NOTE: MY MONDAY (AND TUESDAY) COLUMN WILL COME UP ABOUT 7 P.M. THIS EVENING. I'M STICKING BY MY PREDICTION THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL WIN BY DOUBLE-DIGITS IN PA. GOV. ED RENDELL, A HILLARY CLINTON BACKER, IS PREDICTING A SINGLE-DIGIT WIN, BUT I BELIEVE HE'S ENGAGING IN THE TIME-HONORED TRADITION OF "LOWERING EXPECTATIONS."
The column below is reposted from my Pennsylvania site (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.com. In this year's election, Pennsylvania is going to be what the pundits call "highly competitive." Generally, the columns on the Pennsylvania site will be "states-specific," recognizing that PA is going to be a critical battleground state. Later today, I'll be putting up a new -- and extremely important -- blog called: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. When Obama wins the nomination, as he presumably will, many Hillary supporters -- perhaps one-in-four -- will be inclined to vote for John McCain, and the Hillary site will involve discussions about that development. I urge you to visit both these sites.
Hillary Winning in PA, Nationwide
On Sunday, April 20, the results of the latest Gallup "Tracking Poll" were released. They showed Hillary Clinton leading nationally among Democrats by one percentage point. A week ago, Obama's lead in the Gallup Poll was about 11 points, so there's been a dramatic drop in his national support.
In Pennsylvania, the average of polls shows Mrs. Clinton's lead at about five points.Some analysts, including this one, believe it's entirely possible that Clinton will win in the Keystone State by approximately 10 percentage points. I've guessed it will be approximately 55% to 45%, although it could conceivably be by as much as 57% to 43%.
Clinton is stronger in Pennsylvania than you might have been hearing on TV. Right now, she's tied or leading in every demographic except Blacks and the wealthiest of Democrats.
If Mrs. Clinton has a double-digit win in Pennsylvania, look for to call on Super Delegates to support her. Presumably, she will point directly to the Gallup Poll as illustrating that she's the most electable candidate. She would have a powerful argument in her favor.
Clearly, Obama has been hurt by two factors: (1) his "bitter" comments about small town America; (2) his poor performance in the recent debate. The national media, many of whom obviously support Obama, have been slow to report on the dramatic changes taking place in the Democratic race.
Keep a close eye on those Gallup Tracking Polls. If Senator Clinton extends her lead, the Democratic race may become more chaotic than it already is. My own guess? That the battle will go right to the convention floor in Denver, an eventuality that will help John McCain.
In fact, McCain is looking like a probable winner in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even New Jersey, usually thought of as a solid "Blue State." Mrs. Clinton had solid wins in Ohio and New Jersey, and she should have a similar result in PA.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Gov. Sarah Palin: America's Hope
Trig Paxson Van Palin
Born 6:30 AM, April 18th, 2008
6 pounds, 2 ounces
Trig was not slated to arrive until May 18th, which makes him exactly one month early. Gov. Palin actually went into labor while in Texas for yesterdays Governors Forum, where she delivered the Keynote Address, but flew back to Alaska to give birth at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center. The Palin family issued the following statement:
"Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed"
NOTE: A friend and fellow Palin supporter from Alaska informs me that among the “special challenges” is the fact that Trig Palin has Downs Syndrome.
Like so many other people who believe Sarah Palin has the potential to be a great vice-president – and ultimately a great President – I continue to urge John McCain to select her as his running mate.
Trig Palin is very lucky to have two such superb people as Todd and Sarah Palin as his parents. All the best to the entire Palin family.
Born 6:30 AM, April 18th, 2008
6 pounds, 2 ounces
Trig was not slated to arrive until May 18th, which makes him exactly one month early. Gov. Palin actually went into labor while in Texas for yesterdays Governors Forum, where she delivered the Keynote Address, but flew back to Alaska to give birth at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center. The Palin family issued the following statement:
"Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed"
NOTE: A friend and fellow Palin supporter from Alaska informs me that among the “special challenges” is the fact that Trig Palin has Downs Syndrome.
