Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Well I don't normally find a lot of glee when blogging about the netroots, but I'm getting a little kick out of the Politico's piece this morning, "Fox Trumps Netroots; Bloggers Rebel."
It turns out that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's appearances on Fox News have pissed off the high and mighty of the leftosphere, and there's more than a little schadenfreude in that:
The nation’s top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis of liberal bloggers.
The detente with Fox has provoked a backlash from progressive bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network liberals love to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes.
In a span of eight days, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean are all taking their seats with the network that calls itself “fair and balanced” but is widely viewed as skewing conservative....
The Democratic leaders’ new openness to Fox reflects the liberal left’s diminishing power, at least at this point in the political cycle. Once feared by the Democratic candidates, these activists are now viewed at least in part as an impediment to winning the broad swatch of support needed to clinch the nomination.
The Politico indicates that Obama promised to diss Fox on air during the broadcast, or what's what is referred to in the leftosphere as "delegitimation," in Adam Green's words:
It was a mistake for Obama to go on FOX’s Sunday show and treat the experience as if it was a real news interview. Democratic politicians need to understand that FOX is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as a news outlet. When dealing with FOX, you either burn them or they will burn you.
It's well documented that FOX executives send morning memos to anchors and reporters dictating Republican talking points. In 2006, one said, “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress.” Robert Greenwald's videos have shown FOX's consistent pattern of smearing Barack Obama, smearing Hillary Clinton, smearing African Americans, and denying global warming.
FOX's power lies not in its audience size – which is puny and consists mostly of unpersuadable voters. Instead, FOX's power comes from tricking politicians and real journalists into treating their “breaking stories” like real news, thereby propelling smears like the Swift Boats and Rev. Wright into the mainstream political dialogue. That's why progressives fought (successfully) last year to deprive FOX of the legitimacy that comes with hosting a Democratic presidential debate. And that's why Democratic politicians should never treat FOX like a real news outlet - including FOX's Sunday show.
Barack Obama's campaign made a promise before this weekend's appearance. They said he would "take Fox on" – inspiring hope among those who watched Bill Clinton in 2006, Chris Dodd in 2007, and progressive activist Lee Camp in 2008 delegitimize FOX on the air. But Obama didn't do that, and he suffered as a result.
What Green's doing is demonizing Fox for having a political viewpoint at odds with the "progressive" left. But it's typical - and anti-intellectual - to whine about Democratic appearances on the conservative network.
I think it's a lot more respectable for Fox to host interviews with Democratic candidates - who, if they're smart, can cut through efforts at ulterior subterfuge in the questioning - than it is for CNN to host a GOP YouTube debate with planted left-wing questioners.
All's fair in love and war, they say, which is a little wisdom apparently lost on the spurned netroots mandarins.
This post is here at the request of my regular commenter, Kreiz (see why). Please enjoy George Harrison, "Here Comes the Sun":
The video clip's from 1987's Prince's Trust Concert, with the ensemble of George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Elton John, Phil Collins, Eric Clapton, and others...
The Wikipedia entry for "Here Comes the Sun" quotes Harrison's on the song's artistic origins:
"Here Comes The Sun" was written at the time when Apple was getting like school, where we had to go and be businessmen: 'Sign this' and 'sign that'. Anyway, it seems as if winter in England goes on forever, by the time spring comes you really deserve it. So one day I decided I was going to sag off Apple and I went over to Eric Clapton's house. The relief of not having to go see all those dopey accountants was wonderful, and I walked around the garden with one of Eric's acoustic guitars and wrote "Here Comes The Sun..."
I love this song too, and thanks to my readers for the feedback and requests!
Here comes the sun, here comes the sun, and I say it's all right
Little darling, it's been a long cold lonely winter Little darling, it feels like years since it's been here Here comes the sun, here comes the sun and I say it's all right
Little darling, the smiles returning to the faces Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here Here comes the sun, here comes the sun and I say it's all right
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes... Sun, sun, sun, here it comes... Sun, sun, sun, here it comes... Sun, sun, sun, here it comes... Sun, sun, sun, here it comes...
Little darling, I feel that ice is slowly melting Little darling, it seems like years since it's been clear Here comes the sun, here comes the sun, and I say it's all right It's all right...
Lyrics are added mostly for my benefit, and remember, here's why.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Hillary Clinton has not let up her attacks on Barack Obama's relationship to his toxic pastor, Jeremiah Wright:
As Barack Obama sought to dampen the renewed controversy over his former pastor by announcing three superdelegate endorsements Wednesday, Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton kept the issue alive, calling remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. "offensive and outrageous."
Appearing on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," Clinton said she wouldn't have remained in a church with such divisive sermons. She added that it would be up to voters to decide whether the controversy would affect the presidential campaign.
Wright, in a nationally televised speech Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, repeated some of the incendiary comments from videotaped sermons that ignited the controversy in March. They included assertions that the U.S. government may have played a role in the spread of AIDS among African Americans and that the nation's foreign policy actions led to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bill O'Reilly, host of the Fox News program on which Clinton appeared, asked the New York senator how she felt when she heard "a fellow American citizen say that kind of stuff about America."
"Well, I take offense," Clinton said. "I think it's offensive and outrageous."
But Clinton also said that she thought Obama "made his views clear, finally, that he disagreed, and I think that's what he had to do."
Clinton's comments came a day after Obama held a news conference to dissociate himself from Wright. The Illinois senator called his former pastor's National Press Club appearance a "spectacle," a "show of disrespect to me" and "an insult to what we've been trying to do" in his quest for the White House.
There's certainly been damage, as the new Pew survey indicates, "Obama's Image Slips, His Lead Over Clinton Disappears."
Gallup also has Clinton leading Obama in national polling, "Clinton 49%, Obama 45%."
In Indiana, Clinton's opening up a lead ahead of next Tuesday's primary, "Indiana Poll Shows Clinton With Big Lead Over Obama.
The Indiana numbers apparently reflect a steep revulsion with Reverend Wright.
Clinton needs a win in Indiana Tuesday to keep her nomination hopes alive (she's maintaining her lead in the superdelegate count, which is the key indicator to watch at the Democrats wrap up their last primaries next week), but I don't think she can rely on Wright to carry her along much longer.
Here's this from Protest Shooter on the recent Daniel Pipes/Victor David Hanson panel on "Totalitarian Islam," which avoided an imminent riot:
So the good news is UC Berkeley can have conservative speakers without major incident. The bad news is this involves maybe a dozen UC police, metal detectors, police lines, a K9... well, it's a start.
Yeah, well, maybe the bulk of the campus radicals were off to an Obama rally...
Will McCain be able to convince people that it remains important to American security to stay in Iraq?
McCain's position is that he doesn't want to keep American troops in Iraq a minute longer than is absolutely necessary. But I think most Americans understand that a hasty and reckless withdrawal that leaves Iraq not only as a basket case but also as a potential base for terrorists is not in America's interest and really would put America in a position of having to go back in again. I'm hoping that Americans appreciate the fundamental honesty that McCain is offering.
One of the ideas McCain offered in his foreign policy speech was the creation of a new international institution called the League of Democracies. What would that look like?
There are international institutions that gather together all the rich nations, there are groups of poor nations, there's an Islamic Conference. The one thing there doesn't seem to be is a group of democracies, getting together to discuss the issues of the day. I think that's something that's lacking in the present system, and one that could possibly do some good.
Would it be a counterweight to the United Nations, or reduce the U.N.'s influence?
I don't see it as a substitute for the U.N. It complements the U.N. There may be instances—whether it's something like Darfur or Burma—when the U.N. Security Council is unable to act because of the divisions between the autocracies and the democracies, and when a group of democracies might be able to take some action and might even receive the kind of sanction from the U.N. secretary-general that ultimately the Kosovo operation got.
That sounds similar to the idea of the "Responsibility to Protect," which calls on other countries to intervene when a country abuses its own citizens. Is that the kind of thing this institution might advance?
The Responsibility to Protect is an area where the democracies are substantially in agreement and the autocracies are substantially in opposition, for obvious reasons. The Kosovo operation was regarded very negatively in Moscow and Beijing precisely because they don't want the international system to legitimize getting between a ruler and his people. We see this clash occurring in a place like Zimbabwe, Darfur and elsewhere. I think democracies are in fundamental agreement on this, and I think it would be better if they could find some way to pursue ideas like Responsibility to Protect, even if the autocracies insist on opposing it.
Leaving aside Iraq, what are the differences between the foreign policy platforms of the two parties right now?
They're probably not as great as a lot of people would like to pretend. Is American power something that can be used for good? I think that all the leading candidates believe the answer to that is yes. Is it necessary for the U.S. to remain strong? Every candidate is calling for increases in American military capabilities.
I love the idea of the League of Democracies, because it's probably the case that the U.N. has outlived its usefulness amid continued Third World hostility to greater government effectiveness and anti-corruption, human rights, and the battle against fundamentalist Islam.
But I'm more skeptical regarding Barack Obama "calling for increases in America's military capabilities."
I'm sure most readers have seen the YouTube where Obama promises to slash "wasteful" military spending and cut "investments" in missile defense, not "weaponize" space, and "slow the development" of future combat systems, etc...
Do yourself a favor and believe every word he says. When I say this man is the most dangerous candidate for president we may have ever seen, I mean it. The disarmament agenda he spews in this video is classic George Soros theory aimed at knocking America into a second-world country, putting us at grave risk to tyrannical regimes around the world. It is craven self-loathing, aimed at ending the future of our country, capitalism and liberty. And imagine, Obama says these things with the world at war and as genocidal regimes continue to build their bombs despite 'promising' not to do so, or being 'banned' from doing so.
As I noted, Kagan's one of my very favorite neocons, but if he's advising McCain, he needs to put the pressue on - Obama's foreign policy's a disaster, and the sooner the McCain team gets off the Mr. Nice Guy message the better.
The hard-left-backed DNC's already smearing the Arizona Senator. Sure, the Democrats are still in the thick of the primary battle, and points for "clean" politics are certainly valuable in this year of the swing independent voter, but it's never to late to define the opponent, and the message that Obama's not likely to cut American military preparedness is definitely off-point.
Today's Wall Street Journal reports on new polling data finding the Republican Party at record lows, although John McCain manages to do well in public approval.
The survey paints a picture of tremendous Democratic opportunity in the country, with an electorate evincing a record-setting hunger for change. Yet the party's reputation has slid down the gully amid the divisive mudslinging of the prolonged primary battle.
It's going to be close in November:
Only 27% of voters have positive views of the Republican Party, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the lowest level for either party in the survey's nearly two-decade history.
Yet the party's probable presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, continues to run nearly even with Democratic rivals Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. His standing so far makes for a more competitive race for the White House than would be expected for Republicans, who face an electorate that overwhelmingly believes the country is headed in the wrong direction under President Bush.
"The nearly unprecedented negative mood of the country is presenting significant challenges this year for other Republican candidates," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the poll with Democrat Peter Hart.
President Bush reached new lows in his eighth and final year, with 27% approving of his overall job performance, and 21% his handling of the weakened economy. An unprecedented 73% of voters believe the country is on the wrong track; only 15% say it is going in the right direction.
The numbers show an electorate more disenchanted than in the fall of 1992, the previous low in the Journal poll -- sentiments that led to the ouster of President Bush's father.
A majority of voters now say they want Democrats to re-capture the White House again, a finding that makes Sen. McCain's position remarkable: He's in a statistical dead-heat against either Democrat in the poll. Sen. Obama, the Democratic front-runner, leads Sen. McCain 46% to 43%, and Sen. Clinton has a 45% to 44% edge over the Republican. A big reason for the closeness: More voters said they could identify with Sen. McCain's "background" and "values" than with those of either of the Democratic contenders.
Both point spreads are within the poll's 3.1-percentage-point margin of error. The survey of 1,006 registered voters was conducted April 25-28.
The poll also shows that the prolonged battling between Sens. Obama and Clinton could make it difficult for the ultimate nominee to unite the party. Both candidates have been bloodied, though Sen. Obama, who previously has enjoyed much higher personal ratings than Sen. Clinton, has sustained more damage. The Illinois senator has struggled over the past month with a series of controversies, including his association with an outspoken Chicago pastor and comments about small-town voters that have been portrayed as elitist.
Representatives for the two Democrats declined to comment.
Voters, by 44% to 32%, hold positive feelings toward the Democratic Party. By a 15-point margin, 49% to 34%, voters say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress. Swing voters -- the one-third of the electorate that will decide the elections -- are even more hostile toward the Republican Party than voters overall, and identify by more than 2-to-1 with Democrats.
Sen. McCain's current political viability contrasts with that of his party. It underscores the extent to which his personality and image, rather than issues such as the war and the economy, could shape this presidential election.
House Republican Leader John Boehner on Wednesday convened party colleagues behind closed doors for a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Why We Can Win." Central to the Ohio congressman's case was his argument that other Republicans on the ballot would benefit from Sen. McCain's appeal among independents and moderate Democrats.
But party strategists say other Republicans can't count on riding Sen. McCain's coattails. As the poll indicates, Sen. McCain's status with voters rests largely on personal traits and on his long-cultivated reputation for independence from his party, suggesting an appeal that isn't easily transferred.
Sen. McCain's appeal could fade, the poll suggests. As Sen. McCain has reached out to suspicious conservatives to unite his party behind his candidacy, and become more partisan as its presumptive nominee, his popularity among voters already has eroded some. In two Journal/NBC polls in March, the share of voters with positive views was 20 points greater than for those with negative views. That margin was halved to 10 points in the current poll, with 40% positive and 30% negative.
Also, 43% say they have "major concerns" that Sen. McCain "will be too closely aligned with the Bush agenda." His vulnerability to the Bush link is one that Democrats already are exploiting, with near-daily attacks from the national party suggesting a McCain administration would amount to a third Bush term.
Just 16% cited Sen. McCain's age as a major concern. The Arizona senator will be 72 years old by election day.
Not mentioned is the key fact that campaigns make a difference!
McCain's the consummate campaigner. He routinely deflects questions about his age by saying "I'll out-campaign 'em all"!
Today's May Day demonstrations around the country will seek to revive the traditional radical socialist agenda of earler 20th century workers' solidarity movements.
Organizers in cities and towns around the U.S. are hoping to bring back the historical significance of May 1st in international labor and workers' struggles, and to reignite the labor movement by integrating recent undocumented workers' struggle for amnesty. Marches, rallies, and other gatherings on that date will focus on issues such as federal agencies and ending harassment by local police, raids, and the separation of families in immigrant communities; stopping the use of "no-match" letters to intimidate worker organizing efforts; holding elected officials accountable to supporting immigrant rights; funding human needs and services instead of militarism and war; and amnesty for those who do not have current documents.
That's the language of the left's goal for workers of the world to unite. Here's Wikipedia's mention of "May Day."
International Workers' Day (a name used interchangeably with May Day) is a celebration of the social and economic achievements of the international labour movement. May Day commonly sees organized street demonstrations by millions of working people and their labour unions throughout Europe and most of the rest of the world — though, as noted below, rarely in the United States and Canada. Communist and anarchist organizations and their affiliated unions universally conduct street marches on this day.
International Workers' Day is the commemoration of the Haymarket Riot in Chicago in 1886; in 1889, the first congress of the Second International, meeting in Paris for the centennial of the French Revolution and the Exposition Universelle (1889), following a proposal by Raymond Lavigne, called for international demonstrations on the 1890 anniversary of the Chicago protests. These were so successful that May Day was formally recognized as an annual event at the International's second congress in 1891. The May Day Riots of 1894 and May Day Riots of 1919 occurred subsequently. In 1904, the International Socialist Conference meeting in Amsterdam called on "all Social Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace." As the most effective way of demonstrating was by striking, the congress made it "mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May 1, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers."
May Day has long been a focal point for demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and anarchist groups. In some circles, bonfires are lit in commemoration of the Haymarket martyrs, usually right as the first day of May begins. It has also seen right-wing massacres of participants as in the Taksim Square massacre of 1977 in Turkey.
