The Pilot or the Wizard?

I just read an excellent column by John Andrews over at TownHall, The Pilot or the Wizard?, and it inspired me to write this blog. In less than 2 weeks we should know who is the next President of the United States. I say should because of the "I take back my concession" gambit that Al Gore played in 2000. Now contrary to what you will read and hear, we are not going to know who is the next POTUS until after votes are counted. This has been a strange year. I remember before this year's Super Bowl every expert had already crowned the New England Patriots as this year's Super Bowl Champs. Guess what? All of these experts were wrong. The New York Giants won when it counted, during the game itself.



I hope that you enjoy the videos that I selected for this diary. I think they depict the crossroads that our country finds itself at. On the one road we have the munchkins, Democrats and media, exhorting us to "follow the yellow brick road" and be off to elect the wizard who will save the planet. On the other road we have a maverick pilot who punches out all the panhandlers who get in his way.



I encourage everyone to read John Andrews' column that gives 20 reasons why we should elect John McCain instead of Barck Obama. Here is an excerpt that I especially enjoyed.

The final and most important reason is character. The crusty old Pilot, airborne for all these years, has it beyond a doubt. The weaselly Wizard may or may not. The shadows enshrouding his resume, the special effects propelling his campaign, just make you wonder.



The Wizard’s voice is alluring, but what’s behind the curtain? These stormy days are no time to gamble. Trust the Pilot, America.

I agree completely, and I will be bitter if the majority of voters vote for Obama. I will not give the voters a pass on this one. There is no gun pointing at them when they close the curtain and cast their secret ballot. Contrary to anything any expert will tell you over the next few days, it is the voters who are in control of this election.

Straight Talk from Ayaan about the Free Market

Recently Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written an excellent article, Does the Free Market Corrode Moral Character? in conjunction with her participation in the John Templeton Foundation's series of conversations among leading scientists, scholars, and public figures about the "big questions" of human life. There is right now a lot of conversation about what should be the direction for the country in terms of being on the right track to improve living conditions in the United States. An example of this discourse is evident by a question posed by JoeWurzelbacher to Barack Obama about the change he wants to implement if he is elected President. Obama's reply -

I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everyone.

I encourage everyone to read the entire article, but I do want to highlight what I consider the real straight talk that she provides on this subject.

A socialist might measure moral strength by one's dedication to the redistribution of wealth. A liberal--by which I mean a classical, Adam Smith or Milton Friedman liberal, not a liberal in its American meaning of "pro-big government"--might be religious, and he might see the merits of income equality, but he will always put freedom first. This is the moral framework to which I subscribe.



To appreciate just how effectively the free market strengthens moral character, it is helpful to glance at economic systems that undermine or openly reject it. Everywhere Communism has been tried, for instance, it has resulted not just in corruption and sub-standard products but also in fear, apathy, ignorance, oppression, and a general lack of trust. The Soviet Union and pre-reform China were morally as well as economically bankrupt.



Or consider the feudal order typified by Saudi Arabia. There we see an absolute monarch, a religious hierarchy that reinforces the ruling family's hold on power, and several classes of serfs: the oppressed Shi'a minority, the vastly exploited underclass of immigrant workers, and women, who are confined and abused. The stagnation and oppression of Saudi society make it utterly immoral in the eyes of a classical liberal. Unlike Communism, it cannot even proffer the fig leaf of greater "fairness."



In a free-market society, where liberty comes first, individuals tend to be more creative and to innovate; in welfare states that assign priority to equality, the natural resourcefulness of human beings is perverted. To become successful, you must learn how to "work the system" rather than how to develop a better product. Risk is avoided, and individual responsibility is thwarted. Although superficially the system may appear fair, it promotes mediocrity and a sense of victimhood, and it discourages those who want to excel.



Free-market societies are under fire from environmentalists today for supposedly ruining the planet. But the passionate debate about global warming and the moral implications of waste and pollution has arisen only in politically free societies.



In the course of history, the search for perfect societies--that is, the failure to acknowledge human imperfection--almost always ended in one or another form of theocracy, authoritarianism, or violent anarchy. But for those who seek to work with human flaws of every stripe, and to increase the sum total of individual happiness, the free market, combined with political freedom, is the best way.

I put in boldface type some of the words she used in her straight talk that mean the most to me. This woman who was born a Muslim in the Horn of Africa nation of Somalia is an avowed atheist pro-choice and pro gay rights liberal who I respect and admire for her courage and her strength. She has written what I believe effectively in short concise and meaningful words, and all I can add to all that is one hearty AMEN.

The Coming Backlash?

The title of this diary is from a recent article by Pat Buchanan at TownHall. I am not one of Pat's fans, especially when he writes as an apologist for Hitler's third Reich, but he does have a sharp political mind. Pat makes the distinction in this article between Barack Obama and George McGovern. an excerpt -

No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states.



Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United.



One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the Left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse, and Wright have long dreamed of?



Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming.

This is the mystery that this year We the People need to wrestle with on election day. Had Barack Obama provided a clear paper trail of a record that former contender George McGovern brought with him then this would be another landslide election year for the Republicans. But no, Barack is where he is by "voting present" for the majority of his political career.



I personally have no dilemma in rejecting the younger mystery man in favor of the older man with a record of policies and politics that I sometimes disagreed with him on. I will go with the devil I know over the devil I do not know.



One thing that Pat did not expand upon is what would actually be happening in the US if the backlash is a President Obama resisting all of his ex-comrades' demands? Nobody knows for sure, and if John McCain is elected then the question is moot. I did stumble upon an excellent article by Sean Dorgan over at Heritage.org. This is an article about Ireland evolved from one of the poorest countries in Western Europe to one of the most successful. It basically IMO is a report of how conservative policies and practices were put into place, and where conservatism is tried it works. an excerpt -

The political parties were not successfully addressing the gathering gloom. Fianna Fail, the opposition party since 1982, won the general elec­tion in 1987. When in government in the late 1970s, Fianna Fail had been largely responsible for the excessive and misguided public spending. This time, however, the party tried a different path. On election to government in 1987, they surprised many, including their own supporters, with a pro­gram of severe cuts in expenditure accompanied by some novel consensus-building and developmental measures. Within a few years, these steps began to show dividends, helped by a coincidence of other factors.



Smaller government became part of the road to success. There was surprise with the first moves to cut spending severely across a range of programs and abolish a number of government agencies. These steps were strongly criticized initially, espe cially when they seemed to affect (state-provided) health and social services, but the depth of the bud getary crisis allowed the momentum to be sus tained. The government was assisted by a consensus that had been built in the NESC, com prising business, farming, trade union, and social interest groups. The main opposition party, whose leader had been minister for finance before the election, also supported any measures that restored fiscal discipline.



