Lee Atwater practiced "tar baby" politics. Willie Horton was Dukakis' "tar baby," and Atwater (along with a guy named Floyd Brown, who's still around) attached the "team" of Dukakis-Horton together.
If I'd been king of the McCain Campaign, I would have suggested the same with the team of Obama-Wright. One problem: John McCain NEVER mentioned the name "Jeremiah Wright," and apparently forbade Sarah from doing so. I believe McCain only mentioned Bill Ayers' name once, perhaps twice.
The campaign gave Sarah a script to use on Obama-Ayers, and it was a pretty lame script ("paling around with terrorists"). They failed to portray Obama as a socialist who was proposing job-destroying (key term) tax policies. And on and on . . .
The result was that Obama, throughout the campaign, had very high "positives." At one point (with the lady in Wisconsin) McCain told us we "have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency." He should have added, "Heck, I may vote for him myself."
I'm not suggesting that McCain should have run a Darth Vader campaign, only that he should have established Barack Obama as a radical who would do great harm to individual Americans. As I've said before, I kept wondering "Exactly why is John McCain running for President? Does he really think it's important that the American people elect him rather than the other guy?"
As Pamela Geller put it recently in WND, Sarah Palin's "simplicity" is her strength rather than her weakness. For example, 18% of the people eligible for Medicare have "no health insurance." Make them sign up, and we significantly reduce the number of uninsured. Many of those people don't sign up because they don't want to pay the 90 bucks a month premium. Okay, find out what needs to been done to get them to pay it -- and then do what's necessary.
Those approaches may have some bad sides, but it's a lot better than what we're seeing now in Congress. If we PAID private insurance -- basic coverage -- for ALL the uninsured, it would cost less than the proposals now in front of Congress.
Sarah Palin will never be able to cite statistics on health care (from a TelePrompter) that come trippingly off the tongue of Hussein, but his statistics are all self-serving and ultimately bogus. When it comes to smart, the TelePrompter is smarter than the guy reciting from it.
Showing posts with label Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama's Bogus "Rule of Law"
Waterboarding is NOT torture, except by the prissy standards of the ACLU and America-haters like George Soros. Of course, Obama's recent speech on "national security," which Obama has redefined as "making nice with those who want to kill us," made much about his commitment to "the rule of law." Obama never really defined that concept, mainly because it is little more than a platitude.
(Note: Scroll down to the previous column for an analysis of Obama's major failings as a public speaker.)
Obama implies that he, our national custodian of righteousness, is for "the rule of law," while the wicked Bush Administration supposedly was against it. Logically and intellectually, his argument is worthy of the third-brightest student in a middle school.
In the real world, people disagree on what laws mean -- on how they should be interpreted. In fact, that's why we have judges, courts, and attorneys -- an insight that shouldn't come as news to lawyers like Obama and his sour, angry spouse. They both went to a big-time law school, Harvard, where they apparently learned nothing except to feel eternally superior to people who didn't graduate from Ivy League institutions.
Barack Obama is "sure" that waterboarding constitutes torture. Actually, it appears he's sure that calling it torture will appeal to the far-left types who catapulted him into high office. Exactly why he supposedly thinks it's torture is something we will never hear in this lifetime. Remember, this is the guy who didn't think that listening to Rev. Wright's harangues for 20 years didn't constitute cruel and unusual punishment for him and Michelle.
Torture is not defined as unpleasant interrogation -- enhanced or unenhanced. It is not defined as questioning people under high-stress conditions -- the kind that might actually produce useful information necessary to prevent the death of thousands (tens of thousands?) of Americans.
"Torture" is treatment that creates permanent injuries and intense, unbearable pain. Examples? Burning someone with a hot poker . . . or tearing out a person's fingernails with a pliers . . . or hooking up battery cables to their genitals . . . or scalding them with hot water . . . or making them read nonstop the various autobiographies of Barack Hussein Obama.
Waterboarding is very different. Essentially, it involves pouring small amounts of water into a supine individual's face to give him the ILLUSION of drowning. Is it very unpleasant? Yes. But is it any worse than jumping into a pool and breathing in when you should have breathed out? Nope.
Is it really dangerous? Of course not. But as we learned with Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Muhammed, it was very effective at eliciting information that saved countless American lives. GWB was interested in saving lives. Obama is more interested in saving face.
I'd love to debate this issue with clueless souls like Obama and Eric Holder. But the chances of that happening are about the same as someone actually being harmed by waterboarding. In other words, zero.
Is Obama really a "skilled debater?" We really won't know that until he actually debates someone.
(Note: Scroll down to the previous column for an analysis of Obama's major failings as a public speaker.)
