Since most of what I get in the way of rhetorical response these days are the Democratic talking points, spun back to me unhampered by any enlightening facts or even reasoned argument, I'm going to revive some old JFK quotations to remind Democrats how far they've strayed ideologically from their old favorite son, the engineer of the first "Camelot" (second coming soon to follow, if the media is right--and of course they always are, except--oops, Harry Truman). In other words, lets just drop the pretense of thoughtful discourse and retreat to slogans.
The only time I've heard Obama quote Kennedy is from his inaugural address, because Obama thought this quote provided defense for his desire to sit down and talk with leaders of terrorist-sponsoring states without precondition. Only problem is, Kennedy's inaugural address preceded his disastrous meeting with Kruschev, which brought us to the brink of nuclear war---"Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate". Words do matter, but they must be supported by contemporary or historical fact in order to be instructive, right?
Decide for yourself which current presidential candidate best expresses the Kennedy doctrine:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Most of old Europe may be praying for (strike that, substitute "channeling") an Obama victory, but you can bet that Georgia and the Ukraine are lighting little candles for McCain. Without (much) additional comment, here are some more Kennedy quotes to compare to those of the current aspirants to his old office:
"It was involuntary. They sank my boat." ---Remark when asked how he became a hero.
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
"In the long history of the world only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom at its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it."
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
"A rising tide lifts all boats."
"There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country....Life is unfair."
When was the last (or only) time you heard Barack Obama defend freedom as more important (and more achievable) than ensuring, through government action, "fairness for all"?
According to our Constitution, we are endowed by our Creator with certain liberties, and it is the purpose of this nation to protect them. The Constitution does not grant freedoms, it merely enumerates them, recognizing them as God-given (as opposed to government-given) rights.
Fairness, having never been dispensed to men by God or life, can only be mandated by men and their governments. Freedom is only the guarantee of opportunity, while Fairness is the implied guarantee of success, and, as far as I know, is not listed as a protected "right" in the American Constitution. In the archival cases in the halls of the European capitals, maybe, and it seems that most modern-day Democrats are quite comfortable with this bedrock of socialist philosophy, "fairness for all".
I wonder if JFK would be...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Some Answers I Wish John McCain Had Given Last Night
Obviously, I’m a big admirer of John McCain, and while nobody’s perfect, Obama served up a few easy lobs last night that McCain failed to smash back, so I’ll do it for him:
Bill Ayers: McCain did say, “Who cares about an old, washed-up terrorist?”, but what he should’ve added, I believe, is that the problem is not Ayers, it’s Obama associating with Ayers when it was politically convenient, and then distancing himself as much as possible when it was not. His campaign has used every possible lever to make this story disappear, only changing Obama’s original line of “just a guy in my neighborhood” when forced to face the facts.
The Mayor of Chicago, member of the old boy network that included Ayers’ father, did everything he could to prevent researchers from reviewing the files of the Annenberg Challenge, possibly buying enough time to have clues to the relationship between Obama and Ayers expunged before the researchers were able to finally gain access to the files. Obama supporters were alerted to jam the call lines of a local radio station to prevent a public discussion of this issue, on a call-in show to which Obama or one of his staff were invited to appear, but refused. Why, if it is such a small, insignificant matter, the extraordinary effort to prevent disclosure?
The main researcher into this matter has been a left-leaning blogger named Stephen Diamond, whose blog is normally devoted to global labor issues (globallabor.blogspot.com), and who has more of a problem with the cover-up than the actual association—remember Watergate?—it wasn’t the crime that brought the President down, it was the amateurish effort to conceal the crime. So far, the Obama campaign is far more adept at this than Nixon’s.
Obama fairly adroitly dodged this question, by in part, referring to the people who advise him now, and would be a part of his administration. Notice, however, that his current “good associations” (Warren Buffet, Dick Lugar, etc.) don’t pre-date his decision to run for the Senate. Again, he chooses his comrades on their value to his political career, principles be damned.
