Truthful Levity
A Post-Election Stroll
|
It's 1:42 AM Wednesday morning, and I've just returned from venturing outside my Atlanta apartment amid cheers, car horns, and indistinguishable chants. What follows is a non-exaggerated account, to be taken simply as a true life anecdote in a media-drenched world full of slogans, soundbites, and bullshit narratives.
As I walked east on 3rd street, it was mere moments before I heard a boisterous voice, loud and clear. He was a black man in his twenties, strolling confidently on the opposite site of the street, posturing the way hip-hop artists do when they know there are cameras around.
I heard his triumphant cry: "Yeah baby! It's all about the O! Fuck McCain!" I couldn't help but look, and my gaze remained fixed upon him as we trotted in opposite directions. We made eye contact, and he directed his shouting my way. Slowing his pace, he asked me, "you hear what I said? Obama baby!"
I never talk to strangers. I never like when they talk to me, which is virtually every day, be it on the train, bus, or on foot. For some reason, though, I felt compelled to buck his sense of vicarious accomplishment. "What's he going to do for you?" I shouted back. His reply was simple, and cringe-worthy. "He's gonna give me change! What's he gonna give you?"
"He's going to dissolve my liberties and yours," I said, to which he poignantly replied, "Yeah bitch, that's why you voted for the nigga with the short arms."
Baffled, I kept walking. And then I heard the horns. The blaring sustained car horns that I can still hear out of my window, zooming with a mesmerizing Doppler effect up and down Peachtree street, the main thoroughfare which is to Atlanta as Broadway is to New York City. Obama/Biden signs sticking out of car sun roofs, sensationalist Obama apparel with airbrushed phrases like "Change" and "Hope," and more surreal commotion than I've ever seen after 1:00 am on a Tuesday.
I walked south for two blocks until I reached North Avenue, where an even bigger gaggle of Obama nighthawks were shouting and carrying on, decked out with shirts, placards, stickers, and flags. The rallying cry: "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma!"
"Mar-xis-m, Mar-xis-m," I muttered quietly to myself. Not quietly enough it turned out, as while my attention was arrested by the celebratory cries of the half-moon droves, a homeless man meandering down North Avenue matched my pace and asked me a very honest question: "Hey man, you ain't pissed are you?"
I had to stop and think. What was I feeling? I wasn't angry. I wasn't even disappointed; it's pretty hard to disappoint someone as cynical as I am, and admittedly a significant part of me was undeniably touched by the historic implications of this election. I had always thought about the idea of a "black" president (or at least someone other than an aging WASP) ever since I realized at a young age that, while throughout the history of our republic, black people had overcome tremendous odds and catalyzed their own self-determination to achieve greatness, the presidency seemed just out of reach for a mainstream black American.
Barack Obama is anything but mainstream, but I digress...
My honest answer was "No." By this time, we had walked a full block and were standing on the corner of North Avenue and West Peachtree street. I told him I was concerned that people would be distracted from the real ways in which they could improve their lives. I told him that simply electing someone and feeling good about it would never change a thing, and would only serve to further exacerbate the mentality of entitlement and the systemic apathy that has stagnated communities across America for years.
His words were as surprising as they were candid: "People cain't be gettin' complacent, y'understand? These people cain't just be voting for some character and expect that they can just sit back and let whatever they dreaming about come to 'em. Ain't no politician nowhere who ever said some magic spell and changed people's lives."
I smiled, and I smiled big. This man, a middle-aged black man named Angelo with ill-fitting clothes and a scraggly beard, had once again reminded me that the average person isn't so average after all. As we continued walking west, I told him how much I agreed with him and how much I respected his point of view. I was talking politics with a bum, and I was intrigued by and grateful for every second of it.
He described what he saw as a "cycle," in which values and ideas are passed on to future generations, either for the betterment of society, or for the detriment of society. I was sure he was unemployed, yet he spoke of the virtue of "getting up and going to work," "makin' your living," and "taking care of your family."
I silently thought of two reasons for the amount clarity that came from a man living on the streets of Atlanta. The first was the fact that without a job, a family, and possessions, Angelo's only real pasttime was spent thinking about his life and his values. The second, even more telling of the state of our society, was the fact that without exposure to television, radio, and the internet, I was talking to a man who lived in a complete media vacuum. He lived a life completed unswayed by a liberal dominated mass-media monolith.
We walked for another block, and as we crossed Spring street in front of honking cars and shouting city dwellers, I felt more comforted by his honesty and integrity - things which I imagined were rare commodities among the numerous Atlantans forced to live one day at a time, without a bed to sleep in, a family to rely on, or a paycheck to collect.
I walked into North Avenue's BP gas station, the hub of nightlife for the southern tip of Midtown, and bought Angelo something to eat. I didn't have any cash on me, but I couldn't deny that if I could have paid for this conversation, I would have. He thanked me, wished me luck, and after learning that I was a mere 22 years old, reminded me I had a lot of living to do, and a lot of perspective to gain.
I walked the remaining 3 blocks to my house, satisfied with the knowledge that somewhere, somehow, the true spirit of America would survive. I felt assured that no matter who possessed the keys, this country was built by people who didn't believe in government, corporations, banks, demogogues, politicians, or rhetoric.
This country was built by people who believed in themselves.
As I walked east on 3rd street, it was mere moments before I heard a boisterous voice, loud and clear. He was a black man in his twenties, strolling confidently on the opposite site of the street, posturing the way hip-hop artists do when they know there are cameras around.
I heard his triumphant cry: "Yeah baby! It's all about the O! Fuck McCain!" I couldn't help but look, and my gaze remained fixed upon him as we trotted in opposite directions. We made eye contact, and he directed his shouting my way. Slowing his pace, he asked me, "you hear what I said? Obama baby!"
I never talk to strangers. I never like when they talk to me, which is virtually every day, be it on the train, bus, or on foot. For some reason, though, I felt compelled to buck his sense of vicarious accomplishment. "What's he going to do for you?" I shouted back. His reply was simple, and cringe-worthy. "He's gonna give me change! What's he gonna give you?"
"He's going to dissolve my liberties and yours," I said, to which he poignantly replied, "Yeah bitch, that's why you voted for the nigga with the short arms."
Baffled, I kept walking. And then I heard the horns. The blaring sustained car horns that I can still hear out of my window, zooming with a mesmerizing Doppler effect up and down Peachtree street, the main thoroughfare which is to Atlanta as Broadway is to New York City. Obama/Biden signs sticking out of car sun roofs, sensationalist Obama apparel with airbrushed phrases like "Change" and "Hope," and more surreal commotion than I've ever seen after 1:00 am on a Tuesday.
I walked south for two blocks until I reached North Avenue, where an even bigger gaggle of Obama nighthawks were shouting and carrying on, decked out with shirts, placards, stickers, and flags. The rallying cry: "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma!"