A second element of the new government’s action plan was moderate wage increases in return for modest reductions in direct income taxes, in effect allowing take-home pay to increase more than the pay raise granted by employers. This three-year Program for National Recovery involved government itself, employers, unions, and farmers. This helped to break the spiral of inflationary wage increases and ensured industrial peace. The program also served to create agree ment on the nature of the crisis facing the state and on steps needed to deal with it. The wider benefits of consensus on development priorities and the shared efforts involved to achieve national goals proved to be of lasting value, and similar national partnership agreements have been put in place repeatedly up to 2005.

I know, I know, it is way too much for me to suggest that conservatism can be given a chance to work. Just count me as another one of those bitter folks from a small town who clings to his guns and his religion. I am not about to change what I believe, but I am willing to change my address if I have to give up more liberty and freedom.

Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.-Ricky Ricardo

On some positions a coward has asked the question is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question is it right? And there come a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.



The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.



A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.

Martin Luther King, Jr.



I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Bill Clinton

There are 31 House Democrats and 27 House Republicans who voted No on the bill on Monday and voted Yes on the bill on Friday. So what changed between Monday and Friday? A lot of pork was piled into this bill. David Freddoso wrote an excellent piece at NRO about these changes. An excerpt:

Some conservatives, as fans of lower taxes, prefer that the special tax-credit provisions (such as the benefit this bill confers upon wooden-arrow-makers) not be called "earmarks." "Calling tax cuts "earmarks" is very unhelpful and completely wrong from a fiscal conservative perspective", reads a memo from Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform. "There is no such thing as a tax earmark."



Indeed, narrow, targeted tax cuts are not the same as handouts of federal money. But if they are not "earmarks", the tax advantages for wooden arrows and other special interests are still pernicious. At best, they are an attempt by the federal government to manipulate people's behavior through the tax code. At worst, they are a successful attempt by various special interests to feather their nests by attaching tax wish-lists to must-pass legislation.

I don't claim any expertise on predicting how people are going to vote, but I am going to print out the list below to see if any of these incumbents lose their election this time around. I sense a loathing and distrust for current occupants of Congress and the White House. There is a Washington-speak that is spoken to us out in the hinterlands, and we are tired of hearing it.



Arizona

Shadegg (R-AZ-3)

Pastor (D-AZ-4)

Mitchell (D-AZ-5)

Giffords (D-AZ-8)



California

Thompson, M. (D-CA-1)

Woolsey (D-CA-6)

Lee (D-CA-9)

Schiff (D-CA-29)

Solis (D-CA-32)

Watson (D-CA-33)

Baca (D-CA-43)



Florida

Buchanan (R-FL-13)

Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18)



Georgia

Lewis, John (D-GA-5)

Scott, D. (D-GA-13)



Hawaii

Abercrombie (D-HI-1)

Hirono (D-HI-2)



Illinois

Rush (D-IL-1)

Jackson, J. (D-IL-2)

Biggert (R-IL-13)



Indiana

Carson, A. (D-IN-7)



Iowa

Braley (D-IA-1)



Kentucky

Yarmuth (D-KY-3)



Louisiana

Alexander, R. (R-LA-5)

Boustany (R-LA-7)



Maryland

Edwards, D. (D-MD-4)

Cummings (D-MD-7)



Massachussetts

Tierney (D-MA-6)



Michigan

Hoekstra (R-MI-2)

Kilpatrick (D-MI-13)

Knollenberg (R-MI-9)



Minnesota

Ramstad (R-MN-3)



Missouri

Cleaver (D-MO-5)



Nebraska

Terry (R-NE-2)



Nevada

Berkley (D-NV-1)



New Jersey

Pascrell (D-NJ-8)

Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11)



New York

Kuhl (R-NY-29)



North Carolina

Coble (R-NC-6)

Myrick (R-NC-9)



Ohio

Schmidt (R-OH-2)

Tiberi (R-OH-12)

Sutton (D-OH-13)



Oklahoma

Sullivan (R-OK-1)

Fallin (R-OK-5)



Oregon

Wu (D-OR-1)



Pennsylvania

Gerlach (R-PA-6)

Shuster (R-PA-9)

Dent (R-PA-15)



South Carolina

Barrett (R-SC-3)



Tennessee

Wamp (R-TN-3)



Texas

Green, A. (D-TX-9)

Conaway (R-TX-11)

Thornberry (R-TX-13)

Jackson Lee (D-TX-18)

Ortiz (D-TX-27)

Cuellar (D-TX-28)



Vermont

Welch (D-VT-AL)

A Conservative Phoenix from the Ashes Populist - John S. McCain

A phoenix is a mythical bird with a tail of beautiful gold and red plumage. It has a 1,000 year life-cycle, and near the end the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinnamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix or phoenix egg arises, reborn anew to live again. The new phoenix is destined to live as long as its old self.



There has been a lot of chattering and head shaking lately about how John McCain is changing all of his Republican positions and sounding like a Huey Long populist just to win the Presidency. This is not the John McCain that they have known. Why this John McCain is not lashing out at Pat Robertson and evangelicals like he did in 2000. Oh nooooo.



I disagree with these chatterers and head shakers, and I think their problem is that if they did not have George W. Bush and Dick Cheney opposing them then at least it ought to be Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. Cry me a river because I think this is the same John McCain maverick politician that he has always been.



They are also wrong in portraying John McCain as a Huey Long populist. There are no examples of John McCain speaking about populism in terms of rich man vs. poor man or proletariat vs bourgeoisie. The kind of populism that John McCain expresses is government of the people by the people and for the people. Here are some quotes from his acceptance speech:

Let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming.

You know, I've been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment and sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you.

I've fought corruption, and it didn't matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and had to be held accountable. I've fought big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, while you struggle to buy groceries, fill your gas tank and make your mortgage payment. I've fought to get million dollar checks out of our elections. I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes. I fought crooked deals in the Pentagon. I fought tobacco companies and trial lawyers, drug companies and union bosses.

I've been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I have been her servant first, last and always. And I've never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I didn't thank God for the privilege.

John McCain will be the next President of the United States of America, and he will serve for the ones who vote for him and for the ones who do not vote for him. An example of this is Michael Steele's take on John McCain appearing before the NAACP.

You've got to live in the real. Barack is going to take more than the lion's share of the black vote. But that doesn't and has not stopped John McCain from competing for that vote. And I think that says a lot about the kind of president he is going to be -- that he doesn't just see this as an election opportunity, that he sees this as an opportunity for America to right a lot of wrongs certainly but to grow together -- the idea of every boat being lifted at the same time, and I think that's a powerful message.



Unlike Obama, McCain held a Q&A after his speech, which caused a visible stir in the room.



You could hear the room go, what?! He's actually going to open this up?! And I was asking folks, 'Did Barack do that?' And they were, like, 'No.' So, I think it speaks to the style. It speaks to the substance of the man in terms of how he wants to engage the black community, and I appreciate him doing it.



It is "long overdue" for Republican leaders to reach out to the African Americans. I think the work has to begin in earnest, and I think John McCain wants to do that. Regardless of how the election falls out in November, the Republican Party -- if they want to be players; if they want to be taken seriously as a political voice in this country -- they are going to have to engage in all levels, all communities. And you can't piecemeal this. You can't have this attitude, 'Well, they won't vote for us so why bother?'

Rich Lowry analyzes the McCain campaign:

The McCain campaign believes that there are twin tests this fall. One is whether Barack Obama is ready to be commander in chief; the other is whether John McCain represents change. Even if Obama fails to meet his test of readiness, he will still win if McCain fails the test of change. It wasn't enough for McCain to mock Obama in his deadly 'not ready to lead' ads. He had to re-establish his outsiderness, and did it with his electrifying pick of fellow reformer Sarah Palin, whose Alaska governor's desk sits no less than 2,800 miles from Washington.



For Sarah Palin's other contribution to McCain is to point him downward, toward the lunch-bucket concerns of the working-class voters that Hillary won in the primaries. McCain's politics of honor can be as unsatisfyingly abstract as Obama's politics of hope. No more. With a new Palin-enabled populism, McCain the 'fighter' for you evoked the struggle 'to buy groceries, fill your gas tank and make your mortgage payment.'

John McCain is going to pass the tests of readiness and that he represents change. Barack not only fails the readiness test, but he also fails the test of making the voters believe the choice is between Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

The Players in Paving the Way to the Wall St Meltdown

During these times of heated political election year politics agreement across the political spectrum has been achieved that the financial institutions on Wall St. are in terrible shape. The agreement that things are a mess very quickly falls apart when it is broken down into who is to blame for this mess, and what can be done to clean the mess up. The disagreement over who is to blame reminds me of the song It Wasn't Me by Shaggy - especially this part of the lyrics

To be a true player you have to know how to play

If she say a night, convince her say a day

Never admit to a word when she say makes a claim

And you tell her baby no way

So the true players that opened up this new road to the abyss are Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Sandy Weill, Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, Tom Bliley, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton,



Alan Greenspan -

In 1990, the Fed, under former J.P. Morgan director Alan Greenspan, permitted guess who J.P. Morgan–to become the first bank allowed to underwrite securities.



Four legislative attempts were made to weaken or repeal parts of Glass-Steagall from 1988-1996. One reason they failed is because smaller banks feared that opening the doors to allow banks to trade in securities would lead to the domination of larger banks–a fate that has come to pass.



The biggest change came in 1996 when Alan Greenspan issued a ruling allowing bank investment affiliates to have up to a quarter of their business in investments.



Robert Rubin - in testimony before Congress in 1995

The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets.



U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically. Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.

Robert Rubin - following Shaggy's strategy in 2008

If Wall Street companies can count on being rescued like banks, then they need to be regulated like banks.

He was for the deregulation before he was against the deregulation.



Sandy Weill -

Here you have the leadership, Sandy Weill of Travelers and John Reed of Citicorp, saying, Look, the Congress isn't moving fast enough. Let's do it on our own. To heck with the Congress. Let us effect this. And so they move towards effecting it, and they get the blessing of the chairman of the Federal Reserve system in early April, when legislation is pending.



I mean, this is hubris in the worst sense of the word. Who do they think they are? Other people, firms, cannot act like this. Citicorp and Travelers were so big that they were able to pull this off. They were able to pull off the largest financial conglomeration the largest financial coming together of banking, insurance, and securities when legislation was still on the books saying this was illegal. And they pulled this off with the blessings of the president of the United States, President Clinton; the chairman of the Federal Reserve system, Alan Greenspan; and the secretary of the treasury, Robert Rubin.

And then, when it's all over, what happens? The secretary of the treasury becomes the vice chairman of the emerging Citigroup.

Phil Gramm James Leach Thomas Bliley -

The Citi-Travelers Act went under the benign-sounding name of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and, like Glass-Steagall it has become known for the key sponsors of the bill as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, for Republican Senate Banking Committee Chair Phil Gramm, House Banking Committee chair James Leach, and Virginia Representative Thomas Bliley.



Lobby money to push through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -

In the year previous to the Financial Services Modernization Act, the thing that overruled Glass-Steagall, Citibank spent $100 million on lobbying and public relations, which is a good indication.

Yes. They spent a small fortune, a king's ransom, if you will, getting rid of Glass-Steagall. In fact, when thrown in with other financial firms lobbying, it was closer to $200 million over the short period of time.



The Industry's efforts to jump-start progress on the Senate bill is a case study in how a well-heeled and well-organized interest group can swiftly prod Congress to move, even on an issue about which most people outside Washington and New York have little knowledge.



Nor is it surprising, according to both political science and economic literature, that the interest groups played a vital role in the timing of the 1999 deregulation. Without persistent lobbying by commercial and investment interests it is unlikely that reform would have taken place in this century.



Barney Frank -

There was only one problem: the bill had to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions. The House version differed in two important ways: 1) It took regulatory authority from the Federal Reserve and gave it to the Secretary of the Treasury and 2) it refused to extend to insurance companies obligations under the Community Re-investment Act to provide information about their patterns of mortgage lending.

Democrat Barney Frank was among those who especially opposed the second.

We do a good job in fostering conditions in which our capitalist system can flourish and it's in our interest that our capitalist system flourish. But can we try to do a little bit for those who are being left behind. This is an inappropriate continuation of a pattern of helping those who need a benefit but ignoring those who are left behind.

How the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act became law -

On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. President Bill Clinton signed this bill into law on November 12, 1999.



Bill Clinton -

So we know that the topic of that late night phone call between Bill Clinton and Sandy Weill, the man whose career began in the subprime mortgage business, was the Community Reinvestment Act. We know that Phil Gramm, who was the one most strongly pushing for gutting CRA (Leach actually supported it) threatened to torpedo the legislation if the White House did not reach an agreement.



So why did Clinton go along? His writings are silent on the subject. He seemingly held the trump card with the threat to veto any legislation that did not meet his approval. And why is it Sandy Weill who makes the phone call to Clinton? At this point not enough evidence is available to finally connect the dots, but whatever it is, it cannot possibly benefit Bill Clinton. The reason for the silence may be that for the Clintons the repeal of Glass-Steagall may prove far more embarrassing in the long run than Monica Lewinsky.



Barack Obama - when asked if he would restore Glass-Steagall

Well, no. The argument is not to go back to the regulatory framework of the 1930's because, as I said, the financial markets have changed substantially.

Obama's top campaign contributors include Goldman Sachs, J.P.Morgan, and Citigroup.



Where are these players today



Alan Greenspan -

Retired as chairman of the Fed in 2006, he is married to staunch Obama supporter and NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.