Obama implies that he, our national custodian of righteousness, is for "the rule of law," while the wicked Bush Administration supposedly was against it. Logically and intellectually, his argument is worthy of the third-brightest student in a middle school.
In the real world, people disagree on what laws mean -- on how they should be interpreted. In fact, that's why we have judges, courts, and attorneys -- an insight that shouldn't come as news to lawyers like Obama and his sour, angry spouse. They both went to a big-time law school, Harvard, where they apparently learned nothing except to feel eternally superior to people who didn't graduate from Ivy League institutions.
Barack Obama is "sure" that waterboarding constitutes torture. Actually, it appears he's sure that calling it torture will appeal to the far-left types who catapulted him into high office. Exactly why he supposedly thinks it's torture is something we will never hear in this lifetime. Remember, this is the guy who didn't think that listening to Rev. Wright's harangues for 20 years didn't constitute cruel and unusual punishment for him and Michelle.
Torture is not defined as unpleasant interrogation -- enhanced or unenhanced. It is not defined as questioning people under high-stress conditions -- the kind that might actually produce useful information necessary to prevent the death of thousands (tens of thousands?) of Americans.
"Torture" is treatment that creates permanent injuries and intense, unbearable pain. Examples? Burning someone with a hot poker . . . or tearing out a person's fingernails with a pliers . . . or hooking up battery cables to their genitals . . . or scalding them with hot water . . . or making them read nonstop the various autobiographies of Barack Hussein Obama.
Waterboarding is very different. Essentially, it involves pouring small amounts of water into a supine individual's face to give him the ILLUSION of drowning. Is it very unpleasant? Yes. But is it any worse than jumping into a pool and breathing in when you should have breathed out? Nope.
Is it really dangerous? Of course not. But as we learned with Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Muhammed, it was very effective at eliciting information that saved countless American lives. GWB was interested in saving lives. Obama is more interested in saving face.
I'd love to debate this issue with clueless souls like Obama and Eric Holder. But the chances of that happening are about the same as someone actually being harmed by waterboarding. In other words, zero.
Is Obama really a "skilled debater?" We really won't know that until he actually debates someone.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Palin, Obama: Symbols, Images, Themes
In my previous columns, I talked about the use of images, symbols, and themes in a presidential campaign. Pictures like the ones below tell us a great deal about candidates, more perhaps than we can express in words alone. Sarah Palin is the quintessence of everything we've historically regarded as American.
But what are we to think of Barack Obama, the man who spent 20 years in a church where the lunatic pastor spewed hostility toward white people and the U.S. government? Images and symbols are going to play a major role in the campaigns of 2010 and 2012. A particularly insightful blogger, Marnie Delano of N.Y. state (http://pumatruthisgold.blogspot.com) , described today's Obama as "frail, frazzled, and feckless." Nobody ever used such terms to characterize Sarah Palin.
"Sarah Palin . . . She's One of Us." Obama? The "change" he's brought us seems to consist mainly of a bunch of Democrat influence peddlers who don't pay their taxes . . . and who have contempt for normal Americans.
If you haven't already, please join TeamSarah.org . . . and contribute today to SarahPac.com. If you're a blogger, please join ReadMyLipstickNetwork.com. Thanks.
But what are we to think of Barack Obama, the man who spent 20 years in a church where the lunatic pastor spewed hostility toward white people and the U.S. government? Images and symbols are going to play a major role in the campaigns of 2010 and 2012. A particularly insightful blogger, Marnie Delano of N.Y. state (http://pumatruthisgold.blogspot.com) , described today's Obama as "frail, frazzled, and feckless." Nobody ever used such terms to characterize Sarah Palin.
"Sarah Palin . . . She's One of Us." Obama? The "change" he's brought us seems to consist mainly of a bunch of Democrat influence peddlers who don't pay their taxes . . . and who have contempt for normal Americans.
If you haven't already, please join TeamSarah.org . . . and contribute today to SarahPac.com. If you're a blogger, please join ReadMyLipstickNetwork.com. Thanks.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Obama: Surrounded by Terrorists, Corruption
The steps bloggers and other onliners must take for McCain-Palin to win in November . . . Note, if you'd like to read my pieces on Hillary Clinton as a classic "Abused Woman," please go to http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/.
For the most part, I couldn't agree more with Paul Z. -- bloggers need to be coordinated rather than consolidated. I would add that we also need to be more focused, not trying for revelations on 100 different issues. Obama's murky position on Jerusalem is one of those that will take 10,000 hours to decipher and get us 100 votes.
In a sense, we need to be brtual with OURSELVES, determining if our "pet" issue is really one that matters outside ur household. We have to know exactly what we're doing and be able to determine if it's going to win us votes. With me, it has been the Rev. Wright issue. Wright is an America-hater, a hater of White People, and a malicious liar. Obama spent 20 years in his Church, pressumably hooting and hollering along with the rest of the congregation.