Due to its status as a celebration of the efforts of workers and the socialist movement, May Day is an important official holiday in Communist countries such as the People's Republic of China, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. May Day celebrations typically feature elaborate popular and military parades in these countries.
May Day's never been big in the U.S. because we're not a Communist country, or even a social market economy on par with the European continental democracies.
That may change if the Democrats come to power this November.
As I noted previously, a clear majority favors redistributing wealth from the top to the bottom, and economic circumstance today are creating the conditions for a far reaching political realignment in the country (and the radical left netroots are clearly demanding change of revolutionary proportions).
See also Gallup's poll this morning, "Economic Issues Reaching “Crisis” Level for Many Americans."
I'm sure glad John McCain wrapped the GOP nomination, back in, ... geez, it's been so long I've lost track!
Thanks goodness for CNN! They do keep up with this stuff!
I'm sure the Democrats wish they could lose track of their nomination battle, that's for sure. They'll be wishing even harder if we're privileged to see more articles like James Wolcott's at Vanity Fair on the viscious Clinton-Obama partisan schism.
Wolcott describes the battle between the left-wing factions as pitting "the messianics versus the menopausals":
The Obama-ites exuded the confidence of those who feel that they embody the future and are the seed bearers of energies and new modalities too long smothered under the thick haunches of the tired, old, entrenched way of doing things. The Hillarions felt a different imperative knocking at the gate of history, the long-overdue prospect of the first woman taking the presidential oath of office. For them, Hillary’s time had come, she had paid her dues, she had been thoroughly vetted, she had survived hairdos that would have sunk lesser mortals, and she didn’t let a little thing like being loathed by nearly half of the country bum her out and clog her transmission. Not since Nixon had there been such a show of grinding perseverance in the teeth of adversity, and Nixon in a pantsuit was never going to be an easy sell contrasted with the powerful embroidery of Obama’s eloquence—his very emergence on the political scene seemed like a feat of levitation. Hillary’s candidacy promised to make things better; Obama’s to make us better: outward improvement versus inward transformation. With Hillary, you would earn your merit badges; with Obama, your wings. Hillary’s candidacy was warmed-over meat loaf—comfort food for those too old or fearful to Dream.
Wolcott's description's riotous, but the photo of Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos is the best:
With all the talk about distant family relations this election (isn't Obama related to Dick Cheney?), I'm going out on a limb here to suggest that Kos is related to Shakeel Ahmad Bhat, aka Islamic Rage Boy (more on Shakeel here):
Look at the resemblance: The dark, penenetrating eyes, the torqued eyebrows, the angular noses and flaring nostrils, and not to mention the salad bowl haircuts!
Moulitsas has a Greek background on his father's side, and the Islamic Rage Boy hails from the Kashmiri northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent.
Perhaps going back to the days of the great European spice traders there was left the intermingling of cultures, a trace of mixed family lineages that's now come full circle in mutual outrage at the Bush administration's neo-imperialist policies in the Middle East!
Ahhhh!!
Kos'll throw Hillary under the bus if Obama's elected, and Shakeel might get an appointment to the U.N. as a roving Islamic ambassador (he's got a lot of sightings already).
Geez, Kos will be swinging over to Turtle Bay to hang out with his long-lost relation.Talk about the ultimate left-wing meet up for the world's most afflicted BDS sufferers!
How do you like this four-by-four decision matrix on money and self-interest?
It's from Maggie's Farm, "How Enlightened Self-Interest Works," and it reminds me of when I was in grad school studying game-theoretic models of cooperation under anarchy.
More immediately, the matrix - especially the payoff in the upper-left quadrant - reminds me of the healthcare debate we've been having. Talk about universal healthcare's been suppressed a bit with the Wright controversy throwing the Democratic campaign off the rails a bit, but it's starting to come back.
John McCain's making a big push in his healthcare reform proposals this week, focusing on choice, competition, affordability, and availability.
The Wall Street Journal reflects favorably on McCain's movement toward more rationality in our national healthcare delivery:
Mr. McCain undertook yesterday to recast this looming argument [over healthcare] in a new mold. He contended that the health insurance and delivery system is in fact failing many Americans – but that it was failing because of market distortions mostly created by the government itself. Fixing these irrationalities would both make insurance more affordable and increase overall coverage in the bargain. Nor would it require the vast new entitlement programs Democrats are eyeing.
His major proposal would change the tax treatment of insurance. To review: Today's tax code permits businesses to deduct the cost of providing insurance to their employees, but it doesn't do the same for individuals. This creates third-party payment problems; workers aren't aware of the full, true costs of many treatment decisions, part of the reason the U.S. has double-digit health-care inflation. And it makes insurance less affordable for everyone outside the employer-based system, who must pay with after-tax dollars besides. Mr. McCain would correct this imbalance with a refundable tax credit, restoring the parity of health dollars.
As the Senator argued, coverage shouldn't be "limited by where you work" and said that "Americans need new choices beyond those offered in employment-based coverage." Focusing on equity is a canny political argument. For those who don't get insurance through their employers, the current system is patently unfair. As the private market for health insurance became revitalized, everyone else would be more liberated from their bosses' system. A significant portion of the uninsured population at any given point is people who left or lost employment; but portable individual policies would follow them from job to job.
That's a broader political and economic argument than the exclusive liberal concentration on the uninsured. Mr. McCain is saying that the health-care system isn't working as it should, or delivering the quality it should, for the large majority of Americans. "The real reform," he noted, "is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves," introducing more competition on price into the system.
