In the election The Economist of London endorsed Barack Obama. It's now having some serious buyer's remorse. Here below are excerpts (in boldface) its recent edition ("Learning the Hard Way") about how it sees the Obama Administration's performance. I hope you'll pass this along to other bloggers and online activists. It shows Obama's failures as seen from a European perspective.
I've been asking everyone to turn the heat way up on Barack H. Obama, who turns out to be little more than a slick talker in a $3,500 suit. He's no Sarah Palin -- and yes, she could beat him at basketball also. (Ask budding star Willow Palin, who still can't beat her mother.)
Mar 26th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama may at last be getting a grip. But he still needs to show more leadership, at home and abroad
"HILLARY CLINTON'S most effective quip, in her long struggle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, was that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training. It went to the heart of the nagging worry about the silver-tongued young senator from Illinois: that he lacked even the slightest executive experience, and that in his brief career he had never really stood up to powerful interests, whether in his home city of Chicago or in the wider world.
"Might Mrs Clinton have been right about her foe? Polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks . . . Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.
Empty posts, weak policies
There are two main reasons for this. The first is Mr Obama's failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: . . .
"His budget, though in some ways more honest than his predecessor's, is wildly optimistic. The failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled .. . Getting the Treasury team in place ought to have been his first priority.
"Second, Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that's not how he has behaved.
"His stimulus bill . . . if Mr Obama had done a better job of selling his package, and had worked harder at making sure that Republicans were included in drafting it, they would have found it more difficult to oppose his plans.If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party.
"Unfortunately, he seems unable to. . . . The Democrats . . . have stuffed his stimulus package and his appropriations bill with pork, even though this damages him and his party in the eyes of the electorate. Worst of all, he is letting them get away with it.
Lead, dammit
"But the [Geithner banking] plan at least demonstrates the administration's acceptance that it must work with the bankers, instead of riding the wave of popular opinion against them, if it is to repair America's economy.
"[On overseas "leadership"]. . . Take the G20 meeting in London, to which he will head at the end of next week. The most important task for this would-be institution is to set itself firmly against protectionism at a time when most of its members are engaged in a game of creeping beggar-thy-neighbour. [But they point out, Obama is completely in bed with protectionist unions.]"
Link follows: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22The++Economist%22+%2B+%22Learning+the+Hard+Way%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Showing posts with label The Economist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Economist. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tortured Iranian Student in America
[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the column, where you'll find a code that will connect you to the Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio program. I'll be on it this Saturday at 5 p.m. and every other Sat. through August. Please come and visit!]
"Your hands will never touch me again." (Ahmad Batebi)
America means the same things to me as it does to Ahmad Batebi, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. I wish there were some evidence it meant at least some of those things to Barack and Michelle Obama.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11707464
NINE years ago, Ahmad Batebi appeared on the cover of The Economist. He was a 21-year-old student, one of thousands who protested against Iran’s government that summer. He was photographed holding aloft a T-shirt bespattered with the blood of a fellow protester. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and shown our issue of July 17th 1999. “With this”, he was told, “you have signed your death warrant.”
During his interrogation he was blindfolded and beaten with cables until he passed out. His captors rubbed salt into his wounds to wake him up, so they could torture him more. They held his head in a drain full of sewage until he inhaled it. He recalls yearning for a swift death to end the pain. He was played recordings of what he was told was his mother being tortured. His captors wanted him to betray his fellow students, to implicate them in various crimes and to say on television that the blood on that T-shirt was only red paint. He says he refused.
He was sentenced to death for “creating street unrest”. But after a global outcry, the sentence was commuted to 15 years in jail. He speculates that his high profile made it hard to kill him without attracting negative publicity. For two years, he was kept in solitary confinement, in a cell that was little more than a toilet hole with a wooden board on top. He was tortured constantly. Only when he was allowed to mingle with other prisoners again did he begin to overcome his despair.
He suffered a partial stroke that left the right side of his body without feeling. He needed medical attention. The regime did not want to be blamed for him dying behind bars, he says, so he was allowed out for treatment. Three months ago, on the day of the Persian new year, he escaped into Iraq. On June 24th he arrived in America.
He spoke to The Economist on July 7th. Looking at the picture that sparked his ordeal, he says that another man in his place might be angry, but he is not. Mr Batebi is a photographer himself. He says he understands what journalism involves. Had we not published the picture, he says, another paper might have. Looking at the same picture, his lawyer, interpreter and friend Lily Mazahery says she is close to tears: in it, the young Mr Batebi’s pale arms are as yet unscarred by torture.
The protests Mr Batebi took part in nine years ago frightened Iran’s rulers. The students were angry about censorship, the persecution of intellectuals and the thugs who beat up any student overheard disparaging the regime. Mr Batebi thinks Iran could well turn solidly democratic some day. In neighbouring states, religious extremism is popular. In Iran, he says, the government is religiously extreme, but the people are not.
He is cagey about how exactly he escaped. But he says he used a cellphone camera to record virtually every step of his journey, and will soon go public with the pictures and his commentary. Meanwhile, he seems to be enjoying America. He praises the way “people have the opportunity to become who they want to be”. Shortly after he arrived, he posted a picture of himself in front of the Capitol on his Farsi-language blog, with the caption: “Your hands will never touch me again.”
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
"Your hands will never touch me again." (Ahmad Batebi)
America means the same things to me as it does to Ahmad Batebi, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. I wish there were some evidence it meant at least some of those things to Barack and Michelle Obama.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11707464
NINE years ago, Ahmad Batebi appeared on the cover of The Economist. He was a 21-year-old student, one of thousands who protested against Iran’s government that summer. He was photographed holding aloft a T-shirt bespattered with the blood of a fellow protester. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and shown our issue of July 17th 1999. “With this”, he was told, “you have signed your death warrant.”
During his interrogation he was blindfolded and beaten with cables until he passed out. His captors rubbed salt into his wounds to wake him up, so they could torture him more. They held his head in a drain full of sewage until he inhaled it. He recalls yearning for a swift death to end the pain. He was played recordings of what he was told was his mother being tortured. His captors wanted him to betray his fellow students, to implicate them in various crimes and to say on television that the blood on that T-shirt was only red paint. He says he refused.
He was sentenced to death for “creating street unrest”. But after a global outcry, the sentence was commuted to 15 years in jail. He speculates that his high profile made it hard to kill him without attracting negative publicity. For two years, he was kept in solitary confinement, in a cell that was little more than a toilet hole with a wooden board on top. He was tortured constantly. Only when he was allowed to mingle with other prisoners again did he begin to overcome his despair.
He suffered a partial stroke that left the right side of his body without feeling. He needed medical attention. The regime did not want to be blamed for him dying behind bars, he says, so he was allowed out for treatment. Three months ago, on the day of the Persian new year, he escaped into Iraq. On June 24th he arrived in America.
He spoke to The Economist on July 7th. Looking at the picture that sparked his ordeal, he says that another man in his place might be angry, but he is not. Mr Batebi is a photographer himself. He says he understands what journalism involves. Had we not published the picture, he says, another paper might have. Looking at the same picture, his lawyer, interpreter and friend Lily Mazahery says she is close to tears: in it, the young Mr Batebi’s pale arms are as yet unscarred by torture.
The protests Mr Batebi took part in nine years ago frightened Iran’s rulers. The students were angry about censorship, the persecution of intellectuals and the thugs who beat up any student overheard disparaging the regime. Mr Batebi thinks Iran could well turn solidly democratic some day. In neighbouring states, religious extremism is popular. In Iran, he says, the government is religiously extreme, but the people are not.
He is cagey about how exactly he escaped. But he says he used a cellphone camera to record virtually every step of his journey, and will soon go public with the pictures and his commentary. Meanwhile, he seems to be enjoying America. He praises the way “people have the opportunity to become who they want to be”. Shortly after he arrived, he posted a picture of himself in front of the Capitol on his Farsi-language blog, with the caption: “Your hands will never touch me again.”
1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mediaplayer.swf?displayheight=&file=http://www.blogtalkradio.com%2fclintons4mccain%2fplay_list.xml&autostart=true&shuffle=false&callback=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FlashPlayerCallback.aspx&width=180&height=152&volume=80&corner=rounded' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>
This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows
Sunday, July 20, 2008
McCain Deserves Libertarians' Support
If you listen to Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) on the campaign trail, you hear some scary things. They portray “too many Americans’ as one step away from economic and social disaster. They see as people badly in need of major assistance – their assistance.
John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It’s the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can’t disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man’s being.
Even Bill Clinton has said of McCain: “He’s given everything he has to his country – except his life.” President Clinton has never spoken truer words.
In contrast to McCain, Obama essentially portrays America as something resembling Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach,” where “ignorant armies clash by night.” As “Lexington" in The Economist describes Obama’s world-view, America is “a coalition of groups that define themselves as victims of social and economic forces, and . . . [where] its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved . . .”
If Obama becomes President, we would become a society of “victims,” all of us clamoring for the government to bail us out of our misery. That would be a disaster not only for libertarians, but for all Americans.
I hope all libertarians do the right thing: voting for John McCain. Also, ask your friends and family members to do the same thing. The future of liberty in this society depends on free people standing up and supporting a man who has devoted his entire life to defending American values and liberties. John McCain is the right man for our cause.
John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It’s the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can’t disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man’s being.
Even Bill Clinton has said of McCain: “He’s given everything he has to his country – except his life.” President Clinton has never spoken truer words.
In contrast to McCain, Obama essentially portrays America as something resembling Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach,” where “ignorant armies clash by night.” As “Lexington" in The Economist describes Obama’s world-view, America is “a coalition of groups that define themselves as victims of social and economic forces, and . . . [where] its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved . . .”
If Obama becomes President, we would become a society of “victims,” all of us clamoring for the government to bail us out of our misery. That would be a disaster not only for libertarians, but for all Americans.
I hope all libertarians do the right thing: voting for John McCain. Also, ask your friends and family members to do the same thing. The future of liberty in this society depends on free people standing up and supporting a man who has devoted his entire life to defending American values and liberties. John McCain is the right man for our cause.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Obama: NOT Presidential Material
IMPORTANT NOTE: IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT BLACK CONSERVATIVES -- ESPECIALLY YOUNG BLACK CONSERVATIVES -- ONE IMPORANT WAY YOU CAN DO SO BY VISITING A KEY WEB SITE: http://hiphoprepublican.com/ Today, HipHop has a great video destroying the Democrats' arguments on the Iraq War. Please go there and write a comment of encouragement.
Today in Pennsylvania, there's a lot of excitement about the primary. This afternoon, I'll be writing about a devastating article in The (London) Economist. It discusses Barack Obama and his now-famous comments about average Americans who "cling" to religion, guns, racism, and anti-immigrant feelings.
Right now, on TV an Obama commercial is running that says, "Barack Obama doesn't take money from 'Big Oil' or lobbyists. That's of course not true, as a recent USA Today expose pointed out. Obama has many lobbyists raising funds for him, and he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil industry executives. Go figure!
You’ve already heard a lot about Barack Obama’s so-called “bitter” comments. As columnist Jack Kelly said Sunday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the national media – strongly pro-Obama -- emphasize the word “bitter” because it’s the least objectionable part of the candidate’s statement. The most objectionable part is where the candidate says that typical Americans cling to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia (hatred of foreigners).
The best analysis I’ve seen of Senator Obama’s statement is in The Economist (April 19-25 , 2008, p. 44 ). Here are some excerpts:
“Barack Obama has a magic way with word, but when the magic deserts him, it deserts him big time. April 6th saw Mr. Obama making the worst verbal gaffe of this seemingly endless campaign. He told a group of fat cats in San Francisco that the reason why he is finding it hard to appeal to blue collar voters in Pennsylvania is because they are ‘bitter.’ They have suffered from so many broken promises that they prefer to ‘cling’ to God, guns, and xenophobia rather than reaching out for a helping hand from the government.
“ . . . Conservative radio talk show hosts have been bellowing 24/7 that Mr. Snooty knows nothing about the real America.
“And no wonder! Mr. Obama has always been in danger of coming across as an elitist. He was educated at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He not only reads books but writes them [Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope]. He once urged a group of Iowa farmers to check out the price of arugula in Whole Foods – an upmarket store that has no branch in the entire state. His Ivy League educated wife [Michelle] – who is paid nearly $300,000 a year for promoting ‘community outreach’ – is in the habit of telling audiences how difficult it is to afford ballet classes for their daughters.”
Those of us in America might ask: Why do we have to rely on a British journalist to provide such insights? Why is our own national media seemingly mesmerized by such a flawed candidate as Barack Obama? Perhaps because they’re easily mesmerized?
In Pittsburgh, about 15 miles from where I live, the Post-Gazette recently endorsed Obama on the grounds that he would take America “beyond partisanship.” Oh really? The (non-partisan) National Journal recently assessed Obama as the most liberal – and thus highly partisan – member of the U.S. Senate. The Post-Gazette editorial board (alas, Jack Kelly is not a member) knows Obama’s record, but they chose to misrepresent him to their readers.
In Dreams From My Father, Obama describes his remarkable grandmother, whom he’s now using in ads, as “a typical white person.” What if John McCain, or any other Caucasian, had described ANYONE as a “typical Black person?” That white American would no longer be seen as a serious candidate for the presidency.
Media outlets like the Post-Gazette are engaging in a journalistic form of Affirmative Action. They’re holding Obama to much lower standards than they are Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
In fact, the media’s failure to live up to its obligations is a major reason people are turning to the new media for information. In fact, it’s one reason you’re here rather than relying on a manipulative news organ like the Post-Gazette.
Thanks for visiting this site – and keep coming back. Thanks especially to regular visitors from Pittsburgh, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Cranberry Township, PA; Jefferson, Maryland; Rome, Georgia, Ewa Beach, HI; Anchorage, AK; Eagle River, AK; Wasilla, AK; Colorado Springs, CO; Queensland, Australia; Houston, TX; Austin, TX; St. Augustine, FL; Oklahoma City, Ok; Baton Rouge, LA; Rochester, NY (my birthplace); Dover, DE; Boston, MA; and Manchester, NH. There are many more regular visitors, and I'll mention them in my next column. Your comments are welcome!
The following message from Black conservative, radio show host, and pro-life activist Craig Bardo is an important one, and I hope you'll offer whatever help you can.
So often, we who oppose the practice of contraceptive abortion are accused of not caring for those that survive the abortion decision. For many black folk, the right to life movement is seen as a largely white effort and one that we may intellectually support but haven't found a way to contribute our time or limited financial resources.I've had occasion to visit Grace Pregnancy Resource Center here in Nashville, which supports 200 young women who have made the decision to bring their children to term rather than abort them.
This center is 3 buildings down from the second largest abortion clinic in the city. 47 of the women in the program were deterred from having an abortion by the staff at the Center. One young woman visited this morning, thinking that she was entering the abortion clinic, the counselor had an opportunity to visit with her,but she went up the street anyway, I don't know what she decided to do. 39% of these young women are black 22% are Hispanic.
I host a radio program here in the city and tomorrow, I'm kicking off a fund raiser for the Center that will go through next Wednesday. We're on the air from 6-8 am CST, M-F, Brian Harris the president of Tennessee Right to Life along with their spokeswoman Carolyn Smith, who happens to be Emmett Till's cousin. They'll be in the studio at 7:00 am to talk about the good work they're doing. These girls need your help.
You can listen in on the program via live streaming audio @ WVOL1470.com or WVOL1470.net. You can call in with your pledge of support to (615) 737-9865 or (615)227-1470. Make your checks payable to Tennessee Right to Life (Grace Pregnancy Resource Center). If you want to donate on line, go to their website, www.TNRTL.org and make sure to put The Craig Bardo Show in the memo box so they can track your contribution.
Thanks for your support and please pray for this effort, these young women are counting on it!
Today in Pennsylvania, there's a lot of excitement about the primary. This afternoon, I'll be writing about a devastating article in The (London) Economist. It discusses Barack Obama and his now-famous comments about average Americans who "cling" to religion, guns, racism, and anti-immigrant feelings.
Right now, on TV an Obama commercial is running that says, "Barack Obama doesn't take money from 'Big Oil' or lobbyists. That's of course not true, as a recent USA Today expose pointed out. Obama has many lobbyists raising funds for him, and he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil industry executives. Go figure!
You’ve already heard a lot about Barack Obama’s so-called “bitter” comments. As columnist Jack Kelly said Sunday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the national media – strongly pro-Obama -- emphasize the word “bitter” because it’s the least objectionable part of the candidate’s statement. The most objectionable part is where the candidate says that typical Americans cling to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia (hatred of foreigners).
The best analysis I’ve seen of Senator Obama’s statement is in The Economist (April 19-25 , 2008, p. 44 ). Here are some excerpts:
“Barack Obama has a magic way with word, but when the magic deserts him, it deserts him big time. April 6th saw Mr. Obama making the worst verbal gaffe of this seemingly endless campaign. He told a group of fat cats in San Francisco that the reason why he is finding it hard to appeal to blue collar voters in Pennsylvania is because they are ‘bitter.’ They have suffered from so many broken promises that they prefer to ‘cling’ to God, guns, and xenophobia rather than reaching out for a helping hand from the government.
“ . . . Conservative radio talk show hosts have been bellowing 24/7 that Mr. Snooty knows nothing about the real America.
“And no wonder! Mr. Obama has always been in danger of coming across as an elitist. He was educated at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He not only reads books but writes them [Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope]. He once urged a group of Iowa farmers to check out the price of arugula in Whole Foods – an upmarket store that has no branch in the entire state. His Ivy League educated wife [Michelle] – who is paid nearly $300,000 a year for promoting ‘community outreach’ – is in the habit of telling audiences how difficult it is to afford ballet classes for their daughters.”
Those of us in America might ask: Why do we have to rely on a British journalist to provide such insights? Why is our own national media seemingly mesmerized by such a flawed candidate as Barack Obama? Perhaps because they’re easily mesmerized?
In Pittsburgh, about 15 miles from where I live, the Post-Gazette recently endorsed Obama on the grounds that he would take America “beyond partisanship.” Oh really? The (non-partisan) National Journal recently assessed Obama as the most liberal – and thus highly partisan – member of the U.S. Senate. The Post-Gazette editorial board (alas, Jack Kelly is not a member) knows Obama’s record, but they chose to misrepresent him to their readers.
In Dreams From My Father, Obama describes his remarkable grandmother, whom he’s now using in ads, as “a typical white person.” What if John McCain, or any other Caucasian, had described ANYONE as a “typical Black person?” That white American would no longer be seen as a serious candidate for the presidency.
Media outlets like the Post-Gazette are engaging in a journalistic form of Affirmative Action. They’re holding Obama to much lower standards than they are Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
In fact, the media’s failure to live up to its obligations is a major reason people are turning to the new media for information. In fact, it’s one reason you’re here rather than relying on a manipulative news organ like the Post-Gazette.
Thanks for visiting this site – and keep coming back. Thanks especially to regular visitors from Pittsburgh, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Cranberry Township, PA; Jefferson, Maryland; Rome, Georgia, Ewa Beach, HI; Anchorage, AK; Eagle River, AK; Wasilla, AK; Colorado Springs, CO; Queensland, Australia; Houston, TX; Austin, TX; St. Augustine, FL; Oklahoma City, Ok; Baton Rouge, LA; Rochester, NY (my birthplace); Dover, DE; Boston, MA; and Manchester, NH. There are many more regular visitors, and I'll mention them in my next column. Your comments are welcome!
The following message from Black conservative, radio show host, and pro-life activist Craig Bardo is an important one, and I hope you'll offer whatever help you can.
So often, we who oppose the practice of contraceptive abortion are accused of not caring for those that survive the abortion decision. For many black folk, the right to life movement is seen as a largely white effort and one that we may intellectually support but haven't found a way to contribute our time or limited financial resources.I've had occasion to visit Grace Pregnancy Resource Center here in Nashville, which supports 200 young women who have made the decision to bring their children to term rather than abort them.
This center is 3 buildings down from the second largest abortion clinic in the city. 47 of the women in the program were deterred from having an abortion by the staff at the Center. One young woman visited this morning, thinking that she was entering the abortion clinic, the counselor had an opportunity to visit with her,but she went up the street anyway, I don't know what she decided to do. 39% of these young women are black 22% are Hispanic.
I host a radio program here in the city and tomorrow, I'm kicking off a fund raiser for the Center that will go through next Wednesday. We're on the air from 6-8 am CST, M-F, Brian Harris the president of Tennessee Right to Life along with their spokeswoman Carolyn Smith, who happens to be Emmett Till's cousin. They'll be in the studio at 7:00 am to talk about the good work they're doing. These girls need your help.
You can listen in on the program via live streaming audio @ WVOL1470.com or WVOL1470.net. You can call in with your pledge of support to (615) 737-9865 or (615)227-1470. Make your checks payable to Tennessee Right to Life (Grace Pregnancy Resource Center). If you want to donate on line, go to their website, www.TNRTL.org and make sure to put The Craig Bardo Show in the memo box so they can track your contribution.
Thanks for your support and please pray for this effort, these young women are counting on it!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Clinton & Obama: "Demolition Derby"
"You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price."
If you want to see the best material about the American political scene, stay away from CNN and MSNBC -- and instead go to a London-based publication, The Economist. There are several good political writers on the magazine's staff, but the best one goes by the name of "Lexington." Here's what he says in the April 5-11, 2008 issue (page 39):
"It looks as if Pat Robertson and his cohorts were right all along: God really is a Republican. The Democrats ought to have little problem retaking the White House this November, given the unpopular war, the weakening economy, and the anti-Republican backlash. But instead of measuring the White House drapes, they are engaged in what Bill Kristol, a Republican commentator, has gleefully dubbed a 'rollicking demolition derby.'"
In the essay, Lexington adds, "The Democrats are all too aware that their civil war [in the primaries] could spell disaster. A cavalcade of senior Democrats, including senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd, have advised Mrs. Clinton to retire to her room with a glass of whisky and a loaded revolver."
In his piece, Lexington gives some very good reasons why Mrs. Clinton should NOT withdraw from the race -- and provides some insights you haven't seen before.
Why you haven't seen such analysis in America -- and especially, why the Clinton campaign isn't heralding it -- are the big questions.You've heard that Obama has won the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the most popular votes. All that is true (although it doesn't include popular votes from Michigan and Florida, both of which Clinton won), but it is one of those truths that may contain a larger falsehood.
Here's "Lexington's" unique analysis of Senator Clinton's situation: "She can . . . make a plausible case that she is the stronger candidate."How? "She [can make the point that] she so far [has] won 14 states with 44% of the country's population (16 states with 53% of the population if you include Florida and Michigan) compared with [Obama's] 27 states with 34% of the population. She has won Florida and Ohio, two battleground states, and will almost certainly win [another,] Pennsylvania."
Steve adds: The main mistake the Clinton campaign made was to pay little attention to the caucus states, starting with Iowa and extending to places like Wyoming and Idaho. Obama wounded her with a thousand cuts in the smaller states, and that's a major reason he's ahead in pledged delegates.
Another element that hurt her was the bloc voting by Blacks in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Is Senator Obama going to win SC, GA, MS, and LA? He's not going to come close to winning any of them. In the general election, he's going to have real problems winning most of the large states Mrs. Clinton carried in the primaries (such as TX, OH, and PA). Obama will do better than Kerry in many of the "red states," but he looks unlikely to win any of them.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, as looks likely, he will be a "sure thing" in three states: Illinois, Rhode Island, and Vermont. He's likely, though not a certainty, to win Maine, Connecticut, and perhaps Delaware. In every other state, McCain should be the favorite.
As Lexington explains the poor position of Senators Obama and Clinton: "You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price."
Overall, things are looking very good for John McCain.
Over this weekend, I'll have additional material about how The Economist sees the emerging race for the presidency. A yearly subscription to the publication costs an imposing $99, but it's worth it.
If you want to see the best material about the American political scene, stay away from CNN and MSNBC -- and instead go to a London-based publication, The Economist. There are several good political writers on the magazine's staff, but the best one goes by the name of "Lexington." Here's what he says in the April 5-11, 2008 issue (page 39):
"It looks as if Pat Robertson and his cohorts were right all along: God really is a Republican. The Democrats ought to have little problem retaking the White House this November, given the unpopular war, the weakening economy, and the anti-Republican backlash. But instead of measuring the White House drapes, they are engaged in what Bill Kristol, a Republican commentator, has gleefully dubbed a 'rollicking demolition derby.'"
In the essay, Lexington adds, "The Democrats are all too aware that their civil war [in the primaries] could spell disaster. A cavalcade of senior Democrats, including senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd, have advised Mrs. Clinton to retire to her room with a glass of whisky and a loaded revolver."
In his piece, Lexington gives some very good reasons why Mrs. Clinton should NOT withdraw from the race -- and provides some insights you haven't seen before.
Why you haven't seen such analysis in America -- and especially, why the Clinton campaign isn't heralding it -- are the big questions.You've heard that Obama has won the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the most popular votes. All that is true (although it doesn't include popular votes from Michigan and Florida, both of which Clinton won), but it is one of those truths that may contain a larger falsehood.
Here's "Lexington's" unique analysis of Senator Clinton's situation: "She can . . . make a plausible case that she is the stronger candidate."How? "She [can make the point that] she so far [has] won 14 states with 44% of the country's population (16 states with 53% of the population if you include Florida and Michigan) compared with [Obama's] 27 states with 34% of the population. She has won Florida and Ohio, two battleground states, and will almost certainly win [another,] Pennsylvania."
Steve adds: The main mistake the Clinton campaign made was to pay little attention to the caucus states, starting with Iowa and extending to places like Wyoming and Idaho. Obama wounded her with a thousand cuts in the smaller states, and that's a major reason he's ahead in pledged delegates.