Robert Rubin -

Chairman of Citigroup and one of Obama's economic advisors



Sandy Weill -

Retired as chairman of Citigroup in 2006



Phil Gramm -

Retired from the US Senate in 2003. Served as John McCain's campaign co-chair and most senior economic advisor until July 18, 2008.



James Leach -

Defeated in the 2006 midterm election for US House, Iowa's 2nd District. He currently is the Director of Harvard University Institute of Politics at Kennedy School of Government. On August 12, 2008, Leach broke party ranks to endorse Democrat Barack Obama against John McCain for the American presidency. He spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver Colorado on the night of August 25, 2008.



Thomas Bliley -

Retired from the US House 7th District Virginia in 2001, and he was succeeded by Eric Cantor.



Barney Frank -

Current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Earlier this year he told Obama campaign staff Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy that he would have a hard time voting for the ticket if Obama picks former US Sen. Sam Nunn as his running mate.

Didn't that take some hubris, Charlie?

I watched the ABC World News program on September 11th, and my initial reaction was that Governor Sarah Palin acquitted herself well in the interview, and did no harm to the McCain/Palin ticket. I also thought Charlie Gibson was the caricature of the Washington DC media elite who believe that anyone who has not achieved membership in their "ruling class aristocrat club" through appearances on Sunday morning TV talk shows and Press Club speeches is not worthy. Very early into the interview I almost threw something at my TV set over this exchange:

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.

So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

Another reaction I had is that Governor Palin's answers were short and to the point. I know that US Senators are more prone to doing a filibuster in their answers than kinds of folks, but still the answers were quite short. I was also puzzled by this comment from Charlie Gibson to Governor Palin:

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

What's Charlie talking about - a blizzard of words there? I was watching and listening to Governor Palin using less words in her answers than Charlie Gibson was using in his questions. But I got an explanation for this remark from Charlie about the blizzard of words thanks to Mark Levin

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. So with that in mind here is a portion of that interview right before Charlie made his blizzard of words comment with the edited out word I did not hear or read on ABC's website version of the transcript.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

So like the title of this blog reads, Didn't that take some hubris, Charlie, to think that in this modern internet age you could edit the interview that showed Governor Palin as knowledgable or take her words out of context and get away with it?

Compare and Contrast

Change vs Experience - Lets talk about it

With less than 2 months to go the themes are set by the Obama team and the McCain team. Both camps are going with the theme of change. This is a change election and a historic election no matter which side wins.


I define a change election as one in which there is not a President or VP running for either party. This is rare in American politics. The only two examples I can think of are 1928 when Republicans Herbert Hoover/Charles Curtis defeated Democrats Al Smith/Joe Robinson, and 1952 when Republicans Ike Eisenhower/Dick Nixon defeated Democrats Adlai Stevenson/John Sparkman. I am definitely at ease with the prospects of Republican winning a change election Presidency.


Now for some of the nervous nellys who are troubled greatly with the experience issue in this race I suggest you look at history to discover how change has trumped experience in many elections. Let me run down the list:


1960 The change team of Kennedy/Johnson beat the experience team of Nixon/Lodge


1976 The change team of Carter/Mondale beat the experience team of Ford/Dole


1980 The change team of Reagan/Bush beat the experience team of Carter/Mondale


1992 The change team of Clinton/Gore beat the experience team of Bush/Quayle


2000 the change team of Bush/Cheney beat the experience team of Gore/Lieberman


These are 5 examples when having Presidential or Vice-Presidential experience are not a winning combination.


I know that some define experience as the amount of time one has appeared on Sunday morning talk shows, and I reject this definition. One is not experienced because he talks about being President or VP. One who is or has been the President or VP is my definition of someone who is experienced.


The Obama camp has a different change theme than the McCain camp’s theme. From the very beginning a year and a half ago the Obama team decided to run against Pres. Bush.


Gerard Baker describes and comments on this theme:

But by far the clearest sign of how backward-looking this progressive party has become was its attempt to make the 2008 election a rerun of the elections of 2000 and 2004, when George W. Bush was the Republican nominee.


And yet I suspect that the charge that Senator McCain is running for the third Bush term will not, in the end, stick. The Arizona senator is not George Bush, and Democrats, and I suspect voters, know that.


On the big issues that will confront the next president, in fact Senator McCain offered a sharply divergent approach. When President Bush was fiddling two years ago as Iraq burnt, Senator McCain was urging a change of strategy, one that has now borne fruit for the US. While President Bush was gazing into Valdimir Putin's eyes and seeing the purity of his soul, Senator McCain was giving warning of the dangers of a resurgent and authoritarian Russia. While the President was cementing a governing style that emphasised maximal partisanship, Senator McCain was building bipartisan coalitions with Democrats in Congress.

Michael Barone describes and comments on the McCain camp theme:

The Republican convention's premise is that McCain is the maverick reformer -- an American version of Nicolas Sarkozy, who replaced an unpopular president of his own party. There is plenty in McCain's record to back that up. Not least is his selection of Sarah Palin for vice president. Palin's record of successfully battling establishment Republicans and oil companies in Alaska clearly appealed to McCain.


And that was amplified by the mainstream media attacks on her. Now the media, which were not alarmed by Obama's thin record, is worried about Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency. Other women who were stay-at-home moms for years and then emerged into public life have outperformed their resumes -- namely, Katharine Graham, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright, Nancy Pelosi and Geraldine Ferraro. Palin, who has negotiated a natural gas pipeline with the oil companies and Canadian federal, provincial and Inuit authorities, may do so, too. We'll see if that argument is sustainable.

The way that I would put the themes of the two camps is this way.


The McCain camp wants to win, and when they arrive in Washington they want to drain the swamp. They really don’t care if the lobbyists are Democrats or Republicans as long as those lobbyists are powerless and lonely.


The Obama camp wants to win, and when they arrive in Washington they want to make the swamp larger. They also want to repopulate this larger swamp with Democratic lobbyists with the money to keep them in power.


Some things that packaged under the theme of change are not really anything new. Obama’s economic plan has been tried before - when Herbert Hoover was President.

Amity Shlaes wrote an article at Bloomberg.com in which she recalls:

Yet in the dark days of 1932, with unemployment at 20 percent, Hoover perversely signed an increase that reversed the multiple cuts by his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge. Hoover increased the top marginal tax rate to 63 percent from 25 percent. The effect was predictable. That tax error has haunted economists ever since.


Yet today it is not Republicans but Democrats who are preparing to replicate it. Obama has suggested a payroll tax increase and an income tax increase; together they would just about offset all the breaks created by Bush. Who's Hoover now?

I also would like to respond to many conservatives about an aspect of the McCain camp theme of change that makes them wince. Thursday night John McCain said the following in his acceptance speech:

Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed.


…
Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides.

…
I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me.

