Note to the President

Mr. President,

Having just read through your remarks today, I have to ask, were your exit pollsters also pushing Proposition 19 in California?

Listen, when you lose over 60 seats in the House, and the #1 reason given by voters is that the government has gone too far with health care reform and spending, you should listen. Instead, I see a guy who may think doubling down in the next two years is a good thing.

I don't believe for a second the entire health care bill can be removed, you've still got a veto pen, and Harry Reid in charge of the Senate. However, you are going to have to scale it back. If not, you're party becomes the "Party of No" come 2012, like "No Senate, No White House".

Secondly, don't listen to Robert Reich. Yeah, he's smart in some ways, and somehow survived Clinton's move to the center. But if you take his advice and continue to tack left, you'll find no help anywhere. There are a number of Senators in your party who have to live through 2012, they won't if they side with you on more far left agenda items. (Ask Russ Feingold how it worked out for him).

Finally, guys like Tom Daschle and Trent Lott are going to start offering you advice on how to not only get along for the next two years, but possibly thrive. Listen to them. You may in your heart of hearts believe you are the smartest guy in the room, but they are the most experienced; and one thing I've learned in life is that a lot of degrees don't always make you the best for the job, but a lot of experience usually does.

Read The Full Post!

Biting Dogs?

So, after last nights earthquake in Massachusetts, one has to start wondering if the block of "Blue Dog Democrats" will finally find their teeth.

The Blue Dogs are supposed to be the fiscally conservative wing of the Democrats, especially in the House. However, what they've proven to be is an easily bought off group who has let every spending bill go through in exchange for some kibbles and bits.

Last night, however, might have provided the impetus for them to actually grow some teeth and stand up to Nancy Pelosi. Unlike Martha Coakley, who lost in a state that has been solidly Democratic since 1972, the Blue Dogs mostly come from conservative districts and got their jobs promising the fiscal conservatism that Republicans forgot about from 2002-2006. So for them, last night has to be a shocker, and a wake up call. If they want to keep their seats, they may well have to dump Pelosi's ideas on health care and demand a true bipartisan effort.

The idea of "ping ponging" an unabridged Senate health care bill through the House to get it to Obama's desk is something that the Blue Dogs should resist, if they want to stay in office come November. Since Pelosi will have no ability to bribe for votes offer amendments to gain favor with them, they are now in control of the health care debate, if they wish to be.

As the leadership in their party spends the next few days to a week deciding what to do with ObamaCare, it will become evident to the rest of us what is more important to that leadership, maintaining their majorities in 2011, or getting an unpopular bill passed.

Read The Full Post!

This Is Not A Referendum!

Do as the MSM and White House are doing, and say to yourself over and over "the election results in Virginia and New Jersey are not a referendum on Barack Obama or the Democrats". Just keep saying it, at some point you'll believe it, they do.

The truth is Barack Obama & Company spent a lot of time in New Jersey trying to save John Corzine from his record. Tim Kaine, the head of the DNC is the outgoing governor of Virginia, and the GOP took his seat, and a few others in the state. The NY Times and Washington Post will undoubtedly repeat the party line that these aren't referendums on the Democrats, they are.

The party line is that the "Obama coalition" didn't show up to vote in those elections. The young, and people of color chose to stay home, even though Obama showed up five times in New Jersey to beg to come out and vote and make a difference. That is somewhat of a referendum on President Obama's staying power. He's not as new and cool as he was last year.

Add to that fact that the ballots were pretty much stuffed with white guys who are career politicians, and you have a recipe for not getting out the youth vote, or the minority vote. This is something that the Democrats will have to keep in mind for the 2010 mid-term elections.

New York's 23rd Congressional District did go to the Democrats. I'm not sure that is a true indicator of anything though, since the "GOP" candidate dropped out Saturday and endorsed the Democratic candidate, leaving Doug Hoffman of the Conservative Party out on his own. The State GOP can blame themselves for that loss, though. They put up a candidate as a Republican who's farther left than many Democrats, and wonder why she didn't poll well and couldn't raise money.

Another interesting tidbit, Maine it was thought, would be one of the first states to pass a Gay Marriage ballot referendum, and instead it wend down. This didn't surprise me. Maine has an independent streak as a state, but generally runs a little bit to the right. They elect moderate republicans to the Senate all the time. So the idea that this didn't fly up there shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, except the folks that thought the 2008 elections mean the entire country shifted to the left.

Read The Full Post!

GOP Minority Agenda

Here's a weird thought. The GOP will be in the minority, though I doubt a filibuster proof one in the Senate, come January, and a bigger one in the House.

The first order of business on their plate should be to ALLOW the Democrats, as soon as possible, to pass their new "fairness doctrine" bill. Why would I, a conservative, who knows that the whole idea is to kill talk radio want this to happen? Easy, an Obama president and Senate probably won't get to put anyone on the Supreme Court for the next year, and probably won't replace a conservative for 2 or 3 years. So, you get the law passed while you have a majority on the court who enjoy free speech, and then challenge it.

