Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Political’ Category

We have all seen how poor Obama’s judgement is on his friends and associates. From choosing to pal around with William Ayers, an unrepentant American hating terrorist, and his twenty year mentorship with the racist pastor Wright…the list is long. So, why would anyone trust Obama in choosing such an important position as the next Supreme Court Justice?

Whoever Obama would choose for the Supreme Court, I’m sure the ACLU would approve without objection.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has been freed! She is on the attack and bringing up the Obama/Ayers connection!

Palin Says Obama Pals With Terrorists By JIM KUHNHENN, AP

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (Oct. 4) – Republican vice presidential
candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists” because of an old association with a
former ’60s radical, stepping up an effort to portray Obama as unacceptable to American voters. […]
Palin’s reference was to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. Its members took credit for bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, during the Vietnam War era. Obama, who was a child when the group was active, served on a charity board with Ayers several years ago and has denounced his radical views and activities.
[…]
The Republican campaign, falling behind Obama in polls, plans to make attacks on Obama’s character a centerpiece of candidate John McCain’s message in the final weeks of the presidential race.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I’ve put this guy’s videos up before. He is awesome! He’s trying to wake folks up. Break the chains and the embrace true change!

Read Full Post »

WASHINGTON (AP) – After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, speeding toward passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House where conservative opposition seemed to soften.

Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners for the right and left, hoping to secure approval in the House by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plunging around the globe.

The measure has not caused the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties’ presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, were making rare appearances to vote their support. That would send the package back to the House, where passage would require a turnaround of 12 votes from Monday’s 228-205 defeat.

Leaders in both parties, as well as private economic chiefs everywhere, said Congress must quickly approve some version of the measure to start loans flowing and stave off a potential national economic catastrophe.

House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

“Inaction is not an option,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said a few hours before the Senate was to vote. “This is not a bailout for Wall Street. It’s a bailout for our country.”

President Bush said, “It’s very important for members to take this bill very seriously.”

Even as the Senate neared its vote, congressional leaders targeted the 133 House Republicans who voted against the bill Monday.

House GOP opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $100 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision Republicans advocated to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance. They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market.

The heart of the bill, and the opposition to it, remained the same. It would enable the government to spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates say, that would allow frozen credit to begin flowing again and keep the economy from a deep recession.

Proponents say the government eventually could sell the devalued assets at a better price, reducing

Graphic shows timeline of credit crisis events with banking and mortgage foreclosures data

Graphic shows timeline of credit crisis events with banking and mortgage foreclosures data

the program’s final cost.

As for House passage, there were worries that the tax breaks would cause some conservative-leaning Democrats who voted for the rescue Monday to abandon it because it would swell the federal deficit.

“I’m concerned about that,” said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader.

As revised by the Senate, the package would extend several tax breaks popular with businesses. It would keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million middle-income Americans, and provide $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana.

The bill would not point to offsetting spending cuts to pay for the AMT and disaster provisions, but it would have revenue offsets for part of the energy and extension measures. The failure to offset many of the tax cuts angered the House’s band of “Blue Dog” Democrats.

The increase in the deposit insurance cap was a bid to reassure individuals and businesses with accounts in banks and similar institutions.

The Senate specializes in high-stakes legislating-by-enticement, and the long list of sweeteners it added was designed to attract votes from various constituencies.

Tax cuts new and old are favorites for most House Republicans, the main target of intense lobbying to gain support for the measure. Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West, while disaster aid was a top priority for lawmakers from across the Midwest and South.

Another addition, to extend the deductibility of state and local taxes for people in states without income taxes, helps Florida and Texas, among others.

And there were plenty of obscure tax breaks to go around, like one for certain wooden arrows used by children, and another benefiting litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Senate leaders were expected to try adding another goodie before the final vote: extending a tax break for homeowners who do not itemize their tax returns.

Raising the federal deposit insurance limit – along with the SEC’s decision to ease accounting rules on valuing assets – helped House Republicans claim credit for some substantive changes.

