|
Tuesday, October 14, 2008  Acorn epidemic [Mark Steyn]
Apropos my earlier post, a reader responds:
By federal law, ACORN field reps are required to turn in EVERY registration form that is filled out whether they think it is fraudulent or not.
But that's the point - like the fellow in Ohio yesterday who said he registered to vote 72 different times because the Acorn reps told him otherwise they wouldn't get paid. If you swamp small county offices with a gazillion registrations a month before the election, you cripple the system, you make it impossible to do basic background checks, and you make it easier for all kinds of monkey business to go on.
This is why giving groups like Acorn quasi-official status is wrong. If Fred Smith wants to register to vote, Fred Smith should go to the Town Clerk's office and do it himself. The "CO" in Acorn stands for "community organizers". We should be grateful to these guys for bringing to light what a phoney-baloney Orwellian concept Obama's much vaunted "community organizing" is. Like most people, I have no wish to live in a community organized by community organizers. 10/14 08:57 AM re: On Rev. Wright, "We're Not Going To Do It" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
That's ridiculous considering Obama funded Wright-like Afro-centric anti-American education, as Stanley Kurtz explains today. 10/14 08:47 AM 
On Rev. Wright, "We're Not Going To Do It" [Byron York]
Victor is exactly right about Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. If McCain is making a big deal about Bill Ayers, which is perfectly legitimate, why not about Wright, to whom Obama was far closer? But I get the feeling that this is not even an issue any more inside the McCain campaign. I asked a senior aide about it yesterday and was told, "Sen. McCain said we wouldn't do it, so we're not going to do it." 10/14 08:41 AM Rotten boroughs [Mark Steyn]
Senator Obama famously shrugged off William Ayers as just a guy in his neighborhood. In a way, that's right. The Ayers/Obama connection isn't about the Senator's social life, it's about where he lives, politically speaking. Ayers' Weather Underground grew out of "Students For A Democratic Society", as did Acorn. Today, Ayers and his fellow "educators" are engaged with considerable success in radicalizing the next generation of Americans. But, if that doesn't work, Acorn has a fallback strategy.
What does Acorn do? It steals elections:
In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 new registrations. The authorities there started reviewing them, and quit after they found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent. The mind boggles: ACORN turns in thousands of new registrations, and not a single one represents a legitimate voter.
Who does Acorn steals elections for? Ah, well, that's a little harder to figure out from the CNN report. But the Obama campaign gave 800 grand from its many illegal foreign contributions to Acorn.
There is something ridiculous about this country's approach to elections. If a Swedish businessman flies in for a one-day meeting in New York, he'll undergo a retinal scan at JFK. But, if that same businessman decides to stay on a day or two, he can wander into half the polling stations in America and cast an illegal vote more or less with impunity. We have retinal scans at the airport because it's a national security issue, but in elections it's "racist" or "discriminatory" to require a driver's license, passport or even proof of corporeal existence. The integrity of the ballot box is, ultimately, also a national security issue. Acorn has now registered approaching one and a half million "voters", not in Utah or in Massachusetts, but in those key states where this election will be decided. They have more than enough to change the result.
As I said to my pal Alan Colmes on Fox last night, unlike us poor chumps on the other side, the Dems have a glamorous charismatic candidate who, according to the polls, is on course to win. Why do they need Acorn to steal it? 10/14 08:21 AM
Fair Ain't Got Anything To Do With It [Jonah Goldberg]
Following up on Mark Steyn's post below, Obama's Share Our Wealth comments yesterday reminded me of his answer in a primary debate earlier this year:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
His answer goes on (excerpted over at Jim's place), but what's revealing is that Obama concedes the premise of the question (many liberals disputed it, but that's a different argument) yet sees imposing higher taxes on rich or successful people to be a matter of fairness. This concept of social justice does not jibe with the Obama-the-Pragmatist we've been hearing from of late. It is an ideological view that says that punishing successful people is desirable in and of itself. I think there's plenty of reason to believe that's the real Obama.
10/14 07:58 AM "Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service." [Victor Davis Hanson]
I am baffled why it is racist to inquire about the racist Rev. Wright when Obama himself not so long ago boasted of the value of his friendship with Wright, and sympathetic journalists saw the radical Wright as a sort of proof of Obama's leftwing fides. And while we are battered by economic news, and Wright becomes a "distraction", that defensive argument is largely used out of embarrassment, since at one time most in the Obama circle once saw Wright, in the mode of the Ayers friendship and the ACORN patronage, as a definite plus. Only when he became a liability as the race widened was Wright dropped. And by the time Obama had become a messianic figure, any remembrance of Wright at all, in Orwellian fashion, transmogrified into our present smear of "racist." That was then, this is now. So, for example, we forget that in February 2007, the progressive journalist Ben Wallace-Wells wrote a balanced, but sympathetic article for Rolling Stone about the soon-to-be presidential candidate Barack Obama entitled "Destiny's Child." After examining Obama's associates, world view, and background, Wallace-Wells concluded, I think, in admiration:
This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."
Obama wasn't born into Wright's world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell's nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and "felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams."
Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in there. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. Obama's life story is a splicing of two different roles, and two different ways of thinking about America's. One is that of the consummate insider, someone who has been raised believing that he will help to lead America, who believes in this country's capacity for acts of outstanding virtue. The other is that of a black man who feels very deeply that this country's exercise of its great inherited wealth and power has been grossly unjust. This tension runs through his life; Obama is at once an insider and an outsider, a bomb thrower and the class president. "I'm somebody who believes in this country and its institutions," he tells me. "But I often think they're broken."
So was it racist of Wallace-Wells to bring up Rev. Wright? And if not, why is it now, especially when Obama himself not long ago used to evoke Wright (and others) on his own accord? So, again for example, in a March 27, 2004 inteview with Chicago-Sun Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani (the “God girl”), Obama offered the now rather startling admissions:
GG: Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA:Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.
….
GG: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?
OBAMA:Well, my pastor [Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for. I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.
GG:Those two will keep you on your toes.
OBAMA: And they're good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what’s happening to each of us in ways that are useful. I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure. 10/14 07:54 AM
McCain's choice [Mark Steyn]
Plumbers of America, unite! You have nothing to lose but your drains!
I agree with Betsy Newmark:
If the McCain campaign can't use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.