Once you get something tossed; and I think you would at the first lawsuit in the right district court; and challenged to the top, as with most court precedent, it's hard to overturn.

Secondly, the GOP, as a party, not just a few folks, need to eschew earmarks for the next two years. Not only not ask for them, but vote no on everyone of them, and publicize them. David Obey from Wisconsin was going to champion their reform for the Democrats. He has instead found more new and creative ways to hide them. The GOP needs to avoid them, and point out who's spending the money and where it's going.

Thirdly, they need to be the vocal, annoying minority that the Democrats were for a dozen years. They've wasted the last two years defending George Bush instead of pointing out the hypocrisy of what got the Democrats elected in 2006 and what they've actually done in Congress (nothing).

Finally, they need to clean house on the leadership side. McConnell, Bohner, and the whole crew need to be tossed down the stairs, and get new, young leadership in place.

One of the great things about the 24 hour news cycle, and our collective short memories is that by May of 2010, when races for the House and Senate start heating up, everything will be the new President and Congress's fault. The Democrats will have a hard time blaming a minority party, and President gone for 18 months for all that ails them in Congress.

Read The Full Post!

Shake the Elitist Tag?

I got a laugh today, reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page (from yesterday) while getting an oil change.

A lady by the name of Lynn Forester De Rothschild wrote a piece called "Democrats Need to Shake The 'Elitist' Tag". I'm sorry, but when Barack Obama is getting lectured by a lady named De Rothschild, who's a lawyer and CEO of a private investment firm, about being an elitist, I find it funny. It's kind of like having (the late) George Carlin tell you to quit clowning around.

She is actually correct in what she says, but she should have used a pen name for the article. Democrats in particular, and the left in general, do need to shake that tag. But it's a hard one to get rid of.

The problem is elitism implies that they are smarter than everyone else; and if you ask them they will tell you all about it. Obama has been doing it for months on the campaign trail. His party's surrogates have been doing it for years, long before Al Gore lost in 2000.

A great example of liberal elitism is Roger Ebert's issues with Sarah Palin (h/t to Charlie):

And how can you be her age and never have gone to Europe? ... Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a hopeless provincial. ... Palin is a shallow, chirpy person with those vaguely alarming eyeglasses. Now her fans all want a pair. Remember back when women wore glasses that departed their ears in plastic swoops and swirls? My theory is, anyone who wears glasses that look weird is telling me something I don't want to know. I trust the American people will see through Palin's facade, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.

Hey Roger, I've gotten to be her age, and only went to Europe because Uncle Sam thought it would be a nice detour on my way to Long Beach, California. I could have afforded to go more recently, but thought it more important to put money into my home, and my kids education.

A whole lot of people that the Democrats and liberals supposedly care about; working stiffs; reach 40, or 50, or 60, and can't afford to visit Europe. According to Roger, that makes them hopeless provincials.

Ms. Forester De Rothschild makes a good point, that part of John McCain's appeal to the folks slightly left of center is that he could be an elite, but refused to become one. He came from a good family, with a famous father, yet he abandoned using that when he was a POW. Many folks don't realize he could have come home quite quickly, because of his name, but refused.

With Barack Obama we get reminded not of his deeds for and towards others; with the exception of his hazy 'community organizing'; but of what he did for himself. That's a sure sign that you are an elitist.

When you haven't reached 50, but you have written two books, about yourself, it's hard not to be seen as an elitist snob. And he wonders why he's having a hard time connecting to Mr & Mrs Middle America.

In not too many weeks we'll be holding an election. The Democrats should be worried that the middle class they want to appeal to so badly, mostly through bribes and giveaways, will decided that they like the idea of a war hero and moose hunter better than the editor of the Harvard Law Review and a 35 year Washington insider.

Mr. Middle America probably used to dream of flying fighter jets, and shooting moose. His wife probably knows the pressure felt when trying to raise a family, hold a job, and still get dinner on the table, all the while dealing with the neighborhood gossip mongers.

None of them probably thought of getting a Harvard Law degree and being stuck in the Senate for 35 years.

*********************************
Update from Yesterday's Post on ABC's Palin Interview.

Time Magazine's online poll question today is

Do you agree with Sarah Palin that the US should go to war to defend Georgia if necessary?

This, as was much of the Gibson interview, is a distortion of her actual position, and takes the answer to a hypothetical question and turns it into an absolute position.

Remember, she answered that IF Georgia was admitted to NATO AND Russia attacked, yes we would be required under the treaty to help defend them. Here actual position on circumstances as they are now is that economic pressure is the best way to get Russia to back off.

Read The Full Post!

Dear Senator Obama

Dear Readers, there is some rather rough language in the article below, sorry, but I'm a working class guy, from a working class family. I grew up learning early, and often, that when someone is full of shit, you call them on it. I'm calling Senator Obama on that fact.

Dear Senator Obama,

Out of curiosity, I thought I'd write this and ask; in all seriousness; has anyone ever told you that you are full of shit? Not in a joking, two guys in the bar telling stories sort of way, but instead in a serious, you can't believe that I'd believe that crap sort of way.

First, you want us to believe that those questionnaires, with your notes on them from your Illinois Senate days don't mean anything, because your staffers answered them for you. Come on, you've got to be full of shit if you think any sane person believes that.

Reverend Wright, who married you, baptized your children, and was proclaimed your spiritual mentor in one of your books turns out to be a flaming bigot. First, you say in 20 years in the pews you never heard anything like what was on You Tube. Oprah did, she left the church. Then, when cornered again by his ranting, you make a speech where you contradict yourself and say you did, in fact hear him say such things, and were appalled. Hello.... Didn't you listen to yourself when you said you hadn't heard it? Again, to believe anything you'd say on the subject of Reverend Wright, I'd have to have fallen off of a turnip truck, recently.

The Tony Rezko who was recently convicted of trying to buy the state government isn't the guy you knew who threw parties for you and had dinner with you. There was nothing goofy about the real estate deals, and at that time, you didn't "really know him" that well. The dinner parties, etc. didn't come out until the trial got into full swing. Again, either you think everyone who votes is an idiot, or you'd have to be one. I'm not sure which would be sadder.

Father Pfleger got up in your church, mocked Hillary Clinton, (who needs it occasionally, but not like that) and goes on a tirade about "whitey". Suddenly, the Priest in charge of your Catholic outreach, whom you've gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in earmarks for isn't the guy you knew? I've only lived in the Chicago area nine years, but when I heard Father Pfleger was speaking at Trinity, I knew what would come out of his mouth. You've been here much longer, and to claim you were shocked would once again show how full of shit you must be.

Finally, this Jim Johnson fiasco. I'm glad he resigned from the job he didn't have with you to find a Vice Presidential nominee. How exactly does that work, when someone is telling you who should and shouldn't be on the short list, but doesn't work for you? BULLSHIT!

If George Bush tried to make such a claim you'd be on him like cold on ice, like white on rice, and like stink on shit. The media would laugh him out of the Oval Office. Yet we're supposed to not only believe such crap from you, but just quit asking questions?

Senator, sorry, but I don't buy any of your lines of crap. You are, at best, a 3rd rate hack of a Chicago politician, who's done nothing of consequence in your life, not just your political career. Your career was handed to you by Emil Jones and the Chicago Tribune, not by your actual accomplishments. If the papers hadn't sued to get divorce records opened, and Jones hadn't handed you the work of others to claim as your own, you'd still be rotting in Springfield.

Yet you think we should make you president? How about writing some real legislation, get some real nads and disagree with Harry Reid once or twice, publicly, and actually do something other than miss votes. Then come talk to us about being President. Until then, just shut up and go away.

Bob,
Zion, IL

Read The Full Post!

Good for the GOP

The Republicans in the US Senate today blocked the Democrat's windfall profits gimmick, oops, tax from getting a vote on the floor. The bill needed 60 votes to get past a GOP filibuster, and only got 51, signalling it's death, for now.

While Barack Obama and others have claimed the GOP sold out the working class, that's simply class warfare rhetoric that wouldn't pass a basic economics test. How exactly does increasing taxes on oil companies help the working class? For those who failed to take, or just plain failed Econ in their sophomore year of High School, here's a hint, it wouldn't lower prices, it would raise them. Raising costs on producers has never lowered prices to consumers.

Some features of the bill sounded good, as campaign year sound bites but also fail the basic econ test. For instance, the idea that part of that tax could be abated by investing the money in refinery expansion. The problem, there is nothing in the bill to reduce the regulatory and legal hurdles that keep refinery expansion from happening quickly. It takes years to get approval, and past the judges, to do such expansion. Since the taxes aren't abated until the money is spent, it doesn't seem like a "win win" for the refiners.

Second, the idea that congress can somehow help lower the price of oil by "curbing speculation" is a folly. The solution was to require more collateral for oil trading on the market, and regulating US investments in energy in foreign mercantile exchanges. The first would just drive trading out of the US. The second would likely lead to a pull of foreign money from our markets, as other countries "regulated" their people trading across borders. Then suddenly this wouldn't look like such a good idea.

The final folly of the bill was the reduction of tax breaks to oil companies. Now, I'm not necessarily in favor of them. But let's think about this logically. The 10 billion or so they are talking about are tax breaks given to oil companies who invest in domestic production, and alternative fuels. Congress would like to take those breaks back, and give them to other people to............ find ways to produce more domestic energy, and look at alternative fuels! ARGHHHH!

Here's a few things to keep in mind about the profits of energy companies. The numbers are big, but the percentage isn't that great. For example, Exxon Mobile and Chevron had profit margins of 10.85% and 8.61% respectively according to Capital IQ. Bank of America on the other hand, had a 21.03% margin, Baxter Health Care, 15.12%, Apple Computer 15.13%, Yahoo!, 14.89%.
Will Congress decide that the profit margins of Apple and Yahoo, being 33% higher than Exxon have to have a "windfall" tax on them, also?