And with constituent feedback changing dramatically since Monday’s spectacular House defeat and the corresponding market plunge, lawmakers’ comfort level with the package increased markedly.

Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, a leading conservative who voted no on Monday, told CNN Wednesday he’s “strongly leaning” toward voting for the plan.

Asked if was ready to switch from no to yes, Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, said: “Not yet, but it’s getting there.”

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Republicans “can argue now that there have been some steps taken that they recommended.”

Monday’s stock market drop and other economic developments that followed the House vote, he said, have “changed the complexion, too, of what people’s constituents are now saying. … There’s more of a recognition that we have to do something.”

Besides Obama and McCain, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was voting on the Senate bill.

Other provisions added by the Senate include a measure to require large companies’ health plans to give equal treatment to mental health or addiction if they cover such illnesses. The House and Senate have passed similar “mental health parity” measures, but none has gone to Bush for his signature.

And I suppose that everyone who’s name ends in “K” gets a free milkshake.

Read Full Post »

(AC) – It’s another election season, so that means it’s time for Democrats to start uttering wild malapropisms about the Bible to pretend they believe in God!

In 2000, we had Al Gore inverting a Christian parable into something nearly satanic. Defending his nutty ideas about the Earth during one of the debates, Gore said: “In my faith tradition, it’s written in the book of Matthew, where your heart is, there is your treasure also.” And that, he said, is why we should treasure the environment.

First of all, people who say “faith tradition” instead of “religion” are always phony-baloney, “Christmas and Easter”-type believers.

Second, Jesus was making almost the exact opposite point, saying: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on Earth,” where there are moths, rust and thieves, but in heaven, because, Jesus said, “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

I guess that’s the kind of mix-up that can happen when your theological adviser is Naomi Wolf.

Then in 2004, Democratic presidential candidate and future Trivial Pursuit answer Howard Dean told an interviewer that his favorite part of the New Testament was the Book of Job. The reporter should have asked him if that was his favorite book in all three testaments.

And now in 2008, we have Democrats attacking Sarah Palin for being a Christian, while comparing Obama to Jesus Christ. (And not in the sarcastic way the rest of us do.)

Liberals have indignantly claimed that Palin thinks the founding fathers wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, which is Olbermannic in the sense that (a) if it were true, it’s trivial, and (b) it’s not true.

Their claim is based on a questionnaire Palin filled out when she was running for governor of Alaska in 2006, which asked the candidates if they were “offended by the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.” Palin answered: “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me, and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”

As anyone can see, Palin was not suggesting that the founding fathers “wrote” the Pledge of Allegiance: She said the founding fathers believed this was a country “under God.” Which, um, it is.

For the benefit of MSNBC viewers who aren’t watching it as a joke, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to lay out the founders’ breathtaking new argument that rights came not from the king, but from God or, as the Declaration said, “Nature’s God,” the “Creator.”

That summer, in 1776, Gen. George Washington — a charter member of the founding fathers — rallied his troops, saying: “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves. … The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army.”

So Washington not only used the phrase “under God,” but gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the “unborn.” That’s right! George Washington was a “pro-life extremist,” just like Sarah Palin.

There is no disputing that a nation “under God” was “good enough” for the founding fathers, exactly as Palin said.

Meanwhile, on the House floor last week, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee compared Palin to Pontius Pilate — and Obama to Jesus. Cohen said: “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.” Yes, who can forget the Biblical account of how Jesus got the homeless Samaritan to register as a Democrat in exchange for a carton of smokes!

Rep. Cohen would be well-advised to stay away from New Testament references.

As anyone familiar with the New Testament can confirm for him, there are no parables about Jesus passing out cigarettes for votes, lobbying the Romans for less restrictive workfare rules or filing for grants under the Community Redevelopment Act. No time for soul-saving now! First, we lobby Fannie Mae to ease off those lending standards and demand a windfall profits tax on the money-changers in the temple.

