to be directed against illegal immigrants but against Hispanics as a whole." Unfortunately, Republicans, with the exceptions of Giuliani and McCain, have done nothing to clarify this situation. That means states like NV, CO, AZ, and NM will be very, very hard for Republicans to win next November.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Obama/Murtha: Disastrous Choices For America
Note: If you're tired of politics (but how could that happen?), please go over to my other site for some great pictures of a very special kitten. Just click here.
Obama: Disastrous Choice for America
Here's what The Economist says about Barack Obama [the candidate of "hope"] in its Dec. 15-21 edition: "A President Obama would turn precoceptions upside down; indeed he might be able to achieve far more both at home and abroad than any other candidate. But hope does not balance budgets, craft alliances, or reform schools. It certainly does not prove that Mr. Obama would be the best -- or even a good -- President."
The Economist continues: "Mr. Obama cannot change his experience deficit, but he can change his substance deficit. His economic policies (like those of the other Democrats . . .) are crowd-pleasing stuff. He is iffy about free trade. He wants health insurance for all -- and expects the rich to pay for it. He wants schools to get better, but he panders to his leftist base by eschewing merit pay for teachers and independent charter schools."
Also, "On Iraq, he affects not to have noticed that the 'surge' in and around Baghdad is producing palpable successes, and clings to the idea, beloved of his Party base, that all troops should be withdrawn even before he putatively takes office."
The Economist frames its comments on Obama as being helpful. In fact, they're a devastating critique of the candidate's naivete and his penchant for demagoguery. What about his stand on education? He refuses to take on the Teacher's Union and he refuses to support any real sort of choice for parents and students. Instead, he offers a vague "hope" that schools will somehow (perhaps by magic?) get better.
In other words, eights years of an Obama presidency would offer Americans an endless stream of rhetoric about the importance of education. But, aside from the teachers getting more money, NOTHING would change. Bad teachers would get the same pay as good ones. Parents would have no real opportunity to send their children to better schools.
On Iraq, Obama appeals to the small, activist segment (20%) of his Party that tells pollsters they think it would be best if the U.S. loses the War in Iraq. Like most Democratic presidential candidates, Obama seems to have no understanding of what motivate the mass murderers who call al-Qaida their "spiritual" home.
Yes, Obama "panders" to his Party's Leftist core. Apparently, that's his nature, and he would be a disastrous choice for America. He's so bad that he makes Hillary Clinton look good.
How do Obama's political and intellectual failures relate to someone like William Russell, who's opposing John Murtha? In fact, Murtha's approach to problems -- in Iraq, in education, in health care, in economic development -- closely resembles Obama's. In other words, the solution is to pay off some interest groups, such as the bosses of the Teacher's Union.
Russell has two young children, so he has a personal interest in improving education and resolving the situation in Iraq in a way favorable to the United States. The way to improve educational performance in America is to reach out -- to teachers, to parents, and to students -- to find ways to do things better. The implicit assumption of someone like Obama (and Murtha) is that things can't be improved, which is ridiculous.
In fact, we shouldn't underestimate teachers. My mother was one for many years, and I also taught for 10 years. Granted, most teachers -- like "most" people generally -- are average. Many of them fear that steps designed designed to reward excellent teachers will somehow come at the determinet of the "average many."
But a rising tide lifts ALL boats.
What do teachers generally -- the average and the above-average -- recommend to improve their own performance? What do they suggest to make them more a part of an economy and a society based on merit? In fact, most people in any occupation want to learn ways to make themselves better at their job.
What about identifying the best teacher in every school? Then, assign them to one or two teachers that are less skilled or experienced. In other words, let the top teachers share their expertise and mentor their colleagues. This happens all the time in business, but only rarely in education.
On Iraq, the real question (for Obama, Murtha, and others) is this: Where do we fight al-Qaida and how do we fight them? Presumably, the answer is NOT that we confront them in the streets of New York. "Redeploying" the troops to Okinawa, Murtha's solution, is a suggestion that's pitiful rather than helpful.
