August 25-26, 2008
Aug 25 02:33 Speaker Pelosi, Report to Earth Science 101 Aug 25 03:09 This Is the Biden Bounce? Aug 25 10:10 Biden Not Obama's First Choice??? Aug 25 15:08 Discord In Democratland Aug 26 00:16 Michelle: Our Word Is Our Bond??? Aug 26 02:21 America To Pelosi: Drill Aug 26 09:19 Jim Carville Gets It Aug 26 12:00 What's At Stake, What's Possible Aug 26 20:15 Begala: Michelle Was...Authentic???
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Speaker Pelosi, Report to Earth Science 101
It appears as though Speaker Pelosi daydreamed her way through Earth Science in College. If she hadn't she would've known that natural gas is a fossil fuel, albeit a clean fossil fuel. The WSJ's Washington Wire chronicles her bungling that on national TV:
On NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, the speaker twice seemed to suggest that natural gas, an energy source she favors, is not a fossil fuel. "I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels," she said at one point. Natural gas "is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels," she said at another.Not only is natural gas a fossil fuel, it's also found in large quantities on the OCS and in ANWR. Ms. Pelosi's stupidity is what initially got her in this mess. Pride's what's keeping her in that PR prison.
Ms. Pelosi must realize just how badly she's stepped in it because one of her spokespeople, Brendan Daly, already sent the WSJ an explanation. Here's what the WSJ quotes him as saying:
"She knows it [natural gas] is a fossil fuel but includes it because compared to other fossil fuels (coal and oil) it burns more cleanly," said Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly. "Also, it is plentiful domestically and cheaper."I'd simply ask Mr. Daly this simple question: If Ms. Pelosi knows that it's a fossil fuel, why did she slip up twice in a single interview? That actually leads to a second question: If Ms. Pelosi knew this, was it just a simple case of her trying to spin the drilling issue? Or was it that she opened her mouth before she engaged her brain...again?
Here's something that caught my attention:
Some leading Democrats, including Pelosi, have been eying legislation to encourage such uses of natural gas, as soaring gasoline prices have put pressure on Congress to do something.Honda makes a natural gas-powered version of the Civic. According to the downloadable brochure, the EPA's gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) is 24 mpg in the city, 36 mpg on the highway. Now the question is whether that's cheaper for consumers than using gasoline. The next logical question is whether natural gas prices will stay low if it's used for powering cars and heating homes. Put another way, is this the next corn-based ethanol? The next logical question is whether there's enough natural gas that currently isn't restricted by moratoria to supply America's needs?
The reason why I'm asking those questions is to see whether Ms. Pelosi is trying to ease consumers' pain in the pocketbook or if she's just "trying to save the planet."
More people are, rightfully, interested in their wallets than saving the planet.
Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 2:37 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 25-Aug-08 05:47 PM
"It appears as though Speaker Pelosi daydreamed her way through Earth Science in College."
College????? COLLEGE????? Try MIDDLE SCHOOL!
LL
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 25-Aug-08 07:06 PM
Hey wait a minute. I got an idea. Nancy agrees to drilling off the coast and in ANWR so we can get more natural gas production on the grounds we can get oil from the same drilling?
I mean Nancy apparently has no objections to drilling for natural gas if I read these quotes correctly.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 25-Aug-08 07:31 PM
Walter, that's assuming that there's logic in Ms. Pelosi's thoughts. I'm not giving her the benefit of that doubt.
If you or I had said that, then, yes, I'd agree with that logic.
This Is the Biden Bounce?
According to this CNN article , the Biden Bounce is a flop:
The first national poll conducted entirely after Barack Obama publicly named Joe Biden as his running mate suggests that battle for the presidency between the Illinois senator and Republican rival John McCain is all tied up.The conventional wisdom is that the first big decision that presidential nominees are judged on is who they pick as their running mate. I pointed out here that picking Biden got one of the worst+/- ratings in recent history:
In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator.
"This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Even last week, just before his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate became known, most polls tended to show Obama with a single-digit advantage over McCain," adds Holland.
