Blogs For Victory

Michael Barone has crunched the numbers, and come up with this conclusion:

It’s a little dangerous in interpreting polls to assume that voters’ thinking proceeds along logical lines. People who aren’t professionally involved in politics, whose knowledge comes from bits and snippets of news, can hold beliefs that are contradictory or in tension with each other. They don’t feel obliged to resolve contradictions. But even granting that, it seems to me that about half of West Virginia and Kentucky Democratic primary voters were saying that Obama lied about not knowing what Wright has been preaching and that he agrees with him a lot more than he has let on.

Now West Virginia and Kentucky are not typical primary states. They, together with Arkansas, where Hillary Clinton was First Lady for 12 years, were Obama’s weakest states in this year’s primaries. And some percentage of registered Democrats in these states have been voting Republican in recent presidential elections. Nevertheless, the negative verdict these voters render on Obama’s honesty and his relationship with Wright is likely to be typical of some significant quantum of potential Democratic voters this year. And not just in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which he will certainly lose, but in marginal states which he must carry in order to be elected.

I find confirmation from this in a recent focus group conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart (for whom I worked for seven years) of non-primary voters in Charlottesville, Va. As Hart and Alex Horowitz note in their analysis of reactions to Obama, “When asked to recount any two memories of the total presidential campaign so far, seven of the 12 participants cite Rev. Wright by name. So far, clips of Rev. Wright clearly are the one ‘key defining moment’ of this campaign.”

Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don’t find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them — or disbelieve him when he says he doesn’t.

Though most in the press won’t admit it, that’s a problem — for the Obama candidacy and for the whole Democratic party once it nominates him.

I think Obama’s people – as well as other leading Democrats – understand this far better than the MSM or Obama’s supporters do; thus the recent talking point that the Wright issue is pretty much out of bounds, plus absurd attempts to make the Hagee issue equivalent to the Wright issue (this AP story from today is typical of the “Hagee is the same as Wright” meme). As for the dishonesty people see in Obama – that is clear; it was an absurd lie on the part of Obama to state that he was unaware of Wright’s extremist views…everyone knows it is a lie, he knew it was a lie as he uttered it…and yet he said it, and now a large portion of the people have put down Obama as a liar. Hard to get out from under that.

Fundamentally, Democrats are forced into dishonesty because they know their policies are rejected by the broad majority of the American people – they can’t run explicitly on American weakness and kowtowing to the UN…so they talk about the need for diplomacy, as if we hadn’t been using diplomacy with great success these past 7 years (the growing alliance with India, the agreement to build SDI in Europe, the voluntary termination of Libya’s nuclear program, eg). They can’t run explicitly on high taxes…so they talk about “middle class tax cuts” and making the rich pay more. They can’t run explicitly on federally funded abortion on demand…so they talk about securing the right for women to “choose” regardless of ability to pay. On and on it goes – never saying what they really want to do…and this has bred the culture of dishonesty which convinced Obama, seemingly, that a rather stupid and bald-faced lie about Wright would go down smoothly. Well, it hasn’t – and it may cost Obama the election.

Ah, the modern, liberal world – from Australia:

A JUDGE has allowed a 12-year-old Victorian girl to start a taxpayer-funded sex swap, despite objections from the child’s father.

The girl has begun court-approved hormone treatment in the first step toward a complete gender switch.

The Family Court orders also permit the girl, who cannot be named, to apply for a new birth certificate, passport and Medicare card in a boy’s name.

The application to allow the hormone treatment was lodged by the girl’s mother.

A state government observer, an endocrinologist, a psychiatrist, a family counsellor and a lawyer acting on the child’s behalf all supported the plan.

Only her father, who lives interstate, opposed the proposed sex change, though he did not attend the final court hearing and could not afford to send a lawyer on his behalf.

The court was told he could not accept that his daughter had always seen herself as a boy and considered her too young to make such a decision.

The mother expressed sadness and deep concern for her daughter, but said she would stand by the girl.

The child’s lawyer told the court she considered the girl capable of making an informed decision.

The girl is one of the youngest patients in Australia granted permission to begin a sex swap.

The court was told early intervention was needed because the child was stressed and anxious at the prospect of starting her period and had threatened self-harm.

Hormones implanted under her skin every three months will stop her menstruating and prevent her hips and breasts growing.

A willfull little girl who is rather knee-worthy throws a trantrum and a court entertains her demand as if it were rational. This is where modern liberalism leads us, good people…and please note that for all of liberalism’s concern for the rights of defendants in criminal cases, there is no provision in liberalism to provide an attorney for girl’s father to come to court and try to inject a note of sanity into the proceedings.