At this stage of the campaign, if the candidate wants it out there, he has to talk about it himself. This is a rare, clear moment of explicit self-revelation from Obama. If McCain can't get traction from it, he's Bob Dole and that's that:
"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." 10/14 07:16 AM The (New) McCain Plan [Byron York]
Today, John McCain will unveil what he calls the "Pension and Family Security Plan." The major elements, from a McCain email sent out a few moments ago:
SENIORS: Lower Taxes On Seniors Tapping Their Retirement Accounts.
SENIORS: Suspend Tax Rules That Force Seniors To Sell Their Stocks In The Midst Of This Financial Crisis.
SAVERS: Accelerate The Tax Write-Off For Those Forced To Sell At A Loss In The Current Market.
SAVERS: Reduce Capital Gains Taxes For 2009 And 2010 To Raise The Incentive To Save And Invest.
HOMEOWNERS: Purchase Mortgages Directly From Homeowners And Mortgage Servicers, And Replace Them With Manageable, Fixed-Rate Mortgages.
WORKERS: Eliminate Taxes On Unemployment Benefits.
10/14 06:32 AM Monday, October 13, 2008 Now This Is News [Jonah Goldberg]
From the Daily Record:
WORRIED bookmakers have stopped taking bets on aliens showing up on Earth.
It follows a flurry of bets amid internet buzz that a massive intergalactic spaceship will appear tomorrow.
Videos and messages on YouTube, blogs and UFO websites are buzzing with predictions that a vessel from the alien Federation Of Light will be visible in our skies for three days.
It may all sound more oddball than odds-on - but bookies William Hill are taking it seriously enough to temporarily suspend betting on proof of the existence of intelligent alien life being confirmed by PM Gordon Brown.
It follows a rush of bets, including one punter who wanted to place a s3000 bet at odds of 1000-1.
Hill spokesman Rupert Adams said: "This is the first time an internet phenomenon has affected our business.
"We now have seven-figure liabilities if the ship does appear. We have decided to duck any more big bets until the 14th has passed, hopefully without incident."
Has anyone investigated Al Gore's financial activities? 10/13 11:56 PM Peers, Not Profs [Jonah Goldberg]
Now this is interesting:
On issues such as abortion, gay marriage and religion, college students shift noticeably to the left from the time they arrive on campus through their junior year, new research shows.
The reason, according to UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute, isn't indoctrination by left-leaning faculty but rather the more powerful influence of fellow students. And at most colleges, left-leaning peer groups are more common than conservative ones.
After college, students — particularly women — move somewhat back to the right politically.
The research is the latest of several efforts by academics to lend analytical rigor to an emotional debate. Overall, college faculty lean left politically, but there's sharp disagreement on whether they impose their views on students. The UCLA researchers are among several social scientists who have tried to undermine the argument that students respond strongly to their teachers' opinions.
Overall, students were nearly as likely after three years of college to call themselves "conservative" or "far-right," according to findings, and only somewhat more likely to call themselves "liberal" or "far left."
Me: This reminds me of an old argument I had with Derb around here about the role of parents. Derb (simplifying mightily) said fathers don't matter. I said they do. I think professors matter too. But we can get into the weeds on this another time. 10/13 09:25 PM Just For the Record [Jonah Goldberg]
John Judis begins a post over at the New Republic's blog, The Plank:
In an op-ed, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, renown for putting his newspaper behind the Bush administration’s plans to invade Iraq, gently chides John McCain for running an ugly campaign against Barack Obama....
This was — again, just for the record — the same war supported by another publication called The New Repulic. 10/13 08:55 PM About Time [Yuval Levin]
As John McCormack notes at the Standard, McCain today finally got around to addressing some of the relentless barrage of dishonest Obama campaign ads against his health care plan, defending his plan in particular from the charge that it would undermine the existing employer-based system. It is of course Obama’s own plan that is designed to do just that. McCain has a strong case to make for his health care proposal, and he ought to build on today’s remarks in this week’s debate. 10/13 08:42 PM In Defense of Krugman [Jonah Goldberg]
I wish I could say that I got better email than this, but the few (seemingly) sane Krugman fans who wrote me didn't do so at any length. From a "reader":
Jonah - You posted two email messages that you received from two so-called "professional economists" who are criticizing Paul Krugman's receipt of the Nobel Prize. My personal assessment of their e-mails in four words: They sound like Haters.
Maybe a President Obama will tap Mr. Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury under his potential administration, and, then, your so-called "professional economists" can "hate" even more! Please tell those folks to work harder next time and quit the right-wing, non-reality based spin, and perhaps they'll get the Prize too (or come close)!!!
Even though you're a right-wing nut, you probably should have stuck to your intial instict of congratulations to Mr. Krugman and your statement regarding the e-mails you received from "A lot of readers":
"Krugman really is a very serious and respected economist...people have been talking about him getting a Nobel for years."
But since YOU ARE A HACK, what more could one expect from those like you who apparently live in an alternate reality & universe!
May The Force not be with you (since you NRO bloggers are obviously space aliens), but let's hope it's nearby to drive you (and your ilk) to the closest psyche ward(s) on November 5, 2008! I'm not gloating, just callin' it like I see it. You betcha!!!
Me: I think this email speaks for itself. But I'd be happy to post a couple grown-up emails from readers who want to defend the total Krugman package. I haven't gotten any yet.
As for the integrity of the economists who did write in, all I can ask is that readers take my word for it that they are serious, mainstream, professionals that would be welcome at a meeting of academic or professional economists.
Update: Jonathan Cohn offers a defense of the Total Krugman Package (TKP henceforth), but it boils down to "I've always found his columns persuasive so his academic work must be right too."
Update II: From a reader:
Jonah,
You shouldn't be surprised that economic experts aren't falling all over themselves to defend Krugman to you personally. People with the expertise to judge Krugman's work have their own outlets to express their thoughts. I don't see why you think your Inbox should be one of them.
But, if your curiosity about a Krugman defense persists, you might start here.
Me: For the record, I get all sorts of thoughtful liberal email, the pissiness (sp?) of this email notwithstanding. I should also add, that I don't see anything in the Time blog post this guy sends me that seriously contradicts anything I've posted.