Another element that hurt her was the bloc voting by Blacks in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Is Senator Obama going to win SC, GA, MS, and LA? He's not going to come close to winning any of them. In the general election, he's going to have real problems winning most of the large states Mrs. Clinton carried in the primaries (such as TX, OH, and PA). Obama will do better than Kerry in many of the "red states," but he looks unlikely to win any of them.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, as looks likely, he will be a "sure thing" in three states: Illinois, Rhode Island, and Vermont. He's likely, though not a certainty, to win Maine, Connecticut, and perhaps Delaware. In every other state, McCain should be the favorite.
As Lexington explains the poor position of Senators Obama and Clinton: "You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price."
Overall, things are looking very good for John McCain.
Over this weekend, I'll have additional material about how The Economist sees the emerging race for the presidency. A yearly subscription to the publication costs an imposing $99, but it's worth it.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
MCCAIN MUST WIN INDEPENDENT VOTE
A GREAT MOMENT IN AMERICAN POLITICS!
Above, Barack Obama's supporters in Texas give him a standing ovation for blowing his nose. Then, the entire audience pulled their handkerchiefs, chanted "Yes we Can!" and blew their own noses in solidarity with the candidate. As you may already know, this web site is the best place to go for humorous photos of Barack Obama. Tomorrow, I'll give you a chance to come up with your own captions for some Obama photos.
How important are Independent voters to John McCain's efforts to win the presidency? They are absolutely crucial. There is no way McCain could even come close by relying mainly on conservative Republicans.
Consider the following anecdote from the Febuary 16 - February 22 issue of the The Economist:
"One of the most interesting political videos on YouTube features a young Obama supporter, Derrick Ashong. A camera-wielding interviewer collars Mr. Ashong in the street and starts to pepper him with questions. The interviewer assumes that his victim's casual appearance -- he is wearing a baseball hat, a shell necklace and is chewing gum -- betokens an equally casual approach to politics."
"One of the most interesting political videos on YouTube features a young Obama supporter, Derrick Ashong. A camera-wielding interviewer collars Mr. Ashong in the street and starts to pepper him with questions. The interviewer assumes that his victim's casual appearance -- he is wearing a baseball hat, a shell necklace and is chewing gum -- betokens an equally casual approach to politics."
"'Do you have any specifics?' he demands aggressively. 'What are their policies?'"
"Mr. Ashong delivers a series of carefully argued replies that could form the basis of an editorial in a serious newspaper. The interviewer is increasingly abashed. But, having delivered his defense of Barack Obama, Mr. Ashong concluded the interview by saying, 'I'm independent. I'm not a Democrat. I might vote for McCain.'"
Of the 10 Republican men who started out running for the presidential nomination, only John McCain has the ability to attract a significant number of Independent and Democratic voters. Some of the talk show hosts and others who have criticized McCain tend to dismiss questions about electability. They ignore the fact that, nationally, there are a lot more registered Democrats than Republicans.
As The Economist points out, "Over 30% of American call themselves Independents -- more than call themselves Republicans and about the same as call themselves Democrats. These Independents are younger and better educated than average Americans. They are pragmatic, anti-ideological and results-oriented, hostile to both Big Labor and Big Government, but quite prepared to see the government take an active role in dealing with problems like global warming."
How will such Independents align themselves when they find out Obama is a believer in Big Government and has a 100% favorable voting record in favor of Big Labor? Clearly, John McCain believes most of them will vote for him -- and there's no reason now to dispute his view.
Currently, Obama has a high approval rating (62%) among Independents. However, when voters discover that Obama doesn't have an independent bone in his body, his approval rating should go down -- perhaps resembling a rock thrown in a pond. When it becomes clear that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate, he will lose much of his current standing with Independents.
What is McCain's potential appeal to the critical bloc of Independents? As The Economist explains, "The very qualities of Mr. McCain that infuriate Republic conservatives endear him to Independents. . . . Mr. McCain has demonstrated his [voting] strength among Independents: he led the field among them by ten points in New York, 23 points in California and 31 points in Illinois."
As Independents go, so goes the election. John McCain knows that, and he is prepared to exploit his advantages with people who identify themselves as neither Republicans nor Democrats. The fact that he's clearly not a right-wing ideologue is going to help him greatly in the General Election.
Friday, February 22, 2008
New York Times Disgrace, "Obamanomics"
New York Times: Disgraceful Behavior
Michael Schuyler, who administers McCain Victory 08, which, if you're a blogger, you should join today, wrote the following letter to the New York Times regarding its smear-campaign against Senator John McCain.
Well, it's painfully obvious Jayson Blair [the reporter who made up many stories and whose activities resulted in the firing of the Times’ executive editor and the managing editor} is still working for the New York Times, a venerable name in American newspaper history that has fallen to the depths of the National Enquirer with unsubstantiated, sensationalistic stories such as the one today on John McCain. As they say: "You got nothin'!" and the fact that they ran such a story shows to what depths of journalistic malfeasance the Times has fallen.
It's no secret that newspapers have fallen on hard times as the Internet sucks advertising revenue and readership away from printed paper. Not only is Craig's List cheaper, it's more effective. The number of laid off news and support staff from newspapers around the country is nothing short of alarming. Unfortunately, newspaper management resorts to sensationalism to gain back readers by making every two-sentence tidbit in Police Blotter into a 'front page' story. Newspapers have done it to themselves by reacting this way, and by making up stories as the Times has done today.
The New York Times has become an institution without honor, without integrity. It's sad to see this happen, but the Times is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is no longer the case that any thinking person looks to the Times as a source of unbiased information. The Times, it seems, can no longer be trusted.
Read The Economist Instead of the Times
Michael, an excellent letter. I may be one of the few people in the nation (even the liberals are holding their noses) that isn't "disappointed" by the Times. But that's because my expectations for the paper are extremely low. It’s little more than a propaganda sheet.
A year ago, I started subscribing to The (London) Economist, which is far superior to anything I see in the U.S. Oh, in 2000, The Economist endorsed John McCain for President, and in 2008 they're getting ready to do so again. They see him as an honorable man who doesn't share the foreign policy fantasies of, say, Barack Obama. I keep quoting The Economist in my blog, hoping to influence a few other people to shell out $99 a year for it.
The Economist recently had a story discussing the fact that many things 40-45 years ago were a lot better than they are now. For example, we had one-third the rate of teen suicides. The divorce rate was much, much lower. The population in the penitentiaries was about 40% of today’s number of inhabitants in the lock-up. The rates of murders and violent crimes generally were a fraction of what they are today.
Someone like Barack Obama can't handle such facts, which they are of course. i doesn't lead to audience chanting, Hare Krishna style, "Yes, we can." An Obama can't -- while a McCain can -- say, you know, we used to do a lot of things better than we do them now -- or will perhaps do them in the future.
