harmonicminer » election 2008

Sep 17 2008

What Obama doesn’t want you to know: part 1

Category: election 2008,Obama,politics — harmonicminer @ 9:02 am

Obama, as a community organizer, wants to have everyone volunteer. In fact, he has to take credit for inventing a new oxymoron, “Universal Voluntary Public Service”. Let’s see: universal, but voluntary. I guess that means he plans to make you really, really want to volunteer.

Investor’s Business Daily has several cogent observations about an organization Obama helped to start in 1992. Significant excerpts:

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn’t seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year “community leadership” positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They’ll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.

In exchange, they’ll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about “social change” through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation, the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul “The Red” Alinsky.

“Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities,” Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for “justice” and “equality” in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. “I get to practice being an activist,” and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

Charming.

But it turns out that there are other things going on:

Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. “It was too
touchy-feely,” said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class.
“It’s a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of
talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias.”

One of those -isms is “heterosexism,” which a Public Allies training seminar
in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of “capitalism, white
supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege.”

The government now funds about half of Public Allies’ expenses through
Clinton’s AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a
national program that some see costing $500 billion. “We’ve got to have
a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as
strong, just as well-funded” as the military, he said.

We heard that quote before about a “civilian national security force”. Now we know what it means.

A gentler, kinder re-education camp.

Tags: election 2008, Obama, politics

Comments (0)

Sep 16 2008

Defending Sarah Palin

Category: election 2008,McCain,media,Obama,Palin,politics — harmonicminer @ 9:21 am

The Bidinotto Blog has a nice summary of the failure of the mud-slinging by the Left at Sarah Palin.

A sure sign that the pro-Obama camp’s quiver has run out of arrows is that its partisans are desperately stooping to pick up mud.

It’s worth a read, and has links you can follow up, if you doubt the accuracy of his presentation.

Tags: election 2008, Obama, Palin, politics

Comments (0)

Sep 15 2008

The New York Times (Obama surrogates all) interviews 14% of Alaska: bumped for Powerline update below

Category: election 2008,media,Palin — harmonicminer @ 4:21 pm

It would seem that the New York Times has discovered Sarah Palin is actually a politician.

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

This was the headline for the NYT article detailing all the investigative reporting done by the Obama campaign….er, I mean, the New York Times staff of professional reporters and researchers.

Since Palin has an 86% approval rating, and since the NYT seems not to have interviewed much of anyone who actually likes Palin, they must have just canvassed the 14%.

Continue reading “The New York Times (Obama surrogates all) interviews 14% of Alaska: bumped for Powerline update below”

Tags: media, New York Times, Palin

Comments (0)

Sep 15 2008

If only reporters understood economics

Category: economy,election 2008,McCain,media,Obama,Palin,politics,taxes — harmonicminer @ 3:57 pm

Sarah Palin criticizes Obama’s tax plans, and the AP seems to think it has corrected her, by stating an irrelevant piece of data. (not to mention a largely wrong one)

Campaigning on her own, the Alaska governor also said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “wants to raise income taxes and raise payroll taxes and raise investment income taxes and raise business taxes and raise the death tax.

“But John McCain and I know that’s not the way you grow the economy,” she added.

In fact, independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama’s proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners.

Note that Palin did not say that Obama was going to raise everyone‘s taxes. But the AP responds with a “fact check” from the Tax Policy Center that implies she did. Surely this is simple failure to understand plain English.

Speaking of plain English, four out of five U.S. households cannot receive income tax cuts, because two out of five U.S. households pay no income tax at all. The last time I looked, two plus four does not equal five, a fact that apparently escapes both the AP and the Tax Policy Center. Giving “tax cuts” in the guise of “refunds” to people who would not pay tax anyway is not a tax cut, it’s welfare, plain and simple. It’s old fashioned socialistic confiscation/redistribution.

Speaking of the “independent” Tax Policy Center, while it is not directly affiliated with either party, it is most assuredly Left leaning, and usually favors Democratic policies. They are sometimes subtle about it (although not in this case, calling a give-away a “tax cut”), but they are not possessed of Olympian detachment.

It would be more impressive (as journalism goes) to match the perspective of the Tax Policy Center with one from the Club for Growth, or the CATO Institute. Both of these are also “independent” and “nonpartisan”, but simply more likely to lean Right.

You can form your own opinion about why the AP would not seek their input in interpreting Palin’s statements. I have mine.