Good for the GOP, it takes balls to stand up in an election year, with high fuel prices, to the demagoguery of the Democrats. If you are one of the (evidently) millions of stooges who think anything in Congress's bill would have actually lowered your price at the pump, I've got a Lake in Central Wisconsin for sale, come see me.

Read The Full Post!

On the Democratic Nominee

William J. Bennett, who's been a member of both political parties, held cabinet level posts in the Reagan and H.W. Bush White Houses' and is now a political pundit, and author had this to say today in Nation Review Online's "The Corner":

My Old Party

This is an astounding moment in American politics. You cannot credibly say the Clintons are a political dynasty the way, say, the Kennedys or Bushs are. But I think one has to say the Clinton rule of the Democratic party has been dynastic. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to have served two terms as president in two generations, the only Democrat to twice beat Republican nominees for president and his wife is a two term U.S. senator who will likely be in the Senate for years to come. Bill Clinton has been rated one of — if not THE — most popular person in the world, and yet Clinton rule in American politics ends tonight. Whatever it was the Republicans and so many independents did not like about the Clintons, we’ve learned the Democrats have had enough as well.

And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.

Most of the main reasons for Hillary staying in this race this long are listed there by Bennett. Like it or not, (and many of his supporters don't) Barack Obama is probably the least vetted candidate for President either party has tossed out there since Carter.

For those not from Illinois, who think that Obama took the state by storm when he won his Senate race a few years ago, the truth is he was getting kicked like a lame dog until the Chicago Tribune and a few others rescued him, twice.

In the primaries in 2004 he was all but sure to lose, until the papers and a few other folks started filing tons of court requests to unseal Blair Hull's divorce record. Messy divorce, and Hull is out of the primary.

Jump to the general election, when, again, Obama was getting ready to go down to a guy with a real story of helping in the inner city. A millionaire trader and partner at Goldman Sach's, who quit trading and started teaching high school. Again, the Tribune and others got Jack Ryan's divorce (From uber-hottie Jeri Ryan) unsealed, and it seems Jack had some skeletons. And BOOM! You get Obama as a Senator.

Thomas Sowell, also writing at NRO, urges voters to get past the election year rhetoric of Barack Obama, and look at his actual legislative record. Again, his handlers will tell you things like "he didn't read the questionaire", or "you're misinterpretting what he meant", to get around the fact that he has the most liberal record in the Senate.

Sowell is correct, you have to look at the record as a whole, not the promises made in an election year. I've urged people for years to get rid of the one issue mentality, and to get away from buying politicians from used car salesmen. Yet, you discover while reading what people write in defense of Obama and his record, that many people are driving used cars. In fact, it seems the entire leadership of the Democratic Party is happy as hell with that 81 Cutlass they got for a steal.

Finally, over at "The Page" Mark Halperin writes about What Obama and Clinton underestimate
and points out a number of things that he doesn't feel Obama is ready for. The main one's being how unready Obama is for the media focus he will get, and how ready the GOP is to help sharpen that focus.

While many in Democratic circles have fretted over the long, drawn out primary season, the truth is, it will be nothing compared to what happens in the next five months. While there were a few unladylike outbursts from Hillary, the truth is Obama's record will now get the vetting she refused to give it, but warned was coming.

While Hillary stayed off the Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers connetions (for the most part) the GOP won't. Expect to see ads about Obama's connection to unrepentent domestic terrorists, convicted (soon) political sleeze, and racist ministers of multiple colors and faiths regularly for the next few months.

Hillary didn't bring up Obama's views on partial birth abortion (doesn't see the problem), gun laws (we shouldn't have guns, then we wouldn't need laws), taxes, Iran, etc. The GOP, McCain, and their surrogates will, loudly.

One of the things that general elections do that primaries don't, since you generally don't trash your own party too badly in them, is focus on what you've done. McCain has a long list he can point to, and even use to move across party lines. Yes, some of it has angered Republicans, but the truth is, he can say he's always done what he thought was best. Not always a trait you find in politicians.

Obama, on the other hand, has a thin record at best, and little of it appeals to anyone who considers themselves a centerist, or slightly right leaning person. While "Hope and Change" sound great, so would an answer to the question "What have you done in the Senate?".

Read The Full Post!

The Association Game

Barack Obama's campaign started showing it's game plan for the general election this weekend. One of the points they made is that the "Keating 5" scandal of the late '80's is on the table and in play.

For a few reasons I find it an odd choice of things to run out. First, if the Democrats want to get "down and dirty" with the Keating 5, they'll be reminded that 4 of the 5 were Democrats. The only one of the 5 to be officially censured by the Senate wasn't McCain, it was a Democrat (Alan Cranston).