I hear the commercial with the far-left Harvard Law professor, Lawrence Tribe, talking about Obama's "brilliance." I don't see it. I see a person demanding that we redistribute more income and concentrate less on securing this nation from people who hate us.
Stephen Moore has an article in Friday's Wall Street Journal about Obama’s disastrous economic policies. Last night on the Glenn Beck show, More said that "Yes, we can" means, among other things, yes we can raise the effective tax rate for people in NJ, NY, and CA to 60%. See, the government gets sixty cents, and the people working their butts off get 40 cents. "Yes, we can?" But "No, we absolutely should not.” Call it "Obamanomics."
Those of us who strongly support John McCain have a lot of work to do. And it's critically important that we begin today!
Michael Schuyler, who administers McCain Victory 08, which, if you're a blogger, you should join today, wrote the following letter to the New York Times regarding its smear-campaign against Senator John McCain.
Well, it's painfully obvious Jayson Blair [the reporter who made up many stories and whose activities resulted in the firing of the Times’ executive editor and the managing editor} is still working for the New York Times, a venerable name in American newspaper history that has fallen to the depths of the National Enquirer with unsubstantiated, sensationalistic stories such as the one today on John McCain. As they say: "You got nothin'!" and the fact that they ran such a story shows to what depths of journalistic malfeasance the Times has fallen.
It's no secret that newspapers have fallen on hard times as the Internet sucks advertising revenue and readership away from printed paper. Not only is Craig's List cheaper, it's more effective. The number of laid off news and support staff from newspapers around the country is nothing short of alarming. Unfortunately, newspaper management resorts to sensationalism to gain back readers by making every two-sentence tidbit in Police Blotter into a 'front page' story. Newspapers have done it to themselves by reacting this way, and by making up stories as the Times has done today.
The New York Times has become an institution without honor, without integrity. It's sad to see this happen, but the Times is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is no longer the case that any thinking person looks to the Times as a source of unbiased information. The Times, it seems, can no longer be trusted.
Read The Economist Instead of the Times
Michael, an excellent letter. I may be one of the few people in the nation (even the liberals are holding their noses) that isn't "disappointed" by the Times. But that's because my expectations for the paper are extremely low. It’s little more than a propaganda sheet.
A year ago, I started subscribing to The (London) Economist, which is far superior to anything I see in the U.S. Oh, in 2000, The Economist endorsed John McCain for President, and in 2008 they're getting ready to do so again. They see him as an honorable man who doesn't share the foreign policy fantasies of, say, Barack Obama. I keep quoting The Economist in my blog, hoping to influence a few other people to shell out $99 a year for it.
The Economist recently had a story discussing the fact that many things 40-45 years ago were a lot better than they are now. For example, we had one-third the rate of teen suicides. The divorce rate was much, much lower. The population in the penitentiaries was about 40% of today’s number of inhabitants in the lock-up. The rates of murders and violent crimes generally were a fraction of what they are today.
Someone like Barack Obama can't handle such facts, which they are of course. i doesn't lead to audience chanting, Hare Krishna style, "Yes, we can." An Obama can't -- while a McCain can -- say, you know, we used to do a lot of things better than we do them now -- or will perhaps do them in the future.
I hear the commercial with the far-left Harvard Law professor, Lawrence Tribe, talking about Obama's "brilliance." I don't see it. I see a person demanding that we redistribute more income and concentrate less on securing this nation from people who hate us.
Stephen Moore has an article in Friday's Wall Street Journal about Obama’s disastrous economic policies. Last night on the Glenn Beck show, More said that "Yes, we can" means, among other things, yes we can raise the effective tax rate for people in NJ, NY, and CA to 60%. See, the government gets sixty cents, and the people working their butts off get 40 cents. "Yes, we can?" But "No, we absolutely should not.” Call it "Obamanomics."
Those of us who strongly support John McCain have a lot of work to do. And it's critically important that we begin today!
Friday, January 25, 2008
IMMIGRATION: GOOD FOR WELCOMING COUNTRIES
This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I've have one of those columns that goes on . . . and on . . . and on about John McCain and immigration. However, I urge you to read the previous column, borrowed from Sanity102. She writes about some thoroughly misguided criticisms of McCain, including those by Hugh Hewitt, a talk-radio shill for Mitt Romney. In previous columns, you'll also see my comments about future President Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska.
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."
In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:
"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."
In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:
"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:
- Roughly one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in Physics in the past seven years were born abroad;
- About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants; and,
- Approximately one-third of Silicon Valley companies were started by foreign-born individuals (mainly Indian or Chinese).
However, what about low-skilled workers, many of them from South of the U.S. border? In fact, their skills levels are about the same as those of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents. There's a tremendous need in our country for people who will do work that native-born Americans avoid.
What The Economist is saying is what John McCain believes. Oh, and those beliefs happen to be accurate.
More to follow on Saturday . . .
A SANE VIEW OF IMMIGRATION
In The Economist, January 5-11, 2008, the London-based publication has a fascinating 14-page special report on “migration” (called “immigration” in the U.S.).
In our country, immigration has been an extremely contentious issue, and Senator John McCain’s support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) has hurt his candidacy. He’s been accused – falsely, I believe – of favoring “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, and that kind of accusation can be the kiss of death in Republican politics.
The Economist’s position is that immigration is a good thing – a source of diversity, technological advances, and prosperity. In other words, it thinks people like McCain (which the magazine generally favors) are right, while their critics are wrong.
The publication says, “. . . Most often, migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work.” It adds, “History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of millions of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign-born are doing in America today.”
Much of the debate over immigration involves sloganeering, such as “the rule of law.” In fact, the U.S. has modified many laws that were irrational or immoral, such as the “law” that Black people counted for three-fifths as much as White people. It also eliminated the law that said women couldn’t vote. In the past generation, the country modified the law for those fleeing Communist Cuba, allowing those who reached our shores to stay.
The real issue will immigration – legal or even illegal – boils down to this: Is it a good thing, or a bad one? That is, do people immigrating to this nation provide more benefits than debits?
The Economist admits there can be negatives associated with immigration. It notes that politicians have a tendency to pander to “xenophobic fears. Also, it admits that large numbers of immigrants can provoke job fears among natives. What’s more, it’s clear that huge disparities of income across borders could result in a stream of incomers turning into a flood.
Yet, the magazine sees immigration mainly as a plus. It notes that “many migrants return home with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion . . . Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world’s poor than [sending off charitable contributions.”
In addition, “The movement of people also helps the rich world. Prosperous countries with graying workforces [America, Europe, and Japan, among them] rely ever more on young foreigners . . . . Around a third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in physics in the past seven years were born abroad. About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.”
In short, The Economist disagrees sharply with the nativist wing of the Republican Party. The points the magazine makes are the same kind that motivated John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham and others to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In the face of persuasive arguments, anti-immigrant slogans aren’t enough.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Obama/Murtha: Disastrous Choices for America
Here's what The Economist says about Barack Obama [the candidate of "hope"] in its Dec. 15-21 edition: "A President Obama would turn precoceptions upside down; indeed he might be able to achieve far more both at home and abroad than any other candidate. But hope does not balance budgets, craft alliances, or reform schools. It certainly does not prove that Mr. Obama would be the best -- or even a good -- President."
The Economist continues: "Mr. Obama cannot change his experience deficit, but he can change his substance deficit. His economic policies (like those of the other Democrats . . .) are crowd-pleasing stuff. He is iffy about free trade. He wants health insurance for all -- and expects the rich to pay for it. He wants schools to get better, but he panders to his leftist base by eschewing merit pay for teachers and independent charter schools."
Also, "On Iraq, he affects not to have noticed that the 'surge' in and around Baghdad is producing palpable successes, and clings to the idea, beloved of his Party base, that all troops should be withdrawn even before he putatively takes office."
The Economist frames its comments on Obama as being helpful. In fact, they're a devastating critique of the candidate's naivete and his penchant for demagoguery.
What about his stand on education? He refuses to take on the Teacher's Union and he refuses to support any real sort of choice for parents and students. Instead, he offers a vague "hope" that schools will somehow (perhaps by magic?) get better.
In other words, eights years of an Obama presidency would offer Americans an endless stream of rhetoric about the importance of education. But, aside from the teachers getting more money, NOTHING would change. Bad teachers would get the same pay as good ones. Parents would have no real opportunity to send their children to better schools.
On Iraq, Obama appeals to the small, activist segment (20%) of his Party that tells pollsters they think it would be best if the U.S. loses the War in Iraq. Like most Democratic presidential candidates, Obama seems to have no understanding of what motivate the mass murderers who call al-Qaida their "spiritual" home.
Yes, Obama "panders" to his Party's Leftist core. Apparently, that's his nature, and he would be a disastrous choice for America. He's so bad that he makes Hillary Clinton look good.
How do Obama's political and intellectual failures relate to someone like William Russell, who's opposing John Murtha? In fact, Murtha's approach to problems -- in Iraq, in education, in health care, in economic development -- closely resembles Obama's. In other words, the solution is to pay off some interest groups, such as the bosses of the Teacher's Union.
Russell wants to improve education and to resolve the situation in Iraq in a way favorable to the United States. The way to improve educational performance in America is to reach out -- to teachers, to parents, and to students -- to find ways to do things better. The implicit assumption of someone like Obama is that things can't be improved, which is ridiculous.
In fact, we shouldn't underestimate teachers. My mother was one for many years, and I also taught for 10 years. Granted, most teachers -- like "most" people generally -- are average. Many of them fear that steps designed designed to reward excellent teachers will somehow come at the determinet of the "average many."
But a rising tide lifts ALL boats. What do teachers generally -- the average and the above-average -- recommend to improve their own performance? What do they suggest to make them more a part of an economy and a society based on merit? In fact, most people in any occupation want to learn ways to make themselves better at their job.
What about identifying the best teacher in every school? Then, assign them to one or two teachers that are less skilled. In other words, let the top teachers share their expertise and mentor their colleagues. This happens all the time in business, but only rarely in education.
On Iraq, the real question (for Obama, Murtha, and others) is this: Where do we fight al-Qaida and how do we fight them? Presumably, the answer is NOT that we confront them in the streets of New York. "Redeploying" the troops to Okinawa, Murtha's solution, is a suggestion that's pitiful rather than helpful. If there's a better way to fight al-Qaida, then people like Obama and Murtha are obligated to tell us how -- and where.
In other words, let's come up with "win-win" solutions to our society's problems. We don't need to follow Obama's (and Murtha's) assumption that the only "problem" the world faces is how to make sure he gets elected.
(Note: I'm going to stick with this topic through Friday. One of the reason that so few people in the 12th Congressional District of PA vote is that they've given up hope. They clearly don't believe that their vote counts -- that it matters. A major underlying reason Russell is running is to explain to people that they should vote and, specifically, that they should vote for him.
One reason I like Rudy a lot is that his actions -- along with those of Police Commissioners Bratton and Kerik (yes, the much-maligned Bernie) -- dramatically reduced the crime rate in New York City. There are many people in local, state, and federal government that seemingly believe high-crime-rates are something that "just happens." They are dead wrong.
In New York, Mayor Bloomberg, elected twice as a Republican, and Commissioner Kelly have continued the policies of Rudy Giuliani and earlier commissioners. They have had tremendous success at keeping crime -- especially the murder rate -- down.
I heard the other day that New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 murders this year, putting it about on a par with Philadelphia, a much-smaller (and Democrat-controlled) city.
How many murders were there in NYC before Giuliani and Bratton iniated their crime-fighting policies. There were 2,494 -- nearly five time as many as are projected to occur this year.
Gee, how on earth did that great accomplishment (a pro-life achievement, by the way) occur? It happened because Giuliani and Bratton had an extremely insightful view into why and where crimes occurred.
Specifically, they understood what happens when neighborhood have broken windows, when begarrs are panhandling, when public urination runs rampant, when public drunkeness is tolerated, when sex parlors open up, and where groups of drug users congregate. What happens is people assume nobody cares about the neighborhood. Good people move out -- and bad people move in. Crimes proliferate, and murders become a way of life.
Giuliani and Bratton understood that it's critical to "sweat the small things." You can read the whole story in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. There was an epidemic of crime -- and Giuliani innoculated the city against it. The approach is still paying great dividends and saving thens of thousands of lives. Other cities -- Philadelphia being one, Pittsburgh another -- should emulate "America's Mayor."
The Economist continues: "Mr. Obama cannot change his experience deficit, but he can change his substance deficit. His economic policies (like those of the other Democrats . . .) are crowd-pleasing stuff. He is iffy about free trade. He wants health insurance for all -- and expects the rich to pay for it. He wants schools to get better, but he panders to his leftist base by eschewing merit pay for teachers and independent charter schools."
Also, "On Iraq, he affects not to have noticed that the 'surge' in and around Baghdad is producing palpable successes, and clings to the idea, beloved of his Party base, that all troops should be withdrawn even before he putatively takes office."
The Economist frames its comments on Obama as being helpful. In fact, they're a devastating critique of the candidate's naivete and his penchant for demagoguery.
What about his stand on education? He refuses to take on the Teacher's Union and he refuses to support any real sort of choice for parents and students. Instead, he offers a vague "hope" that schools will somehow (perhaps by magic?) get better.
In other words, eights years of an Obama presidency would offer Americans an endless stream of rhetoric about the importance of education. But, aside from the teachers getting more money, NOTHING would change. Bad teachers would get the same pay as good ones. Parents would have no real opportunity to send their children to better schools.
On Iraq, Obama appeals to the small, activist segment (20%) of his Party that tells pollsters they think it would be best if the U.S. loses the War in Iraq. Like most Democratic presidential candidates, Obama seems to have no understanding of what motivate the mass murderers who call al-Qaida their "spiritual" home.
Yes, Obama "panders" to his Party's Leftist core. Apparently, that's his nature, and he would be a disastrous choice for America. He's so bad that he makes Hillary Clinton look good.
How do Obama's political and intellectual failures relate to someone like William Russell, who's opposing John Murtha? In fact, Murtha's approach to problems -- in Iraq, in education, in health care, in economic development -- closely resembles Obama's. In other words, the solution is to pay off some interest groups, such as the bosses of the Teacher's Union.
Russell wants to improve education and to resolve the situation in Iraq in a way favorable to the United States. The way to improve educational performance in America is to reach out -- to teachers, to parents, and to students -- to find ways to do things better. The implicit assumption of someone like Obama is that things can't be improved, which is ridiculous.
In fact, we shouldn't underestimate teachers. My mother was one for many years, and I also taught for 10 years. Granted, most teachers -- like "most" people generally -- are average. Many of them fear that steps designed designed to reward excellent teachers will somehow come at the determinet of the "average many."
But a rising tide lifts ALL boats. What do teachers generally -- the average and the above-average -- recommend to improve their own performance? What do they suggest to make them more a part of an economy and a society based on merit? In fact, most people in any occupation want to learn ways to make themselves better at their job.
What about identifying the best teacher in every school? Then, assign them to one or two teachers that are less skilled. In other words, let the top teachers share their expertise and mentor their colleagues. This happens all the time in business, but only rarely in education.
On Iraq, the real question (for Obama, Murtha, and others) is this: Where do we fight al-Qaida and how do we fight them? Presumably, the answer is NOT that we confront them in the streets of New York. "Redeploying" the troops to Okinawa, Murtha's solution, is a suggestion that's pitiful rather than helpful. If there's a better way to fight al-Qaida, then people like Obama and Murtha are obligated to tell us how -- and where.
In other words, let's come up with "win-win" solutions to our society's problems. We don't need to follow Obama's (and Murtha's) assumption that the only "problem" the world faces is how to make sure he gets elected.
(Note: I'm going to stick with this topic through Friday. One of the reason that so few people in the 12th Congressional District of PA vote is that they've given up hope. They clearly don't believe that their vote counts -- that it matters. A major underlying reason Russell is running is to explain to people that they should vote and, specifically, that they should vote for him.
WHY DO I LIKE RUDY GIULIANI?
One reason I like Rudy a lot is that his actions -- along with those of Police Commissioners Bratton and Kerik (yes, the much-maligned Bernie) -- dramatically reduced the crime rate in New York City. There are many people in local, state, and federal government that seemingly believe high-crime-rates are something that "just happens." They are dead wrong.
In New York, Mayor Bloomberg, elected twice as a Republican, and Commissioner Kelly have continued the policies of Rudy Giuliani and earlier commissioners. They have had tremendous success at keeping crime -- especially the murder rate -- down.
I heard the other day that New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 murders this year, putting it about on a par with Philadelphia, a much-smaller (and Democrat-controlled) city.
How many murders were there in NYC before Giuliani and Bratton iniated their crime-fighting policies. There were 2,494 -- nearly five time as many as are projected to occur this year.
Gee, how on earth did that great accomplishment (a pro-life achievement, by the way) occur? It happened because Giuliani and Bratton had an extremely insightful view into why and where crimes occurred.
Specifically, they understood what happens when neighborhood have broken windows, when begarrs are panhandling, when public urination runs rampant, when public drunkeness is tolerated, when sex parlors open up, and where groups of drug users congregate. What happens is people assume nobody cares about the neighborhood. Good people move out -- and bad people move in. Crimes proliferate, and murders become a way of life.
Giuliani and Bratton understood that it's critical to "sweat the small things." You can read the whole story in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. There was an epidemic of crime -- and Giuliani innoculated the city against it. The approach is still paying great dividends and saving thens of thousands of lives. Other cities -- Philadelphia being one, Pittsburgh another -- should emulate "America's Mayor."
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Case for John McCain
. . . and The Case Against Mike Huckabee
In the December 8 - 14 issue of The Economist (http://economist.com), the publication makes the case for John McCain as Republican nominee for President. It's a compelling case.
The publication notes: "Mr. McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner of war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered . . . that they had 'other priorities.' He has repeatedly risked his politicla career by backing unpopular causes."
In addition, "Mr. McCain's qualifications extend beyong character. Take experience. His ranges of interests as a Senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign and military issues as anybody in public life."
As The Economist also points out, McCain may be the only Republican who can prevail in a general election over either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.
On the other hand, what does The Economist have to say about Mike Huckabee, who's become the flavor of the month? It says, "Mr. Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate -- a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly."
The publication continues: "A presidential debate between Mr. Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout."
Right now, there are two outstanding candidates on the Republican side, and Mike Huckabee is not one of them. If Republican voters are wise, they will see that the race should come down to two individuals: Rudy Giuiliani and John McCain. And may the best man win.
In the December 8 - 14 issue of The Economist (http://economist.com), the publication makes the case for John McCain as Republican nominee for President. It's a compelling case.
The publication notes: "Mr. McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner of war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered . . . that they had 'other priorities.' He has repeatedly risked his politicla career by backing unpopular causes."
In addition, "Mr. McCain's qualifications extend beyong character. Take experience. His ranges of interests as a Senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign and military issues as anybody in public life."
As The Economist also points out, McCain may be the only Republican who can prevail in a general election over either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.
On the other hand, what does The Economist have to say about Mike Huckabee, who's become the flavor of the month? It says, "Mr. Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate -- a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly."
The publication continues: "A presidential debate between Mr. Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout."
Right now, there are two outstanding candidates on the Republican side, and Mike Huckabee is not one of them. If Republican voters are wise, they will see that the race should come down to two individuals: Rudy Giuiliani and John McCain. And may the best man win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