Update III: From a reader:
Jonah, I'm a professional economist, so let me take a stab at this. Prior to the work of Krugman (and Helpman I should add), the standard view of international trade among economists was that flows of goods across borders reflected differences in factor endowments. Countries with lots of land would export agricultural goods, and so on. But most trade involves similar goods: for instance Japan sells cars to Germany while Germany also sells cars to Japan. This can't be explained by factor endowments. Krugman developed a model of trade with increasing returns and differentiated products that could account for this pattern of trade. Not only did this help account for existing trade flows, it raised serious questions about whether or not free trade was an optimal policy when one's trading partners were not themselves engaged in free trade. This is just part of the citation for the Nobel (his work on the location of economic activity has been equally influential).
Hope this helps,
[Name withheld]
Me: Okey Dokey. Again, this doesn't contradict anything I wrote or posted. 10/13 08:32 PM Strange World [Jonah Goldberg]
The NYT story on the guy who deserves as much credit as anybody for the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim story is fascinating reading. One thing I find personally intriguing, odd, perplexing, whatever, is how little of this stuff actually makes its way to my email box (this is not a solicitation for more salacious email!). I often hear about internet hoaxes, outrageous email campaigns, etc. Sometimes I get those emails earlier than most. But just as often I don't hear about them until I read about them in the newspaper or see a story about them on TV. You would think that I'm clued-in to enough rightwingers (these days, I get hundreds of emails every day from conservatives of one stripe or tribe) that I would be ahead of the curve on almost all this stuff. It just shows you what a huge, whacky, wild world the world wide web is.
Update: From a reader:
Hi Jonah,
My guess is if you turn off your spam filter, along with the Nigerian get-rich-quick and penis enlargement messages, you would be getting the underground political stuff too. So, with a little work on your filter, you could end up (more?) well endowed in multiple ways AND knowledgeable of the latest political intrigue to boot.
Update II: I should add, even if it gets me crosswise with the folks at Fox, that Hannity shouldn't have ever had this Martin guy on their air. Ever.
Update III: From a reader:
Dear Jonah,
I'm sure that many others have commented to you on the obvious point that the NY
Times has now devoted more column space and more investigative research
resources to this Andy Martin guy in one week than they have on Barack Obama for
two years. It's nice to know that Martin is a crackpot. I mean, WHEW!, to
think I was about to vote for him for President. I'm glad that the Times is
looking out for us, I'd hate to think the devastation that this guy could wreak
on our economy and foreign policy.
I guess I can't blame the Times for not investigating Obama, though. I mean
they are kept so busy with Andy Martin and crazy lunatics at Republican rallies
that calmly voice concern about an Obama presidency. I mean they have a finite
amount of investigative resources - can't waste them on a barely known
presidential candidate with criminal, racist, radical, terrorist associates.
That would be sheer madness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10/13 07:50 PM Iran News Round Up (Oct. 14) [Ali Alfoneh and Michael Rubin]
[(E) signifies English link]
Diplomacy
Economy
Keep reading this post . . . 10/13 06:03 PM Stand Up and Fight [Peter Kirsanow]
Kathryn,
Sincerely glad to hear your correspondent says people were "jazzed" at the Virginia Beach rally. How much more jazzed might they have been if the "stand up and fight" litany had included references to ACORN, Ayers, Born Alive and Wright? Or fighting against smearing conservatives, Republicans and good folks in flyover country as racists ? Why are conservatives only allowed to fight with handcuffs on? 10/13 05:26 PM Connecticut Supremes (cont.) [Maggie Gallagher]
Connecticut insiders are buzzing about the possible consequences of Friday’s same-sex marriage decision for Question One on the ballot Nov. 4—a call for a state constitutional convention. (See
www.ctconcon.com for more info).
Connecticut, unlike California, has no direct initiative and referendum process. But in a unique feature of the Connecticut process, voters are asked every 20 years whether or not they wish to convene a constitutional convention, which would then have the authority to propose constitutional amendments to voters.
By an accident, or an act of God, the Connecticut court decision imposing same-sex marriagecame down less than three weeks before the once-in-twenty-years chance Connecticut voters have to call for a constitutional convention—this Nov. 4.
Question One asks: “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the state"?
A broad coalition of groups, including the Federation of Connecticut Taxapyer Organizations, eminent domain groups energized by the Kelo decision, and even some Green Party spokespeople have expressed support for the idea.
In the Sept. 29, Hartford Courant, for example, Mike De Rosa, head of the Green Party in Connecticut, told the newspaper, “We shouldn't be afraid of democracy." "A lot of conservative groups are looking at it from their own ideological paradigm," De Rosa said. "We see it as an opportunity to free the system, to open it up to more choices and more voices. That's very frightening to people."
About 2800 people, according to the Courant, attended a rally in late Sept. to promote a con-con sponsored by the Family Institute of Connecticut, a leading opponent of same-sex marriage in that state. (www.ctfamily.org)
The coalition’s goal in holding a constitutional convention is to bring a direct initiative and referendum process to Connecticut, similar to those in thirty-one other states.
On Friday, after the court ruling, , the Catholic Conference in Connecticut joined the list of groups urging Yes on Question One.
“This decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court also raises a very real concern about the infringement on religious liberty and freedom of speech with the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage,” the Connecticut bishops’ declared, “The real battle in this court case was not about rights, since civil unions provide a vast number of legal rights to same-sex couples, but about conferring and enforcing social acceptance of a particular lifestyle; a lifestyle many people of faith and advocates of the natural law refuse to accept.”
Polls before the same-sex marriage decision indicated a close vote on Question One.
Will Connecticut’s court decision put voters over the top?
10/13 05:14 PM On Criticizing Your Guy [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
A guy makes a point:
of course you should be honest about your opinion, but what purpose does it serve to offer up one that does nothing but undermine your candidate?
When my girlfriend shows up for a date dressed in a particularly awful outfit, I don't say anything. I just hope for the best. At that point in the evening, I don't see any other viable options.
Re: David's latest post and what Mark just said, I just point out what I wrote earlier: "David doesn't say what he says because he wants to be on TV, he says it because he believes it. But the mainstream media is so transparent." My main point, too, was a media point. David calls it as he sees it. He's not fishing for invites.
10/13 05:00 PM re: Frum [Mark R. Levin]
I never said Frum shouldn't voice his opinion. That would be silly. And why would he accept such advice from me or anyone else anyway. I think he was the first off the mark to condemn the Palin choice, or close to it. Good for him. But it is because of that opinion that he was invited on CBS, which was my only point. 10/13 04:31 PM The Dow Today [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:
Kathryn:
Isn’t this a golden opportunity for John McCain? Supposedly, the wheels came off his campaign when he “suspended” it to go to DC to work on the bailout/rescue. He was hammered, and the bad Dow action of the last week or so made it look like he put his campaign on the Pass line and the dice came up snake eyes. And his poll numbers dropped along with the Dow.
But now – why doesn’t he come out and say, “My friends, the good news in the stock market shows all of us that the rescue plan took some time to get going. It shows I am not afraid to put my political career on the line to do what I think is right for America. Some say I should have done what my opponent did: make no phone calls to wavering members of my own party, make a few bland but inconsequential speeches, quietly vote for the bill, and then trash my opponent at every opportunity. But that’s not who I am.
“Some people in my own party said I took too much of a political risk. But like my early and strong support for the Surge in Iraq, I always put the interests of my country ahead of my interests as a politician.
“Like all Americans I’m glad to see the effects of the bailout become apparent. And I trust that all Americans will see which candidate is willing to do what he believes in and not stand on the sidelines.”
I swear – his poll numbers would skyrocket.
I'm not a huge fan of the line of attack. But I totally see him saying something like it.
10/13 04:12 PM Re: Extra Credit [Stephen Spruiell]
Dozens of e-mails along these lines:
Ah yes, but you forget the true purpose of the "rebate": it's a redistribution of wealth from people who pay lots of income taxes to those who pay very little or none at all.
Makes sense then that you need to collect it first.
10/13 03:50 PM Stock Markets Like What They’re Seeing [Larry Kudlow]
Stocks are up over 900 points today, a record-breaking one-day rally. Good news is coming from the four corners of the world as the U.S., G-7, and G-20 are all working to stem the global banking crisis and credit freeze-up.
Most importantly, the Europeans and the Brits got out in front of the curve with a blanket guarantee for inter-bank lending. This in my view is the single-biggest solution for the credit-crunch problem. If banks won’t lend to each other, and they wont even make short-term loans to healthy businesses, then no one else is gonna get any credit — right down the line to the smallest Main Street store.
Now we are waiting for Paulson & Co. to make a similar guarantee of inter-bank loans for American banks. They are looking at it carefully, and I think the British and European actions are basically forcing the U.S. Treasury to move. Additionally, the Treasury is putting the final touches on their bank-recapitalization plan as well as their toxic-asset purchase plan. A big-bang Treasury announcement is now expected for tomorrow morning. Hopefully it will have plenty of meat on the bones.
Clearly, world stock markets are signaling strong approval of these government actions. The sooner credit starts flowing the shorter the recession is going to be. We have suffered what amounts to a credit-freeze spasm. But that spasm has spilled over into the economy. If credit starts flowing again, it is possible — amidst all the doom and gloom — that the economy could start rising a lot faster than almost anybody thinks.
The Fed is pumping in plenty of new cash. That’s a huge positive. And $80 a barrel oil, along with $3 a gallon retail gas at the pump, is a tax cut for the economy. In fact, as Democrats line up their latest package of spending and political-giveaway goodies — called a second stimulus plan — they don’t understand that plunging energy prices are the best stimulus plan of all.
Meanwhile, instead of temporary tax rebates all over again — after the first package did nothing earlier this year — John McCain should be yelling at the top of his lungs for permanently lower tax rates across-the-board. Let people keep their own money instead of hanging on the dole from government.
C’mon, Big Mac. Get moving. The clock is ticking. 10/13 03:27 PM Good Poll News for McCain [Larry Kudlow]
The highly accurate IBD/TIPP poll has started today with its daily tracking of likely voters. Just off the press: Obama 45; McCain 43; and 13 percent unsure. The poll of 825 likely voters has an error margin of +/- 3.5 percentage points. Also, McCain has a 48-41 lead among investors with 10 percent not sure. All this is good news for McCain. 10/13 03:22 PM Columbus Day or Paddington Bear [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
It was a hard choice for Google, I'm sure, but you know what they went with:
10/13 02:36 PM In Frum's Corner [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Just to be fair here, a reader who makes a point about David's view:
Conservatives for years have been critical of McCain's judgment and have criticized him on a variety of issues (the current lovefest notwithstanding). So why is it so inconceivable that a conservative like Frum has serious concerns about McCain's judgment regarding Palin? This seems entirely reasonable and expected for a group of people that (used to) have serious problems with McCain.
Frum's not pushing conservatism aside, as you imply. Like many, he wanted someone who matched or surpassed McCain in terms of experience, ability, world view, etc. Palin doesn't even come close. Frum has a certain standard and he doesn't think Palin meets it. It's possible to be fervently pro-McCain and anti-Palin, but if you really want McCain to win, I guess you're supposed to hide the latter.
10/13 02:02 PM Rallying Virginia [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Another e-mail from an attendee:
Just returned from the McCain-Palin rally in Virginia Beach. It was packed full of folks who wanted to scream their heads off for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. And by packed full, I mean that I sat in traffic for an hour and then stood in line for 45 minutes. Folks behind McCain were there at 3 am, I was told.
Palin made a few remarks about anger being turned to action, listing the things folks are angry with. Standard stuff, until the last one: Voter fraud! The crowd ate it up. Also, she pronounced Norfolk as Nor-fork which a lot of folks from other parts of the country tend to do.
McCain was on his message, though not everyone in the crowd was wild about his plan to buy up bad mortgages.
I came out of the rally feeling like it will be a close race here in VA, despite what's on the news.
10/13 02:00 PM Extra Credit [Stephen Spruiell]
The Democrats want another round of tax-rebate checks, in addition to the $100 billion in tax-rebate checks that went out last spring. Democrats are essentially conceding that tax cuts are good for the economy, but they are opposed to the kind of long-term tax relief workers and businesses can count on. They'd rather confiscate your money first, so they can take credit for giving it back. Viewed in this light, it is appropriate that so much of Obama's tax plan consists of "tax credits."
