UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: As an aside, Obama’s old friends at ACORN hired ID thieves to canvass for voters in Nevada. Some people say that all the voter fraud and illegal fundraising is just all coincidental - nothing to see here, just move along….
Debate Blogging: Lie #1 - Obama says Bush and McCain fought against regulation of the financial industry.
What about the poor, Barack?
Populism from McCain - cut spending, energy independence, low taxes…NEW THING: buy up the bad debts and renegotiate the loans of Americans who have lost massive home value over the past year.
McCain works slam into Wall Street and Congress on answer to whom to appoint Treas. Sec.
Obama dodges the issue (as did McCain), but shoots right into class warfare, and then yammers on with the middle class tax cut…once again, Barack, what about the poor?
“Greed and excess in Wall Street and Washington” - excellent, John, excellent. Hammers Fannie and Freddie, ties Obama to them…points out the connection between Donks and Disaster…points out McCain’s efforts to correct the issue and the way Donks resisted change.
Obama sounds like GW on what is in the bail out package…which makes this the first time I’ve had some respect for him, but also makes me wonder how his lefty friends are viewing this.
Lie #2 - Obama once again blames deregulation for the problem. Absurd claim that he was out there warning about the problem while he was taking vast amounts of cash from Fannie and Freddie.
Obama dodges on whether the economy will get worse before it gets better…attacks lobbyists. McCain points out that economy will get better or worse depending on what we do…re-emphasizes home owner support, his warning about looming crisis and positive note about the quality of American workers.
Obama feels their pain…
Lie #3 - Blames Bush for deficits as if Clinton recession, 9/11, war and Donk-surged spending never happened…
Yadda, yadda, yadda, affordable education, reduce insurance premiums, Evil Lobbyists, yadda, yadda, yadda never answer the lady’s question.
Why trust McCain? McCain says because he’s a proven reformer and a man who has proven he can work with people of good will from the other side…McCain also directs people to look to independent groups to get the low down on whom is doing right and wrong…
Side Note: Mrs Noonan says this is boring, bring on Palin!
McCain on entitlement reform - we need to reform, in a bipartisan manner, to figure out how we can fix this problem. Nuke power - energy and jobs! But, main thing - it takes a full reform proposal, not tinkering around the edges.
Obama does himself well in hitting Russia and Venezuela as part of the risk of energy dependence. Wants us free from foreign oil in 10 years - says that JFK’s challenge to go to the Moon is same sort of challenge, foolishly states we didn’t know how to go to Moon, just as we don’t know how to get energy independent in 10 years…thing is, we did know how to go to Moon, just had to build the rocket to take us there.
Obama: By the way, did I mention that Bush is Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler and McCain is just like him?
McCain: We’ll work together - which ticks off fellow conservatives, but plays well in current political climate.
Obama: Some of us might remember 9/11?
McCain comes on strong for clean coal and offshore drilling…oh, wait; that was Obama…what do you lefties think of him, now?
Obama: Yadda, yadda, yadda, Peace Corps, community service, “involved” in military service (whatever the heck that means), yadda, yadda, yadda…
Obama: Class warfare, kill the rich…
Lie #4 - Implies that the rich aren’t paying their fair share…
wants “all of us to make sacrifices”…except the middle class, of course, who not only don’t have to sacrifice but will have a tax cut…and what about the poor?
Side Note: A home builder calls and pretty much says they’ll jump through hoops to get us to buy a house from them…I’ll check it out Saturday.
Obama on entitlements: Can’t guarantee we’ll do it in two years, want to do it in first term: translation - I’ll kick it down the road. Tax cut for 95% of Americans…that means that 285 million Americans get a tax cut. I guess the other 15 million get it in the shorts. Provides nothing on what he proposes to do about entitlements.
Middle class, middle class, yadda, yadda, yadda (don’t you hate Bush?), yadda, yadda…
McCain on entitlements: Social Security, we can do it, it ain’t hard - Reagan did it, I’ve taken on my own party, Obama never has. Medicare - more tricky; commission to figure out what we need and then set up bi-partisan program like the base closing commission to take partisan politics out of the issue (Ed Note: Not sold on the commission idea, but taking politics out of it will appeal to independent voters).