John will probably bring out the Keating 5 special investigator, Robert Bennett, who'd recommended no charges to brought, or reprimand given to McCain. Bennett has said on many TV shows, and in his own book that McCain was charged only because the Senate Ethics Committee (chaired by Democrats) didn't want it to be a "Democrat's only" scandal.

The other thing that could cause the Keating 5 issue to backfire on Obama is the aftermath. It would be easy to see why McCain could have gotten bitter, and been a pain in the ass for Democrats after they toss him under a bus to make themselves look less bad. Instead, he spent the next 11 years working with Democrats to come up with a workable (though questionable) campaign finance reform bill.

Obama has no such story to tell. He can't tell, legislatively, where he's taken a stand on anything unpopular with his party. He can't say "Here's where I made a mistake, and this is how I worked to fix it". McCain can say that, and has the laws to prove it.

The other problem for Obama is that playing the "associate game" with McCain is probably a minefield he should stay out of. Amy Geiger-Hemmer has a nice piece up with some of the questionable characters associated with the Obama camp. I don't agree that every name on her list should be there, they are very peripheral players in the Obama world, but other should bother you when you read about them.

Read The Full Post!

Spin Cycle

The spin cycle has gotten running so fast on the elections that I think I'm stuck in my washing machine. If you don't believe it, go to the Washington Post editorial page, where there are five by-line columns devoted to the idea of the campaign, four of them on the fate of Hillary Clinton.

Depending on your angle, Hillary has to drop out to save the party, should stay in to save the party, should fly to the moon to save the party.

Harold Meyerson over at the WaPo has written the liberal view on what a lot of conservatives have been saying about the final outcome of the Democrat's process in "Titans On The Mat".

That view is that Clinton can't win without destroying the party. A victory by her will assure that the black vote stays home, or shows in a dwindling number come november. The youth vote that Obama has gained would walk too, and then of course, Hillary would be crushed by McCain.

The problem with that is if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, then you have the Florida and Michigan voters who will (rightfully) be able to say that Obama didn't want them counted. Make no mistakes about it, quotes from Obama and his crew that killed any possibility of a revote in those states back in March and April, and having them count will pop up in October.

This hasn't been discussed much since April when Obama killed the "do over" vote plans in both states, and now acts as if they don't exist.

The other group that will probably bail on Obama in fair numbers is the white working class. Especially those in the upper middle class who will be reminded (ad naseum) of his tax plans that will crunch that group hard. He hasn't done well with them in any state, and it's hard to believe a scenario where suddenly they find him the savior. In fact many of them might be a little "bitter" about him.

Finally, and I think this group is ignored way to often by the media and politicians, the older vote. Hillary Clinton has carried the AARP vote in every primary. Many of them will see in McCain a guy their age, or slightly older, with more experience, who can talk to them.

And while the Democrats love to rage about the youth vote, the AARP group is voting in much bigger numbers in every primary. When you break down the demographics, it's a much more important block of voters than the unreliable youth, who may well lose interest by November if a good PS3 games comes out.

It's going to be an interesting time, the next few weeks, as Hillary tries to hang on, and I think eventually realizes she can't. But she will try, and may well alienate more voters in the process, creating a bigger chasm in the Democratic Party in the process.

Read The Full Post!

It's Going to Go Nuclear

Looks like today's primary results won't result in Hillary Clinton leaving the race. While she's only winning Indiana by 5-6%, she "only" lost North Carolina by about 14%, or 10% better than she'd been polling there a few weeks ago.

I think the party leaders will be screaming before next weeks primary in West Virginia for Clinton to drop out. They've been asking kind of nicely up until now; but she'll probably win that in a landslide, and Kentucky on the 20th; and they don't want her to reload the "I'm more electable" cannon and start shooting it off. Considering she's moved up in most polls by 5-10 points in Oregon, and could make that a close race, the leaders want her out.

The more I think about it, the more I think that there is going to be a nuclear war in the Democratic Party, with Clinton lobbing the missiles. And, while I dislike both of them, she's got not only a right to do it, but a point.

The "Electability Arguement", whether Obama supporters like it or not, is a valid one. And, again whether they like it or not, he hasn't done well in any large state that Democrats "have" to win to take the White House except Illinois, which isn't a surprise. When it comes to swing states, he's hasn't done particularly well and doesn't poll well against McCain.

Expect to start hearing from Hillary's folks about electability, and the popular vote, with Florida and Michigan counted, since with those votes she's ahead in the popular vote. In fact, expect her to fully channel Al Gore's 2000 mantra of "every vote must count" on a regular basis for the next week or so, fighting to get the delegates from those states seated.

One other bomb waiting to be dropped on Obama before June is the Tony Rezko verdict. That case rested yesterday, with closing arguements next week and then to the jury. If there is a conviction, expect Clinton's folks to quietly remind Superdelegates that the "GOP Attack Machine"® will have commericals up faster than you can say Swift Boat to remind folks that Obama is a good friend of Mr. Rezko.