David Freddoso’s magnificent new book, The Case Against Barack Obama describes the forefather to “community organizers” like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — the famed Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky is sort of the George Washington of “community organizers.” If there were an America-hater’s Mount Rushmore, Saul Alinsky would be on it. He tried to hire Hillary to work for him right out of Wellesley. A generation later, those who had trained with Alinsky did hire Obama as a community organizer.

In Freddoso’s book, he quotes from the dedication in the first edition of Alinsky’s seminal book, “Rules for Radicals,” where Alinsky wrote:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

I suppose it could have been worse. He could have dedicated his book to George Soros.

Even liberals eventually figured out that they shouldn’t be praising Satan in public, so the Lucifer-as-inspiration paragraph was cut from later editions of Alinsky’s book. (But on the bright side, MSNBC adopted as its motto: “Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which.”)

That’s exactly what happens to most Democratic ideas — as soon as they are said out loud, normal people react with revulsion, so Democrats learn to pretend they never said them: I was NOT comparing Palin to a pig! I did not play the race card! I did not say I would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions!

Sarah Palin might be just the lucky break the Democrats need. As a staunch pro-lifer, Palin could give Democrats an excuse to steer away from topics they know nothing about, like the Bible, and onto a subject they know chapter and verse, like abortion.

Read Full Post »

The Feed – News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said he doesn’t regret the New York Post endorsing John McCain, even as some say the Republican ticket is the weaker choice for voters concerned about the economy.

“I am very worried,” Murdoch said during an interview Friday with Fox Business Network. “I like Sen. Obama very much. I have met him. He is a very intelligent man. But his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to be — and card checks — are going to do two or three things.  It’s going to give us a lot of inflation.  They’re going to ruin our relationships with the rest of the world. And they are going to slow down the rest of the world, too. And they’re going to make people frightened to add to employment. You are going to find companies leaving this country if it’s — if you put a protectionist wall around it.  You’re going to get — his policy is really very, very naive, old-fashioned, 1960s.”

Murdoch also was asked about the television business, asked if he thinks if GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt is being truthful when he says the company has no interest in selling NBC.

“Well, I take his word for it,” Murdoch said. “I can assure you, it’s not doing as well as it used to do. Not only because of its prime-time ratings, but because of its local stations. I know, as far as we are concerned — and we compete with them — that whole local station market is performing very badly at the moment.
Anything that depends on consumer advertising is having a tight squeeze on it.”

Murdoch also said that even if GE decided to sell the network, News Corp. would never be allowed to buy it. And NBC Universal’s cable networks, he added, are not tempting.

“Take USA Network,” Murdoch said. “It’s a mature channel. It makes a lot of money.  But why pay a high multiple for that when you can’t work out how you can double its profit every five years? We like — we like startups, like Fox News.”

Also, Murdoch on the credit crisis: “One has got to go back on this and say, look, this started 15 years ago, with Barney Frank and people pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make a lot of bad loans, until they finally had $11 billion — or nearly $11 billion out there. I don’t say all bad, but it became a racket.

On whether government bailouts send to wrong message to the financial community: “I don’t think so. I think the people who have done it will have lost a lot of money and their jobs.  You know, some of them may even lose their freedom, from what I hear.”

On Sarah Palin’s call for regulation: “I think they have been sending out different signals, but I think what she says is right. Clearly, there has to be some more regulation, but we have to be careful what that is.  It could make things a lot worse.  The more you get the politicians in that don’t know the first thing about banking, even less than me, and God knows what might come out of it.”

On Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson’s handling of the credit crisis: “I think Secretary Paulson has done a fantastically good job.  Now we have got to get it through the Congress, and that is going to be the nightmare.”

Read Full Post »

Well, make that two quotes.

A very accurate analogy regarding the Democrats’ energy plan:

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It’s as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: “Just eat a little less every day.” Great! We’ll die a little more slowly. That’s not what we call a “plan.” We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

-Ann Coulter

A profound insight into the real motives of most politicians (particularly liberal):

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country’s problems, just because they say so — or say so loudly or inspiringly.Politicians’ top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

-Thomas Sowell

Read Full Post »

It is a very conventional bit of political wisdom that successful presidential candidates appeal to their base in the primaries and sidle toward the center in the general election. In fact, neither of the past two presidents won in this fashion.
In the Democratic wilderness years following Mondale and Dukakis, Gov. Bill Clinton labored for the ideological renovation of his party, emphasizing education reform and job training, economic growth and expanded trade, reform to make welfare “a second chance, not a way of life,” law and order, and mainstream moral values. From 1990 to 1991, Clinton was chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) — the institution most closely identified with pro-business, Democratic centrism.
Many Democrats resisted this makeover, preferring the orange shag and avocado appliances of unreconstructed liberalism. Jesse Jackson at one point dismissed the DLC as “Democrats for the Leisure Class.” Sen. Howard Metzenbaum founded the Coalition for Democratic Values to spark a fundamentalist, Democratic counterreformation.
In 1998, another reform-minded Southerner, George W. Bush, was reelected governor of Texas with 68 percent of the vote on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” — at the same time Gingrich-Armey, government-shutdown Republicanism was taking a national beating. Bush was the most prominent Republican advocate of education reform that benefited minority children, inclusive immigration policies, and community and faith-based answers to social problems such as addiction and homelessness.
In his first policy address as a presidential candidate, Bush attacked the notion that “if government would only get out of our way, all our problems would be solved — an approach with no higher goal, no nobler purpose, than ‘Leave us alone.’ ” One conservative publicly complained that the speech could have been written by someone “moonlighting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Having had something to do with Bush’s speech, Michael Gerson believed that only this kind of early, ideological shock treatment could shift a durable Republican image of heartlessness.
Whatever you think of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both earned a reputation for centrism by taking difficult political stands during (and before) the nomination process. While remaining orthodox on many key issues, each candidate contributed a new intellectual theory to his party. And the candidates forced Democratic and Republican ideologues to swallow a horse pill of centrism in the cause of victory.
Barack Obama is now making his head-snapping shift to the center precisely because he rejected the Clinton-Bush approach. During the primaries, Obama could hardly be called innovative. His main policy appeals — higher taxes, the “renegotiation” of NAFTA, the filibuster of FISA to block “retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies,” public financing of presidential elections, a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, unconditional talks with every world dictator — were indistinguishable from those of many Net-roots bloggers. But while America is less Republican than it used it to be, it remains a center-right country. And so Obama has shifted, trimmed or retreated on nearly every issue that won him the nomination — trying to compress a lifetime of moderation into a fortnight.
All this requires its own kind of audacity. As Obama explained of his NAFTA switch, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” There is a broad wink in this admission — a signal to the political class that Obama gets the political game. And commentators who buy the conventional wisdom — that all politicians excite the base, then move to the center — find these shifts expected, even impressive. They supposedly demonstrate a kind of political and mental toughness — the unsentimental skills of a poker player, which might come in handy during negotiations with the Russians or the Chinese.
There are many excuses for political opportunism, but it is not a virtue, because it eventually multiplies cynicism. And it may not even be a political advantage for a candidate who has made post-partisan idealism — rather than a policy vision — the centerpiece of his campaign. As Mitt Romney demonstrated in the Republican primaries, a strategy that smacks of cynicism can become a public image, which can overwhelm a strategy.
I do not believe that Obama is merely a chameleon. His outreach to religious Americans is innovative and could be transformational within his party. His political success has sidelined the irresponsible, Sharpton-like wing of the civil rights establishment, which is an achievement.
But it is hard to avoid the feeling that Obama has gained the nomination without fully earning it. Unlike Clinton or Bush, his intellectual contributions have been slight. The wave he rides may take him far — but he is not determining its direction.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »