This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: John McCain/Sarah Palin

  • Maybe Obama’s not so moderate

    Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson comes to a revelation the rest of us  have known for quite some time; Obama is a “false moderate“. It took ABC correspondent  Jack Tapper to enlighten Gerson;

     “Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?” Obama’s response is worth quoting in full: “Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn’t popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”

    For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues, but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue on which Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.

    I guess the fact that we’ve been saying all along that Obama votes with his party leadership 100% of the time didn’t sink in. He has the highest leftist rating of any Senator – now I suppose he’s a “maverick” in the sense that he votes further Left than anyone else. is that what maverick means these days – just voting further Left than anyone in your own party – that’s what earned the moniker for McCain.

    As I’ve been pointing out the last few days, Obama has proposed nothing but failed policies of the past – that’s hardly consistent with his “reformer” image. He wants to continue blocking our usage of domestic energy sources, he refuses to accept our progress in the war against terror, he clings to 60s radicals of all stripes and all national persuasions. He’s just a younger version of every Democrat President of the last 40 years (luckily there’s only been two).

    I guess the Democrats, with Obama in the lead, are becoming the reactionary conservative party, since reactionary and conservative are terms that refer to policies that return us to the past.  That makes John McCain the forward-looking man in this race. Funny how that works.

  • The failed policies of the past

    Barack Obama is fond of comparing John McCain’s policies to those of President Bush labeling them the “failed policies of the past”, but actually, Obama’s policies are failed policies of a more distant past.

    With gas over $4/gallon, Obama says we should continue to depend on some as yet undiscovered miracle to save us…the same thing Democrats have been saying for nearly forty years. of course, they claim the reason that there’s no new source of energy is because the government hasn’t thrown enough taxpayer dollars at the problem yet.

    I remember too well the failed policies of the past – when we were straining under OPEC embargoes in the early 70s, Democrats stood against the building a pipeline in Alaska to transport our own oil to port. That’s why Jimmy Carter promised in 1979 that he’d build refineries and pipelines…two years later, the Democrat Congress forbade more drilling in the Guld of Mexico when a Republican was president.

    Jimmy Carter never built a refinery, by the way, none have been built in this country since 1977. There are two sites currently approved for refineries, one in New Mexico and another in South Dakota – but they’ll spend years in court battling Luddite environmentalists before a spade of dirt is turned.

    Carter founded the Energy Department in hopes it would slash through the red tape and respond to our domestic energy needs, but it’s just another whale beached in dowtown DC. Obama clings to the same delusions that Democrats have clung to for years.

    AFP/Beitbart quotes Obama yesterday;

    “Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has three percent of the world’s oil.

    “It’s another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil.”

    Obama is pushing for a “windfall tax” on oil companies’ record profits and for federal investment of 150 billion dollars over 10 years in renewable and green energies.

    First of all, those are OUR pennies, Senator – why can’t we have them? You’re not doing anything useful with them. Secondly, how long is it going to take to invent a new energy source, get it and the vehicles that’ll use it to market? The Democrats have been promising us that for forty years and there’s nothing on the horizon. Oh, and how is a windfall profit tax helping? Are you going to redistribute that money to the people, since we’re the ones from whom oil companies are profiting? Or are you just going to cram in your pockets and then tell us how you know how to spend it better than us?

    The Wall Street Journal writes today that Obama and the Democrats sound a little silly at $4/gallon gas;

    Anticarbon Democrats are on the defensive for once. Their default position – doing nothing – doesn’t have the best resonance amid $4 gas. They’ve been reduced to arguing that more exploration would merely make a difference over the long term. The GOP plan, in other words, is too pragmatic.

    Democrats also claim that land already leased is “sitting idle,” and should be used before any new exploration begins. As put by Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the House Resources Committee, Big Oil is “trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush Administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits.”