Conservatives wince when they look at people only in the context of the party of which they are a member. John McCain has been around Washington for 25 years, and he has friends and enemies in both of the political parties. Sarah Palin has that similar trait from her political experience in Alaska. This is not a surrender of values to deal with people from both parties.

Gerard Baker wrote a comparison of Barack and Sarah

Record of bipartisan achievement
Obama: Speaks movingly of the bipartisanship needed to end the destructive politics of "Red America" and "Blue America", but votes in the Senate as a down-the-line Democrat, with one of the most liberal voting records in congress.


Palin: Ridiculed by liberals such as John Kerry as a crazed, barely human, Dick Cheney-type conservative but worked with Democrats in the state legislature to secure landmark anti-corruption legislation.


Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz - a Democrat - said. "Gov. Palin has made her name fighting corruption within her own party, and I was honored when she stepped across party lines and asked me to co-author her ethics white paper."

Biden Hurts Obama on the World Stage

I just caught this news article in Reuters today, VP choice Biden unpopular in Iraq for autonomy plan. Just because you are well known around the world does not mean that you are well-liked.

Here is an excerpt from the article:
Senator Joe Biden may be one of the only U.S. politicians that can get Iraq's feuding Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish politicians to agree. But not in a good way.

Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

"The original 'Biden plan' seems less relevant in Iraq today than at any point," said Reidar Visser, a Norwegian academic and editor of the Iraq-focused website historiae.org. "The trend in parliament is clearly in a more national direction, with political parties coming together across sectarian divides.

"In other words, there is a very strong Iraqi mobilization against precisely the core elements of the Biden plan, and it would be extremely unwise of the Democratic Party to make Biden's ideas the centerpiece of their Iraq strategy," he added.

Ezzet al-Shabender, a member of parliament from the secularist Iraqi List of former prime minister Ayad Allawi, actually credited the broad-based disgust triggered by Biden's proposal for helping Iraqi politicians bury their differences.

"His project was the reason behind the unity of many political blocs that once differed in viewpoints," he said, comparing it to the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 British note that backed the creation of Israel and is regarded across the Arab world as the ultimate colonial injustice.

"Such a person, if he would assume the vice-presidency post, would not serve to improve Iraq-USA relations."

A H/T to TigerHawk for directing me to the Reuter's link in this blog spells out the problem the left is going to have a hard time explaining to fellow lefties:

If you believe that the invasion of Iraq has hurt the "soft power" of the United States because it smacks of imperialism (not my view, but an opinion of wide currency on the left), then you have to explain why an American project to draw internal borders within Iraq would not be even more imperialistic (see, e.g., similar such line-drawing exercises by Europeans in 1919, among other years).

I would add that Joe Biden got the idea for partitioning Iraq from the split up that was made in the Balkans. Now the Russians are using that redrawing of boundaries that occurred in the Balkans as a justification for their invasion of Georgia. Basically Russia is saying that if the West can redraw boundaries then so can we. I strongly disagree with Russia's actions, and I think in the long term it is going to cost them in getting investors and selling products to countries they would just as soon bomb.

The conventional wisdom is that Obama shored up his lack of foreign policy experience by choosing Biden for VP. The problem with this being known around the world can also work against you if around the world they know you as somebody they strongly disagree with.

The Case for Chris Cox as McCain's VP

What does Christopher Cox bring to the table in terms of executive experience and the economy? A LOT!!

Christopher Cox is the 28th Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He was appointed by President Bush on June 2, 2005, and unanimously confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2005. He was sworn in on August 3, 2005.

During his tenure at the SEC, Chairman Cox has made vigorous enforcement of the securities laws the agency's top priority, bringing ground breaking cases against a variety of market abuses including hedge fund insider trading, stock options backdating, fraud aimed at senior citizens, municipal securities fraud, and securities scams on the Internet. He has assumed leadership of the international effort to more closely integrate U.S. and overseas regulation in an era of global capital markets and international securities exchanges. He has also championed transforming the SEC's system of mandated disclosure from a static, form-based approach to one that taps the power of interactive data to give investors qualitatively better information about companies, mutual funds, and investments of all kinds. In addition, as part of an overall focus on the needs of individual investors, Chairman Cox has reinvigorated the agency's initiative to provide important investor information in plain English.

What does Christopher Cox bring to the table in terms of legislative experience and the economy? A LOT!!

In the US House Chris Cox was Chairman of the Task Force on Capital Markets; and Chairman of the Task Force on Budget Process Reform.

In addition, he served in a leadership capacity as a senior Member of every committee with jurisdiction over investor protection and U.S. capital markets, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee (as Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee); the Financial Services Committee; the Government Reform Committee (as Vice Chairman of the full Committee); the Joint Economic Committee; and the Budget Committee.

Among the significant laws he authored were the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which protects investors from fraudulent lawsuits.

In 1989, Polish President Lech Wałęsa joined Cox in a Washington ceremony marking the enactment of Cox's legislation establishing the Polish-American Enterprise Fund. Together with the Baltic-American Enterprise Fund, the Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund, and seven other enterprise funds in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Cox legislation, incorporated in the Support Eastern European Democracy (SEED) Act, matched U.S. foreign aid with venture capital in the newly free countries of the former Warsaw Pact.

Christopher had a very important role in President Reagan's White House.

From 1986 until 1988, Chairman Cox served in the White House as Senior Associate Counsel to the President. In that capacity, he advised the President on a wide range of matters, including the nomination of three U.S. Supreme Court Justices, reform of the federal budget process, and the 1987 stock market crash.

What does Chris Cox bring to the table in terms of private sector business experience and education? A LOT!!

From 1978 to 1986, he specialized in venture capital and corporate finance with the international law firm of Latham & Watkins, where he was the partner in charge of the Corporate Department in Orange County and a member of the firm's national management.

In 1982-83, Chairman Cox took a leave of absence from Latham & Watkins to teach federal income tax at Harvard Business School. He also co-founded Context Corporation, publisher of the English translation of the Soviet Union's daily newspaper, Pravda. In 1977-78, he was law clerk to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Herbert Choy.

In 1977, Chairman Cox simultaneously received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was an Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He received a B.A. from the University of Southern California in 1973, graduating magna cum laude after pursuing an accelerated three-year course.

What personal circumstances does Chris Cox bring to the table that will benefit John McCain?

Chairman Cox was born October 16, 1952, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Chris Cox is a Catholic. Chris Cox is pro-life rated 0% by NARAL. Rated 92% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. Rated 71% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.

I think Christopher Cox will make an excellent choice as McCain's VP based on a lot of the information I gleaned from here and here. Some are going to tell me that the problem with Chris Cox is that he is not former Gov. Mitt Romney or current Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The argument that Romney can help McCain in Michigan and Pawlenty can help McCain in Minnesota. My purpose is not to make a case against a VP pick, and I do not have anything against them. I just think that there is a good case for a Minnesota born pro-life Chris Cox to be a help and not a hindrance as his VP.

Barack Obama - Doubting Thomas

In December of 2007 I wrote up this blog, Barack & Clarence's Memoirs A Stark Contrast. A feathered liberal poster, flyerhawk, pointed out the contrast in the memoirs is because Barack wrote his at the age of 31 and Clarence wrote his at 59. So I accept this explanation, and don't think about it anymore until Barack tells Pastor Rick he would never have nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.


This got me to thinking that not only is there a stark contrast between Barack and Clarence due to age there is also a stark contrast due to accomplishments. What has Barack Obama got to show for accomplishments? Clarence Thomas has 16 years of accomplishment as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.


Kathryn Lopez has written an excellent piece over at National Review, Doubting Thomas. I recommend reading it in its entirety. I would like to point out one excellent point that she made.

Did Obama disagree with Justice Thomas on the recent cross-burning case, Virginia v. Black? Obama’s favorite justice, Justice Ginsburg, wrote that cross-burning bans are constitutionally suspect. Justice Thomas disagreed and wrote a passionate dissent. During oral arguments he said: “There’s no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message. . . . [It] was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population.” Does Obama take issue with the impassioned Thomas dissent?

In his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, Clarence Thomas wrote: “I knew that in Washington, what matters is not what you do but what people can be made to think you’ve done.” Barack Obama is at least experienced enough to know that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this point Clarence Thomas wrote in his memoirs. There are many who have correctly pointed to the stark contrast between how Barack Obama and John McCain answered the same questions from Pastor Rick about when are you a person and is their evil. In addition to this I think Barack did damage to himself within the African-American community by singling out Clarence Thomas as his least favorite Supreme Court Justice he would not have nominated. I believe Clarence Thomas has more support in the African American community on his position on cross-burnings than Ruth Ginzburg.

Russians Do Not Have Georgia On Their Minds

Yesterday I was listening to an interview on CNN Late Edition between Wolf Blitzer and the President of Georgia. The full transcript of this interview is here. One thing that made my jaw drop was a response by the President to a question Wolf asked about Americans in Georgia.

Well, one has to say that America is very highly regarded in Georgia. By the way, that's maybe one of the reasons why we're being attacked. You know, one of the bombs -- one of the unexploded bombs found on a shut down Russian plane yesterday, tragicomically said, "this is for Americans, this is for NATO," in Russian.

Wolf Blitzer had interviewed earlier a Russian diplomat Darchiev, the charge d'affairs at the Russian embassy in DC, and he played a clip from the interview and asked the President to respond. The President had a map behind him, and he tried to give us a geography lesson in his response.

DARCHIEV: He should be held accountable for the barbaric and treacherous attack on innocent civilians in South Ossetia, that he should be held accountable for the aggression against South Ossetia.

And the best thing he could do right now is to unconditionally -- I repeat -- unconditionally withdraw his troops and sign a legally binding agreement with Ossetians on non-use of force

SAAKASHVILI: Well, I mean, it sounds a little -- quite Orwellian to me and a little bit like old times, which I still remember. I was the youngest president of the world when I got elected, but I still remember old times and I still remember Brezhnev's times.

But the point here is the following. We are talking about a place just in the middle of Georgia, in the middle of my country. How can I invade the middle of my country?

What's the -- it's the contradiction in terms. And what we are talking about is we are talking about -- we controlled most of this area always, but there is a small area directly administered and run by the Russians.

And, you know, when they talk about South Ossetian separatists and say "South Ossetian tank," what kind of South Ossetian tank can live there? It is a Russian tank. You know, what kind of South Ossetian soldiers are that? These are soldiers in the service of the Russian army, trained by them, equipped by them, very well armed by them. So what we are saying right now is that this place needs to get rid of this military thing (ph). They need to get -- to be cleaned, you know, of all this violence. And this place needs to get back to normal..

If you can get past the biased title of this article in TIME then you will get good background information about this region of the world.


snippet #1...

Georgia and South Ossetia have been squared off in an uneasy peace for more than a decade, now, since the region broke away from Georgia in the early '90s, following its independence from the Soviet Union. After a protracted war that killed around 1,000 people and displaced thousands more ethnic Georgians from the territory, Georgia was compelled to sign a cease-fire agreement that left South Ossetia — a tiny mountainous territory a few football fields smaller than Rhode Island — effectively autonomous, but unable to secure recognition by the international community. Still, Russia has protected the region, providing finance, military protection and even passports, and has used South Ossetia's secession, together with that of Abkhazia, another breakaway region of Georgia, as leverage against Tblisi's desire to join NATO. Moscow sees Georgia's move towards NATO as part of a strategy of hostile encirclement of Russia by Western powers, and when the Western alliance enabled Kosovo's secession from Serbia earlier this year despite the fact that its independence is not recognized by the United Nations, many analysts expected Russia to retaliate by further stoking the fires of secession in Georgia.

snippet #2

The Georgian leader may have expected Washington to step up to his defense, particularly given his country's centrality to the geopolitics of energy — Georgia is the only alternative to Russia as the route for a pipeline carrying oil westward from Azerbaijan.

Russians have America and NATO on their minds, and their weapon of choice to defeat America and NATO is control of energy supplies. The only pipeline carrying oil westward from the Caspian Sea that is not Russian goes through Georgia. If this pipeline is destroyed in this war expect the global price of crude to rise significantly.


America needs to fight Russia on the battleground of obtaining more domestic oil. We have been AWOL from this front for 30 years. This will cost Russia much more than any show of military might by the US. If the US aggressively pursues more domestic oil and natural gas the global market price for these commodities will fall. The profits to Russia will fall so dramatically that the Duma might kick out of power folks like Putin and Medved for driving customers like NATO countries and America out of their markets.

US Senate Seats Up For Election

This November there are 34 US Senate seats up for election. There are 5 seats that are not being contested by an incumbent, and in all of these 5 the current incumbent is an R. There could be a sixth open seat in Alaska if Ted Stevens loses the primary. So we are talking about 28 or 29 seats being contested by an incumbent, and in 16 or 17 of these the current incumbent is an R. Only 12 Ds currently sitting in the US Senate are running for reelection. Only Five of the twelve Ds have been in the US Senate for less than 12 years. Thirteen of the 16 or 17 Rs have been in the US Senate for less than 12 years.



So I say let’s have a really angry electorate put US Senators out to pasture with the ones who have the most time in DC going out first. In this scenario the Rs lose Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran, Mitch McConnell, and James Inhofe. The last 2 are an especially big loss, however in this scenario the Ds lose Joe Biden, Max Baucus, Carl levin, Frank Lautenberg, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller. The improvement to the US Senate of voting out these particular 7 Ds is a vision to behold.



