Help Save Murtha from Himself, so His "Racist", "Redneck" Constituents Will Re-Elect Him

It's self-parodying, really. Democrat Representative John Murtha is in a tight race, one made all the more difficult by his calling his constituents "racist". Fortunately he clarified, helpfully explaining that the district was - until recently - "really redneck". Now, shockingly, he's begging for $1 million for the remaining few days of the campaign to save his seat - one that would normally be easily maintained for a long-term incumbent in a very pro-Democrat year.

This would be an amusing story, if it didn't reflect the elitism all too typical of the Democratic party. It's not enough to disagree with one's political opponents, they have to be hicks, too. Fortunately, the Democrats haven't pushed for re-education centers yet (except for "sensitivity training"), but it's only October. January is coming.

Redistributing Income is Great - Someone Else's Income

This letter to the editor from the Chicago Tribune (last item, by one A. Hart) is simply hilarious:

On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama; I need the money." I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an "Obama 08" tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

All that needs to be added is that the Obama model is even worse, because the inappropriate redistribution of wealth means that those who generate wealth and jobs in our economy will have fewer resources to do so. This is change you can't believe in.

Guess Who He's Voting For

Not who you might normally think, but as you'll see he's in his right mind!

McCain the Stalwart

This is a great article by Charles Krauthammer, explaining why he's sticking with John McCain this voting season.

Thanks for the Warning, Joe the Senator!

This past weekend, as many of you may have heard, Joe Biden warned a crowd that something bad would happen if Barack Obama gets elected:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you--not financially to help him--we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Of course Biden doesn't think this is a good reason to vote for McCain, but what should those of us who aren't going to serve in an Obama administration think about it? Unless we think the same sort of "test" will be given to McCain, the obvious answer is: don't vote for Obama! Some interesting reflections from James Taranto are here, here and here.

Barack Obama, Abortion and Infanticide

Here are two articles by Princeton ethicist Robert P. George that are worth reading, though the subject matter is very grim. The first one focuses primarily on Obama's views on abortion and public policy, the second (co-authored by Yuval Levin) goes on to examine Obama's position on infanticide. Obama's positions are so extreme that they should give even committed pro-choice advocates pause before electing him to the highest office in the land.

Should Jews be Pro-Obama?

If one is a religious Jew (a phrase which, sadly, is no longer a redundancy) or a friend of Israel, then the answer is no, according to Ben Shapiro.

Let's Avoid Partisanship By Agreeing That I'm Right

Republicans have often cited the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, according to which Barack Obama was the most liberal Senator for that year. (And Joe Biden was third.) Another popular stat alleged to show Obama's extreme partisanship points out that he voted with his party 97% of the time.

That all sounds impressive, but Obama has repeatedly declared that he will go across party lines, appealing not only to his fellow Democrats but to Independents and even Republicans. There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. Take that, National Journal! (And Jonathan Edwards, too.)

There are a few ways one might take this. If one is a naive Obama supporter, he might be inclined to think that the National Journal rating is wrong. Some have fussed over the Journal's method, but it's clear that by any objective metric, Obama is quite safely ensconced in the liberal camp. A second way to interpret our data is to declare Obama a liar (or more kindly, a "typical" politician). Blathering about bipartisanship wins elections, but he blathered thusly before becoming a Senator, too, and to no avail. As a matter of policy, however, we believe in taking Senator Obama at his word. But how then can we put this together with the fact of his (very) liberal voting record?

The answer: Obama really is inviting everyone to join him, and really believes in his ideas. These ideas all happen to be liberal - indeed, sometimes radically so - but everyone's welcome to join in supporting them. So you see, one can get beyond partisan politics. (Yes you can...yes you can...) All that's necessary is to agree with the ultra-liberal Obama. But we wonder: if a Republican proferred a similarly "post-partisan" approach where the right ideas just happened to be the Right's ideas, do you think that even if he rejected it, he'd call it non-partisan? (If your answer is: not before the Cubs win another World Series, then you're probably right.)

Republicans Behaving Badly

It has been widely noted in some recent McCain rallies that people in the audience are exhibiting far more passion than he is. That's a mixed blessing: it's great that they're passionate, but terrible that he's not. However, the audiences went over the line when they called Obama a terrorist and shouted to kill him. The first charge is wrong and the second simply vile. That should be reason enough to cease and desist, but for those who only respond on pragmatic grounds, let's add that it's incredibly stupid. The mainstream media will pick it up and repeat it endlessly, and it gives our political opponents the chance to brand us in all sorts of unfavorable ways. They can do that anyway, but now we're giving them ammunition! Very stupid - in addition to being vile.

Even worse, albeit in a different way, is the reaction we've seen on a couple of conservative websites. McCain has taken his audiences to task over the comments above, as well as when he corrected a befuddled supporter who claimed that Obama is an Arab. Incredibly, these websites have reacted by taking McCain to task for dampening his supporters' enthusiasm. Now, if they were pointing to something else McCain had done to scold his supporters, they might have a point. But as far as we can tell, the websites are referring to the comments discussed above. If so, then their remarks are disappointing, to say the least. Is "the team" so dear and goodness so worthless that you'd prefer to slander Obama and criticize McCain than correct the base?

There are plenty of good reasons to prefer McCain to Obama (scan through earlier posts on this blog, for starters), so even ignoring issues of propriety, there's no need to use such lowbrow techniques. And if those good reasons don't exist, then why vote for him at all?

Guess Which Candidate Pushed to Regulate Fannie and Freddie?

Hint: It's not Obama. Here's a copy of the actual letter written by McCain and signed by a total of zero Democrats (surprise, surprise) warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in danger, at risk, and in need of regulation.

N.B. The article linked to above misleadingly notes that Barack Obama did not sign the letter. That's true but utterly irrelevant, as he wasn't then (in May 2006) a Senator. (It's unlikely that he would have signed it, given that no other Democrat did, but it's not fair to blame him for what he didn't even have the chance to do.)

Freedom of Speech Is Good -- Especially Mine. Yours, Not So Much

The 1st Amendment Party in action.

Playing the Race Card?

We've been amazed during this campaign to see talking heads wonder if people will vote against Barack Obama just because he's black. Nevertheless, it has been a common conjecture, rendered even more prevalent thanks to Obama's pre-emptive warning that his opponents would say that he's inexperienced, has a funny name, and by the way, he's black.

You don't say!

But seriously, folks, how can anyone with half a brain take that charge seriously, except under the banner of political correctness? Most blacks vote Democrat anyway, so the anticipated Obama landslide among that community won't be a surprise. But how do we explain the 90%+ poll numbers Obama had among black voters when he was competing against Clinton in the Democratic primaries? There were some relatively minor differences between them in terms of policy, but nothing that would even come close to choosing one candidate over the other on purely racial lines.

Now, it's an open question as to whether or not one should vote for a candidate based solely on race. Maybe in some hypothetical circumstance where all else is equal, it would be worth voting for a black (or a woman, etc.) on the grounds that it would provide uplift to the members of that community. Maybe, maybe not, but only if there's absolutely no other basis for making a decision. Are we really going to pretend that's the case here?

So to white voters out there, if your only reason to vote for McCain is that Obama is black, then shame on you. But to blacks who are guilty of the opposite, shame on you, too. Looking at polling numbers, one must say that race-baiters are right: this is a racially divided society. Unfortunately, most of the racial division, percentage-wise, seems to be taking place on the black side of the equation. Whites are pretty evenly split between the candidates, pretty much as they have been in the past two elections. That's not what one would expect from a racist society. But blacks going for Obama over not only McCain but Clinton by better than nine-to-one? Yeah, that's beautiful. No racism here.

See all this article for more on the Obama team's race-baiting shenanigans.

Obama's Magic

Change you can't believe in.

A Brief ACORN Video

Nothing like documentary evidence to show what ACORN did, how it worked (or didn't), and who(bama) was behind it.

Barack Obama, Trickle-Down Economist

Part of the Democrat party's playbook is to refer to normal free market economics as "trickle-down" theory, followed up with a smirk, laugh, eye roll or statement making it clear that trickle-down economics is a nutty theory. Spelled out a little, the Democrat narrative runs like this: Republicans, who are rich and pro-rich, want the rich to pay as little in taxes as possible while not giving any special breaks to the poor or middle class. That's OK, say the Republicans, because prosperity at the top will "trickle down" [you know, like urine] to the less well off. Everyone wins. This theory is "obviously" crazy, to Democrats, because those nasty, greedy rich Republicans will want to keep as much of it for themselves - thus the mere trickle. As Barack Obama recently said, "it's not enough just to help those at the top. Prosperity is not just going to trickle down."

This is an effective rhetorical trick, but it's poor economics. First, unless the rich cannibalize each other, they can only get their "more" from the financial activities of the less wealthy buying their products. And that, in turn, can only happen if they have money, which requires jobs. And there are only jobs if those with some money are able to invest it. In short, we're all interdependent - as a random politician recently noted:

Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans. If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

And if you imagine just one company trying to deal with that, now imagine a million companies all across the country. So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that's why we had to take action. But we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Guess who the speaker was? Obama, of course. What he's saying is sensible and basic Republican economic theory; in fact, it's basic economic theory, period. If they would stick to the truth and avoid the class warfare, this country would be a much better place.

HT: The Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web"

Barney Frank's Race-Baiting

One popular tactic used by the left is to suggest that those who disagree with them are against the poor or, better still, are racists. Representative Barney Frank is an overachiever, and so he accuses his political foes of both. According to Frank, those Republicans who have blamed the current financial crisis at least partially on the foolish mortgage loans made to low-income families are racist.

Thankfully, not all his political bedfellows engage in buck-passing demagoguery. Here's a quote from Arthur Davis, a Representative and member of Congressional Black Caucus:

Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

If only all politicians were so honest!

HT: Wall Street Journal

Biden Errors, Part 2

The previous post linked to a site listing Sen. Joe Biden's errors, but the link didn't elaborate on the specifics. This one does.

Biden Errors in Last Night's Debate

Or maybe they're lies, but I'm not in a position to know Biden's motivations. Whatever they are, they're false statements, and you can see 14 of them listed here.

More Political Combat: Dick Morris vs. Alan Colmes

Here's some more light entertainment, but then really, it's time to return to substance.

Bill O'Reilly vs. Barney Frank

Lots of heat, some light. First, Bill O'Reilly about Barney Frank (and right wing talk show hosts), on his radio program:

Next, O'Reilly vs. Frank, on the former's TV show.

Entertaining as that might be on a primal level, I'm not sure O'Reilly is really getting Frank on the right points. And Frank does deserve to be gotten, as noted in this earlier post.

Sarah Palin and the Integrity Gap

Change, change, change! That's one of the mantras across the political landscape, especially prominent on the left. But change isn't automatically desirable - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! It is clear that there's plenty to be fixed, though, and to do that some real guts are needed. So who has the intestinal fortitude necessary to go against the system? Maybe all four of the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates do, maybe not. But it does seem that Palin does, as this detailed article shows.

Sarah Palin's Accent: What Does It Mean?

According to this article on Slate, it means she's from Wasilla, and that's about it. Or at least, that's it from an objective standpoint. Subjectively, it could mean a lot, as people react very differently to different accents, as I noted in passing a couple of days ago. That's why, as the Slate piece noted, Palin seems to be making an effort to speak a more "neutral" brand of English these days. We'll pay careful attention to this, and more importantly to the content of her speech, during tonight's debate.

Is Deregulation to Blame? Not According to Bill Clinton

Liberal punditry's favorite hobgoblin in the current financial mess is the 1999 deregulation bill sponsored by McCain's (former) economic advisor, Phil Gramm. The story, oversimplified, is that deregulation and the resulting lack of government oversight made it easier for bad loans to be approved. This thesis has been addressed and critiqued elsewhere on this blog, and to those arguments and references we can add the testimony of none other than the President who signed the 1999 bill into law: Bill Clinton. President Clinton denies that the bill was forced upon him, and right up front denies that it is responsible for the current crisis:

But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.

One would hope that evidence like this would put a halt to the liberal media's boilerplate, but alas.