Recently in Politics Category

Three posts of interest came to my attention in regards to the incoming Obama Administration, the smear job on Sarah Palin, and questions about voting irregularities and auditing Obama's campaign for financial misdeeds.

First, there's this by Stephen Green at Pajamas Media, talking about Obama's bad start by picking unnecessary fights with allies and adversaries alike.

One example:

Obama doesn't seem to have a clue on how to treat American allies. During the primary race, he threatened to crack down on major threats like Canada -- a position he probably/maybe/sort of backed off from in backdoor talks with the Canadian government. In Europe, Obama is already to the left of most every major EU leader. Then last week, Obama told Poland one thing about missile defense in private and told Russia quite another thing in public. In other words, he's doing his best to spoil relations with Poland, which will have repercussions throughout Eastern Europe, too. Our allies have got to wonder where Obama stands. I think we all do.

He's not even in office and already our allies are questioning his leadership. This is not a good sign.

Then neo-neocon lets us know that now it can be told, that is things about Obama's plans, taxes, voting irregularities, the bank and auto industry bailouts, and hoaxes about Sarah Palin the in-the-tank press failed to fact check and took as gospel, spreading them around the globe.

And last, but not least, Kyle-Anne Shiver explains how Sarah Palin nearly saved John McCain's campaign.

From the beginning of '08, the accepted wisdom was that no matter whom the Democrats nominated, they would deliver to the Republicans an ignominious defeat. But this year's defeat was anything but the complete rout it was supposed to be.

And the person who nearly even saved the day -- and the election -- for Republicans was Sarah Palin.

This is not a minority opinion. When Rasmussen conducted detailed exit polling among Republicans, they found that a full 69% of respondents thought Sarah Palin helped -- not hurt -- McCain. Governor Palin has not garnered the status as America's most highly regarded, most popular governor for nothing.

His failure to get elected wasn't her fault. Rather, he wasn't blown out in a landslide because Sarah Palin fired up many Republicans and got them out to vote. Unfortunately she couldn't carry the load all by herself. McCain's failure was his alone.

As Shiver says:

The woman, in my opinion, is a natural Patton. A fighter to the core. Palin seems to instinctively know that when one is hip-deep in a culture war and a fight for the survival of American exceptionalism, then one must do more than defend, defend, defend.

If one is not willing to attack in defense of one's cause, then he ought to get out of the way at the very least -- or consider joining the other side.

If she decides to run for President in 2012, this is one blogger that will support her.

One would think Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) would fade away after the election, but the Left, the so-called "sore winners", just won't let it die.

A piece in Politico reports on Sarah Palin's response to anonymous claims by McCain "aides" about her behavior during the campaign, calling her a diva, ignorant, stupid, and a host of other disparaging names. That in itself isn't the story.

It's the comments made by suffers of PDS that shows how far too many Democrats aren't willing to let it go even though their candidate won the election. They repeat long discredited rumors and claims about Governor Palin as if they were gospel.

Probably one of the most disturbing claims made is that she's racist because she didn't counter racial epithets and threats about Barack Obama by people in the crowd during one of her speeches. As one of the bloggers that attended that speech reported about the incidents wrote, there was no way she even heard those threats or epithets considering the people making them were nowhere within earshot of Governor Plain when they made them. According to the Secret Service they never heard them and they were in a much better position to do so than Sarah Palin. And you know they would have acted upon them if they had. The Secret Service doesn't screw around with things like that.

Other discredit claims still being bandied about by the PDS-blinded Dems: she had a witch doctor cleans her soul, had an exorcism performed on her, moved to ban books in the Wasilla Public Library, went on a $150,000 shopping spree for clothing, wants no sex ed or birth control for women, was affiliated with a secessionist political party, is obviously stupid because she attended a non-Ivy League 4-year school, has no regard for First Nation natives (even though she's married to one), and so on and so on. The list doesn't end.

Many of the over 700 comments tear her apart for things she never did, make assumptions about her life that aren't in evidence, disparage her family, question the parentage of her youngest son Trig (saying the baby is really Bristol's even though the math doesn't work out), condemn her for not aborting her Down's Syndrome son (a contradiction if the baby is supposedly Bristol's), implying she's a mindless bimbo with no critical thinking skills, only got where she is because she received special treatment her whole life because she looks like a porn star, and even worse, because she's the most popular governor of any of the 50 states with an approval rating of 80% and a Republican! How petty can these idiots get? What the hell is wrong with these people?

I only have two more things to say about this:

YOUR GUY WON!

and

STFU!!

"Holy s***! I need a Tylenol......"

For those of you out there lamenting the loss by John McCain and Sarah Palin, let me point you to a rare opinion piece by Steven Den Beste, probably one of the more astute political commentators I've come across on the web (with Bill Whittle being one of the other thoughtful and wise bloggers out there).

As Den Beste says, it's "not the end of the world."

It's easy to let yourself go in despair and start thinking things like "We are well-and-truly f****d" or "This is the worst of all possible outcomes". But it isn't true.

I think this election is going to be a "coming of age" moment for a lot of people. They say, "Be careful what you wish for" and a lot of people got their wish yesterday.

And now they're bound to be disappointed. Not even Jesus could satisfy all the expectations of Obama's most vocal supporters, or fulfill all the promises Obama has made.

I think Obama is going to turn out to be the worst president since Carter, and for the same reason: good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn't respond to benign behavior benignly.

But there's another reason why: Obama has been hiding his light under a basket. A lot of people bought a pig in a poke today, and now they're going to find out what they bought. Obama isn't what most of them think he is. The intoxication of the cult will wear off, leaving a monumental hangover.

And four years from now they'll be older and much wiser.

As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing.

I know my 14-year old son, BeezleBub is far more upset at the outcome of the presidential elections that either Deb or I. It may be because he's a bit more perceptive to the political realities than many other kids his age and understand what might happen if President-Elect Barack Obama carries out all of his promises. He does get quite a bit of crap from some of his classmates at high school for his political beliefs, but as he says they're just parroting what they've been taught at home and in school. The same claim could be made about BeezleBub, but he doesn't take anyone's word about anything anyone tells him, including me and Deb. He actually asks questions if he doesn't understand something and if it still seems stupid to him, he'll say so and why he thinks it's stupid.

Way to go BeezleBub.

But I have also been telling him the it's not the end of the world. I think after he reads Steven's piece he'll come around.

I had an epiphany, triggered by a comment to a post by one of my favorite conservative bloggers, neo-neocon. Her post asked, "Will the real Obama please stand up?"

There were a flurry of comments, the more insulting and intolerant ones coming from supporters of Barack Obama. (I've checked posts and comments on both sides of the blogosphere and I find far more often the Left resorts to invective and blind observance to the 'party' line than those on the Right.)

It was in this comment to neo-neocon's post that I realized one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives:

You might be interested in a study by psychologist Jonathan Haidt (Univ of Va, I believe) that demonstrated that conservatives can think like liberals (in other words, know how liberals think), but liberals have demonstrated that they simply can NOT put themselves in the shoes of the conservatives. This may account for much of the vitriol which liberals direct towards anyone who doesn't follow their agenda lock step.

In case you're wondering, John Haidt is a self-described liberal. If he notices things like this, I'm more likely to believe he's right.

On more than one occasion when discussing politics with some of the less tolerant members of the Left, I've been able to counter their arguments about one issue or another because I understood their viewpoint. However, they didn't or couldn't understand mine. I guess one might say I was inside their OODA loop. Does this prove Haidt's hypothesis?

I'll let you be the judge.

Every so often I have to be reminded of the biggest difference between the Left and everyone else when it comes to day to day life. It can all be boiled down to two concepts: opportunity and results. I was reminded of that lately when Barack Obama told Joe The Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama replied. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too."

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

It's one thing when it's done voluntarily, and an entirely different thing when you're given no choice. Obama wants to make sure you have no choice whatsoever. That's the "change" he wants to bring about.

As I wrote at the beginning of this post, there is something that I needed to be reminded of when it comes to the Left, and it's this: The left is always trying to achieve equality of results, while everyone else is trying to make sure everyone has an equality of opportunity.

The biggest difference between the two is that quality of results always panders to the lowest common denominator, pulling everyone down to the same level. The equality of opportunity tends to pull everyone up towards a higher level of achievement. Not everyone will will gain the full benefits of equality of opportunity, but they'll still be better off than the alternative.

We've seen the results of the first again and again throughout history, and they have never been good, ever. At its worst, the equality of results Obama is seeking could end up with all of us living in the dystopian hell that was described in Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.

Here it is, the last debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's less than three weeks until thye election. This is the last time for either one of them to shine, the last chance for John McCain to make up for lost ground, the last chance for Barack Obama to secure his lead in the polls.

There's been plenty of speculation by the MSM whether the subject of Obama's relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, founder and bomb designer for the 60's radical group, the Weather Underground, will be brought up during this last debate. Many feel it's unavoidable, and McCain's approach to the subject may make or break his chances in November.

This debate is Obama's to lose. Many see him as starting to coast, figuring he's got the election sewn up. That perception would be a mistake.

Let's see how it unfolds.

********************

One thing I will be doing differently during this debate as compared to the previous is giving my impressions about the candidates responses to the questions asked by the moderator, Bob Schieffer, rather than the specific questions and answers themselves.

Let me make something clear right up front: I am not impartial when it comes to this presidential race. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone reading my posts over the years. The more I've learned about Obama, both from posts on conservative, moderate, and liberal blogs and my own research (www.house.gov and www.senate.gov are great resources for learning about candidates voting records, or lack thereof, as well as floor speeches they've made...or haven't made), the more I'm convinced he would be a disaster as President of the United States. I am still working on my post about Senator Obama and why I believe he is unsuited to be the President. But that will wait until later this week.

********************

The topic of tonight's debate is the economy and related issues.

Both have new plans to deal with the economic downturn.

McCain said both long and short term fixes are needed. One short term fix is to help keep people in their homes, to buy up the bad mortgages and refinance them to allow people to stay in their homes.

Obama says not enough is being done to help the middle class. He then went on to restate many of his campaign promises. Sounds great, but nothing new from either candidate.

McCain brought up the plumber who asked Obama about the tax increases he's proposed for businesses, saying the tax increase would make it difficult for him to buy and expand the business where he presently works. How is it helping the economy if he can't afford to expand his business, to hire new employees, to but new equipment.

Obama denied he would do that, but it's matter of record, available on YouTube.

Obama mentioned cutting taxes to 95% of working families. But a large percentage of working families don't pay any taxes. How does he cut taxes on someone not paying them? That's something he hasn't answered yet.

********************

Both candidates addressed the budget deficit, predicted to be up to $1 trillion next year. Both their plans have major holes, may add to the deficit.

Obama brought up health care, energy, and a number of other issues, saying we have to spend now to save later. It's an argument that's been used for years, but has never saved a dime.

McCain wants to freeze spending, using both a hatchet and a scalpel. Cut the subsidies on ethanol, allow Brazilian ethanol, cut wasteful Pentagon spending, cut programs that don't work, get rid of earmarks.

Obama says it won't work, says Bush caused our problems and that McCain will do the same.

McCain shot back that he's not George Bush and that if Obama wanted to run against Bush he should have run against him in 2004, and how Obama voted for budgets he opposed because they were too fat.

Obama says he has a record of reaching across the aisle (but I haven't found any incidents where that's been the case). McCain called him on that, saying it isn't so.

********************

The question of negative campaigning came up. McCain brought up Obama's lack of repudiating vile attacks by Obama supporters while he has repudiated every vile attack made upon Obama. Obama is spending incredible amounts of money of negative ads. Obama is spending three times as much as McCain on ads.

Congressman Lewis equated McCain and Palin to George Wallace, mis-stating the facts. Obama did the usual distancing himself, trying to spin it.

********************

Bill Ayers and ACORN was brought up by both. Obama tried to explain his way out of his associations, sidestepping his involvement with Ayers and others of questionable repute.

********************

The question of why their running mates would make good a good president was asked.

Obama went through Biden's qualifications, saying he's a regular guy, and expert on foreign policy, and so on. (That's not been my take on Biden.)

McCain said everyone now knows Palin, knows she's a reformer, fought corruption in state government going after people in both parties, understands special needs families, and unites people of both parties. He claimed she's more qualified to be president than Obama or Biden.

Obama say Palin would probably be a good president, and McCain said likewise about Biden.

********************

Reducing dependence on foreign oil.