Whence comes this? From several sources – but primarily from the cowardice of those who know better. Everyone knows that this child should not have a sex change. And yet, she’s going to have one…”being yourself” is a fine thing, but “beiing yourself” cannot require surgery other other major, medical interventions into your normal biology. It took a l ot of liberalism – and liberalism’s lies – to get us to this point…it’ll take a lot of Truth to turn us around and get us back to a rational society.

Powerline has it – in the form of a 1960 debate question about negotiating with the Soviets, and the responses of Kennedy and Nixon to the question. Read the whole thing, but to bottom line it – neither man was willing to meet with the Soviets without preconditions.

The basics of diplomacy are that the national leaders only meet after the ground has been cleared and there is at least some chance of a final deal being reached at the summit – to just trot over to the enemy and start talking about whatever comes to mind is a formula for disaster, and it bears no relation to the actual use of diplomacy as a means of resolving issues between States.

Obama has far too high a learning curve for us to trust him with the White House – perhaps if he’d go back to Illinois, run for governor and spend some time making real world decisions he is responsible for, that would season him enough to be entrusted with the most powerful office in the world, but as of right now, he’s got no business being President.

I strongly recommend reading this entire article, but this is the part which caught my eye:

…if you listened to their testimony, and more importantly pay attention to their actions, oil company executives simply do not believe that the price of oil is going to be $135 a barrel for the next few years. If they did, they would be punching more holes in the ground in places where it might be expensive to get the oil to market – but at $135 a barrel it would be profitable.

And then there is an odd circumstance in the oil picture that I think may suggest that we could see a break, and perhaps a violent one, in the near term for the price of oil.

Where Are All the Tankers?

For a few weeks now, observers have noticed that Iran is leasing tankers and storing oil in them. At about $140,000 a week or so, that is expensive storage. At first, conspiracy theorists were wondering if they were preparing for some kind of war or attack. But more conventionally, it may be they are having problems selling their oil. Their oil is not very high-quality, and there are only a few places that can take it and refine it. India, China, and the US are among the countries with refineries that can take Iranian oil. (And yes, George Friedman of Stratfor tells me some of it does end up in the US from time to time.)

India’s refiners are telling Iran they no longer want their oil, preferring the higher-quality oil that is readily available in the area. So Iran has to decide whether to send it to China or “repackage” it so that it can end up in the US, while they try to get refiners in India to change their minds. Thus, they are leasing tankers to store the oil they are pumping.

I called George about six this evening and asked him about the Iranian situation, as that is a lot of oil that could come on the market at some point, as well as a possible reason that oil supplies are down. George has analysts on top of this situation.

He told me, “John, it’s more interesting than that. It is not just Iran. Today we started checking on how many tankers Iran had, and soon discovered that there is a serious tanker shortage. Lease prices have soared in the past few weeks. It is clear there are a lot of speculators betting that oil is going to rise to $150 or so and are willing to pay very high prices for keeping the oil on the seas waiting for higher prices. It is a speculative boom.”

He then told me about flying into New York in the early ’80s. Outside the harbor were 30 or so tankers just sitting, waiting for prices to continue to increase as they had been doing for some time. When they did not, they all tried to get into the harbor at the same time, and of course they couldn’t. It was the top of the market. Prices dropped, and the owners of the oil had to go to the futures market to hedge what they could. I had heard that story, but George saw it with his own eyes.

Almost everyone (except the stock market) is convinced oil is going higher in the near term. As I noted above, this week’s rally was partially due to short covering by large institutions and companies which had sold production far into the future at much lower prices. They finally threw in the towel and took off their hedges.

I remember those tankers from 1980. I was only 15, but I thought it very odd that the price of oil was going through the roof while tankers were just sitting off America’s coasts, packed with oil. It was – in 2007 dollars – about $70 a barrel at that peak…and then it started to drop, and kept on dropping until it was about $20 a barrel. A similar event would mean $29 a barrel is in our future (and my view is that the reasonable price of a barrel of oil is about $35).

Could be an interesting few months in the commodities markets…

The shock here isn’t the dishonesty, but the admission of dishonesty:

I’ll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we…the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn’t say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn’t true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts…and people ate it up.

That is Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), and if you think he didn’t say it, then just go here and you can see him saying it on video.

And the people did eat it up – leftwing people…will you on the left now, finally, admit that the Democratic party is relentlessly dishonest and only interested in securing power and wealth for itself? Really, lefties, they don’t give a damn about you, or about anyone…power and wealth, wealth and power…that is all they care about, and it is all they will ever care about as long as you on the left mindlessly keep giving them your votes and your money and refuse to call them to account for their rank corruption. You wanted ’em, lefties – and now you got ’em.

What will you do in November?