Frankly, we can't assume that something that may be important to some pro-Isreael voters (Israel-hater Rashid Khalidi, for example) is significant to anyone else. I fear the same is true with Raila Odinga -- almost no one knows who he is. If he lived in Chicago, we'd be fine. When we have to tell people that they "should be interested in this or that," we've lost the battle.
The fact that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (and Biden was the third-most liberal) is clear and easy for people to understand. They are both socialists whose political philosophies are basically to buy votes with other people's money.
i suggest we also, focus on Obama's connections with unsavory characters, primarily Ayers and Wright. I do believe it's also an issue that Obama and his main allies in Congress have been recipients of huge donations from most of the housing and financial services companies connected with the financial crisis.
But again, Obama's "birth certificate" is not going to decide votes, even if it should. Obama's huge donations from Tony Rezko are important as part of his connection with unsavory characters throughout his political lifetime.
Obama's long connections with voter fraud -- ACORN -- could become a major issue. Sean Hannity has a program on it tonight (Sunday) on FOX News. It's already viral on the Internet.
Voter fraud is important because it's a way of stealing the value of honest people's votes.
As bloggers, we have to stop trying for exotic "home runs." We need to focus on a few issues that can determine the election. Obama/Axelrod would dearly love to send us on wild goose chases. We must resist the temptation.
Willie Horton, ONE issue, destroyed the Dukakis candidacy. The Swift Boat allegations, really one issue, destroyed Kerry. I'm sure there were hundreds of other "issues" in those campaigns. None of them amounted to a hill of beans. On the image above: I'd leave out Khalidi and Mansour, except in passing. Ayers and Wright should be the focus.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Barack Obama: Very Dangerous Man
The following post is by courtesy Tracy Karol, an Hispanic activist in Texas and a leader in the "NoBama" Movement. Her theme is why Obama is dangerous to Christians and other Americans.
Why do people of all faiths believe (or should believe) Barack Obama is dangerous? Here are a few of the facts that should have you worried:
FACT: Obama’s spiritual advisor, whom he considers a “beloved uncle,” is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Barack and Michelle Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ, which holds to the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, for more than 20 years. During that time, Rev. Wright spewed hatred from the pulpit, most notably (that the public is aware of) when he screamed after the 9/11 attacks not “God Bless America” but “God D**n” America!” – something unheard of in any church I’ve ever attended.
He blamed America for the attacks and claimed our country had them coming for its treatment of blacks. He also blamed the government for giving AIDS to the black community. Barack Obama seemed to have no problem with any of these statements (though he claimed to be unaware of them, while his good friend Oprah Winfrey left the Church to protect her public image). He then turned around and used the reverend’s hate-filled venom to give a campaign speech on race in America and compare himself to MLK. Nothing like twisting the facts to suit your needs. Sources: Fox News, MSNBC News, ABC News, CBS News, YouTube, CNN
FACT: While Barack Obama will “stand with the Muslims,” he will certainly not stand with people of any other faith with it comes to human rights. In a recent case, a man by the name of Choudury was kidnapped and held in Bangladesh. Dr. Richard Benkin learned the man was being tortured and that the United States could step in and get him released. Benkin appealed to Democratic and Republican politicians in what should have been a no-brainer.
As Benkin writes, “The real test of moral courage is how one acts – not just talks – in real-life situations.” He goes on to explain that over the course of months politicians from both parties helped with the release of Choudoury – with the exception of Barack Obama, who was blatantly callous on the issue. “In fact, Barack Obama demonstrated a level of moral cowardice unmatched by anyone in either the US House or Senate,” Benkin writes.
It’s a good thing we don’t have to depend on Barack Obama – at least not for now – to actually protect human rights, rather than just give speeches about them. Source: Canada Free Press.
Why do people of all faiths believe (or should believe) Barack Obama is dangerous? Here are a few of the facts that should have you worried:
FACT: Obama’s spiritual advisor, whom he considers a “beloved uncle,” is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Barack and Michelle Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ, which holds to the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, for more than 20 years. During that time, Rev. Wright spewed hatred from the pulpit, most notably (that the public is aware of) when he screamed after the 9/11 attacks not “God Bless America” but “God D**n” America!” – something unheard of in any church I’ve ever attended.