"Mar-xis-m, Mar-xis-m," I muttered quietly to myself. Not quietly enough it turned out, as while my attention was arrested by the celebratory cries of the half-moon droves, a homeless man meandering down North Avenue matched my pace and asked me a very honest question: "Hey man, you ain't pissed are you?"
I had to stop and think. What was I feeling? I wasn't angry. I wasn't even disappointed; it's pretty hard to disappoint someone as cynical as I am, and admittedly a significant part of me was undeniably touched by the historic implications of this election. I had always thought about the idea of a "black" president (or at least someone other than an aging WASP) ever since I realized at a young age that, while throughout the history of our republic, black people had overcome tremendous odds and catalyzed their own self-determination to achieve greatness, the presidency seemed just out of reach for a mainstream black American.
Barack Obama is anything but mainstream, but I digress...
My honest answer was "No." By this time, we had walked a full block and were standing on the corner of North Avenue and West Peachtree street. I told him I was concerned that people would be distracted from the real ways in which they could improve their lives. I told him that simply electing someone and feeling good about it would never change a thing, and would only serve to further exacerbate the mentality of entitlement and the systemic apathy that has stagnated communities across America for years.
His words were as surprising as they were candid: "People cain't be gettin' complacent, y'understand? These people cain't just be voting for some character and expect that they can just sit back and let whatever they dreaming about come to 'em. Ain't no politician nowhere who ever said some magic spell and changed people's lives."
I smiled, and I smiled big. This man, a middle-aged black man named Angelo with ill-fitting clothes and a scraggly beard, had once again reminded me that the average person isn't so average after all. As we continued walking west, I told him how much I agreed with him and how much I respected his point of view. I was talking politics with a bum, and I was intrigued by and grateful for every second of it.
He described what he saw as a "cycle," in which values and ideas are passed on to future generations, either for the betterment of society, or for the detriment of society. I was sure he was unemployed, yet he spoke of the virtue of "getting up and going to work," "makin' your living," and "taking care of your family."
I silently thought of two reasons for the amount clarity that came from a man living on the streets of Atlanta. The first was the fact that without a job, a family, and possessions, Angelo's only real pasttime was spent thinking about his life and his values. The second, even more telling of the state of our society, was the fact that without exposure to television, radio, and the internet, I was talking to a man who lived in a complete media vacuum. He lived a life completed unswayed by a liberal dominated mass-media monolith.
We walked for another block, and as we crossed Spring street in front of honking cars and shouting city dwellers, I felt more comforted by his honesty and integrity - things which I imagined were rare commodities among the numerous Atlantans forced to live one day at a time, without a bed to sleep in, a family to rely on, or a paycheck to collect.
I walked into North Avenue's BP gas station, the hub of nightlife for the southern tip of Midtown, and bought Angelo something to eat. I didn't have any cash on me, but I couldn't deny that if I could have paid for this conversation, I would have. He thanked me, wished me luck, and after learning that I was a mere 22 years old, reminded me I had a lot of living to do, and a lot of perspective to gain.
I walked the remaining 3 blocks to my house, satisfied with the knowledge that somewhere, somehow, the true spirit of America would survive. I felt assured that no matter who possessed the keys, this country was built by people who didn't believe in government, corporations, banks, demogogues, politicians, or rhetoric.
This country was built by people who believed in themselves.
Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania
Doctor Barack, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Maverick
November 3, 2008 |
I must pinch my nose, bite my tongue, and cross my fingers as I go on record as rooting for John McCain this election. I never liked John McCain, and I never saw myself "supporting" such a disappointing and inadequate candidate, but America is currently clinging to life on the operating table, and as the reaffirming beeps from the life support machine grow farther apart, I simply can't bring myself to place the scalpel in the hands of Doctor Barack.
Besides the fact that Obama represents the farthest Left America will have ever ventured, he would also be the most inexperienced and previously unknown candidate ever elected. After all, I've still yet to hear a compelling answer to the question "what has Obama ever accomplished?" The only thing his supporters can come up with is, "he was elected to the U.S. senate." Well, so were 99 other people, many times over. Does that make them qualified to lead the free world?
When backed into a corner on the experience issue, Obamatons will frequently cite his ability to "inspire people," especially youth, without ever answering the pertinent question: inspire them to do what? Does he inspire them to volunteer in homeless shelters? To donate to charity? To join the armed forces or the peace corps? The only thing Obama "inspires" young people to do is vote for him. His message is loud and clear: the best way to help out your community is to vote for Barack Obama. The Messiah himself will take care of the rest.
Because we knew so little about Doctor Barack at the outset, we were forced to look at his associations and his voting record. Starting with the latter, as you should know by now, he was ranked in 2007 by a non-partisan journal as the #1 most liberal voter in the U.S. Senate. To give you some perspective, Obama came out to the left of Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist.
As for his associations, I'll say this: Throughout his brief political career, Barry has had an uncanny ability to be comfortable around people who simply hate this country. Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Khalidi...the list goes on. Barack has had so many ties to so many controversial and America-loathing characters, he wouldn't even qualify to be his own secret service bodyguard. Anyone who has worked for the FBI knows that someone who was associated with the former spokesmouth for the PLO, or who kicked off a political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist, would be denied the security clearance and thus the job based on those connections. Obama couldn't qualify to be an FBI agent, but somehow he's qualified to be president.
After establishing that he had no experience (Hillary helped with this one), and that he wished not to be judged based on his associations with the aforementioned unsavory characters, he pleaded with the American people to elect him based on his "judgment." Once again, this aspect leaves quite a lot to be desired.
Obama gained a lot of traction early on by touting his opposition to the Iraq war. While it's a given that he didn't even have a vote on the Iraq war resolution (remember, in 2003 Barack Obama was a complete unknown), one wonders how much political risk he took by speaking out against the war as a state senator from a decidedly liberal, anti-war district.
Regardless of his position in 2003, after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he was faced with an actual vote on a controversial foreign policy decision: the troop surge. John McCain and other members of congress said the surge strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from Bush's horribly mismanaged conflict. The last 16 months have shown their judgment to be correct.
Obama didn't just vote against the surge, he actually predicted it would make matters worse. Even the New York Times now admits Iraq has been completely transformed by the increased troop presence, casualties are at all-time lows, and conditions for withdrawal are in sight. In fact, over the Summer, the murder rate in Obama's hometown of Chicago was higher than that of Baghdad's.
So, his experience is non-existent, his associations are downright terrifying, and on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate, he was spectacularly wrong, and stubbornly refuses to admit it. So what's left? What does ol' Barry really believe? What are the ideals and principles that form the core of the man who's being virtually catapulted into the White House? Folks, understand this: if we omitted everything about this man that didn't reek of failed Leftist policies or outright Marxism, we'd be left with nothing to discuss except his shoe size, which is incidentally something that the throngs of Obama worshipers could probably talk about endlessly.