But remember the matrix above: How can we maintain quality and value? Well, McCain argues that more of the decisions over healthcare should be in the hands of consumers, not employment bureaucracies, which make obtaining insurance more expensive for those who are not insured through a workplace plan.
The thing to watch, though, are the attacks on greater rationality in healthcare delivery from far-left universal health advocates.
Ezra Klein's got a new piece up, for example, slamming the Arizona Senator for pushing some seemingly diabolical health plan surrepticiously designed to strip Americans of their coverage:
McCain believes that Americans use too much health care, and he has created a plan that will make care less affordable so millions of Americans will use less. He even has a euphemistic description for this approach: "The key to real reform," he says, "is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves … These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for."
That's not what McCain believes at all. He's absolutely right that costs are out of control, but he's not throwing those without coverage under the bus. McCain realizes there's a role for government to correct for market failures, as the Journal notes:
It's true that individual subsidies might be required for some people with severe chronic illnesses who might have a harder time finding private insurance in this kind of world. So Mr. McCain sharpened his proposal for high-risk pools to cover "uninsurables," building on current insurance experiments in about two dozen states.
Talk about your Double-Talk Express. As scarecrow said, John McCain unveiled his "health care plan" for the masses. Well...the health care plan for masses o' profits for the insurance industry, anyway.
He wants voters to think he is going after health care cost inflation. In reality, he wants to dismantle the employer-provided system that now covers over 60 percent (or about 158 million) of non-elderly Americans....And he would drive health care costs upward, not downward.
This is truly amazing: McCain and his handlers...turned to their friends (and financial supporters) in the health care industry and the conservative think tanks. And they have adopted the most extreme right-wing ideological approach, premised on the idea that the big problem in health care is that Americans have too much insurance – in their words, we don’t have enough “skin in the game” – and that only when we have to buy health care with money that comes directly out of our own pockets will consumers force doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to become more efficient.
Notice the attacks on "the most extreme right-wing," which is to be expected from the folks at FDL, who are itching to move the country further to the left than we've ever been in history, in health care, as well as on foreign, economic, and social policy.
While this is a skimpy statistic on economic expansion, the economy did grow last quarter, although watch out for the attacks on a "GOP recession" in the weeks and months ahead.
But back to the healthcare issue.
Recall the Maggie's Farm matrix, and especially the payoff for the lower-right corner:
No focus. Quality, results and money do not matter.
Leads to inefficient markets, poor quality and service, & corruption.
So, take a look at that matrix one more time: Your money versus other people's money, right?
McCain wants to shift the healthcare system to greater choice, affordability, and access.
The critics on the left want to move to a single-payer nationalized system of healthcare, like, say, in Britain or Canada, where patients wait months to receive basic health services and treatment, with some even dying in the meanwhile.
UPDATE: Please check this video, as George Harrison's has been taken down:
*********
I've thought about Michael's suggestion that I "lighten up" a little in my blogging.
Regular readers of American Power know that I've got a love for laughs, and I routinely deploy both light-hearted humor and bitter sarcasm in my posting.
Still, the point's well taken, and I thought a good way to break away from my work of rebutting the nihilist left is to periodically offer musical videos and related personal histories (as other blogging buddies have recommended).
Yet, you might find it counterintuitive that I'm beginning a series on "Lightening Up" with a George Harrison song that's deeply serious, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," but that's me - I often find release in the profound of sound:
I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping While my guitar gently weeps I look at the floor and I see it need sweeping Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know why nobody told you how to unfold you love I don't know how someone controlled you they bought and sold you
I look at the world and I notice it's turning While my guitar gently weeps With every mistake we must surely be learning Still my guitar gently weeps....
I remember when Harrison passed away in 2001, one of the obituaries I read - I can't remember which one, probably in the Los Angeles Times - noted that as great as Harrison was, his achievements might have been overshadowed or underappreciated because he was surrounded by the towering musical achievements of his other bandmates in The Beatles.
That thought's always in my mind when I hear Harrison on the radio, because some of his songs are the deepest of the era.
Music, you see, for me - and no doubt many others - is more than about grooving, laughing, and listening, it's a way for me to go back in time when I was younger and indeed more carefree.
I've only told a couple of my blog buds that I have a hearing impairment, a result of a catastrophic skull fracture I sustained when I was twenty one. The temporal bones in my skull crushed the auditory nerves on both sides of my face, and for some time I couldn't hear.
I prayed, and I cursed - and I cried.
But some hearing returned to me, thank God. It's a miracle really, but I think that when something likes this happens, it's a life altering experience: One learns to never underappreciated God's gifts, of familiy, friends, health, opportunity, and, well, everyday joy - "With every mistake we must surely be learning."
One of my biggest joys when I was young was music. I was an active competitive skateboarder (here's my former friend and idol, Steve Olson), and I was into the Hollywood music scene for some time.
Music's always a way for me to cut loose, and be grateful.
In any case, I'll have more recollections later, but at least you can see how, actually, reminiscing about my old times in music, skateboarding, or reflections on The Beatles allows me to lighten up a bit. It allows me as well to share why it is that I'm a serious person when it comes cherishing our freedoms, and defending them as best I can, through my blogging and teaching, from the revolutionary forces who would indeed take away much of what we have.
Remind me, dear readers, to share my miscellaneous thoughts from time to time, will you?