McCain on environment: Burnishes up his Green credentials (which grates on my very last nerve, but it does work well in current politics); points up Nuke power as Green. Clean up environment, alternate energies - economy jobs.
Obama on environment: Says we’ll create 5,000,000 new jobs by Green tech…says who? We need to make an “investment” - translation: “taxpayer, bend right on over”. Good hit on McCain for his energy votes - but we need a fact-checker on Obama’s assertion.
Stupid Statement: Obama says we need to help China with its energy problems…I can see what he’s saying, but there’s not one in a million who give a two penny dam about China’s energy problems…
McCain: Obama voted with Bush on energy; “I’ve voted against this pork”. Oil drilling is a “bridge the gap” effort - points out that any greater supply will reduce price of oil; good Reaganomics.
Obama on private health care: Was asked if health care should be a commodity or (presumptively) a government benefit…doesn’t answer the question. Lower my medical premiums by 2,500 per year? I only pay 240 per year…slams McCain’s health care plan, but still doesn’t answer the question.
McCain on private health care: Feels our pain, make delivery more efficient - but then hits: Points out that Obama’s plan is still a “government will do this, government will do that” plan, with punishments for people and companies who don’t follow Obama’s commands on health care…McCain, on the other hand, proposes to free up the health care system and corrects Obama on health care plan - not just 5k given and taken, but 5k to allow individuals to have a choice rather than mandate what they shall have.
Health care: Privilege, right or responsibility? McCain - a responsibility, mistrusts government mandates - one again hammers Obama on his punishments for people who don’t follow Obama’s commands. Obama - a right; which means that Obama hasn’t thought the matter through; if its a right, then you have to conscript the health care professionals to provide care to all and sundry. By the way, don’t you hate insurance companies? Vote for me: I’ll pander to your anger, hatred and envy!
Lie #5: Obama once again claims McCain is all about rampant de-regulation.
McCain on national security: “America is the greatest force for good in the world”; excellently Reaganite. Takes knowledge, judgement and experience (ie, it takes me, not Obama!) to lead America in national security issues. Obama was wrong about Iraq, wrong about Russia - does not understand our national security challenges, we can’t afford to give a President on the job training.
Lie #6: Obama lies about how McCain supported the liberation of Iraq.
Hey, isn’t it terrible that we’ve spent money to liberate people? Don’t you hate those dratted Iraqis who have caused us to spend money on them rather than on our own precious little selves? Hate! Envy! And the world hates us because of Chimpy! Darfur! Fundamentally change our policy - meaning, I guess, that rather than attack, we’ll retreat.
Obama: we should “strongly consider” intervening in any other country than Iraq where horrible things are happening…but, hey, we can’t fix it all, so we have to work with allies…’cause we know the French will send in the troops, right? Hey, Biden says the French helped us kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon….That will be the Obama Doctrine.
McCain: Obama was flat wrong on Iraq and the troop surge. “Victory”, “Honor”…Obama asks for a dictionary.
Side Note: Mrs Noonan says this is still boring…geesh, where’s Palin and can we fast forward this?
Should we go into Pakistan? Obama: Chimpy screwed the pooch. Taliban “stronger now than any time since 2001″ - which is a statement, by the way, which is perfectly meaningless…we need to know, Barry, if they are strong enough to drive us out of Afghanistan or attack us here in the United States. After much dancing around, if we see bin Laden in Pakistan, then we’ll go in…
McCain: Flabbergasted that Obama opined that he would go into Pakistan…we need the cooperation of the Pakistanis, hard as that is, so talking about going into Pakistan is counter productive (Ed. Note: and to say such a thing is the proof that Obama hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about). Rather than talking about attacking Pakistan, working with Pakistanis to build up support for anti-Taliban/al Qaeda elements…
Lie #6 - Obama claims he never advocated going into Pakistan. Obama now “clarifies” his past foolishness, but its still a lie…
Obama gets a follow up: Hits McCain on “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” - no one has told Obama that such sentiment is popular.