If there's a better way to fight al-Qaida, then people like Obama and Murtha are obligated to tell us how -- and where.In other words, let's come up with "win-win" solutions to our society's problems. We don't need to follow Obama's (and Murtha's) assumption that the only "problem" the world faces is how to make sure he gets elected.
Obama presents himself as the candidate of "hope." In fact, the real candidates of hope are people like Russell, who don't look at politics as some kind of zero-sum game. They offer hope that America's problems -- and we have plenty of them -- are soluble.
WHY DO I LIKE RUDY GIULIANI?
One reason I like Rudy a lot is that his actions -- along with those of Police Commissioners Bratton and Kerik (yes, the much-maligned Bernie) -- dramatically reduced the crime rate in New York City. There are many people in local, state, and federal government that seemingly believe high-crime-rates are something that "just happens." They are dead wrong.
In New York, Mayor Bloomberg, elected twice as a Republican, and Commissioner Kelly have continued the policies of Rudy Giuliani and earlier commissioners. They have had tremendous success at keeping crime -- especially the murder rate -- down.I heard the other day that New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 murders this year, putting it about on a par with Philadelphia, a much-smaller (and Democrat-controlled) city.
How many murders were there in NYC before Giuliani and Bratton iniated their crime-fighting policies. There were 2,494 -- nearly five time as many as are projected to occur this year.
Gee, how on earth did that great accomplishment (a pro-life achievement, by the way) occur? It happened because Giuliani and Bratton had an extremely insightful view into why and where crimes occurred.
Specifically, they understood what happens when neighborhood have broken windows, when begarrs are panhandling, when public urination runs rampant, when public drunkeness is tolerated, when sex parlors open up, and where groups of drug users congregate.
What happens is people assume nobody cares about the neighborhood. Good people move out -- and bad people move in. Crimes proliferate, and murders become a way of life.Giuliani and Bratton understood that it's critical to "sweat the small things." You can read the whole story in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. There was an epidemic of crime -- and Giuliani innoculated the city against it.
The approach is still paying great dividends and saving thens of thousands of lives. Other cities -- Philadelphia being one, Pittsburgh another -- should emulate "America's Mayor" and his New York Miracle.
Obama: Disastrous Choice for America
Here's what The Economist says about Barack Obama [the candidate of "hope"] in its Dec. 15-21 edition: "A President Obama would turn precoceptions upside down; indeed he might be able to achieve far more both at home and abroad than any other candidate. But hope does not balance budgets, craft alliances, or reform schools. It certainly does not prove that Mr. Obama would be the best -- or even a good -- President."
The Economist continues: "Mr. Obama cannot change his experience deficit, but he can change his substance deficit. His economic policies (like those of the other Democrats . . .) are crowd-pleasing stuff. He is iffy about free trade. He wants health insurance for all -- and expects the rich to pay for it. He wants schools to get better, but he panders to his leftist base by eschewing merit pay for teachers and independent charter schools."
Also, "On Iraq, he affects not to have noticed that the 'surge' in and around Baghdad is producing palpable successes, and clings to the idea, beloved of his Party base, that all troops should be withdrawn even before he putatively takes office."
The Economist frames its comments on Obama as being helpful. In fact, they're a devastating critique of the candidate's naivete and his penchant for demagoguery. What about his stand on education? He refuses to take on the Teacher's Union and he refuses to support any real sort of choice for parents and students. Instead, he offers a vague "hope" that schools will somehow (perhaps by magic?) get better.
In other words, eights years of an Obama presidency would offer Americans an endless stream of rhetoric about the importance of education. But, aside from the teachers getting more money, NOTHING would change. Bad teachers would get the same pay as good ones. Parents would have no real opportunity to send their children to better schools.