In the meantime, what Palin said, quite clearly, is that if all of Obama’s tax plans are carried out, regardless of whether low-tax payers and non-tax payers get a short term “tax cut”, the economy is far less likely to grow vigorously than under McCain’s plan. That economic growth would provide much more benefit to low- and non-tax payers than a single short term check, whether “tax cut” or “welfare”.

Go back and read her quote. The APs rejoinder, masked as input from an “independent” think tank, is completely irrelevant to the point.

Embarrassingly, the AP seems not to know that.

Tags: election 2008, media, Obama, Palin, politics, taxes

Comments (0)

Sep 15 2008

Why the Left is flummoxed by Sarah Palin

Category: election 2008,McCain,Obama,Palin,politics — harmonicminer @ 9:25 am

Essentially, the Left thought it had a “magic candidate” in Obama. He would be beyond normal criticism. He would be both person and symbol. He would speak with such power and transcendence that normal considerations of logic and rhetorical connection would not apply. His mystical relationship with the message of the future of mankind would resonate in each person of good will without having to be explained in detail. We would all just know that he was “the one” to change everything. Indeed, he seemed untouchable: though there were scandals and questionable relationships in his background, it seemed not to matter to the electorate, surely another sign that he was blessed. What other presidential candidate could have gotten away with being friends with terrorists and America haters? Surely it must have been because people could see through these surface things to the soul beyond, and were moved by its purity and grace. (After all, Jesus associated with publicans and sinners, and elevated them by His presence.) His meager background was almost a plus, proving his uniquity and special annointing. He was untouchable.

And then came Sarah. She was, in most ways, the exact opposite of Obama. She spoke simply, and clearly. She seemed to get away with just being herself (unlike Obama, she was the same on home video as on stage before tens of thousands). She did not appear to self-consciously cultivate an image or presence: she simply was. She did not seem to need a script. Shooting from the hip (literally and figuratively) she was on target. People simply responded to her. And despite the best the a scandal mongering media could throw at her, she simply sailed above it all, and let her acolytes defend her. There were pleny of acolytes.

Obama was supposed to be special. He would not have to make sense according to the normal rules of logic and evidence, because to know him created a faith that transcended the merely rational.

Yet, here was Sarah, actually making sense, very simple, unassailable sense, artlessly appealing to the perceptions of the people as the outsider who was the real agent of change, the unknown, waiting in the wings, whose time had come. She, too, was the symbol of longings held by many.

Suddenly, Obama was not the only transcendant figure in the race. He knew how to fight people who merely used logic and facts. He appealed to the higher sense of personhood in his listeners. But what could he do against someone who had as much mystical magnetism as he did, and also made simple, logical sense?

It was a pretty problem. Someone would have to be destroyed for the other to prevail. And Obama was determined that it would not be him. His minions would see to that.

There are plenty of minions, in and out of his campaign.

The contest rages, for now, but it is no longer one of rationality against spirituality, because now both can be found on one side. And the real game changer was not Sarah Palin… it was John McCain, who selected her as his running mate, proving a defter hand than anyone suspected at crafting his image and staying true to his own often stated values at the same time. And McCain is showing something else: he doesn’t care that Sarah Palin polls higher than he does, because all that matters is success in the election so he can do the work that needs doing, with her help.

Tags: McCain, Obama, Palin

Comments (0)

Sep 13 2008

Foreign travel, foreign policy “experience” and judgment

Category: election 2008,Iraq,McCain,media,middle east,Obama,Palin,politics,White House — harmonicminer @ 11:19 pm

As usual, the Obama campaign is still playing catchup to Sarah Palin. Now the big question is whether she actually crossed the border into Iraq by a half-mile, or stayed at the border. Obama camp suggests lies over Palin visit to Iraq – Yahoo! News

The question of whether Sarah Palin has ever been to Iraq pushed Obama aides Saturday to accuse the McCain campaign of outright lies, distortions and distractions to the American people.

Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped the Alaska governor to be his running mate on Aug. 29, questions about her experience have been fueled by her relatively brief tenure in office, as well as a dearth of foreign travel.

What matters isn’t how many countries she’s visited, or even how many heads of state she knows on a first name basis. What matters is the judgment and values of the candidate.

When Russia invaded Georgia, Obama’s first response was to hope that both sides would exercise restraint, in a perfect-pitch-for-the-left rendition of moral equivalence, the natural born instinct of leftists everywhere. That tells us what we need to know about Obama’s judgment and values. Obama’s warm reception during his grand international P.R. tour doesn’t change who he is, a person who can’t quite define evil, and isn’t quite sure what we should do about it…. in his own nuanced way, of course.