HAT TIP: Wake Up America

Not a lot of money, but I’m not a rich man, either…but it is time, dear conservatives, that we stepped firmly up to the plate. Now that we’re 99% sure Obama will be the nominee and while the current lay of the political land indicates a renewed Democratic Congressional majority, we daren’t fail to do whatever we can to ensure McCain’s victory. Backing McCain is taking on the characteristic of a basic act of patriotism, because someone as ultra-left as Obama will do great harm to the United States.

Yes, I know all the objections – real and imagined – to McCain from my fellow conservatives…but that doesn’t matter in the least right now. Its a time of choosing. You can have McCain and a bit of conservatism plus a war won, or you can have Obama and pure liberalism plus a lost war.

Pick one.

If you pick correctly, then go here.

Then you will be pleased with the result regardless of how it is achieved. Gay Patriot seems very pleased with the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning California law regarding what makes a marriage – and seems doubly pleased by this article noting that, ultimately, it has been Republicans who appointed the Justice who made it all possible. But there is this part of the article which is very disturbing for anyone who claims any sort of conservative world view, as Gay Patriot does – and so I hope I’ve misinterpreted Gay Patriot’s views, but here goes:

Schwarzenegger probably understood well the political culture of the judicial appointments when he vetoed gay-marriage bills in 2005 and 2007. “Schwarzenegger obviously sat down and thought it through,” says Darry Sragow, a Democratic political strategist. “[The vetoes] may have been a clever way to get around his party.”

Schwarzenegger has consistently stuck to one political line: He would never sign a gay-marriage bill that would overturn the voters’ will on Proposition 22, which defines marriage as a formal union between one man and one woman, and he would abide by the courts’ rulings if that ballot measure were found unconstitutional. State Democrats still attempted to force his hand, but Schwarzenegger refused to be outmaneuvered.

“I was certainly disappointed [in 2007],” says Assemblyman Mark Leno, who twice introduced the same-sex-marriage bill. “Here was a historic chance to embrace equality, and the governor failed us a second time.”

By 2007, though, it was becoming clear that gay-marriage lawsuits would almost certainly be headed for the California State Supreme Court. Schwarzenegger, who could not be reached for comment, may have waited for things to play out in the state’s highest court, as Darry Sragow suggests, knowing that at least a majority of the judges were social moderates with an old-fashioned Republican/libertarian streak — the kind of mindset that believes government should stay out of people’s pocketbooks and bedrooms.

According to Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg, this scenario isn’t all that hard to believe. “Schwarzenegger was always a closet (no pun intended) supporter of gay marriage,” writes Steinberg in an e-mail to the Weekly. “So he was probably happy to have an excuse to at least stay neutral, or, now, to actually oppose the November ballot measure.”

On the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Schwarzenegger released this statement: “I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

What respect I had for Schwarzenegger is completely gone, if this is the actual scenario (and it does ring true). If you think that gay marriage should be legal, you should just come right out and say that – to do a political dance about it with a mind towards allowing un-elected judges to get you off the political hook is cowardice…and, also, destructive of our form of government. And that is what is so disturbing about someone as smart as Gay Patriot being pleased here…I can understand a person being happy his side won, but it should be kept in mind that what the Courth hath given, the Court may taketh away…meaning that if one Justice is later replaced by someone of a different view, then a new case on this issue could result in an exactly opposite ruling. No, the only sure way to enshrine something in American law is to go through the proper, constitutional procedures for modifying the law…to have four judges decide for everyone else is to trust tyranny to give you what you can’t get from the people. I’d rather trust the people, thanks very much.

This now will go before the people, and the gay marriage advocates are quite certain of defeating the ballot initiative to overturn this judicial usurpation – and they may be right. California is a pretty liberal State…on the other hand, I also know plenty of otherwise liberal people who are opposed to gay marriage. Call it what you will, but there seems to be an inherent distrust amongst the people for the very concept of two people of the same sex getting married. If, as I expect, the ballot initiative wins, then where will the advocates of gay marriage in California be? Behind the 8 ball – having to not just argue their case, but also go through the very long and difficult process of first repealing this initiative before they can get anything else done. The ‘hip hip hooray’ of May is foolhardy – and I do believe that the underlying conservative impulse of the American majority – even in California – is going to smack this down quite hard.

In the end, one either believes in America and its way of life, or one doesn’t – if one believes, then one has to accept the whole kit and kaboodle, including especially those parts least liked. To me, gay marriage is an absurdity – a pure negation of what marriage is for (it isn’t for love, dear people; neither is it for tax breaks…love and tax breaks are benefits of marriage, not the reasons for having it). I’ll fight against it – but I’ll also lay down a marker: just as soon as gay marriage advocates start advocating a ban on no-fault divorce, then I’ll start considering a modification of my position towards theirs. My brief, you see, is to strengthen marriage and family…and if I can get a bit of that by graciously giving in to an odd request or two, I’ll do it. On the other hand, I know I’m quite safe here…because gay rights people, for the most part, are of the left and thus will never, ever contemplate any action which actually makes people live up to their promise.

Meanwhile, those advocates of gay marriage who care at all about America should be outraged by this judicial usurpation – they can, of course, in good conscience fight against the November initiative to overturn, but they should also be demanding that the Court reverse itself, and leave it to the people to decide when the current California laws regarding marriage should be modified, and how.

UPDATE: Apology is due – Gay Patriot let me know that his view is in opposition to the judicial usurpation:

Mark — you actually did misrepresent my view of the California decision. Both myself and my co-blogger (CA resident, Dan) oppose judicial fiat against the will of the people.

I only posted the article you referenced as a way to piss off the liberal gays who constantly trash Republicans and label them as “bigots” because they oppose marriage.

I am delighted that I’m an idiot vis a vis Gay Patriot’s position – I’ve long respected him as a fellow American, blogger, thinker and conservative. I offer my heartfelt and complete apology, and my promise in future to get off the lazy duff and actually ask for clarification before I jump to conclusions.

While waiting for the Mrs to finish a medical appointment this evening, I was forced – for the first time – to be in a room where the TV was tuned to Olberman without my having the ability to change the channel. He was raving on and on about something, and it occured to me it was about Hillary’s statement vis a vis long primary seasons and the assasination of Robert Kennedy. This is causing an MSM firestorm, it would seem:

Another example of the power of the Drudge Report today, as a NY Post story pointing out that Clinton brought up the assassination of Robert F Kennedy in 1968 during an editorial board meeting sent reporters traveling with Clinton into a frenzy.

Asked by South Dakota newspaper the Argus Leader why she didn’t buy the argument that the party was fracturing because of the prolonged contest, Clinton said “my husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.”

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” she continued. “You know i just dont understand it.”

After the Post story was circulated to the press corps via blackberry and Drudge, the reporters here at Clinton’s town hall meeting abandoned any pretense of listening to the event, flocking around the first Clinton flak they could find for a response to the quote.

After a brief off the record defense of Clinton’s comments, Campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee gave reporters what they were looking for. “She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer,” he said. “Any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate.”…

…After the uproar, Clinton came to the TV cameras to make a brief statement on her remarks.

“Earlier today, I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968. And I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination, primary contests that go into June. That’s an historic fact. “

“The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Senator Kennedy, and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. i certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.”

I’m sure she had no such intention – in fact, I wish she hadn’t apologised because there was (and is) nothing to this. Olberman was frothing at the mouth about a theory which seemed to go thusly: Hillary mentions RFK assasination; this is an invitation for some hate-crazed right wing lunatic to assasinate Obama. I’m no fan of Hillary, but this whole issue is a gigantic crock of feces unworthy of a serious mind…which, of course, means its going like wildfire in the MSM and on the left.

I’m actually starting to feel sorry for Hillary – and I mean it; she’s a leftist who’s policies would, if fully implemented, destroy the United States and, into the bargain, she has a great deal of trouble consistently telling the truth…but she’s getting a raw deal from her fellow Democrats and her once sycophantic MSM. I hate to see backstabbing, no matter who is doing it, or who it is being done to.

Have at it.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And a little humor from Stuff White People Like:

It is a fact that white people will never turn down an opportunity to enlighten other people on the correct way to think. While this is very easy to do through email or face to face conversation, it is exceptionally difficult to do while driving a car. Fortunately for white people there is a solution that is both popular and ineffective: bumper stickers.

Before talking about the types of bumper stickers that white people like, it’s very important to get an understanding about layout and placement. When a white person drives an older car (6+ years old) that has a resale value under $2000, they will coat the entire backside of the car in bumper stickers. Because of the abundance of space they are free to include stickers from all areas of white support: music, politics, the environment, insults to right wing politicians, and various movements that tell people to keep a city “weird.”

But when white people have a nice new car such as a Prius or an Audi station wagon, the fear of losing resale value prevents them from applying more than one sticker. Therefore that one sticker must properly capture the essence of the car and the political views of the driver.

The safest and most accepted choice for a sticker is always one that supports a Democratic Presidential candidate (Ralph Nader is an acceptable substitute). As of February 2008, white law requires an Obama 08 bumper sticker to be placed on the back of every Prius…

Love that site – sheer genuis.

And some liberals still screech at us for accusing them of being socialists. See the video here.

Interesting that a lady who thinks that the crack epidemic was courtesy of the CIA can get elected and re-elected…and Democrats will allow her on camera!