He blamed America for the attacks and claimed our country had them coming for its treatment of blacks. He also blamed the government for giving AIDS to the black community. Barack Obama seemed to have no problem with any of these statements (though he claimed to be unaware of them, while his good friend Oprah Winfrey left the Church to protect her public image). He then turned around and used the reverend’s hate-filled venom to give a campaign speech on race in America and compare himself to MLK. Nothing like twisting the facts to suit your needs. Sources: Fox News, MSNBC News, ABC News, CBS News, YouTube, CNN
FACT: Obama twice voted to deny viable infants who have been aborted the right to life. Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion he supports infanticide, as evidenced by his active opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama supports viable infants being set aside and left to die if their mother has elected to abort them. Obama twice voted against the Act while in the Illinois Senate, and then kept it from getting to the floor for a vote. Source: World Net Daily.
FACT: Shortly after the 9/11 attacks on America by Islamic extremists, Barack Obama gave a speech in which he stated he would “stand with the Muslims.” Obama, who is a cousin to the corrupt Muslim leader of Kenya, Odinga, whom he called during the most recent elections and CAMPAIGNED for in 2006. Odinga has engaged in ethnic cleansing of Christians, burning churches, killing priests and nuns, and vowing to uphold Sharia Law. Source: BBC
FACT: Obama is no friend to the Jewish people. He could be the Jewish people’s worst nightmare. One of Barack Obama’s closest friends and allies is Louis Farrakhan, known as the “black Hitler.” And posted on Obama’s own website on June 8, 2008 (before it was scrubbed) is a photo of Brother Nathaneal Kapner holding a sign that reads “Jews are Anti-Christ” and who writes a blog: “Warn How Anti-Christ Jews Are Destroying Christianity In America." This just days after Obama spoke before AIPAC, pandering to the pro-Jewish lobby to appeal to Jewish voters. Most of Obama’s friends, however, are blatantly anti-Semite. Sources:
www.barackobama.com and Google.FACT: While Barack Obama will “stand with the Muslims,” he will certainly not stand with people of any other faith with it comes to human rights. In a recent case, a man by the name of Choudury was kidnapped and held in Bangladesh. Dr. Richard Benkin learned the man was being tortured and that the United States could step in and get him released. Benkin appealed to Democratic and Republican politicians in what should have been a no-brainer.
As Benkin writes, “The real test of moral courage is how one acts – not just talks – in real-life situations.” He goes on to explain that over the course of months politicians from both parties helped with the release of Choudoury – with the exception of Barack Obama, who was blatantly callous on the issue. “In fact, Barack Obama demonstrated a level of moral cowardice unmatched by anyone in either the US House or Senate,” Benkin writes.
It’s a good thing we don’t have to depend on Barack Obama – at least not for now – to actually protect human rights, rather than just give speeches about them. Source: Canada Free Press.
Monday, May 12, 2008
WILL HILLARY ENDORSE JOHN MCCAIN?
Note: On my Pennsylvania blog today, I have a piece about "America's Worst Congressman: Chaka Fattah." Rep. Fattah is from Philadelphia, and he's about as corrupt as it gets in American politics, which is saying a lot. On my Hillary Supporters for McCain blog, I continue my discussion about how McCain could break the election wide open -- and also add some thoughts about the West Virginia primary. In many ways, WV is "Pennsylvania South," loaded with good people of modest means. Hillary will win big there. Obama basically has no interest in states like WV.
See below: "I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, whose delegates were denied Clinton."
The following two paragraphs are from my new -- and popular (to my amazement) -- blog called "Hillary Supporters for McCain." From all appearances, Mrs. Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination for President, but she will continue to play a major role in determining who wins the general election. (I hope you take a look at the "Hillary" site. It is definitely not part of the usual "Hillary bashing.")
I'm hoping this blog (the "Hillary" site) becomes one of the most fascinating -- and useful -- ones in the political blogosphere. You can help me achieve that end by taking various steps: (1) bookmarking the site; (2) visiting regularly; (3) sharing your own thoughts about the various articles (either through the "comments" or by writing me at TalkTop65@aol.com); and (4) telling your friends and political allies about this site and providing them links to it. Thanks for your support.
On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates (Melissa Hart and Toni Gilhooley) whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate.
One key question that hasn't been answered yet is whether Hillary supporters should back John McCain -- and if so, why? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that issue. Another critical matter is how (and to what degree) Hillary should endorse Obama. If she believes he would be a bad President, should she endorse him at all -- or perhaps rest her wounded spirit incommunicado in Hawaii? If she has to choose between Party and country, won't she choose country?
If I had any direct contact with Senator Clinton, these are some of the questions I'd ask her -- respectfully but forcefully.
Some months ago Mrs. Clinton said the following: "I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002 [against the Iraq War]." In those comments, she was suggesting that McCain has the necessary experience to be President -- and that Obama doesn't.
Many people in Sen. Clinton's Party will tell her, "Hillary, it's time to 'take one for the team' and to strongly support Obama for the presidency. If she gives into that request/demand, it would be a terrible way to conduct a life. This nation -- her nation, mine, and yours -- does face the huge challenges she's discussed in the campaign.