    Conspiracy theories aside, it is true that only 0.46% of the Outer Continental Shelf is producing oil (though only 2.3% is under lease). But because of the exploration ban, oil companies go in more or less blind, not knowing the extent of the available resources. Millions of acres lack oil or gas, which is why it’s called “exploration.” Federal law stipulates that an oil company must sink a producing well within 10 years or lose the lease; it often takes nearly a decade to navigate the geography, not to mention the long process of environmental and regulatory review. Or coping with multiple lawsuits from the green lobby.

    Yes, this campaign is about the failed policies of the past – the failed policies of the seventies and eighties as foisted on the American public by Democrats.

  • Lawyers will fight Barack’s war against terror

    In an interview the other night Barack Obama, the candidate of change, suggested we return to the Clinton way of dealing with terrorists as a law enforcement issue, rather than accept that we’re really at war (Evening Standard link);

    The comments from his camp came hot on the heels of a TV interview on Monday in which Mr Obama insisted the U.S. government could successfully crack down on terrorists ‘within the constraints of our Constitution’.

    He backed a Supreme Court ruling last week that said detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their indefinite imprisonment in U.S. civilian courts – a ruling derided by Mr McCain as ‘one of the worst decisions in the history of this country’.

    Obama suggested we should depend on law enforcement agencies to track down perpetrators (after they’ve committed a crime) and put them in prison to negate their future attacks.

    [Obama] said that he believed that “we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution,” and noted that the United States had been able to arrest, try and jail the culprits in the first World Trade Center bombing.

    […]

    “And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantánamo,” Obama said in the interview. “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial.”

    To his credit John McCain’s camp hit back with his big guns (International Herald Tribune link);

    The McCain campaign asserted that Obama wanted to go back to treating terrorism as nothing more than a criminal matter, called him naïve and argued that the World Trade Center case was an example of how insufficient that was. “Once again we have seen that Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a Sept. 10 mindset,” Scheunemann said on the call.

    Former CIA director James Woolsey, who is advising the McCain campaign, said Mr Obama, 46, had ‘an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism … and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States’.

    Obama struck back by saying that there’s no proof that the Bush Doctrine has been successful. Well, other than the fact that we haven’t been attacked here or abroad. The proof that the Clinton method was a failure is the countless attacks on us and our assets abroad.

    Everything that reflects negatively on Obama is a distraction;

    Mr Obama responded sharply to yesterday’s comments from the McCain camp.

    ‘These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11,’ he told reporters on board his campaign plane.

    I guess all of those al Qeada lying in graves in Iraq are just a distraction, too. The best Obama camp could do is drag out Richard Clarke and John Kerry (Tahoe Daily Tribune);

    The Obama campaign countered with its own conference call in which Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official in Republican and Democratic administrations, argued the McCain campaign was emulating Rove.

    “I’m a little disgusted by the attempts of some of my friends on the McCain campaign to use the same old, tired tactics … to drive a wedge between Americans for partisan advantage and to frankly frighten Americans,” Clarke said.

    Kerry accused McCain of “defending a policy that is indefensible” by siding with Bush’s policies, particularly with respect to the Iraq war.

    Obama said Republicans could be counted on to do “what they’ve done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as club to make the American people afraid to win elections.” He said he didn’t think it would work this time.

    More of that “fear-mongering, chickenhawk” sloganeering. Since there’s been no attack, there won’t be one ever, as I wrote earlier today – it’s terribly naive and it’s raw political pandering. If Obama becomes president, you can count on criticism of Obama over the imminent terrorist attack to be called a distraction from his social policies. That should make the victims feel better.

  • A clear choice

    Now that the presidential race has begun, the choice between candidates becomes even clearer. Although most Americans think that Barack Obama will do a better job on the economy than John McCain, the more Obama talks, the more Americans will doubt he can. Take this from the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire;

     Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee outlined three key principles of the economic plan, which includes a $50 billion additional economic stimulus package, the creation of a $10 billion fund to ward off home foreclosures, and middle class tax cuts which include a $1,000 tax cut for families earning $150,000 or less.

    “This slowdown is not a random, business-cycle event. It is very much the result of a failed philosophy,” Goolsbee said. He criticized President Bush, and alternately McCain, for a tax system that he argues favors the wealthy over “ordinary Americans.”

    Advisors said Obama’s agenda would not increase the federal deficit and would be paid for by repealing tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, as well as funds that would become available when the war effort in Iraq is scaled down. McCain Senior Policy Advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin disputed that claim, countering that the agenda does not offer enough specifics to verify precisely how it will be paid for. “It’s an assertion without a foundation,” he said.

    The Washington Times reports that the McCain campaign confidently predicts tax hikes in an Obama administration;

     On the difference between Mr. McCain – who opposed Mr. Bush’s tax cuts as too skewed toward the wealthy but now says their extension is the only way out of the economic mess – and Mr. Obama, Mr. Burr said more taxes are a foregone conclusion.

    “It’s impossible for Senator McCain to run from a 20-plus-year career in the United States Senate, thousands of votes, but it’s very easy to focus on the 94 times in just three years Barack Obama has voted to raise taxes. I think there are certain things that America voters can predict, and raising taxes on the part of Senator Obama is a pretty certain thing,” the senator said.

    I think we all know who Democrats consider “rich” when it comes to raising taxes. Bill Clinton promised a middleclass tax cut in 1992, but then raised our taxes in 1993. We can expect the same from Barack. Obama also promises to tax oil companies to the tune of $50 billion – who thinks the oil companies will pay that? Again, working Americans will get shafted with increased gas prices. Now Obama cn claims increased taxes will only be levied on families making over $150,000/year – but how easy is it to make it $75k after making excuses like Bill Clinton?

    The Obama campaign claims that this isn’t a normal business cycle downturn that we’re in (at least they stopped labeling it a recession), but what is it when we’ve had growth in the GDP every month since March 2001? When unemployment fell and sustained it’s rate for the longest period ever?

    The Democrats blamed the stalled economy in 2000 on candidate Bush’s “talking down the economy” – well, what are these clowns in the Democrat party doing these days?

    So the choice for President becomes clearer –  do you want to pay more for goods and services with less money in your paycheck…and lose your 401k savings – or do you want sustained economic growth with more money in your pocket?

  • “G** Damn the Democrats!”

    Rurik sends me this video of Harriet Christian, a Clinton supporter from Manhattan. She’s obviously upset because of the Rules and Bylaws Committee’s decision to rearrange the delegate votes for Michigan and Florida.

    [youtube KACQuZVAE3s nolink]

    Here’s a picture of Christian being tossed out of the committee meeting because she shouted that she was going to vote for John McCain in November.

    capt25e67492186149e39f830bb16af0e9feprimary_scramble_dcmo116.jpg

    In the video, she calls Obama “an inadequate Black male” and declares that Americans will vote for McCain after seeing the way Democrats treated women. It’s pretty amazing to see a Democrat say these things in public. She claims that she’s gone from being a second class citizen to “nuthin’” because of the Committee’s decision.

    Of course, it’s just one woman’s opinion, but the video, posted by Firedoglake, went up on YouTube last night and won honors in 35 categories, with 135,000 views and 3500 comments. The funniest part of the comments is that they run the gamut of name calling. Obama, Clinton and Christian all get called racists at some point. I guess this’ll blunt the impact of the term.

    In another Firedoglake video, Deborah Foster from Long Island shows the bruises she got from being ejected from the committee meeting;

    [youtube CH92E5vWrjk nolink]

    It’s nice to see the Big Tent Party coming together. Even unflappable Lanny Davis was smoking according to the Huffington Post;

    “I’ll tell you what,” Davis chimed in, “the Clinton campaign’s position has been misrepresented by this wonderful love-fest, and the lady who testified for us was saying that the Obama campaign and your proposal is not generous. But it is in fact unfair. If you want to hear, now that the love-fest is over, why don’t you come over and hear the counterpoint to this completely disingenuous argument.”