McCain gets a follow up: points out Obama’s lie about what he said vis a vis Pakistan. Wisdom - “I will not telegraph my punches”.
Do we put in an “acceptable dictator” in Afghanistan?: Obama - pull out of Iraq (yeah, no duh, Barry…like we’re not already doing that); troops in Afghanistan being attacked…Obama states he lectured the President of Afghanistan (which is a sure way to rebuild the respect for America in the world).
McCain - improve Afghan military, increase forces and change tactical environment ala’ Iraq - and then digs at Obama for being against victory in Iraq, and is refusing to endorse the policy necessary to win in Afghanistan.
Russia: McCain - no renewed Cold War; turns Bush’s statement about Putin around in McCain’s favor…makes it clear that he understands just what sort of man Putin is. Need to support Ukraine and Georgia; punish Russia for attacks on other nations.
Obama - Russia is one of the central issues we’ll have to deal with. (Ed. Note: no, its not - its important, but not central) Need to help Russia’s targets rebuild their economy…does Obama have any idea what the economic situation is in, say, the Baltic States? Does he know where they are? Oh, and Bush sucks.
Putin’s Russia an “Evil Empire”? Wants a “yes or no” answer…Obama yadda’s for a bit, McCain says “maybe”, and shows the wisdom of answering a question with care.
Defend Israel with US troops or wait for UN if Iran attacks?: McCain: UN is worthless due to Russia and China on any US assistance to Israel. Moves into the Iranian nuclear issue - asks what you’d do if you were an Israeli regarding Iran’s actions towards Israel? Hits Obama on his willingness to meet with Iranians without pre-conditions. Build League of Democracies to deal with Iran and other such troubles…”we can never allow a second Holocaust to take place”.
Obama: Can’t allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons; “I will do everything that is required to prevent it” - will not allow “veto power” to UN, must use “all the tools” we have - translation: “we’ll go to the UN and won’t make a move without UN’s permission” - must have direct talks with Iran in order to tell them that if they behave we’ll be nice, if not we’ll get mad (like they can’t figure this out on their own).
Lie #7 - Says President Bush refused to talk with North Korea.
What don’t you know, and how will you learn it?: Obama - “here’s what I do know”; which is not what you were asked, Barack, old buddy. Yadda, yadda, yadda, “young people”, “college”, “fundamental change”, extraordinary journey”, “new direction”, yadda, yadda, yadda…
McCain - I don’t know what will happen at home and abroad. Challenges around the world - we’ll be talking about countries we don’t hardly know about today. I know what its like to keep hope going through difficult times and rely on others for support…times are tough, we need a steady hand at the tiller, country first.
Commentary: McCain did well, Obama did well - but McCain hit the themes, I think, which will resonate better with the undecided voters. Obama hit on class warfare while McCain hit on populist themes. The next few days will start to tell the tale.
I heard our next president, John McCain, was fantastic earlier today in New Mexico… I’m posting his prepared remarks in full in the extended entry.
In less than a month, the American people will make a choice on where they want this country to go, and who they trust to lead us in a time of war and economic crisis. The time for debating and electioneering is drawing to a close. Soon it will be the time for choosing.
Today we have seen a reminder of the importance of that choice. The action Congress took last week to address our financial crisis was a tourniquet, but not a permanent solution. Today we are seeing the stock market fall, and the credit crisis spread to other parts of the world. Our economy is still hurting — working families are worried about the price of groceries, the price of gas, keeping their jobs and paying their mortgage — further action is needed. We need to restore confidence in our economy and in our government.
Washington is still on the wrong track and we still need change. The status quo is not on the ballot. We are going to see change in Washington. The question is: in what direction will we go? Will our country be a better place under the leadership of the next president — a more secure, prosperous, and just society? Will you be better off, in the jobs you hold now and in the opportunities you hope for? Will your sons and daughters grow up in the kind of country you wish for them, rising in the world and finding in their own lives the best of America? And which candidate’s experience — in government and in life — makes him a more reliable leader for our country and commander in chief for our troops? Who is ready to lead? In a time of trouble and danger for our country, who will put our country first?