Perhaps the most telling bits of evidence of Barack's radical views have come from his own mouth in the form of comments like "spread the wealth around," and tax increases "for the purposes of fairness." His egalitarianism is plain to see, which explains in part Europe's childlike infatuation with him. With so many Obama voters focused on his love for equality, no one seems to remember that equality was never an American value. Sure, Americans support equality for citizens in the eyes of the law, equal protection of the rights guaranteed by our constitution, and equal economic opportunity - that is, the freedom to earn as much as your skills and work ethic allow you to.
But Barack's idea of equality isn't the equality of opportunity, it's the equality of result. Everyone will have an "equal amount of stuff," even if it means taking from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. Obama advocates what Frederic Bastiat termed "legal plunder." That is, when the "law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Even Michelle Obama has expressed the virtues of legal plunder, although she used a much more voter-friendly foodstuff analogy:
Doctor Barack is also remarkably dishonest - something that goes unnoticed by the Obama droves who will line up tomorrow to vote for a slogan, not a candidate. He constantly trumpets his plan to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, and he's allowed to pass off such rubbish because most Americans (and probably close to all of his supporters) don't realize that 40% of Americans don't even pay income tax. They're never curious about exactly how you can give a "tax cut" to someone who doesn't pay taxes. If Obama said, "I'm raising taxes on the rich, and I'll give that money to people who don't even pay taxes," even the most deluded American would understand that right about now, Marx and Lenin are high-fiving in hell.
Another bit of dishonestly comes in the form of his claim to "end the power of special interests" - as if Republicans are the only ones beholden to lobbyists. When Barack Obama and the Democrat party decide to get out of bed with the teachers union, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, I'll start believing his promises about "special interests."
Barack's naive outlook is neverending, and frankly, I don't trust him. Not on energy, not on national security, not on taxes; there isn't a single issue where he and I agree. Perhaps if Obama had a litle more time to build up his resume with some executive experience and actual accomplishments, he could be a somewhat compelling candidate. Instead, he wants Americans to support the most radical and least qualified candidate in American history.
Our country deserves better, and it's for this and countless other reasons that I must relectantly (and secretly, lest I be branded a racist) root for John McCain, with all his flaws. He's a washed up middle-of-the-roader; a compromised man who has lost his will to fight - something which may ultimately cost him this election.
But admittedly, I'll take the guy who shot rockets in Vietnam over the guy who shot staples in Chicago. I'll take the guy who has a son fighting in Iraq over the guy who says Americans "cling to their guns." I'll take the guy who palls around with liberal Democrats over the guy who palls around with racist preachers and former terrorists. I'll take the guy who says he wants government to "get out of the way" over the guy who says he wants government to "spread the wealth around." I'll take the guy who views babies as blessings over the guy who views them as "punishments." I'll take the guy who's concerned about how much energy we can produce over the guy who's concerned about how little carbon we can produce.
Simply put, after pinching my nose, biting my tongue, and crossing my fingers...I'll take the guy who wants to change Washington over the guy who wants to change America.
Besides the fact that Obama represents the farthest Left America will have ever ventured, he would also be the most inexperienced and previously unknown candidate ever elected. After all, I've still yet to hear a compelling answer to the question "what has Obama ever accomplished?" The only thing his supporters can come up with is, "he was elected to the U.S. senate." Well, so were 99 other people, many times over. Does that make them qualified to lead the free world?When backed into a corner on the experience issue, Obamatons will frequently cite his ability to "inspire people," especially youth, without ever answering the pertinent question: inspire them to do what? Does he inspire them to volunteer in homeless shelters? To donate to charity? To join the armed forces or the peace corps? The only thing Obama "inspires" young people to do is vote for him. His message is loud and clear: the best way to help out your community is to vote for Barack Obama. The Messiah himself will take care of the rest.
Because we knew so little about Doctor Barack at the outset, we were forced to look at his associations and his voting record. Starting with the latter, as you should know by now, he was ranked in 2007 by a non-partisan journal as the #1 most liberal voter in the U.S. Senate. To give you some perspective, Obama came out to the left of Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist.
As for his associations, I'll say this: Throughout his brief political career, Barry has had an uncanny ability to be comfortable around people who simply hate this country. Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Khalidi...the list goes on. Barack has had so many ties to so many controversial and America-loathing characters, he wouldn't even qualify to be his own secret service bodyguard. Anyone who has worked for the FBI knows that someone who was associated with the former spokesmouth for the PLO, or who kicked off a political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist, would be denied the security clearance and thus the job based on those connections. Obama couldn't qualify to be an FBI agent, but somehow he's qualified to be president.
After establishing that he had no experience (Hillary helped with this one), and that he wished not to be judged based on his associations with the aforementioned unsavory characters, he pleaded with the American people to elect him based on his "judgment." Once again, this aspect leaves quite a lot to be desired.
Obama gained a lot of traction early on by touting his opposition to the Iraq war. While it's a given that he didn't even have a vote on the Iraq war resolution (remember, in 2003 Barack Obama was a complete unknown), one wonders how much political risk he took by speaking out against the war as a state senator from a decidedly liberal, anti-war district.
Regardless of his position in 2003, after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he was faced with an actual vote on a controversial foreign policy decision: the troop surge. John McCain and other members of congress said the surge strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from Bush's horribly mismanaged conflict. The last 16 months have shown their judgment to be correct.
Obama didn't just vote against the surge, he actually predicted it would make matters worse. Even the New York Times now admits Iraq has been completely transformed by the increased troop presence, casualties are at all-time lows, and conditions for withdrawal are in sight. In fact, over the Summer, the murder rate in Obama's hometown of Chicago was higher than that of Baghdad's.
So, his experience is non-existent, his associations are downright terrifying, and on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate, he was spectacularly wrong, and stubbornly refuses to admit it. So what's left? What does ol' Barry really believe? What are the ideals and principles that form the core of the man who's being virtually catapulted into the White House? Folks, understand this: if we omitted everything about this man that didn't reek of failed Leftist policies or outright Marxism, we'd be left with nothing to discuss except his shoe size, which is incidentally something that the throngs of Obama worshipers could probably talk about endlessly.
Perhaps the most telling bits of evidence of Barack's radical views have come from his own mouth in the form of comments like "spread the wealth around," and tax increases "for the purposes of fairness." His egalitarianism is plain to see, which explains in part Europe's childlike infatuation with him. With so many Obama voters focused on his love for equality, no one seems to remember that equality was never an American value. Sure, Americans support equality for citizens in the eyes of the law, equal protection of the rights guaranteed by our constitution, and equal economic opportunity - that is, the freedom to earn as much as your skills and work ethic allow you to.
