As the Democrat slashing contest continues to fester, we are learning more and more about Barack Obama. Ed Lasky digs into William Ayers, his domestic terrorist friend. Not only did Ayers -- by his own admission -- bomb the Pentagon, the New York police, and other domestic targets, but he admits that he'd do it again. Additionally, he said much more recently that he wished he could have done more. Ironically, that sentiment was published on the morning of September 11, 2001. Obama has tried to put some distance between himself and Ayers, saying at this week's debate that he did those things decades ago. True, but what about the fundraiser Ayers hosted for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate? Hmmm...
Peggy Shapiro questions why Obama is consistently silent in the face of evil:
We know that for over twenty years, Obama listened attentively to his pastor's diatribes against the United States and Israel and said nothing. Confronted with outright lies that the United States created the AIDS virus to destroy Africa and imports harmful drugs to destroy African Americans, Obama was silent. When the church website and newsletter carried the message of Hamas, labeled as a terrorist group by both the U.S. and the E.U., Obama maintained his silence.
Take the case of the anti-Islamist Muslim journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was imprisoned and tortured by Bangladeshi authorities when he requested a visa to attend a conference in Tel Aviv. Securing his release became a bi-partisan issue. Richard L. Benkin, who is spearheading efforts to release Choudhury, notes "Democratic, Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it. And every one of them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one. Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism? That's right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Obama."
She also looks at his state and federal voting record, and finds that Obama has voted "present" on many controversial issues where leadership was needed. Most recently, Obama refused to condemn Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas leaders. Of course, that shouldn't surprise us because Obama has pledged to meet with all terrorist leaders if he becomes President, anyway.
Lee Cary puts the lie to Obama's schtick of being a uniter by meticulously detailing Obama's use of class envy. Rather than uniting, his extensive use of class envy is extremely divisive, and his message of 'change' is nothing more than standard liberal tactics.
Rick Moran talks about Obama's true patriotism in response to a small but very telling incident that happened this past week. Months ago, Obama was questioned about why he refused to wear an American flag lapel pin. His answer:
"Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
However, a few days ago, a disabled veteran presented Obama with a flag lapel pin, and Obama put it on. Moran writes:
Are we take Obama's sudden change of heart as anything else except an extraordinarily cynical political ploy? Bless my socks, no. This is Obama honoring a wounded hero who, because he is probably from some rural area where God, guns, and racism are prevelant, simply can't help the fact he was so stupid as to get caught in evil Bush's war machine, thus giving in to bitterness and wanting Obama to wear the flag pin as a protest statement.
Or something like that.
But the hypocrisy didn't last long - he took it off at the end of the day. Couldn't stand so much anti-patriotism, apparently.
The Great Debate
Now, let's talk about the big debate that happened earlier this week. Once again, there is a TON of analysis out there, so I'll just try to summarize some of the main points.
First of all, major kudos to the moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulous. For the first time, the Democrat candidates faced actual questions, tough questions, and questions that clearly showed differences between the two candidates. Thus...
Neither candidate looked good. Left-wingers like DailyKos and Huffington Post are beside themselves at the moderators, who had the unmitigated gall to ask -- gasp! -- hard questions. They say it 'hurts the country'. That's right, the very same people who slandered General Petraeus and regularly bash conservatives (and wish for them to die by terrorism or heart attack) are saying that 'tough questions' hurt the country. For the rest of us, it just proves that both of these nitwits are completely incompetent to run the country. Barack Obama, in particular, flopped. Without a carefully crafted speech and a teleprompter, he appears clueless and idiotic.
For example, when asked about his relationship to (the proudly self-admitted) terrorist William Ayers, Obama stumbled over his answer, saying Ayers conducted those crimes decades ago. He then likened his relationship with Ayers to his relationship with conservative Senator Tom Coburn because they work together but don't agree on abortion. I can't decide if that response is more lame than it is offensive...it'll be interesting to see Coburn's response.