I set out on my own campaign for president many months ago. I promised at the beginning to be straight with the American people, knowing that even those who don’t agree with me on everything would expect at least that much. I didn’t just show up out of nowhere, after all — America knows me. You know my strengths and my faults. You know my story and my convictions. And though familiarity in politics can be both helpful to a candidate, or not so helpful, it does at least fill out the picture and answer the essential questions. You need to know who you’re putting in the White House — where the candidate came from and what he or she believes. And you need to know now, before it is time to choose.
In 21 months, during hundreds of speeches, town halls and debates, I have kept my promise to level with you about my plans to reform Washington and get this country moving again. As a senator, I’ve seen the corrupt ways of Washington in wasteful spending and other abuses of power, and as president I’m going to end them — whatever it takes. I will propose and sign into law reforms to bring tax relief to the middle class and help to businesses so they can create jobs. I will get the rising cost of food and gas under control. I will help families keep their home, and help students struggling to pay for college. I will make health care more accessible and affordable. I will impose a spending freeze on all but the most vital functions of government. I will review every agency of the federal government, improve those that need to be improved and eliminate those that aren’t working for the American people. I will confront th e ten trillion-dollar debt that the federal government has run up, and balance the federal budget by the end of my term in office.
This is the agenda I have set before my fellow citizens. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent. Even at this late hour in the campaign, there are essential things we don’t know about Senator Obama or the record that he brings to this campaign.
We have all heard what he has said, but it is less clear what he has done or what he will do. What Senator Obama says today and what he has done in the past are often two different things. He has often changed his positions in this campaign, and the best way to determine where he would really take this country is to examine where he has tried to take it in the past.
My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote — “take off the gloves.” Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.
Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I don’t need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn’t seek advice from a Chicago politician.
My opponent’s touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy who’s already authored two memoirs, he’s not exactly an open book. It’s as if somehow the usual rules don’t apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there’s always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.
Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?
This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.
Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
To hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign.
He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won’t tell you, but you deserve an answer.
Even after he refused to lift a finger to prevent this crisis, when the crisis hit, he was missing in action. He didn’t start making calls to round up votes until after the rescue bill failed in the House and the markets crashed. We continue to see the price of delay today as the markets continue to fall. Today the DOW has fallen below 10,000. And yet, members of his own party said they felt no pressure to vote for the bill. Why didn’t Senator Obama work to pass this bill from the start? Why did he let it fail and drag out this crisis for a full week before doing a thing to help pass it?
Again on taxes, we see a difference between what Senator Obama says today, what he said yesterday and what he has actually done. Over the course of this campaign, he has had many different plans to raise your taxes. During the Democratic primary, he promised to double taxes on every American with a dividend or an investment. He promised to raise payroll taxes. He promised higher taxes on electricity. Now, Senator Obama claims he will give 95 percent of Americans tax relief. He actually promised the same thing when he was running for Senate in Illinois, but once elected he never introduced legislation to do so. Instead, he voted for the Democratic budget resolution that promised to raise taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars a year. At the time, he even said his vote was intended to get “our nation’s priorities back on track.” If he’s such a defender of the middle class, why did he vote to raise their taxes? Whatever ha ppened to the tax relief he promised them when he was a candidate for the Senate? And why should middle class Americans trust him to keep promises he has already broken?
Senator Obama and I both have differences with how President Bush has handled the economy. But he thinks taxes are too low, and I think spending is too high. The government’s out of control spending has resulted in a weaker dollar, raising the cost of groceries and gasoline, and killing jobs.
I will veto pork barrel legislation and cut wasteful government spending. Senator Obama has a different plan. According to third party estimates, he will increase government spending by over 860 billion dollars. He has denied it, but he has refused to tell you how much he does plan to spend. What is the total of his increased spending? Americans deserve to know just how much more of their money Senator Obama intends to spend, and how much more debt he plans to burden them with.