McCain would like to see the US import no oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. Canadian oil is OK...unless Obama repudiates NAFTA. We should use every approach - oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal.

Obama says oil companies should drill on the leases they already own. (The only problem is that there's no oil there.) Blames Bush for NAFTA problems (NAFTA was negotiated and implemented by Bill Clinton, not Bush).

********************

Oh, great! Health care. This is one of the third rails of politics. I hate to say it, but neither candidate has the right solution to the problem of health care and the costs of health insurance and neither is likely to be willing to implement the changes truly needed. Their plans sound 'great', but they won't work, haven't worked in other places, so why do it?

Obama wants to force larger businesses to provide health insurance or fine them. (Just what we need, yet another unfunded federal government mandate that forces businesses to do things they shouldn't have to do. Yeah, that'll work. NOT.)

********************

Again, I've been falling behind and I'm not even going to try to catch up.

My impression is that Obama sounded sure of himself and his programs. He made them sound quite reasonable. But thinking back, I realized he said quite a lot but was far too general and non-specific in quite a few responses. But that's what he does and what he's always done.

McCain was feisty, but it appeared Obama frustrated him on more than one occasion, not so much because he gave a better answer, but because he wasn't really answering the questions.

My impression: Obama took this one, but it wasn't a slam-dunk.

As mentioned in yesterday's post, Vice Presidential hopeful Governor Sarah Plain was in New Hampshire today. One thing I didn't expect was her interview with the local ABC affiliate, WMUR-TV.

The interview covered a number of topics, including "Troopergate". That interview can be seen here (click on the video headings to the right of the partial transcript).

Frankly, she appeared far more relaxed and open than during her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric.

Our friends from GraniteGrok were covering Sarah's appearance in Laconia today, with lots of excellent commentary, interviews with some of the prominent Republicans in attendance, and quite a bit of video (not posted yet as I write this). Swing on by the 'Grok and check out Skip's scribblings.

As the bombardment of negative campaign ads has escalated, I have to admit I'm tired of them, no matter which party or candidate is running them.

One of the most annoying ones are those tying GOP candidates for the House or Senate being inexorably tied to President George W. Bush, blaming them for voting with him "X% of the time!"

My response: So what?

Members of a particular political party will vote along with their fellow members a majority of the time, be they Democrats or Republicans. Those running these ads seem to think it's unusual.

But the thing that gets me about those most annoying "voted with Bush" ads is what they don't say. Most of those ads blame the entire economic debacle on Bush's policies. Here's my rejoinder:

(Ominous Radio Voice):

"George Bush's economic policies brought prosperity to millions of Americans, and created millions of new jobs. But since the Democrats took control of Congress, led by Senator Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, our economic outlook has changed from one of prosperity to one of failing banks, business turndowns, ever rising mortgage foreclosures, record energy prices, and deficit spending not seen since FDR and LBJ were in office."

"Do we want to continue the Democratic policies that brought this about?"

"Maybe it's time to send the Democrats home...."

Is it accurate? No less so than the anti-GOP ads. Is it any different from the ads constantly bleating on our TVs and radios? Absolutely not. It's just as germane to the campaigns of Democratic candidates as it is to Republican candidates.

It's the final night of the Democratic National Convention, held at Invesco Field, home of the Denver Broncos. 84,000 of the faithful filled the stadium, waiting for The Anointed to make his appearance. The stadium was decked out more like a huge meeting amphitheater, reminiscent of Nuremburg during one of the less enlightened periods of the 20^th Century.

This evening's media coverage started with a ten minute tribute film about him. It took less than a minute to mention that he was raised by a single mother. That seems to be a big meme running through his campaign.

****************

Barack Obama wasted no time accepting the nomination from the Convention.

He talked about change, but never really got around to explaining exactly what he'll change, except who's in the White House.

After praising his opponent, John McCain, for his service in the military, he slammed him for voting with President Bush "90% of the time". Maybe he did because it was the right thing to do, eh?

Much of what Obama said can be broken down to this: The government will help you because you can't help yourself. What he doesn't understand that most of us just want the government to leave us alone.

He made grand promises. The only thing he never said was how he was going pay for it all...except raise taxes on businesses. (Uh...Barack, American businesses already pay the second highest business taxes in the world. Could that be the reason so many of them have moved jobs and corporate headquarters overseas?)