Yes I would love to see a US Senate election that results in 16 or 17 incumbents being voted out of office. All of the pundits and pollsters et al will tell me that this won’t happen. I can still dream can’t I? There are no new regulations controlling dreams...yet



Senate Seats Up For Election In 2008



State Incumbent

AL Jeff Sessions ( 1997 - )

AK Ted Stevens (1968 - )

AR Mark Pryor (2003 - )

CO OPEN

DE Joe Biden (1973 -)

GA Saxby Chambliss ( 2003 - )

ID OPEN

IA Tom Harkin (1985 - )

IL Dick Durbin (1997 - )

KS Pat Roberts (1997 - )

KY Mitch McConnell (1985 - )

LA Mary Landrieu (1997 - )

ME Susan Collins (1997 - )

MA John Kerry (1985 - )

MI Carl Levin (1979 - )

MN Norm Coleman (2003 - )

MS Thad Cochran (1979 - )

MT Max Baucus (1978 - )

NJ Frank Lautenberg (1982 - )

NC Elizabeth Dole (2003 - )

NE OPEN

NH John Sununu (2003 - )

NM OPEN

OK James Inhofe (1994 - )

OR Gordon Smith (1997 - )

RI Jack Reed (1997 - )

SC Lindsey Graham (2003 - )

SD Tim Johnson (1997 - )

TN Lamar Alexander (2003 - )

TX John Cornyn (2002 - )

VA OPEN

WV Jay Rockefeller (1985 - )

WY Michael Enzi (1997 - )

WY John Barrasso (2007 - )

My Obama ditches troops for fun pic

This is our moment. Drinks on the House.

Jekyll&Hyde Obama a gothic musical thriller

Jekyll&Hyde Obama warbles to his fawning audience in Berlin in English

People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time.

In the German publication Die Welt, Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) wrote an Op-ed article in German:

No one knows which Obama will show. Will it be the ideological, left-wing Democratic primary candidate who vowed to 'end' the war rather than win it, or the Democratic nominee who dismisses the progressing coalition victory as a 'distraction'? Will it be the American populist who has told supporters in the United States that he will demand more from our allies in Europe and get it, or the liberal internationalist hell-bent on being liked in Europe's salons?

It is the not knowing Barack Obama that is the reason #1 why he should not be the next President. Every President elected has been vetted and known more than Sen. Obama. We the People did get fooled with a certain Georgia peanut farmer that we once elected, but even he had more of a resume as a Governor who had served his country in the US Navy. Barack Obama does not have any of this on his resume. What we do know about him from just since he started running for President is that he can say completely contrary statement to different audiences, and not even acknowledge what he really said.

His campaign is more like a gothic musical for his swooning moonbat fans than a serious attempt to run for POTUS.

Glenn Beck Echoes Our Own Gamecock

On July 18th our own gamecock provided us with an excellent 'The Let Them Eat Cake Democrats' blog. And Wednesday night on the Glenn Beck Show Glenn echoes the same phrase, the "Let them eat cake Democrats'. Something specifically unknown to gamecock but instinctively known to gamecock is the news that the DNCC elites visiting Denver, Colorado have been privileged to purchase gas at the pump for their vehicles at a lower cost than the rest of us mere peasants. Their vehicles have been getting gasoline without paying even a penny of state and federal taxes.

Glenn got news about this from a small article in the Rocky Mountain News. According to the article the first response to this news by the Denver Mayor, John Hickenlooper (D) is that the Republicans are doing the same thing in Minneapolis.

That isn't true, We pay for fuel like everyone else does,"

said Teresa McFarland, spokeswoman for the local host committee for the Republican National Convention. Well, that lame excuse didn't work so well so Chris Lopez, spokesman for the host committee, said

The host committee, which is responsible for raising money to put on the convention, is using the city's pumps "for safety and security reasons. We know the gas is not tainted. We use it as a safety and security measure.

Apparently that excuse was not working so well either so finally the Rocky Mountain News received this news: An aide to Mayor John Hickenlooper released a statement Tuesday evening saying that Denver 2008 Host Committee members would pay market prices for fuel and would also be liable for all applicable taxes.

Later in the day, the camp of GOP presidential hopeful John McCain issued a statement saying that

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was "for a gas-tax holiday — as long as it benefits him and his political party."

Good for You, McCain campaign for keeping your ear to the ground and ready with a prepared statement the moment you got the opportune news.

Glenn Beck did spend a lot of time raking the Ds over the coals over their 'Let them eat cake' attitude, and he had Gov. Bobby Jindal and Ben Stein as guests contributors in this condemnation of the Ds. I would encourage you to read the entir transcript here. In case you are not able to read the transcript I will provide a small part where Glenn echoes gamecock.

BECK: Let me -- let me show you something, Governor. These are the pitchforks. I said jokingly last week, send me a pitchfork. I`m getting - - now I`m getting pitchforks. This is what came in today. I`m getting pitchforks now with names on them. People saying I have had enough of this.


We are turning into 18th century France, where the politicians in Washington are just saying, "Let them eat cake."


JINDAL: Well, and you know, the Founding Fathers had it right. They intended to be part-time officials who`d go back, limited to the rules they passed for everybody else. The danger is we don`t have our elected officials living under the same rules, the same inconveniences, the same regulations, same taxes as everybody else, they won`t feel that burden.


You remember, there was an incident a few years ago. Congresswoman from Georgia got irate when Capitol police wouldn`t let her skip to the front of the security line.

BECK: All right. Now let`s turn to the co-author of "How to Ruin the United States of America." It`s Mr. Ben Stein.

Ben, this is anti-business. I mean, they`re not even paying for tax on car washes.

BEN STEIN, CO-AUTHOR, "HOW TO RUIN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA": It`s not just anti-business. It`s anti-law and order. It`s anti- the idea that there are rules, and people have to play by the rules. And the DNC cannot just say, "OK, wait a minute. Now it`s magic time in Denver and the rules are suspended."


BECK: I want a torch.

STEIN: I was -- I`m glad you brought up this Denver thing. I don`t like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 77,000 wildly cheering people. That is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America. We have a contained number of people in an arena. Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that`s something the Fuhrer would have done. I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past.


BECK: Ben, real quick, this is how out of touch they are. Not only are they doing this, and it`s like screw the little people, but they also have the DNC meal time guidelines for this event.

STEIN: Oh, no. Please don`t say that.

BECK: Here`s one of them. This is the actual quote from the "Rocky Mountain News": "At least one of the three following five colors must be on every plate: red, green, yellow, blue, purple, and white. Garnishes don`t count," because they think that vibrant colors mean healthier food. I`m not making it up.

STEIN: This is what really scares me about the environmental and the energy conservation movement. It`s about controlling people.

BECK: Yes.

STEIN: It`s not really about saving energy. They couldn`t care less about that. They really want to control other people`s lives. And that is very scary. The Constitution is ever in danger.

I'm not sure that gamecock agrees with Ben on the danger because he is an optimist who believes the Ds will not capture the White House in 2008. However I think gamecock agrees instinctively with Ben that the Ds really want to control people's lives. There is a way to assure the Ds do not capture the White House. It's really quite simple. Do not sit this election out. Register and vote against Obama. Please cast your vote for John McCain.

What's the Mood in the Hood?

In an interview with Charlie Rose, John Hofmeister, President & CEO of Shell Oil recalls a conversatiion he recently had with the Mayor of Los Angeles. The title of this diary is the question that he asked. He is now retired from Shell, and he appeared on the Glenn Beck Show. The following exchange took place:
BECK: And you said, "Glenn, I listen to you, and thing I like you, is you call them like it is and you are frank." You said you were going to model yourself after that when you became -- when you were no longer the president of Shell, well, you`re not. What is it that you -- go ahead.

HOFMEISTER: I said I was going to sharpen my tongue -- so that I could speak at least come close to speaking as sharply as you.

I just said it in part -- it`s time for the bosses of this country to turn the table on the elected representatives and start instructing our elected representatives on what the people of this country -- the consumers of this country demand, and that is more energy of all kinds, including more oil and gas.

Hofmeister has just started a new not-for-profit company, Citizens for Affordable Energy.

I didn't write this diary just to promote John Hofmeister. I really think the Republican Party needs to promote the idea of finding more energy from a point of view of not only finding new energy but also increasing the number of high paying union jobs that will be a part of the new drilling and oil exploration activity. I want to take a broader look at 'what's the mood in the hood?'

Sen. Obama was at the height of his popularity when things were not going so well for our troops in Iraq. Well, no thanks to Sen. Obama and his ilk, things are now going quite well for our troops in Iraq. Plans are already in place to draw down the number of servicemen currently deployed in Iraq. They can leave Iraq successfully completing their mission to stand the Iraqi troops up so that they can stand down.

When a mission in Iraq is no longer the primary issue on voters' minds, then he needs to appeal to them on more than his stance on going to war in Iraq.

His answer to people concerning the high cost of gas at the pump is to tell them they need to change how they live. They need to visit that pump less often by getting themselves a mini-compact hybrid car.

His answer to people concerning the crumbling neighborhoods and family values is for men to follow planned parenthood's teachings of safe sex and abortion if the safe sex doesn't work.

Jesse might have been crude, but he has a point that Barry is 'talking down at black people.' I'm no cockstradamus, but I think the Republican Party has a very good chance to win in November. We need to look at winning over a voter as an individual at a time, and we need to stop thinking of people as part of a monolith political bloc. Appeal to an individual whether he lives in Watts district of LA or on a farm in rural Kansas.

Barack Marches Forward in Margaret Sanger's Footsteps

Clarence Gamble, heir of Proctor and Gamble, wrote a memorandum in November, 1939 entitled: "Suggestions for the Negro Project." In the letter he suggested black leaders "be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge."

This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote,

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members

.

For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama became a "minister" of Planned Parenthood a long time ago. He's so good at carrying out their racist, murderous, agenda against Afro-Americans and society at large, they gave him a 100% score on his voting record. Planned Parenthood is following the strategy of their racist founder, Margaret Sanger, to the letter. Planed Parenthood is saying, "We have our poster boy! Get him out in front as a lure for their women and men. Get them into our abortion clinics and dismember their children by the millions!" You say absurd? No Way! Planned Parenthood's Valentine cards were sent out to hundreds of thousands of young people in the nation. Whose face is plainly seen waving to them with a big smile? Whose endorsement is given to this racist and calloused organization? Who is used to lure children to give credibility to its hideous plot? Barack Obama, that's who!

Case in point: Barack Obama. It was about a year ago when Don Imus made his ill-conceived, idiotic, and satiric remarks about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team. Barack Obama commented saying, “Anyone who made comments like that wouldn’t be working for me. I don’t think MSNBC should be carrying the kinds of hateful remarks that Imus uttered the other day.” These comments by Senator Obama seemed appropriate at the time. But juxtaposed against his remarks about an actual exchanged between a Planned Parenthood official, and a person posing as a racist donor requesting their donation be used to abort specifically African-American babies, is astonishing! What did he say? Nothing! This hypocrisy and betrayal of the Black community was played out repeatedly by such leaders as Al sharpton, Jessie Jackson, the NAACP, and many others.

Here is what they failed to respond to: Autumn Kersey, Vice President of Development at Planned Parenthood of Idaho, is asked whether a donation can be specified to help a minority group, like “for a black baby.” Here is how the dialogue went:

Idaho Donor: The abortion – I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho Donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho Donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: Understandable, understandable.

Idaho Donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college.


On Monday, July 8, 2008 Barack received an official endorsement from Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is proud to endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States.

president Cecile Richards said in a press release.

Richards called him a "passionate advocate" with a "a long and consistent record of standing up for" unlimited abortions.


Barack accepts the endorsement and has this to say.

The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

Dr. Martin Luther king Jr. wrote a letter to his fellow clergymen from a jail cell in Birmingham, AL in which he included the following:

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But they went on with the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

Another quote from MLK that would be so appropriate here:

The Negro cannot win if he chooses to sacrifice the future of his children for immediate comfort and safety.

The Rev Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr. writes the following:

Yes, I believe it would be wonderful to have a Black man as president, but it's more important for there to be, God's man as president, and that his character would reflect my values; values reflected in the 10 Commandments and our Declaration of Independence. While most African-Americans are applauding him for the color of his skin, they have failed to look at closely the content of his character.

Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., is the senior pastor of The New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, NJ.

I believe I am beginning to see some African-Americans that are beginning to have doubts about the content of Barack's character. When all they knew is that Barack opposed the Iraq War that's one thing, and now that they are discovering this guy is Margaret Sanger's "minister of planned parenthood" that's something that many dislike and disapprove.

My VP Prediction = McCain picks Giuliani

Here is how I got there. Recently there is a shakeup in the McCain camp, and Steve Schmidt is selected to take over the day-to-day campaign operations. His first hire in his new capacity is Rudy's campaign manager, Mike DuHaime. ABC covered the news here. Also I watched both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani on Hannity and Colmes. The cool one who did not have to think too hard before he spoke was definitely Rudy.

I know some folks are going to hate the idea because Rudy is pro-choice. There are also some folks who are going to love the idea because Rudy is a fighter and a fiscal conservative guy. Tonight Alan Colmes tried to put Rudy on the spot about BIG OIL companies selling oil to the highest bidder instead of giving it away to US citizens. Rudy didn't even flinch in his support of free market capitalism.

I am not in the least worried about a pro-choice Rudy being the VP pick of a pro-life McCain. I really think Rudy will add some needed excitement to the GOP ticket.

I don't pretend to be cockstradamus, but Rudy is the guy I can picture kissing babies on the campaign trail.