Senator Obama has also criticized earmark spending, those wasteful pork barrel projects stuck in spending bills behind closed doors. And yet, despite his talk on the campaign trail, his actual record is full of requests for earmark projects. In his three short years in the Senate, he has requested nearly a billion dollars in pork projects for his state — a million dollars for every day he’s been in office. Far from fighting earmarks in Congress, Senator Obama has been an eager participant in this corrupt system. In one instance, he sought more than 3 million dollars for a new projector at a planetarium in his hometown. Coincidentally, the chairman of that planetarium pledged to raise more than $200,000 for Senator Obama’s campaign. We don’t know if they ever discussed the money for the planetarium, and no one has asked Senator Obama. But even the appearance of this kind of insider-dealing disgusts Americans. I’m going to put a stop to that, my friends, if I’m President.
I have made every single donor to my campaign publicly available, while Senator Obama has taken in over 200 million dollars from undisclosed sources. We have already seen the potential for fraud because of his refusal to disclose his donors. His campaign had to return $33,000 in illegal foreign funds from Palestinian donors, and this weekend, we found out about another $28,000 in illegal donations. Why has Senator Obama refused to disclose the people who are funding his campaign? Again, the American people deserve answers.
On health care, Senator Obama has been misleading you about my plan to give you more money for health care, and he has been equally misleading about his own plans. He has said his goal is a single payer system where government is in charge of health care and bureaucrats stand between you and your doctor. Under the plan he has proposed, he will fine families that don’t have the kind of health insurance that Senator Obama tells them to purchase. He will fine employers who do not offer the health insurance that he thinks they should offer.
What he doesn’t say, and what nobody has asked, is how big his fines will be. What he doesn’t want you to know is that with a small fine, his plan will encourage companies to just pay the fine, drop existing health care coverage for their employees and leave them with only one real option: government run health care.
Who is the real Senator Obama? Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch?
Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can’t change the system with someone who’s never fought the system.
Washington is on the wrong track and I’m going to set it right. The American people know my record. They know I am going to change Washington, because I’ve done it before. They know I’m going to reform our broken institutions in Washington and on Wall Street because I’ve done it before. They know I’m going to deliver relief to the middle class, because that’s what I’ve done.
You don’t have to hope that things will change when you vote for me. You know things will change, because I have been fighting for change in Washington my whole career. I’ve been fighting for you my whole life. That’s what I’m going to do as President of the United States. Fight for you and put the government back on the side of the people.
“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”
My over all comments on the debate? Small net win for McCain. With the economic turmoil and over 1/3 of the “foreign policy” debate being devoted to the domestic economy, Obama should have scored decisively early. He didn’t and I expect the broader electoral polls to move 1 or 2 points in McCain’s favor. Obama continues to fail to seal the deal. If that continues, McCain wins a tight race in November.
There is a long way to go though. Net-net a good night for the McCain camp.
* Queen Elizabeth II curtsied when she was introduced to Sarah Palin.
* Sarah Palin is what Willis was talkin bout.
* Jesus has a bracelet that says, “WWSPD?”
* Death once had a near-Sarah Palin experience.
* Sarah Palin can divide by zero.
* Sarah Palin can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves!
* Sarah Palin uses French Canadians as bait to catch giant king salmon.
* When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.
* Sarah Palin is the reason compasses point North.
* Sarah Palin is Kaiser Sose.
* Sarah Palin’s son is going to Iraq after the Surge, because a Palin during the Surge would have been unfair.
* Sarah Palin’s finishing move in the VP debate will be pulling Biden’s still beating heart from his chest & taking a bite.
Check them all out.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: On a less humorous note, I’d just like to observe that the exceptionally nasty level of attacks from the left on governor Palin indicate that the leadership of the Democratic party and the larger political left want her out of the race. They are scared to death of this woman. There is no basis for attacking Governor Palin on her record or her views and the “troopergate” story flopped…so now they are after her family, using her daughter and husband as a flail on the assumption that Christians would turn on McCain because Sarah Palin and her family are sinners. This shows the ignorance of the left - and they have also bit off far more than they can chew. Palin is smarter and tougher than her critics, just as John McCain is…you lefty’s have thrown a handgrenade, and we’re just going to throw it right back at you.