Like so many other people who believe Sarah Palin has the potential to be a great vice-president – and ultimately a great President – I continue to urge John McCain to select her as his running mate.
Trig Palin is very lucky to have two such superb people as Todd and Sarah Palin as his parents. All the best to the entire Palin family.
Labels:
Alaska,
Gov. Sarah Palin,
Governors Forum,
Todd Palin,
Trig Palin
Friday, April 18, 2008
Melissa Hart, John Boehner: Leaders

Melisssa Hart with John Boehner (R, Ohio, Minority Leader) in Pittsburgh area on Friday. Former Congresswoman Hart is fighting to regain her congressional seat against Jason Altmire. It's been called "the country's most important congressional race." I've written several columns about Altmire, a full-time mudslinger and an individual who systematically misled voters in the 4th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, especially on the subject of Iraq. If you'd like to learn more about how you can support Melissa Hart, please visit her site at: http://peoplewithhart.com/.
I'll be writing next week about how Altmire's campaign is being financed by radical elements in American politics. If you'd like a sneak peek, go to open secrets.org and type in the name "Altmire."
HOUSE LEADER JOHN BOEHNER JOINS HART
TO AGAIN CALL ON ALTMIRE TO END HIS SILENCE
Cranberry Township, PA – Today, former Congresswoman Melissa Hart was joined by Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) for a press conference to call on Jason Altmire to end his silence and condemn the remarks made by Barack Obama one week ago.
“I find it disturbing that Jason Altmire has continued to stay silent regarding these insulting remarks. As a life long resident of Western Pennsylvania, I know the people here are proud of their values, families and faith. We certainly don’t cling to religion and sportsmen traditions out of bitterness,” said Melissa Hart.
“With each passing day, it has becomes more clear that Jason Altmire pays more attention to his national political profile than his constituents’ concerns. Governor Rendell and other top Democrats have rightly criticized Obama’s remarks,” said Hart.
Congressman Boehner added, “It’s time for Barack Obama to apologize to voters here in Pennsylvania and across the Midwest. And it’s time for his supporters in Congress to defend their constituents and denounce Obama’s patronizing rhetoric.”
Boehner continued, “Midwest voters aren’t ‘bitter;’ they’re for freedom. Freedom from higher taxes. Freedom to practice their faith. Freedom to exercise their Constitutional rights,” Boehner concluded. “That Obama and Altmire don’t understand that shows how out of touch they are.”
Altmire has been seen at many Barack Obama campaign events across Western Pennsylvania, including the event where Senator Bob Casey endorsed Barack Obama.
The only statement Altmire has made since the “bitter” remarks about Obama was in last Sunday’s Washington Post, saying "the more people get to know him, the more they like him."
Note: Anyone who'd like to learn more about Melissa Hart should visit her web site at: http://peoplewithhart.com.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Friday: Polygamists and Lobbyists
Tomorrow, I'll have a two-fer: (1) comments on Barack Obama's false claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists; and (2) comments on the Fundamentalist Latter-Day-Saints in Texas.
Here are the first comments:
Ken Dilanian, “Obama has ties to lobbyists despite boasts of not taking their money,” April 16, 2008 http://usatoday.com.
“Barack Obama often boasts he is “the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyists,” yet his fundraising team includes 18 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.
“The lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator’s presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.
“Thirty-one of the 38 are law partners, who typically receive a share of their firm’s lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists.
“’It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, f the person is raising money to get access or curry favor,’ said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank.”
Steve Adds: Obama is running wall-to-commercials, perhaps $10 million worth, in Pennsylvania that claim he doesn’t accept money from lobbyists. That is the reverse of the truth, and it reinforces the view of Obama as a man who is dishonest in the claims he makes about himself and his campaign.