I doubt an academic study can be found to demonstrate that shaking hands and chatting about inconsequentials with foreign leaders (the usual meaning of “getting to know them”) has produced better decisions than are reached by simply considering the facts at hand. Roosevelt “met” with Stalin, and still gave away half of Europe. Bush met with Putin and “saw into his soul”, and still didn’t understand, it would seem, what a fascist Putin would turn out to be. Kennedy “met” with Kruschiev, and that resulted in the Cuban missile crisis when the Communist dictator decided that Kennedy could be rolled.

It’s decisions based on evidence that matter, not face time. And tourism is not a pre-requisite for the Presidency or vice-Presidency, much as the Left might wish it was.

In the meantime, whether Palin made it 2500 feet into Iraq, or stayed at the border, matters not a whit. The Obama campaign must really be spooked by this lady. They should be… she is something beyond their experience, a genuine person who simply says what she means.

OH, and the lead sentence to the quoted article is truly hilarious: Imagine, the Obama campaign was “pushed” into calling the McCain campaign liars. Gee… you mean they just couldn’t help themselves?

Tags: election 2008, Obama, Palin

Comments (0)

Sep 13 2008

First, Do No Harm

Category: election 2008,Obama,politics — harmonicminer @ 8:54 am

Being a politician, and especially being President, has aspects in common with being a parent, and with being a physician.

Good parents, first and foremost, need to avoid damaging their children. Maybe I have low standards for parenting. But if you can raise a child to the age of 18 or so, and have helped them avoid doing damage to themselves (they aren’t substance abusers, high school dropouts, criminals, etc.), and if they know you love them, and they love you, you’ve probably won. Sure, there are tons of nice things to try to do, but they depend at least as much on the nature of the child as on parenting magic. The point: you are to raise the child, help where you can, not go against the fundamental nature of the child by trying to get things from them they can never do or simply hate (and you’ll have to be somewhat sensitive while discovering the child’s nature), and avoid messing the child up. Everything else is gravy, and we all know how bad that is for your health, in excess.

There is a similar principle in medicine, sometimes attributed to Hippocrates, “First, do no harm.” It means, generally, that if you can’t fix it, at least don’t make it worse, or create a new problem. Medical doctors used to attach leeches to “bleed” patients to remove “ill humors” that were making them ill. Of course, they were simply weakening their patients, in most cases. Thalidomide babies of 1950s helped lead to the creation of the modern FDA drug approval process (which has created its own problems), another example of doctors causing harm while trying to do good.

What has this to do with politics? It’s pretty simple: some problems are very complex, and are rooted in human nature and individual choice. The attempt to use governmental power to “fix” them is likely to create new problems, frequently without making a serious dent in the old ones, and sometimes making the old ones worse.

So: beware of the politician who promises things that have never been, that sound too good to be true, that depend on very complex systems managed by governmental power and oversight, and that create incentives for individuals and organizations to behave in ways counter to the intent of the new program or policy. Raise taxes on the rich, and they’ll change their behavior in ways that don’t lead to economic growth, and you’ll actually reduce tax receipts to the government. Offer benefits to unwed mothers, and you’ll have more unwed mothers. Fix prices at some “fair” level, and you’ll have shortages. Provide “free” or “cost controlled” healthcare, and you’ll soon run out of healthcare services…. a special case of price fixing, in essence. And so it goes.

I think it’s very likely that Obama plans huge, radical changes which will have unpredictable effects, not solve the problems he claims the changes are aimed at (or make them worse), and create new ones. The article at the previous link makes it clear that the danger of Obama’s election is not that he won’t keep his promises; it’s that he will. What else can you expect from someone whose ideological hero’s manifesto is titled Rules for Radicals? And he is likely to appoint judges who have similar intentions, to make sure his radical changes are declared to be “constitutional”.

Tags: election 2008, Obama, politics

Comments (1)

Sep 12 2008

The AP is totally in the tank for Obama

Category: election 2008,McCain,media,Obama,Palin,politics,White House — harmonicminer @ 9:35 pm

If you have any sense, you’ll simply ignore all AP reporting in this election cycle. In what pretends to be a news article, the AP claims that McCain’s claims skirt the facts. This bit of magnificent analysis is by one Charles Babington. The only hint given to the reader that it is mere opinion, and not NEWS, is the word “analysis” in the title. By rights, it has no place in a list of “news stories”, and should be clearly marked “editorial by left leaning writer”, but of course the AP isn’t that interested in helping you discern the difference. Here’s the first paragraph:

Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a self-proclaimed tell-it-like-it-is maverick, keeps saying his running mate, Sarah Palin, killed the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she pulled her support only after the project became a political embarrassment. He said Friday that Palin never asked for money for lawmakers’ pet projects as Alaska governor, even though she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year. He says Obama would raise nearly everyone’s taxes, when independent groups say 80 percent of families would get tax cuts instead.