Bob Beckel, taking a page right out of Barack Obama’s strategy book (the chapter on playing the victim card at every turn) whines about angry readers who wrote to him in response to a poorly written post at The Fox Forum about the “arrogance” of George Bush. He opined,
Is it my imagination, or are many of you angry? If I were a Republican and facing the rejection of conservatism on an unprecedented scale this coming November, I suppose I’d be angry as well. Perhaps I can help you understand why your political philosophy is about to be rejected by the American people.
Yeah, we heard the same “you’re going to lose big time in November” line before back in 2004. But, Beckel’s wishful thinking is combined with a lack of understanding of what is really going on. Conservatism is not being rejected. Far from it. The truth is conservatives are frustrated when Republicans they elected stray from conservative principles. If conservatism was being rejected, as Beckel wants to believe, then Barack Obama wouldn’t be trying to win votes shifting his positions towards the center, and taking more conservative positions on the Second Amendment, tax cuts, even abortion.
1. Conservatives are supposed to be fiscally responsible yet when your crowd inherited a trillion-dollar surplus from Bill Clinton, Bush/Cheney and a Republican Congress turned it into a $3-trillion-dollar deficit.
You certainly won’t find fiscal conservatives justifying the increases in spending, but Beckel is absolutely ignoring the impact of the 2000-2001 Recession and 9/11. It is also worth noting that two key economic achievements of the 1990s, welfare reform and the balanced budget, while signed by Bill Clinton, came to be because of the efforts of the Republican Congress.
2. Conservatives strongly support the war in Iraq but won’t help pay for it. Never has our country been at war without asking and getting our citizens to help bear the financial burden…until this war. Conservatives don’t want to give up Bush’s tax cuts for the top 5% of wage earners to help pay for this war. Why?
I guess I must be in the top 5% of wage earners, because how else can I explain the tax cut that I received? But, I’m not in the top 5%, so, enough with that argument. Also, Beckel is either choosing to ignore the record economic growth that resulted from Bush’s tax cuts. And of course, Beckel’s argument loses all credibility when you consider government tax receipts went up as a result of those tax cuts.
3. The American people got tired of being lectured on “family values” by conservative clergy and Republican members of Congress, e.g. Larry Craig, who didn’t practice what they preached.
I’m sure the American people are tired of being lecture about the rich paying “their fair share” of taxes by rich Democrats in Congression who keep large chunks of their personal wealth in off-shore tax shelters to avoid paying taxes on it. I also can’t help mentioning Democrat governor Eliot Spitzer, who built his career on breaking up prostitution rings, only to be involved in one himself. Though, it may be true that conservatives are more likely to punish the hypocrites in their party than liberals are to punish the hypocrites in their party.
4. Or maybe the voters got tired of Republicans controlling the US House of Representatives for 12 years during which they handed out more wasteful pork projects than all the pork handed out by Democrats in the 42 years preceding the GOP takeover.
And what have Democrats done to control spending and cut pork since returning to the majority? Oh yeah, nothing.
5. Or maybe voters got angry when they learned the Vice President of the United States manipulated intelligence and misled the American people on why war with Iraq was in our national security interests.
Despite several investigations by various bipartisan and independent commissions and committees, all concluded that there was no manipulation of intelligence, and that statements made by the administration were supported by the intelligence available at the time.
6. Or maybe the public didn’t like George Bush vetoing legislation to provide health insurance for millions of kids.
Another ridiculous point predicated on the belief that health insurance should be funded by the government regardless of whether federal assistance is necessary. The Democrats’ proposed expansion of SCHIP would have provided taxpayer funded health insurance to children in families who didn’t need such government assistance - but also would have left many who needed it, with no such assistence.