From his record, John McCain has the experience -- and the character -- to deal with them. From his record (or the lack thereof), Obama does not. He demonstrates great naivete about the way the world operates. He would have great trouble protecting America because he doesn't grasp fully that the nation needs protection.
As I've indicated, Obama apparently does not respect McCain the person. Why? Because Obama doesn't know many (any?) people like the Arizona Senator. Instead, he knows his wife (who calls America "a mean place"), or Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who damns the country and blames it for "inventing" the AIDS virus), or William Ayers (who thinks the country deserves to have bombs set off in public places), or Tony Rezko (who believes that political payoffs are appropriate).
This is the Obama who calls his grandmother "a typical white person." The Obama who thinks typical white people are religious fanatics, gun-lovers, racists, and xenophobes.
Am I underestimating Obama? I wish there were some evidence that I was.
And back to Mrs. Clinton: instead of "taking one for the team," she should consider what she owes to a country that has been so good to her, her husband, and her daughter.
I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, who delegates were denied Clinton.
It's probably unlikely that Senator Clinton will endorse John McCain. Unlikely? Yes. Unimaginable? Not really. Doing the right thing sometimes comes with a personal cost. Doing the wrong thing, however, can come with a terrible cost for a nation.
Life is tough -- and so, I believe, is Hillary Clinton. We shall see, won't we?
See below: "I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, whose delegates were denied Clinton."
The following two paragraphs are from my new -- and popular (to my amazement) -- blog called "Hillary Supporters for McCain." From all appearances, Mrs. Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination for President, but she will continue to play a major role in determining who wins the general election. (I hope you take a look at the "Hillary" site. It is definitely not part of the usual "Hillary bashing.")
I'm hoping this blog (the "Hillary" site) becomes one of the most fascinating -- and useful -- ones in the political blogosphere. You can help me achieve that end by taking various steps: (1) bookmarking the site; (2) visiting regularly; (3) sharing your own thoughts about the various articles (either through the "comments" or by writing me at TalkTop65@aol.com); and (4) telling your friends and political allies about this site and providing them links to it. Thanks for your support.
On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates (Melissa Hart and Toni Gilhooley) whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate.
One key question that hasn't been answered yet is whether Hillary supporters should back John McCain -- and if so, why? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that issue. Another critical matter is how (and to what degree) Hillary should endorse Obama. If she believes he would be a bad President, should she endorse him at all -- or perhaps rest her wounded spirit incommunicado in Hawaii? If she has to choose between Party and country, won't she choose country?
If I had any direct contact with Senator Clinton, these are some of the questions I'd ask her -- respectfully but forcefully.
Some months ago Mrs. Clinton said the following: "I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002 [against the Iraq War]." In those comments, she was suggesting that McCain has the necessary experience to be President -- and that Obama doesn't.
Many people in Sen. Clinton's Party will tell her, "Hillary, it's time to 'take one for the team' and to strongly support Obama for the presidency. If she gives into that request/demand, it would be a terrible way to conduct a life. This nation -- her nation, mine, and yours -- does face the huge challenges she's discussed in the campaign.
From his record, John McCain has the experience -- and the character -- to deal with them. From his record (or the lack thereof), Obama does not. He demonstrates great naivete about the way the world operates. He would have great trouble protecting America because he doesn't grasp fully that the nation needs protection.
As I've indicated, Obama apparently does not respect McCain the person. Why? Because Obama doesn't know many (any?) people like the Arizona Senator. Instead, he knows his wife (who calls America "a mean place"), or Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who damns the country and blames it for "inventing" the AIDS virus), or William Ayers (who thinks the country deserves to have bombs set off in public places), or Tony Rezko (who believes that political payoffs are appropriate).
This is the Obama who calls his grandmother "a typical white person." The Obama who thinks typical white people are religious fanatics, gun-lovers, racists, and xenophobes.
Am I underestimating Obama? I wish there were some evidence that I was.
And back to Mrs. Clinton: instead of "taking one for the team," she should consider what she owes to a country that has been so good to her, her husband, and her daughter.
I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, who delegates were denied Clinton.
It's probably unlikely that Senator Clinton will endorse John McCain. Unlikely? Yes. Unimaginable? Not really. Doing the right thing sometimes comes with a personal cost. Doing the wrong thing, however, can come with a terrible cost for a nation.
Life is tough -- and so, I believe, is Hillary Clinton. We shall see, won't we?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Jerry Bowyer: Pennsylvania Seriously Divided
This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796023090409503.html
Pennsylvania Divided
By Jerry Bowyer
As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.
One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.
As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.
Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.