It turns out now that the DNC's also hammering John McCain on the economy, for example, in this YouTube:
Well FactCheck.org's got a post up analyzing the veracity of the DNC ads, and here's the take on the "Are Americans Better Off..." spot:
Untrue Claims
The DNC's first national ad was released April 21 and tweaks McCain for his positive assessment of President Bush's economic record during a January debate on CNN. While McCain talks of "a pretty good, prosperous time" over the past eight years and says, "I think we are better off overall," the ad flashes images of a foreclosure sign, a closed factory, a gasoline pump with a $4.01 price per gallon and a series of gloomy economic statistics.The announcer poses a perfectly fair question at the end: "Do you feel better off?" Individual voters may answer that question differently based on their own circumstances, regardless of the numbers. Nevertheless, two of the DNC's factual claims are untrue.
Not Enough Jobs
While McCain says "a lot of jobs have been created," the ad shows a graphic that states, "1.8 million jobs lost." McCain is correct and the ad is wrong. Total nonfarm employment was nearly 5.4 million higher last month than it was when President Bush took office in January 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's the standard measure of jobs, and it means 5.4 million have been created.The DNC defends its claim of "jobs lost" by pointing to the total number of persons who were without jobs in March. That figure is 1.8 million higher than it was when Bush was sworn in. But it doesn't mean that many jobs were lost, it means that the job gain didn't keep pace with the number of persons who are seeking work. The ad would have been correct to say that there are "1.8 million more unemployed." That stark statistic doesn't contradict McCain's statement that lots of jobs were created, however. It means not enough were created to satisfy the need.
Fuelish Math
The ad claims gasoline prices are "up 200 percent," which isn't correct. The increase is actually 139 percent.The price of regular gasoline at the pump has gone from $1.47 per gallon the week Bush was sworn in to $3.51 the week the ad appeared, according to the Energy Information Administration. That's an increase of $2.04 per gallon, which is 139 percent of the starting price.The DNC picked the week ending Dec. 3, 2001, as its starting point – long after Bush took office. By that time the price of regular had dipped to $1.11 as Americans curtailed travel in the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Using that figure does produce a 200 percent increase, but that's not the change that has occurred since Bush was sworn in.
Note that some of the other DNC statistics do check out, but what's so interesting about the analysis is that McCain's accurate in his market assessments, and economics is suppossed to be his Achilles' heel.
This is turning out to be a tough economic year, but the Democrats are going to have a hard time pinning economic difficulties on McCain.
The Federal Reserve - which is politically independent of the White House - should get most of the flak for the housing crisis.
Other areas of government mismanagement - like the Katrina response - reflect inefficiencies at all levels of bureaucratic organization, especially the Democratic-controlled state and local governments in Louisiana (recall the management disasters of Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin in 2005).
The Democrats are desperate, which is somewhat surprising, as this year's electorate is manifestly ready for change - which, ironically, may benefit McCain and his maverick political style.
* Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages). * Open the book to page 123. * Find the fifth sentence. * Post the next three sentences. * Tag five people.
But I thought, well, this being the second time I've been tagged with this particular version, okay, maybe I'll play.
I had David Horowitz and Ben Johnson's Party of Defeatin front of me as I checked my Sitemeter this morning, when I found I'd been tagged:
Now, I turned to page 123, but the fifth sentence doesn't make much sense out of context, so I'm revising the rules a little to quote the full passage from pages 122-124, on the Democrats, Cindy Sheehan, and the left's manipulations of popular concerns for the troops, who're bearing the burden of our fight in Iraq:
Another opportunity to manipulate the heartstrings of American compassion presented itself in the person of Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan's son Casey had been killed in Iraq, and she had decided to hold a 'peace" vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The Left, aided by a compliant media, instantly deified her and made her an icon of the hopes for peace and for shaking off the unbearable burden of war. The New York Time's Maureen Dowd wrote that as a grieving mother, Sheehan possessed "absolute" moral authority. Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin became her handler. The Daily Kos website said activists should always refer to her as "Mother Sheehan." Forty congressmen signed a letter encouraging the president to meet her.
Responding to these pressures, Bush dispatched National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joe Hagin to speak with Sheehan for forty-five minutes, to no avail. Former Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi joined California Democratic Party fundraiser and Code Pink organizer Jodie Evans to produce a webcast from Crawford featuring a call from Illiois Democratic congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who called in to express her solidarity with Sheehan.
Then, as with [Joseph] Wilson, [Valerie] Plame, and [Karen] Kwiatkowski, Mother Sheehan's true colors began to show. A year prior to her political coming out, she had met with Bush and chosen not to raise any political issues. In fact, she had glowing words to say about the president and their meeting at the time. But now, under the influence of Medea Benjamin and her comrades, Sheehan began accusing the president of murdering her son Casey. In fact, Casey had volunteered not for one but for two tours of duty, the second after the Iraq war was already in progress. He also had volunteered for the mission in which he was killed, against the advice of his sergeant. The mission was to rescue his comrades who were under attack. Instead of honoring her son's courage and paying tribute to him as a hero despite their political differences, Mother Sheehan chose to exploit and abuse his memory, falsely presenting him as an unwitting pawn in the president's evil scheme to colonize Iraq.
Sheehan soon was referring to the terrorists as "freedom fighters," saying that "America has been kililng people on this continent ... since it was started," and sounding just like the leftist Medea Benjamin had trained. "This country is not worth dying for," Mother Sheehan declared, calling the president a "lying bastard" and "the biggest terrorist in the world." According to Sheehan, who picked up the latest conspiracy theory from the political circles around Benjamin, "9-11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neocon agenda through." Her son Casey, she wrote, echoing the Left's anti-Semitic prejudices, "was killed for lies and for a ... Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel." When the comment drew a critical blast, she attempted to lie about writing it.
Even after Sheehan had exposed herself, Democrat Lynn Woolsey provided her with the rare privilege of being a guest of Congress at the 2006 State of the Union address. Teh House gallery is not large, and member of Congress is provided with exactly two tickets to the event, with the second ticket usually going to the spouse. Woolsey gave her spare ticket to Sheehan, who used it to stage a one-woman protest against the president, and was arrested by Capitol police. When asked why she had facilitated Sheehan's protest, Woolsey claimed she "didn't see [the invitation] as a political statement at all."
Now, Michael, an American oleh in Central Galil, Israel, tagged me in his post with the added message, "Don, great blog, but lighten up!"
I'm not tagging anyone beyond this, but I think JSF over at Valley of the Shadows has previously included me in a meme post of his, so I'll ask readers to go over there and give him a nice hello. The other two original tag posts are:
Barack Obama's thrown his "spiritual advisor" under the bus," which was a response to his "spirtual advisor" throwing him under the bus yesterday!
Here's Betsy Newmark on today's developments, which saw Obama casting off his former paster quicker than lint on the lapels:
Barack Obama finally had his Sister Souljah moment to reject Jeremiah Wright and say that the rants that Wrightgave yesterday do not represent the Wright he knew. Coincidentally, he just happened to come to that conclusion after Wright had taken a PR offensive that had put him back in the spotlight and started to do even more damage to the Obama campaign. I don't know how many people will buy all of Obama's outrage at this point. If he had had any doubts, he could have sat down and watched the DVD of Wright sermons sold in his own church. You know, just in case he'd never seen that side of Wright.
When this story started breaking weeks ago, there were places you could see those sermons or read transcripts of them. Even if Obama hadn't sat through the whole DVD, didn't he have anyone doing damage control in his campaign to see what the whole context was of those sermons and that, contrary to how Obama tried to portray them in his Philadelphia speech, these weren't snippets taken out of context but actually the entire point of those sermons.
I just find it hard to believe that Jeremiah Wright, in his late sixties, suddenly had a total personality change and start spewing forth these beliefs that he'd never before mentioned in Obama's hearing. If people don't believe Obama's claim that everything he heard yesterday was newly minted Wright (when we can all compare to the tapes of his past sermons) what does that do to Obama's self-portrayal of being a different kind of politician. If he seems dishonest on this question, it dents his whole shining armor.
And you notice how the thing that really seemed to have ticked Obama offwas Wright saying that Obama was just being a typical politician.
Yesterday Wright threw Obama under the bus. Today Obama is tossing Wright under a tractor-trailer. How soon before reporters find Wright and get his reaction?
And what does this do for Obama's argument that he doesn't need no stinkin' experience since he has such great judgment?
It's like Jonah Goldberg said this morning: Ya'll going to "need a bigger bus"!
Charlie Cook argues that there's no way Hillary Clinton's going to sway the Democratic superdelegates over to her column, but what's great about his analysis is the discussion of Barack Obama's growing weaknesses (the "bloom is off the rose"):
Despite the recent show of strength by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the odds against her winning the Democratic presidential nomination are as imposing as ever — and probably worse.
There was a time when one of the stronger arguments in favor of nominating Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was that he was more electable than Clinton.
The thinking at the time was that Clinton was so polarizing, she could get close to winning a general election but would have difficulty getting over the top.
Now, about the only plausible argument that Obama is more electable is to claim that Clinton’s backers would probably get over an Obama nomination better and sooner than vice versa.
Indeed, while Obama might lose some states by narrower margins than Clinton, his weakness among downscale and older white voters raises questions about whether he would be as competitive as Clinton in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, or, for that matter, run as strongly as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., did in 2004.
But the delegate math is the delegate math, and there is little if any good news there for Clinton.
Almost half of the delegate advantage she netted against Obama in Pennsylvania was offset by losses of superdelegates the same week. Colby College political scientist and delegate selection expert Anthony Corrado estimates that Clinton would need to win about 69 percent of the remaining delegates, a virtual impossibility given proportional representation of the nominating contests.
In recent months, Clinton has been losing up to three superdelegates for every one she has picked up.
One superdelegate in a Southern state, clearly a Clinton sympathizer, said it would be political suicide for him to oppose Obama, pointing out that the black community would be furious. The best support he could offer Clinton would be to remain neutral until it’s over.
One of the most salient arguments made these days by superdelegates is the fear of what would happen to the party if Obama were to be spurned.
Even if they wanted to nominate Clinton, the fear of damage to the party is sufficient to argue against it. Between the newbies — the young and new voters who are so enthusiastic for Obama — and the black community — who ironically were somewhat late to join the Obama bandwagon after his Iowa win — the fallout from a spurning of Obama would be profound.
What has happened is that a bit of the bloom is off the rose for Obama’s candidacy.
His trajectory has flattened a good bit and while no one doubts his mortality, he has lost a good bit of the iconic appeal that he showed early this year.
Maybe he wins a general election, maybe he doesn’t, but it is clear there are liabilities along with assets to the idea of his nomination.
As well as he has bonded with “Starbucks” Democrats, he has not done so well with white, “Lunch Bucket” Democrats. Obama’s appeal is a bit too exotic for their tastes.
And as much as the Republican brand has been damaged over the last eight years and as much as many voters have misgivings about Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain’s uncompromising support for the war, he is perceived as distinct enough from his tarnished party.
Plus, his record as a Vietnam veteran and history as a prisoner of war seems to give him a benefit of the doubt that offers him a much better chance of victory than his party has of, at a minimum, breaking even in the House and Senate races this fall.
The irony of this year’s political situation is that — despite the difficulty a party has in holding the White House for three consecutive terms — the Republicans still have a much better shot than that of scoring so much as a net gain of one seat in the House or Senate.
The Republican brand is weighing down the party’s congressional candidates, but McCain seems to be hurt so much less because of the independence that has rubbed his Republican congressional colleagues so raw over the last couple of decades.
McCain's independence was used against him by conservative activsits in the primary, so there's irony there that the Arizona Senator's maverick impulses might keep conservative power in Washington for another term.
The jury's still out on Hillary and the superdelegates, however.
If Obama comes up short in upcoming primaries, particularly in the popular voting, Clinton will stay in the race arguing she's won the popular vote and that she's more competitive in the general election.
Cook's analysis here, in that respect, bolsters her case, ironically.
I wrote earlier on the Democratic National Committee's recent campaign spot attempting to smear John McCain for some alleged commitment to an "endless war" in Iraq (see here).
How'd the DNC get ahold of video showing U.S. soldiers being bombed by an IED in Iraq? Newsmaxoffers this:
The DNC ad ... shows an explosive device detonating near two soldiers standing beside a palm tree. The two soldiers disappear in an explosive fireball. The video also shows images of burning vehicles....
The footage appears similar to film taken by jihadists who videotape IED explosions that kill American combat troops. The jihadists place the video on the internet to tout their "kill Americans" campaign success. The Army estimates that more than 6,500 jihadist Web sites promote violence against America and American troops.
Many U.S. media outlets have refused to air excerpts from such videos for several reasons - including out of respect of the servicemen and women depicted in the videos.
The DNC apparently does not agree. Calls to the DNC for comment and for information about the footage went unreturned.
Confederate Yankee raises an interesting observation on the Democratic Party thinking that goes into this style of political advocacy:
The soldiers are on screen for just a split-second, just long enough for viewers to see that there was an explosion, but not long enough to know if the soldiers pictured survived uninjured, if they were wounded, or if they were killed [Both soldiers survived].
More than 3 full decades after the last U.S. soldier left Saigon, the party of Bill Ayers still revels in the imagery of blowing up U.S. soldiers as part of their political expression.
I thought about this as well, when I first saw the spot.
Americans are dying for democratic consolidation in Iraq, and the DNC's all too eager to profit politically from violent images of U.S. service personnel in grave danger.
Allahpundit indicates the kind of outrage we'd be seeing if the advertising shoe was on the other foot:
If McCain [ran a spot of this sort] and inserted images of 9/11 jumpers in one of his ads, Arianna Huffington would need smelling salts and Olbermann would have to allot an extra hour for “Countdown” to accommodate his rage. Meanwhile, the DNC could show a Marine getting his head blown off and Chris Matthews would ask the Hardball panel, “Doesn’t America need to see this?”
See also, Gateway Pundit, "OUTRAGE!! DNC Supports Our "Blown Up" American Troops!"
I return to this topic after reading Sean Wilentz's piece from the New Republic, "Sunset in America," which argues for the final collapse of the conservative political coalition of President Ronald Reagan.
Wilentz offers a great introduction to Reagan-era political dominance from 1980-2008, but what's striking is Wilentz's endorsement of a return to pre-Reagan tax rates on income:
His two major tax cuts, in 1981 and 1986, redistributed wealth upward to the already wealthy and sent deficits soaring. He ultimately secured his chief objective, which was to skew the progressive tax system. It is almost impossible to imagine the top marginal rate on personal income ever climbing back up to 70 percent (the figure when Reagan was elected). That change alone has dramatically curtailed the possibilities for liberal government.
Note two things here: (1) Wilentz's language of "redistributed wealth" draws classically from the far-left economic playbook, i.e., calls for "fairness" and "soak the rich," and (2) the pining for a return to marginal tax rates at 70 percent for higher income levels, which will facilitate new possiblities for the return of "liberal government."
I simply can't fathom why anyone would argue taxing income at such astronomical rates. There's no other word for this than confiscation.
Not only that, we already have a progressive tax system in which the wealthy pay the overwhelming proportion of federal taxes, and in recent years innovations like the earned-income tax credit have used tax policy to create more rewards for work among those on the lower end of the income scale.
Public policy can find ways to assist those in the middle- and working-class, but a massive policy of restoring pre-modern tax structures is anti-competitive and regressive in every sense of the word.
Further, Democrat partisans, by a 2 to 1 margin over Republicans, favor redistributing economic wealth by imposing heavy taxes on the rich, as Frank Newport indicates in this video:
Slightly over half of Americans believe the government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich....
Asked if the distribution of money and wealth in this country is fair or if they need to be distributed more evenly, about two-thirds of Americans agree with the latter response. This is up slightly from last year and, by two points, is the highest "more evenly distributed" response to this question that Gallup has found over the eight times it has been asked since 1984.
So, in the context of powerful issues of economics and social class, the electorate in 2008 is more favorable to a fundamental - no, radical - redistribution of economic wealth than at any time in last 70 years.
Numbers like this portend electoral conditions on the scale of a political earthquake.
Fortunately, the Democrats have yet to be able to center on a party nominee, and the residual divisions from the nomination fight will likely blunt some of the left-wing tailwind the party would otherwise be likely to enjoy.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
