The Moving Week that Was
It’s a sobering thought to go without regular internet access for a week and realize how it’s become a major component of your life.
Having just finished a move back to my home town, I sit here still surrounded by packing boxes, furniture in disarray and the other regular casualties of a dislocated household.
My apologies for having fallen behind in such an interesting week, and I’ll be posting regularly again as I re-organize my daily routine, and find my socks.
Gwen Ifil - Impartial Moderator?
PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, who will be moderating tonight’s vice presidential debate, dismissed questions about her impartiality because she is currently writing “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,” set to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day the next president is inaugurated.
The host of PBS’”Washington Week” and senior correspondent on “The NewsHour” said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book.
According to The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
The appropriate definition of “moderator”, from The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
2: one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a: the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b: the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c: the chairman of a discussion group
Now granted, her book will be published regardless of the outcome of the election. And I’m not suggesting that this debate and how she chooses to moderate it, is going to be the determining factor in the election.
However it seems obvious to me which side of the fence she lives on, and that her book sales definitely would be higher with an Obama win.
Can she be an impartial moderator, and more importantly - why was she not forthcoming with the Commission on Presidential Debates regarding this book?
Biden’s Take on History
I’d heard about this “slightly inaccurate” history lesson Joe Biden gave recently, my thanks to The Disgruntled Republican for the YouTube link.
OK, I’d be the first to admit that we all make some blunders at times.
In other circumstances I probably would have had a small chuckle at Joe’s putting Franklin Roosevelt in the white house several years early and making a national “fireside chat” broadcast on a then-nonexistent television network, and would have quickly moved on to other things.
It presents an interesting contrast however, to how the gaffes of the 2 parties are handled. There may have been some national coverage I missed, but this clip never seems to have made it onto the mainstream media radar.
Had Senator McCain or Governor Palin said this, we would still be hearing about it on the national news. And likely there would have been several SNL skits and Letterman monologues centered around the remarks.
Obama Benefit Concert by Springsteen and Joel NOT for the masses
Earlier this month we were treated to images of the Obama Beverly Hills fundraising reception and dinner costing $28,500 a person, followed by a Babs concert for only an additional $2,500 per ticket.
Now Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel, self-proclaimed Icons of the Working Stiff are pairing up for an Obama fundraiser concert in New York City.
Compared to the Babs-o-Rama-Obama event I guess it’s a bargain. The cheap seats start at $500 and the choice spots will run you $10,000.
I’m guessing there won’t be too many average joes in the mosh pit for this one.
Why does Obama want to keep you from seeing this video?
Senator Obama has a plan to make you safer — by gutting our military!
That’s sure been a winning strategy in the past … or would that be a tactic? Best not to trouble Senator Obama with such bothersome distinctions, I suppose.
Apparently the Senator would rather you do not see or remember this statement.
My thanks to the Bobo for posting this video, after he had seen it at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
This video first appeared at the Macsmind blog, until that site was brought down by a coordinated “sql bomb” attack, down shortly after the video was posted.
Macsmind is back up at the time I’m writing this, although the MacRanger is doing most of his blogging at a new with a new temporary address for the time being.
I’m presenting the longer “In Context” version here, hopefully this will allay any claims that this clip is “an out of context hack job” as had occurred at MacRanger’s blog, prompting him to also post this longer version.
Missouri Governor Denounces Obama’s “Police State” Tactics
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290
Governor Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
JEFFERSON CITY - Governor Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”
The Word According to Henry: Obama Got it Wrong
At last week’s debate, Senator Obama inaccurately claimed that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (one of Senator McCain’s advisers), aggreed with Obama’s view that the U.S. president should meet with and other rogue dictators such as Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without preconditions.
Senator McCain repeatedly pointed out that Kissinger, a friend of 35 years, would never back such a dangerous position.
McCain turned out to be right.
Kissinger released a statement immediately after the debate. It read:
“Sen. McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level.”
“Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be preconditions,” McCain said during the debate. Senator McCain observed that Obama’s stated position is reckless and naive.
Senator Obama tried unsuccessfully to cloud his previous statements, by attempting to infer that his statements did not refer to presidential level negotiations, and with an attempted “refocusing” (read “revision”) of “preconditions” vs “preparations”.
So, what did Senator Obama say originally? From the July 2007 YouTube debate:
Question: In 1982 Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without preconditions,during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
Obama: I would. And the reason is this, the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
McCain puts country first, Obama chooses to continue politics
In my opinion, John McCain made a very bold move today. He has chosen to completely suspend his campaign and focus all of his attention where it is needed at this time - in being part of the solution to our current economic woes.
McCain will leave the campaign trail after delivering an address to former President Clinton’s Global Initiative on Thursday morning. He canceled a Wednesday afternoon taping of The Late Show With David Letterman, and a Thursday interview with FOX News. His campaign will suspend airing all ads and fundraising until Congress passes legislation to address this crisis.
“We must pass legislation to address this crisis,” he said. “If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees.”
McCain will participate in Friday night’s debate if a bill is passed by Friday morning, according to his adviser Mark Salter.