Here's number 2, my comments on the situation in Texas:
I believe when we hear the evidence the state has -- and the early signs are that they have a great deal of information about law-breaking, including sex with underage women -- we will all be able to make more intelligent decisions about the rightness (or lack thereof) of the state's actions. At the very least, the males who totally dominate the "Yearning for Zion" (yikes!), or YFZ, site are exploiting both the males and females there.
Frankly, the women, who come across as Stepford Wife zombies, are not being done any favors. I say zombies because of the women's lack of "affect," the inappropriate smiling, and the sing-song voices, coupled with an obvious lack of basic education. I was dismayed by the women's (and we heard only from women, not the "elders") refusal to answer questions that they surely knew the answers to. What appears to have happened is that the "elders" define anything controversial as "sacred" (including sex with underage girls) and therefore not a matter that can be discussed. Very convenient.
In normal society, the way that abusive treatment gets detected is often by the neighbors or the authorities. In YFZ, there are no neighbors -- just members of the one secetive religious cult -- and the authorities and abusers seem to be one and the same. Yes, I have some mixed feelings about the withdrawal of all 416 children, but as I hear more I think the state just may be doing the children a big favor.
YFZ looks a whole lot like one of the old plantations from "Gone With the Wind," where the "darkies" were portrayed as singing away, all happy as clams. I don't believe it. At YFZ, at the very least, people's lives are being drained away and anyone who can stop that is performing a public service.
One point that hasn't been emphasized is that six women chose to go the "safe house." I won't be surprised if those women are singing like the birds in the trees about things taking place at YFZ.
Apparently, a number of children are also talking freely. One network is reporting that several young girls have said they know "Sarah," who made the original complaint. One thing people may be wondering about YFZ -- and all the other FLDS communities: where are the Black people?
Apparently, the answer is that they don't want any, in keeping with the "old" Mormon doctrine (pre-1980) that Blacks are someohow lesser beings in the eyes of God. I don't think that teaching children that particular "doctrine" is anything but hateful -- and very damaging to those who hear the "lessons."
There is no grand solution to this situation, but foster homes are starting to look better and better.
Here are the first comments:
Ken Dilanian, “Obama has ties to lobbyists despite boasts of not taking their money,” April 16, 2008 http://usatoday.com.
“Barack Obama often boasts he is “the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyists,” yet his fundraising team includes 18 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.
“The lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator’s presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.
“Thirty-one of the 38 are law partners, who typically receive a share of their firm’s lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists.
“’It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, f the person is raising money to get access or curry favor,’ said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank.”
Steve Adds: Obama is running wall-to-commercials, perhaps $10 million worth, in Pennsylvania that claim he doesn’t accept money from lobbyists. That is the reverse of the truth, and it reinforces the view of Obama as a man who is dishonest in the claims he makes about himself and his campaign.
Here's number 2, my comments on the situation in Texas:
I believe when we hear the evidence the state has -- and the early signs are that they have a great deal of information about law-breaking, including sex with underage women -- we will all be able to make more intelligent decisions about the rightness (or lack thereof) of the state's actions. At the very least, the males who totally dominate the "Yearning for Zion" (yikes!), or YFZ, site are exploiting both the males and females there.
Frankly, the women, who come across as Stepford Wife zombies, are not being done any favors. I say zombies because of the women's lack of "affect," the inappropriate smiling, and the sing-song voices, coupled with an obvious lack of basic education. I was dismayed by the women's (and we heard only from women, not the "elders") refusal to answer questions that they surely knew the answers to. What appears to have happened is that the "elders" define anything controversial as "sacred" (including sex with underage girls) and therefore not a matter that can be discussed. Very convenient.
In normal society, the way that abusive treatment gets detected is often by the neighbors or the authorities. In YFZ, there are no neighbors -- just members of the one secetive religious cult -- and the authorities and abusers seem to be one and the same. Yes, I have some mixed feelings about the withdrawal of all 416 children, but as I hear more I think the state just may be doing the children a big favor.
YFZ looks a whole lot like one of the old plantations from "Gone With the Wind," where the "darkies" were portrayed as singing away, all happy as clams. I don't believe it. At YFZ, at the very least, people's lives are being drained away and anyone who can stop that is performing a public service.
One point that hasn't been emphasized is that six women chose to go the "safe house." I won't be surprised if those women are singing like the birds in the trees about things taking place at YFZ.
Apparently, a number of children are also talking freely. One network is reporting that several young girls have said they know "Sarah," who made the original complaint. One thing people may be wondering about YFZ -- and all the other FLDS communities: where are the Black people?
Apparently, the answer is that they don't want any, in keeping with the "old" Mormon doctrine (pre-1980) that Blacks are someohow lesser beings in the eyes of God. I don't think that teaching children that particular "doctrine" is anything but hateful -- and very damaging to those who hear the "lessons."
There is no grand solution to this situation, but foster homes are starting to look better and better.
Jerry Bowyer: Pennsylvania Seriously Divided
This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796023090409503.html
Pennsylvania Divided
By Jerry Bowyer
As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.
One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.
As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.
Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.
And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.
I find all of this disheartening because allowing the narrow interests of political factions to force decisions and policies onto the whole is something that James Madison warned us against. In a pro-Constitution editorial (which history has come to know as Federalist 9), he described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous.
When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.
If that sounds a little like the Democratic Party today, it may be because the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has come to be dominated by factions. In the Keystone State, those factions include African-Americans who dominate the inner-cities, upper-class white voters in the suburbs, working-class voters in the middle regions of the state, and Latinos, seniors and college students who are dispersed in geographic pockets. And of course, ubiquitous unions.
Voters head to the polls in Pennsylvania on April 22 in a process that is supposed to lead eventually to a Democratic presidential nominee. But in watching Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama traverse the state, it's hard to see how one candidate will emerge from the many Democratic factions slugging it out.
Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton is trying to turn out her own supporters, who include traditional working-class Democrats, middle-class suburbanites and, of course, women and seniors.
Last month, it appeared that Mr. Obama's campaign was to be split apart on the edge of growing fears among white Democrats over incendiary and, at times racially charged, comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered from the pulpit over a 20-year period that Mr. Obama attended his church in Chicago. All the while, Mr. Obama hadn't raised an objection to Rev. Wright's sermons.
To save his campaign he showed up in Philadelphia – the city where Madison and the rest drew up the Constitution in 1787 – and gave what some called "The Speech" on race in America. In doing so, Mr. Obama likely saved his presidential campaign. And he did it, in part, drawing a line all the way back to "that group of men [who had] gathered" across the street in Constitutional Hall in 1787 to write one of the founding documents of the nation. In other words, by reaching beyond the factional politics of the Democratic Party.
Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."
_____________________________
Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Dear Pennsylvanians and others interested in Keystone State politics, please visit my blog focused on the state at: pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Occasionally, I'll cross post from this national blog to the PA one, but generally the columns there will be distinctive.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796023090409503.html
Pennsylvania Divided
By Jerry Bowyer
As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.
One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.
As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.
Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.
And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.
I find all of this disheartening because allowing the narrow interests of political factions to force decisions and policies onto the whole is something that James Madison warned us against. In a pro-Constitution editorial (which history has come to know as Federalist 9), he described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous.
When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.
If that sounds a little like the Democratic Party today, it may be because the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has come to be dominated by factions. In the Keystone State, those factions include African-Americans who dominate the inner-cities, upper-class white voters in the suburbs, working-class voters in the middle regions of the state, and Latinos, seniors and college students who are dispersed in geographic pockets. And of course, ubiquitous unions.
Voters head to the polls in Pennsylvania on April 22 in a process that is supposed to lead eventually to a Democratic presidential nominee. But in watching Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama traverse the state, it's hard to see how one candidate will emerge from the many Democratic factions slugging it out.
Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton is trying to turn out her own supporters, who include traditional working-class Democrats, middle-class suburbanites and, of course, women and seniors.
Last month, it appeared that Mr. Obama's campaign was to be split apart on the edge of growing fears among white Democrats over incendiary and, at times racially charged, comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered from the pulpit over a 20-year period that Mr. Obama attended his church in Chicago. All the while, Mr. Obama hadn't raised an objection to Rev. Wright's sermons.
To save his campaign he showed up in Philadelphia – the city where Madison and the rest drew up the Constitution in 1787 – and gave what some called "The Speech" on race in America. In doing so, Mr. Obama likely saved his presidential campaign. And he did it, in part, drawing a line all the way back to "that group of men [who had] gathered" across the street in Constitutional Hall in 1787 to write one of the founding documents of the nation. In other words, by reaching beyond the factional politics of the Democratic Party.
Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."
_____________________________
Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Dear Pennsylvanians and others interested in Keystone State politics, please visit my blog focused on the state at: pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Occasionally, I'll cross post from this national blog to the PA one, but generally the columns there will be distinctive.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Philadelphia,
Race Speech,
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
LIBERTARIANS SHOULD BACK MCCAIN
Eric Dondero, an important writer and radio talk show host, asked me to write a piece on why libertarians -- believers in economic, social, and political liberty -- should support John McCain. Eric printed the following yesterday on his blog (http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/).
Why Libertarians Should Support John McCain
It appears likely the next President of the U.S. will be either John Sidney McCain or Barack Hussein Obama. As good a man as Bob Barr is, he will not become President in 2009 – or any other year.
When it comes down to actually voting, the vast majority of Libertarians will reject the more liberal candidate (Obama) – and vote for the more conservative one (McCain). That’s because Libertarians reject the liberal narrative and generally accept the conservative one.
George Will recently described the liberal narrative as portraying “most Americans [as] victims of this or that sinister elite or impersonal force – and are not content to cope with life’s complexities without government supervision.” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/04/13/fooling_ourselves_into_entitlements
That nanny-state-narrative is completely at variance with the libertarian view of life.
What is the conservative narrative? Here’s how “Lexington,” a super writer for The Economist (and a libertarian) describes it: “American conservatives tend to believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed. This makes them more optimistic than liberals, more likely to feel in control of their lives and, therefore, happier.”
Conservative is not exactly the same thing as libertarian, but the two are compatible, as William F. Buckley, Jr. found 50-plus years ago when he staffed the National Review with a combination of economic libertarians and social conservatives. In contrast, liberalism, the friend of Big Government, generally is the polar opposite of libertarianism.
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 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.
Steve Maloney is a writer and political activist living in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA. He’d like to inform Senator Obama that he is not now – and never has been – “bitter.” He blogs at: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/.
When it comes down to actually voting, the vast majority of Libertarians will reject the more liberal candidate (Obama) – and vote for the more conservative one (McCain). That’s because Libertarians reject the liberal narrative and generally accept the conservative one.
George Will recently described the liberal narrative as portraying “most Americans [as] victims of this or that sinister elite or impersonal force – and are not content to cope with life’s complexities without government supervision.” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/04/13/fooling_ourselves_into_entitlements
That nanny-state-narrative is completely at variance with the libertarian view of life.
What is the conservative narrative? Here’s how “Lexington,” a super writer for The Economist (and a libertarian) describes it: “American conservatives tend to believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed. This makes them more optimistic than liberals, more likely to feel in control of their lives and, therefore, happier.”
Conservative is not exactly the same thing as libertarian, but the two are compatible, as William F. Buckley, Jr. found 50-plus years ago when he staffed the National Review with a combination of economic libertarians and social conservatives. In contrast, liberalism, the friend of Big Government, generally is the polar opposite of libertarianism.
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 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.
Steve Maloney is a writer and political activist living in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA. He’d like to inform Senator Obama that he is not now – and never has been – “bitter.” He blogs at: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR JOHN MCCAIN, PLEASE GO TO HIS WEB SITE AT: HTTP://JOHNMCCAIN.COM. THANKS!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Melissa Hart: Beating Jason Altmire
"American in 2008 is a mean place." (Michelle Obama, who apparently would like to become First Lady of this "mean place")
As you'll notice, my views about a Melissa Hart victory over Jason Altmire are not all that different from what McCain has to do to win over Obama in Pennsylvania. It's important to understand that Jason Altmire, who's one of Nancy Pelosi's and John Murtha's "pets" in Washington, will try to portray himself -- falsely -- as a centrist.
Also, as the campaign goes on, he and his surrogates and financial backers will try the same approach they relied on in 2006: to use their slime buckets in an attempt to heap mud on Melissa. Since Altmire will say anything and do anything to win, it's important that voters know exactly why so many observers describe him as a political guttersnipe
I'm working to get bloggers and other onliners to "link" (technically, emotionally, and politically) to Melissa's site -- and to keep going there. I also ask them to make small contributions (I mention $20 to $50) on the theory that if they make one, they'll make more. The 4th congressional district (north and west of Pittsburgh) is not a household term in, say, Texas or Oregon, but if it gets portrayed accurately as the most important congressional race in the country (and one that's critical to McCain's future), then it should get people's attention.
It's important to keep reminding people that Altmire called Murtha his "campaign manager" because, outside the 12th congressional district Murtha is as unpopular as it gets. I also link Altmire's name with that of Pelosi, on the basis that Altmire voted for her as Speaker and regularly votes with her on critical issues. On insignificant issues, Pelosi occasionally allows him to vote in accord with the wishes of voters in the 4th.
Also, on the Obama comments: he portrayed Pennsylvanians as a bunch of Bible-thumping, gun-toting rubes who take out their economic frustrations on immigrants and people who are "different" from Obama's supporters. Altmire apparently agrees on that point.
Finally, there's the issue of Altmire's radical donors, as revealed on www.opensecrets.org (go there and type in Altmire's name). He apparently believes he can accept huge amounts of money from radical left-wingers -- and somehow continue to portray himself as a centrist. In fact, Altmire is getting his "donations" from the same people who cheered Obama's sneering comments about Pennsylvanians and other average Americans. The contributors are people who believe in economic protectionism and in waging the War on Terror with rhetoric and platitudes rather than effective actions.
The America-haters of Moveon.org play as big a role in financing Altmire's campaign as they do in Obama's. (I'm going to write extensively in coming days about Altmire's money-men.) It's eminently fair to use Altmire's radical donors against him, because they're the ones who call the tune he dances to.
What's more, he needs to explain why he's taking money from union dues paid under duress by union bosses from members who support Melissa Hart. Because of his actions, Altmire should always be on the defensive -- right through November 4.
Overall, it's critical for people in the 4th who vote for John McCain to support Melissa Hart. She will back McCain's practical, yet often visionary, policies. Altmire would not.
In the 4th, the numbers look good. McCain will win the district by tens of thousands of votes (perhaps as many as 40,000 -- Bush having won in 2004 by 30,000). Thus, McCain should be putting wind in Melssa's sails.
Despite the vast amounts of money the far-Left is pouring into Altmire's campaign, Melissa Hart is looking more and more like a winner. Please visit her informative web site.
Bloggers who would like to reprint any of my material, including this column, are cordially invited to do so.
NOTE: ON MY OHIO AND NEW JERSEY SITES, WHICH I HOPE YOU'LL VISIT, I HAVE A SHORT PIECE TODAY ON BARACK OBAMA AS "AMERICA'S PET ROCK." Those sites are at: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com and http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. In general, those sites focus on the particular states, although on occasion I cross-post. I have yet another site (yikes): http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Its emphasis is on the relationship between the McCain Campaign and efforts by Republicans to take or hold congressional seats. I'm looking to hand off the Ohio and New Jersey sites to willing bloggers from those states.Your comments are always welcome.
As you'll notice, my views about a Melissa Hart victory over Jason Altmire are not all that different from what McCain has to do to win over Obama in Pennsylvania. It's important to understand that Jason Altmire, who's one of Nancy Pelosi's and John Murtha's "pets" in Washington, will try to portray himself -- falsely -- as a centrist.
Also, as the campaign goes on, he and his surrogates and financial backers will try the same approach they relied on in 2006: to use their slime buckets in an attempt to heap mud on Melissa. Since Altmire will say anything and do anything to win, it's important that voters know exactly why so many observers describe him as a political guttersnipe
I'm working to get bloggers and other onliners to "link" (technically, emotionally, and politically) to Melissa's site -- and to keep going there. I also ask them to make small contributions (I mention $20 to $50) on the theory that if they make one, they'll make more. The 4th congressional district (north and west of Pittsburgh) is not a household term in, say, Texas or Oregon, but if it gets portrayed accurately as the most important congressional race in the country (and one that's critical to McCain's future), then it should get people's attention.
It's important to keep reminding people that Altmire called Murtha his "campaign manager" because, outside the 12th congressional district Murtha is as unpopular as it gets. I also link Altmire's name with that of Pelosi, on the basis that Altmire voted for her as Speaker and regularly votes with her on critical issues. On insignificant issues, Pelosi occasionally allows him to vote in accord with the wishes of voters in the 4th.
Also, on the Obama comments: he portrayed Pennsylvanians as a bunch of Bible-thumping, gun-toting rubes who take out their economic frustrations on immigrants and people who are "different" from Obama's supporters. Altmire apparently agrees on that point.
Finally, there's the issue of Altmire's radical donors, as revealed on www.opensecrets.org (go there and type in Altmire's name). He apparently believes he can accept huge amounts of money from radical left-wingers -- and somehow continue to portray himself as a centrist. In fact, Altmire is getting his "donations" from the same people who cheered Obama's sneering comments about Pennsylvanians and other average Americans. The contributors are people who believe in economic protectionism and in waging the War on Terror with rhetoric and platitudes rather than effective actions.
The America-haters of Moveon.org play as big a role in financing Altmire's campaign as they do in Obama's. (I'm going to write extensively in coming days about Altmire's money-men.) It's eminently fair to use Altmire's radical donors against him, because they're the ones who call the tune he dances to.
What's more, he needs to explain why he's taking money from union dues paid under duress by union bosses from members who support Melissa Hart. Because of his actions, Altmire should always be on the defensive -- right through November 4.
Overall, it's critical for people in the 4th who vote for John McCain to support Melissa Hart. She will back McCain's practical, yet often visionary, policies. Altmire would not.
In the 4th, the numbers look good. McCain will win the district by tens of thousands of votes (perhaps as many as 40,000 -- Bush having won in 2004 by 30,000). Thus, McCain should be putting wind in Melssa's sails.
Despite the vast amounts of money the far-Left is pouring into Altmire's campaign, Melissa Hart is looking more and more like a winner. Please visit her informative web site.
Bloggers who would like to reprint any of my material, including this column, are cordially invited to do so.
NOTE: ON MY OHIO AND NEW JERSEY SITES, WHICH I HOPE YOU'LL VISIT, I HAVE A SHORT PIECE TODAY ON BARACK OBAMA AS "AMERICA'S PET ROCK." Those sites are at: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com and http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. In general, those sites focus on the particular states, although on occasion I cross-post. I have yet another site (yikes): http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Its emphasis is on the relationship between the McCain Campaign and efforts by Republicans to take or hold congressional seats. I'm looking to hand off the Ohio and New Jersey sites to willing bloggers from those states.Your comments are always welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)