And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.
I find all of this disheartening because allowing the narrow interests of political factions to force decisions and policies onto the whole is something that James Madison warned us against. In a pro-Constitution editorial (which history has come to know as Federalist 9), he described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous.
When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.
If that sounds a little like the Democratic Party today, it may be because the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has come to be dominated by factions. In the Keystone State, those factions include African-Americans who dominate the inner-cities, upper-class white voters in the suburbs, working-class voters in the middle regions of the state, and Latinos, seniors and college students who are dispersed in geographic pockets. And of course, ubiquitous unions.
Voters head to the polls in Pennsylvania on April 22 in a process that is supposed to lead eventually to a Democratic presidential nominee. But in watching Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama traverse the state, it's hard to see how one candidate will emerge from the many Democratic factions slugging it out.
Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton is trying to turn out her own supporters, who include traditional working-class Democrats, middle-class suburbanites and, of course, women and seniors.
Last month, it appeared that Mr. Obama's campaign was to be split apart on the edge of growing fears among white Democrats over incendiary and, at times racially charged, comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered from the pulpit over a 20-year period that Mr. Obama attended his church in Chicago. All the while, Mr. Obama hadn't raised an objection to Rev. Wright's sermons.
To save his campaign he showed up in Philadelphia – the city where Madison and the rest drew up the Constitution in 1787 – and gave what some called "The Speech" on race in America. In doing so, Mr. Obama likely saved his presidential campaign. And he did it, in part, drawing a line all the way back to "that group of men [who had] gathered" across the street in Constitutional Hall in 1787 to write one of the founding documents of the nation. In other words, by reaching beyond the factional politics of the Democratic Party.
Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."
_____________________________
Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Dear Pennsylvanians and others interested in Keystone State politics, please visit my blog focused on the state at: pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Occasionally, I'll cross post from this national blog to the PA one, but generally the columns there will be distinctive.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796023090409503.html
Pennsylvania Divided
By Jerry Bowyer
As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.
One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.
As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.
Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.
And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.
I find all of this disheartening because allowing the narrow interests of political factions to force decisions and policies onto the whole is something that James Madison warned us against. In a pro-Constitution editorial (which history has come to know as Federalist 9), he described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous.
When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.
If that sounds a little like the Democratic Party today, it may be because the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has come to be dominated by factions. In the Keystone State, those factions include African-Americans who dominate the inner-cities, upper-class white voters in the suburbs, working-class voters in the middle regions of the state, and Latinos, seniors and college students who are dispersed in geographic pockets. And of course, ubiquitous unions.
Voters head to the polls in Pennsylvania on April 22 in a process that is supposed to lead eventually to a Democratic presidential nominee. But in watching Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama traverse the state, it's hard to see how one candidate will emerge from the many Democratic factions slugging it out.
Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton is trying to turn out her own supporters, who include traditional working-class Democrats, middle-class suburbanites and, of course, women and seniors.
Last month, it appeared that Mr. Obama's campaign was to be split apart on the edge of growing fears among white Democrats over incendiary and, at times racially charged, comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered from the pulpit over a 20-year period that Mr. Obama attended his church in Chicago. All the while, Mr. Obama hadn't raised an objection to Rev. Wright's sermons.
To save his campaign he showed up in Philadelphia – the city where Madison and the rest drew up the Constitution in 1787 – and gave what some called "The Speech" on race in America. In doing so, Mr. Obama likely saved his presidential campaign. And he did it, in part, drawing a line all the way back to "that group of men [who had] gathered" across the street in Constitutional Hall in 1787 to write one of the founding documents of the nation. In other words, by reaching beyond the factional politics of the Democratic Party.
Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."
_____________________________
Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Dear Pennsylvanians and others interested in Keystone State politics, please visit my blog focused on the state at: pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Occasionally, I'll cross post from this national blog to the PA one, but generally the columns there will be distinctive.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
McCain: Use Clintons in Commercials
If you scroll down one column, you'll see that I recommended John McCain "make nice with Hillary Clinton." My point is that many Hillary voters -- millions of them -- are there for the taking. I'd like now to go further -- and recommend that McCain develop commercials featuring Bill and Hillary Clinton.
He could use them in the general election.The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
You can get Patrick's updates from the McCain Campaign by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
He could use them in the general election.The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
You can get Patrick's updates from the McCain Campaign by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
Friday, March 28, 2008
OBAMA'S SPIRITUAL ADVISOR SLURS ITALIANS
Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 26, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.
"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."
Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ..."
Below is the link to the above article. It's worth reading. By the way, in 2006, according to his IRS records, Obama contributed $22,500 to Wright's church.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 26, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.
"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."
Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ..."