On Iraq, Obama appeals to the small, activist segment (20%) of his Party that tells pollsters they think it would be best if the U.S. loses the War in Iraq. Like most Democratic presidential candidates, Obama seems to have no understanding of what motivate the mass murderers who call al-Qaida their "spiritual" home.
Yes, Obama "panders" to his Party's Leftist core. Apparently, that's his nature, and he would be a disastrous choice for America. He's so bad that he makes Hillary Clinton look good.
How do Obama's political and intellectual failures relate to someone like William Russell, who's opposing John Murtha? In fact, Murtha's approach to problems -- in Iraq, in education, in health care, in economic development -- closely resembles Obama's. In other words, the solution is to pay off some interest groups, such as the bosses of the Teacher's Union.
Russell has two young children, so he has a personal interest in improving education and resolving the situation in Iraq in a way favorable to the United States. The way to improve educational performance in America is to reach out -- to teachers, to parents, and to students -- to find ways to do things better. The implicit assumption of someone like Obama (and Murtha) is that things can't be improved, which is ridiculous.
In fact, we shouldn't underestimate teachers. My mother was one for many years, and I also taught for 10 years. Granted, most teachers -- like "most" people generally -- are average. Many of them fear that steps designed designed to reward excellent teachers will somehow come at the determinet of the "average many."
But a rising tide lifts ALL boats.
What do teachers generally -- the average and the above-average -- recommend to improve their own performance? What do they suggest to make them more a part of an economy and a society based on merit? In fact, most people in any occupation want to learn ways to make themselves better at their job.
What about identifying the best teacher in every school? Then, assign them to one or two teachers that are less skilled or experienced. In other words, let the top teachers share their expertise and mentor their colleagues. This happens all the time in business, but only rarely in education.
On Iraq, the real question (for Obama, Murtha, and others) is this: Where do we fight al-Qaida and how do we fight them? Presumably, the answer is NOT that we confront them in the streets of New York. "Redeploying" the troops to Okinawa, Murtha's solution, is a suggestion that's pitiful rather than helpful.
If there's a better way to fight al-Qaida, then people like Obama and Murtha are obligated to tell us how -- and where.In other words, let's come up with "win-win" solutions to our society's problems. We don't need to follow Obama's (and Murtha's) assumption that the only "problem" the world faces is how to make sure he gets elected.
Obama presents himself as the candidate of "hope." In fact, the real candidates of hope are people like Russell, who don't look at politics as some kind of zero-sum game. They offer hope that America's problems -- and we have plenty of them -- are soluble.
WHY DO I LIKE RUDY GIULIANI?
One reason I like Rudy a lot is that his actions -- along with those of Police Commissioners Bratton and Kerik (yes, the much-maligned Bernie) -- dramatically reduced the crime rate in New York City. There are many people in local, state, and federal government that seemingly believe high-crime-rates are something that "just happens." They are dead wrong.
In New York, Mayor Bloomberg, elected twice as a Republican, and Commissioner Kelly have continued the policies of Rudy Giuliani and earlier commissioners. They have had tremendous success at keeping crime -- especially the murder rate -- down.I heard the other day that New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 murders this year, putting it about on a par with Philadelphia, a much-smaller (and Democrat-controlled) city.
How many murders were there in NYC before Giuliani and Bratton iniated their crime-fighting policies. There were 2,494 -- nearly five time as many as are projected to occur this year.
Gee, how on earth did that great accomplishment (a pro-life achievement, by the way) occur? It happened because Giuliani and Bratton had an extremely insightful view into why and where crimes occurred.
Specifically, they understood what happens when neighborhood have broken windows, when begarrs are panhandling, when public urination runs rampant, when public drunkeness is tolerated, when sex parlors open up, and where groups of drug users congregate.
What happens is people assume nobody cares about the neighborhood. Good people move out -- and bad people move in. Crimes proliferate, and murders become a way of life.Giuliani and Bratton understood that it's critical to "sweat the small things." You can read the whole story in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. There was an epidemic of crime -- and Giuliani innoculated the city against it.
The approach is still paying great dividends and saving thens of thousands of lives. Other cities -- Philadelphia being one, Pittsburgh another -- should emulate "America's Mayor" and his New York Miracle.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Case for John McCain
. . . and the Case Against Mike Huckabee
In the December 8 - 14 issue of The Economist (http://economist.com), the publication makes the case for John McCain as Republican nominee for President. It's a compelling case.
The publication notes: "Mr. McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner of war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered . . . that they had 'other priorities.' He has repeatedly risked his politicla career by backing unpopular causes."
In addition, "Mr. McCain's qualifications extend beyong character. Take experience. His ranges of interests as a Senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign and military issues as anybody in public life."
As The Economist also points out, McCain may be the only Republican who can prevail in a general election over either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.
On the other hand, what does The Economist have to say about Mike Huckabee, who's become the flavor of the month? It says, "Mr. Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate -- a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly."
The publication continues: "A presidential debate between Mr. Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout."
Right now, there are two outstanding candidates on the Republican side, and Mike Huckabee is not one of them. If Republican voters are wise, they will see that the race should come down to two individuals: Rudy Giuiliani and John McCain. And may the best man win.
In the December 8 - 14 issue of The Economist (http://economist.com), the publication makes the case for John McCain as Republican nominee for President. It's a compelling case.
The publication notes: "Mr. McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner of war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered . . . that they had 'other priorities.' He has repeatedly risked his politicla career by backing unpopular causes."
In addition, "Mr. McCain's qualifications extend beyong character. Take experience. His ranges of interests as a Senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign and military issues as anybody in public life."
As The Economist also points out, McCain may be the only Republican who can prevail in a general election over either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.
On the other hand, what does The Economist have to say about Mike Huckabee, who's become the flavor of the month? It says, "Mr. Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate -- a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly."
The publication continues: "A presidential debate between Mr. Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout."
Right now, there are two outstanding candidates on the Republican side, and Mike Huckabee is not one of them. If Republican voters are wise, they will see that the race should come down to two individuals: Rudy Giuiliani and John McCain. And may the best man win.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Three Cheers for The Economist: Some Big Challenges for Republicans
As many of you know, I'm a regular reader of The Economist, a wonderful newsmagazine published in Britain but with many fine correspondents in the U.S. (and around the world). Recently, The Economist had a three-page series about the Kurdish area in Iraq, which is remarkably free from violence and just may have a bright future as an independent nation.
For my occasional series on the cable news networks, The Economist provides some very useful information.
"Since 1990," the magazine informs us, "the film industry has given seven times more [money] to Democrats than to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics [note: see the Center's link on my blogroll at: http://opensecrets.org/]. In television, the ratio in eight-to-one; in music, four-to-one."
The story continues, "Liberal views are not just tolerated but expected, and many Hollywood luminaries retain political advisers."
In a recent address to a meeting of California state Republicans, Gov. Arnold Schwazenegger talked about the inability of GOP candidates -- aside from him -- to win elections in the Golden State. He said, "We're bombing at the box office."
The only Republican presidential candidate who seems to have an interest in winning the California primary is Rudy Giuliani, who's far ahead in that state. How important is to win California? Very much so, because it provides more than one-out-of-eight electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
One major problem with an otherwise attractive candidate like Mike Huckabee is that it's nearly impossible to construct a scenario where he wins the presidential election. Does he have any chance of winning big, important states like California, New York, Illinois, and Michigan? In states with a high percentage of evangelical Christians -- Iowa is one -- Mike does well. Everywhere else he has trouble.
In the minds of many observers -- including yours truly -- the recent immigration debate did real damage to Republicans' ability to win the the nation's highest office.