Equal pay for women: This was stupidly brought up by Obama in the middle of the abortion discussion, and McCain, absorbed in the topic at hand, failed to mention another glaring example of Obama’s rhetoric not matching his record. Deroy Murdock (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmEzMTZmNTk5MDI0NTZmNjUwMjllN2ZlZTc0MWFmYzY=) delved into publicly available records of Congressional staffers and found that Obama pays his female staffers $.83 on the dollar for every dollar his male staffers earn, while McCain pays the women on his staff $1.04 for every dollar the men on in his Senate office earn. Read it and weep at the missed opportunity to point out the difference, again, between what Obama says and what he does.
Healthcare: The Obama campaign has stopped repeating their distortion of the McCain plan as a tax increase, because it has been discredited by so many other sources, (Michael Dobbs, "Vice Presidential Debate: St. Louis," Washington Post Fact Checker, 10/2/08, to name just one), but still paints the McCain plan as one that would cause millions of people to lose their coverage under their current employer-sponsored plan.
This is entirely wrong, and in fact, as pointed out by Yuval Levin in the October 20, 2008 issue of The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/680cwvaz.asp
Obama’s plan, by providing benefits equal to the coverage Senators enjoy, sets up the government plan as an alternative even employees currently covered by their employers will prefer, creating a mass exodus from the private market to the government-run public one. Obama has said he prefers a single payer system, like those in Canada and England, and that’s where this plan will take us.
Obama says he’ll subsidize these new plans for the uninsured with the fines received from employers who don’t provide health insurance for their employees. (And not only has he still not named that number, now he’s saying small businessmen would be exempted from this fine, (without, you notice, defining “small”, but that only “large" businesses would have to pay--still an unspecified amount--the fine.) But wait, how many “large” businesses don’t already cover their employees? So who will be fined??!! It has to be a large enough source to pay for very nice insurance policies for all the currently uninsured—approximately 40 million times say, $6000 per policy—he needs at least $240 billion in fines to pay for this, not to mention the administrative costs involved in setting up a new Medicare-type entitlement program!
Again, not wanting to frighten anyone who thinks of himself as a small businessman, he offers a 50% tax credit to those businesses that do offer provide health coverage. But again, don’t they already have that credit, at 100%, by being able to expense premiums paid on behalf of employees, prior to calculating taxable income? Maybe he is doing, on the employer side, what McCain is doing on the employee side (removing the current tax deduction, but then giving back a tax credit when health insurance is purchased). The difference is, the McCain credit gives the uninsured and insured employees more choices than they now have, while the Obama plan offers only one new choice to employers ("Pay or Play")—and it all hinges on the eligibility for and size of the “fine”.
As I noted above, the fine has to be large enough to pay the cost of this massive new health plan, otherwise the plan is underfunded. It also has to be very close to the cost employers now pay for group coverage not to cause employers to drop coverage, pay the fine, and tell their employees to apply for National Health Insurance. And if the Obama plan is free to individuals, why would they choose to stay with their group plan if they could leave for better benefits and less cost? It seems to me that employees would be begging their employer to drop group coverage so that they can become eligible for the government plan. Again, unless the fine is high enough (higher than the cost of a current group premium), what rational business would continue to cover their employees, comply with all the regulations concerning group health insurance, etc., when the government will do it for them?
McCain’s plan is much less radical and will keep most employees currently covered right where they are (which he failed to point out!), but gives the uninsured a big boost towards purchasing their own insurance. His plan also has the greatest potential to bring down health care costs, by introducing more competition into the individual policy market, as opposed to the Obama plan, which looks a lot like Medicare the more we hear about it.
Socialism: McCain slipped, but not enough, when he called Obama “Senator Government”. It should’ve been “Senator REALLY REALLY BIG Government”.
Bill Ayers: McCain did say, “Who cares about an old, washed-up terrorist?”, but what he should’ve added, I believe, is that the problem is not Ayers, it’s Obama associating with Ayers when it was politically convenient, and then distancing himself as much as possible when it was not. His campaign has used every possible lever to make this story disappear, only changing Obama’s original line of “just a guy in my neighborhood” when forced to face the facts.
The Mayor of Chicago, member of the old boy network that included Ayers’ father, did everything he could to prevent researchers from reviewing the files of the Annenberg Challenge, possibly buying enough time to have clues to the relationship between Obama and Ayers expunged before the researchers were able to finally gain access to the files. Obama supporters were alerted to jam the call lines of a local radio station to prevent a public discussion of this issue, on a call-in show to which Obama or one of his staff were invited to appear, but refused. Why, if it is such a small, insignificant matter, the extraordinary effort to prevent disclosure?
The main researcher into this matter has been a left-leaning blogger named Stephen Diamond, whose blog is normally devoted to global labor issues (globallabor.blogspot.com), and who has more of a problem with the cover-up than the actual association—remember Watergate?—it wasn’t the crime that brought the President down, it was the amateurish effort to conceal the crime. So far, the Obama campaign is far more adept at this than Nixon’s.
Obama fairly adroitly dodged this question, by in part, referring to the people who advise him now, and would be a part of his administration. Notice, however, that his current “good associations” (Warren Buffet, Dick Lugar, etc.) don’t pre-date his decision to run for the Senate. Again, he chooses his comrades on their value to his political career, principles be damned.
Equal pay for women: This was stupidly brought up by Obama in the middle of the abortion discussion, and McCain, absorbed in the topic at hand, failed to mention another glaring example of Obama’s rhetoric not matching his record. Deroy Murdock (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmEzMTZmNTk5MDI0NTZmNjUwMjllN2ZlZTc0MWFmYzY=) delved into publicly available records of Congressional staffers and found that Obama pays his female staffers $.83 on the dollar for every dollar his male staffers earn, while McCain pays the women on his staff $1.04 for every dollar the men on in his Senate office earn. Read it and weep at the missed opportunity to point out the difference, again, between what Obama says and what he does.
Healthcare: The Obama campaign has stopped repeating their distortion of the McCain plan as a tax increase, because it has been discredited by so many other sources, (Michael Dobbs, "Vice Presidential Debate: St. Louis," Washington Post Fact Checker, 10/2/08, to name just one), but still paints the McCain plan as one that would cause millions of people to lose their coverage under their current employer-sponsored plan.
This is entirely wrong, and in fact, as pointed out by Yuval Levin in the October 20, 2008 issue of The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/680cwvaz.asp
Obama’s plan, by providing benefits equal to the coverage Senators enjoy, sets up the government plan as an alternative even employees currently covered by their employers will prefer, creating a mass exodus from the private market to the government-run public one. Obama has said he prefers a single payer system, like those in Canada and England, and that’s where this plan will take us.
Obama says he’ll subsidize these new plans for the uninsured with the fines received from employers who don’t provide health insurance for their employees. (And not only has he still not named that number, now he’s saying small businessmen would be exempted from this fine, (without, you notice, defining “small”, but that only “large" businesses would have to pay--still an unspecified amount--the fine.) But wait, how many “large” businesses don’t already cover their employees? So who will be fined??!! It has to be a large enough source to pay for very nice insurance policies for all the currently uninsured—approximately 40 million times say, $6000 per policy—he needs at least $240 billion in fines to pay for this, not to mention the administrative costs involved in setting up a new Medicare-type entitlement program!
Again, not wanting to frighten anyone who thinks of himself as a small businessman, he offers a 50% tax credit to those businesses that do offer provide health coverage. But again, don’t they already have that credit, at 100%, by being able to expense premiums paid on behalf of employees, prior to calculating taxable income? Maybe he is doing, on the employer side, what McCain is doing on the employee side (removing the current tax deduction, but then giving back a tax credit when health insurance is purchased). The difference is, the McCain credit gives the uninsured and insured employees more choices than they now have, while the Obama plan offers only one new choice to employers ("Pay or Play")—and it all hinges on the eligibility for and size of the “fine”.
As I noted above, the fine has to be large enough to pay the cost of this massive new health plan, otherwise the plan is underfunded. It also has to be very close to the cost employers now pay for group coverage not to cause employers to drop coverage, pay the fine, and tell their employees to apply for National Health Insurance. And if the Obama plan is free to individuals, why would they choose to stay with their group plan if they could leave for better benefits and less cost? It seems to me that employees would be begging their employer to drop group coverage so that they can become eligible for the government plan. Again, unless the fine is high enough (higher than the cost of a current group premium), what rational business would continue to cover their employees, comply with all the regulations concerning group health insurance, etc., when the government will do it for them?
McCain’s plan is much less radical and will keep most employees currently covered right where they are (which he failed to point out!), but gives the uninsured a big boost towards purchasing their own insurance. His plan also has the greatest potential to bring down health care costs, by introducing more competition into the individual policy market, as opposed to the Obama plan, which looks a lot like Medicare the more we hear about it.
Socialism: McCain slipped, but not enough, when he called Obama “Senator Government”. It should’ve been “Senator REALLY REALLY BIG Government”.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Questions I Wish Someone Would Ask Barack Obama
What is the greatest crisis or challenge you have faced in your adult life, and how did you deal with it? What qualities of leadership did you demonstrate during this crisis that would give Americans confidence in you as their Commander-in-Chief?
Where were you the Sunday after September 11, 2001, since you have said that you were not in Jeremiah Wright’s church to hear his “the chickens have come home to roost” sermon? Did you attend another church that day, or just skip it? Or did you hear that speech, and lie, knowing no MSM interviewer would ask this?
Are you really as naive as you pretend to be or do you rationalize every association within the context of how it may or may not further your career? I refer to William Ayers first—did you ever express your disgust at the time with his 2000 portrait standing on the flag in a Chiacgo alley or with his 2001 NYT article stating that “America makes (him) want to puke” and that he wished he had done more bombing? No, you waited until a journalist, in 2008, impolitely brought up your numerous associations (interned at the same law firm where Ayers’ wife--the despicable and sadistic Bernadine Dohrn--had been sheltered by her father-in-law Tom Ayers, worked on education reform--the Developing Communities project under the wings of Ayers’ ABC campaign for school reform in the late 80s, appointed to the chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge by Ayers in 1995, sat on Woods Foundation Board with the man in the late 90s, and gave a “rave review” (NYT) to Ayers’ 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent?) to express your dismay!
How about when Ayers travelled to Venezuela in 2006 to give a speech with Hugo Chavez looking on in satisfaction? Afraid to confront him directly? How are you going to convince enemy leaders of your inner strength in the face of danger if you can't even stand up to "a guy in your neighborhood"? Maybe, after all, it isn't lack of courage, but a lack of disagreement with Bill Ayers and his philosophy that prevented your assailing him. You can understand why neither possibility is comforting to American voters, so that is why your minions construe every mention of this issue as a personal attack, in order to distract voters from pondering either your faint-heartedness or your radical tendencies.
You know, I was eight years old when Castro demanded that the Soviets launch a nuclear strike from his island nation against the U.S.—do I now, or will I ever countenance the United States working cooperatively with such a man without a murmur about his evil past?
Your delayed reaction to Ayers calls to mind your initial defense of Jeremiah Wright as someone you could “no more disown than you could disown the black community” (what a racist statement that was!). It wasn’t until Wright himself slurred your good name that you rose in anger to thoroughly disown him. Is it all about you, Barack? Curse your country, and you’re mildly perturbed (maybe), but not enough to react out loud. Disparage you personally, however--now that’s serious!
A few more evil associations that have received little attention: your support of Rashid Khalidi, (in the form of testimonials, and grants from the Woods Foundation) of the Arab American Action Network (Khalidi is an unrepentant former director of the PLO’s news agency), and Edward Said (Israel-hating, Ayers-admiring Columbia prof), with whom you and Michelle had a pleasant dinner in 1998 at the Arab-American annual event.
Do you have any friends or acquaintances that don’t Blame America & Israel First for All That is So Terribly Wrong with This World? Really? Name one, whom you’ve known before 2006.
How can you promote yourself as post-racial when you refer to your grandmother as “a typical white woman”, see the “black community” as monolithic in thought and deed, and try to goad voters into expecting racial undertones to the campaign (“They’re going to say 'he doesn’t look like us' or 'he has a funny middle name' " before any were forthcoming (at least from Republicans)? Isn’t that incendiary rather than unifying?
Do you appreciate capitalism? Have you ever held a job in the private sector? Which do you think has brought more people out of poverty in the developing world—foreign aid, government grants, or self-generated capitalism? If you think the latter (and I know your answer, for I’m willing to bet that you are oh-so-smart on multiple choice tests), then why would you castigate companies, as you did in your “race” speech, for taking jobs overseas “just for a profit”? Don’t you realize that for-profit companies cannot survive without profit? Even socialist Europe, idol of the left, is beginning to realize that lowering corporate tax rates is the best boon to economic success. Ireland’s rate, for instance, is a third of ours, and their economic success and per capita income rise the envy of Europe.
What new idea do you have that is not an expansion of an idea that has already failed? The Annenberg Challenge, all 160 million dollars worth, failed to increase education levels of the Chicago students it bankrolled any more than non-Annenberg programs did. Head Start, according to a Clinton-era study, also failed to make a significant difference in preschool achievement levels after forty years of trying, yet your Zero-to-Five proposal advocates expanding it, throwing good money after bad. Universal government-run health insurance? Ask the Canadians. Tax the rich—more? Remember the luxury tax on yachts? Sounded like a good idea--make those wealthy bastards pay for their extravagant lifestyles--except for the unintended consequences to the laid-off blue collar yacht builders.
Who wins in an arm-wrestle match between you and Hillary? You and Sarah? You and McCain? Don’t answer, because I know that you’d best all three today--you’re young, male and the most physically fit. (McCain, before torture, no contest--he’d take you). Why is this stupid macho kind of question important to me? Because, in my heart of hearts, I think you’re a lightweight—not physically, but internally—who have you stood up to that was scary, that you knew could pummel you but you took them on anyway, all by yourself (see Bill Ayers, above)? Could you face down Ahmadinejad, alone, without a coterie of fawning journalists in tow? I hope so, but I don’t know so, not from what I’ve seen so far.
Where were you the Sunday after September 11, 2001, since you have said that you were not in Jeremiah Wright’s church to hear his “the chickens have come home to roost” sermon? Did you attend another church that day, or just skip it? Or did you hear that speech, and lie, knowing no MSM interviewer would ask this?
Are you really as naive as you pretend to be or do you rationalize every association within the context of how it may or may not further your career? I refer to William Ayers first—did you ever express your disgust at the time with his 2000 portrait standing on the flag in a Chiacgo alley or with his 2001 NYT article stating that “America makes (him) want to puke” and that he wished he had done more bombing? No, you waited until a journalist, in 2008, impolitely brought up your numerous associations (interned at the same law firm where Ayers’ wife--the despicable and sadistic Bernadine Dohrn--had been sheltered by her father-in-law Tom Ayers, worked on education reform--the Developing Communities project under the wings of Ayers’ ABC campaign for school reform in the late 80s, appointed to the chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge by Ayers in 1995, sat on Woods Foundation Board with the man in the late 90s, and gave a “rave review” (NYT) to Ayers’ 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent?) to express your dismay!
How about when Ayers travelled to Venezuela in 2006 to give a speech with Hugo Chavez looking on in satisfaction? Afraid to confront him directly? How are you going to convince enemy leaders of your inner strength in the face of danger if you can't even stand up to "a guy in your neighborhood"? Maybe, after all, it isn't lack of courage, but a lack of disagreement with Bill Ayers and his philosophy that prevented your assailing him. You can understand why neither possibility is comforting to American voters, so that is why your minions construe every mention of this issue as a personal attack, in order to distract voters from pondering either your faint-heartedness or your radical tendencies.
You know, I was eight years old when Castro demanded that the Soviets launch a nuclear strike from his island nation against the U.S.—do I now, or will I ever countenance the United States working cooperatively with such a man without a murmur about his evil past?
Your delayed reaction to Ayers calls to mind your initial defense of Jeremiah Wright as someone you could “no more disown than you could disown the black community” (what a racist statement that was!). It wasn’t until Wright himself slurred your good name that you rose in anger to thoroughly disown him. Is it all about you, Barack? Curse your country, and you’re mildly perturbed (maybe), but not enough to react out loud. Disparage you personally, however--now that’s serious!
A few more evil associations that have received little attention: your support of Rashid Khalidi, (in the form of testimonials, and grants from the Woods Foundation) of the Arab American Action Network (Khalidi is an unrepentant former director of the PLO’s news agency), and Edward Said (Israel-hating, Ayers-admiring Columbia prof), with whom you and Michelle had a pleasant dinner in 1998 at the Arab-American annual event.
Do you have any friends or acquaintances that don’t Blame America & Israel First for All That is So Terribly Wrong with This World? Really? Name one, whom you’ve known before 2006.
How can you promote yourself as post-racial when you refer to your grandmother as “a typical white woman”, see the “black community” as monolithic in thought and deed, and try to goad voters into expecting racial undertones to the campaign (“They’re going to say 'he doesn’t look like us' or 'he has a funny middle name' " before any were forthcoming (at least from Republicans)? Isn’t that incendiary rather than unifying?
Do you appreciate capitalism? Have you ever held a job in the private sector? Which do you think has brought more people out of poverty in the developing world—foreign aid, government grants, or self-generated capitalism? If you think the latter (and I know your answer, for I’m willing to bet that you are oh-so-smart on multiple choice tests), then why would you castigate companies, as you did in your “race” speech, for taking jobs overseas “just for a profit”? Don’t you realize that for-profit companies cannot survive without profit? Even socialist Europe, idol of the left, is beginning to realize that lowering corporate tax rates is the best boon to economic success. Ireland’s rate, for instance, is a third of ours, and their economic success and per capita income rise the envy of Europe.
What new idea do you have that is not an expansion of an idea that has already failed? The Annenberg Challenge, all 160 million dollars worth, failed to increase education levels of the Chicago students it bankrolled any more than non-Annenberg programs did. Head Start, according to a Clinton-era study, also failed to make a significant difference in preschool achievement levels after forty years of trying, yet your Zero-to-Five proposal advocates expanding it, throwing good money after bad. Universal government-run health insurance? Ask the Canadians. Tax the rich—more? Remember the luxury tax on yachts? Sounded like a good idea--make those wealthy bastards pay for their extravagant lifestyles--except for the unintended consequences to the laid-off blue collar yacht builders.
Who wins in an arm-wrestle match between you and Hillary? You and Sarah? You and McCain? Don’t answer, because I know that you’d best all three today--you’re young, male and the most physically fit. (McCain, before torture, no contest--he’d take you). Why is this stupid macho kind of question important to me? Because, in my heart of hearts, I think you’re a lightweight—not physically, but internally—who have you stood up to that was scary, that you knew could pummel you but you took them on anyway, all by yourself (see Bill Ayers, above)? Could you face down Ahmadinejad, alone, without a coterie of fawning journalists in tow? I hope so, but I don’t know so, not from what I’ve seen so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