    I suspect the “unfair” charge will lose it’s cache like the “racist” charge. Here’s another video from from Marc Ambinder (h/t someone at Ace) of another Democrat woman predicting a McCain win in November;

    [youtube DesyhrRYtB0 nolink]

    I suspect that Obama made his decision to leave his church to mute coverage of the rules committee’s decision.

    UPDATE: More at Gateway Pundit and Flopping Aces.

  • Koch may endorse McCain

    I don’t usually use Newsmax as a source, but this seems fairly legit;

    Koch carries significant weight with many Jewish Democrats in New York and across the country. He also has a history of playing the maverick and crossing party lines.

    He has backed several New York Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg for New York City mayor, Al D’Amato for the U.S. Senate, and George Pataki for New York governor. In 2004 he endorsed his first Republican for president, George W. Bush. Koch actively campaigned in several states, including Florida and Ohio.

    Bush won both states.

    Koch, a regular Newsmax pundit, also says in his interview that he still endorses Sen. Hillary Clinton for the White House and believes she should stay in the race.

    Combined wtih Lieberman’s endorsement, that could be bad news for Obama in his Blue Northeast states.

  • Foot-shooting Democrats

    Ed Morrisey at Hot Air and Jim Geraghty at National Review Online have noticed a trend in recent Democrat strategies. They think they can attack John McCain’s military service to pump up their candidate and downplay McCain’s experience. From Geraghty;

    One: * * *

    Two: * * *

    Three: * * *

    From Morrisey;

    If the Obama campaign wants to continue its denigration of military service, let them. It’s going to be difficult to sell McCain as a man who got a free ride through a distinguished naval career and attempt to turn a real war hero into a dilettante. That effort will reveal the anti-military animus that surrounds Team Obama and its supporters on the hard Left better than any ad the Republicans can produce.

    Redstate‘s Erick asks;

    When will Barack Obama publicly say attacks on John McCain’s war record are off limits?

    They missed Wesley ‘Little Mac’ Clark‘s attacks (although Clark was a Hillary supporter at the time – who knows who he supports today).

    Since he thinks he havsthe moral high ground on this issue, Obama won’t put McCain’s service off limits. After all, this campaign is about things candidates ARE and not about what they’ve DONE. Just like Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama thinks he deserves the presidency just because he’s running. He’s put every negative aspect of his life off limits and left everything about his opponents open for derision, but it’s going to blow up in his face.

    John McCain hasn’t made his whole campaign about his time as a POW – sure it’s come up from time-to-time, but his whole campaign doesn’t revolve around it – like John Kerry’s did. And all of the wrong people are sent out to attack him – Jay Rockefeller, who never served, Tom Harkin who famously lied about his service. These are the only people they’ve got. They can’t send John Kerry out, because we’ll just ask for him to sign his Form 180. AGAIN.

    If they keep trotting out their critics of McCain’s service it is only going to end up reminding voters how the Democrat Party is populated with America-haters and troop-bashers.

  • Code Pink heckles McCain

     

    John McCain dealt deadly blows to Barak Obama’s insinuation that Iran is no threat like Soviet Union was today at the National Restaurant Association convention according to the WSJ’s Washington Wire;

    McCain’s harsh words today stemmed from Obama’s defense of his foreign policy on Saturday.

    Of his plans to meet with foreign leaders, Obama said, “That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao.” Campaigning in Oregon, Obama added: “I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union.”

    “Such a statement betrays the depth of Sen. Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment,” McCain said on Monday. “Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess.”

    McCain said that while Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t have the military of the former Soviet Union, it remains a grave threat in part because Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel comments.

    Then as he began his prepared remarks, three old hags began their childish antics;

    …three women in pink aprons stood up to protest the Iraq war. One woman climbed on her chair and waved a maroon banner while singing a song about McCain and President Bush to the tune of “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad.” The crowd, gathered for a convention of the National Restaurant Association, booed the women as they were escorted out of the ballroom.

    I don’t see the Code Pink hags protesting Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton for their admissions that they’ll remain in Iraq for a period of time. Maybe it’s because Code Pink are just the SWAT team of the DNC.