7. Or maybe the public got embarrassed by Republicans in the Bush Administration who refused, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to accept the reality of global warming, aka “The Flat Earth Society”.
No, what’s more embarrassing are Democrats who think global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, and who are afraid to debate skeptics of global warming.
Beckel then concludes his poorly written list with a self-righteous rant filled with feigned resignation about his alleged experience with conservatives. If the situation were reversed, and a conservative pundit attempted to generalize liberals based on experiences with a select few, Beckel might have written something about how you can’t judge an entire party or ideology, based on an angry, vocal minority.
I expect Beckel to look at things through a partisan lens, but now I think he’s just blind. As a liberal, he certainly finds it in his best interest to talk about elections with an attitude of inevitability of the eventual positive for his party, but doing so really destroy’s his credibility as a political strategist and pundit.
You probably don’t know this, but Nick Hornby is my favorite fiction writer. If you haven’t read him before, you should. If you’ve seen the movie High Fidelity, he wrote the book it was adapted from.
Anyway, his most recent novel, Slam, is about a teenaged boy (who is obsessed with Tony Hawk and skateboarding) who gets his girlfriend pregnant — that’s a short way of explaining the story. Anyway, Nick Hornby has a blog, and a while back he wrote a blog entry that I thought may be of interest to you.
[Another] article in the Guardian [link] about how movies depicting pregnancy are somehow anti-abortion: after ‘Knocked Up’, it’s the new (and very charming) ‘Juno’ that is in trouble […] “Hollywood heroines who don’t consider abortion are of a generation taking its rights for granted,” is the misleading subtitle of Hadley Freeman’s piece. Actually, sixteen-year-old Juno does consider abortion. She goes to an abortion clinic and then changes her mind. I suspect that considering abortion isn’t enough, though – Juno needs to go through with an abortion, if she’s going to keep columnists off her case.
My book ‘Slam’, which is about a sixteen-year-old father, also got attacked on these grounds in at least one American review, so I have a special interest in this debate. Alicia, the boy’s ex-girlfriend, is determined not to have an abortion because she read pro-life propaganda on the internet, and can’t be persuaded to rethink her decision. I would like Hadley Freeman, my critic and all the others to explain, patiently and carefully, to Judd Apatow (the writer of ‘Knocked Up’, Diablo Cody (‘Juno’) and myself how we can write about pregnancy and unplanned parenthood without causing offence.
Nick Hornby is liberal, and obviously supports abortion, so I couldn’t help being amused by his blog entry. I remember thinking when I read Slam, or saw Knocked Up or Juno that some pro-abortion groups or individuals would take issue with the fact that in each of these stories which involved unintended pregnancies the mother-to-be made the conscious decision to keep the baby. Hadley Freeman, who wrote the Guardian article says, “It is surely no coincidence that these films are emerging from a country that has had eight years of ultra-conservative Republican rule.” Ahh, yes, how Republicans have such an impact on Hollywood!
Continuing in his blog entry, Hornby further refutes Freeman:
Should ‘Slam’, ‘Knocked Up’ and ‘Juno’ all end a third of the way through, with a visit to a clinic? Are these people really saying that you mustn’t write about pregnancy because you’re somehow letting the side down
Now, I’ve recently been reading a lot of fiction, and seeing movies more often than I have in the past. I expect that sometimes books that don’t even have an agenda will have things in them I don’t agree with. I’ve never gotten hot and bothered over a book or a movie because a character had an abortion. Neither of the two movies or the book had an agenda against abortion. Their stories were still entertaining and I don’t see why anyone who is pro-abortion can’t enjoy them just because abortion was not chosen by the characters involved.
If abortion is really about “choice” (as the left says it is) then the choice of life shouldn’t be seen as a setback to the movement be it in life or in entertainment. Though I guess some people think it is. Can the pro-abortion movement not find happiness in the “choice” of life? Apparently not, if they get so worked up over the choice of life in fiction.
Barack Obama (D-Rezko) has been trying to paint himself as the one who can unite this country, and he even claimed at the debate last night that he’d bring in advisors and such that aren’t just “yes men.” He claims he’s open to differing opinions and claims he knows he’s not always correct. It’s his way of appealing to independents and moderates.