James H., who blogs at http://opinionatedCatholic.blogspot.com/ has a column today that illustrates one of the reasons we're "bombing at the box office." Specifically, we've managed to offend many Hispanics, who are a critical "swing group" in many states, including two cites by James: Florida and Nevada. Of course, by ceding the big Northern, Midwestern, and Western states to the Democrats, we make Florida a "must-win."
During the debate on Immigration Reform, Linda Chavez, perhaps the most important Hispanic in the Republican Party, supported comprehensive immigration reform. For her efforts, one conservative worthy announced that she should "go back to Mexico."
One problem: Chavez' family has been the U.S. for several generations. In short, she's as American as apple pie.
Stephen R. Maloney
For my occasional series on the cable news networks, The Economist provides some very useful information.
"Since 1990," the magazine informs us, "the film industry has given seven times more [money] to Democrats than to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics [note: see the Center's link on my blogroll at: http://opensecrets.org/]. In television, the ratio in eight-to-one; in music, four-to-one."
The story continues, "Liberal views are not just tolerated but expected, and many Hollywood luminaries retain political advisers."
In a recent address to a meeting of California state Republicans, Gov. Arnold Schwazenegger talked about the inability of GOP candidates -- aside from him -- to win elections in the Golden State. He said, "We're bombing at the box office."
The only Republican presidential candidate who seems to have an interest in winning the California primary is Rudy Giuliani, who's far ahead in that state. How important is to win California? Very much so, because it provides more than one-out-of-eight electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
One major problem with an otherwise attractive candidate like Mike Huckabee is that it's nearly impossible to construct a scenario where he wins the presidential election. Does he have any chance of winning big, important states like California, New York, Illinois, and Michigan? In states with a high percentage of evangelical Christians -- Iowa is one -- Mike does well. Everywhere else he has trouble.
In the minds of many observers -- including yours truly -- the recent immigration debate did real damage to Republicans' ability to win the the nation's highest office.
James H., who blogs at http://opinionatedCatholic.blogspot.com/ has a column today that illustrates one of the reasons we're "bombing at the box office." Specifically, we've managed to offend many Hispanics, who are a critical "swing group" in many states, including two cites by James: Florida and Nevada. Of course, by ceding the big Northern, Midwestern, and Western states to the Democrats, we make Florida a "must-win."
During the debate on Immigration Reform, Linda Chavez, perhaps the most important Hispanic in the Republican Party, supported comprehensive immigration reform. For her efforts, one conservative worthy announced that she should "go back to Mexico."
One problem: Chavez' family has been the U.S. for several generations. In short, she's as American as apple pie.
Stephen R. Maloney
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
MY RETRACTION AND APOLOGY TO SEN. LARRY CRAIG
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds." --Samuel Adams
This column, originally one about "President Hillary Rodham Clinton" (yikes) will change on Saturday and Sunday. I was one of the first bloggers to call for the resignation of Senator Larry Craig. He has resigned effective September 30 of this year, but now I believe my initial comments were hasty -- and, frankly, uninformed. I had assumed was some evidence of verbal solicitation or groping of the undercover policeman. In fact, there was NO SUCH EVIDENCE. The policeman was totally out-of-bounds in making pop-psychology assumptions about Craig's character. I rushed to judgment, and my readers have a right to expect more. (Note: The policeman said he didn't care about Craig's supposed "sexual preference," itself a loaded and arguably homophobic term). What what exactly were the police doing in the men's room? It now looks like entrapment to me. ) If you'd like to read the ENTIRE transcript of the exchange between Sen. Craig and the policeman, you won't hear it on the MSM. You can, however, find it by going to the following site (managed by a gay conservaive activist in Ottawa, Canda: http://gayandright.blogspot.com/ I urge you to read the transcript. You may well end up agreeing with "Fred" from Ottawa, who says, "No crime occurred here." As for straight Steve in Ambridge, PA (i.e., me), I agree that no crime occurred, but I also agree with Senator Craig's decision to resign -- mainly because of his misguided guilty plea. The story of Larry Craig may die, but it shouldn't, because it appears to be a major miscarriage of justice.
Welcome to all supporters of the Republican Party -- and supporters of any the five candidates discussed below. At the present time, I'm not endorsing any specific individual for the presidency (hoping only that HE will be a Republican). Like many others, I'm strongly encouraging consideration of Alaska Gov. Sarah Heath Palin for the second-spot on the Republican ticket.
As a favor to Gov. Romney, I'm not charging him $10,000 for my "Romneyites Unite" slogan. (Romney supporters, note the bottom of this column.)
In another piece, I recently mentioned my commitment to vote for the candidate nominated in 2008 by the Republican Party -- something that will happen "de facto" about February 5 (Super Tuesday of next year. Some people with a penchant for fantasy believe that all Republicans have to do is to nominate Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee, or Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson, or John McCain (whose ship is listing badly these days), and we will cruise to an easy victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In fact, the most reliable opinion surveys (Pew Research, Gallup, Stan Greenburg) show just the opposite, not only in their "snapshot" (day-by-day) forms but -- most ominously -- in their trend lines. I don't find many (read: ANY) expert analysts, conservatives or liberals, who disagree with me. We are also poised to take a major skunking in Congress, losing several Senate seats.
Granted, some folks (my GWB word for the day) may look at me as the boy crying "Wolf." However, the last time I "cried wolf" was in the election of 2006 when, you may recall, a wolf came and ate the Republican Party. A bigger, hungrier, meaner wolf could very well be licking his chops in November, 2008.
Why so much emphasis on Sarah Heath Palin, the wildly popular Republican Governor of Alaska, as a choice for the vice-presidential nomination on the Republican ticket? (Her approval rating of 90% is one GWB or any other elected official would pronounce "to-die-for.")
To explain the critical question "why," Let's look at the five distinguished Republican gentlemen I noted above: Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain. There's zero evidence any of them running on their own they can defeat Mrs. Clinton. Outside their immediate families, not many people believe victory is in the cards. Let's face it: Just because an individual -- say, you -- likes a candidate or even adores him doesn't guarantee more than one vote, yours.
Politically, Mrs. Palin -- the choice of all those intrepid souls on my blogroll -- resembles what in football terminology is called a "wedge-buster." That's the individual on the kickoff or punt team that races downfield to break up group of blockers (the "wedge") that's safeguarding the kick-returner.
There is a wedge -- one based on bad decisions and missed opportunities in the past -- walling off the Republican Party from a host of critically important voting groups: women professionals (teachers, journalists, nurses, doctors, lawyers, businesswomen), Blacks, Hispanics, young people (34 and under), non-white evangelicals, union members, and moderate-to-liberal Roman Catholics.
People in those groups probably make up 200-million plus of the 300-million Americans. (The Census Bureau has said there are now 100 million legal minorities in the U.S., the largest group being Hispanics --45 million -- with Blacks fairly close behind).
Gov. Sarah Palin can help us break through the political wedge and get to these groups. She would have appeal to all of the above segments, especially women professionals and younger people. Naming her to the vice-presidential ticket would be indicating something that would surprise a lot of voters: that we aren't just a bunch of aging white Caucasians offering the same programs as the Democrats but with slightly less funding.
In fact, as a committed wife and the mother of four children, she LIVES those values. As a person who revealed ethics violations by noted Alaska Republican politicans, she's going way beyond pious platitudes about honesty being "the best policy." In terms of her character and fidelity to God and family this woman is bullet-proof.
If you're interested in learning more about Sarah, please read any of the following, including the several essays by nationally recognized columnists, including Fred Barnes of FOX News and The Weekly Standard.
You can indicate your support for Sarah for V-P by leaving a comment either on my blog, or on Adam's at http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. You can also send an e-mail to me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Thanks for your interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin (Short and accurate biographical information)
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp (outstanding piece on Sarah by Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard and FOX News analyst)
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/17/235529.php (SJ Reidhead (Cindy), Article by the "Queen of the Blogosphere" on the Character and Potential of Sarah Palin)
http://columbian.com/opinion/news/07252007news173060.cfm (Essay by editor emeritus Tom Koenigger on Alaska and its remarkable Governor)
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_517252.html (Essay by conservative columnist Dimitri Vassilaros in praise of the GOP's "Beacon of Hope")
http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2007/08/palin-for-veep.html (A piece by the newest blogger for Palin -- signed up yesterday -- with a discussion of why he's doing so)
It might take 30-35 minutes to read and digest all the above pieces. It will be time well spent, because Sarah is at least a step ahead of nearly ever elected official in our nation.
In the next 4-5 days, I'm going to be asking Mitt Romney supporters to back Sarah. I don't know how many of them will -- somewhere between none and a few, perhaps -- but I'll make the best case I can. Do I believe Mitt Romney is a Christian? Well, he says he is, and that's good enough for me, since the ultimate issues of faith are between an individual and his or her God. Heck, my brother (not a Mormon) went to BYU, and that should count for something.
ROMNEYITES UNITE (behind Sarah).
This column, originally one about "President Hillary Rodham Clinton" (yikes) will change on Saturday and Sunday. I was one of the first bloggers to call for the resignation of Senator Larry Craig. He has resigned effective September 30 of this year, but now I believe my initial comments were hasty -- and, frankly, uninformed. I had assumed was some evidence of verbal solicitation or groping of the undercover policeman. In fact, there was NO SUCH EVIDENCE. The policeman was totally out-of-bounds in making pop-psychology assumptions about Craig's character. I rushed to judgment, and my readers have a right to expect more. (Note: The policeman said he didn't care about Craig's supposed "sexual preference," itself a loaded and arguably homophobic term). What what exactly were the police doing in the men's room? It now looks like entrapment to me. ) If you'd like to read the ENTIRE transcript of the exchange between Sen. Craig and the policeman, you won't hear it on the MSM. You can, however, find it by going to the following site (managed by a gay conservaive activist in Ottawa, Canda: http://gayandright.blogspot.com/ I urge you to read the transcript. You may well end up agreeing with "Fred" from Ottawa, who says, "No crime occurred here." As for straight Steve in Ambridge, PA (i.e., me), I agree that no crime occurred, but I also agree with Senator Craig's decision to resign -- mainly because of his misguided guilty plea. The story of Larry Craig may die, but it shouldn't, because it appears to be a major miscarriage of justice.
Welcome to all supporters of the Republican Party -- and supporters of any the five candidates discussed below. At the present time, I'm not endorsing any specific individual for the presidency (hoping only that HE will be a Republican). Like many others, I'm strongly encouraging consideration of Alaska Gov. Sarah Heath Palin for the second-spot on the Republican ticket.
As a favor to Gov. Romney, I'm not charging him $10,000 for my "Romneyites Unite" slogan. (Romney supporters, note the bottom of this column.)
In another piece, I recently mentioned my commitment to vote for the candidate nominated in 2008 by the Republican Party -- something that will happen "de facto" about February 5 (Super Tuesday of next year. Some people with a penchant for fantasy believe that all Republicans have to do is to nominate Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee, or Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson, or John McCain (whose ship is listing badly these days), and we will cruise to an easy victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In fact, the most reliable opinion surveys (Pew Research, Gallup, Stan Greenburg) show just the opposite, not only in their "snapshot" (day-by-day) forms but -- most ominously -- in their trend lines. I don't find many (read: ANY) expert analysts, conservatives or liberals, who disagree with me. We are also poised to take a major skunking in Congress, losing several Senate seats.
Granted, some folks (my GWB word for the day) may look at me as the boy crying "Wolf." However, the last time I "cried wolf" was in the election of 2006 when, you may recall, a wolf came and ate the Republican Party. A bigger, hungrier, meaner wolf could very well be licking his chops in November, 2008.