Below is the link to the above article. It's worth reading. By the way, in 2006, according to his IRS records, Obama contributed $22,500 to Wright's church.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html
Sunday, March 23, 2008
MY OBAMA PROBLEM -- AND YOURS
"I can no more disown him (Rev. Wright) than I can disown the Black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother." (Barack Obama)
Frankly, this is Barack doing the Okie doke, practicing deception. Rev. Wright is not synonymous with the Black community. His loony -- and hateful -- ideas are shared by SOME in the Black community but not even by a majority. There's no evidence the community believes that 9/11 was the fault of Americans, including the 3,000 innocent people killed. There's no evidence the community thinks the U.S. government "invented" AIDS in order to kill Black people.
Did Obama's grandmother share similar ideas? Obama never says she did. He brings her up apparently to justify his not disowning a hate-monger, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The grandmother, apparently a good human being, has almost nothing in common with Wright.
The grandparents seem to be people Obama can use to further his political ambitions. In his commercials, running now in PA, he speaks with reverence about the grandfather's service "in Patton's Army.”. In his first book (Dreams From My Father), he describes the grandpa as marching around "in the mud" and never seeing real combat. Which is it, Barack?
In his speech, he describes him grandmother as someone unnecessarily frightened of "big Black men" and given to making racial "stereotypes." But the book doesn't show that at all. She never even mentioned (apparently) that the man threatening her in one instance was Black. The grandfather supplies that detail. Which is it, Barack?
In his commercials Obama implies he's proud of his grandma's war service on "a bomber assembly line." But in the book he calls her "Rosie the Riveter," a demeaning term.
My frustration is that too many people hold Obama to very low standards. He's allowed to be inconsistent in what he says to us. His grandparents get criticized for holding less than enlightened views, but they get little credit for bringing up a grandson who went to Columbia and Harvard and became a U.S. Senator – and viable candidate for the presidency. Common sense tells us they must have done a lot of things right.
Is the media going to resolve the questions that remain about Obama? Don't be on it. They'd rather wave their pom poms in salute of a candidate who's supposed to be "post-racial," but seems to look at everything in life through a racial lens.
Frankly, this is Barack doing the Okie doke, practicing deception. Rev. Wright is not synonymous with the Black community. His loony -- and hateful -- ideas are shared by SOME in the Black community but not even by a majority. There's no evidence the community believes that 9/11 was the fault of Americans, including the 3,000 innocent people killed. There's no evidence the community thinks the U.S. government "invented" AIDS in order to kill Black people.
Did Obama's grandmother share similar ideas? Obama never says she did. He brings her up apparently to justify his not disowning a hate-monger, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The grandmother, apparently a good human being, has almost nothing in common with Wright.
The grandparents seem to be people Obama can use to further his political ambitions. In his commercials, running now in PA, he speaks with reverence about the grandfather's service "in Patton's Army.”. In his first book (Dreams From My Father), he describes the grandpa as marching around "in the mud" and never seeing real combat. Which is it, Barack?
In his speech, he describes him grandmother as someone unnecessarily frightened of "big Black men" and given to making racial "stereotypes." But the book doesn't show that at all. She never even mentioned (apparently) that the man threatening her in one instance was Black. The grandfather supplies that detail. Which is it, Barack?
In his commercials Obama implies he's proud of his grandma's war service on "a bomber assembly line." But in the book he calls her "Rosie the Riveter," a demeaning term.
My frustration is that too many people hold Obama to very low standards. He's allowed to be inconsistent in what he says to us. His grandparents get criticized for holding less than enlightened views, but they get little credit for bringing up a grandson who went to Columbia and Harvard and became a U.S. Senator – and viable candidate for the presidency. Common sense tells us they must have done a lot of things right.
Is the media going to resolve the questions that remain about Obama? Don't be on it. They'd rather wave their pom poms in salute of a candidate who's supposed to be "post-racial," but seems to look at everything in life through a racial lens.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
OBAMA THROWS GRANDMA UNDER BUS
Note: I’ve borrowed some concepts from the following article:
http://whateversowhat.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/obama-dreams-of-my-father-really/
The saddest and cruelest part [of the book Dreams of My Father Obama] leaves for his grandmother. In his speech, he criticizes her for “stereotypes. He also says his grandmother once told him she was afraid of black MEN she passed on the street. However, in his book on Page 88, he refers to this incident, but it’s MUCH DIFFERENT [FROM[ HOW HE DESCRIBED [IT] IN HIS SPEECH!
He overhears his grandparents [talking] and walks in and asks his grandmother what’s wrong. She says “a man asked me for money yesterday, while I was waiting for the bus.”
Obama asks “that’s all?”. She says, her lips pursed with irritation, “He was very aggressive. Very Aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking [for more]. If the bus hadn’t come, I think he might have hit me over the head”
Then, Obama walks into the other room where his grandfather has gone and tells him “it’s probably a little scary for her, seeing some big man block her way….”
ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR IN OBAMA’S BOOK: HIS GRANDMOTHER NEVER SAID THE MAN WAS BLACK – OR THAT THIS WAS THE REASON SHE WAS AFRAID!!!
Obama says on Page 88 he learned the harasser was Black from his Grandfather – NOT HIS GRANDMOTHER.
In his speech, Obama implied his grandmother, who consistently demonstrated her “love” for her grandson was somehow racist, a Kansas rube. However, that is not at all the implication we get from the book.
In the speech, he “uses” his grandmother to balance against Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In fact, the difference is that the grandmother is a traditional American – and something of an heroic figure. Her main offense in Obama’s mind seems to be that she’s white. Supposedly a critic of racial stereotypes, he relentlessly stereotypes his grandparents. The real "racist" turns out to be Barack Obama.
His point in the speech seems to be: “Hey, I tolerated my white racist grandparents, so why can’t I tolerate my Black racist preacher?” The problem is that the grandparents, whatever human imperfections they might have had, were NOT racist. Rev. Wright, who should know better, is. Obama is protecting himself politically at the expense of his loving grandparents, and it stinks.
I urge everyone to read Obama's Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope. I'll have a lot more to say about both.
http://whateversowhat.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/obama-dreams-of-my-father-really/
The saddest and cruelest part [of the book Dreams of My Father Obama] leaves for his grandmother. In his speech, he criticizes her for “stereotypes. He also says his grandmother once told him she was afraid of black MEN she passed on the street. However, in his book on Page 88, he refers to this incident, but it’s MUCH DIFFERENT [FROM[ HOW HE DESCRIBED [IT] IN HIS SPEECH!
He overhears his grandparents [talking] and walks in and asks his grandmother what’s wrong. She says “a man asked me for money yesterday, while I was waiting for the bus.”
Obama asks “that’s all?”. She says, her lips pursed with irritation, “He was very aggressive. Very Aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking [for more]. If the bus hadn’t come, I think he might have hit me over the head”
Then, Obama walks into the other room where his grandfather has gone and tells him “it’s probably a little scary for her, seeing some big man block her way….”
ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR IN OBAMA’S BOOK: HIS GRANDMOTHER NEVER SAID THE MAN WAS BLACK – OR THAT THIS WAS THE REASON SHE WAS AFRAID!!!
Obama says on Page 88 he learned the harasser was Black from his Grandfather – NOT HIS GRANDMOTHER.
In his speech, Obama implied his grandmother, who consistently demonstrated her “love” for her grandson was somehow racist, a Kansas rube. However, that is not at all the implication we get from the book.
In the speech, he “uses” his grandmother to balance against Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In fact, the difference is that the grandmother is a traditional American – and something of an heroic figure. Her main offense in Obama’s mind seems to be that she’s white. Supposedly a critic of racial stereotypes, he relentlessly stereotypes his grandparents. The real "racist" turns out to be Barack Obama.
His point in the speech seems to be: “Hey, I tolerated my white racist grandparents, so why can’t I tolerate my Black racist preacher?” The problem is that the grandparents, whatever human imperfections they might have had, were NOT racist. Rev. Wright, who should know better, is. Obama is protecting himself politically at the expense of his loving grandparents, and it stinks.
I urge everyone to read Obama's Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope. I'll have a lot more to say about both.
And a few more words . . .
Okay, the first 100 pages of Dreams of My Father show Obama as a man who sees EVERYTHING through the prism of race. It's downright scary. I can't imagine the reason for the animosity toward his grandparents -- and also toward his mother, Anna Dunham. His view seems to be that the grandparents MUST be racists because they're from Kansas. Sickening.
In both his books, he shows a lack of respect for his mother, who married an African Muslim and an Indonesian Muslim. If her parents were racist, which they obviously were NOT, how does he explain Anna, the least racially intolerant person in Hawaii, a racially diverse state?
As for John McCain's amazing surge in the polls, I agree that the hand of God is at work. Even Democrats identify with the guy. The only people who dislike him for being a "maverick" are about a half-dozen talk show hacks. On the Pennsylvania site, I talk about the latest polls, which show McCain way ahead in this supposedly Blue state.
Nearly half the PA Hillary voters say that if Obama gets the nomination, they will vote for McCain. Obama now looks like very much a mere mortal. If Hillary beats him as badly in PA as I think she will, the SuperDelegates are going to get very, very nervous.
I expect Hillary will cut Obama's delegate lead in half in the combined PA, KY, and IN primaries. She could split the NC primary vote, which would be a net loss for Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
