What if we don’t want to “change America“? I agree that this is kind of creepy. I think that someone could make a good campaign ad out of it, juxtaposed with his zeal to spread the wealth around.
Category Archives: Political Commentary
Freudian Typo
Michigan Democrats were accidentally given a number for a campaign hotline that was actually a phone s3x line.
Seems appropriate to me. Give the Dems a call to find out how they’re going to screw you.
Rockin’
Barack Obama may be a better dancer than John McCain, but neither of them can hold a candle to sister Sarah rockin’ out to Red Neck Woman in blue jeans. No more Niemann Marcus for her.
And Elaine Lafferty (yes, the Elaine Lafferty who used to edit Ms. Magazine) thinks that Sarah Palin is a “brainiac.” Really:
…these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
I’m a Democrat, but I’ve worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin’s nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women’s rights.
Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
A Harbinger?
If these micropolling results are valid, Obama’s in trouble in Pennsylvania:
These were conducted Oct. 23,24,25
Bucks County: O: 49 M: 43 2004 Results: K: 51 B: 48
Allegheny: O: 52 M: 42 2004 Results: K: 57 B: 42
Erie: O: 50 M: 43 2004 Results: K: 54 B: 45
York: M: 57 O: 39 2004 Results: B: 63 K: 35
Montgomery: O: 51 M: 39 2004 Results: K: 55 B: 44
John Kerry took Pennsylvania in 2004, but only by a narrow margin–51 to Bush’s 49 percent. But these polls indicate that Obama isn’t doing as well as Kerry did, except in York County (which seems to be going from red to blue). And between Murtha and the NRA, he’s probably going to lose big in rural western Pennsylvania. Now maybe he can make it up in Philly, but Rendell might have to bring out the dead voters.
The Gadfly
A few days ago, I wrote that John McCain isn’t the right candidate to put John McCain into the White House (i.e., he’s an electable candidate, with his history and record, but he’s unable to run a winning campaign). If he loses, it will be easy to blame the financial meltdown, but it was his response to it, and his incoherent inability to discuss economics sensibly, and his unwillingness to go after his colleagues in Congress, that will be the ultimate cause. I still think that it’s winnable, though. And if he wins, I think that he’ll have been saved by Sarah Palin.
In any event, Rich Lowry says much the same thing.
What’s Wrong With The First One?
Does Barack Obama agree with Marcy Kaptur that we need a Second Bill of Rights?
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.
Sure he does. He already said in a debate that we all have a “right” to health care. No, I don’t think that I, or anyone, has a “right” to stuff that requires taking from others. This is Eurosocialism.
A Threat To Straight Marriages
This sounds like a straw man (and one that I often hear in the gay marriage debate):
The anti-gay-marriage argument that simply makes no sense to me is the one that says allowing gay folks to marry will mess up my marriage – my heterosexual marriage. I don’t follow the reasoning that gay married couples will undermine the ability of straight married couples to form and sustain marital partnerships.
Perhaps someone has made that argument somewhere, sometime, but I’ve never seen or heard it myself. It would be helpful if she would provide a link to support the straw man. Of course it makes no sense to her. It makes no sense at all, which is why few people make such an argument.
I think that this may be a perversion of the real argument, which is that, for those uncertain of their sexual orientation, it will weaken societal pressures to have a heterosexual lifestyle and marriage. If society is no longer heteronormative, then a little boy might grow up thinking that it’s OK to marry his friend Joey, instead of Sally. Actual homosexuals are going to grow up to be gay regardless, but it’s not necessarily a good idea to encourage wavering where it exists. Now, one can argue whether it’s a good or bad thing to do so, but that’s the argument to be discussed..
The argument isn’t about existing marriages–that’s nutty. It’s about future ones.
Not New Ideas
Just bad ones:
Obama plans to resuscitate the welfare policies of the Great Society, but by stealth. It will be the same thing-the dole-but it will be called a “tax credit,” which has a more emollient sound than “relief,” “public charity,” “the dole.”
What I find depressing about this-as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut-is the extent to which it represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again. I’ve written about the “déjà-vu-all-over-again” phenomenon before in this space. Bill Ayers? Haven’t we done that? Jeremiah Wright? Haven’t we done that, too? Haven’t we tried Obama’s “soak the rich,” anti-business economic policies? Haven’t we tried his “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” foreign policy? Don’t we know that economics is about the creation rather than the redistribution of wealth, and that low taxes and strategies that encourage productivity and investment are best calculated to make the entire society, including the less fortunate, more prosperous? Don’t we know where appeasement and capitulation get us in foreign affairs? Don’t we remember Jimmy Carter? Haven’t we learned anything?
We’ll find out on Tuesday.
Transcending Race
Gateway Pundit has a 1995 video of Barack Obama blaming white executives in the suburbs for not wanting their taxes to help black children.
I’m sure he’s changed his mind since, though, right?
[Late morning update]
Barack Obama’s redistributionist obsession:
I suggest henceforth that every time readers hear the word “change” from Team Obama, they insert the work “redistributive” in front of it.
Indeed. He said those words in 2001. Why should we think that he’s changed since? Particularly after his Freudian slip with Joe the Plumber?
[Update early afternoon]
Goody. Here’s some more race transcendance: white people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Whenever I hear nutty proposals like this, I always wonder, who will decide who is and isn’t “white”? Does Barack Obama get half a vote?
Worse Than I Thought
And I thought that card check was already pretty bad:
Under EFCA, the terms set by the arbitrator will be the furthest thing from a “contract.” It won’t be an agreement between management and labor. Rather, wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment will be dictated by a government appointed arbitrator. The mandate will be binding on the parties for two years. Neither the company nor the employees can reject it (At least when the Central Committee set the wages for tractor assembly workers in the Leningradskaya oblast there was always the possibility that the wages might change later that afternoon).
Currently, if employees don’t like the tentative agreement negotiated between union leaders and management the employees can vote it down and instruct their leaders to go back to the bargaining table to get a better deal. Not so under EFCA. If the employees don’t like the arbitrator’s decree of a 2% wage increase, they’re stuck. Similarly, if the company can’t afford the arbitrator’s command to pyramid overtime, the company’s stuck. The consequences aren’t difficult to imagine.
This is a small business owner’s nightmare. As is the health insurance mandate. Obama will be a disaster, economically, at least if the Democrats get enough votes to block filibusters in the Senate.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here’s more on the job-destruction potential of Obama’s health-care plans, from that bastion of right wingery, the New York Times:
the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, might impose as part of his plan to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. Though Mr. Obama has not released details, economists believe he might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls.
That, Mr. Ratner said, would be catastrophic to a low-margin business like his, which has 90 employees, 29 of them full-time workers who are offered health benefits.
“To all of a sudden whack 6 to 7 percent of payroll costs, forget it,” he said. “If they do that, prices go up and employment goes down because nobody can absorb that.”
Writ large, that is one of the significant concerns about Mr. Obama’s health plan, which like this state’s landmark 2006 law would subsidize coverage for the uninsured by taxing employers who do not cover their workers. And it is a primary reason that so-called play-or-pay proposals have had an unsteady history for nearly two decades.
This is 180 degrees from the direction that we need to go. Most of the problems of the current health-care system stem from its being tied so much to employment, which is an artifact of wage controls during World War II. The first critical step in fixing it is to decouple it from the job, so that plans are portable, and people are more connected with choosing their provider. McCain’s plan isn’t perfect, but it’s a big step in the right direction, and the demagoguery of the Democrats on this issue (as on most issues) has been shameful.