But his record shows that he would be the furthest thing from mainstream. According to the National Journal, Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. For the record, Hillary Clinton (D-Hsu) ranked the 16th most liberal senator.
It’s funny too, because so many on the left are regurgitating the ridiculous idea that Barack is more moderate. They don’t really believe it, they are just trying to convince independents and moderates that Barack Obama is some uniting figure who will bring Republicans and Democrats together. Christopher Hayes, writing at The Nation, is doing the same thing, by writing, “[Obama’s] record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators.” Yeah, nice try.
Senator Sam Brownback of the Joint Economic Committee released a few reports regarding the debate about economic stimulus. One of these reports, A Primer on Economic Recessions, according to the email release, “while forecasters have concluded that downside risks to economic growth have been rising, most forecasters (including the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office, and private forecasters) are not forecasting a recession for the U.S. economy.”
Of course, there are a number of indications of an economic slowdown, so clearly economic stimulus is needed… For more information go here.
Those may not have been her exact words, but that’s pretty much what she said just a few minutes ago during the Democrats’ debate.
UPDATE, 9:59 PM: Barack Obama just said he would not hesitate to strike against anyone who would do us harm… Sounds like he supports preemptive strikes.
In the end, I have to say, this was a very nasty debate… Aside from the Democrats’ lack of common sense, it was clear that they were not holding back punches tonight. Edwards wasn’t kissing up to Obama tonight. And the attacks from all three were just brutal. I’ve never seen the Republicans get that nasty. Hillary even played the Rezko card on Obama.
UPDATE: Well, that was a rather disappointing debate. Not because of the answers (though some were better than others) but many of the questions selected were awful. So many were loaded questions or presumptuous. I got the impression that there were some that weren’t even submitted by Republican voters (the target audience) and that was annoying. Still, the Republican candidates certainly demonstrated once again that they can handle a debate in unfriendly territory, with some lousy questions, and a crappy moderator. Meanwhile, Democrats are still too chicken to participate in a debate on FOX News.
I didn’t see the Democrats’ CNN/YouTube debate, so I can’t compare the two. So, if anyone here did watch both, I’d like to hear about the differences.
The most ridiculous moment of the debate was when the openly gay retired Army Colonel asked his question about the Republicans’ positions on gays in the military and lo and behold, after the candidate gave their answers, we learned the guy was actually in the audience, were he was given the chance to say whether or not he was satisfied with the answers. Of course he wasn’t. And we know why…
I’m not sure what the rules of the debate were, and if only Republican voters were supposed to submit questions, but having someone involved in the Hillary campaign not only ask a question, but be granted a unique chance to explain whether or not he was satisfied with the responses, was either the result of severe sloppiness or bias on CNN’s part.
The exchange on waterboarding and torture was interesting. McCain’s personal experience with torture made it impossible for anyone to assertively disagree with him on the issue of waterboarding. Romney could have handled it better though. While his point about not laying out what forms of interrogation will and will not be used on captured terrorists, what was really missing was the point that waterboarding is not torture.
The Cheney cartoon? Give me a break.
I can’t really say who I felt won or lost, since I did miss some parts of the debate. Each had their good moments and bad moments. I don’t know how many undecided Republicans made their decisions tonight, but I will close by saying that I was never really impressed by the whole YouTube debate concept, and I’m still unimpressed.
Isn’t an interesting coincidence that after Hillary bashed Tim Russert (for beating up on her in the Philly debate) and warned Wolf Blitzer (to keep it easy on her at the Vegas debate) that not only did Blitzer go easy on her, but Hillary is also praising Blitzer’s performance. Via Drudge we get this quote from Hillary, “[Blitzer] was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided the personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far. Voters were the big winners last night.”
Voters were the big winners because Hillary avoided being asked tough questions?
If Hillary is too scared to go on Fox News or answer tough questions, how can she be trusted to handle fighting the war on terrorism, or anything else for that matter?