Ed Morrissey writes, "Put it this way: does it cost more to take money from taxpayers and then pay bureaucrats to filter it back to us, or just leave it in our pockets in the first place?" 10/13 01:47 PM Taxing Advice for Obama [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Another e-mail:
Is there a reason why McCain is having such a difficult time making the argument that taxing small businesses will kill job growth? It is a well-known fact that the primary creator of jobs in America are the very same businesses which Barack Obama plans to tax (i.e. those generating profits > $250,000). Therefore, it would seem that a very simple argument to make by McCain is simply the following:
“While Senator Obama may not tax you directly, by taxing the small businesses and companies who employ you, you stand to suffer a potentially much worse fate in the form of salary cuts or even worse...the loss of your job altogether. My plan is to make sure that the small businesses and companies who pay your salary, provide health insurance for your families and help fund your 401Ks, are going to have the support they need to compete in today’s difficult economic climate. For Senator Obama to even suggest taxing the small businesses and high-growth companies who your salary and create jobs for this country is not only irresponsible, it’s suicidal.
Therefore, the question you face is simple: Do you want a President who is going to kill job growth by increasing taxes on small business and then hand those monies over to Nancy Pelosi to spend as she, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and the rest of the Democrats see fit? Or do you want a President who is going to do everything I can to make sure you keep your job, increase your salaries and solidifies this country’s standing as the world’s greatest economic superpower? That shouldn’t be a difficult decision to make.”
10/13 01:46 PM E-mail from Va. Beach [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
This just in: "Dear KLO,
Just came from Rally in Va. Beach. Convention Center was full,
estimate 15,000 people. McCain gave great speech ending with the fight
litany. People were jazzed." 10/13 01:35 PM Health Insurance: Hopping and Shopping [Amy Holmes]
Obama says we shouldn't allow people to shop for insurance across state lines because some states allow health insurers to exploit nefarious loopholes.
Doesn't this argue for, not against, letting people in shop across state lines to get more favorable coverage?
In other words, if you are trapped in a state where these dubious entities are duping innocent policy holders, shouldn't you have the freedom to get on the Internet and escape to another plan?
Obama is in effect saying no. We have to be trapped in the tangle of our state's regulatory mess even if there is a better deal just over the fence.
I would ask Obama if he supports generic prescription-drug importation. I suspect the answer is yes, in which case he is saying we can get our drugs from Mexico, but we can't get our health insurance from Michigan. Pills from Canada "yes." Policies from Connecticut "no." Does that make any sense? 10/13 01:19 PM re: Reality, TV [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
No question about it, Mark. I never got more media requests than the day I criticized the campaign for holding Palin too tight, overcoaching her, and not setting her free. I didn't do any of those high-profile opportunities because I have no interest in attacking the McCain campaign on NBC or wherever. I want to win this thing. I want to be honest and criticize when necessary and doso here when necessary, but I have no interest in joining or hanging out with or helping the Obama press corps win the campaign for their new darling.
For the record, so I am not misinterpreted: David doesn't say what he says because he wants to be on TV, he says it because he believes it. But the mainstream media is so transparent. 10/13 01:16 PM Reality, TV [Mark R. Levin]
Let's be honest, Frum was invited on CBS because the producer knew he has expressed repeatedly his dislike of Palin. He represents a tiny fraction of conservatives but makes for good liberal TV. 10/13 01:09 PM Respectfully Disagreeing [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
David Frum was on CBS this morning and expressed his view that the choice of Sarah Palin was a mistake. He complained that it was a play to the base that hurts people like Coleman and Dole who need help, and some centering from the top of the ticket would help them and McCain.
I’m getting really frustrated with the reflex some on the Right have to want to push conservatism to the side or on hold. Someone has to hold the line at all times. Ideas have consequences. And so do campaign choices.
How about this exciting Sarah Palin talking more about McCain’s policies that are, in fact conservative? How about Palin talking about his record of good judgment on the surge and fighting against the excesses of government? How about Palin talking about his health-care plan? And I do think that she should continue to talk compassionately about abortion, because few can as she can. This does not reject either conservatism or non-ideological centrists who are moved by populist talk that touches their lives. 10/13 12:59 PM Hitchens [Mark R. Levin]
If you thought there was hope for this guy, reconsider. 10/13 12:55 PM This Is McCain in Virginia Beach Today [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I don't know how this gels with not being afraid of a President Obama. So let's have more of the fight you talk about below, Senator McCain, and less of the early surrender we saw over the weekend.
Three weeks from now, you will choose a new President. Choose well. There is much at stake.
These are hard times. Our economy is in crisis. Financial markets are collapsing. Credit is drying up. Your savings are in danger. Your retirement is at risk. Jobs are disappearing. The cost of health care, your children's college, gasoline and groceries are rising all the time with no end in sight. While your most important asset — your home — is losing value every day.
Americans are fighting in two wars. We face many enemies in this dangerous world, and they are waiting to see if our current troubles will permanently weaken us.
The next President won't have time to get used to the office. He won't have the luxury of studying up on the issues before he acts. He will have to act immediately. And to do that, he will need experience, courage, judgment and a bold plan of action to take this country in a new direction. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: waiting for our luck to change. The hour is late; our troubles are getting worse; our enemies watch. We have to act immediately. We have to change direction now. We have to fight.
I've been fighting for this country since I was seventeen years old, and I have the scars to prove it. If I'm elected President, I will fight to take America in a new direction from my first day in office until my last. I'm not afraid of the fight, I'm ready for it.
I'm not going to spend $700 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I'm going to make sure we take care of the people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington. I'm going to spend a lot of that money to bring relief to you, and I'm not going to wait sixty days to start doing it.
I have a plan to protect the value of your home and get it rising again by buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them so if your neighbor defaults he doesn't bring down the value of your house with him.
I have a plan to let retirees and people nearing retirement keep their money in their retirement accounts longer so they can rebuild their savings.
I have a plan to rebuild the retirement savings of every worker.
I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home.
Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.
The explosion of government spending over the last eight years has put us deeper in debt to foreign countries that don't have our best interests at heart. It weakened the dollar and made everything you buy more expensive.
If I'm elected President, I won't spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money, on top of the $700 billion we just gave the Treasury Secretary, as Senator Obama proposes. Because he can't do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I'm going to make government live on a budget just like you do.
I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren't working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.
If I'm elected President, I won't fine small businesses and families with children, as Senator Obama proposes, to force them into a new huge government run health care program, while I keep the cost of the fine a secret until I hit you with it. I will bring down the skyrocketing cost of health care with competition and choice to lower your premiums, and make it more available to more Americans. I'll make sure you can keep the same health plan if you change jobs or leave a job to stay home.