While he did ask the Obama camp to do likewise, he is not waiting for an in-kind response from the other side. And it appears that Obama will continue his campaign efforts.
This is the second time in very recent history that I’ve seen Senator McCain make a major decision based on his beliefs of what is in the best interest of the country, rather than what is in the best interests of his campaign. The first was his support for the troop surge at a time when approval of that idea was considered political poison. And in a relatively short period of time, his decision on the surge has been proven to be the right one.
The Obama camp has been quick to make political hay of the situation. “Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time,” according to Senator Obama. “It’s not necessary for us to think that we can only do one thing and suspend everything else.”
Obama’s take on what is the most critical issue is an interesting one. While no one would argue his point that the President must be able to cope with many issues at once, he seems to be missing three major points, in my opinion.
Firstly, this crisis is of such importance and urgency that the progress of the campaign pales in comparision. When dealing with multiple issues or tasks, one prioritizes. The major issues are dealt with first, and then you move on to other less critical issues. While the presidential campaign is certainly important, the potential effects of this crisis will define the next administration and have repercussions on nearly every aspect of our nation’s future.
Senator Obama’s remarks seem to indicate that he places a similar level of importance to both issues. His statement that both campaigns have planes that can fly the candidates in and out of Washington suggest that he does not foresee spending a great deal of time on the economic crisis, and that all parties can fly in, apply a fix, and move on to other things. This “phone it in” attitude makes me more than a little nervous
Second, the economic crisis is already a multi faceted conglomeration of several critical issues, all rolled up into one mother of all issues. Attention to the economic crisis by definition, means attention and understanding of all the underlying issues.
Thirdly. regardless of his comparison to his reaction to this situation and how that equates to his potential behavior as a candidate: Neither he nor McCain is the President yet, and this crisis is not a dress rehearsal. His comments again seem to reflect a greater emphasis on the outcome of the election, rather than the outcome for the nation.
And so I applaud Senator McCain for making this decision. As with his support of the troop surge, I hope history will again be as quick to show he did the right thing.
Better off?
Way back in 1980, Ronald Reagan finished his debate against the incumbent President Jimmy Carter by saying:
“Next Tuesday, all of you will go to the polls (to make a decision). I think, when you make that decision, it might be well if you asked yourself: Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
Reagan went on to win the first of his two terms in office.
Given the major problems in the financial/credit system over the past few months, it’s not surprising that Sen. Barack Obama has borrowed that line from Ronald Reagan (an irony which has gone almost completely unnoticed by the national press).
Democrats were all over the various media this weekend, blaming Wall Street’s problems on the Bush administration.
I’ve noticed that every time I highlight any of the seeds of the current problem that statrted either during the Clinton administration or before (and try to point out George Bush’s attempts to draw attention to the coming disaster), I get shouted down with mantras of “You always blame Clinton! You always blame Clinton!”
The cry has never been backed up by any historical facts that might refute my observations, apparently the accusation is sufficient in some people’s minds.
To offer a more bipartisan spirit, I’ll attempt to work within the parameters often used by the left, and as they often do, only look back as far as the last election.
Two years ago:
- The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at about 12,400.
- The New York-based Conference Board said its consumer confidence index was at 110.3.
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics had the unemployment rate at 4.6%
- According to CNN gasoline a gallon of gasoline, in January 2007, averaged about $2.20.
And then the Democrats took control of both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate with promises of great changes and advances.
Fast forward about 2 years to the present:
- Last Thursday at about 1 pm Eastern, the Dow had hit a bottom of about 10,500 before Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke intervened. That is a drop of about 15% in the Dow from two years ago.
- The Conference Board’s said consumer confidence was 56.9 in August, a drop of about 48%
- The unemployment rate in August was reported at 6.1% by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an increase of 33%.
- Gasoline prices are at about $3.70 a 68% increase.
The major governmental changes during that time:
- Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) took control of the House and Senate Banking Committees.
- Rep. George Miller (D-Ca) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) took over their respective Labor Committees.
- Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) became chairs of the Energy Committees.
According to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:
“Throughout its history, Congress has engaged in oversight of the executive branch - the review, monitoring, and supervision of the implementation of public policy.”
In the nearly two years since the Democrats have taken control of the Congress their major goal seems to be serving Karl Rove with subpoenas, banning permanent bases in Iraq and naming new libraries .
So this November, ask yourself:
Are you better off than you were TWO years ago?
Obama’s Presumptive Diplomacy
Attempts to dismiss the story of Obama’s private negotiations with Iraqi leaders continues, but the item just keeps coming back. The Obama camp appears to be following a strategy of “pretend it’s not there and it’ll go away” rather than either address the issue or at the very least, clarify the official campaign statement that corroborates the original report by Amir Taheri.
The more often this story gets denied by the Obama campaign and supporters, the more important it becomes - amazingly, official or surrogate denials keeps repeating the statement by the campaign that - far from debunking the story - confirms it.
Amir Taheri has written a great rebuttal to the recent denials of his article, and again points out that while trying to cloud the issue, Obama cannot debunk a story that he confirmed via his campaign’s official statements.