He also talked a pretty good game about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden. He repeated the canard that we had no need and no right to go into Iraq. Obviously he's forgotten UNSC Resolution 1441, which authorized force to be used to bring Iraq into compliance with the original cease fire agreement after the Gulf War. Saddam had violated 11 UN Security Council Resolutions, including the one that laid out the conditions of the Gulf War cease fire.

This guy is promising everyone "This, That, and the other Thing." Frankly, I doubt he'll deliver on those promises...except the one about raising taxes.

He was right about one thing. We all have cynicism about government. Most of us feel that way for good reason: for far too long government has been the problem, not the solution. Yet he wants the government to take on even more control over our lives in order to fix the problems government created. Isn't that what is called a paradox?

****************

Other than those few dozen points, it was a good speech. Thank goodness the teleprompters were working.

It's Night Three of the Democratic National Convention and the time of decision has arrived.

It was after I returned home from an errand that my wife informed me Obama was nominated by acclimation after Hillary Clinton interrupted the roll call votes of states to ask the delegations to do so.

I have no doubt 18 million people that voted for her felt disappointed.

****************

Hillary's speech on the behalf of the New York delegation, and her motion to suspend the convention rules and allow nomination of Barack Obama by acclimation, certainly seemed to bring the party together. But I wonder how many of the die-hard Hillary faithful will actually vote for Obama come November? Some polls suggest 20% or more will not vote for him. That's a substantial number. However it doesn't automatically mean the disaffected will vote for John McCain.

****************

The headliner tonight was former President Bill Clinton.

I find it interesting he has so drastically changed his tune in regards to Barack Obama's qualifications to sit in the Oval Office. Tonight he praised him to high heaven. Only a few months ago he was slamming him for being so inexperienced.

Bill Clinton did bring up the Republicans claims during the 1992 campaign that Clinton was too inexperienced and too young to be President. Obviously Clinton was not. But Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, the type of office that does give the kind of experience one needs to become President.

Barack Obama has none of that kind of experience. Not one bit. Clinton was a font of experience in comparison to Obama. He's never had to run a state, never had to balance a budget, never had to make the tough decisions of the kind a governor makes. His time in the Illinois and US Senates adds up to less than 6 years. And in all that time he's done little in the way proposing and passing legislation.

That doesn't bode well for one aspiring to the highest office in the land.

****************

Joe Biden's son gave a rousing introductory speech for his father. I have no idea if he has any political ambitions, but he could certainly follow his father into office. There's some talk that if the Obama/Biden ticket wins in November, Beau Biden could be appointed by the governor of Delaware to fill his father's Senate seat.

Biden praised Hillary Clinton, graciously mentioning that she will continue to make great contributions.

He then accepted the nomination as Vice President, and did it with uncharacteristically few words. (He is known as a talker, being able to use 500 words when 10 will do.) He also made a Freudian slip, talking about the nomination of George Bush, then corrected himself and saying John McCain.

He then got into bashing John McCain, using the phrase "That's not change. That's more of the same!" He talked about some of the votes McCain made, not bothering to mention that in many cases he himself made the same vote.

Basically it was the same liberal tax-and-spend blather, saying black is white, up is down, Left is right and Right is wrong.

Will an Obama administration stand up to Russia as Joe Biden claimed in his speech? Or will they merely make strong sounding noises, yet do nothing? I believe it will be the latter and not the former.

Biden is claiming Obama was right on withdrawing the troops from Iraq, and John McCain was wrong. Biden conveniently forgot to mention that Barack wanted to surrender two years ago when withdrawal meant a bloodbath and the need to return at an even higher cost. Now that conditions have changed in Iraq after the surge, a staged withdrawal makes sense. Yet Biden is claiming Obama was right all along?

****************

The night closed out with the surprise appearance of Barack Obama after Biden's speech. A nice finishing touch.

Tomorrow night is going to be interesting.

****************

A closing observation:

My wife was telling me a number of her clients were opining the Republicans shouldn't even bother to hold their convention because the Democrats have blown them out of the water. My words to them: Remember that the Democrats were preaching to the choir, a Democratic choir. Do they really think there won't be similar actions and speeches at the Republican convention?