This is risible. 80 percent of families don’t PAY income tax. About 40% of families pay no federal income tax. Obama wants to simply GIVE non-tax paying people a “tax cut” by sending them a check. In many cases of the 60% who DO pay income tax, the “tax cut” will amount to more than the taxes they pay. He will pay for this by raising taxes on the top 5%. There are a couple of names for this: “welfare” is the polite one. Pure class-warfare socialism is another.

Further, if you ask the people in Alaska who “killed the bridge to nowhere”, they will say Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin’s political enemies in Alaska say that she killed it. Palin’s political friends say she killed it. 80% approval rating is hard to argue with. But of course, Mr. Babington (one wonders if this is mispelled… should it be Blabington?), from his olympian position as an AP flack, knows things that no one in Alaska knows, being so much smarter than the average Alaskan.

Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain’s skirting of facts has stood out this week. It has infuriated and flustered Obama’s campaign, and campaign pros are watching to see how much voters disregard news reports noting factual holes in the claims.

Since this “news” story is full of factual holes, one can only hope the voters disregard it. This diatribe goes on for a dozen more paragraphs of distortion about McCain and Palin, until at last, we get this sop to evenhandedness:

Obama, of course, has made exaggerated or questionable assertions as well. Earlier this year, for instance, he repeated a claim that more black men are in prison than in college, after news accounts refuted it. He also used a McCain remark about having troops in Iraq for “100 years” to exaggerate McCain’s proposals for being fully engaged militarily in that country.

THIS is the best this writer can find to document Obama’s false claims and questionable assertions? What diligence. What attention to detail. What thorough research.

Voters are going to have to be very careful this season. The major media are so far in the tank for Obama that they present pure opinion/spin pieces as if they are news. A simple challenge to anyone who doubts this: try to find an AP piece, by ANY writer, ANY time in the last 6 months, that is this negative about Obama. Since the AP seems to think it’s OK to disguise pure opinion as news, surely, if they were being evenhanded, they would publish at least ONE that was negative about Obama in the radical way that this piece is negative on McCain.

Start looking. I’ll check back next week to see if anyone found anything and put it in the comments area. Oh: and if, by some miracle, you find one, can you find another one?

Tags: AP, election 2008, McCain, media, Obama, Palin, politics

Comments (0)

Sep 12 2008

“Birds Of A Feather Flock Together” / “A Man Is Known By The Company He Keeps”

Category: corruption,election 2008,friendship,Obama,politics — amuzikman @ 8:00 am

When I was about 11 years old I remember my parents telling me they had some serious reservations about my hanging out with a couple of guys from school who didn’t meet with their approval. At the time I took great offense, telling my folks their concerns were misplaced, and secretly harboring no small resentment against them for trying to tell me who I should and shouldn’t have for friends.

Not too long after that our family moved and I didn’t see those guys as much. I do remember one of the last times we were together I noticed they seemed to have developed quite a taste for finding ways to skip school and get high.

In retrospect my parents were absolutely right!

A few years later they were at it again, this time about a girl I was dating. Again I became indignant over their “meddling” and again, I had to admit to myself later they were right.

As a parent, and now officially on the “other”side of the hill, I see the same issue playing out in the lives of my own kids. And the perspective that comes from adulthood adds a dimension to this subject I didn’t have as a child. For now I realize the problem wasn’t necessarily who my friends were, it was the judgment, or lack thereof, I exhibited in making choices about who I would invite to be a part of my life.

Every parent breaths a sigh of relief when their kids make good choices about the friends they run with. And the two wise old sayings that serve as title to this blog have entered the American lexicon precisely because we know them to be true.

So, do we suspend this truth with candidates for the highest office in the land? Do Presidential candidates get a free pass on the company they keep? Or is the truth still the truth? William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khaladi, Louis Farrakhan, and Kwame Kilpatrick are all friends of Barack Obama. If Obama was my child I’d be worried. If Obama becomes president I’ll be afraid.

Here is more detail on the company Obama keeps.