I'd like to say I feel sorry for the Democrats for having this long drawn out primary, but I don't. As I've said before, they've brought this on themselves by insisting that everything be "fair" and now it's biting them in the ass.

Read The Full Post!

Run Boy Run

You know that catch line, "Run Boy Run Boy Run Boy Run", it comes from the latest Kia commercial. It could just as easily come from the latest Barack Obama press interviews.

A month ago he said that he could no more disown his Reverend, Jeremiah Wright than he could the black community or his grandmother. This week Wright said those were the comments of "a politician". Now, the politician has decided that he can disown Wright, and is running as fast as he can, as far away from him as he can.

Obama's Wright problem got worse, and worse, and worse this weekend and Monday, as the "snippets" Obama claimed were used out of context were put into context, publicly, by Wright himself. It turns out that those "snippets" weren't out of context things pieced together to make the man look like a demagogue, they were his true feelings.

Suddenly Obama's Wright problem is two fold. The minister himself, obviously, and Obama's own speech in Philadelphia, where he defended him. To believe the minister would mean that Obama probably knew the man's feelings, after a 20 year association. To believe Obama's speech you have to believe that a man who wants to be President is completely tone deaf to his ministers rantings. Either one of those ends up meaning that Obama probably isn't the guy most folks want running the country.

Charlie Sykes put up a great list of links to both conservative and liberal reaction to Wright's recent appearances. The consensus seems to be that Wright may have damaged Barack beyond repair. The liberal defenders are starting to wonder out loud how Obama could NOT have known how Wright feels, and the conservatives are just too busy laughing about the whole thing to say much of anything.

If any of the list of liberals, or liberal leaning columnists like Dana Milbank, Eugene Robinson, Susan Estrich or Joe Klein had singly written columns announcing the downfall of Obama it would be one thing. When all of them do, then you know that the wheels are coming off the bus.

For the folks out there who think this can still pass, and Obama will win in November, all I can say is 527. There are going to be tons of 527 groups showing up, and tossing up photos of Obama and Wright together, and Wright's comments will be heard over every picture. They'll play every day from nomination to election, on every TV station in America, most radio, and be in print ads.

Add to that Obama's own foot shooting moments of late, especially "bittergate" and what you'll find is that he's so damaged he can't win. His core supporters may stick around, but that group isn't big enough to win the popular vote in the Democratic primaries, much less a general election.

Howard Dean said recently that the candidates will know when it's time for one of them to bow out of the race. It's possible that the one of them will be Obama, and it may be sooner than folks think. If he can't win North Carolina in two weeks by more than 10 points, and loses Indiana, Hillary will have more ammunition for her cannon shots of "I'm more electable".

Read The Full Post!

Not So Saintly

St. Barack has put his foot in it, yet again, with his comments that folks in Pennsylvania cling to "god and guns" because of the states economy. While he was at it he should have said "rural Pennsylvania is why they call it a TOOTH brush".

Of course that line wasn't supposed to get out, it was at a media free fundraiser, and the conspiracy theorist figure it was a Clinton supporter who leaked what he said. Who cares, he said it.

The more he back tracks, and tries to apologize, the more Obama sounds like what I've been calling him for months, a politicians, not some new fangled "agent of change".

Part of Obama's reasoning is correct, people are frustrated when they live in areas for years, or decades, they've felt left behind. He's even partially correct that they should be frustrated with the government. The problem is his solution, more government, is the problem in many of those areas.

When you look at Michigan, Pennsylvania and other "rust belt" states that are facing many of the problems he mentioned the government solutions of tax something to pay for retraining, tax something to pay for new programs hasn't worked. Yet his idea is for more taxes to pay for a new program.

The reason Pennyslvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin don't attract more companies, more jobs, etc is that companies look at them as "tax hells". Why locate in a place with high corporate tax rates, crazy mandates on what business has to provide (Wisconsin's "gold plated" insurance requirements) and generally unfriendly attitudes when you can go to Texas, New Mexico, Iowa, and elsewhere and be greated as someone wanting to help, not as a new source of revenue.

Forbes put Pennsylvania in the bottom ten states to do business in it's 2006 "Best Places To Do Business" list. Every indicator they use to create the ranking system had Pennsylvania rated 29 or lower, save quality of life. However, that one is great for employees, but doesn't do much to attract employers when the rest of the deck is stacked against them.

Unfortunately, Obama can't lay the blame on Pennsylvania's problems where it belongs, with the state government. They are all democrats, and already mostly supporting Hillary Clinton. But the truth is, until the state decides to do something to make itself more attractive to businesses, there's going to be little Obama, Clinton, or John McCain can do to change the frustration of those left behind there. Though not making condescending remarks about them might help.

Read The Full Post!

Misleading Polls

So, I'm over at Yahoo, reading an article on Obama's softening support among Democrats, which isn't surprising, it's hard to remain in the 70% region forever. Later in the article, it notes that according to the NY Times/CBS Poll, both Obama and Hillary Clinton hold 5 percent leads over John McCain nationally. That sounded suspect to me, since Rassmussen and Zogby both have it the other way around.

Then, in the last paragraph, they explain it:

The nationwide telephone poll was taken March 28 through April 2, with 1,196 registered voters participating, including 510 Democratic primary voters and 323 Republican primary voters.

19% more of the participants in the poll are registered Democrats! Obama had a 47-42% lead over McCain from this poll, but 46% of the respondents were Democrats. That means if he got all of the Democrats polled to say they prefer him, then he only got 64 of the 363 non-aligned voters to say they'd vote for him. If 63% supported him (as they say earlier in the article), then he got about 50% of the non-aligned vote.

Regardless, having that big of a skew in the polled individuals is going to skew the results. Pollsters will tell you they "normalize" numbers to take out the inconsistancies, but a 20% difference is hard to normalize, or justify.

Considering the Times and CBS ran the poll I guess my surprise should be at the fact they released the numbers on who they polled.

Read The Full Post!

Change That Tune!

Today's newest game is evidently "Change That Tune". If you claim that you dodged sniper fire one week, and everyone else their denies it happened, Change That Tune, and claim you were speaking in generalities, and your memory was fogged, since it was a dozen years ago.

If you give a speech saying you'll stand by your pastor, but not his words, and folks start jumping from you ship, Change That Tune! What, you don't get this one?

Evidently on tomorrow's installment of "The View" Barack Obama will say that if Rev. Jeremiah Wright hadn't decided to retire he'd have left the Trinity United Church of Christ. But wait, a week ago he wasn't leaving, he couldn't, he was married there, his children baptized there. It would have been like ripping a piece of the family away.

While people had been willing to ignore his legislative record as the most liberal member of the Senate, and consider him the great hope for uniting the country, they evidently won't forgive him for his association with Rev. Wright. Now that he's figuring that out, in full politician mode, he's changing his tune (for the third time) on what he'd have done about the minister.

(This song is paraphrased, I don't have the exact lyrics in front of me)
Stanza 1. (Sunday Talk Shows)
If I had heard any such sermon from Reverend Wright, I'd have confronted him about it.

Stanza 2. (The Great Speech of 2008)
Yes, I heard some things that I strongly disagreed with. But I could no more abandon the Reverend than I could a family member.

Stanza 3 (tomorrows View)
I'd have left if he hadn't decided to retire.

Months ago I said that once the sheen started wearing off folks would realize that "St. Barack" isn't the next messiah, but a politician. It looks like that's starting to sink in. The Democrats are realizing that they have Hillary "Harding" Clinton in one corner, and "The Great Unknown" in the other, and are starting to get nervous.

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen is calling for a neutral site meeting of the party Super Delegates in June to "assess the situation" and see if they can't come to a consensus over who the nominee should be. He wants it to be public, and on the record. Good luck with that part, most of them don't want to be know as the backstabbers who killed a candidacy before the convention.

Unfortunately for the Democrats Bredesen's idea probably won't fly, and we'll have a fight through the summer until their convention, turning off more potential voters as the mud continues to fly. And John McCain will get to sit back, laugh, and let his opponent fight their own party.

Read The Full Post!

Here's My New Candidate!

I've found my new candidate for President! If you aren't happy with Hillary or Barack, or if you are too conservative for John McCain, maybe you should check out this guy.

He's kind of a dummy, but still talks with a lot of sense, and doesn't seem to be bound by political correctness. His thoughts on Hillary, and many other subjects are covered in the 7 minute clip.

Enjoy


Walter is a dummy, Jeff Dunham is the ventriloquist/comedian "behind" Walter, and has been getting laughs for years. You can sometimes see him on Comedy Central, or rent one of his DVD's for a great evening of entertainment. If you own a Prius, you might be offended by his "Spark of Instanity" show, though.

Read The Full Post!

The Number One Issue

The number one issue in this years election is discussed in this clip. It pretty well sums up politics today



Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Read The Full Post!

Even Less Love On Trade

Last weekend I wrote of the lack of love the Democratic contenders were receiving on their trade stances. That lack of love is continuing, with Newsweek International's editor, Fareed Zakaria, writing "The Democrats' Dangerous Rhetoric" concerning their trade stances.

Just this one quote from a Latin American diplomat should make folks on the left side of the aisle wonder if we'll really increase our world standing by electing either Obama or Clinton:

The backlash could be greatest against Obama because he's raised the highest hopes. A senior Latin American diplomat told me, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade - the issue that affects us so deeply - we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration." (emphasis mine)

That quote should send shivers through the spines of Democrats. Having other countries diplomats openly, and rather brazenly, stating they'd rather deal with Bush than Obama is not good for Mr. Obama's image as the great uniter.

The democrats are starting to find that they can't have it both ways when it comes to America's world standing. You can't be a "kinder, gentler giant" in one area and a protectionist thug in another, and have everyone base their opinion on the kinder side of things. Hillary Clinton's own polling profiles should tell her that.

One problem that Zakaria has, as do a lot of Americans, is confusing politics with leadership, and the electorate with people who will do their homework. In both cases the it's a poor assumption.

And isn't the point of leadership to educate and elevate people, not to pander and drag them into the swamp of ignorance and fear? There is a way to speak about the pain of globalization - and about the need for investments in retraining, education, health care and infrastructure - so that we can compete but also absorb the shocks of a changing global economy. Unfortunately, that is not what the Democratic candidates are talking about.

Yes, that is the point of leadership, but politics point is to get votes, regardless of how you do it, especially in primaries. One of the ironies of our election process is how many times in the last 20 years candidates have been burned for "flip-flopping" positions from the primaries to the general election season, and how they continue to do it.

In 1950 it was easy to say something in Dallas on a campaign stop and have it not heard anywhere else. Then when the convention came around the candidate could take a more populist, across the aisle stance, and no one would be the wiser. It doesn't work that way anymore, YouTube, CNN, Fox, MSNBC (for both viewers) are their 24/7.

Then again, both candidates on the Democratic ballot are running their campaigns on the trade topic as if it's the 1930's; both in substance (protectionism), and in their obvious belief that what's said in Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas or Pawtucket won't be heard outside those cities.

Too bad for them that it's not 70 years ago, that protectionism has been proven to be an economic disaster, and that the Internet and satellites exit. Editors will continue to run articles about how poor a position they've taken, and trade partners will continue to talk about the apprehension of having either of them in office.

Read The Full Post!

Death Watch Postponed

The death watch on Hillary Clinton's campaign has been given a reprieve, but not much of one. For every headline touting her 3 wins last night another, or the same story pointed out that Democratic delegate allocating made the victories pretty hollow. She won the popular votes, but really didn't make up any ground in the delegate race.

The Superdelegate, who've been flip flopping like, well Democrats on defense, are still going to be the key to the race. While Obama can claim droves have moved to his side of the aisle after 11 straight victories, he now has the shadow of Tony Rezko's trial hanging over his candidacy, which could flip them back to Hillary. Worse for him is the theory that the defense could issue a subpoena to have him testify for Rezko, which probably wouldn't help his standing with those superdelegates.

John McCain on the other hand won his nomination last night, and gets to spend the entire spring working over the Democrats, without having to worry about delegate counts or trials. While Clinton and Obama have to spend the next 7 weeks leading to Pennsylvania beating each other up over differences in their very similar stances, McCain gets to take pot shots at those stances.

With Rezko's trial starting, and McCain having sewed up the nomination for the GOP, the DNC has to be wondering if this year will once again be one where they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This isn't a new thing for the Democrats. In 1988 Mike Dukakis held a huge summer lead over George H.W. Bush, then Willie Horton started turning up in ads all over the country. Like Rezko the Democratic establishment knew about Horton, and had been warned he could end up being the "deal breaker", but ignored the warnings. This time around former DNC treasurer, Joe Cini who had already been tied to the scandal 2 years ago, should have provided the warning, but it's been ignored.

Read The Full Post!

Hey, Look, He's A Politician

Something's becoming clear of late about the Messiah of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama. He's a politician. His many positions on NAFTA, one for Ohio, one for Texas, and evidently, one for the Candian Consulate shows that he knows how to work the particular room he's in.

Another way he shows that he's actually a politician is by saying a lot without actually answering a question, as Lynn Sweet points out in the Chicago Sun Times today. Specifically she's referring to his answers, which really weren't, at yesterdays press conference where he continually dodged real questions about his dealings with Tony Rezko.

She also debunks the idea (circulated by the Obama camp) that he's answered all the questions about Rezko before. Her blog has some great posts up, including video and transcripts from the meetings where that supposedly happened. Read through it and see if you can find any answers.

One of the ironies of this whole flap comes in reading the comments by Obama supporters; my guess mostly loyal democrats; on many of the above linked articles. A good portion of them try to deflect criticism from Obama by bringing up, of all things, Whitewater. Many of these folks, I would suspect probably spent the late 1990's arguing about how much money the government was wasting on that investigation. Suddenly they all think it was worth it and shows Hillary to be a corrupt person.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but her previous comments on being more fully vetted than the junior Senator from Illinois are starting to ring true. While there is a lot in her past that could be brought up in a general election, it's mostly stuff that's been around for a dozen or more years. Obama's problem will be that most of his issues are fresh.

When Rezko's trial actually gets underway and starts picking up steam over the next 6-8 weeks, Obama's name is sure to come up more than once. Each time it does it will bring Obama more clearly into focus not as a "savior" but as a Chicago styled politician. That's never a good thing in a national election.

Obama, of all politicians, should understand just what damage hidden skeltons in one's closet can do. He's in the Senate not because he was the best candidate in Illinois in 2004, but because his opponent, Jack Ryan, hid some serious skelton's in his divorce papers.

Read The Full Post!