But Barack's idea of equality isn't the equality of opportunity, it's the equality of result. Everyone will have an "equal amount of stuff," even if it means taking from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. Obama advocates what Frederic Bastiat termed "legal plunder." That is, when the "law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Even Michelle Obama has expressed the virtues of legal plunder, although she used a much more voter-friendly foodstuff analogy:
"The truth is, most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive just a little bit...in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."I shouldn't have to explain to you how much this fundamentally conflicts with the principles of liberty upon which America was founded. Old school Democrats like John F. Kennedy used to construct tax policies with the ultimate goal of "growing the economy." Liberals today (better described as Leftists when compared to the likes of JFK) have modeled their tax policies with the ultimate goal of "fairness." This is truly the only way to make something as un-American as the federal income tax even more so. And rest assured, Obama represents the cream of the Democrat party's far-Left crop.
Doctor Barack is also remarkably dishonest - something that goes unnoticed by the Obama droves who will line up tomorrow to vote for a slogan, not a candidate. He constantly trumpets his plan to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, and he's allowed to pass off such rubbish because most Americans (and probably close to all of his supporters) don't realize that 40% of Americans don't even pay income tax. They're never curious about exactly how you can give a "tax cut" to someone who doesn't pay taxes. If Obama said, "I'm raising taxes on the rich, and I'll give that money to people who don't even pay taxes," even the most deluded American would understand that right about now, Marx and Lenin are high-fiving in hell.
Another bit of dishonestly comes in the form of his claim to "end the power of special interests" - as if Republicans are the only ones beholden to lobbyists. When Barack Obama and the Democrat party decide to get out of bed with the teachers union, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, I'll start believing his promises about "special interests."
Barack's naive outlook is neverending, and frankly, I don't trust him. Not on energy, not on national security, not on taxes; there isn't a single issue where he and I agree. Perhaps if Obama had a litle more time to build up his resume with some executive experience and actual accomplishments, he could be a somewhat compelling candidate. Instead, he wants Americans to support the most radical and least qualified candidate in American history.
Our country deserves better, and it's for this and countless other reasons that I must relectantly (and secretly, lest I be branded a racist) root for John McCain, with all his flaws. He's a washed up middle-of-the-roader; a compromised man who has lost his will to fight - something which may ultimately cost him this election.
But admittedly, I'll take the guy who shot rockets in Vietnam over the guy who shot staples in Chicago. I'll take the guy who has a son fighting in Iraq over the guy who says Americans "cling to their guns." I'll take the guy who palls around with liberal Democrats over the guy who palls around with racist preachers and former terrorists. I'll take the guy who says he wants government to "get out of the way" over the guy who says he wants government to "spread the wealth around." I'll take the guy who views babies as blessings over the guy who views them as "punishments." I'll take the guy who's concerned about how much energy we can produce over the guy who's concerned about how little carbon we can produce.
Simply put, after pinching my nose, biting my tongue, and crossing my fingers...I'll take the guy who wants to change Washington over the guy who wants to change America.
Labels: Election 2008
Obama on Energy: Change Behavior by Raising Prices
|
"Price Signals." Otherwise known as punitive taxes and fees, which would primarily affect the middle class, just like the One's plan to tax small businesses. Watch as Obama advocates sending "price signals" to the middle class in order to "change their behavior."
"It's not gonna be painless...a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity." So that's his plan: raise energy prices so Americans will be able to consume less, thus benefiting the environment and catalyzing the production of new energy. This is completely ignoring Obama's lack of initiative (to put it very politely) in respect to nuclear power, coal, and offshore drilling.
And it gets worse. In the same interview, Obama said that under his plan, electricity rates would "skyrocket," as companies passed higher fees on to consumers:
As profits for energy companies begin to fall, less money can ultimately be funneled to research and development, which means the deployment of any revolutionary technology for a society will be significantly delayed, or simply never realized at all.
So, what do you get if you vote for Obama on energy? Well, he's a de facto nuclear opponent. He doesn't support additional drilling. He's said nothing about improving oil and gas infrastructure or building more refineries. He's obviously no "coal booster," as he recently admitted. And he is literally guaranteeing that energy prices will rise under his administration. Believe him.
The problem? Obama has no plan for the period of transition. He thinks he can wave his divine wand and shackle the energy companies, save the environment with a Captain Planet-esque PSA, and "science" will heroically come to the rescue and invent a magic new energy source to fuel his SUV and power his mansion.
We need to adopt sound policies to keep energy prices down, harness our own supplies of oil, coal, natural gas, wind, tide, and the rest of the lot, and use the resulting cushion to sustain our economy while we develop the alternatives and the infrastructure to deliver them.
Here's hoping America sends Barack his own "signal" on Tuesday.
Update: Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, has made a statement declaring Obama's remarks as "unfortunate."
And it gets worse. In the same interview, Obama said that under his plan, electricity rates would "skyrocket," as companies passed higher fees on to consumers:
"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."Engineered price shocks are the last thing our economy needs right now. As we've seen with this year's gas crisis, rising energy prices can wreak havoc on an economy, affecting families and businesses alike. Obama talks about technology "catching up," but a receding or even stagnant economy will hardly ever produce major scientific breakthroughs, especially when the powerful hand of government is increasing taxes and imposing unnecessary cost burdens on energy.
As profits for energy companies begin to fall, less money can ultimately be funneled to research and development, which means the deployment of any revolutionary technology for a society will be significantly delayed, or simply never realized at all.
So, what do you get if you vote for Obama on energy? Well, he's a de facto nuclear opponent. He doesn't support additional drilling. He's said nothing about improving oil and gas infrastructure or building more refineries. He's obviously no "coal booster," as he recently admitted. And he is literally guaranteeing that energy prices will rise under his administration. Believe him.
The problem? Obama has no plan for the period of transition. He thinks he can wave his divine wand and shackle the energy companies, save the environment with a Captain Planet-esque PSA, and "science" will heroically come to the rescue and invent a magic new energy source to fuel his SUV and power his mansion.
We need to adopt sound policies to keep energy prices down, harness our own supplies of oil, coal, natural gas, wind, tide, and the rest of the lot, and use the resulting cushion to sustain our economy while we develop the alternatives and the infrastructure to deliver them.
Here's hoping America sends Barack his own "signal" on Tuesday.
Update: Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, has made a statement declaring Obama's remarks as "unfortunate."
"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally...If they're victorious Tuesday, they'd better go to someone other than Al Gore on energy and environmental matters," he said. "They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."Mmmhmm.
Labels: Election 2008, Energy, Obamamania
Soviet Dogs for Obama
November 2, 2008 |
This Barack Obama sign was recently spotted in Albany, California. Obviously this is just silly, but then again, parents listening to the political "wisdom" of their kids is about as silly as a dog-owner taking his pooch into consideration while pulling the lever. Here's the sign:
Now for the non-silly part. This sign is actually an almost exact copy of a Soviet propaganda poster painted by Russian artist Alexander Rodchenko in the 1920s:
Canine placards notwithstanding, Is there anything about Barack Obama that doesn't reek of communism?
Now for the non-silly part. This sign is actually an almost exact copy of a Soviet propaganda poster painted by Russian artist Alexander Rodchenko in the 1920s:Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania
Why One Debate is More than Enough
October 31, 2008 |
Consider this the 1,000th example of the American media boiling down complex issues into easily digestible slogans, as the only two schmucks we can vote for dance along to the show. To quote Newt Gingrich, "We don't really have presidential debates today; we have a kind of meaningless political performance art: a recitation of talking points choreographed to avoid any risk."
Labels: Election 2008, Video
Obama Prefers Fairness Over Facts
October 10, 2008 |
Something that should have sounded a few more Leftist alarm bells was Barack Obama's explanation for his support of raising (read: doubling) the capital gains tax.
Charlie Gibson confronts Obama and clues him in to the fact that every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, the government actually collected more money in tax revenue. Likewise, when the tax was raised, government revenue went down. Barack's response? It's not about providing the government with more funds. It's about fairness.
Gibson presses him again later, and while you might be thinking that Obama played the fairness card because he couldn't deny the facts, well...he does exactly that.
Are you starting to see a relationship between the likelihood of an Obama presidency and the plummeting of the stock market?
Charlie Gibson confronts Obama and clues him in to the fact that every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, the government actually collected more money in tax revenue. Likewise, when the tax was raised, government revenue went down. Barack's response? It's not about providing the government with more funds. It's about fairness.
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.Obama doesn't see taxation as a way to finance the activities of government (which it's not, but that's a separate story), but rather the instrument with which the government can mandate fairness. This is the man who says he's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, which is curious considering that 40% of Americans don't earn enough to pay income taxes.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Gibson presses him again later, and while you might be thinking that Obama played the fairness card because he couldn't deny the facts, well...he does exactly that.
GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.That's like saying, "Wow you know, every time we increase taxes on businesses, they cut jobs and raise their prices to make up for the increased tax liability. But you know, let's try it again. 'Cause it might happen, or it might not."
OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Are you starting to see a relationship between the likelihood of an Obama presidency and the plummeting of the stock market?
Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania, Taxes
McCain is Running to Lose
October 9, 2008 |
After Tuesday's debate, I'm so over these two candidates, but I'm especially disgusted with what John McCain has offered conservatives in the last month. He is virtually pleading with his base to stay home on November 4th.
Obama did everything he needed to do during the debate. McCain on the other hand, threw the Straight Talk Express into reverse and slammed on the gas.
While the Messiah has billions and billions in proposed new spending, the self-proclaimed Maverick wants to literally expand the bailout by spending $300 billion (at the very least) so the government can buy up bad mortgages. Both sound like a real good recipe for a country whose national debt clock has run out of digits.
I can't even articulate what a God-awful idea McCain's ACORN-like mortgage buy-up is. This was one of the first things out of his mouth during Tuesday's debate. His big game-changer. His big taking-off-the-gloves moment. Then, he spent the rest of the debate railing against government spending and bills "loaded down with goodies."
What irks me about this most is the fact that if Barack Obama had proposed this idea, we'd need hearing aids after the initial wave of screams from the Right. He'd once again be attacked as a huge-government socialist (which he is) who favored having the Treasury Department (still headed by Henry Paulson) renegotiate individual home loans.
Home ownership is good, but it's not a constitutional right. Foreclosures are bad, but they are not something to be avoided at all costs, no matter what the impact on taxpayers.
The guy who wants government to "get out of the way" and emphasizes "personal responsibility and accountability" wants to radically expand the federal government's role in meddling with individual mortgage loans. And speaking of "responsibility," this magic debt elimination is only available for those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payment for any number of reasons - not for you suckers who've managed to pay your bills on time.
Even if there was no $700 billion bailout, the mere implication of this is so compromising to John McCain and his base, who don't have much of a tongue left to bite. Regardless of the cost, the man thinks that house prices need to be stabilized through a government mandate. The man thinks it is somehow the government's duty to keep people in homes they couldn't afford in the first place.
He's a fall guy, picked to lose, I swear it. Remember now, McCain wasn't well-received even during the primaries; he was down there flirting with the likes of Ron Paul and Sam Brownback. Suddenly he's forced into our lap, and we're told to shut up and accept him, "lest we put the Marxist in the White House!"
Conservatives, do you know anyone who voted for McCain in the primaries? Me neither. Perhaps that can explain this:
Obama did everything he needed to do during the debate. McCain on the other hand, threw the Straight Talk Express into reverse and slammed on the gas.
While the Messiah has billions and billions in proposed new spending, the self-proclaimed Maverick wants to literally expand the bailout by spending $300 billion (at the very least) so the government can buy up bad mortgages. Both sound like a real good recipe for a country whose national debt clock has run out of digits.
I can't even articulate what a God-awful idea McCain's ACORN-like mortgage buy-up is. This was one of the first things out of his mouth during Tuesday's debate. His big game-changer. His big taking-off-the-gloves moment. Then, he spent the rest of the debate railing against government spending and bills "loaded down with goodies."
What irks me about this most is the fact that if Barack Obama had proposed this idea, we'd need hearing aids after the initial wave of screams from the Right. He'd once again be attacked as a huge-government socialist (which he is) who favored having the Treasury Department (still headed by Henry Paulson) renegotiate individual home loans.
Home ownership is good, but it's not a constitutional right. Foreclosures are bad, but they are not something to be avoided at all costs, no matter what the impact on taxpayers.
The guy who wants government to "get out of the way" and emphasizes "personal responsibility and accountability" wants to radically expand the federal government's role in meddling with individual mortgage loans. And speaking of "responsibility," this magic debt elimination is only available for those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payment for any number of reasons - not for you suckers who've managed to pay your bills on time.
Even if there was no $700 billion bailout, the mere implication of this is so compromising to John McCain and his base, who don't have much of a tongue left to bite. Regardless of the cost, the man thinks that house prices need to be stabilized through a government mandate. The man thinks it is somehow the government's duty to keep people in homes they couldn't afford in the first place.
He's a fall guy, picked to lose, I swear it. Remember now, McCain wasn't well-received even during the primaries; he was down there flirting with the likes of Ron Paul and Sam Brownback. Suddenly he's forced into our lap, and we're told to shut up and accept him, "lest we put the Marxist in the White House!"
Conservatives, do you know anyone who voted for McCain in the primaries? Me neither. Perhaps that can explain this:
Labels: Election 2008
No Matter Who Wins...We Lose
October 8, 2008 |
The always lovely Kirsten Powers has penned an article in the New York Post summing up last nights debate, and the hopelessness of this election. Read it.
On the other hand, Obama did oh-so-much to prove he's the real post-partisan candidate, by not only blaming the entire financial crisis on Bush and "deregulation" (wrong), but by taking every opportunity to point the finger at Republicans for letting Americans down, no matter what the question or issue.
John McCain needs a game-changer, but he didn't get it last night. Barring some crisis that shifts the public debate away from the cratering world economy and onto foreign policy, McCain is swimming upstream in his effort to overtake Obama.The "game-changer" she refers to won't come from McCain. He's acting like a fall guy; like he's taking a dive. He's lying in a hospital bed hoping to wake up each day to the miraculous news that the Palincillin is working, but alas, he remains on life support.
But of greater concern to the average American is this: In last night's debate, neither candidate displayed any real understanding of the economic mess or offered any vision on how to solve it. Instead, both men treated the audience to a tsunami of talking points interspersed with petty finger-pointing.McCain, clearly oblivious to the notion that attacks don't seem to be working (whether they be over policies or "guys in Obama's neighborhood"), thinks "taking off the gloves" means finger-pointing.
On the other hand, Obama did oh-so-much to prove he's the real post-partisan candidate, by not only blaming the entire financial crisis on Bush and "deregulation" (wrong), but by taking every opportunity to point the finger at Republicans for letting Americans down, no matter what the question or issue.
It's appalling to watch the two men who are vying to run our country play the blame game and insist that only the actions of people in opposite political parties are at fault. It was a moment to grab the wheel and say something reassuring - but neither stepped up to the plate and acted like a leader.Also, notice how both candidates have been completely silent on the issue of immigration, in all 3 of these debates? Hmmm, I wonder why...
Labels: Election 2008
CNN Commits Random Act of Journalism
October 7, 2008 |
Yes this really is a CNN report scrutinizing Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and concluding that he has been dishonest. It's got to tell you something when CNN won't buy the "this is a guy who lives in my neighborhood" line any longer. Watch.
And yes, you can expect McCain to raise this issue and attempt to hammer it home with every last bit of gusto the old coot has left. It won't work. When people see their 401ks going in the crapper, they don't want to hear about the bomb-thrower, however outrageous the connection may be, and Obama and the media will simply accuse McCain of avoiding the economic issues on everyone's mind.
And yes, you can expect McCain to raise this issue and attempt to hammer it home with every last bit of gusto the old coot has left. It won't work. When people see their 401ks going in the crapper, they don't want to hear about the bomb-thrower, however outrageous the connection may be, and Obama and the media will simply accuse McCain of avoiding the economic issues on everyone's mind.
Labels: Election 2008, Media
Associated Press: Pointing Out Obama's Ayers Connection is Like, Racist or Something
October 6, 2008 |
Douglass K. Daniel, a writer and editor with the Washington bureau of the wire service that doesn't like to be quoted, apparently thinks that even pointing out Obama's ties to white radicals is racist. Putting the "anal" in "analysis," Daniel writes that Palin's charge that Obama has "palled around with terrorists" is unsubstantiated and (gasp) racist.
From "Analysis: Palin's Words Carry Racial Tinge:"
From "Analysis: Palin's Words Carry Racial Tinge:"
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?The post-racial candidate has become the most-racial candidate. "It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American?" Yeah, funny how much associating with unrepentant terrorists and then telling Americans "they cling to guns and religion" does to paint that picture.
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain's purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.
Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania
Biden's Mouth Running Out of Foot Room
October 3, 2008 |
Forgive me for not starting this column by immediately gushing over Sarahcuda's performance last night (and she did knock it out of the park), but I believe in the end, she merely kept McCain from flat-lining; a pair of cardiac defibrillators in a bra. With a month until the election, and after the bungled Hail Mary that was his campaign suspension, the maverick was (and still may be) on life support.
That being said - damn girl. You wore the pants in this debate, hands down. You had Senator Cheshire Cat on the defensive from the start, and while you didn't quite have the chops to call Biden out a lot of the nonsense that left his mouth, I'll be happy to do that for you. After all, you earned it. Just stop calling women "hockey moms."
Joe Biden (you know, the "foreign policy" expert) offered up a fair share of drivel last night, particularly having to do with the Middle East. The wackiest claim coming from the old smokestack from Delaware was that the Bush administration let Hezbollah into Lebanon, and then "we kicked Hezbollah out," (I have no idea what he's talking about). He then attests that he and Barry said that NATO should move in to "fill the vacuum," but no one took their advice, and now Hezbollah is all over Lebanon, and it represents a failure of this administration. I know it sounds bizarre, and it is, so here's the transcript:
Is he talking about Israel's failed offensive against Hezbollah terrorists in 2006? Israel accomplished virtually nothing in the 2006 war, and they certainly didn't "kick anyone out." Is he talking about Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 1999? I don't remember hearing anything from Obama about NATO then.
This is of course, ignoring what Biden said right before the mess about Lebanon:
Joe also tried to pass off the lie (and I don't use that term frequently) that Obama never said he'd meet with the likes of Ahmadinejad, saying "This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad." This video from the YouTube primary debate (one that Joe Biden attended), proves otherwise:
Hmmm. Reminds me of another Biden quote about Obama: "I think [Obama] can be ready, but right now I dont believe he is - the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Say it ain't so, Joe!
That being said - damn girl. You wore the pants in this debate, hands down. You had Senator Cheshire Cat on the defensive from the start, and while you didn't quite have the chops to call Biden out a lot of the nonsense that left his mouth, I'll be happy to do that for you. After all, you earned it. Just stop calling women "hockey moms."
Joe Biden (you know, the "foreign policy" expert) offered up a fair share of drivel last night, particularly having to do with the Middle East. The wackiest claim coming from the old smokestack from Delaware was that the Bush administration let Hezbollah into Lebanon, and then "we kicked Hezbollah out," (I have no idea what he's talking about). He then attests that he and Barry said that NATO should move in to "fill the vacuum," but no one took their advice, and now Hezbollah is all over Lebanon, and it represents a failure of this administration. I know it sounds bizarre, and it is, so here's the transcript:
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."Um...what? Hezbollah was never "kicked out of Lebanon." They've been there since the early 1980s, exponentially growing during the 90s to eventually make up over 1/3 of the population of Lebanon. Hezbollah is essentially an entirely separate government entity with its own goals, representation, and infrastructure in southern Lebanon and other parts of the country.
Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.
The fact of the matter is, the policy of this administration has been an abject failure.
Is he talking about Israel's failed offensive against Hezbollah terrorists in 2006? Israel accomplished virtually nothing in the 2006 war, and they certainly didn't "kick anyone out." Is he talking about Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 1999? I don't remember hearing anything from Obama about NATO then.
This is of course, ignoring what Biden said right before the mess about Lebanon:
Here’s what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, 'Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.' What happened? Hamas won.If this quote gets any attention, you might get another glimpse of the long-standing double standard in the media. If John McCain had said this, it would be because he's ignorant, senile, crazy, dying, etc. But Biden will get a pass, and if he receives any criticism for it, it will be because he simply "misspoke." If you're talking about the plague of Hamas, you're talking about Gaza...not the West Bank. But he's right about one thing - Hamas did win...and subsequently endorsed Obama. Realize that no matter who wins, you're getting a third Bush term in the area of Israeli/Palestinian policy.
Joe also tried to pass off the lie (and I don't use that term frequently) that Obama never said he'd meet with the likes of Ahmadinejad, saying "This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad." This video from the YouTube primary debate (one that Joe Biden attended), proves otherwise:
Hmmm. Reminds me of another Biden quote about Obama: "I think [Obama] can be ready, but right now I dont believe he is - the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Say it ain't so, Joe!
Labels: Election 2008
Dear God, Let Palin Look Better Than This Tonight
October 2, 2008 |
"Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy...um, helping the...oh, it’s got to be about job creation too...shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track...so health care reform and reducing taxes and...reining in spending has got to...accompany tax reductions and tax relief...for Americans, and...trade, we have, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as uh...competitive, scary thing but...1 in 5 jobs being created uh, in the trade sector today, we've...we've got to look at that as more opportunity...all of those things under the umbrella of job creation..."
Remind you of something else?
Remind you of something else?
Labels: Election 2008, Sarahcuda
Ken Timmerman on Obama's Unreported Campaign Contributions
|
First off, do you remember Barack's infamous Gaza phone bank? Here's a refresher:
Now, Ken Timmerman has written an excellent article on some of Obama's shadier campaign contributions, from folks like "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro." Sure, Obama isn't required to identify contributions of less than $200, but given that McCain does it voluntarily, along with the fact that Obama claims to be all about a different type of transparent politics (and has famously been helped by small/grassroots donors), it's a little odd that he hasn't released this information.
Timmerman agrees:
Change!
Now, Ken Timmerman has written an excellent article on some of Obama's shadier campaign contributions, from folks like "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro." Sure, Obama isn't required to identify contributions of less than $200, but given that McCain does it voluntarily, along with the fact that Obama claims to be all about a different type of transparent politics (and has famously been helped by small/grassroots donors), it's a little odd that he hasn't released this information.
Timmerman agrees:
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as "Will, Good" from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You."Also worth noting is this excerpt from the Economist:
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 - still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as "Pro, Doodad," from "Nando, NY," gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You," just as Good Will had done. But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by "VCX" and that his profession was "VCVC."
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600. Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later. In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.So the Messiah is bringing in heaps of cash from foreigners who may or may not be citizens, as well as equally large piles of money from inside the country from untraceable phantoms who make up identities and break up their contributions into smaller amounts, for which the reporting requirements aren't as strict.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
Change!
Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania
Homeless Ohioan Wants Obama, Food
|
In what surely will not be the last video to render me speechless this week, Ohio residents are not only encouraging homeless people to vote, but facilitating the process. Watch.
One genius describing registering voters at a temporary address: "It’s a perfect opportunity for them to come in, register at a temporary address like a homeless shelter or a YMCA or something like that. They can register at that address because they don’t know where they’re going to be tomorrow or next week."
Another woman describing picking up potential voters at bus stops: "I asked 'em if they’re registered to vote and if they weren’t, I said 'Get in the car, I’m bringing you!'"
A homeless (and obviously very informed) man now registered to vote:
One genius describing registering voters at a temporary address: "It’s a perfect opportunity for them to come in, register at a temporary address like a homeless shelter or a YMCA or something like that. They can register at that address because they don’t know where they’re going to be tomorrow or next week."
Another woman describing picking up potential voters at bus stops: "I asked 'em if they’re registered to vote and if they weren’t, I said 'Get in the car, I’m bringing you!'"
A homeless (and obviously very informed) man now registered to vote:
"They picked me up. They seen me walkin' around. So they said, 'You wanna vote?' I said, 'Yeah, I’ll vote.' (laughs) They said, 'We’ll take you anywhere you want.' I said, 'Dat’s cool'" - "If they say 'sign the ballot,' just give 'em and do exactly what they want you to do.' I mean hey, this is America, you know?” (laughs).Who does he support? Let's ask him!
"Barack! I mean, I want him to do his thang. You know baby, do his thug thizzle...you know, that’s how I like it to be, you know (laughs)."We're doomed.
Labels: Election 2008
Video: I'm Voting Democrat...
October 1, 2008 |
A well done response to the infamous "I'm Voting Republican" video. The lines are a little nasty, but no less than its liberal counterpart, and just as overly simplistic:
Favorite quote: "I'm voting Democrat because I believe in change. And not just just any change...but a change...that translates...into hope. And not just any hope...but a hope that...brings about...real...change. I like change."
Labels: Election 2008, Video
Tomorrow's Moderator To Release Book Starring Obama
|
Scroll for updates...
Here's an idea of how "neutral" the moderator for tomorrow's debate with Caribou Barbie and Greasy Joe will be. Gwen Ifill is releasing a book entitled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Really sounds nonpartisan, doesn't it? Here's an example of what you'll be getting:
I'd like you to forget about bias for a moment. Let's just assume Ifill isn't biased towards Barack Obama in her book. If Obama manages to lose, do you think her book will sell? Sure, it will. But a hell of a lot more copies will leave the shelves if Obama wins. A child could explain this to you.
So by moderator, they apparently mean "a person with a financial stake in the outcome of this election." You would think this would be immensely obvious, and it is to most rationally thinking people. If she had any shred of journalistic integrity, she would realize this herself and turn down the offer. But alas, she's got a book to sell, and a candidate to help win.
I'm surprised toward the end she didn't add, "Hold on Jim, I'm having trouble hearing you over whatever boring song they're singing."
Update: Here are some accurate comments from PBS viewer Brian Meyers of Granby, Connecticut about Ifill's convention coverage directly following Palin's speech.
Here's an idea of how "neutral" the moderator for tomorrow's debate with Caribou Barbie and Greasy Joe will be. Gwen Ifill is releasing a book entitled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Really sounds nonpartisan, doesn't it? Here's an example of what you'll be getting:
I'd like you to forget about bias for a moment. Let's just assume Ifill isn't biased towards Barack Obama in her book. If Obama manages to lose, do you think her book will sell? Sure, it will. But a hell of a lot more copies will leave the shelves if Obama wins. A child could explain this to you.
So by moderator, they apparently mean "a person with a financial stake in the outcome of this election." You would think this would be immensely obvious, and it is to most rationally thinking people. If she had any shred of journalistic integrity, she would realize this herself and turn down the offer. But alas, she's got a book to sell, and a candidate to help win.
I'm surprised toward the end she didn't add, "Hold on Jim, I'm having trouble hearing you over whatever boring song they're singing."
Update: Here are some accurate comments from PBS viewer Brian Meyers of Granby, Connecticut about Ifill's convention coverage directly following Palin's speech.
"Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust," Meyers said. "Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance."
Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania
Updates From Planet Obvious
|
Here are a couple stories that aim to tell you what you (should) already know. First, we go to Vienna, Austria, where the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that "all is not well with the IAEA." He also adds that after 6 years of inspections, the UN can't rule out "the possibility that [Iran] may be running clandestine nuclear programs."
A six-year probe of Iran has failed to rule out the possibility that the country may be running clandestine nuclear programs, the chief U.N nuclear inspector said Monday, urging the country to end its secretive ways.Back in America, an email has surfaced via Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, sent in by a reader who works in a mainstream media newsroom:
"All is not well with the IAEA," ElBaradei said, asking the opening session of the agency's general conference for more money and authority.
"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."The only surprising thing here is that someone on the inside admitted what we all (should) know.
Labels: Election 2008, Iran, Media, Obamamania
Pre-Gaming Tomorrow's Vice Presidential Train Wreck
|
Tomorrow's Biden/Palin showdown will most likely attract a much larger audience than last Friday's debate, although to be fair, many viewers might mistakenly remain tuned in under the impression they are actually watching Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.
It seems the vice presidential candidates' strategies are clear. For Caribou Barbie, the objective is to come across more knowledgeable and apt than she probably is, and for Greasy Joe, the objective is to come across like anything other than a complete jackass.
If the earmark machine can keep himself well-oiled and gaffe free, he won't need to pounce on any of Palin's inevitable slip-ups; the media will be glad to do that for him.
Meanwhile, if Palin wants to salvage anything from Thursday, she needs to clearly state that her opinions are her own; that she is not simply John McCain in stilettos. Then, she can unleash the Sarahcuda teeth and let Biden flail like the beltway flounder he is. Just like with ANWR and Pakistan (the latter of which McCain should have left alone), she needs to give the impression that she is her own woman with her own opinions who - unlike Joe Biden - is not only unafraid to differ with her running mate, but has done so.
Sarah's responses during interviews have been lined with obvious rhetorical echoes of McCain's handlers. Forcing her to be McCain's faithful beauty queen surrogate, loyally trumpeting his middle-of-the-road positions (even if she agrees with 95% of them), is one of the many things contributing to the decay of his campaign.
Mr. Biden needs to learn from Obama's arrogance and refer to Sarahcuda as "Governor Palin," not "Sarah." Despite McCain referring to Obama consistently and solely as "Senator Obama," Barry referred to McCain as "John" over 20 times during the debate.
He also needs to remember that Palin isn't (and shouldn't be) the primary target of his attacks. Of course she's a walking bull's eye, but while Barry and Joe keep the heat on the bottom of the ticket, John McCain starts to look like the only one running for president. He doesn't need to make himself appear more trustworthy than Sarah - he needs to make Barack look more trustworthy than McCain.
Biden's best tactic will be to let her goofs go underplayed and silently sanction a post-debate media field day, but I suspect his ego will make achieving this all but impossible.
This debate is do-or-die for Sarah, as her campaign speeches with and without McCain have been more or less carbon copies of her RNC speech. How many times do I have to hear "Thanks but no thanks" and "I put it on eBay?" Her speeches are starting to sound just as full of canned rhetoric and witty one-liners as Obama's. Don't get me wrong, I agree with what she's saying, but she needs to stop being terrified of "winging it" and just be real. She needs to come off as a genuine person, and not "PalinBot."
I'm sorry Sarah, but if you can't come across as genuine standing next to the likes of Joe Biden, you're probably in way over your head. Come to think of it, you are in way over your head. You aren't entering a debate, you're entering a munitions factory, where any sound-bite can be used to forge the final campaign-killing slug.
5 weeks and counting.
It seems the vice presidential candidates' strategies are clear. For Caribou Barbie, the objective is to come across more knowledgeable and apt than she probably is, and for Greasy Joe, the objective is to come across like anything other than a complete jackass.
If the earmark machine can keep himself well-oiled and gaffe free, he won't need to pounce on any of Palin's inevitable slip-ups; the media will be glad to do that for him.
Meanwhile, if Palin wants to salvage anything from Thursday, she needs to clearly state that her opinions are her own; that she is not simply John McCain in stilettos. Then, she can unleash the Sarahcuda teeth and let Biden flail like the beltway flounder he is. Just like with ANWR and Pakistan (the latter of which McCain should have left alone), she needs to give the impression that she is her own woman with her own opinions who - unlike Joe Biden - is not only unafraid to differ with her running mate, but has done so.
Sarah's responses during interviews have been lined with obvious rhetorical echoes of McCain's handlers. Forcing her to be McCain's faithful beauty queen surrogate, loyally trumpeting his middle-of-the-road positions (even if she agrees with 95% of them), is one of the many things contributing to the decay of his campaign.
Mr. Biden needs to learn from Obama's arrogance and refer to Sarahcuda as "Governor Palin," not "Sarah." Despite McCain referring to Obama consistently and solely as "Senator Obama," Barry referred to McCain as "John" over 20 times during the debate.
He also needs to remember that Palin isn't (and shouldn't be) the primary target of his attacks. Of course she's a walking bull's eye, but while Barry and Joe keep the heat on the bottom of the ticket, John McCain starts to look like the only one running for president. He doesn't need to make himself appear more trustworthy than Sarah - he needs to make Barack look more trustworthy than McCain.
Biden's best tactic will be to let her goofs go underplayed and silently sanction a post-debate media field day, but I suspect his ego will make achieving this all but impossible.
This debate is do-or-die for Sarah, as her campaign speeches with and without McCain have been more or less carbon copies of her RNC speech. How many times do I have to hear "Thanks but no thanks" and "I put it on eBay?" Her speeches are starting to sound just as full of canned rhetoric and witty one-liners as Obama's. Don't get me wrong, I agree with what she's saying, but she needs to stop being terrified of "winging it" and just be real. She needs to come off as a genuine person, and not "PalinBot."
I'm sorry Sarah, but if you can't come across as genuine standing next to the likes of Joe Biden, you're probably in way over your head. Come to think of it, you are in way over your head. You aren't entering a debate, you're entering a munitions factory, where any sound-bite can be used to forge the final campaign-killing slug.
5 weeks and counting.
Labels: Election 2008
Obama Kids Sing For Their Dear Leader
September 30, 2008 |
There are no words for this:
Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania, Video