This results in Biden potentially having a net positive impact on voter support for the Democratic ticket of +7 percentage points, small by comparison with other recent vice presidential selections.I followed up by predicting that this would be the high water mark in terms of favorable/unfavorable ratings on Sen. Biden. While I consider Sen. Biden to be an honest, hardworking man, I also consider him to be a gaffe machine. That will become more apparent as the campaign gets into full swing.
- A net 17% of nationwide registered voters said they were more likely to vote for John Kerry in 2004 on the basis of his selection of John Edwards as his running mate (24% more likely and 7% less likely).
- A net 12% of voters reported being more likely to vote for Al Gore in 2000 on account of his choosing Joe Lieberman (16% more likely and 4% less likely).
- A net 18% of voters indicated they were more likely to vote for Bob Dole in 1996 on the basis of his choice of Jack Kemp to complete the ticket (26% more likely and 8% less likely).
- A net 25% of voters were more likely to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 on account of Al Gore (33% more likely and 8% less likely).
The CNN poll is cause for alarm in another sense. Sen. Obama's dropped 4 points while Sen. McCain gained 3 points in a month. If Sen. Obama doesn't get any appreciable momentum coming out of this convention, then there's reason for Sen. Obama's campaign to start panicking, if they aren't panicking already. Here's another reason for Team Barry to panic:
Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters, registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee, are now backing Obama. That's down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they'll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.Hillary gathered 18 million votes this election season. If one third of the people that voted for her won't back Sen. Obama, that's 6 million votes. That's bad enough but it gets worse: 4.5 million of Hillary's voters plan on voting for Sen. McCain. It's one thing to have 6 million voters sit the election out. It's another to lose 6 million potential votes while your opponent picks up 4.5 million votes.
"The number of Clinton Democrats who say they would vote for McCain has gone up 11 points since June, enough to account for most although not all of the support McCain has gained in that time," says Holland.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it again: the Biden pick was a desperation move that won't help the ticket. Picking Sen. Biden didn't impress voters. That's another mark against Sen. Obama.
Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 3:11 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 25-Aug-08 10:23 AM
"This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
You gotta love the political geniuses at CNN. Can they spin these poll nubers any better?
I've seen a lot of these numbers and there is little for Obama to feel good about it. I think the big story is Hillary's voters. 4.5 million Dems voting for McCain is a net 9 million vote loss. That's a huge difference in modern elections.
The next question is how does this effect the congressional elections? Those who stay home won't be voting in the congressional elections either. What about the ones who vote for McCain, how does this effect their congressional votes? This may not be irrelevant.
Biden Not Obama's First Choice???
In a moment of candor, known in politics as a gaffe, an Obama staffer admitted that Sen. Biden wasn't Sen. Obama's first choice . I kinda suspected that but now it's confirmed:
In selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama may have selected the safe pick, but according to several campaign insiders, Biden wasn't necessarily his first or even his personal choice.All the talk about how presidential Sen. Obama looked, during his speech in Berlin, his meeting with President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown, meant nothing to heartland voters. Sen. Obama's lofty rhetoric was squishy more than meaty, more Euopean than substantive. When President Bush made his case for democracies, there was substance there, human rights principles that were inarguable.
"He really wanted [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius," says one Obama insider with knowledge of the Democrat candidate's vetting process. "And if our European tour had played better here at home, she might have been the pick."
But, says the insider, the campaign's internal polling indicated what the public polling indicated, that Obama failed in his European sojourn to build out his foreign policy credentials. "We needed the foreign policy on the bottom of the ticket more than we want to admit," says the insider.
Had Sen. Obama been a substantive candidate, Sebelius would've been a great pick. He isn't a substantive candidate, which is why he was forced to pick Sen. Biden. This quote speaks volumes:
"We needed the foreign policy on the bottom of the ticket more than we want to admit," says the insider.I think they just admitted it. If this "insider's" identity gets discovered, then that insider has worked their last day for the Obama campaign. The last thing Sen. Obama wants out as public knowledge is that he settled for second best.
The other thing that this does is that the convention starts with a negative news story. Let's not underestimate this. Conventions are about putting your best foot forward. That the media is gathered in one place won't help. This is just the type of thing that some media outlets salivate over. At best, the first day's buzz will be mixed.