I will provide every single American family with a $5000 refundable tax credit to help them purchase insurance. Workers who already have health care insurance from their employers will keep it and have more money to cover costs. Workers who don't have health insurance can use it to find a policy anywhere in this country to meet their basic needs.
If I'm elected President, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Senator Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs. I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low, and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs.
If I'm elected President, I won't make it harder to sell our goods overseas and kill more jobs as Senator Obama proposes. I will open new markets to goods made in America and make sure our trade is free and fair. And I'll make sure we help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.
The last President to raise taxes and restrict trade in a bad economy as Senator Obama proposes was Herbert Hoover. That didn't turn out too well. They say those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Well, my friends, I know my history lessons, and I sure won't make the mistakes Senator Obama will.
If I'm elected President, we're going to stop sending $700 billion to countries that don't like us very much. I won't argue to delay drilling for more oil and gas and building new nuclear power plants in America, as Senator Obama does. We will start new drilling now. We will invest in all energy alternatives — nuclear, wind, solar, and tide. We will encourage the manufacture of hybrid, flex fuel and electric automobiles. We will invest in clean coal technology. We will lower the cost of energy within months, and we will create millions of new jobs.
Let me give you the state of the race today. We have 22 days to go. We're 6 points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we've got them just where we want them.
What America needs in this hour is a fighter; someone who puts all his cards on the table and trusts the judgment of the American people. I come from a long line of McCains who believed that to love America is to fight for her. I have fought for you most of my life. There are other ways to love this country, but I've never been the kind to do it from the sidelines.
Keep reading this post . . . 10/13 12:21 PM Trust [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Another e-mail:
McCain’s overriding theme in the debate and final stretch should be TRUST. Doubts about Obama must be given voice. Trust is the vehicle.
“My friends, who do you trust to lead our nation in a dangerous world? Who do you trust to lead our troops to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who do you trust to fund and equip our troops? Who do you trust to veto tax increases that will destroy jobs? Who do you trust to keep taxes low for all Americans? Who do you trust to veto wasteful spending? Who do you trust to protect trade agreements that export American products and increase jobs at home? Who do you trust to stop the government from taking over health care and destroying the finest health care system in the world? Who do you trust to appoint justices to the Supreme Court? Who do you trust to protect Israel from a nuclear Iran? Who do you trust to protect the Second Amendment?"
Ayres, Wright, Rezko… can you trust Obama when he lies and misleads about his friends? Do you want his friends spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom?
Trust, trust, trust… recall that this theme brought Hubert Humphrey from political oblivion to a dead heat against Richard Nixon in October 1968.
10/13 12:15 PM Adler, McCarthy, Obama [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
An e-mail:
What concerns me about Adler's reasoning is that he thinks the way a majority of Americans think. While admitting that there are things we need to know about Senator Obama, the question at hand is never the one that should be asked, so they move on. The unanswered questions are piling up and it's likely most will remain answered — at least for now. What should trouble the voters about Obama's association with radicals and felons is not what he sees in them, but what they see in him. What was it about Barack Obama that attracted the attention of Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko? What caused them to contribute money and influence to advance the political career of an unknown with no connections?
10/13 12:12 PM Krugman's Nobel [Jonah Goldberg]
Man, I'm getting it from all sides. Liberal fans of Krugman insist that he's a great economist so he must be a great columnist. Conservative foes of Krugman say he's a buffoonish columnist who has said so many silly things, including about economics, the Nobel is a joke. Well, I'm with my Productivity Guy on this one (he's a professional economist). He writes:
Jonah
I agree that Krugman’s Nobel was inevitable, and if it’s based entirely on his pre-NYT pundit career entirely deserved. The Nobel Committee focused on his international trade and economics of geography work, which is certainly important but many other economists were working the economies of scale-intl trade turf around the same time (e.g. Brander, Spencer and esp. Helpman, who he arguably should have shared the prize with). I think his work on international finance and speculative currency attacks is even more original and Noble-worthy.
However, his NYT opinions have been disgraceful and nearly negate the value of his earlier career. Compare the popularizing work of Milton Friedman to Krugman and it’s clear how far popular discussions of economic issues has fallen. Friedman certainly had a point of view, but his Newsweek columns in the 70s and 80s had an objective, almost tutorial tone. His conclusions and policy prescriptions flowed directly from a well-defined, neoclassical framework any professional economist would recognize. If you disagreed with Friedman (and many respected economists at the time did), he still defined issues in terms that led to a focused and reasonable debate. There was no incoherence or incompatibility between Friedman’s academic and popular writing, because he brought the academic standards of rigor and impartiality to the mass media.
Krugman couldn’t be more different. He routinely fudges facts and, when called on it, refuses to admit error. He never presents both sides of an argument dispassionately and then uses reason and observed experience to discern the truth. He consistently demonizes anyone who doesn’t agree with him. His shrill, hysterical voice trivializes honest differences and invites counter-attack rather than reasoned rebuttal. Plus he’s not even well-informed on many issues that fall outside his academic specializations.
I know the Nobel committee doesn’t judge entirely on the basis of someone’s career, but Krugman’s Nobel should make them rethink this. He continues to use his NYTimes column in a way that diminishes the intellectual standards of his field. This does significant, long-run harm to what the Nobel Committee calls “Economic Sciences,” perhaps entirely offsetting the value of Krugman’s academic contributions.
Update: From another professor of economics and e-friend:
Jonah,
I'm not sure that most economists believe "that Krugman really is a very serious and respected economist" in your words.
Instead, I would say most economists believe that Krugman really WAS a very serious and respected economist. He truly deserved this prize for his past work, but I would say a large part of the profession finds his later career as a pundit as an embarrassment to the economics profession, and wish he would have stuck to what he did best.
10/13 11:59 AM Obama's Associations Matter, Despite McCain's Failure to Explain Why [Mark R. Levin]
The Left, the Obama media, and the Messiah's campaign cry "personal attacks." Sarah Palin trivializes with phrases like "palling around with domestic terrorists." McCain wobbles from "liar" to" a decent person, a person that you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," and back again. But Obama's associations are still an important, and in fact a fundamental issue for voters.
Re ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshal Davis, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga, and all of the assorted leftists and figures of ambiguous or veiled allegiance that form an unbroken chain throughout Obama's life, it is not a question of "palling around." It is a question of shared worldview. The only candidate who has surrounded himself with and befriended a freak show of racists, anti-Semites, and America haters is Barack Obama. This isn't guilt by association. These are Obama's life experiences. And you'd think it would be more problematic than a few people in an audience shouting out some nasty things about Obama.
The task is not, as McCain suggested respecting Ayers, to demand, "We need to know the full extent of the relationship." Spoken like a true Senator — tell somebody else to do something. The task is for McCain to behave like a leader and rouse himself to explain the significance of these relationships in so far as what they tell us about the philosophical and historical understanding that will inform Obama's decisions and choices as president.
It is the tactic of the Left to shout down such efforts or demonize the messenger. John Lewis was Obama's perfect surrogate for such a ploy. It is also their tactic to redefine terms and misuse the language. So, we have the situation where raising Obama's relationship with racists is said to be racist. I understand this, and I understand Saul Alinksy. But it must be done and done effectively. This is not to say that this is the only course of conduct for the McCain campaign. There's actually so much out there for McCain to focus on that his failure to do so in a coherent way is frustrating as hell — including explaining the destructiveness of Obama's extreme big-government beliefs and proposals, should they be implemented. But McCain must have the will to engage in this fight or he will lose badly — we will lose badly.
10/13 11:16 AM Re: Re: Ayers as Obama's Ghost Writer [Andy McCarthy]
Gee, Jon, I guess it's too bad that other than the Cashill post, I've done no other work on Obama's background. I'll try to "do better than that." 10/13 10:53 AM Hush Hush [Mark R. Levin]
Notice, too, there is precious little discussion of this. I dare say the Old Media would be thrilled with this. 10/13 10:43 AM The Upside of Financial Crisis [Ramesh Ponnuru]
It creates an opportunity to implement Fareed Zakaria's ideas, however well baked they are. 10/13 10:41 AM Has Obama Won? [Ramesh Ponnuru]
It's my question at the Washington Post today. 10/13 10:39 AM Me on Bloggingheads [Ramesh Ponnuru]
I was on bloggingheads last week with Jonathan Chait. At one point, Chait expresses doubt about my contention that Kerry and Edwards had charged in 2004 that a re-elected Bush might bring back the draft. See here on that point.
In other Chait news, David Boaz takes issue with a swipe he took at George Shultz. 10/13 10:29 AM Re: Ayers as Obama's Ghost Writer [Jonathan Adler]
Andy — I agree that there are many troubling things about Obama, and there are many things that the press should — but has not — covered or investigated in any detail, including his relationship with Bill Ayers. I also don't think it is at beyond the pale to speculate about the provenance of his books, or even to suggest that to suggest he may have had help. But it's still a giant leap to Cashill's suggestion that Ayers was the actual writer of Obama's book, his "analysis" notwithstanding. There are more serious issues at stake, and we can do better than that. 10/13 10:19 AM Islamists Take Over Turkish National TV [Michael Rubin]
The Islamist consolidation continues. 10/13 10:13 AM Teenagers Acting Better Than Their Elders [Lisa Schiffren]
I was going to e-mail this story about a town in Texas where the high-school kids voted a classmate with Down Syndrome homecoming queen to all of the people I know who have expressed horror or contempt for Sarah Palin for not aborting Trig. But that would have taken too long. And it wouldn't change anyone's mind. It would be nice to know how these teens emerged with such kindness and maturity from the angst-ridden, self-absorbed high-school years. If an educator had anything to do with it, we should be hearing more from her. 10/13 10:12 AM Iran News Round Up (Oct. 13) [Ali Alfoneh and Michael Rubin]
[(E) signifies English link]
Terrorism
- Khorshid newspaper, mouthpiece of the Social Security Organization, discloses secret information on Lebanese Hezbollah: "Seyyed Abbas Mousavi was the former chief of Lebanese Hezbollah. Upon his martyrdom on February 16th 1992...Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah - the current secretary general of this party - became his successor. Informed sources have said that in case the Zionists succeed in assassinating Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, Seyyed Hashem Safi al-Din, the executive director of this party in Beirut, will replace him."
- (E) Four Kurdish terrorists killed in Iran.
- (E) Iran denies Foreign Minister Mottaki was targeted for assassination in Pakistam.
Economy
Keep reading this post . . . 10/13 09:59 AM The Utility of Obama's Race Card [Peter Kirsanow]
Now Fidel Castro agrees with Obama supporters that racism has infected the campaign. Perfect.
As both Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn note, accusations or insinuations of racism have been part of Obama's campaign strategy since the primaries. The media have cooperated enthusiastically in this endeavor, painting substantive criticisms of Obama as racist.
Obama has deployed the race card so frequently that by now it should be a separate campaign issue: i.e., will Obama govern in the same way? Will opposition to a trillion dollar Obama tax increase be condemned as racist? What about Obama's plans for scrapping missile defense? Can a senator vote against confirming Deval Patrick to the Supreme Court without evoking images of Bull Connor?
The problem for Obama is that protests of racism have limited utility. It's unlikely charges of racism will deter Putin from annexing Georgia. Ahmadinejad won't reconsider obliterating Israel just because he might be called a racist. Financial markets are impervious to cries of racism.
Perhaps the Obama strategy will prove to be brilliant. Maybe there won't be a voter backlash against Obama's repeated suggestions that millions of Americans, and Sarah Palin in particular, have hooded robes stashed in their closets. But even if he wins with such a strategy, it's a risky and toxic way to govern.
10/13 09:47 AM Who Holds the Race Card? [Mark R. Levin]
While we're on the subject of race, Obama has been running a campaign based heavily on race. He campaigns one way in black areas and another in white areas. Watching local television in northern Virginia last night, I saw that Obama is running a new ad which highlights his white grandfather and white mother, with plenty of photos. 10/13 09:46 AM Lopsided Sense of Outrage [Mark R. Levin]
So, a couple of idiots at a McCain-Palin rally apparently called Obama an Arab or a terrorist, and the entire McCain campaign, Republican base, or whatever, are said to be fomenting racism. And McCain and his advisers are so easily intimidated that they waste 48 precious campaign hours defending themselves against something they have not done. I received a call on my radio show last week from an Obama supporter accusing President Bush and John McCain of being terrorists and mass murderers. And these kind of calls have actually been going on since the beginning of the Iraq war. And in this regard my show is not unique. Yet, where is the outrage? There is none. And are Obama and his campaign responsible for the latest of these outbursts? Come on! What a crock. 10/13 09:44 AM Markets Surging [Jonah Goldberg]
Dow up 416. 10/13 09:37 AM Try a Little Tenderness.... [Victor Davis Hanson]
Given the faux outrage over McCain's campaign by an assortment of Obama appendages, and according to this logic that the candidate is responsible for the outbursts of any and all supporters, one would hope then that Obama could get ahold of the more ugly group of his supporters, and take the responsibility for them to cool it—perhaps just a word or two from the Senator about reining in their hate speech to a Sandra Bernhard, or a Madonna, or Whoopi Goldberg, or the hundred or so celebrities in Hollywood who have said some rather creepy things, or to Ludacris, or a warning to Rep. Lewis about cooling the bit about McCain's campaign and the blowing up of little girls.
Perhaps at some point St. Obama might say something like the following: "Our hope and change campaign has naturally raised expectations; but I appeal to all my zealous supporters to refrain from character assassination of my opponents. So please—no more photo-shopping of Sen. McCain's picture, or spreading untruths on the Atlantic Magazine website about VP candidate Sarah Palin's last pregnancy. And, please supporters: do not hack into Gov. Palin's email, and do not swarm radio stations to silence Dr. Kurtz. Nor is there any reason to sue to remove my opponent's ads. And above all, my Acorn friends, do not register to vote those who never exited."
Instead of calls to "get in their face" and talk about bringing a gun to a knife fight, or suggestions of Sen. McCain being "confused" or "losing his bearings" from Sen. Obama, perhaps he might offer just a tiny bit of ethical admonition from on high to restore a sense of civility to this election campaign. 10/13 09:37 AM Bailout, North Korea ... [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
... is this all an argument against second terms? 10/13 09:34 AM Unfriendly Rhetoric [Mark R. Levin]
I've been out of pocket since Thursday, but turned on the Sunday shows and nearly hurled. John Lewis plays the race card like no one else. The idea that he would use George Wallace's name to describe the McCain/Palin campaigning is sickening. John Lewis is not to be criticized given the abuse against him during the civil-right marches, but John McCain can be compared to Wallace despite his heroic service to this country and torture as a POW.
Barack Obama's campaign has managed to paint Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin as racists. Meanwhile, how dare anyone suggest that Obama's voluntary association with a racist pastor for 20 years, and his lame defense of the association, raises character questions.
Will the lib media be upset if we quote Aristotle, whose insight seems useful in this context?
"Those, then, are friends to whom the same things are good and evil; and those who are, moreover, friendly or unfriendly to the same people; for in that case they must have the same wishes, and thus by wishing for each other what they wish for themselves, they show themselves each other's friends." (Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book II, Chapter)
We choose our own friends and associates. And this is significant in Obama's case in particular as we are trying to get a sense of who he is and what informs him. Obama is asking the nation to honor him with its highest office. Yet, during most of his adulthood, he has befriended some of the worst kind of people — many of whom detest the nation Obama seeks to lead. And when combined with Obama's own extremism on issue after issue (is there a left-wing position he does not embrace?), there can be no doubt that an Obama administration working with a Democrat majority in Congress will fundamentally alter the nation's character in ways that will be very difficult to unravel.
As for Obama's commercials, they are deceitful even by the Washington Post's standards. They flat out lie about McCain's health-care plan and the tax consequences. Indeed, one of the sources he cites for the truthfulness of his ad is the Center for America's Progress, which is John Podesta's group. But Obama doesn't care. He is spending a fortune on the ads, hoping to scare people into believing McCain will take their health care away. Obama's ad about McCain's position on corporate taxes is another flat out lie. McCain isn't proposing a $4 billion tax for oil companies or loopholes for corporations. He opposes letting the Bush tax cuts lapse and wants to further reduce corporate tax rates across the board. Obama has been called on the ad as well, but he is running them non-stop.
And then there is ACORN. Obama worked for them, represented them, and has now given them $800,000 from his campaign. Is Obama unaware of what a fraudulent operation this is? Of course not. He rejects any responsibility for their actions. And what of Obama's thuggish tactics in intimidating those with whom he disagrees? He asked the Justice Department to prosecute a private group that was running ads about his ties to William Ayers — and later sought tax information from them to file complaints with the IRS. He tried to silence our own Stanley Kurtz by using his campaign e-mail list to encourage calls to the management of a radio station on two separate occasions to keep Kurtz off the air. And then they flooded the show with calls when Kurtz was on.
The vast majority of conservative intellectuals and grassroots activist comprehend what's at stake in the election, even if David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Doug Kmiec, and other eccentrics do not. Obama and David Axelrod know exactly what they are doing, and so do most of the media anchors and reporters. And they hope to alter this country in ways we should all find revolting. 10/13 09:11 AM Let's Just Get It Out of the Way Now [Jonah Goldberg]
Congratulations professor Krugman.
Update: A lot of readers write in to tell me the prize must be a joke, that it's political etc. I have no idea whether, or how much, politics entered the decision — though politics often does. But I think folks need to know that Krugman really is a very serious and respected economist. I have no idea how his academic work has held up since he became a pundit. But people have been talking about him getting a Nobel for years. Look, Noam Chomsky's a great linguist. Being good at your academic specialty has never been a great indicator of your political acuity. 10/13 08:48 AM They Voted With Their Feet [John J. Miller]
This weekend, as the Cuban national soccer team was preparting to play the U.S. team in Washington, D.C., two of its members defected:
Sharing details in a telephone interview with The Washington Post last night, Alcantara said he was in the lobby, wearing a casual shirt, shorts and tennis shoes, when he saw the coaches wander into the gift shop. He rode the escalator down to street level and "started running like crazy and didn't look behind," he said through an interpreter who arranged the interview and requested anonymity for political reasons.
After sprinting for about eight blocks, Alcantara said he flagged down a taxi and, with the few words of English he knew, told the driver, "Go, go, go!"
Apparently the worker's paradise isn't all that it's cracked up to be:
Alcantara described poor treatment of soccer players: bad food that was rationed, terrible field conditions and a lack of equipment, cleats and uniforms. Because there are technically no professional athletes in Cuba, Alcantara said his occupation was officially maintenance worker at a sports complex, a job he neve |
|
|
