Joe Biden: Chronic Liar, Windbag

Tomorrow, on this site and my other one (http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com) I'll have an explosive story about V-P Joe Biden. It's title, "Biden Lied About Wife's Death." It's a story that's been flying underneath the national radar, but no more . . .

Sarah Palin, one extremely tough lady . . .

Everyone acknowledges that former Senator Joe Biden is a windbag -- and, as one reporter observed, "a human gaffe machine." He's also a compulsive liberal, the fourth most liberal Senator (after Obama, Dick Durbin of IL, and (avowed socialist) Bernie Sanders of VT.

His gaffes are legendary. During one campaign stop, he saw a man with a sign that Biden liked. He urged the man to "Stand up. Stand up so everyone can see you.;" The gentleman was in a wheel chair.

After the election, he said that Vice President Cheney, whom he called "the worse vice president in history" had violated Article 1 of the Constitution in exceeding the bounds of his office. In fact, Biden, who supposedly teaches constitutiona law, apparently didn't know that Article 1 deals with the legislature, and Article 2 is the one applicable to the vice-presidency.

On the lighter side, Biden repeatedly insists --with no evidence -- that he is in close contact with America's version of The Great Unwashed. In the Oct. 2, he talked about what the common folk of Delaware -- he mentioned "Katie's Diner . . . on Union Street . . . in Wilmington" -- were saying about the economy. The next day, long-term Wilmingtonians noted that Katie's had been closed for going on 15 years. Obviously, Joe needs to get out more in his home-town.

If Sarah Palin had many any such statements, "Saturday Night Live" would have devoted whole episodes to them. But frankly, "SNL" doesn't regard Biden gaffes as worthy of notice.

In the debate with Gov. Palin, Biden insisted to an amazed Sarah that he really hadn't voted for the war in Iraq. Palin insisted that Biden, who had indeed voted for the authorization of the use of the force (i.e., war) must be using "Washington insider" logic.

In fact, Biden had said before the war that the U.S. had "no choice but to eliminate" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. He added that war with Iraq was "probable." In August, 2003, with insurgency growing, he said he didn't regret his vote for the war. (For more information on Biden's statements, see Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition, p. 365)

Palin found Biden's falsehoods hard to deal with. Who wouldn't> How do you say that a six-term Senator -- one with silver hair (via transplant) -- is doing nothing more than blowing endless clouds of smoke up the collective derriere of the American people?

Also in the debate with Palin, Biden said that the Iraq war was costing more per month ($10 billion) than the entire action in Afghanistan. In fact, the total cost of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan at that point added up to $172 billion. -- 17 times as much as the (monthly) cost in Iraq.

And what the media say about Biden's constant misstatements? Generally, they regard him as "lovable, loquacious old Joe," the guy with chronic foot-in-mouth disease. As a CNN reporter (Paul) said last week, in spite of Biden's record of misstatements, "he brings so much else to the table."

Biden brings to the table a record of being perpetually misinformed -- and of having not even a tangential relationship with the truth. The American people elected the wrong person vice-president, an error we have a chance to correct in 2012.

OBAMA SUPPORTS "LIVE BIRTH" ABORTION

I wrote the following to a Yahoo Group of Black Conservatives (I desegregated the group) today regarding Mark McKinnon, who said he would leave his position as an advertising consultant in the McCain Campaign if Obama is the nominee:

I have heard (on MSNBC) that Mark McKinnon is basically a hired gun -- and a Democrat. If he disagrees with Obama on "several fundamental issues," as he says, then he would seem to have a moral obligation as an American to oppose Obama. That's what the political process is (supposedly) about. Thus, McKinnon seems to be cultivating his 15-minutes-of-fame.

I've been accused of launching attacks on Barack Obama. Let me be clear on that point.I have attackedObama on my blog and elsewhere on what are basically character issues. I agree with John McCain that there are many signs that Barack -- a words-man -- is not a man of his word. McCain was talking about Obama's on-again, off-again pledge to accept public financing in the general election.

In January, 2006, Obama said the following to Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I will serve out my full fix-year term [in the Senate]." That was his commitment to the people of Illinois. When Russert asked him again if he would run for President or Vice-President, he said, "I will not."

Earlier, however, in December, 2006, he had made a visit to New Hampshire, where he told a crowd he "would participate in the process," by which he meant the presidential election process. (You can find this information on p. 542 of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics. For his New Hampshire remarks, google Obama + New Hampshire + December, 2006, as I did.)

I've attacked Michelle Obama for words she said (about never being proud of her country until very recently). On MSNBC at this moment (4 p.m. ET), Michelle Obama is supposedly "clarifying her remarks." She is not clarifying anything. She says, "We've overcome diversities that we should all be proud of." Whatever that means. I thought we were in favor of diversity. We'd better be!

She's not suffering from gratuitous attacks. They're not based on thin air. They're reflective of positions Obama and his wife have taken. They need to be less careless with words, which are supposed to be their strong points.

Be clear on this: I will never intentionally say anything about them that's untrue. But if they want to assume the nation's highest positions, they shouldn't spew out nonsense.

One area where we won't hear any ringing words from Obama is on the subject of abortion.Barack Obama has voted against providing medical care in the case of so-called "live birth abortions." That happens (rarely) when an abortion is botched and the embryo is born alive, thus becoming a child (and an American citizen). This is the same Obama who is for "universal health care" -- except, of course, in the case of a child gasping for life.

(Barone's words on this follow: "He voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who surived abortions . . . ). That's not exactly a position which is going to "bring the nation together," as Obama claims is his goal. When he and Michelle talk about their concern for America's children, we need to press them on exactly which children get excluded.

They preach unity, but they practice the worst forms of division. Yes, Obama, the political preacher man, has a 'dream." But with many of his extreme views, the question is how he can sleep at night.

Obama and the Political Smoke Machine

It's absolutey critical to "introduce" the American people to Barack Obama, and John McCain and Cindy McCain were doing just that yesterday. Among other things, McCain said something quite fascinating, that Obama is advocating "a holiday from history." I don't advocate that as a campaign slogan, but it demonstrates that McCain has Obama's number. He's saying that Obama's "soaring rhetoric' has left the stratosphere and totally detached itself from reality. Unfortunately, some people will remain forever bamboozled, including the college freshman types minlessly chanting "Yes, we can!" No, you can't, as most two-year-olds learn when they turn 3.

Obama is talking about our society's supposed failures in regard to children. This from the guy who voted to deny medical assistance to children born alive in botched abortions. I guess "universal health care" has its limitations.

In terms of education, Obama's "plan," like Bill Clinton's is to do nothing other than pay of the Teacher's Union. Parental choice? He doesn't have that "dream." Merit pay for excellent teachers? Not during his watch.

Health care? That means more patients, the same number of providers, and somehow lots of imaginary "savings."

As for the War on Terror, his goal seems to be to leave Iraq to al Qaeda and, at the same time, invade Pakistan.

He quotes JFK, but very selectively, missing the famous line about: "We will pay any price, bear any burden to ensure the survival of liberty." Perhaps Caroline Kennedy can remind her new hero about that one. It is vitally important to defeat this snake-oil-salesman, the man-of-words who turns out (as with campaign finance) not to be a man-of-HIS-word.

How John McCain Can Win

The way John McCain can win the general election is to emphasize in word and deed that he's a superior human being. In The Almanac of American Politics (2008), conservative guru Michael Barone, who disagrees with McCain on several issues, says the following about him:

"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after. His personal story is a dramatic one, told beautifully by Robert Timberg in The Nightingale's Song and by McCain himself in the 1999 bestseller Faith of My Fathers."

"McCain is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, a decorated Navy pilot himself. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and in July, 1967, was injured in a flight deck explosion on the carrier Forrestal. He could have returned home, but refused, and in October, 1967, was shot down over [North] Vietnam. He spent five-and-a-half years, most of it in pain and torture, in Communist prisoner of war camps. He refused to be let out ahead of those who had been in longer when he was offered release because of his father's rank."

"McCain returned to the United States in March, 1973. His final assignment in the Navy was as Senate liason. In 1980, he retired and moved to Arizona, his wife's home state. In 1982, he ran for an open House seat. Attacked as an "outsider," he responded, 'The longest place I ever lived was in Hanoi.' He led 32% to 26% in a four-way primary, and won the 1982 and 1984 general elections and then the 1986 Senate contest easily."

If John McCain runs as that man, which should be fairly easy, because he IS that man, he has a good chance to win. He's a hero, and Hillary Clinton (like Barack Obama) is not. McCain must continue to run as an exceptional human being, someone whose life is a model for all Americans.

McCain will not win on his "positions." Instead, he will win on personality and character. To the end, surrogates -- like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarenegger, as well as the two Georgia Senators (Saxby Chambliss and Jonny Isakson) -- can play important roles in citing McCain's key qualities.

In short, the best approach is for John McCain is to run as himself. For someone like Hillary Clinton, the best strategy might be to run as someone else. The American people vote largely on likability, courage, and integrity, three areas where she's lacking.


I hope everyone who visits this site will visit the following site for McCain volunteers:
http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/

"Gamecock's" Despicable Comments on McCain

Recently, I strongly recommended John Hawkins' fine column on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, available at: http://www.theforgottenstreet.com/. I'd also like to recommend Christopher Wensley's excellent piece on Hillary Clinton ("Losing It") at: http://youngrepublican.townhall.com/. Obama-Clinton remarks end of column.

The following is a line about John McCain in Michael Barone's superb The Almanac of American Politics, 2008: "It appears to be his view that members of Congress, like members of the military, should serve the national interest honorably and without reference to political considerations. Linked to that is his opposition to what he considers pork barrel spending, which provides him plenty of material for his self-deprecating jokes about how unpopular he is with many colleagues." (p. 95)

"Gamecock" on Red State, a Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney supporter, sent me the following yesterday: "704-779-9080 . . . give me your best shot to switch to McCain." (I had told him that it looked as if Thompson would finish fourth in the SC Primary.)

I called "Gamecock" this morning (Thursday), and it was one of the more unsatisfactory "conversations" I've ever had. He wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. He sang the praises of Fred Thompson (or, alternatively, Mr. Mega-Bucks, Mitt Romney). He denounced McCain at every turn. He said that we should give no credit to McCain's being tortured for five-plus years in a Vietnamese prison.

After all, as he put it, "Some of the men in those prisons might have come back and murdered somebody." I couldn't tell if he was serious, or even might be darkly implying that McCain had "offed" someone. He condemned McCain for comments made in 2000 in the SC Primary.

In that primary, McCain haters sent out many mailing saying, "McCain has a Black illegitimate daughter." McCain does have a dark-skinned daughter. She's not African-American, but is rather an adopted child from Bangla Desh. She appeared this year at a McCain rally, at least in part to dispel the lies told about him Gamecock's beloved SC.

This year, McCain opponents are engaging in "push polling," which refers to people calling voters pretend to be pollsters. Among other things, they're saying that McCain is "pro-abortion."

In fact, McCain has been staunchly pro-life for all his 24 years in public life. He has been the most consistent of all Republican candidates on this issue.

What Gamecock thinks about the lies and innuendos isn't clear. He appears to have the traditional Southern view -- and I lived in the Deep South for many years -- that all's fair in love, war, and politics.

He gave me no reasons for his supporting Thompson and Romney.I asked him what "Fred" and "Mitt" were doing while McCain, an authentic American hero to most of our fellow citizens, was rotting away in a Vietnamese torture chamber. He didn't seem to regard that question as relevant.

He admitted that McCain was "right" on the need for the Iraq Surge. However, he said that McCain had been wrong "five times" on Iraq issues. He didn't note what those five instances had been.

In my view, Gamecock is a classic supporter of Fred Thompson, known far-and-wide as the laziest man in politics. Why he wanted me to waste my time calling him is a question I'll never get answered. My assumption is that Gamecock is deeply embedded in the racialist politics that has dogged South Carolina for generations. He sees McCain's failure to pander to the bigots at Bob Jones University and other fever swamps in the state, and he regards that as a deficit.

He should be ashamed of himself, but shame isn't his strong suit. He condemned McCain for "changing" his position on the Confederate Flag that used to fly above the SC Capital. In fact, McCain has said not opposing the Flag was his worst political decision. On CBS News, he said it was an "act of cowardice" on his part. Somehow, that kind of candor doesn't impress the flag-loving Gamecock.

Anyway, I explained to "Gamecock" that McCain neither wants nor needs the support of people like him. I asked him whether he had any "character." In response, he chuckled. He's all ideology and no sense or decency.

CAN PENNSLYVANIA REVERSE ITS DECLINE?

NOTE: MY NEXT COLUMN WILL APPEAR FRIDAY MORNING (JAN. 4). I'M FIGHTING A HEAD COLD, AND IT HAS BEEN WINNING!


Murtha, the human equivalent of the Johnstown Flood

In recent years, as Pennsylvania has become "Bluer," more Democratic, the state has accelerated its long decline. Here's how Michael Barone's and Richard Cohen's The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition, puts it:

"[The state has had] the slowest population growth of any major state. There were 9.5 million Pennsylvanians in 1930, 12.4 million in 2006. Pennsylvania cast 36 electoral votes for Franklin Roosevelt in 1940, and 21 for John Kerry in 2004; it had 30 congressmen, as many as California, in 1960, but now has 19 to California's 53. People growing up here are as likely to leave the state as stay, and few out-of-staters move in. Pennsylvania looks and sounds more like it did in the 1940s than any other major state. With the significant difference that Pennsylvania in 1940 had lots of young people, while the Pennsylvania of 2006 has the second largest elderly population (after Florida) of any state."

The Median Household Income (MHI) in Pennsylvania is about $2,000 less annually than the U.S. average. Tuition costs at public colleges and universities are the highest of any state. The state has many fine institutions of higher education, but as Barone and Cohen point out, there are few jobs for graduates -- and many have to leave the state to find decent jobs.

In the congressional districts centered in the two large cities -- the 1st and 2nd districts in Philadelphia and the 14th District in Pittsburgh -- the MHIs are $10,000-plus below the Pennsylvania average and more than $11,000 below national averages. The seats in the 1st, 2nd, and 14th Districts are extremely "safe" for Democrats.

What about another traditionally safe seat -- that of Rep. Jack Murtha in the 12th District? There, population growth has not just been slow, but rather non-existent. Barone and Cohen estimate there's been a decline of 17,000 residents since the turn of the century. Population in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown has been in decline for two generations -- and has fallen about 6% since the year 2000.

When Murtha was born 75 years ago, the population of Johnstown was more than 60,000, but now it's just over 20,000. As a leader, unfortunately, he's been the human equivalent of the Johnstown Flood.

The MHI in the 12th is $30,600, almost exactly the same as in inner-city Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. It has been a depressed area, and there's little prospect that will change under its current Congressman, John Murtha. What jobs have been created in the Johnstown area are the type that result from short-term government handouts ("earmarks") and that rarely outlast the tenure of a powerful congressman. They're the kind of jobs not available to most recent graduates.

Murtha gets great credit for all he's "done" for the 12th District -- and especially Johnstown. A critic would say that Murtha has driven such a huge number of people -- especially the young -- from Johnstown that unemployment appears to be relatively low (although still higher than national averages).

Some Republicans in Pennsylvania, particularly the 12th, throw up their hands. They'll tell you that Murtha is an "icon," that he's the "savior" of his district. Of course, the facts are very different. He's handed out hundreds of millions in earmarks, and the main beneficiaries have been corporate executives, high-priced professionals, and lobbyists.

One lobbying group headed by a former Murtha aide (PMA Group, led by Paul Magliochetti) has given him over a million dollars in contributions. They certainly didn't do so for his expertise in good government or his talents in job creation.

The points I've been making about Murtha aren't easy ones to get across to typical voters. However, when many people are relatively poor and short on prospects, they know it, much as they might wish things were otherwise.

Can Bill Russell win against an entrenched, cash-rich incumbent like Murtha? He can if he can raise enough money to get his message across and mobilize supporters who know the real story in Pennsylvania generally -- and in the 12th District particularly.