Why so much emphasis on Sarah Heath Palin, the wildly popular Republican Governor of Alaska, as a choice for the vice-presidential nomination on the Republican ticket? (Her approval rating of 90% is one GWB or any other elected official would pronounce "to-die-for.")
To explain the critical question "why," Let's look at the five distinguished Republican gentlemen I noted above: Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain. There's zero evidence any of them running on their own they can defeat Mrs. Clinton. Outside their immediate families, not many people believe victory is in the cards. Let's face it: Just because an individual -- say, you -- likes a candidate or even adores him doesn't guarantee more than one vote, yours.
Politically, Mrs. Palin -- the choice of all those intrepid souls on my blogroll -- resembles what in football terminology is called a "wedge-buster." That's the individual on the kickoff or punt team that races downfield to break up group of blockers (the "wedge") that's safeguarding the kick-returner.
There is a wedge -- one based on bad decisions and missed opportunities in the past -- walling off the Republican Party from a host of critically important voting groups: women professionals (teachers, journalists, nurses, doctors, lawyers, businesswomen), Blacks, Hispanics, young people (34 and under), non-white evangelicals, union members, and moderate-to-liberal Roman Catholics.
People in those groups probably make up 200-million plus of the 300-million Americans. (The Census Bureau has said there are now 100 million legal minorities in the U.S., the largest group being Hispanics --45 million -- with Blacks fairly close behind).
Gov. Sarah Palin can help us break through the political wedge and get to these groups. She would have appeal to all of the above segments, especially women professionals and younger people. Naming her to the vice-presidential ticket would be indicating something that would surprise a lot of voters: that we aren't just a bunch of aging white Caucasians offering the same programs as the Democrats but with slightly less funding.
If we become the Party of the "angry, old white guys," Heaven help us. We're headed in that direction, and we need to change course in a hurry. (As an occasionally cantankerous older white guy, I believe I can say that.)
As a communications major in college, Sarah Palin knows talk is cheap. Best of all, she doesn't blather on with abstractions about family values.In fact, as a committed wife and the mother of four children, she LIVES those values. As a person who revealed ethics violations by noted Alaska Republican politicans, she's going way beyond pious platitudes about honesty being "the best policy." In terms of her character and fidelity to God and family this woman is bullet-proof.
If you're interested in learning more about Sarah, please read any of the following, including the several essays by nationally recognized columnists, including Fred Barnes of FOX News and The Weekly Standard.
You can indicate your support for Sarah for V-P by leaving a comment either on my blog, or on Adam's at http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. You can also send an e-mail to me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Thanks for your interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin (Short and accurate biographical information)
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp (outstanding piece on Sarah by Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard and FOX News analyst)
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/17/235529.php (SJ Reidhead (Cindy), Article by the "Queen of the Blogosphere" on the Character and Potential of Sarah Palin)
http://columbian.com/opinion/news/07252007news173060.cfm (Essay by editor emeritus Tom Koenigger on Alaska and its remarkable Governor)
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_517252.html (Essay by conservative columnist Dimitri Vassilaros in praise of the GOP's "Beacon of Hope")
http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2007/08/palin-for-veep.html (A piece by the newest blogger for Palin -- signed up yesterday -- with a discussion of why he's doing so)
It might take 30-35 minutes to read and digest all the above pieces. It will be time well spent, because Sarah is at least a step ahead of nearly ever elected official in our nation.
In the next 4-5 days, I'm going to be asking Mitt Romney supporters to back Sarah. I don't know how many of them will -- somewhere between none and a few, perhaps -- but I'll make the best case I can. Do I believe Mitt Romney is a Christian? Well, he says he is, and that's good enough for me, since the ultimate issues of faith are between an individual and his or her God. Heck, my brother (not a Mormon) went to BYU, and that should count for something.
ROMNEYITES UNITE (behind Sarah).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
