May 10-11, 2008
May 10 01:51 Irony of Ironies May 10 03:37 McCain Tightens Noose on Obama's Hamas Policy May 10 04:15 Now That's How You Open A Homestand May 10 11:12 The GOP's Problems (Plus The Solution) May 10 12:56 Painting An Unflattering Portrait May 10 15:20 Gov. Pawlenty vs. Lt. Gov. Molnau May 10 20:12 When Politicians Don't Learn Economic Principles May 10 23:49 Obama Exposed May 11 12:13 Blue Dog Democrats are Moderates?
Irony of Ironies
According to this transcript of this morning's Glenn Beck Show, a Harvard vice president is speaking out against taxing the rich. Who would've thought you'd ever see that? The good news is that Glenn attempts to point out 'the error' in the VP's thinking. Here's the relevant portion of the transcript:
Well, now in Massachusetts they are looking to tax college endowments, university endowments that have more than a billion dollars in it. They say that by doing this, they can put more than a billion dollars a year into the state revenue. Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over a billion dollars. Now, the universities are very upset and here's quite possibly, I want to frame this. I want to frame this. I want this on my wall of my office. When a nonprofit, when a nonprofit is making money, it's mind-boggling. Why tax them?You can't write stuff this bizarre. A Harvard vice president looking out for the...rich? That's just too rich. I loved the line about "Kevin" not seeing this tax scheme as "affirmative action for Greater New Haven State Technical College." When I read that line to King, he couldn't stop laughing. The truth be told, I was laughing just as much.
Now, one guy who is head of the ways and means committee in Massachusetts says it's mind-boggling that an entity wouldn't be paying taxes that has $34 billion. How can you justify that when people can't afford to live, how could you justify not taxing them? Ready? Here it is. This is what I want framed. Kevin Casey, Harvard's associate vice president for government, community and public affairs said, "You can't do that. You'd be taxing success." No, it gets better. "And over time this would put us at a competitive disadvantage. It would hurt the state." No, you're kidding me. It's like you're taxing success by taxing people who are making money and who happen to be richer than others? You're taxing success? Boy, Kevin, I never looked at it that way. You might be onto something there. "Over time this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage." No, it would put Harvard at a disadvantage against those who didn't get taxed? No. Who might pay a lower tax? It might put that company at a disadvantage? No, no, Kevin, you're looking at it wrong. We're just trying to help out Greater New Haven State Technical College. That's what we're trying to do. We're only trying, it's affirmative action for Greater New Haven State Technical College. We're trying to help them. We're trying to level the playing field. It's only out of fairness, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It might put them at a -- no.
There's a couple of bigger points worth making in this, though. First, I don't think it's wise to tax endowment funds. Secondly, I think it's worth keeping that quote handy when we want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Mr. Casey obviously thinks that it isn't right to tax success when it involves his university. Conservatives should ask Mr. Casey if he thinks it's unfair to tax success when it comes time for the university and fair to tax success if it's an oil company.
Above all else, I'll remember this moment because it isn't likely to happen again in my lifetime.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:52 AM
No comments.
McCain Tightens Noose on Obama's Hamas Policy
According to this NY Times article , John McCain intends on painting Barack Obama as being soft on Hamas.
For his part, Mr. McCain has taken pride in the enmity with which he regards Hamas. "I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare," he said late last month in a conference call with conservative bloggers.It isn't surprising that the NY Times is 'reporting' that Sen. McCain has implied Sen. Obama is "sympathetic to Hamas." Sen. McCain is simply suggesting that Sen. Obama's policies towards Hamas won't be as effective as Sen. McCain's will be.
Conversely, he has tried to portray Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas.
"I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States," Mr. McCain said to the bloggers. "If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."
Obama, meanwhile, will point out that he's spoken out against Hamas in harsh terms. The problem for Sen. Obama is that he's been less than harsh in dealing with Iran, which is training Hamas terrorists :
TEL AVIV, March 5 - The chief of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, said Monday that the Islamic movement Hamas had sent dozens of men from Gaza to Iran for military training.The thing to be drawn out of these articles is the fact that Barack Obama is committed to meeting with Iranian President Ahmedinejad, which finances Hamas. The question I'd want answered is this: How would a President Obama apply pressure on Hamas when he's meeting with Iran, one of Hamas' biggest supporters?
"We know that Hamas has started to dispatch people to Iran, tens, and a promise of hundreds," the intelligence chief, Yuval Diskin, told a small group of correspondents here in a rare on-the-record briefing. The training would last months, perhaps years, he said, adding, "I see this as the strategic danger, more than any weapons smuggled into Gaza."
Ahmed Youssef, an adviser to Ismail Haniya, the Hamas-backed Palestinian prime minister, responded from Gaza by telephone that Hamas "has not sent anyone to Iran," and that Mr. Diskin's comment was "propaganda, to hurt a new government."Does anyone honestly think that Hamas is interested in training a police force to keep the streets of Gaza violence free? Let's also notice that the man who made that claim is also the man who made this statement:
Mr. Youssef said there "are attempts to send some men from the Executive Force," a Hamas-led parallel paramilitary police force, "to Arab countries for police training."
The McCain-Obama dispute about Hamas began last month, after Ahmed Yousef, a political adviser to the group's leadership in Gaza, made complimentary remarks about Mr. Obama in an interview with WABC radio in New York. After initially complaining that "everybody tries to sound like he is a friend of Israel" when out on the campaign trail, including Mr. Obama, Mr. Yousef shifted tone.Isn't it interesting that the same man that "made complimentary remarks about Mr. Obama" is the same man that said "some men from the Executive Force" have been "to Arab countries for police training"? Isn't it fair to ask why a propagandist like Mr. Yousef would speak glowingly about the man who might be the next American president? Shouldn't we ask if Mr. Yousef's comments were tinted by their desire to see Sen. Obama be the next president?
"We like Mr. Obama," Mr. Yousef said, "and we hope that he will win the election."
"I do believe that Mr. Obama is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles," he continued. "He has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance."
Terrorist organizations like Hamas might be ruthless but their moves are calculated for maximum impact.
I'd just tell Sen. McCain that the louder Sen. Obama screams about going negative, the more I'd exploit the issue that drew the dramatic, whiny response.
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:38 AM
No comments.
Now That's How You Open A Homestand
Despite losing a three game series to the Chisox this week, people are noticing that this Minnesota Twins team isn't a team to be taken lightly. Friday's Twins news couldn't have been much worse. The results from the field, though, gave the team, and their fans, reason to hope.
The worst news of the season came Friday evening when the Twins announced that Pat Neshek would be sidelined the rest of the season with a torn ligament in his elbow. Nick Punto was scratched from the starting lineup with a sore left hamstring. Brendan Harris left the game after injuring his hamstring, too.
With all that bad news, you'd think they wouldn't have a chance to defeat the defending World Series champion Boston Red Sox. But defy the expectations they did, jumping out to a 2-0 lead in the bottom of the first, then reclaiming their lead in the next inning.
Boof Bonser didn't have good stuff tonight, though, which was why he lasted only 4+ innings, giving up 6 runs while throwing 96 pitches. Nobody in the crowd of 25,000+ would've been upset if that's how the game ended.
Unfortunately for Boston, they aren't the only talented young centerfielder. Friday night's game was the first that pitted Jacoby Ellsbury, the man at the center of last winter's Johan Santana trade talks, against Carlos Gomez, the man who is the centerpiece of the Johan Santana trade to the Mets.
Neither player disappointed the crowd, with Ellsbury stealing his 14th base this season and throwing out Delmon Young at the plate with an assist from Dustin Pedroia.
Unfortunately for Bosox fans, he was the second best centerfielder in Friday night's game. That's because Carlos Gomez's ninth inning at-bat against Jonathan Papelbon changed the game. That's because Gomez stole his 14th and 15th bases tonight. That's because his 15th steal of the season got him to second base with two outs in the ninth.
Young Mr. Gomez didn't stay there long, though. He raced home with the winning run when Mike Lamb blooped Papelbon's 1-2 cutter just inside the leftfield line.
This week has been a coming out party for Gomez. He's shown improved patience at the plate in big at-bats. He also became the first Twins player to hit for the cycle since Kirby Puckett hit for the cycle on Aug. 1, 1986.
Ellsbury is the more polished player right now but Gomez is improving week to week. Once he reaches his potential, Gomez and Ellsbury will be the elite AL centerfielders for a decade or more.
What's impressive to me, though, is how this Twins team didn't quit when the World Champions took a 6-5 lead. Bonser didn't pitch well. The defense was adequate at best. The keys were the hitters having a good approach at the plate and the best bullpen in baseball pitched shutout ball the rest of the way.
Beating an elite closer like Jonathan Papelbon with a come-from-behind walkoff basehit is definitely the right way to open a homestand.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:15 AM
No comments.
The GOP's Problems (Plus The Solution)
Fred Barnes' article says that Republicans are justified in feeling gloomy about this election. That pessimism, I believe, is Beltway-centric. First, let's see what Mr. Barnes has to say:
"It's the erosion in party affiliation that's pulling McCain down," says a Republican strategist, and it could doom his chances of winning the presidency. The strategist fears Republican leaders and McCain campaign officials "don't realize the trouble they're going to be in."I've said this before and I'll repeat it as often as I think it needs repeating: I'd fire every GOP strategist with a defeatist attitude. I'd also advocate cleaning house at the RNC headquarters until they stopped undercutting reform-minded conservatives. Real conservatives haven't been recruited in recent years.
We've been told that real conservatives can't get elected in certain swing districts. That's BS.
Reaganite conservatism is more than taking stands on a handful of issues. It's really a philosophy, a philosophy of applying common sense to help people be more free and more prosperous. It's not that complicated. This is too important a principle to not repeat it:
Conservatives' first priority must be about using common sense in putting together policies that make the most amount of people free and prosperous.
The decline in party registration will continue if our senators and representatives don't fight for solid conservative principles. Personally, I won't be upset if they don't get conservative legislation passed while they're in the minority. That's the disadvantage of being in the minority. There's a local example of what happens when conservative legislators fight for conservative principles.
The first week of the 2007 Minnesota House session, the DFL brought a tax conformity bill to the floor for debate. Laura Brod took the opportunity to propose a series of tax cuts. Speaker Maggie Kelliher ruled that the proposals weren't "germane", thereby not even giving Rep. Brod's proposals an up-or-down vote. When I read about that, I sent Rep. Brod an email message thanking her for fighting for solid conservative principles.
It wasn't coincidence that Rep. Brod was a guest that Saturday on Final Word. (In fact, it was my suggestion to King that got that ball rolling.) Since that time, GOP activists have had alot to rally around. GOP activists told GOP legislators that we'd have their backs if they kept fighting for conservative principles. In fact, caller after caller told Rep. Brod to keep proposing legislation that we could point to in 2008.
Armed with those assurances, that's exactly what our legislators did. The result was far beyond what was expected. The DFL passed some of the biggest tax increases in state history. Time after time, Gov. Pawlenty vetoed those bills. The DFL passed spending bills that couldn't possibly be sustained. Again, Gov. Pawlenty used his Taxpayer Protection Pen to thwart the DFL.
The important point to take from this is that now all those Democrats have to run on an unappealing record of increasing taxes at a time when tax increases are incredibly unpopular. More importantly, in fact, is that they voted against GOP legislation that will be appealing to large numbers of voters. It's a win-win situation because Minnesota GOP candidates can point to their DFL opponents' opposition to specific popular policies and their DFL opponents' steadfast support for specific unpopular policies.
What we're doing in Minnesota is what the GOP should be insisting on in every state. GOP activists and legislators can't just oppose Democrats, though that's a worthwhile thing. GOP activists and legislators must have an appealing agenda to give people reason to gravitate towards our party and our movement.
It's important that we not just support specific policies. I'll vote for candidates that agree with me but I'll run through walls for candidates that operate from the same principles as I hold dear. Let's put it differently. If a candidate tells me that they're for keeping taxes low, I'll vote for that candidate. If that candidate tells me that they'll keep taxes low because it's (a) the moral thing to do and (b) the best way to increase individual prosperity, I'll do everything in my power to help that candidate win elections for years to come.
The minute that we stop being afraid of our shadows because the Agenda Media will attack us, the faster we'll return to being the dominant electoral force in American history.
The good news is that it won't take long once we make the commitment to unlimited liberty and bountiful prosperity.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:44 PM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 10-May-08 06:03 PM
Laura Brod is no fiscal conservative. She voted FOR shafting Hennepin County, with the Twins Stadium Tax.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-May-08 08:16 PM
Give me a break, Eva. One vote doesn't a liberal make.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 11-May-08 09:57 AM
Right on Garry.
What the national Republican Party needs is another contract with America. Isn't it amazing in 1994 the Republicans run on one version and in 2006 the Democrats run on their version and both parties despite unbelievable odds get both chambers!
Mind you the Democrats didn't exactly honor the terms of their contract like real pay go and real entitlement reforms.
But here's a contract for national repulicans
1. We will make the tax cuts permanent so there will be no massive tax increase.
2. We will make a committement to win the war on terrorism.
3. We will build a fence along the Mexican border, agressively enforce immigration laws, and make English the offical language of the country
4. We will establish a rule that if you haven't paid a single cent into Social Security you will get an automatic private account where 50% of your Social Security taxes goes into a private account that you control. This takes away the claim we're harming promises already made
5. We will do a real energy bill. Open up ANWR and the coasts to drilling plus outlaw permanetly the concept of a windfalls profit tax.
6. The easiest way to get medical insurance down is to create a simple catostrophic coverage with options on what type of normal treatment you want. If an insurance company is willing to offer a much lower preium by having higher deductibles so be it. Oh and states can't ban a resident from Minnesota for buying coverage from a company in Wisconsin if it meets the national standard.
7. Earnmarks will be reformed by having to be disclosed at least 48 hours in advance (or they are automatically out of the bill) and every member has the right to ask for as many to be removed with a guaranteed yes or no vote.
8. Give the President of the United States the line item veto.
9. We will automatically put sunset dates on every program and pass real reform packages for each one.
10. The United States of America declares that Global Warming is a hoax and we won't hamstring this economy to restrictions that nations like China and India don't adopt.
Ay Republican candidate running on this will kick butt. Even in Democrat districts.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Painting An Unflattering Portrait
This post shows how Team McCain is painting a rather unflattering portrait of Sen. Obama. Personally, I think McCain's been effective in that mission. Here's how Sen. McCain has gone about defining the Obamessiah:
Defining one's opponent is a key task of any campaign, and simply put, McCain has had a long head start. As early as Feb. 12, the day McCain and Obama each won primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., McCain suggested Obama was guilty of hollow promises and a messianic self-image.I'm betting that the judgment theme will be particularly effective, especially if Sen. McCain highlights the illogic of Obama's willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad while criticizing Hamas, which is funded in part by Ahmadinejad's Iran.
"To encourage a country with only rhetoric, rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people, is not a promise of hope," McCain said, alluding to Obama's speaking skills and campaign theme. And in another jab he added, "I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need."
Let me suggest that a single meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad will boost the terrorists' morale more than the war in Iraq ever did.
This question remains: What's the logic behind such a policy? Would a President Obama want to meet with terrorists just for the sake of meeting with them? If that's his belief, would Obama's foreign policy reflect that naive attitude? Would Obama's foreign policy be a rehash of Jimmy Carter's disastrous foreign policy of pacifism?
Here's something that Sen. McCain is likely to repeatedly hit Sen. Obama with:
But the McCain camp sees Obama's relative lack of experience and accomplishment as a major vulnerability, especially compared to a longtime senator and war hero. In a speech on his judicial philosophy last week, McCain again went after Obama for being more of a talker than a doer, as well as for what he considers his limited record of bipartisan accomplishment.When it comes to heartland voters, actions carry more weight than words. Sen. Obama is all talk and limited action. People will notice the difference between Obama's happy talk about uniting the country and his voting against John Robers, especially when it's pointed out that more Democratic senators voted for Roberts' confirmation than voted against Roberts' confirmation.
"Sen. Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Sen. Obama than it did the guy who can get things done," said McCain, accusing Obama of casting a "partisan" vote against John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose this disastrous war from the beginning and the judgment to understand that for the sake of our security we now need to change course and bring it to a responsible conclusion," said Hari Sevugan, an Obama spokesman.Hari Sevugan has a difficult task. He's defending a man that opposed the war "from the beginning" but whose only plans going forward are: (a) leaving Iraq before it's stabilized and (b) talking with Iran while their demolitions are killing Iraqis and coalition forces.
"It's clear that John McCain isn't offering anything new--his false attacks and meaningless labels are as tired as the failed Bush policies he's offering for another four years," Sevugan added.
The Obama's campaign is helping paint an unflattering portrait of Sen. Obama when it whines about "false attacks." The attacks are very real. The message that whining sends is that Sen. Obama isn' tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief. If you can't stand the heat, you shouldn't be in the kitchen.
How will Obama be able to explain how that isn't a sign of weakness towards terrorists? As I wrote yesterday , Osama Bin Laden took our pulling out of Somalia as proof that the United States was a "paper tiger":
"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."It's clear that terorrists see America's pulling out as them defeating the infidels. Based on what Sen. Obama has said, it's clear that retreat and pacifism are the cornerstones of Sen. Obama's foreign policy.
The punditocracy keeps talking about how unpopular the war is. The problem is that people hate losing wars more than they hate fighting wars. I've consistently maintained that Democrats misread the polling. Their interpretation is that Americans are ok with losing wars. The biggest reason why people were upset with the war is because we weren't winning.
Sen. Obama isn't being smart in ignoring the improving polling results due to Petraeus' Surge. He's running a campaign based on what worked in 2006, not on what's appealing in 2008. That isn't the way to win elections.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:57 PM
No comments.
Gov. Pawlenty vs. Lt. Gov. Molnau
Once again, Lt. Gov. Molnau bested Gov. Pawlenty at the Governor's Walleye Opener. This year's opener was held at Breezy Point, possibly Minnesota's most famous resort. Here's the official report:
BREEZY POINT -- Governor Tim Pawlenty caught a 17-inch walleye Saturday morning on Pelican Lake at the Governor's 60th Annual Fishing Opener.Pelican Lake is often an excellent early season walleye lake because it's got a variety of structures with lots of presentation options available to anglers. This year, though, I'm guessing that fishing on opening weekend will be spotty because of the cold spring we're experiencing.
Lieutenant Governor Carol Molnau landed a 19-inch walleye earlier that morning.
In the past six years, Molnau and Pawlenty have had a friendly competition for first fish caught, longest fish, and most fish caught on opening day. Molnau had been the unofficial winner each year, and this year looks no different. Molnau held her first catch high to show Pawlenty and First Lady Mary Pawlenty, who were fishing only about 100 yards away.
Molnau says she caught the fish in 18 feet of water using a Northland Fire-Ball jig with a spottail minnow. Of the anglers near the governor, only a few caught fish Saturday morning.
Walleyes are often finicky eaters except on the best of days. Given the number of fronts that've moved through this week and the cold weather we've had all spring, I'd say that the Governor's party did pretty well. Those guides did a fantastic job.
I had the privilege of being a guide for the walleye opener back in 1993 when Arne Carlson was governor. That year, it was held at Cragun's on Gull Lake. They treated us all like royalty. All our meals were furnished. All the bait we needed was provided. They held several events where outdoorsmen hobnobbed with politicians.
I still have the numbered print each of the guides was given as part of their gift package for guiding. The biggest thrill that year was that Al Lindner personally invited me to be a guide. I won't forget that anytime soon.
That's pretty good stuff for an amateur.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment 1 by Melinda Jacobs at 12-May-08 01:56 PM
Rich-----
Carol is a FANTASTIC COMPETITOR AND FAIR
COMPETITOR---
I believe that I can give this opinion as
someone who spent many years trying to
beat her at the "Celebrity Cow Milking Contest"
at the Mn State Fair---
Every year-A lot of practice-advice from dairy farmers and even a so called "special cream" for the (teets) could not BEAT the original Celebrity Cow Milking Contest Queen: Carol Molnau
I have great respect for Carol.
fondly,
Melinda Jacobs(the only Blue Ribbon Winner when
Mrs. Molnau was unable to compete because
she had the flu.)
Congratulations Carol and I hope you saved
that Walleye.
Comment 2 by Brad James at 12-May-08 02:31 PM
I wished her boat tipped over.
When Politicians Don't Learn Economic Principles
Two years ago, Sen. Debbie Stabenow was re-elected to a second term. Unfortunately, she still hasn't learned Economics 101. Proof that she's clueless about economic principles is what she said while delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address. Here's one example of Sen. Stabenow's economic illiteracy:
"Republicans want more drilling, more consumption and more tax giveaways for the big oil companies," she said. "Democrats say that those are exactly the policies that got us into this mess to begin with."Supplies of oil are stretched thin. Each summer, we struggle refining oil because we haven't built a new refinery in 30 years. Meanwhile, Democrats filibuster drilling in ANWR, off the Atlantic Coast, the Gulf Coast and in the Pacific.
In other words, Democrats are perplexed with high gas prices. They'd have a different approach if they accepted the fact that prices spike when demand outstrips supply. They wouldn't be perplexed if they embraced capitalism instead of socialism.
Here's more proof that Sen. Stabenow and her cohorts don't have a plan on bringing down the price of oil:
She promoted the Democratic proposals for changing energy policy. Those call for:In other words, Democrats think that they can drop the price of gas to consumers while they're increasing oil companies' cost through higher taxes. The only way prices drop while costs are increasing is with price controls.
- Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.
- Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.
- Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.
- Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full.
- Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high.
Based on the Democrats' talking points, they want forced socialism in the form of demanding oil companies to do what the government wants them to do. This is typical liberal top-downism.
Another way Democrats want to make the cost of energy more affordable is by stopping the evil oil companies' price gouging. It's a nice, time-tested line but it's more about sounding like you're fighting for the little guy than about actually doing something.
More important in understanding this is hearing what Democrats aren't saying. They aren't saying that they'll increase refining capacity. They aren't saying that they'll follow France's lead in building more nuclear power plants. They aren't saying that they're increasing refinery capacity. In other words, they're avoiding saying that they aren't doing anything to cut the cost of driving a car or heating a home.
That isn't a plan. That's chutzpah.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 8:13 PM
No comments.
Obama Exposed
Dr. Susan Rice, one of Sen. Obama's top foreign policy advisers, got caught telling a whopper today. LGF gets credit for catching this whopper :
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that "for political purposes, Senator Obama's opponents on the right have distorted and reframed" his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet "unconditionally" with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called "rogue" state. Mr. Obama believes "that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need," Dr. Rice said. "But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work."Sen. Obama will want to distance himself from Dr. Rice's comments. In most instances, Obama could say that Dr. Rice didn't speak for him on this issue. This time, he can't because Dr. Rice isn't just another dime-a-dozen adviser. Dr. Rice served as Sen. Kerry's foreign policy adviser during the 2004 campaign.
This transcript utterly refutes Dr. Rice's statements:
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition , during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea , in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?Look at the defeatism in Sen. Obama's answer:
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
CLINTON: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq, one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses .
"...we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."Doesn't it sound from that transcript that Sen. Obama had already written Iraq off? It's important to put this in historical context. This debate was held a month after the start of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, aka the Surge. Positive reports were already appearing. Shouldn't the Commander-in-Chief have a can-do attitude as long as there's proof that progress is being made? Why Sen. Obama sound like he thought that defeat in Iraq was an option? We shouldn't have contingency plans in case we lose.
Secondly, why would we give Syria or Iran responsibilities if Iraq fell? That's foolishness of the highest order. That's like putting China in charge of the UN Human Rights Commission. Only someone who's totally inexperienced and naive would propose that policy.
This is a major embarassment for the Obama campaign. How does he explain this big a fib? In most instances, Obama could say that Dr. Rice didn't speak for him on this issue. This time, he can't because Dr. Rice isn't just another adviser. Dr. Rice served as Sen. Kerry's foreign policy adviser during the 2004 campaign.
I'd also note that Obama is making this stuff up as he's talking. Let's hope that he isn't that stupid. I'm sure that Reagan had conversations with his Soviet counterpart but his first summit with the Soviets didn't happen until November, 1985, almost a full year into his second term. Sen. Obama was then 24 years old, certainly old enough to have lived through that era.
Reagan's definition of winning was simple: We win. They lose. Obama's definition of winning, if such a definition exists, likely would be so nuanced that sane people couldn't tell the difference between Obama's view of winning and losing.
As scary as that line of thinking is, it isn't the scariest thinking in Obama's response. This is:
they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.There isn't a negotiated "potential way forward" with Iran. The only way forward is if they stop interfering in Iraq and Lebanon and they end their nuclear program.
Sen. Edwards actually takes a jab at Obama with this answer to the same question:
COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?Once in awhile, John Edwards gets it. This is one of those times. The meeting with Ahmadinejad shouldn't happen if there's the slightest possibility of it becoming a propaganda tool in Iran's hands.
EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes , will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.
It's incidents like this that will doom Obama's campaign. As bad as Dr. Rice's reply is, it's dwarfed by (a) Obama's inability to not twist history and (b) Obama's defeatism. Talking with Syria and Iran to establish a plan of action if Iraq fails isn't the type of contingency FDR, JFK or Harry Truman would plan for.
Posted Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:50 PM
No comments.
Blue Dog Democrats are Moderates?
Last week, El Tinklenberg was endorsed by the Blue Dog Democrats , a group often thought to be comprised of moderate Democrats in the House. Mr. Tinklenberg is running against my representative, Michele Bachmann. I've often thought that this group was similar to the DLC in that they're still liberal, just not as crazy as loons like Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich.
According to the Club For Growth's Congressional Scorecard , that's sometimes the case but it isn't always the case. First let's look at what's posted on Tinklenberg's blog about the Blue Dogs' endorsement:
The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.With a description like that, you'd think that they represented the pro growth 'wing' of the party. Let's compare that with CFG's ratings.
Nick Lampson, TX-22, is the highest rated Blue Dog. He's rated 194th with a 29% rating. FYI- TX-22 is Tom DeLay's old district. Jim Cooper, Jim Matheson and Gene Taylor follow closely behind with 28%, 28% and 27% respectively.
By now, I'll bet you're thinking that that sounds pretty moderate. For the most part, it is. The trouble with the Blue Dog's fiscally responsible image isn't with these guys. Their trouble is with other members of their coalition.
Mike Arcuri's CFG rating is 0%, meaning he didn't vote for anything on this list :
- Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
- Death tax repeal
- Cutting and limiting government spending
- Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
- Expanding free trade
- Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
- Replacing the current tax code
- School choice
- Regulatory reform and deregulation
Interesting tidbit: Barb Lee was the only representative to vote against going to war in Afghanistan. Folks, that's the definition of lefty.
Let me be clear about something. I don't know where in the ratings Mr. Tinklenberg would fall if he got elected. Thankfully, I won't have to find out. My point is that the endorsement by the Blue Dogs isn't everything that it's being played up to be. Some of them rate with the most liberal representatives in Congress.
That isn't the type of endorsement I'd seek. You can put all the lipstick on that pig that you want but it still won't change that facts.
Posted Sunday, May 11, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment 1 by Flintstone at 12-May-08 10:00 AM
Speaking of lipstick on a pig, how does one continually vote to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet claim to be for cutting government spending?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-May-08 10:16 AM
Spending to prevent future terrorist attacks is a worthwhile expenditure. I'm not against all spending. I'm just against spending that doesn't serve a useful purpose.