This paragraph is also telling:
But beyond his failure to create the impression that he had any foreign policy experience, Obama's polling also indicated that Sebelius's presence on the ticket probably further damaged his relationship with Hillary Clinton supporters. "We have enough problems with them as it is. Putting Sebelius on the bottom of the ticket would have been another stick in the eye," says another adviser.More than any other factor, Sen. Obama's dissing Hillary will hurt him most, far more than William Ayers, Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright combined. Personally, I think he still should've picked Gov. Sebelius. The truth is that he's lost Hillary's most loyal supporters. They aren't coming back. Picking Sebelius might've helped bring some of Hillary's softer supporters back.
Having this story hit the airwaves is hardly the way to get this week started. It sets a bad tone, one which Sen. Obama can hardly afford.
Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 10:11 AM
Comment 1 by Pastor Dan at 25-Aug-08 12:09 PM
I feel vindicated, since I went out on a limb a few days ago and predicted he'd pick Sebelius. I also predicted Kasich for McCain, so we'll see how I do in a few days, I suppose.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Aug-08 02:07 PM
Dan, Kasich said 10 days ago that he wasn't being vetted. Since I consider him the most honest politician, I'd say that unfortunately takes Rep. Kasich out of the running.
Comment 3 by Pastor Dan at 25-Aug-08 03:09 PM
Well, I wasn't aware of that, so thanks. He wasn't my choice, just my prediction. I'm still hoping, against practically all indicators, for Fred Thompson.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 25-Aug-08 03:13 PM
Dan, I don't think Fred will be the pick, though I think he'd be fantastic. I can picture Fred as the AG in a McCain administration if that's any consolation.
For me, the ideal GOP ticket would've been Fred for president, Kasich as his VP. They're both such common sense people that don't talk like politicians. They're both great debaters with impeccable credentials as reformers, too.
Discord In Democratland
Stories about the Democrats' discord aren't exactly scarce. Still, the one that stands out from all others is Gov. Ed Rendell's criticizing MSNBC for being in the tank for Obama. Here's how he unloaded:
" Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing ," said Rendell, in the ballroom at Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. "It was embarrassing."Ed Rendell is exactly right. MSNBC's coverage of Sen. Obama wasn't just biased. Their two most prominent hosts, Chrissie Matthews and Keith Olberman, were slobbering fools for Sen. Obama. (It should be pointed out that being the most prominent hosts on MSNBC means you attract as big an audience as Red Eye gets at 2:00 am CT on FNC.)
Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election. Brokaw and Rendell began debating campaign coverage, including the on-air comments by Lee Cowan, and when MSNBC came up, Rendell went after the cable network. "MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign," Rendell said, who called their coverage "absolutely embarrassing."
As difficult as it is for Obama to spin that story, here's another story that must rankle Team Barry:
A number of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top advisers will not be staying in Denver long enough to hear Barack Obama accept the nomination for president , according to sources familiar with their schedules.Rest assured that we'll see Howard Dean hopping around from one network to another talking about how cathartic this week's convention is and how united Democrats are in preventing another 4 years of BushHitler's policies, etc. They're empty words. There isn't much in the way of unity in the Democratic Party these days. This McCain ad is proof of that:
Clinton will deliver her speech Tuesday night. She will hold a private meeting with her top financial supporters Wednesday at noon, and will thank her delegates at an event that afternoon. Former president Bill Clinton will speak that night. Several of Hillary Clinton's supporters are then planning to leave town. Among them, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman, and longtime supporters Steve Rattner and Maureen White. Another of Clinton's top New York fundraisers, Alan Patricof, did not make the trip to Denver.
When a former Hillary delegate agrees to do an ad for John McCain saying that she's planning on voting for him instead of Sen. Obama, that's the ultimate proof that the Democratic Party is in bad disarray.
That isn't the way to win big races. I've said before that I won't say that Sen. McCain is a lock to win this November. What I've said instead is that it's his race to lose. With this many Hillary voters either staying home or voting for John McCain at this point, it'd take a serious mistake on Sen. McCain's behalf to stop his momentum.
Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 25-Aug-08 09:33 PM
Agreed, if McCain doesn't screw up his VP choice I think he has the inside track. He must name a conservative. Word is VP choices don't make or break a campaign. I think this is true to an extent. Naming the right person may not help McCain a lot, although a true conservative will bring home the conservatives, but naming the wrong person will hurt him a lot.
Michelle: Our Word Is Our Bond???
According to this AP article , Michelle Obama is opening her husband up to tons of ridicule. Here's an excerpt from her speech that will draw lots of questions:
Obama said she and her husband were raised with the values shared by many Americans: "that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them."Considering the fact that Sen. Obama once changed his position on drilling for oil 3 times in 4 days, considering the fact that Sen. Obama once promised to filibuster the FISA reform legislation before voting for it, considering the fact that he was pro-Israel when speaking to AIPAC and pro-Arab less than a day later, why should we feel any bond with Sen. Obama?
Furthermore, when did Michelle Obama develop this great love of country? Let's remember her infamous speech in Wisconsin right before their primary where she said that she was finally proud of America "for the first time" this year.
As with most things Obama, their words ring hollow. It might be a perfectly well-written speech but it means nothing because Sen. Obama's actions don't match his words. Put another way, he's a phony. His talk about being a post-racial, postpartisan candidate is belied by the fact that he's never worked across the aisle on major legislation that went against his party. He voted against John Roberts, one of only 19 Democrats to vote against him. Postpartisan? Please. He's voted against funding the troops to keep his political viability. Postpartisan? Please.
He stayed in a racist church for 20 years, listening to a racist preacher without giving a second thought to leaving. Post-racial? That's insulting.
Sen. Obama maintained a friendship with an unrepentant terrorist while claiming that he's a political moderate. Sen. Obama voted against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. Even Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer voted for BAIPA.To say that Sen. Obama is a moderate is insulting. We won't accept that spin.
HotAir has the transcript of Mrs. O's speech posted. Here's something that jumped off the page at me:
My Dad was our rock. Although he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in his early thirties, he was our provider, our champion, our hero. As he got sicker, it got harder for him to walk, it took him longer to get dressed in the morning. But if he was in pain, he never let on. He never stopped smiling and laughing, even while struggling to button his shirt, even while using two canes to get himself across the room to give my Mom a kiss. He just woke up a little earlier, and worked a little harder.How can someone live in that setting and still be capable of saying that she's finally proud of America for the first time in her life just a few months ago?
He and my mom poured everything they had into me and Craig. It was the greatest gift a child can receive: never doubting for a single minute that you're loved, and cherished, and have a place in this world. And thanks to their faith and hard work, we both were able to go on to college. So I know firsthand from their lives, and mine, that the American Dream endures.
I'm not doubting that these things happened. I don't doubt that Mrs. O's parents were thoughtful parents or that they loved each other and that they loved their kids.
It's just that I don't buy the bitter woman we saw in February is the same woman we saw tonight.
UPDATE: It looks like I'm not alone in questioning Mrs. O's authenticity . Here's some of Powerline's Paul Mirengoff musings:
Ms. Obama's make-over was more extreme when it came to her account of her life. We saw her growing up on the South Side of Chicago with her family (including Princeton basketball legend "Super Craig" Robinson, now the basketball coach at Oregon State); we saw her fleeing corporate America to "serve her community;" and we saw her and Barack with their small children. We did not see her at the Ivy League institutions where she spent seven years of her life (four at Princeton and three at Harvard Law School). In tonight's account, she was merely "able to go on to college." Nor, of course, do we learn just how well Ms. Obama is doing financially by "doing good" in her community.Well said, Paul. That's a fitting conclusion.
Plainly, Ms. Obama wishes to be viewed as an "ordinary" American. To the extent that her real biography is known, or emerges over the course of the campaign, some voters may conclude she was a bit phony tonight.
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:20 AM
No comments.
America To Pelosi: Drill
One of the things that will stoke the flames of change in Washington is Speaker Pelosi's unwillingness to bring true pro-drilling legislation up for debate. My representative Michele Bachmann chastizes Ms. Pelosi for Ms. Pelosi's obstinance in this NY Post op-ed. Here's the opening of Rep. Bachmann's op-ed:
THIS summer, rather than taking a family vacation, many Americans had to take on a second or third job to offset rising energy costs. Meanwhile, Congress has done...nothing. For that, we can thank the Democratic leaders of the House of Representatives.Speaker Pelosi has avoided voting on the American Energy Act, or AEA, like a vampire avoids wooden stakes. That's why I've called for the House GOP leadership to highlight the AEA . In addition to highlighting the AEA, the House GOP Caucus also put together a graphic showing what the Democratic majority did while gas prices rose. Here's what they did:
Since the start of the 110th Congress, the House has had many opportunities to vote on energy legislation to decrease skyrocketing prices. But the leadership ignored the cries of the people and sent everyone on vacation, for all of August.
When the national average for gas hit $2.22/gallon, the Democratic majority congratulated the UC-Santa Barbara soccer team. When gas hit $3.03/gallon, they voted to commend the Houston Dynamo soccer team. When the national average for gas hit $3.77/gallon, they voted on National Train Day. When the national average for gas hit $3.84/gallon, they voted on the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act. When the national average for gas hit $4.09, they voted on the International Year of Sanitation. When the national average for gas hit $4.14, they voted on the Monkey Safety Act.
Considering all the BS that Ms. Pelosi and her minions have perpetrated on the American people, it's probably best that they think about sanitation. The truth is that Pelosi and her minions haven't done crap since they retook the majority. I didn't call them the No Solutions Congress because they were productive or solutions-oriented.
Rep. Bachmann nails it in this paragraph:
All year long, Republicans have introduced key energy bills, only to be denied even a floor vote by Speaker Pelosi. She's even blocked many Democratic energy bills. Instead, floor time has gone to trivial issues such as post-office namings and commemorative resolutions.This fall, it's teh activists' role to tell everyone they know that the Democrats controlling the House and Senate have played the role of obstructionists. Historically speaking, I can't think of that type of precedent. When's the last time the majority party was the obstructionist party? Isn't that role left for the loyal opposition?
The main point to this is that Democrats obstructed while people felt the pain at the pump. Isn't it time you asked yourself if your legislator did anything to help bring prices down? If he/she hasn't, isn't he/she part of the problem, not part of the solution? Isn't it time that you elected someone that will help put more than change in your pockets?
I can't post this without first reminding visitors of the sensible provisions in the AEA :
To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:Doesn't our sputtering economy need lower gas prices so it can start humming along again?
To improve energy conservation and efficiency , the legislation will:
- Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
- Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK);
- Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6138 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and
- Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that essentially blocks construction of new refineries, as proposed in H.R. 6139 by Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies , the legislation will:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
More importantly, don't hard working Americans deserve an up or down vote on this sensible legislation?
Most importantly, don't hard working Americans need a new Republican majority that will work hard on finding solutions?
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:29 AM
No comments.
Jim Carville Gets It
For once, I think that pit bull extraordinaire James Carville gets it. The truth is that he might've swerved into the truth last night . Here's what he said:
Carville also said the party needs to do a better job of communicating its message to the American people. "If this party has a message it's done a hell of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that," he said.Jim, the reason why Sen. Obama is sliding is because more people each day are figuring it out that he doesn't have a message. It's all about hope and change. That isn't enough to win a presidential election with. Th' Ragin' Cajun let loose with this, too:
"The way they planned it tonight was supposed to be sort of the personal, Michelle Obama will talk about Barack Obama personally, Ted Kennedy was a very personal, emotional speech," Carville said. "But I guarantee on the first night of the Republican Convention, you're going to hear talk about Barack Obama, commander-in-chief, tax cuts, et cetera, et cetera."That's pretty good analysis, actually. If there's one thing that Republicans are good at, it's that they're masters of stagecraft and messaging. Democrats often bemoan the GOP's simplistic message and 'fake patriotism'. Democrats still haven't figured out that that's where most of America still is. Democrats still haven't figured out that nuance and shades of gray aren't for messaging.
Another difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans don't have to tell people that they're patriots, that they love their country. The actions of their leaders says it. Democrats have to because they're frequently undercutting traditional American values.
It's necessary for Democrats to say that they love America after Democrats vote to cut off funding for winning in Iraq. It's part of their DNA: First undercut America's war effort to appease the Appeasement Wing of the party, then tell the rest of the country that the Democrats love their country.
I predicted earlier that this wouldn't be a great week for Democrats, that there's too much discord amongst the delegates. This discord isn't because they don't believe the same things. It's because they're too into identity politics.
That's why they don't have a message.
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:21 AM
Comment 1 by Nordeaster at 26-Aug-08 10:00 AM
The real reason Obama and his supporters can't articulate a clear message is because they know that America will reject what that movement really believes. The don't dare say what is really in their hearts.
You saw it recently when both Obama and Pelosi tap danced around the question of when life begins. On several occasions regarding various other issues Obama has given an off the top of his head answer (his true instinctive response), only to backpedal and "clarify" later. The flag lapel pin issue is just one simple example.
They cannot say, as I have heard other activists say, that $8.00 a gallon gas would be a good thnig for American and "the planet", that they are citizens of the world first and the U.S. second, that we would be better if energy, transportation and health-care would all be nationalized.
They know they have to speak genuinely and sincerely to succeed. To speak sincerely on policy would mean political failure, so they must stick to motives and intentions, not action.
It's hard to have a clear message when you are speaking to polls rather than from conviction.
What's At Stake, What's Possible
A couple of nights ago, I wrote a 'peptalk' letter to the BPOU to outline what's at stake in this election and to tell the activists what's possible. Here's the text of that letter:
With the Democratic Convention starting soon and with the GOP convention following immediately after that, this November's election will be behind us sooner than we imagine. I think it's important to remind everyone what's at stake in this election. It's also important to tell people of what's possible this election. Let's start with dispelling this myth:I'm listening to Rush as I'm posting this. Thanks Rush for confirming what I've believed. Rush just said that he has a gut feeling that this will be a much worse year for Democrats than the CW is saying.
Myth: This is a difficult environment for Republicans.
Truth: While it's true that this started out as a bad environment for Republicans at the national level, it never was an uphill fight for Minnesota state legislative races.
The truth is that the DFL was so out of control in 2007-2008 that they created an environment that allowed Republican incumbents like Steve Gottwalt & Dan Severson to highlight their common sense proposals against the DFL's insane agenda of major tax increases and unsustainable spending increases. Larry Haw's votes for many of these tax increases give Josh Behling an opening to attack Rep. Haws on.
When Rep. Gottwalt & Rep. Severson co-sponsored HF2029, an education financing bill, Larry Haws could have signed onto that bill. He chose not to. HF2029 would have raised E-12 funding from $4,974 in 2007 to $5,350 in 2008 to $5,580 in 2009. Instead, Rep. Haws voted for the DFL plan to increase per student funding from $4,974 in 2007 to $5,074 in 2008 to $5,124 in 2009.
It's important that we point out that HF2029 didn't even get a hearing in committee. Had HF2029 been passed, most of last fall's school referenda wouldn't have been needed.
The point is that there's no reason why education shouldn't be a winning issue for Republicans.
The Minnesota House GOP Caucus sustained Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes of the DFL's irresponsible spending bills, literally saving taxpayers billions of dollars in taxes & increased spending.
To adapt a certain presidential candidate's slogan, that's change worth fighting for.
On a national level, Speaker Pelosi & majority Democrats have utterly bungled the energy debate, giving us a great opportunity to campaign on that issue. Poll after poll shows that the American people want expanded drilling by margins consistently in the 70%-30% range.
This gives us a great opportunity if we take advantage of it. We need people who'll write editorials about the American Energy Act, or AEA, a great piece of legislation that the House GOP put together. If you haven't read about the bill, you really need to. The minute people hear about it is the minute that they'll support it.
The AEA is a comprehensive solution that will eliminate the need to buy oil from Iran's Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Chavez and Russia's Putin.
What's At Stake
If we each commit ourselves to volunteering to do voter ID or doing lit drops or going door knocking, we will re-elect Sen. Norm Coleman and Rep. Michele Bachmann to the U.S. Senate and U.S. House respectively.
If we work hard, we'll also elect John McCain to succeed President Bush in the White House. Frankly, the thought of an Obama-Biden administration should scare every Republican nationwide.
If we work hard in door-knocking and lit-dropping for Steve Gottwalt, we will return Steve to St. Paul for his 2nd term.
If we volunteer to write the letters for Josh Behling and Steve Gottwalt, we stand a good chance of giving Rep. Haws an involuntary retirement party this November while returning Steve to St. Paul. (I'm certain that Steve would appreciate having Josh as his colleague.)
Myth: Democratic turnout tells us that this is an uphill fight.
Truth: While it's true that Democratic turnout across the nation was higher than GOP turnout, don't let that influence you. Since the early Democratic primaries, the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced, which tarnished Sen. Obama's reputation of being a post-racial, post-partisan candidate.
The truth is that the environment has completely changed since those early primaries. Sen. Obama's statement that people in rural Pennsylvania "cling to their guns and to their religion" was tied directly to tough economic times told people that Sen. Obama doesn't have a clue with blue collar people.
When Sen. Obama wouldn't consider Hillary Clinton as a VP choice, a lot of Hillary's supporters vowed to not vote for Sen. Obama. The polls I've read show that 20-25% of Hillary's supporters won't vote for Sen. Obama. PERIOD. That's a huge thing in a tight election like this year's election.
The key is each of us doing the work as volunteers. Lots of positive things are possible if we commit ourselves to spreading the Republicans' common sense message. I'm personally looking forward to working with you in the Victory Office, doing lit-drops and door-knocking this fall.
Specifically, Rush said that Democrats "stand the chance" of having everything "blow up in their face."
I mention this because it's confirmation that the Democrats are overplaying their hand. I mention this because the media's portrayal of this as a difficult year is meant to drive down our enthusiasm.
Isn't the GOP the party of superior ideas? Isn't the GOP the common sense party? If we accept that we're the party of superior ideas and the common sense party, why isn't that a winning combination?
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:05 PM
No comments.
Begala: Michelle Was...Authentic???
Yes, you read that right. In this post for the Huffington Post , Clinton attack puppy Paul Begala said everything except that Michelle hit it out of the park. Here's Mr. Begala's opening paragraph:
Michelle Obama was spectacular Monday night. Poised, charming, beautiful, and most of all, authentic.I'd love for Mr. Begala to spin me a tale on what he thought was Michelle's most authentic moment. Was it when, as Byron York notes , Michelle said this:
"My piece of the American Dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me." Those forebears, she explained, were "driven by the same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself for work, the same conviction that drives the men and women I've met all across this country,That's why I love this country."If so, how does Mr. Begala explain that against what she said in North Carolina:
"We're still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?,You start working hard and sacrificing and you think you're getting close to that bar, you're working and you're struggling, and then what happens? They raise the bar,keep it just out of reach."After hanging with the Clintons for so long, I guess that passes as authenticity. Unfortunately for Mr. Begala, that's what the average person calls a phony.
Perhaps that isn't what Mr. Begala was referring to. Perhaps he was referring to this statement:
"For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."We remember that that's what Michelle said in Wisconsin on February 18. Looking through the transcript of last night's speech , though, that didn't seem to make it into the speech. That would've been authentic. Unfortunately, saying that with the entire nation watching would singlehandedly sink her husband's candidacy. (Does that mean Sen. Obama's handlers couldn't handle that much authenticity?)
As much as Spinmeister Begala would like us to believe that Michelle was authentic last night, that isn't the mission of his post. His mission is to tell Democrats to attack. If a little hyperbole is needed, then that's what you use. Here's some of Mr. Begala's hyperbole:
The Bush-McCain Republicans messed up the country in their first term, and they messed up the world in their second. If they get a third term, even the solar system won't be safe.Here's what George Will would say to that: "Well." What Mr. Begala lacks in authenticity, he makes up for in bullshit.
It's insulting to hear Mr. Begala say that "the Bush-McCain Republicans" have messed up the world. Why does Mr. Begala, like many Democrats, think that liberating 50 million people from a tyrant's control is "messing up the world"?
This is why Mr. Begala isn't considered a serious political analyst. That's why he's selling his schtick on Huffington Post and CNN.
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 26-Aug-08 09:39 PM
Maybe if she wanted to be authentic she could explain why she sat for 20 years in a black seperatist church and listened to a racist minister? But to be fair I didn't listen to the speech so maybe she did explain it. Right?