Stephen Spruiell looks at the bigger scope, saying that the key from this point on is to address which candidate can beat McCain in the general election. One thing that was really illustrated in this debate was the fact that Clinton can't attack Obama for anything without opening herself up to the same criticisms. That's the problem with these two - their policy differences are minute, so all that's left to debate is the person, and that means addressing the scandals. Many Lefties think the moderators neglected issues that Americans want to hear about, like global warming and health care, but the problem is that they essentially agree on those issues...and they agree with McCain, so those things don't matter much. It all boils down to wooing the superdelegates on their electability:
The Democratic party's superdelegates will face a momentous decision when its convention rolls around in August. If Hillary Clinton is still contesting the nomination, she will most likely be asking them to overturn the will of the primary voters and make her the nominee. They will only take such a risk if they are totally convinced that Obama can't win in November. This was a debate for their benefit, and ABC did the right thing by testing the candidates on the issues that are bound to take center stage in the fall. On these issues, Obama might have stumbled. But he did not commit the kind of catastrophic blunder Clinton needs if she's to have any hope of winning the nomination.
Kevin D. Williamson questions outright the statement that these character issues aren't of concern to Americans. It is becoming apparent that the only people Barack Obama can unite are those who hate America. Normal Americans are starting to get to know him, and they don't like what they see. But no one likes Hillary, either.
One of the biggest indicators that Barack Obama is totally clueless was the question about the capital gains tax. Here's the exchange, courtesy of Marc Sheppard:
Charlie Gibson reminded Obama of a March 27th statement he made to Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's Closing Bell that he'd return the rate to the 28 percent it was under Bill Clinton. Said Gibson: [emphasis added throughout]"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 .... And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
"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? "And Obama's remarkable response:
"Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair."Wow. Democrats have typically ignored or outright denied the supply-side benefits of lower taxes -- particularly capital gains.But with that statement, Obama betrayed first his intellectual dishonesty, then his economic idiocy. The candidate is well aware that his hypothetical hedge fund manager pays a much higher rate on wages than does his supposed secretary. And that they both pay the same rate on capital gains - yes Senator, millions of Americans of varying income, including secretaries, own stock.Accepting the low tax / higher revenue premise by virtue of his silence, he argued that his own Marxist measure of "fairness" somehow trumps fiscal efficacy. Shocking, yes, but remember - he was, after all, declared 2007's "Most Liberal Senator" by the National Journal.
This was not good for Obama. As Sheppard says, he reveals both his ignorance of how taxes work, as well as his motivation - to make things fair. It's about the social justice, not about the economic ramifications. That's not going to sit well with the 100 million Americans (yep, 1 out of 3) who own stock.
Though Obama seems to be the consensus loser of the debate, there was plenty of tanking for Clinton, too. The real winner of the evening was John McCain. Even Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, realizes that this primary race is severely damaging the party, calling for an immediate decision from the remaining superdelegates (about 35% of them are still undecided).
Rush Limbaugh spoke at great length about the debate on his show yesterday. As the primary architect of what he calls "Operation Chaos" (having Reps step over the line to vote in the Dem primaries to prolong the chaos of the race), he could perhaps take credit for much of the toxicity going on right now. Some of his observations include the fact that both candidates demonstrated that they can't handle real questions from moderators who aren't shills for the Democrat party (remember, the Democrats chickened out of a debate several months ago on Fox News, the biggest cable network). As a result of Operation Chaos, Rush suggests that Barack Obama is now damaged goods, but the fact that Hillary can't even catch up to him shows just how much loathing there is of the Clintons, even in their own party. Put these things together, and the logical conclusion is that neither candidate is equipped to beat John McCain in the general election in November. Limbaugh is now putting forward the notion that the only hope of the Democrat superdelegates to pull out a win in November is to resort to a third candidate who would be a competent match for John McCain.
I don't know that I'd say McCain is in that good of a position, but Rush is rarely wrong. McCain has made it quite plain that he is not going to attack either Dem, so it is supremely good that they are attacking each other. This allows McCain to avoid the harsh glare of the slanted MSM spotlight, while at the same time gathering information to use against either candidate (not to mention seeing what works and what doesn't). There is certainly a wealth of information to use, if it is used properly. With a conservative fighter, the election could turn out to be a landslide for the Republican party, but McCain is no conservative fighter. Regardless, I think it's safe to say that the longer the Dem primary drags on, the better McCain's position will be. Maybe there's hope for us after all.
Of course, then we'll end up fighting one of our own for the next four years, but I guess we have to take these things one at a time. One of Rush's callers suggested something rather novel: let's let the Dems have McCain as their third candidate, and we'll pick a new Rep who's actually conservative.
Sounds good to me!
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment