Palin Has Transformed the Race
Thursday, September 4, 2008 11:23 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
As if a light switch had been turned on, John McCain’s decision to add Sarah Palin to the ticket has transformed the race and energized conservatives.
After the announcement that Palin would be the Republican vice presidential nominee, $7 million poured into the McCain campaign that same day.
“That is the biggest day we have ever had,” Bob Heckman, the McCain campaign’s national conservative outreach director, tells Newsmax. “We’ve had an avalanche of phone calls and e-mails saying they want to volunteer and work with the campaign.”
Palin’s acceptance speech turned her into a rock star. But even before that, Heckman said, “The enthusiasm level has been incredible. A number of conservative leaders in particular who had been reluctant before are now fully and totally committed. The attacks on her by some in the media will I think make them more dedicated to helping him.”
In contrast to Barack Obama, Palin has executive experience both on the municipal and state level, Heckman says.
“She had to confront the kind of issues that matter to most Americans,” he says. “Experience is partially having dealt with issues and partially having good judgment. She will have the added benefit of being able to work at the feet of the most experienced foreign policy expert in the country — John McCain.”
Criticism of Palin by Democrats and the media reflects an elitist attitude, Heckman says.
“They act like the fact she is from Alaska diminishes her, like there is something wrong with being from Alaska because it’s small in population, and it’s far away and not part of the 48 states,” he says.
Echoing those views, Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee, told me on the floor of the convention, “She has given a lot of energy to our base. I believe she has made more executive decisions than Barack Obama has in his three years in the Senate. When he was in the state legislature, he showed his judgment by not voting 130 times.”
“If you are against earmarks and wasteful government spending, she is the type of governor we need,” Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina says. “Governors need to tell the federal government we don’t want your money, we don’t want your control of education or healthcare. She sets a great example for the country and as a vice president will set a great example.”
Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona states, “I find it stunning to compare the way Sarah Palin is being savaged by the mainstream media for issues that have nothing to do with policy,” referring to claims that she could not be vice resident and have a family. “Yet the mainstream media would not pick up for months Newsmax stories about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that had everything to do with policy.”
Shadegg, who has known McCain since before he ran for Congress, said, “Reverand Wright is teaching a set of beliefs that most Americans would not agree with. That we created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks and that America is evil. It’s a hate America first policy. It’s pretty evident, since Barack Obama sat there in the pews of his church for 20 years, that he must have agreed with it.”
“Palin has not only energized the base but has given McCain an opening he would not otherwise have,” Dave Keene told me at a reception given by the American Conservative Union, which he heads. “She symbolizes the working class and middle class that the Democrats say they care about but in fact that they have disdain for. They have the idea that she is not qualified because she is from a small state, a small town, and went to a land grant college. How dare she. Those are the people they say they are the champions of. They just don’t want to be in the same room with them.”
September 4, 2008
September 3, 2008
Obama's Motion To Suppress
Obama's Motion To Suppress
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Free Speech: It appears Team Obama will stop at nothing to intimidate and harass those who would expose his long and cozy relationship with terrorist William Ayers. As in the '60s, lefties think freedom of speech applies only to them.
We have written extensively on the socialist past of Barack Obama as expressed in his proposals and associations, both personal and organizational. One of those associations is between Obama and Ayers, a leader of the Weather Underground, a '60s terrorist group.
It's true Obama has condemned and disassociated himself from the terrorist actions of Ayers and the Underground. But Ayers has never repudiated or apologized for his past, and if there's one word that should always precede his name, it would be "unrepentant."
Obama claims Ayers was just a "guy in the neighborhood," but clearly he was more than that. Obama misrepresents his relationship with the man in whose home his first fundraiser was held. Leading the expose of the true nature of that relationship has been National Review writer Stanley Kurtz.
Kurtz was in Chicago on Aug. 26 for the release of the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform project in which Ayers and Obama were involved. The papers had long been sought by Kurtz, who'd met with a stone wall erected by Obama's friends at the University of Illinois, Chicago. UIC had denied access to the supposedly public archives after Kurtz initially inquired, but his persistence paid off.
When local radio station WGN found out Kurtz was in town, he was invited to appear on its "Extension 720" radio show hosted by University of Chicago professor Milt Rosenberg that Wednesday night, Aug. 27.
Producer Zack Christenson said: "I called the Obama campaign, let them know that we were going to have Stanley Kurtz on the show, and offered them a chance to come on the show as well to rebut anything that he said." Christenson said the Obama campaign's response was, "This guy's a liar" and hung up.
The Obama Action Wire, which touts itself as an independent grass-roots organization dedicated to fighting "smears" against its candidate, sprang into action. It sent an e-mail to its members saying "we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."
Obamatons were given e-mail addresses, phone numbers and talking points. Christenson says there's no way to gauge the number of calls, but the lines were lit up all night. An estimated 5,000 e-mails were received.
"They were all using the same talking points that were sent out in the original Obama e-mail," Christenson noted. "They were all boilerplate e-mails."
One of the talking points in the Obama e-mail was: "Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. . . . It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on the public airwaves."
Earlier, the Obama camp bombarded Sinclair Communications with 93,000 e-mails attacking its broadcast of an ad by the independent group American Issues Project, linking Obama with Ayers in more than a casual way.
Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer has warned station managers, suggesting their broadcast license might be at risk: "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity."
Bauer has also written twice to the Justice Department, demanding it "take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute" the group and Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded the ad.
What's scary is the Obama camp may soon have control of the public airwaves through a badly misnamed Fairness Doctrine resurrected by an Obama administration and a veto-proof Congress. And those threatened lawsuits may yet be filed by an Obama Justice Department.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Free Speech: It appears Team Obama will stop at nothing to intimidate and harass those who would expose his long and cozy relationship with terrorist William Ayers. As in the '60s, lefties think freedom of speech applies only to them.
We have written extensively on the socialist past of Barack Obama as expressed in his proposals and associations, both personal and organizational. One of those associations is between Obama and Ayers, a leader of the Weather Underground, a '60s terrorist group.
It's true Obama has condemned and disassociated himself from the terrorist actions of Ayers and the Underground. But Ayers has never repudiated or apologized for his past, and if there's one word that should always precede his name, it would be "unrepentant."
Obama claims Ayers was just a "guy in the neighborhood," but clearly he was more than that. Obama misrepresents his relationship with the man in whose home his first fundraiser was held. Leading the expose of the true nature of that relationship has been National Review writer Stanley Kurtz.
Kurtz was in Chicago on Aug. 26 for the release of the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform project in which Ayers and Obama were involved. The papers had long been sought by Kurtz, who'd met with a stone wall erected by Obama's friends at the University of Illinois, Chicago. UIC had denied access to the supposedly public archives after Kurtz initially inquired, but his persistence paid off.
When local radio station WGN found out Kurtz was in town, he was invited to appear on its "Extension 720" radio show hosted by University of Chicago professor Milt Rosenberg that Wednesday night, Aug. 27.
Producer Zack Christenson said: "I called the Obama campaign, let them know that we were going to have Stanley Kurtz on the show, and offered them a chance to come on the show as well to rebut anything that he said." Christenson said the Obama campaign's response was, "This guy's a liar" and hung up.
The Obama Action Wire, which touts itself as an independent grass-roots organization dedicated to fighting "smears" against its candidate, sprang into action. It sent an e-mail to its members saying "we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."
Obamatons were given e-mail addresses, phone numbers and talking points. Christenson says there's no way to gauge the number of calls, but the lines were lit up all night. An estimated 5,000 e-mails were received.
"They were all using the same talking points that were sent out in the original Obama e-mail," Christenson noted. "They were all boilerplate e-mails."
One of the talking points in the Obama e-mail was: "Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. . . . It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on the public airwaves."
Earlier, the Obama camp bombarded Sinclair Communications with 93,000 e-mails attacking its broadcast of an ad by the independent group American Issues Project, linking Obama with Ayers in more than a casual way.
Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer has warned station managers, suggesting their broadcast license might be at risk: "Your station is committed to operating in the public interest, an objective that cannot be satisfied by accepting for compensation material of such malicious falsity."
Bauer has also written twice to the Justice Department, demanding it "take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute" the group and Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded the ad.
What's scary is the Obama camp may soon have control of the public airwaves through a badly misnamed Fairness Doctrine resurrected by an Obama administration and a veto-proof Congress. And those threatened lawsuits may yet be filed by an Obama Justice Department.
Email To Friend
Unfit To Lead On Oil
Unfit To Lead On Oil
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Congress: If anyone still thinks Democrats can provide leadership on the No. 1 issue of the day — energy — then Harry Reid's remarks to their party's convention last week should dispel the notion for good.
Last month's invasion by Russia of neighboring Georgia showed the utter bankruptcy of the Democrats' energy policies. With its attack, Russia seized control of the main non-Russian pipeline from the energy-rich Caspian to Europe, giving it a stranglehold over nearly a third of Europe's energy supplies.
So what do the Democrats have to do with this?
Plenty. By refusing to let companies drill for energy on U.S. soil and pursuing policies that keep oil prices above $100 a barrel, the Democratic Congress, in effect, is helping Russia to finance its aggression against Europe — a kind of Marshall Plan in reverse.
Yet, listening to Reid, you'd never suspect this was the case.
Start with his defense of Jimmy Carter as an energy prophet who "proposed real solutions — conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative fuels — to what he correctly named the 'moral equivalent of war.' " Remember soaring oil prices? Gas lines? Rationing? Russia's invasion of Afghanistan? If so, you know Carter lost his "war."
The Senate's Democratic leader also lamented "an era of oil industry dominance" that began in 1980. Funny, but oil prices plunged 60% during Reagan's time in office. That's "dominance"?
Nevada's Reid then claims President Bush slept as "oil shortages worsened, oil prices soared and dollars by the ton were delivered to terrorists' banks in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela."
Wrong. That's what Congress did — refusing to drill for more oil as petrotyrants like Putin threaten America's national security and its allies. It's a shameful, dishonest policy.
"The simple fact," Reid stumbles on, "is that the promise of more oil isn't part of the solution; it's part of the problem."
Actually, the "simple fact" is more oil is the solution. Private and government estimates all agree oil will make up 75% to 80% of our energy needs for the next 50 years at least. To refuse to drill for the 136 billion barrels we have available borders on criminal.
More oil means lower prices. If we can get oil down to $80 a barrel or so it will work like a huge tax cut, especially for the poor who've been hit hardest by the Democrats' failed energy policies. Lower oil prices will stimulate the economy, weaken inflation and make us and our allies around the world more secure.
Reid's poisonous words do nothing to move the country forward. But they do give voters an idea of what's to come if Democrats keep Congress and win the White House.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Congress: If anyone still thinks Democrats can provide leadership on the No. 1 issue of the day — energy — then Harry Reid's remarks to their party's convention last week should dispel the notion for good.
Last month's invasion by Russia of neighboring Georgia showed the utter bankruptcy of the Democrats' energy policies. With its attack, Russia seized control of the main non-Russian pipeline from the energy-rich Caspian to Europe, giving it a stranglehold over nearly a third of Europe's energy supplies.
So what do the Democrats have to do with this?
Plenty. By refusing to let companies drill for energy on U.S. soil and pursuing policies that keep oil prices above $100 a barrel, the Democratic Congress, in effect, is helping Russia to finance its aggression against Europe — a kind of Marshall Plan in reverse.
Yet, listening to Reid, you'd never suspect this was the case.
Start with his defense of Jimmy Carter as an energy prophet who "proposed real solutions — conservation, fuel efficiency and alternative fuels — to what he correctly named the 'moral equivalent of war.' " Remember soaring oil prices? Gas lines? Rationing? Russia's invasion of Afghanistan? If so, you know Carter lost his "war."
The Senate's Democratic leader also lamented "an era of oil industry dominance" that began in 1980. Funny, but oil prices plunged 60% during Reagan's time in office. That's "dominance"?
Nevada's Reid then claims President Bush slept as "oil shortages worsened, oil prices soared and dollars by the ton were delivered to terrorists' banks in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela."
Wrong. That's what Congress did — refusing to drill for more oil as petrotyrants like Putin threaten America's national security and its allies. It's a shameful, dishonest policy.
"The simple fact," Reid stumbles on, "is that the promise of more oil isn't part of the solution; it's part of the problem."
Actually, the "simple fact" is more oil is the solution. Private and government estimates all agree oil will make up 75% to 80% of our energy needs for the next 50 years at least. To refuse to drill for the 136 billion barrels we have available borders on criminal.
More oil means lower prices. If we can get oil down to $80 a barrel or so it will work like a huge tax cut, especially for the poor who've been hit hardest by the Democrats' failed energy policies. Lower oil prices will stimulate the economy, weaken inflation and make us and our allies around the world more secure.
Reid's poisonous words do nothing to move the country forward. But they do give voters an idea of what's to come if Democrats keep Congress and win the White House.
Email To Friend
Thompson Raps Obama on Abortion Answer
Fred Thompson, the actor turned politician, recounted the harrowing story of John McCain's captivity as a Vietnam prisoner of war to tout the presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention and criticized Democrat Barack Obama's support for abortion rights.
"Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president," Thompson said Tuesday as images of McCain flashed behind him on a giant screen. "But it does reveal character."
Thompson went into excruciating detail describing McCain's 5 1/2 years in captivity in a Hanoi prison, describing how the Arizona senator's captors cracked his ribs and broke his teeth off at the gums. He also described how McCain refused to go home when his captors offered to release him for propaganda purposes.
"We hear a lot of talk about hope these days," Thompson said, a clear reference to one of Obama's campaign themes. "John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had."
Thompson also used his speech to denounce Obama for declining to say when human life begins, although Thompson's own record on abortion is mixed.
"We need a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade," Thompson said.
The comment was a clear reference to an answer that Obama gave at a forum at California's Saddleback Church sponsored by the popular evangelical pastor Rick Warren. On a question referring to the number of abortions in the country, Warren asked Obama at what point he believed babies had human rights.
"Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," the Illinois senator replied.
Obama supports abortion rights, while GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain is opposed. Thompson also is opposed, though he faced criticism during his presidential campaign because he lobbied in 1991 for an abortion rights group. He also answered a 1994 newspaper survey by saying, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."
After Monday's opening session of the convention was abbreviated and toned down in deference to Hurricane Gustav, Thompson signaled that political rhetoric was back.
He called Obama the "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."
Best known recently as the gruff district attorney on NBC's "Law & Order," Thompson once was a rival of McCain. But the Tennessean dropped out of the presidential race in January after his much-anticipated campaign failed to gain strong support among conservatives.
Thompson's address included a defense of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose announcement as McCain's running mate has been overshadowed by disclosures that an attorney has been hired to represent Palin in an investigation into an Alaska controversy and that her unmarried daughter is pregnant.
"Give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the Union — and won — over the Beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week," Thompson said.
Thompson said he believes McCain and Palin will "take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking."
He also said that McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, has traveled to Iraq eight times since 2003 "seeking truth, not publicity.
"This man, John McCain, is not intimidated by what the polls say or what is politically safe or popular," Thompson said.
Thompson managed to slip in some of the more colorful aspects of McCain's biography — the high number of demerits he received at the Naval Academy and the fact he dated an exotic dancer nicknamed the Flame of Florida when he was in flight school.
"Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president," Thompson said Tuesday as images of McCain flashed behind him on a giant screen. "But it does reveal character."
Thompson went into excruciating detail describing McCain's 5 1/2 years in captivity in a Hanoi prison, describing how the Arizona senator's captors cracked his ribs and broke his teeth off at the gums. He also described how McCain refused to go home when his captors offered to release him for propaganda purposes.
"We hear a lot of talk about hope these days," Thompson said, a clear reference to one of Obama's campaign themes. "John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had."
Thompson also used his speech to denounce Obama for declining to say when human life begins, although Thompson's own record on abortion is mixed.
"We need a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade," Thompson said.
The comment was a clear reference to an answer that Obama gave at a forum at California's Saddleback Church sponsored by the popular evangelical pastor Rick Warren. On a question referring to the number of abortions in the country, Warren asked Obama at what point he believed babies had human rights.
"Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," the Illinois senator replied.
Obama supports abortion rights, while GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain is opposed. Thompson also is opposed, though he faced criticism during his presidential campaign because he lobbied in 1991 for an abortion rights group. He also answered a 1994 newspaper survey by saying, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."
After Monday's opening session of the convention was abbreviated and toned down in deference to Hurricane Gustav, Thompson signaled that political rhetoric was back.
He called Obama the "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."
Best known recently as the gruff district attorney on NBC's "Law & Order," Thompson once was a rival of McCain. But the Tennessean dropped out of the presidential race in January after his much-anticipated campaign failed to gain strong support among conservatives.
Thompson's address included a defense of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose announcement as McCain's running mate has been overshadowed by disclosures that an attorney has been hired to represent Palin in an investigation into an Alaska controversy and that her unmarried daughter is pregnant.
"Give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the Union — and won — over the Beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week," Thompson said.
Thompson said he believes McCain and Palin will "take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking."
He also said that McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, has traveled to Iraq eight times since 2003 "seeking truth, not publicity.
"This man, John McCain, is not intimidated by what the polls say or what is politically safe or popular," Thompson said.
Thompson managed to slip in some of the more colorful aspects of McCain's biography — the high number of demerits he received at the Naval Academy and the fact he dated an exotic dancer nicknamed the Flame of Florida when he was in flight school.
Stand Behind Sarah Palin
Stand Behind Sarah Palin
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 9:47 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Some claim he made a mistake in choosing the Alaska governor. My bet is the reverse — that she’ll turn out to be a big win.
Even if I’m wrong, dropping her now would doom him in November. If McCain lets baseless, sexist smears set his course, he’d turn all the good Palin has already done for him, and should do in the weeks ahead, into a negative, demoralizing the GOP base and losing independents.
Understand: Palin is under attack because she was such a good choice.
Remember the Democrats’ central charge on McCain: “He’s a Bush clone.” By choosing Palin, something George Bush would never have done, McCain showed how really different he is.
The old ground rule for picking a running mate was to help the ticket carry a particular state. But Bill Clinton changed the rules when he tapped Al Gore in 1992. Clinton likely would’ve carried Tennessee anyway, but the choice of Gore emphasized the most important feature of Clinton’s candidacy: He was from a new generation and represented a new outlook.
And so Sarah Palin reinforces the most important aspect of the McCain candidacy: Despite 30 years in Washington, he’s an outsider and a dedicated foe of corruption and conflict of interest in government. He’s the one who stands up against pork, earmarks, and lobbyists and backs campaign-finance reform.
Palin brings the same kind of credentials to the ticket. When she speaks tonight and emphasizes her record of reform and her commitment to bring ethical standards to Washington, she’ll strike a deeply resonant chord throughout the nation.
None of the “scandal” reflects ill on Sarah herself. They’re the kind of family issues that bedevil many American women. That the media accords such prominence to them shows how fundamentally differently we treat women and men in politics.
Should she not serve as vice president because her daughter is pregnant? Or her husband had a DWI 20 years ago? Or her sister married a state trooper, who shocked his 11-year-old son with a Taser, leading relatives and friends to think he should be fired? Or because she exercised her legal right to fire the head of the state police when he saw no reason to fire the trooper?
Palin has an extensive public record — with more executive experience than Barack Obama or Joe Biden (or McCain, for that matter). She should be judged on her record, same as a man. If she is, she’ll survive these charges in great style.
And then the backlash will set in. Tens of millions of women have had to confront life experiences akin to Palin’s.
After years of electing plasticized creations of political consultants, we have the chance to vote for a real person with real peoples’ problems. In standing by her, McCain speaks volumes about his attitude toward women and his empathy for those who face family troubles. His loyalty illustrates not just his decency, but his sensitivity and good sense.
All of which illustrates the most fundamental point of this convention: That John McCain is no George W. Bush.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 9:47 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Some claim he made a mistake in choosing the Alaska governor. My bet is the reverse — that she’ll turn out to be a big win.
Even if I’m wrong, dropping her now would doom him in November. If McCain lets baseless, sexist smears set his course, he’d turn all the good Palin has already done for him, and should do in the weeks ahead, into a negative, demoralizing the GOP base and losing independents.
Understand: Palin is under attack because she was such a good choice.
Remember the Democrats’ central charge on McCain: “He’s a Bush clone.” By choosing Palin, something George Bush would never have done, McCain showed how really different he is.
The old ground rule for picking a running mate was to help the ticket carry a particular state. But Bill Clinton changed the rules when he tapped Al Gore in 1992. Clinton likely would’ve carried Tennessee anyway, but the choice of Gore emphasized the most important feature of Clinton’s candidacy: He was from a new generation and represented a new outlook.
And so Sarah Palin reinforces the most important aspect of the McCain candidacy: Despite 30 years in Washington, he’s an outsider and a dedicated foe of corruption and conflict of interest in government. He’s the one who stands up against pork, earmarks, and lobbyists and backs campaign-finance reform.
Palin brings the same kind of credentials to the ticket. When she speaks tonight and emphasizes her record of reform and her commitment to bring ethical standards to Washington, she’ll strike a deeply resonant chord throughout the nation.
None of the “scandal” reflects ill on Sarah herself. They’re the kind of family issues that bedevil many American women. That the media accords such prominence to them shows how fundamentally differently we treat women and men in politics.
Should she not serve as vice president because her daughter is pregnant? Or her husband had a DWI 20 years ago? Or her sister married a state trooper, who shocked his 11-year-old son with a Taser, leading relatives and friends to think he should be fired? Or because she exercised her legal right to fire the head of the state police when he saw no reason to fire the trooper?
Palin has an extensive public record — with more executive experience than Barack Obama or Joe Biden (or McCain, for that matter). She should be judged on her record, same as a man. If she is, she’ll survive these charges in great style.
And then the backlash will set in. Tens of millions of women have had to confront life experiences akin to Palin’s.
After years of electing plasticized creations of political consultants, we have the chance to vote for a real person with real peoples’ problems. In standing by her, McCain speaks volumes about his attitude toward women and his empathy for those who face family troubles. His loyalty illustrates not just his decency, but his sensitivity and good sense.
All of which illustrates the most fundamental point of this convention: That John McCain is no George W. Bush.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen
September 2, 2008
Palin Is a Godsend for McCain
Palin Is a Godsend for McCain
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 1:56 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Republicans shouldn’t mourn the loss of the first night (at least) of their convention. Sarah Palin’s warm reception by the American people and the relative success of preparations to contain the damage of Hurricane Gustav seem to have given the GOP far more bounce than it would’ve gotten from a "conventional" first night in St. Paul.
We’ll never know just how much Barack Obama gained in the polls from his magnificent acceptance speech. He spoke too late on Thursday for any post-speech polling to be effective — and John McCain announced his selection of Palin the next morning.
So the Friday night polls reflected both the bounce from Obama’s speech and from McCain’s surprise — which seems to have neutralized the Democrat’s gains. (That night, Zogby gave McCain a two-point lead; Rasmussen found Obama three ahead.)
Our guess is that Obama’s speech had a huge impact — counteracted by a huge plus for McCain from his surprise pick of Palin.
Meanwhile, making up for the loss of the first night of the convention is the contrast between the chaos that greeted Katrina’s landfall in 2005 and this year’s smooth preparations. McCain, the administration and the GOP Gulf-state governors should all gain. At the very least, they’ve all shown that they’ve learned from the mistakes of three years ago.
Palin is a godsend to McCain. She injects charisma and novelty into what would otherwise have been a deadly dull ticket. She has a compelling record of battling corruption in Alaska — uncovering misconduct by fellow Republicans and beating a GOP pork-king governor in a primary.
And his choice of her suggests that the old John McCain — the bold, fighting Senate maverick — is back. (News that Palin’s daughter is pregnant should make no difference. The governor had disclosed the fact to McCain, and he, like the tolerant and wise person he is, accepted it.)
The Palin pick also aims straight at Obama’s biggest problem: his difficulty in attracting the votes of women over 40. To win in November, a Democrat needs to win this group by a wide margin, yet Obama now trails by four points.
Palin also makes it far harder to paint a McCain administration as a third term for Bush, yet the "Bush-McCain" charge lies at the core of Obama’s campaign.
What will be the next surprise of this remarkable political year?
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Print Page
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 1:56 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Republicans shouldn’t mourn the loss of the first night (at least) of their convention. Sarah Palin’s warm reception by the American people and the relative success of preparations to contain the damage of Hurricane Gustav seem to have given the GOP far more bounce than it would’ve gotten from a "conventional" first night in St. Paul.
We’ll never know just how much Barack Obama gained in the polls from his magnificent acceptance speech. He spoke too late on Thursday for any post-speech polling to be effective — and John McCain announced his selection of Palin the next morning.
So the Friday night polls reflected both the bounce from Obama’s speech and from McCain’s surprise — which seems to have neutralized the Democrat’s gains. (That night, Zogby gave McCain a two-point lead; Rasmussen found Obama three ahead.)
Our guess is that Obama’s speech had a huge impact — counteracted by a huge plus for McCain from his surprise pick of Palin.
Meanwhile, making up for the loss of the first night of the convention is the contrast between the chaos that greeted Katrina’s landfall in 2005 and this year’s smooth preparations. McCain, the administration and the GOP Gulf-state governors should all gain. At the very least, they’ve all shown that they’ve learned from the mistakes of three years ago.
Palin is a godsend to McCain. She injects charisma and novelty into what would otherwise have been a deadly dull ticket. She has a compelling record of battling corruption in Alaska — uncovering misconduct by fellow Republicans and beating a GOP pork-king governor in a primary.
And his choice of her suggests that the old John McCain — the bold, fighting Senate maverick — is back. (News that Palin’s daughter is pregnant should make no difference. The governor had disclosed the fact to McCain, and he, like the tolerant and wise person he is, accepted it.)
The Palin pick also aims straight at Obama’s biggest problem: his difficulty in attracting the votes of women over 40. To win in November, a Democrat needs to win this group by a wide margin, yet Obama now trails by four points.
Palin also makes it far harder to paint a McCain administration as a third term for Bush, yet the "Bush-McCain" charge lies at the core of Obama’s campaign.
What will be the next surprise of this remarkable political year?
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Print Page
Democrats Display Destructive Delight
THIS HITS THE DEMO BUT NOT HARD ENOUGH. THANKS TED FOR THE READ DAA
Democrats Display Destructive Delight
By Jeff Crouere
September 2, 2008
Once again a major hurricane has hit the New Orleans area. Once again, I have evacuated my family along with millions of harried Gulf Coast residents. We are worried about our family members, friends, property, and pets. It is stressful time for all of us in this region of the country.
It was just three years ago that Hurricane Katrina devastated our area creating horrendous damage and killing over 1,600 people. Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of people who have not been able to return home. Thousands of homes remain damaged and unoccupied. Sadly, our community has not recovered from Katrina; yet, now we have to face another killer storm. It is a tragic situation that is more than nerve wracking for all of us in the New Orleans area and throughout the Gulf Coast.
In the midst of this tragedy, liberal propagandist Michael Moore, a bloated blowhard, has insulted every resident of the threatened region. Moore told fellow Republican hater and lunatic liberal MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, that Hurricane Gustav was proof that there "is a God in Heaven." Moore crowed that it was delicious irony that President Bush was scheduled to speak to the GOP convention at the same time the devastating hurricane would be rampaging across the northern Gulf Coast.
By celebrating the political ramifications of Gustav, Moore and Olbermann were displaying more concern about partisan politics than the well being of millions of Americans. It was a disgusting display of nasty partisanship at a time of national crisis. Any decent human being should be more worried about the safety of fellow Americans than scoring political points.
Of course three years ago, Hurricane Katrina devastated the New Orleans area and the federal response was lame and delayed. Yet, the local and state response was equally inadequate. This time, the federal government has been proactive and very aggressive in evacuating local residents and preparing for this hurricane. The actions of Louisiana state government led by new Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has been the antithesis of what happened during Katrina. At that time, Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco was overwhelmed, overly emotional and ill-prepared. She clearly was not able to convey any leadership or inspire any confidence in state government. In contrast, for this emergency, Governor Jindal has acted quickly and confidently and certainly saved lives by his leadership during this crisis.
Regrettably, several leading Democrats are using this tragedy to score political points. Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler said that the hurricane demonstrates that "God is on our side." A shocking video captured a heartless Fowler laughing about this tragedy and saying that it would negatively impact the Republican convention. In another example of horrible insensitivity, liberal Fox News contributor and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill said that Republicans must be "praying for tornadoes" so that President Bush will skip the convention. This type of disgusting partisanship is why many people are tired of politics.
Let me be clear to these liberal Democrats, no sane Republican official is praying for tornadoes. In fact, Republican leaders gathered for the convention are very concerned about the impact of the storm and will lead an effort to assist in the recovery of the area. For example, President Bush did not attend the convention so that he could manage the federal response to Hurricane Gustav.
It is time to remind these callous Democrats that God did not send a hurricane to help one party or to harm people to score political points. The God that I worship is a merciful and loving God that watches over all of his flock, regardless of political affiliation.
This tragedy should be an opportunity for people to put aside political labels and pull together to insure a quick recovery from this disaster. The last thing anyone should be doing at this point is to try to take political advantage of this tragedy. The comments of these leading Democrats are incredibly cruel and show complete insensitivity to the plight of their fellow Americans. Now is not the time to play partisan politics, there will be plenty of time for that once this threat passes.
Democrats Display Destructive Delight
By Jeff Crouere
September 2, 2008
Once again a major hurricane has hit the New Orleans area. Once again, I have evacuated my family along with millions of harried Gulf Coast residents. We are worried about our family members, friends, property, and pets. It is stressful time for all of us in this region of the country.
It was just three years ago that Hurricane Katrina devastated our area creating horrendous damage and killing over 1,600 people. Unfortunately, there are tens of thousands of people who have not been able to return home. Thousands of homes remain damaged and unoccupied. Sadly, our community has not recovered from Katrina; yet, now we have to face another killer storm. It is a tragic situation that is more than nerve wracking for all of us in the New Orleans area and throughout the Gulf Coast.
In the midst of this tragedy, liberal propagandist Michael Moore, a bloated blowhard, has insulted every resident of the threatened region. Moore told fellow Republican hater and lunatic liberal MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, that Hurricane Gustav was proof that there "is a God in Heaven." Moore crowed that it was delicious irony that President Bush was scheduled to speak to the GOP convention at the same time the devastating hurricane would be rampaging across the northern Gulf Coast.
By celebrating the political ramifications of Gustav, Moore and Olbermann were displaying more concern about partisan politics than the well being of millions of Americans. It was a disgusting display of nasty partisanship at a time of national crisis. Any decent human being should be more worried about the safety of fellow Americans than scoring political points.
Of course three years ago, Hurricane Katrina devastated the New Orleans area and the federal response was lame and delayed. Yet, the local and state response was equally inadequate. This time, the federal government has been proactive and very aggressive in evacuating local residents and preparing for this hurricane. The actions of Louisiana state government led by new Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has been the antithesis of what happened during Katrina. At that time, Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco was overwhelmed, overly emotional and ill-prepared. She clearly was not able to convey any leadership or inspire any confidence in state government. In contrast, for this emergency, Governor Jindal has acted quickly and confidently and certainly saved lives by his leadership during this crisis.
Regrettably, several leading Democrats are using this tragedy to score political points. Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler said that the hurricane demonstrates that "God is on our side." A shocking video captured a heartless Fowler laughing about this tragedy and saying that it would negatively impact the Republican convention. In another example of horrible insensitivity, liberal Fox News contributor and Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill said that Republicans must be "praying for tornadoes" so that President Bush will skip the convention. This type of disgusting partisanship is why many people are tired of politics.
Let me be clear to these liberal Democrats, no sane Republican official is praying for tornadoes. In fact, Republican leaders gathered for the convention are very concerned about the impact of the storm and will lead an effort to assist in the recovery of the area. For example, President Bush did not attend the convention so that he could manage the federal response to Hurricane Gustav.
It is time to remind these callous Democrats that God did not send a hurricane to help one party or to harm people to score political points. The God that I worship is a merciful and loving God that watches over all of his flock, regardless of political affiliation.
This tragedy should be an opportunity for people to put aside political labels and pull together to insure a quick recovery from this disaster. The last thing anyone should be doing at this point is to try to take political advantage of this tragedy. The comments of these leading Democrats are incredibly cruel and show complete insensitivity to the plight of their fellow Americans. Now is not the time to play partisan politics, there will be plenty of time for that once this threat passes.
Subject: DID YOU KNOW...?
Subject: DID YOU KNOW...?
Think you know who this man is?
This possible President of the United States ??
Read Below and ask yourselves, is this REALLY
someone we can see as the President of our great nation!!!!
Below are a few lines from Obama's books; In his words!
From Dreams of My Father:
'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father :
'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father:
'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father:
'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father:
'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damming one of ALL of them!!!
FROM AUDACITY OF HOPE:
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
* If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!!!
We CANNOT have someone with this type of mentality running our
GREAT nation!! I don't care whether you are a Democrat or a
Conservative. We CANNOT turn ourselves over to this type of
character in a President.
PLEASE help spread the word, our country could depend on it!!!
Think you know who this man is?
This possible President of the United States ??
Read Below and ask yourselves, is this REALLY
someone we can see as the President of our great nation!!!!
Below are a few lines from Obama's books; In his words!
From Dreams of My Father:
'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father :
'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father:
'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father:
'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father:
'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most Damming one of ALL of them!!!
FROM AUDACITY OF HOPE:
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
* If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!!!
We CANNOT have someone with this type of mentality running our
GREAT nation!! I don't care whether you are a Democrat or a
Conservative. We CANNOT turn ourselves over to this type of
character in a President.
PLEASE help spread the word, our country could depend on it!!!
Mexican President Admits Mexico Disintegrating
Mexican President Admits Mexico Disintegrating
Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:30 PM
MEXICO CITY -- Moving quickly to address mounting anger over crime, President Felipe Calderon promised Sunday to adopt several proposals from civic groups who led more than 100,000 Mexicans in marches against daily kidnappings and killings.
Among the measures are the creation of a citizens' panel to monitor government progress in fighting crime, better police recruiting and oversight systems and equipping police with more powerful weapons, Mexico's conservative president said.
Calderon acknowledged that Mexicans are desperate to see results two years after he took office and began an aggressive battle against drug traffickers and other criminal gangs.
The government "shares the demands and the indignation of the people," Calderon said after meeting with 14 civic leaders who staged Saturday night's candlelight protests in the capital and cities across the country. "We know the biggest problem in Mexico is public insecurity."
Homicides and kidnappings have surged despite the deployment of more than 25,000 soldiers and federal police to hotspots across Mexico, and the arrest of several top drug lords.
Hours before Saturday's protests, the severed heads of two women were found near the attorney general's offices in northwestern city of Durango, according to local media reports citing the same agency. No motive was given, but drug gangs in Mexico often behead their rivals.
Calderon offered few details about the proposed panel _ the Citizen's Institute of Social and Criminal Prevention _ but members of the 14 civic groups told reporters the president promised a concrete plan within a month.
"We're going to keep demanding: What's happening, what's happening, what's happening?" said Laura Elena Herrejon, of the civic group Pro-Neighbor. "Everyone who is listening to us must keep up the pressure."
Calderon said he had already included many of the other ideas in a 74-point anti-crime agreement drawn up last month during a national security meeting with governors and mayors.
Even while vowing aggressive action, Calderon warned that rooting out drug gangs and cleaning up Mexico's police will be a long fight.
Drug cartels have fought back with daily attacks against police, gunning them down at their homes, checkpoints and headquarters. Dozens of officers have quit in terror, leaving many police forces in disarray, particularly along the gang-plagued northern border with the United States.
The rise in violence "is a consequence of the gradual and growing disintegration of public and governmental institutions," Calderon said, acknowledging that "in many places authorities have been overwhelmed by delinquency and crime."
A sea of white-clad demonstrators filled Mexico City's enormous Zocalo square Saturday night, many holding photographs of their kidnapped loved ones.
Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:30 PM
MEXICO CITY -- Moving quickly to address mounting anger over crime, President Felipe Calderon promised Sunday to adopt several proposals from civic groups who led more than 100,000 Mexicans in marches against daily kidnappings and killings.
Among the measures are the creation of a citizens' panel to monitor government progress in fighting crime, better police recruiting and oversight systems and equipping police with more powerful weapons, Mexico's conservative president said.
Calderon acknowledged that Mexicans are desperate to see results two years after he took office and began an aggressive battle against drug traffickers and other criminal gangs.
The government "shares the demands and the indignation of the people," Calderon said after meeting with 14 civic leaders who staged Saturday night's candlelight protests in the capital and cities across the country. "We know the biggest problem in Mexico is public insecurity."
Homicides and kidnappings have surged despite the deployment of more than 25,000 soldiers and federal police to hotspots across Mexico, and the arrest of several top drug lords.
Hours before Saturday's protests, the severed heads of two women were found near the attorney general's offices in northwestern city of Durango, according to local media reports citing the same agency. No motive was given, but drug gangs in Mexico often behead their rivals.
Calderon offered few details about the proposed panel _ the Citizen's Institute of Social and Criminal Prevention _ but members of the 14 civic groups told reporters the president promised a concrete plan within a month.
"We're going to keep demanding: What's happening, what's happening, what's happening?" said Laura Elena Herrejon, of the civic group Pro-Neighbor. "Everyone who is listening to us must keep up the pressure."
Calderon said he had already included many of the other ideas in a 74-point anti-crime agreement drawn up last month during a national security meeting with governors and mayors.
Even while vowing aggressive action, Calderon warned that rooting out drug gangs and cleaning up Mexico's police will be a long fight.
Drug cartels have fought back with daily attacks against police, gunning them down at their homes, checkpoints and headquarters. Dozens of officers have quit in terror, leaving many police forces in disarray, particularly along the gang-plagued northern border with the United States.
The rise in violence "is a consequence of the gradual and growing disintegration of public and governmental institutions," Calderon said, acknowledging that "in many places authorities have been overwhelmed by delinquency and crime."
A sea of white-clad demonstrators filled Mexico City's enormous Zocalo square Saturday night, many holding photographs of their kidnapped loved ones.
Biden Told Israel: Get Used to Iran Nuclear Weapons
Biden Told Israel: Get Used to Iran Nuclear Weapons
Monday, September 1, 2008 12:28 PM
Barack Obama's presidential running-mate Joseph Biden told Israeli officials that they need to accept the idea Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.
Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visiting Israel several years ago, told Israeli officials diplomacy and sanctions would be futile against Iran.
On Monday Israel's Army Radio reported details of the comments Biden made when he met with "senior Israeli officials behind closed doors."
Reportedly Biden told the officials he opposed "opening a additional military and diplomatic front" against Iran.
"Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran," Army Radio quoted Biden as telling the Israelis.
Army Radio said that at that time Israeli officials were shocked by Biden's comments.
Within Israel, a consensus across the political spectrum has developed on the Iran matter. Iran's president Ahmadinejad has stated that he will wipe Israel off the map, making clear his use weapons of mass destruction against the Jewish state.
Biden has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel in the Senate. His selection by Barack Obama was seen as an effort to shore up support with the U.S. Jewish community.
Obama has given mixed signals on the Iran threat. During the Democratic primary he argued for direct negotiations with Iran. He has avoided making any suggestion the U.S. should take military action against Iran.
Last Monday Obama said he would continue to use diplomatic means to stop Iran's nuclear program.
E-mail Us
Monday, September 1, 2008 12:28 PM
Barack Obama's presidential running-mate Joseph Biden told Israeli officials that they need to accept the idea Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.
Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visiting Israel several years ago, told Israeli officials diplomacy and sanctions would be futile against Iran.
On Monday Israel's Army Radio reported details of the comments Biden made when he met with "senior Israeli officials behind closed doors."
Reportedly Biden told the officials he opposed "opening a additional military and diplomatic front" against Iran.
"Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran," Army Radio quoted Biden as telling the Israelis.
Army Radio said that at that time Israeli officials were shocked by Biden's comments.
Within Israel, a consensus across the political spectrum has developed on the Iran matter. Iran's president Ahmadinejad has stated that he will wipe Israel off the map, making clear his use weapons of mass destruction against the Jewish state.
Biden has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel in the Senate. His selection by Barack Obama was seen as an effort to shore up support with the U.S. Jewish community.
Obama has given mixed signals on the Iran threat. During the Democratic primary he argued for direct negotiations with Iran. He has avoided making any suggestion the U.S. should take military action against Iran.
Last Monday Obama said he would continue to use diplomatic means to stop Iran's nuclear program.
E-mail Us
Biden: Israeli Report on Iran 'A Lie'
THE ITEM AHEAD OF THIS ONE IS WHAT THIS ONE DECRIES.
Biden: Israeli Report on Iran 'A Lie'
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 10:46 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden is denying a report that he secretly told Israeli officials they would have to accept the idea that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.
Israeli Army Radio said on Monday that the senator from Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with “senior Israeli officials” behind closed doors during a visit several years ago and told them: “Israel with have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran.”
Biden reportedly told the officials he opposed “opening an additional military and diplomatic front” against Iran.
But Biden spokesman David Wade declared in comments reported by ABC News: “This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden, and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden’s 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel.
“Joe Biden’s first trip as a Senator was to Israel, he has worked with every Israeli leader from Golda Meir to Prime Minister Olmert, and he takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting the relationship between Israel and the U.S.
"Senator Biden has consistently stated – publicly and privately — that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel and the United States and that we must prevent a nuclear Iran.”
As Newsmax reported on Monday, Biden has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel in the Senate. His selection as Barack Obama’s running mate was seen as an effort to shore up support with the U.S. Jewish community.
During the primaries Obama argued for direct negotiations with Iran, and he has avoided making any suggestion that the U.S. should take military action against Iran.
Biden: Israeli Report on Iran 'A Lie'
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 10:46 AM
By: Jim Meyers
Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden is denying a report that he secretly told Israeli officials they would have to accept the idea that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.
Israeli Army Radio said on Monday that the senator from Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with “senior Israeli officials” behind closed doors during a visit several years ago and told them: “Israel with have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran.”
Biden reportedly told the officials he opposed “opening an additional military and diplomatic front” against Iran.
But Biden spokesman David Wade declared in comments reported by ABC News: “This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden, and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden’s 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel.
“Joe Biden’s first trip as a Senator was to Israel, he has worked with every Israeli leader from Golda Meir to Prime Minister Olmert, and he takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting the relationship between Israel and the U.S.
"Senator Biden has consistently stated – publicly and privately — that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel and the United States and that we must prevent a nuclear Iran.”
As Newsmax reported on Monday, Biden has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel in the Senate. His selection as Barack Obama’s running mate was seen as an effort to shore up support with the U.S. Jewish community.
During the primaries Obama argued for direct negotiations with Iran, and he has avoided making any suggestion that the U.S. should take military action against Iran.
September 1, 2008
Crowning Obama
Crowning Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: The biggest surprise of the Democratic convention? The spectacle of journalists applauding Barack Obama's acceptance speech. OK, maybe not the biggest surprise. But certainly one of the biggest disgraces.
Andy Barr reported on The Hill's blog that "several members of the media were seen cheering and clapping for" Obama as he accepted the Democratic nomination Thursday.
"Dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes chanted along with the crowd," Barr also noted, adding that "two members of the foreign press exchanged opportunities to take each other's picture while wearing an Obama hat and waving a flag" while "several others nearby screamed 'woo' during some of Obama's biggest applause lines."
IBD's own reporters covering the convention confirm Barr's reporting.
Barr did not name names, but he didn't have to. Who can forget MSNBC's Chris Matthews gushing about "this thrill going up my leg" and the "feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech"?
On Thursday night, Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, lashed out at an Associated Press reporter because he wasn't pleased with his coverage of Obama's speech. According to the trade journal Editor & Publisher, Olbermann "was outraged that the AP's (Charles) Babington had written, in his analysis of the speech, just off the wire, that Obama had tried nothing new and that his speech was lacking in specifics."
Olbermann finished his tirade by insisting that Babington "find a new line of work."
The we-must-get-Obama-elected agenda isn't limited to a couple of TV personalities. The bias runs the media gamut.
Time magazine has featured an Obama cover story seven times this year while McCain has made the front twice. From June 4, the day Obama clinched his party's nomination, through Aug. 17, a little more than a week before the convention began, the Washington Post carried three times as many front-page stories on Obama as it did on McCain. And in July, the New York Times refused to publish McCain's rebuttal to an op-ed written by Obama.
So the response to Thursday's historic speech really comes as no surprise. It's quite clear the national media are focused singularly on ensuring that Barack Obama is coronated on Jan. 20, 2009.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: The biggest surprise of the Democratic convention? The spectacle of journalists applauding Barack Obama's acceptance speech. OK, maybe not the biggest surprise. But certainly one of the biggest disgraces.
Andy Barr reported on The Hill's blog that "several members of the media were seen cheering and clapping for" Obama as he accepted the Democratic nomination Thursday.
"Dozens of men and women wearing green media floor passes chanted along with the crowd," Barr also noted, adding that "two members of the foreign press exchanged opportunities to take each other's picture while wearing an Obama hat and waving a flag" while "several others nearby screamed 'woo' during some of Obama's biggest applause lines."
IBD's own reporters covering the convention confirm Barr's reporting.
Barr did not name names, but he didn't have to. Who can forget MSNBC's Chris Matthews gushing about "this thrill going up my leg" and the "feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech"?
On Thursday night, Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, lashed out at an Associated Press reporter because he wasn't pleased with his coverage of Obama's speech. According to the trade journal Editor & Publisher, Olbermann "was outraged that the AP's (Charles) Babington had written, in his analysis of the speech, just off the wire, that Obama had tried nothing new and that his speech was lacking in specifics."
Olbermann finished his tirade by insisting that Babington "find a new line of work."
The we-must-get-Obama-elected agenda isn't limited to a couple of TV personalities. The bias runs the media gamut.
Time magazine has featured an Obama cover story seven times this year while McCain has made the front twice. From June 4, the day Obama clinched his party's nomination, through Aug. 17, a little more than a week before the convention began, the Washington Post carried three times as many front-page stories on Obama as it did on McCain. And in July, the New York Times refused to publish McCain's rebuttal to an op-ed written by Obama.
So the response to Thursday's historic speech really comes as no surprise. It's quite clear the national media are focused singularly on ensuring that Barack Obama is coronated on Jan. 20, 2009.
Email To Friend |
Attacking Our Patriots
Attacking Our Patriots
By INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Democrats: Joe Biden shares Barack Obama's lifelong commitment to keeping America unprotected against nuclear missile attack. Neither he nor Obama wants to protect Georgia — theirs or ours.
What sealed the deal for Poland in allowing the deployment of U.S. ground-based interceptors (GBI) on its soil was the deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles on its soil.
PAC-3 missiles are true anti-missile missiles, much more sophisticated than their predecessors that were pressed into action during Desert Storm.
Warsaw knows that PAC-3 missiles might have proven useful in Russia's invasion of Georgia and would be useful in its defense as well. Russia has threatened to station short-range SS-21 missiles and its longer range SS-26 cousin in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave the size of Connecticut on Poland's northeastern border and in neighboring Belarus.
According to the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, Russia fired more than two dozen SS-21s, with a range from 43 to 75 miles depending on the variant, into the defenseless democracy of Georgia.
The Georgian government said two SS-26 missiles, with roughly twice the range, had targeted an oil pipeline crossing its territory.
"The outward military aggression with the use of ballistic missiles from Russia on a former USSR country sends a very serious message to all former members of the Soviet bloc," says Riki Ellison, MDAA founder and president.
The interceptors will be deployed at Redzikovo Polish military base close to the Baltic Sea in northern Poland. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stationed in Europe is expected to begin construction of the GBI site in the next 12 to 18 months with the first missiles on alert by 2012.
This assumes an Obama-Biden administration will not cut off funding or bargain it away in a deal with Moscow.
Joe Biden considers forward deployment of such missile defenses in general, and national missile defense in general, to be unnecessarily provocative. During a debate in June 2000, he said building missile defenses would be "acting on our worst fears" and would "only make those fears come true."
Biden attacked President Bush's "theological" belief in missile defense in a September 2001 speech at the National Press Club. "Are we willing to end four decades of arms control agreements, and go it alone, a kind of bully nation, sometimes a little wrongheaded, but ready to make unilateral decisions in what we perceive to be our self-interest?' " he asked.
In a December 18, 2001, op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Missile Defense Delusion," Biden wrote: "President Bush's decision to unilaterally walk away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a serious mistake."
The ABM Treaty forbids building a defensive shield, except for the one the Soviets built around Moscow. It was in fact a necessary first step in fulfilling President Reagan's dream of a national missile defense protecting the American people. It was definitely in our national interest.
Biden voted against funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in September 1987 in the midst of Biden's presidential run.
In a Post article in May 1987, he is quoted as saying: "This immaculately conceived notion has obviously demonstrated a certain mystical appeal. Unfortunately, it has no possibility of practical implementation."
He went on to say SDI "pushed Soviet behavior the wrong way" and that "the president's continued adherence to it constitutes one of the most reckless acts in the history of modern statecraft."
And yet, it was Reagan's adherence to SDI doomed the Soviet Union and helped win the Cold War.
Two decades later, no thanks to Joe Biden, we have an active global defense with ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, Aegis warships cruising the world's oceans and Patriot missiles deployed worldwide.
In his acceptance speech Wednesday night, Biden promised that he and Obama "will hold Russia accountable for its actions." But Propaganda Joe obviously has no conflict with Obama who, in a video pledge to the liberal group Caucus4Priorities, pledged: "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."
Fact is, Obama-Biden wouldn't defend Georgia or Poland or the Czech Republic or NATO or the U.S. from missile attack by a hostile power. The only thing that would stand between the West and a mushroom cloud would be their aggressive personal diplomacy.
Email To Friend
By INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Democrats: Joe Biden shares Barack Obama's lifelong commitment to keeping America unprotected against nuclear missile attack. Neither he nor Obama wants to protect Georgia — theirs or ours.
What sealed the deal for Poland in allowing the deployment of U.S. ground-based interceptors (GBI) on its soil was the deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles on its soil.
PAC-3 missiles are true anti-missile missiles, much more sophisticated than their predecessors that were pressed into action during Desert Storm.
Warsaw knows that PAC-3 missiles might have proven useful in Russia's invasion of Georgia and would be useful in its defense as well. Russia has threatened to station short-range SS-21 missiles and its longer range SS-26 cousin in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave the size of Connecticut on Poland's northeastern border and in neighboring Belarus.
According to the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, Russia fired more than two dozen SS-21s, with a range from 43 to 75 miles depending on the variant, into the defenseless democracy of Georgia.
The Georgian government said two SS-26 missiles, with roughly twice the range, had targeted an oil pipeline crossing its territory.
"The outward military aggression with the use of ballistic missiles from Russia on a former USSR country sends a very serious message to all former members of the Soviet bloc," says Riki Ellison, MDAA founder and president.
The interceptors will be deployed at Redzikovo Polish military base close to the Baltic Sea in northern Poland. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stationed in Europe is expected to begin construction of the GBI site in the next 12 to 18 months with the first missiles on alert by 2012.
This assumes an Obama-Biden administration will not cut off funding or bargain it away in a deal with Moscow.
Joe Biden considers forward deployment of such missile defenses in general, and national missile defense in general, to be unnecessarily provocative. During a debate in June 2000, he said building missile defenses would be "acting on our worst fears" and would "only make those fears come true."
Biden attacked President Bush's "theological" belief in missile defense in a September 2001 speech at the National Press Club. "Are we willing to end four decades of arms control agreements, and go it alone, a kind of bully nation, sometimes a little wrongheaded, but ready to make unilateral decisions in what we perceive to be our self-interest?' " he asked.
In a December 18, 2001, op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Missile Defense Delusion," Biden wrote: "President Bush's decision to unilaterally walk away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a serious mistake."
The ABM Treaty forbids building a defensive shield, except for the one the Soviets built around Moscow. It was in fact a necessary first step in fulfilling President Reagan's dream of a national missile defense protecting the American people. It was definitely in our national interest.
Biden voted against funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in September 1987 in the midst of Biden's presidential run.
In a Post article in May 1987, he is quoted as saying: "This immaculately conceived notion has obviously demonstrated a certain mystical appeal. Unfortunately, it has no possibility of practical implementation."
He went on to say SDI "pushed Soviet behavior the wrong way" and that "the president's continued adherence to it constitutes one of the most reckless acts in the history of modern statecraft."
And yet, it was Reagan's adherence to SDI doomed the Soviet Union and helped win the Cold War.
Two decades later, no thanks to Joe Biden, we have an active global defense with ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, Aegis warships cruising the world's oceans and Patriot missiles deployed worldwide.
In his acceptance speech Wednesday night, Biden promised that he and Obama "will hold Russia accountable for its actions." But Propaganda Joe obviously has no conflict with Obama who, in a video pledge to the liberal group Caucus4Priorities, pledged: "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."
Fact is, Obama-Biden wouldn't defend Georgia or Poland or the Czech Republic or NATO or the U.S. from missile attack by a hostile power. The only thing that would stand between the West and a mushroom cloud would be their aggressive personal diplomacy.
Email To Friend
Bust Going Boom
Bust Going Boom
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: We keep looking for the much-anticipated recession, but it doesn't seem to have gotten here yet. Could it be that many of those expecting a downturn were wrong, and the economy's not going into the tank?
Going out on a limb to predict what the economy will do is a tricky business. It's possible, though by no means likely, that the economy briefly lapsed into recession late last year or early this year, based on weak GDP data, falling home sales, rising oil prices and a jump in unemployment. We won't know for sure until months — maybe years — after it ends.
Even so, we were struck by Thursday's news that second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.9% to 3.3%, more in line with boom than bust. The consensus estimate was for 2.7% growth.
As more than one economist has noted, nearly all of that growth — some 3.1% of it — came from stronger exports, a result of the weak dollar. The rest came from inventories. Take those away, and the economy crawled at a weak 0.2% pace for the quarter.
Fair enough. But we did our own calculations. The slowdown in the economy is mainly due to one thing: housing. We indexed overall GDP to housing GDP back to 2000.
As the chart shows, it's a very stark picture. We crunched even more numbers. Since 2006, the economy minus the ailing housing sector has grown at an average 3.3% rate. Add housing back in, and GDP growth has averaged just 2.4%. So housing's collapse has cost us roughly 1% of GDP.
Housing is still weak, with sales off 35% year over year and values depreciating at double-digit rates. Banks can't boost lending much, since they're writing off old loans and have to shrink capital. This will take time.
But listening to the media and the Democrats in Denver, you'd think the economy was in a depression. Well, it's not. In fact, we're modestly optimistic. By the end of this year, all the really bad year-to-year comparisons in growth will be over. Sales and prices will start to look more normal. And the panic will leave the market.
As noted, exports have supported the economy this year. To critics, a stronger dollar means export growth will slow. Maybe so. But falling oil prices mean our import tab will also drop.
Moreover, oil demand now is falling. The Energy Department recently reported a shocking statistic that got little attention: U.S. demand in June plummeted 1.17 million barrels a day from last year, and a spokesman said prices could fall below $100 a barrel due to rising output in the U.S., Brazil and Canada.
Other data also suggest grounds for optimism. Just this week, the Census Department reported median household income hit $50,233 in 2007, after inflation, a gain of 1.6% since 2001.
Despite the slowdown in growth, the number of people without health insurance fell one million last year, while the poverty rate was unchanged at 12.5% of the population. And believe it or not, the average unemployment and poverty rates under President Bush have been slightly lower than under President Clinton.
Sure, bad things can happen. But we don't have to will them into existence. As it stands, the much anticipated recession — thanks to Bush's tax cuts and timely Fed actions — might just be a no-show.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: We keep looking for the much-anticipated recession, but it doesn't seem to have gotten here yet. Could it be that many of those expecting a downturn were wrong, and the economy's not going into the tank?
Going out on a limb to predict what the economy will do is a tricky business. It's possible, though by no means likely, that the economy briefly lapsed into recession late last year or early this year, based on weak GDP data, falling home sales, rising oil prices and a jump in unemployment. We won't know for sure until months — maybe years — after it ends.
Even so, we were struck by Thursday's news that second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.9% to 3.3%, more in line with boom than bust. The consensus estimate was for 2.7% growth.
As more than one economist has noted, nearly all of that growth — some 3.1% of it — came from stronger exports, a result of the weak dollar. The rest came from inventories. Take those away, and the economy crawled at a weak 0.2% pace for the quarter.
Fair enough. But we did our own calculations. The slowdown in the economy is mainly due to one thing: housing. We indexed overall GDP to housing GDP back to 2000.
As the chart shows, it's a very stark picture. We crunched even more numbers. Since 2006, the economy minus the ailing housing sector has grown at an average 3.3% rate. Add housing back in, and GDP growth has averaged just 2.4%. So housing's collapse has cost us roughly 1% of GDP.
Housing is still weak, with sales off 35% year over year and values depreciating at double-digit rates. Banks can't boost lending much, since they're writing off old loans and have to shrink capital. This will take time.
But listening to the media and the Democrats in Denver, you'd think the economy was in a depression. Well, it's not. In fact, we're modestly optimistic. By the end of this year, all the really bad year-to-year comparisons in growth will be over. Sales and prices will start to look more normal. And the panic will leave the market.
As noted, exports have supported the economy this year. To critics, a stronger dollar means export growth will slow. Maybe so. But falling oil prices mean our import tab will also drop.
Moreover, oil demand now is falling. The Energy Department recently reported a shocking statistic that got little attention: U.S. demand in June plummeted 1.17 million barrels a day from last year, and a spokesman said prices could fall below $100 a barrel due to rising output in the U.S., Brazil and Canada.
Other data also suggest grounds for optimism. Just this week, the Census Department reported median household income hit $50,233 in 2007, after inflation, a gain of 1.6% since 2001.
Despite the slowdown in growth, the number of people without health insurance fell one million last year, while the poverty rate was unchanged at 12.5% of the population. And believe it or not, the average unemployment and poverty rates under President Bush have been slightly lower than under President Clinton.
Sure, bad things can happen. But we don't have to will them into existence. As it stands, the much anticipated recession — thanks to Bush's tax cuts and timely Fed actions — might just be a no-show.
Email To Friend
ENGLISH YES OTHER NO
The Colonel and Lincoln.........
TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER. THESE ARE STRONG, POWERFUL AND COURAGEOUS WORDS COMING FROM A RETIRED COLONEL AND READ WHAT LINCOLN HAD TO SAY AT THE END. WOW!
33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language on June 6, 2007.
On Wed. 6 June 2007, Colonel Harry Riley, USA Ret. wrote:
Senators:
Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348.... to make English America's official language is astounding.
On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and principles of America, I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.
I don't much care where you come from - What your religion is -Whether you're black, white, or some other color...male or female......Democrat, Republican or Independent....... But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America ...and Vote against English as the official language of the United States
Your vote reflects Betrayal - Political Surrender - Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance - Dishonors historical principle - Rejects Patriotism -Borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator...Impeachment...Recall...Or other appropriate action is warranted, or worse.
Four of you voting against English as America's Official Language are Presidential Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.
Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't, or don't, have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's Official Language when 91 % of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as 'political Hacks'..... Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States .
If America is as angry as I am, you will r e alize a backlash so stunning it will literally 'rock you out of your socks'......... And preferably totally out of theUnited States Senate.
The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this really isn't about America... it is about self-serving politics......despicable at best. It has been said: 'Never Argue with an Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!'
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!!!"
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING AROUND THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER!
TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER. THESE ARE STRONG, POWERFUL AND COURAGEOUS WORDS COMING FROM A RETIRED COLONEL AND READ WHAT LINCOLN HAD TO SAY AT THE END. WOW!
33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language on June 6, 2007.
On Wed. 6 June 2007, Colonel Harry Riley, USA Ret. wrote:
Senators:
Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348.... to make English America's official language is astounding.
On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and principles of America, I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.
I don't much care where you come from - What your religion is -Whether you're black, white, or some other color...male or female......Democrat, Republican or Independent....... But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America ...and Vote against English as the official language of the United States
Your vote reflects Betrayal - Political Surrender - Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance - Dishonors historical principle - Rejects Patriotism -Borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator...Impeachment...Recall...Or other appropriate action is warranted, or worse.
Four of you voting against English as America's Official Language are Presidential Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.
Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't, or don't, have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's Official Language when 91 % of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as 'political Hacks'..... Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States .
If America is as angry as I am, you will r e alize a backlash so stunning it will literally 'rock you out of your socks'......... And preferably totally out of theUnited States Senate.
The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this really isn't about America... it is about self-serving politics......despicable at best. It has been said: 'Never Argue with an Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!'
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!!!"
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING AROUND THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER!
Speaker Pelosi's Unnatural Gaffe
Speaker Pelosi's Unnatural Gaffe
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy Policy: The speaker of the House touts natural gas as an "alternative fuel like wind." Could it be that this time she's put her money where her mouth is?
Somewhere in the universe there may be a planet where natural gas is considered an alternative form of energy, but on this one it's still considered a fossil fuel.
Yes, it's clean-burning — "the cleanest of all fossil fuels," as the Natural Gas Supply Organization puts it. But it's still a fossil fuel formed deep within the earth, like its coal and petroleum cousins, by extreme pressure and heat.
Speaker Pelosi, who has taken a lot of heat and pressure herself for leading this "drill nothing" Congress, talked on Sunday's "Meet The Press" about an energy policy as incoherent as that of her party's presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
"I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels," she said at one point. Natural gas "is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels," she said at another.
She may be forgiven for her confusion. It's hard to be Speaker, dictate U.S. energy policy and manage your energy investments all at the same time.
Moderator Tom Brokaw asked about her investments in "clean" energies such as wind and natural gas as she tries to block the development of additional resources of competing energy such as petroleum. She said she and her husband have between $50,000 and $100,000 invested in T. Boone Pickens' Clean Energy Fuels.
"But, that is — that is the marketplace," she replied, explaining that the market is so big her meager investment was trivial and irrelevant. "That's not the point," she said. "I'm investing in something I believe in." Oh. And here we thought investments were made on the expectation of profit.
The fact is, as syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin reports, the Speaker's 2007 financial disclosure form Schedule III lists "Assets and Unearned Income" of between $101,000 and $250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) Public Common Stock. All on the expectation of, uh, windfall profits?
Federal lands, according to the American Petroleum Institute, hold 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to fuel 60 million households for 160 years. Some 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, can be found in the Outer Continental Shelf.
According to a new report by Navigant Consulting, there could be as much as 842 trillion cubic feet of retrievable natural gas in shale formations around the country, formations estimated to contain as much as two trillion barrels of crude — seven times Saudi Arabia's known reserves.
Domestic natural gas production was up 8.8% the first five months of this year compared with last. Most of the gain came from shale, particularly the Barnett Shale formation near Fort Worth, Texas.
Barnett is the first shale field to be developed, and gas production has increased 10 times since 2001. This field now accounts for 7% of domestic natural gas production, and there's much more to be had — if Pelosi and friends allow it.
So why is Pelosi blocking the opening up of these areas? Isn't it a tad schizophrenic to block exploration for an energy source you tout at the same time?
The answer may be that oil and natural gas are usually found in the same place at the same time. Such was the case at Prudhoe Bay, just 60 miles west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where Pelosi and her Democratic friends block drilling for either.
It's worth noting that in Colorado, home to the Democratic National Party Convention, producing natural gas is big business. In 2006, more than $7 billion worth was produced from over 20,000 wells with nary a windmill in sight.
We're not against true alternative forms of energy. We're all for American forms of energy and believe we should produce as much as we can everywhere we can in all forms. Then all the American people, and not just Nancy Pelosi, can profit.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy Policy: The speaker of the House touts natural gas as an "alternative fuel like wind." Could it be that this time she's put her money where her mouth is?
Somewhere in the universe there may be a planet where natural gas is considered an alternative form of energy, but on this one it's still considered a fossil fuel.
Yes, it's clean-burning — "the cleanest of all fossil fuels," as the Natural Gas Supply Organization puts it. But it's still a fossil fuel formed deep within the earth, like its coal and petroleum cousins, by extreme pressure and heat.
Speaker Pelosi, who has taken a lot of heat and pressure herself for leading this "drill nothing" Congress, talked on Sunday's "Meet The Press" about an energy policy as incoherent as that of her party's presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
"I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels," she said at one point. Natural gas "is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels," she said at another.
She may be forgiven for her confusion. It's hard to be Speaker, dictate U.S. energy policy and manage your energy investments all at the same time.
Moderator Tom Brokaw asked about her investments in "clean" energies such as wind and natural gas as she tries to block the development of additional resources of competing energy such as petroleum. She said she and her husband have between $50,000 and $100,000 invested in T. Boone Pickens' Clean Energy Fuels.
"But, that is — that is the marketplace," she replied, explaining that the market is so big her meager investment was trivial and irrelevant. "That's not the point," she said. "I'm investing in something I believe in." Oh. And here we thought investments were made on the expectation of profit.
The fact is, as syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin reports, the Speaker's 2007 financial disclosure form Schedule III lists "Assets and Unearned Income" of between $101,000 and $250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) Public Common Stock. All on the expectation of, uh, windfall profits?
Federal lands, according to the American Petroleum Institute, hold 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to fuel 60 million households for 160 years. Some 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, can be found in the Outer Continental Shelf.
According to a new report by Navigant Consulting, there could be as much as 842 trillion cubic feet of retrievable natural gas in shale formations around the country, formations estimated to contain as much as two trillion barrels of crude — seven times Saudi Arabia's known reserves.
Domestic natural gas production was up 8.8% the first five months of this year compared with last. Most of the gain came from shale, particularly the Barnett Shale formation near Fort Worth, Texas.
Barnett is the first shale field to be developed, and gas production has increased 10 times since 2001. This field now accounts for 7% of domestic natural gas production, and there's much more to be had — if Pelosi and friends allow it.
So why is Pelosi blocking the opening up of these areas? Isn't it a tad schizophrenic to block exploration for an energy source you tout at the same time?
The answer may be that oil and natural gas are usually found in the same place at the same time. Such was the case at Prudhoe Bay, just 60 miles west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where Pelosi and her Democratic friends block drilling for either.
It's worth noting that in Colorado, home to the Democratic National Party Convention, producing natural gas is big business. In 2006, more than $7 billion worth was produced from over 20,000 wells with nary a windmill in sight.
We're not against true alternative forms of energy. We're all for American forms of energy and believe we should produce as much as we can everywhere we can in all forms. Then all the American people, and not just Nancy Pelosi, can profit.
Email To Friend
View From Denver: A Party In Pieces
View From Denver: A Party In Pieces
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The idea of Democrats emerging unified from their acrimonious convention is laughable. If the GOP convention had the Clinton/Obama feud and John Edwards scandal, it would be declared a catastrophe.
You don't have to wait until this week's Democratic National Convention is over to know that the Party of Jefferson is shattered, and their gathering in Denver is a historic disaster.
Hillary Clinton may have delivered a rousing speech Tuesday night, but within it she took a not-so-subtle shot at Obama in suggesting that it would be her universal coverage health care plan he would end up signing into law as president. (Campaigning against him, she had blasted his plan for not covering everyone.)
And what real effect did her calls for unity have? "Yes, I'm still bitter," California Hillary delegate Jerry Straughan, skeptical that former first lady really meant what she said, told the Washington Post. "Obamination Scares the Hell Out of Me" and "Nobama" buttons were prevalent.
Former Democratic National Committee chairman and Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe isn't even staying in Denver for Obama's Thursday night acceptance speech; Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell suggested that Obama is hard for average Americans to identify with; Bill Clinton on Tuesday in Denver waxed on before the cameras about the "hypothetical" dilemma of Democrats choosing a candidate who "agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything."
Democrats in the Mile High City are divided by sex and by race. Investor's Business Daily observed a visible racial segregation among delegates when it came to hanging out together, a balkanization or clannishness fueled by very strong identity politics.
Angry Michigan delegates complained to IBD about their distant hotel accommodations, seeing it as payback for Michigan breaking party rules by holding its nomination contest early.
GOP strategist Mike Murphy described the feeling in Denver's thin air to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd as "submerged hate."
On top of all that is Obama's loss of support among two key groups — conservative Democrats and moderate-to-liberal Republicans. A new Gallup poll finds that since June, conservative Democrats backing Obama have dropped from 71% to 63%, while his GOP support has gone from 10% in June to 11% in mid-July, down to only 7% in Gallup's latest tracking poll.
Imagine if it were the other party undergoing equivalent convulsions. Let's say Mitt Romney's supporters demanded an open floor vote and were seething with public resentment against John McCain, the way Hillary's delegates are against Obama.
Add to that former President George H.W. Bush verbally undercutting McCain at every opportunity, in the manner of Bill Clinton's anger toward Obama regarding Hillary, because of, say, statements he made against his son, the sitting president.
Finally, what if Mike Huckabee were involved in a cheating/love child scandal the way John Edwards is, and had become so much of an embarrassment that, like Edwards, he couldn't even speak to his own party's convention after winning lots of electoral votes?
Is there any doubt that the Democrats and the media elites would classify such a GOP convention as the biggest fiasco in the history of party politics?
In such a comparable scenario, would there be any speech Romney could give at the convention that would be hailed as healing the party's wounds? Anything he — or any other Republican — could say that would give the media the kind of heart flutters Hillary's performance gave, for instance, Newsweek's Jon Meacham, who gushed that it was the best speech he'd ever seen while appearing on the magazine's joint Webcast coverage with the Washington Post?
Feminists demanding a female president are fuming against race-obsessed radicals eager for a black president from the leftist cliques of the South Side of Chicago.
Maybe the Democratic Party's longtime recipe of catering to this interest group and that has finally reached the boiling point.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The idea of Democrats emerging unified from their acrimonious convention is laughable. If the GOP convention had the Clinton/Obama feud and John Edwards scandal, it would be declared a catastrophe.
You don't have to wait until this week's Democratic National Convention is over to know that the Party of Jefferson is shattered, and their gathering in Denver is a historic disaster.
Hillary Clinton may have delivered a rousing speech Tuesday night, but within it she took a not-so-subtle shot at Obama in suggesting that it would be her universal coverage health care plan he would end up signing into law as president. (Campaigning against him, she had blasted his plan for not covering everyone.)
And what real effect did her calls for unity have? "Yes, I'm still bitter," California Hillary delegate Jerry Straughan, skeptical that former first lady really meant what she said, told the Washington Post. "Obamination Scares the Hell Out of Me" and "Nobama" buttons were prevalent.
Former Democratic National Committee chairman and Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe isn't even staying in Denver for Obama's Thursday night acceptance speech; Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell suggested that Obama is hard for average Americans to identify with; Bill Clinton on Tuesday in Denver waxed on before the cameras about the "hypothetical" dilemma of Democrats choosing a candidate who "agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything."
Democrats in the Mile High City are divided by sex and by race. Investor's Business Daily observed a visible racial segregation among delegates when it came to hanging out together, a balkanization or clannishness fueled by very strong identity politics.
Angry Michigan delegates complained to IBD about their distant hotel accommodations, seeing it as payback for Michigan breaking party rules by holding its nomination contest early.
GOP strategist Mike Murphy described the feeling in Denver's thin air to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd as "submerged hate."
On top of all that is Obama's loss of support among two key groups — conservative Democrats and moderate-to-liberal Republicans. A new Gallup poll finds that since June, conservative Democrats backing Obama have dropped from 71% to 63%, while his GOP support has gone from 10% in June to 11% in mid-July, down to only 7% in Gallup's latest tracking poll.
Imagine if it were the other party undergoing equivalent convulsions. Let's say Mitt Romney's supporters demanded an open floor vote and were seething with public resentment against John McCain, the way Hillary's delegates are against Obama.
Add to that former President George H.W. Bush verbally undercutting McCain at every opportunity, in the manner of Bill Clinton's anger toward Obama regarding Hillary, because of, say, statements he made against his son, the sitting president.
Finally, what if Mike Huckabee were involved in a cheating/love child scandal the way John Edwards is, and had become so much of an embarrassment that, like Edwards, he couldn't even speak to his own party's convention after winning lots of electoral votes?
Is there any doubt that the Democrats and the media elites would classify such a GOP convention as the biggest fiasco in the history of party politics?
In such a comparable scenario, would there be any speech Romney could give at the convention that would be hailed as healing the party's wounds? Anything he — or any other Republican — could say that would give the media the kind of heart flutters Hillary's performance gave, for instance, Newsweek's Jon Meacham, who gushed that it was the best speech he'd ever seen while appearing on the magazine's joint Webcast coverage with the Washington Post?
Feminists demanding a female president are fuming against race-obsessed radicals eager for a black president from the leftist cliques of the South Side of Chicago.
Maybe the Democratic Party's longtime recipe of catering to this interest group and that has finally reached the boiling point.
Email To Friend |
Bust Going Boom
Bust Going Boom
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: We keep looking for the much-anticipated recession, but it doesn't seem to have gotten here yet. Could it be that many of those expecting a downturn were wrong, and the economy's not going into the tank?
Going out on a limb to predict what the economy will do is a tricky business. It's possible, though by no means likely, that the economy briefly lapsed into recession late last year or early this year, based on weak GDP data, falling home sales, rising oil prices and a jump in unemployment. We won't know for sure until months — maybe years — after it ends.
Even so, we were struck by Thursday's news that second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.9% to 3.3%, more in line with boom than bust. The consensus estimate was for 2.7% growth.
As more than one economist has noted, nearly all of that growth — some 3.1% of it — came from stronger exports, a result of the weak dollar. The rest came from inventories. Take those away, and the economy crawled at a weak 0.2% pace for the quarter.
Fair enough. But we did our own calculations. The slowdown in the economy is mainly due to one thing: housing. We indexed overall GDP to housing GDP back to 2000.
As the chart shows, it's a very stark picture. We crunched even more numbers. Since 2006, the economy minus the ailing housing sector has grown at an average 3.3% rate. Add housing back in, and GDP growth has averaged just 2.4%. So housing's collapse has cost us roughly 1% of GDP.
Housing is still weak, with sales off 35% year over year and values depreciating at double-digit rates. Banks can't boost lending much, since they're writing off old loans and have to shrink capital. This will take time.
But listening to the media and the Democrats in Denver, you'd think the economy was in a depression. Well, it's not. In fact, we're modestly optimistic. By the end of this year, all the really bad year-to-year comparisons in growth will be over. Sales and prices will start to look more normal. And the panic will leave the market.
As noted, exports have supported the economy this year. To critics, a stronger dollar means export growth will slow. Maybe so. But falling oil prices mean our import tab will also drop.
Moreover, oil demand now is falling. The Energy Department recently reported a shocking statistic that got little attention: U.S. demand in June plummeted 1.17 million barrels a day from last year, and a spokesman said prices could fall below $100 a barrel due to rising output in the U.S., Brazil and Canada.
Other data also suggest grounds for optimism. Just this week, the Census Department reported median household income hit $50,233 in 2007, after inflation, a gain of 1.6% since 2001.
Despite the slowdown in growth, the number of people without health insurance fell one million last year, while the poverty rate was unchanged at 12.5% of the population. And believe it or not, the average unemployment and poverty rates under President Bush have been slightly lower than under President Clinton.
Sure, bad things can happen. But we don't have to will them into existence. As it stands, the much anticipated recession — thanks to Bush's tax cuts and timely Fed actions — might just be a no-show.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: We keep looking for the much-anticipated recession, but it doesn't seem to have gotten here yet. Could it be that many of those expecting a downturn were wrong, and the economy's not going into the tank?
Going out on a limb to predict what the economy will do is a tricky business. It's possible, though by no means likely, that the economy briefly lapsed into recession late last year or early this year, based on weak GDP data, falling home sales, rising oil prices and a jump in unemployment. We won't know for sure until months — maybe years — after it ends.
Even so, we were struck by Thursday's news that second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.9% to 3.3%, more in line with boom than bust. The consensus estimate was for 2.7% growth.
As more than one economist has noted, nearly all of that growth — some 3.1% of it — came from stronger exports, a result of the weak dollar. The rest came from inventories. Take those away, and the economy crawled at a weak 0.2% pace for the quarter.
Fair enough. But we did our own calculations. The slowdown in the economy is mainly due to one thing: housing. We indexed overall GDP to housing GDP back to 2000.
As the chart shows, it's a very stark picture. We crunched even more numbers. Since 2006, the economy minus the ailing housing sector has grown at an average 3.3% rate. Add housing back in, and GDP growth has averaged just 2.4%. So housing's collapse has cost us roughly 1% of GDP.
Housing is still weak, with sales off 35% year over year and values depreciating at double-digit rates. Banks can't boost lending much, since they're writing off old loans and have to shrink capital. This will take time.
But listening to the media and the Democrats in Denver, you'd think the economy was in a depression. Well, it's not. In fact, we're modestly optimistic. By the end of this year, all the really bad year-to-year comparisons in growth will be over. Sales and prices will start to look more normal. And the panic will leave the market.
As noted, exports have supported the economy this year. To critics, a stronger dollar means export growth will slow. Maybe so. But falling oil prices mean our import tab will also drop.
Moreover, oil demand now is falling. The Energy Department recently reported a shocking statistic that got little attention: U.S. demand in June plummeted 1.17 million barrels a day from last year, and a spokesman said prices could fall below $100 a barrel due to rising output in the U.S., Brazil and Canada.
Other data also suggest grounds for optimism. Just this week, the Census Department reported median household income hit $50,233 in 2007, after inflation, a gain of 1.6% since 2001.
Despite the slowdown in growth, the number of people without health insurance fell one million last year, while the poverty rate was unchanged at 12.5% of the population. And believe it or not, the average unemployment and poverty rates under President Bush have been slightly lower than under President Clinton.
Sure, bad things can happen. But we don't have to will them into existence. As it stands, the much anticipated recession — thanks to Bush's tax cuts and timely Fed actions — might just be a no-show.
Email To Friend |
Media Blackout On A Far-Left Past
Media Blackout On A Far-Left Past
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Press Bias: Democrats in Denver tried to introduce Barack Obama as a moderate, whitewashing his radical past, and the media are helping them by following the fictional script.
On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, CNN, for one, aired an in-depth profile called "Obama Revealed." In fact, it revealed nothing except for CNN's bias.
The special, hosted by White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, started off by asking, "Who is Barack Obama?" — something not a few voters would like to know. It then let the presumptive Democrat nominee mostly answer the question "in his own words."
We learn he earned the nickname "Barry O'Bomber" on his high school basketball team, and that he was a "top student" at Harvard law school. Omitted from the saintly biography are hard truths about his radical ties. Voters hear nothing of his friendship with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers or the late black Communist poet Frank Marshall Davis.
There's no mention of the radical training he received from groups founded by the late socialist agitator Saul Alinsky, or how Obama later taught Alinsky's tactics as a college professor.
CNN glossed over his late Kenyan father's own radical politics by leaving it up to him to describe his "reputation."
"My father had this reputation as being this larger-than-life figure, charismatic, very smart, very engaging," Obama said, "and all those things were true."
It's also true that as a Nairobi bureaucrat, his father proposed a socialist economic plan for Kenya so radical it got him blackballed from the government. CNN left that part out, while also omitting Obama's recent support of Raila Odinga, a Communist-trained politician in Nairobi.
The one smudge in the network's otherwise glowing portrait — Obama's decades-long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright — was quickly dispatched by noting he had distanced himself from his radically anti-American preacher. However, Obama's abiding faith in black liberation theology — a Marxist version of Christianity — was never even identified by the network.
CNN's coverage is par for the course. There's been a media blackout on Obama's radical past throughout the presidential campaign.
Take the story about his early mentor Davis, a known member of the Communist Party USA. No mainstream media reported on the relationship until Aug. 2, and that was only after IBD and a handful of conservative blogs weighed in on the controversy.
The Associated Press broke the silence with the article, "Writer offered a young Barack Obama advice on life." But it still does not tell the whole story. AP describes Davis as a "left-leaning black journalist" with "allegedly anti-American views" — when in fact, his Soviet allegiances and hatred for America are well documented in congressional reports and his own poems.
The Washington Post did AP one better. It managed to write an entire story on the controversy without identifying Davis by name. (It did have room to mention "the vast right-wing conspiracy" though.)
The establishment media have also ignored a long-lost article by Obama's father that reveals his communist leanings.
The 1965 paper by Barack Hussein Obama Sr., which called for Soviet-style expropriation and other extreme measures, was cited by Politico.com, a Web-based spin-off of the media elite in Washington. But it failed to quote any of his Marxist prescriptions, and in a shocking whitewash, concludes that "his central aim was moderate and conciliatory."
Many of these radical connections are cataloged in a new book, "The Obama Nation," which remains atop the national bestseller list. But CNN and other major news outlets have spent more time investigating its author than Obama, while parroting the Obama camp's line that the book is a "series of lies."
The Post in its coverage repeated word-for-word some of the talking points contained in a 40-page rebuttal of the book by Obama, essentially farming out the fact-checking to a political campaign.
It also noted that the book was being "pushed by conservative book clubs that buy in bulk to drive up sales," and that its publisher, Simon & Schuster, employs "former GOP strategist Mary Matalin" as an editor.
It's plain the media are protecting Obama from his radical past, insulating him from the kind of scrutiny voters need to make an informed choice in November. He got the same pass from the press running for the Senate. In fact, Obama in his latest autobiography said he couldn't believe his "good fortune."
"I was the beneficiary of unusually — and at times undeservedly — positive press coverage," he confessed in "The Audacity of Hope."
He skated into office then. Absent proper media vetting, he'll also skate into the Oval Office. But then that may be the plan.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Press Bias: Democrats in Denver tried to introduce Barack Obama as a moderate, whitewashing his radical past, and the media are helping them by following the fictional script.
On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, CNN, for one, aired an in-depth profile called "Obama Revealed." In fact, it revealed nothing except for CNN's bias.
The special, hosted by White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, started off by asking, "Who is Barack Obama?" — something not a few voters would like to know. It then let the presumptive Democrat nominee mostly answer the question "in his own words."
We learn he earned the nickname "Barry O'Bomber" on his high school basketball team, and that he was a "top student" at Harvard law school. Omitted from the saintly biography are hard truths about his radical ties. Voters hear nothing of his friendship with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers or the late black Communist poet Frank Marshall Davis.
There's no mention of the radical training he received from groups founded by the late socialist agitator Saul Alinsky, or how Obama later taught Alinsky's tactics as a college professor.
CNN glossed over his late Kenyan father's own radical politics by leaving it up to him to describe his "reputation."
"My father had this reputation as being this larger-than-life figure, charismatic, very smart, very engaging," Obama said, "and all those things were true."
It's also true that as a Nairobi bureaucrat, his father proposed a socialist economic plan for Kenya so radical it got him blackballed from the government. CNN left that part out, while also omitting Obama's recent support of Raila Odinga, a Communist-trained politician in Nairobi.
The one smudge in the network's otherwise glowing portrait — Obama's decades-long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright — was quickly dispatched by noting he had distanced himself from his radically anti-American preacher. However, Obama's abiding faith in black liberation theology — a Marxist version of Christianity — was never even identified by the network.
CNN's coverage is par for the course. There's been a media blackout on Obama's radical past throughout the presidential campaign.
Take the story about his early mentor Davis, a known member of the Communist Party USA. No mainstream media reported on the relationship until Aug. 2, and that was only after IBD and a handful of conservative blogs weighed in on the controversy.
The Associated Press broke the silence with the article, "Writer offered a young Barack Obama advice on life." But it still does not tell the whole story. AP describes Davis as a "left-leaning black journalist" with "allegedly anti-American views" — when in fact, his Soviet allegiances and hatred for America are well documented in congressional reports and his own poems.
The Washington Post did AP one better. It managed to write an entire story on the controversy without identifying Davis by name. (It did have room to mention "the vast right-wing conspiracy" though.)
The establishment media have also ignored a long-lost article by Obama's father that reveals his communist leanings.
The 1965 paper by Barack Hussein Obama Sr., which called for Soviet-style expropriation and other extreme measures, was cited by Politico.com, a Web-based spin-off of the media elite in Washington. But it failed to quote any of his Marxist prescriptions, and in a shocking whitewash, concludes that "his central aim was moderate and conciliatory."
Many of these radical connections are cataloged in a new book, "The Obama Nation," which remains atop the national bestseller list. But CNN and other major news outlets have spent more time investigating its author than Obama, while parroting the Obama camp's line that the book is a "series of lies."
The Post in its coverage repeated word-for-word some of the talking points contained in a 40-page rebuttal of the book by Obama, essentially farming out the fact-checking to a political campaign.
It also noted that the book was being "pushed by conservative book clubs that buy in bulk to drive up sales," and that its publisher, Simon & Schuster, employs "former GOP strategist Mary Matalin" as an editor.
It's plain the media are protecting Obama from his radical past, insulating him from the kind of scrutiny voters need to make an informed choice in November. He got the same pass from the press running for the Senate. In fact, Obama in his latest autobiography said he couldn't believe his "good fortune."
"I was the beneficiary of unusually — and at times undeservedly — positive press coverage," he confessed in "The Audacity of Hope."
He skated into office then. Absent proper media vetting, he'll also skate into the Oval Office. But then that may be the plan.
Email To Friend |
August 31, 2008
Cirque De Obama STRONG SUGGESTION TO READ
Cirque De Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama says we can't afford four more years like the last eight. What, exactly, is bad about winning a war on terror, keeping Americans alive and free, and letting us keep more of what we earn?
We weren't expecting Sen. Obama to thank President Bush for keeping America and its citizens safe from terrorist attack since 9/11, or for winning the war in Iraq and bringing democracy to the heart of the Middle East.
But we hoped for more from The One than a proclamation that he had come to lift us out of the bondage of the Republican Dark Ages.
Delivered in a stadium with a corporate logo and built with capitalist profits, Obama's acceptance speech was workmanlike as promised, albeit staged on what looked like a movie set left over from the World War II propaganda film, "Triumph Of The Will."
Still, Obama's performance was enough to move Oprah Winfrey to tears. "I cried my eyelashes off," she said. It was enough to make us cry, too.
On Iraq, he said he'd "end this war responsibly." John McCain would end it in victory. Obama hid the fact that he opposed the surge that defeated the jihadist insurgency.
In January of 2007, Obama introduced legislation in the Senate to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq six months ago. Had we listened to him, there would no free and democratic Iraq today. We'd have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, as Democrats forced us to do in Vietnam, and the jihadist victory would have rivaled the killing fields of Cambodia. Our troops would already be home, their sacrifice in vain.
Obama pledged to "finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban," forgetting it was President Bush who took the fight to the enemy with Obama in opposition. The fight in Afghanistan isn't over. But Obama failed to explain why, as chairman of a subcommittee having jurisdiction, he held not a single hearing on a theater of operations he now deems critical.
On the economy, he said: "Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America." Yet he once proposed doubling the capital gains tax to punish the very risk-takers he now purports to champion.
When it was pointed out during a primary debate that higher capital gains taxes can generate less revenue and discourage economic activity, Obama mumbled something about "fairness." Thursday night, the code words were "mutual responsibility." But it's all about redistributing income.
We need more, not fewer, tax breaks. The average combined federal and state tax rate on corporations is now 50% higher than the average of our international competitors. At 39.3%, it's second only to Japan's. In some states, including California and Pennsylvania, it's the highest in the world.
The average European nation has tax rates on corporate income some 10 percentage points lower than ours. Ireland has a corporate rate of 12.5%. If you were a businessman, where would you locate?
"I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95% of all working families," Obama said, "because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." Apparently Obama thinks you are "working" only if you produce perspiration, not inspiration. The fact is, he'll raise taxes on everything and everyone, directly and indirectly, open and hidden.
According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, as Obama intends, will reduce our annual GDP by $100 billion with the loss of up to 900,000 jobs. Over 10 years, taxes would increase by some $1.7 trillion. For the 116 million Americans paying taxes, that's an annual tax hike of about $1,800 a year.
Last year, Heritage analyzed the effect of eliminating the Social Security earnings cap, as Obama has also proposed. In the first year alone, the take-home pay of 10.3 million workers would be reduced by an average of $5,650. Taxes would also be raised on four million workers over the age of 50.
Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners. By 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion.
And if you think this would raise taxes only on the "rich," think again. According to Heritage, taxes would be raised for 97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 post-secondary teachers and 237,000 dentists.
Eliminating the earnings cap would raise taxes for many middle-class families, impose a huge burden on small business, slow the economy and cost jobs. You don't help the people riding the wagon by punishing the people pulling it.
On energy, Obama said that "in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East" and that he "will tap our natural gas reserves." Yet he opposes drilling where huge amounts of oil and natural gas are to be found — in locked-up areas such as ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and in federal lands out West.
He also said he will "find ways to safely harness nuclear power." But we already know the ways countries like France safely store and reprocess nuclear waste. John McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants nationwide by 2030 to meet a demand for electricity that is expected to grow 25% by then.
"Sen. Obama has said that expanding our nuclear power plants 'doesn't make sense for America,' " McCain says. "He also says no to nuclear storage and reprocessing. I couldn't disagree more. I have proposed a plan to build additional nuclear plants. That means new jobs, and that means new energy.
"If we want to enable the technologies of tomorrow like plug-in electric cars, we need electricity to plug into," McCain said recently at Michigan's Fermi II nuclear power plant.
Obama also proved once again how wrong he is on foreign policy, taxes, the economy and energy.
"On Nov. 4," he said, "we must stand up and say, 'Eight is enough.' " But as far as we're concerned, it's just a start. Under a President McCain, the Obamas would be safer and more prosperous than if they themselves occupied the White House.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama says we can't afford four more years like the last eight. What, exactly, is bad about winning a war on terror, keeping Americans alive and free, and letting us keep more of what we earn?
We weren't expecting Sen. Obama to thank President Bush for keeping America and its citizens safe from terrorist attack since 9/11, or for winning the war in Iraq and bringing democracy to the heart of the Middle East.
But we hoped for more from The One than a proclamation that he had come to lift us out of the bondage of the Republican Dark Ages.
Delivered in a stadium with a corporate logo and built with capitalist profits, Obama's acceptance speech was workmanlike as promised, albeit staged on what looked like a movie set left over from the World War II propaganda film, "Triumph Of The Will."
Still, Obama's performance was enough to move Oprah Winfrey to tears. "I cried my eyelashes off," she said. It was enough to make us cry, too.
On Iraq, he said he'd "end this war responsibly." John McCain would end it in victory. Obama hid the fact that he opposed the surge that defeated the jihadist insurgency.
In January of 2007, Obama introduced legislation in the Senate to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq six months ago. Had we listened to him, there would no free and democratic Iraq today. We'd have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, as Democrats forced us to do in Vietnam, and the jihadist victory would have rivaled the killing fields of Cambodia. Our troops would already be home, their sacrifice in vain.
Obama pledged to "finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban," forgetting it was President Bush who took the fight to the enemy with Obama in opposition. The fight in Afghanistan isn't over. But Obama failed to explain why, as chairman of a subcommittee having jurisdiction, he held not a single hearing on a theater of operations he now deems critical.
On the economy, he said: "Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America." Yet he once proposed doubling the capital gains tax to punish the very risk-takers he now purports to champion.
When it was pointed out during a primary debate that higher capital gains taxes can generate less revenue and discourage economic activity, Obama mumbled something about "fairness." Thursday night, the code words were "mutual responsibility." But it's all about redistributing income.
We need more, not fewer, tax breaks. The average combined federal and state tax rate on corporations is now 50% higher than the average of our international competitors. At 39.3%, it's second only to Japan's. In some states, including California and Pennsylvania, it's the highest in the world.
The average European nation has tax rates on corporate income some 10 percentage points lower than ours. Ireland has a corporate rate of 12.5%. If you were a businessman, where would you locate?
"I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95% of all working families," Obama said, "because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." Apparently Obama thinks you are "working" only if you produce perspiration, not inspiration. The fact is, he'll raise taxes on everything and everyone, directly and indirectly, open and hidden.
According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, as Obama intends, will reduce our annual GDP by $100 billion with the loss of up to 900,000 jobs. Over 10 years, taxes would increase by some $1.7 trillion. For the 116 million Americans paying taxes, that's an annual tax hike of about $1,800 a year.
Last year, Heritage analyzed the effect of eliminating the Social Security earnings cap, as Obama has also proposed. In the first year alone, the take-home pay of 10.3 million workers would be reduced by an average of $5,650. Taxes would also be raised on four million workers over the age of 50.
Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners. By 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion.
And if you think this would raise taxes only on the "rich," think again. According to Heritage, taxes would be raised for 97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 post-secondary teachers and 237,000 dentists.
Eliminating the earnings cap would raise taxes for many middle-class families, impose a huge burden on small business, slow the economy and cost jobs. You don't help the people riding the wagon by punishing the people pulling it.
On energy, Obama said that "in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East" and that he "will tap our natural gas reserves." Yet he opposes drilling where huge amounts of oil and natural gas are to be found — in locked-up areas such as ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and in federal lands out West.
He also said he will "find ways to safely harness nuclear power." But we already know the ways countries like France safely store and reprocess nuclear waste. John McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants nationwide by 2030 to meet a demand for electricity that is expected to grow 25% by then.
"Sen. Obama has said that expanding our nuclear power plants 'doesn't make sense for America,' " McCain says. "He also says no to nuclear storage and reprocessing. I couldn't disagree more. I have proposed a plan to build additional nuclear plants. That means new jobs, and that means new energy.
"If we want to enable the technologies of tomorrow like plug-in electric cars, we need electricity to plug into," McCain said recently at Michigan's Fermi II nuclear power plant.
Obama also proved once again how wrong he is on foreign policy, taxes, the economy and energy.
"On Nov. 4," he said, "we must stand up and say, 'Eight is enough.' " But as far as we're concerned, it's just a start. Under a President McCain, the Obamas would be safer and more prosperous than if they themselves occupied the White House.
Email To Friend |
Palin? Perfect
Palin? Perfect
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is brilliant. Her individualism matches McCain's. But it's the new strengths she brings to the ticket that make the team formidable.
To say it was a bold pick is putting it mildly. Palin, after all, isn't well-known outside Alaska. But McCain is maverick-bold, and this masterstroke looks like a game-changer for Republicans.
A first look at Palin, 44, shows striking political similarities with the man who heads the ticket. Like McCain, she thinks independently and has shown political courage. Elected governor in 2006, she became popular for tax-cutting and budget-balancing, both hallmarks of McCain's own career.
Also like McCain, Palin has confronted political corruption, even at a cost to herself. In 2004, she quit a position as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission monitoring the industry rather than look the other way on ethics violations by the chairman, who was also the Republican Party chief. That made her a political outcast. It took courage, but it's also profoundly bipartisan. It may render Democrats' "unity" talk hollow.
Palin is also a straight-talker. As governor of a small-population state, she's accessible, with a history of working with and listening to people, taking in all sides. She uses plain language and doesn't fear gaffes. She couldn't be further from the canned, focus-group-driven politicians who dominate politics. This builds trust.
McCain's and Palin's similarities present an emerging political coherence and unity of message that should appeal to voters. But it's new strengths to the McCain ticket that make Palin's entry truly exciting. Several will add fire to McCain's campaign.
Palin, for example, represents the frontier. Alaska and its energy development are at the forefront of American interests. As oil prices soar to record levels, the state's oil and gas could free the U.S. from the tyranny of hostile foreign oil suppliers — including Russia, Iran and Venezuela — that are using high prices to amass power and create trouble abroad.
Palin has been a strong voice for liberating her state's energy for the benefit of the nation. Her recent legislative victory establishing a 7,200-mile natural gas pipeline across North America — after 30 years of failure — is a remarkable accomplishment.
Alaska's leadership will add to Palin's appeal in other frontier states in the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and pockets of the rural Midwest and mid-Atlantic. Like Alaska with its oil, these are rugged regions desperate to develop their clean coal and shale oil resources.
Democrats at their Denver convention identified them as make-or-break battlegrounds, and the Idaho-born Alaska governor may move them into McCain's column. Palin's record of fighting for responsible development and against special interests will resonate, giving these states hope that they too can reach the prosperity they've been denied by do-nothing Democrats.
Palin's lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association and her affinity for pickup trucks, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling and other outdoor life will only add to her Middle American appeal.
It also helps that she's a woman. Much as we dislike identity politics, Palin's nomination moves the historic momentum to the GOP and appeals to female voters who wanted to see Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket.
Democrats in Denver were nervous about shutting out women from their own ticket, and many delegates left angry. As many as one in five Hillary voters, according to one survey, are open to voting Republican. Denver delegates from Florida, Illinois and Texas told IBD they knew of McCain voters in their ranks.
Palin's nomination adds to a McCain team that already includes very competent advisers such as Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and Meg Whitman, who ran eBay. By contrast, based on what was seen at the Denver convention, the main achievement of the Democrats' female flag bearer, Michelle Obama, was marrying well.
Palin's presence on the McCain ticket will also energize a key Republican subgroup: religious conservatives. As a mother of five, including a baby born with Down syndrome, her appeal with female voters stands to go much further than Clinton feminists. Her devotion to family will resonate with the large anti-abortion segment of the Republicans, including Catholics and evangelicals, who will be inspired by her example.
Though she is not wedded to party politics, Palin has a conservative voting record. This will strike a chord with the party's base and raise trust in McCain, who has had his doubters. This in turn will give the campaign some needed enthusiasm.
Palin could also appeal to independents who've had enough of Washington. When House leaders made a visit to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this summer, some locals were offended that they didn't call on their governor. Whatever else it was, the slight proved Palin wasn't a Beltway insider. In addition, Palin's 84% approval rating in a state with high libertarian and populist tendencies suggests that she can reach independents.
Finally, Sarah Palin is a governor with two years of authentic executive experience. This spares this race the specter of an all-senator show. And history shows it's far better preparation for the presidency than other offices. A governor must execute budgets, pull factions together, compromise on tough issues and make the buck stop there. If Palin's short stint as governor calls into question her experience, it's still superior to Barack Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate.
McCain has always been full of surprises, and the nomination of Palin may be his best. Yes, it's a risk. But from all indications, it's one well worth taking.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is brilliant. Her individualism matches McCain's. But it's the new strengths she brings to the ticket that make the team formidable.
To say it was a bold pick is putting it mildly. Palin, after all, isn't well-known outside Alaska. But McCain is maverick-bold, and this masterstroke looks like a game-changer for Republicans.
A first look at Palin, 44, shows striking political similarities with the man who heads the ticket. Like McCain, she thinks independently and has shown political courage. Elected governor in 2006, she became popular for tax-cutting and budget-balancing, both hallmarks of McCain's own career.
Also like McCain, Palin has confronted political corruption, even at a cost to herself. In 2004, she quit a position as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission monitoring the industry rather than look the other way on ethics violations by the chairman, who was also the Republican Party chief. That made her a political outcast. It took courage, but it's also profoundly bipartisan. It may render Democrats' "unity" talk hollow.
Palin is also a straight-talker. As governor of a small-population state, she's accessible, with a history of working with and listening to people, taking in all sides. She uses plain language and doesn't fear gaffes. She couldn't be further from the canned, focus-group-driven politicians who dominate politics. This builds trust.
McCain's and Palin's similarities present an emerging political coherence and unity of message that should appeal to voters. But it's new strengths to the McCain ticket that make Palin's entry truly exciting. Several will add fire to McCain's campaign.
Palin, for example, represents the frontier. Alaska and its energy development are at the forefront of American interests. As oil prices soar to record levels, the state's oil and gas could free the U.S. from the tyranny of hostile foreign oil suppliers — including Russia, Iran and Venezuela — that are using high prices to amass power and create trouble abroad.
Palin has been a strong voice for liberating her state's energy for the benefit of the nation. Her recent legislative victory establishing a 7,200-mile natural gas pipeline across North America — after 30 years of failure — is a remarkable accomplishment.
Alaska's leadership will add to Palin's appeal in other frontier states in the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and pockets of the rural Midwest and mid-Atlantic. Like Alaska with its oil, these are rugged regions desperate to develop their clean coal and shale oil resources.
Democrats at their Denver convention identified them as make-or-break battlegrounds, and the Idaho-born Alaska governor may move them into McCain's column. Palin's record of fighting for responsible development and against special interests will resonate, giving these states hope that they too can reach the prosperity they've been denied by do-nothing Democrats.
Palin's lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association and her affinity for pickup trucks, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling and other outdoor life will only add to her Middle American appeal.
It also helps that she's a woman. Much as we dislike identity politics, Palin's nomination moves the historic momentum to the GOP and appeals to female voters who wanted to see Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket.
Democrats in Denver were nervous about shutting out women from their own ticket, and many delegates left angry. As many as one in five Hillary voters, according to one survey, are open to voting Republican. Denver delegates from Florida, Illinois and Texas told IBD they knew of McCain voters in their ranks.
Palin's nomination adds to a McCain team that already includes very competent advisers such as Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and Meg Whitman, who ran eBay. By contrast, based on what was seen at the Denver convention, the main achievement of the Democrats' female flag bearer, Michelle Obama, was marrying well.
Palin's presence on the McCain ticket will also energize a key Republican subgroup: religious conservatives. As a mother of five, including a baby born with Down syndrome, her appeal with female voters stands to go much further than Clinton feminists. Her devotion to family will resonate with the large anti-abortion segment of the Republicans, including Catholics and evangelicals, who will be inspired by her example.
Though she is not wedded to party politics, Palin has a conservative voting record. This will strike a chord with the party's base and raise trust in McCain, who has had his doubters. This in turn will give the campaign some needed enthusiasm.
Palin could also appeal to independents who've had enough of Washington. When House leaders made a visit to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this summer, some locals were offended that they didn't call on their governor. Whatever else it was, the slight proved Palin wasn't a Beltway insider. In addition, Palin's 84% approval rating in a state with high libertarian and populist tendencies suggests that she can reach independents.
Finally, Sarah Palin is a governor with two years of authentic executive experience. This spares this race the specter of an all-senator show. And history shows it's far better preparation for the presidency than other offices. A governor must execute budgets, pull factions together, compromise on tough issues and make the buck stop there. If Palin's short stint as governor calls into question her experience, it's still superior to Barack Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate.
McCain has always been full of surprises, and the nomination of Palin may be his best. Yes, it's a risk. But from all indications, it's one well worth taking.
Email To Friend |
The Misery Class
The Misery Class
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Think your life is going OK? If so, the Democratic convention was not for you. The party of "Happy Days Are Here Again" now sees hard luck and helplessness at every kitchen table.
Every day, the Gallup Organization conducts interviews with 1,000 Americans about how they felt the day before. The call covers a range of topics, including state of health, economic comfort, job satisfaction, social life, optimism and worry.
It's been doing this since the beginning of the year, and the happiness index follows a definite pattern each week. Americans are happiest and most stress-free on Sunday, and their mood bottoms out on Wednesday (could that have something to do with work?).
At this writing, we have readings through Tuesday, and up to a point they're following the normal pattern. On Sunday, 57% of the respondents said they experienced a lot of happiness with little stress or worry, while only 8% were on the other end of the scale, experiencing a lot of stress and worry without much enjoyment. By Tuesday, the happy camp had shrunk to 42% and the stressed-out contingent had soared to 15%.
What was a bit different about this trend was how fast that unhappy group grew. Its Tuesday reading was well above the worst-day average for the index (based on January though May) of 11.8%.
Do these numbers have anything to do with the fact that Monday and Tuesday were the first two nights of the Democratic National Convention? We can only speculate. But we do know that, if the Democrats did not succeed in dampening the nation's spirits, it wasn't for want of trying.
The convention's list of speakers on just one day (Tuesday) included a laid-off North Carolina textile worker, an Iowa flood victim, an autoworker about to be laid off and an unemployed nurse.
Then there was Joe Biden, who on Wednesday told how he looks into the windows of homes he passes on his way home from work and sees the middle class — or should it be called the misery class? — in pain. They're wondering, he says, how to keep from freezing this winter, how to manage without a raise and how to cope as their health care, home equity and retirement dreams fade away.
Some people really are living this American nightmare. But if they're the Democrats' electoral target this year, they may turn out to be a disappointingly small group. Look at those happiness numbers again. Even on a bad day, the decidedly happy outnumber the decidedly unhappy by nearly 3 to 1. When the weekend rolls around, the contented class beats the misery class by about 7 to 1.
If the Democrats talk long enough, they might push a few more Americans into despair. But to do really well, they'll have to get worse news than the economy has been offering up lately, and they will have to overcome most Americans' natural tendency to look on the bright side. To judge from the party's rhetoric this week, optimism may be its worst enemy right now.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Think your life is going OK? If so, the Democratic convention was not for you. The party of "Happy Days Are Here Again" now sees hard luck and helplessness at every kitchen table.
Every day, the Gallup Organization conducts interviews with 1,000 Americans about how they felt the day before. The call covers a range of topics, including state of health, economic comfort, job satisfaction, social life, optimism and worry.
It's been doing this since the beginning of the year, and the happiness index follows a definite pattern each week. Americans are happiest and most stress-free on Sunday, and their mood bottoms out on Wednesday (could that have something to do with work?).
At this writing, we have readings through Tuesday, and up to a point they're following the normal pattern. On Sunday, 57% of the respondents said they experienced a lot of happiness with little stress or worry, while only 8% were on the other end of the scale, experiencing a lot of stress and worry without much enjoyment. By Tuesday, the happy camp had shrunk to 42% and the stressed-out contingent had soared to 15%.
What was a bit different about this trend was how fast that unhappy group grew. Its Tuesday reading was well above the worst-day average for the index (based on January though May) of 11.8%.
Do these numbers have anything to do with the fact that Monday and Tuesday were the first two nights of the Democratic National Convention? We can only speculate. But we do know that, if the Democrats did not succeed in dampening the nation's spirits, it wasn't for want of trying.
The convention's list of speakers on just one day (Tuesday) included a laid-off North Carolina textile worker, an Iowa flood victim, an autoworker about to be laid off and an unemployed nurse.
Then there was Joe Biden, who on Wednesday told how he looks into the windows of homes he passes on his way home from work and sees the middle class — or should it be called the misery class? — in pain. They're wondering, he says, how to keep from freezing this winter, how to manage without a raise and how to cope as their health care, home equity and retirement dreams fade away.
Some people really are living this American nightmare. But if they're the Democrats' electoral target this year, they may turn out to be a disappointingly small group. Look at those happiness numbers again. Even on a bad day, the decidedly happy outnumber the decidedly unhappy by nearly 3 to 1. When the weekend rolls around, the contented class beats the misery class by about 7 to 1.
If the Democrats talk long enough, they might push a few more Americans into despair. But to do really well, they'll have to get worse news than the economy has been offering up lately, and they will have to overcome most Americans' natural tendency to look on the bright side. To judge from the party's rhetoric this week, optimism may be its worst enemy right now.
Email To Friend |
Bust Going Boom
Bust Going Boom
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: We keep looking for the much-anticipated recession, but it doesn't seem to have gotten here yet. Could it be that many of those expecting a downturn were wrong, and the economy's not going into the tank?
Going out on a limb to predict what the economy will do is a tricky business. It's possible, though by no means likely, that the economy briefly lapsed into recession late last year or early this year, based on weak GDP data, falling home sales, rising oil prices and a jump in unemployment. We won't know for sure until months — maybe years — after it ends.
Even so, we were struck by Thursday's news that second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.9% to 3.3%, more in line with boom than bust. The consensus estimate was for 2.7% growth.
As more than one economist has noted, nearly all of that growth — some 3.1% of it — came from stronger exports, a result of the weak dollar. The rest came from inventories. Take those away, and the economy crawled at a weak 0.2% pace for the quarter.
Fair enough. But we did our own calculations. The slowdown in the economy is mainly due to one thing: housing. We indexed overall GDP to housing GDP back to 2000.
As the chart shows, it's a very stark picture. We crunched even more numbers. Since 2006, the economy minus the ailing housing sector has grown at an average 3.3% rate. Add housing back in, and GDP growth has averaged just 2.4%. So housing's collapse has cost us roughly 1% of GDP.
Housing is still weak, with sales off 35% year over year and values depreciating at double-digit rates. Banks can't boost lending much, since they're writing off old loans and have to shrink capital. This will take time.
But listening to the media and the Democrats in Denver, you'd think the economy was in a depression. Well, it's not. In fact, we're modestly optimistic. By the end of this year, all the really bad year-to-year comparisons in growth will be over. Sales and prices will start to look more normal. And the panic will leave the market.
As noted, exports have supported the economy this year. To critics, a stronger dollar means export growth will slow. Maybe so. But falling oil prices mean our import tab will also drop.
Moreover, oil demand now is falling. The Energy Department recently reported a shocking statistic that got little attention: U.S. demand in June plummeted 1.17 million barrels a day from last year, and a spokesman said prices could fall below $100 a barrel due to rising output in the U.S., Brazil and Canada.
Other data also suggest grounds for optimism. Just this week, the Census Department reported median household income hit $50,233 in 2007, after inflation, a gain of 1.6% since 2001.
Despite the slowdown in growth, the number of people without health insurance fell one million last year, while the poverty rate was unchanged at 12.5% of the population. And believe it or not, the average unemployment and poverty rates under President Bush have been slightly lower than under President Clinton.
Sure, bad things can happen. But we don't have to will them into existence. As it stands, the much anticipated recession — thanks to Bush's tax cuts and timely Fed actions — might just be a no-show.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: We keep looking for the much-anticipated recession, but it doesn't seem to have gotten here yet. Could it be that many of those expecting a downturn were wrong, and the economy's not going into the tank?
Going out on a limb to predict what the economy will do is a tricky business. It's possible, though by no means likely, that the economy briefly lapsed into recession late last year or early this year, based on weak GDP data, falling home sales, rising oil prices and a jump in unemployment. We won't know for sure until months — maybe years — after it ends.
Even so, we were struck by Thursday's news that second-quarter GDP was revised up from 1.9% to 3.3%, more in line with boom than bust. The consensus estimate was for 2.7% growth.
As more than one economist has noted, nearly all of that growth — some 3.1% of it — came from stronger exports, a result of the weak dollar. The rest came from inventories. Take those away, and the economy crawled at a weak 0.2% pace for the quarter.
Fair enough. But we did our own calculations. The slowdown in the economy is mainly due to one thing: housing. We indexed overall GDP to housing GDP back to 2000.
As the chart shows, it's a very stark picture. We crunched even more numbers. Since 2006, the economy minus the ailing housing sector has grown at an average 3.3% rate. Add housing back in, and GDP growth has averaged just 2.4%. So housing's collapse has cost us roughly 1% of GDP.
Housing is still weak, with sales off 35% year over year and values depreciating at double-digit rates. Banks can't boost lending much, since they're writing off old loans and have to shrink capital. This will take time.
But listening to the media and the Democrats in Denver, you'd think the economy was in a depression. Well, it's not. In fact, we're modestly optimistic. By the end of this year, all the really bad year-to-year comparisons in growth will be over. Sales and prices will start to look more normal. And the panic will leave the market.
As noted, exports have supported the economy this year. To critics, a stronger dollar means export growth will slow. Maybe so. But falling oil prices mean our import tab will also drop.
Moreover, oil demand now is falling. The Energy Department recently reported a shocking statistic that got little attention: U.S. demand in June plummeted 1.17 million barrels a day from last year, and a spokesman said prices could fall below $100 a barrel due to rising output in the U.S., Brazil and Canada.
Other data also suggest grounds for optimism. Just this week, the Census Department reported median household income hit $50,233 in 2007, after inflation, a gain of 1.6% since 2001.
Despite the slowdown in growth, the number of people without health insurance fell one million last year, while the poverty rate was unchanged at 12.5% of the population. And believe it or not, the average unemployment and poverty rates under President Bush have been slightly lower than under President Clinton.
Sure, bad things can happen. But we don't have to will them into existence. As it stands, the much anticipated recession — thanks to Bush's tax cuts and timely Fed actions — might just be a no-show.
Email To Friend |
Insider Report from Newsmax.com
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. CIA Denies Claims in Ron Suskind's Book
2. Democrats Could Boot Lieberman
3. Poll: Most American Would Back a Strike on Iran
4. I Never Called Hillary 'She Devil,' Chris Matthews Says
5. Democrats in Israel Angry Over N.Y. Pol’s Support for Huckabee
6. We Heard: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Michael Dukakis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CIA Denies Claims in Ron Suskind's Book
The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a sharply worded statement denying claims in Ron Suskind’s new book that it says “malign” the agency.
In "The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” Suskind alleges that President Bush ordered the CIA to forge a letter to demonstrate a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in the run-up to the Iraq war.
The statement from George Little of the CIA Office of Public Affairs reads: “In his book, ‘The Way of the World,’ author Ron Suskind makes some serious charges about the CIA and Iraq.
"As agency officers, current and former, have made clear, those charges are false. More than that, they are not in keeping with the way CIA works. In fact, they are profoundly offensive to the men and women who serve here, as they should be to all Americans.
“Suskind claims that, in September 2003, the White House ordered then-Director George Tenet to fabricate a letter describing a level of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida that simply did not exist. The White House has denied making that request, and Director Tenet has denied receiving it. The former agency officers Suskind cites in his narrative have, for their part, publicly denied being asked to carry out such a mission.
“Those denials are powerful in and of themselves. But they are also backed by a thorough, time-consuming records search within CIA and by interviews with other officers — senior and junior alike — who were directly involved in Iraq operations.
"To assert, as Suskind does, that the White House would request such a document, and that the agency would accept such a task, says something about him and nothing about us. It did not happen. Moreover, as the public record shows, CIA had concluded — and conveyed to our customers — that the ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were not as close as some believed.
“While recounting his tale, Suskind has accused the agency of violating the National Security Act. That basic law specifically prohibits covert actions ‘intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.’ CIA knows and respects the legal framework within which our democracy conducts intelligence activities.
"To state what should be obvious, it is not the policy or practice of this agency to violate American law.
“If that were not enough, Suskind also alleges that the United States knew before the start of hostilities with Iraq that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of WMD. That, too, is both false and wrong.
"False because the Intelligence Community assessed that Saddam Hussein had such weapons.
"Wrong because it implies the Community chose to ignore information of which it was genuinely convinced. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor did CIA pay or resettle Tahir Habbush, Saddam Hussein's intelligence chief. That conclusion comes from a review of our files and checks with our officers. Indeed, our government considers Habbush to be a wanted man.
“Two former senior British intelligence officers have also released statements taking issue with Suskind. They each describe his work as ‘misleading.’ CIA has made its own inquiries overseas and no one — no individual and no intelligence service — has substantiated Suskind's account of Habbush or the bogus letter. At this point, the origins of the forgery, like the whereabouts of Habbush himself, remain unclear. But this much is certain: Suskind is off the mark.
“Intelligence is a difficult profession. We are typically called upon to uncover information that the enemies of our country are most eager to conceal.
When we fall short in that tough mission, we acknowledge our errors and learn from them. We are accustomed to criticism. But Suskind goes well beyond rational critique. Frankly, those he maligns with his book deserve far better.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Democrats Could Boot Lieberman
Democrats angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s support for Republican John McCain are likely to strip him of his committee leadership if they gain several seats in the November election.
Delegates from Lieberman’s home state Connecticut demanded during the Democratic Convention that party leaders punish Lieberman, who plans to speak at the upcoming GOP convention and was even said to be on McCain’s “short list” of potential running mates.
“He’s a traitor to his party,” declared Jennifer Just, a delegate from Woodbridge, Conn.
Lieberman successfully ran as an Independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary, but he still sits in on Democratic caucus meetings.
Democrats have been reluctant to punish Lieberman for several reasons, The Hill newspaper reports.
For one thing, he has reportedly given more than $200,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to help Democratic Senate candidates win election this fall.
More significantly, if he caucused with the Republicans instead of the Democrats there would be a 50-50 split in the Senate and Vice President Dick Cheney would tip the balance of power to the GOP through his tie-breaking votes, The Hill noted.
Plus, Lieberman heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and sits on the powerful Armed Services Committee because of his association with the Democratic Conference.
However, the Congressional Quarterly predicts that Democrats could pick up five or six seats in November, and if that is the case, the party won’t need Lieberman’s vote to hold a majority.
“I can’t wait until we expand our majority in the Senate so he can be stripped of his committee,” said delegate Just.
And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that Democrats “won’t need him to make the majority. And it will be interesting to see what the leadership in the Senate, the Democratic leadership in the Senate, does at that point in terms of Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship of his committee.”
Lieberman’s fellow Connecticut senator, Chris Dodd, said that while Lieberman agrees with McCain’s policy on the Iraq war, he otherwise agrees with Democrats on “95 percent” of issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Poll: Most Americans Would Back a Strike on Iran
More than 6 in 10 Americans — 63 percent — say they would approve of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis, a new poll reveals.
Somewhat fewer, 55 percent, would approve of a strike on Iran by the U.S. and its allies, according to the poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
A solid 80 percent of those polled said Iran would likely use nuclear weapons if it acquired them.
Also, 87 percent of American voters believe a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the U.S.
Americans worry about the direct threat to Israel from Iran “and fear Iran’s potential to share nuclear technology with terrorist groups,” Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research told the Jerusalem Post.
However, 62 percent of respondents feel it is still possible to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
That is the approach the Bush administration currently favors.
“Everyone from this White House, including the vice president’s office, is in agreement that the military action is not the best option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic and economic pressures,” an American official told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
But Ignatius added that if the diplomatic track does not work, “and there are no signs yet that Tehran is willing to bend, all the deadly options will remain on the table.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. I Never Called Hillary 'She Devil,' Chris Matthews Says
There’s no doubt that “Hardball” host Chris Matthews used the expression “she devil” when talking about Hillary Clinton — but he insists he never called her that.
On the Nov. 18 telecast of the NBC-syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” the host discussed Republican attacks on Hillary, who was then the Democratic presidential front-runner.
“She devil?” he said, “Republicans are absolutely demonizing Hillary Clinton.”
While he spoke, an image of Hillary appeared on screen with the words “She Devil?” below it. Later, an image of Clinton with devil horns appeared on screen.
Paul Bedard observed in U.S. News & World Report’s “Washington Whispers” column that Matthews, who has been mulling a run for the Senate in 2010, was “concerned he ruined it with the women vote.”
But Matthews now tells Bedard: “I never called her a she devil . . . You can see it is where we introduce the topics to the show.”
He claims Media Matters for America took the expression out of context.
“This stuff has been cooked up,” he said.
Media Matters spokesman J. Jioni Palmer retorted that Matthews has a pattern of “sexist comments.”
Matthews’ mouth got him into trouble back in February 2007 when he used “the f-word” while referring to President Bush’s ranch during an appearance on the “Imus in the Morning” show.
This past January he stirred up protests when he said the reason Hillary was a senator and candidate for president “is that her husband messed around.”
Feminist leader Gloria Steinem and the heads of four prominent women’s groups complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Democrats in Israel Angry Over N.Y. Pol’s Support for Huckabee
Democrats living in Israel have criticized longtime New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind for crossing party lines to express support for Republican Mike Huckabee.
At a recent press conference in Jerusalem, Democrat Hikind jokingly announced that he endorsed Huckabee for president, and Huckabee said he wished he enjoyed such support from more Republicans, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
Joanne Yaron, chairwoman of Democrats Abroad Israel, said she is puzzled by the ties between Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, and Hikind, a former follower of Jewish extremist Meir Kahane.
Hikind — who represents a Brooklyn district with a large population of Orthodox Jews — has said he has “no regrets” regarding his involvement with Kahane, according to Haaretz. An Orthodox Jew himself, Hikind took office in 1983 and hosts a weekly radio program.
Hikind and Huckabee visited Israel at the invitation of the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, a foundation working to move Jews into Jerusalem’s Muslim Quarter.
Hikind said at the press conference that while “everyone says Jerusalem shouldn’t be divided,” Huckabee is the only one “who really means it.”
This is not the first time Hikind has broken ranks with Democrats. He supported Republican George Pataki for governor in New York, and George W. Bush for president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. We Heard . . .
THAT John Edwards’ admission that he had an extramarital affair damaged a Texas congressman’s chances of becoming Barack Obama’s running mate on the Democratic ticket.
Rep. Chet Edwards — no relation to John — was on Obama’s “short list” of potential vice presidential candidates up until the time Edwards confirmed a tabloid’s report that he had an affair with videographer Rielle Hunter, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
Chet Edwards said, “I would have to think that a bumper sticker that said, ‘Obama/The Other Edwards’ might have been a bit difficult.”
THAT Barack Obama risked alienating Chicago Cubs fans when he questioned their enthusiasm for the team at its home park, Wrigley Field.
Asked who he would root for if the Cubs faced their rivals from Chicago‘s South Side, the White Sox, in the World Series, Obama said: “Oh, that’s easy. White Sox . . . You go to Wrigley Field, you have a beer, beautiful people up there. People aren’t watching the game. It’s not serious. White Sox, that’s baseball. South Side.”
THAT Michael Dukakis has “apologized” for losing the 1988 presidential race to George H.W. Bush, saying if he’d won, George W. Bush would never have been elected president.
During an interview with “CBS Evening News” anchor Katie Couric on Tuesday, Dukakis said: “Look, I owe the American people an apology. If I had beaten the old man you [would have] never heard of the kid and you wouldn’t be in this mess. So it’s all my fault and I feel that very, very strongly.”
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. CIA Denies Claims in Ron Suskind's Book
2. Democrats Could Boot Lieberman
3. Poll: Most American Would Back a Strike on Iran
4. I Never Called Hillary 'She Devil,' Chris Matthews Says
5. Democrats in Israel Angry Over N.Y. Pol’s Support for Huckabee
6. We Heard: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Michael Dukakis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CIA Denies Claims in Ron Suskind's Book
The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a sharply worded statement denying claims in Ron Suskind’s new book that it says “malign” the agency.
In "The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” Suskind alleges that President Bush ordered the CIA to forge a letter to demonstrate a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in the run-up to the Iraq war.
The statement from George Little of the CIA Office of Public Affairs reads: “In his book, ‘The Way of the World,’ author Ron Suskind makes some serious charges about the CIA and Iraq.
"As agency officers, current and former, have made clear, those charges are false. More than that, they are not in keeping with the way CIA works. In fact, they are profoundly offensive to the men and women who serve here, as they should be to all Americans.
“Suskind claims that, in September 2003, the White House ordered then-Director George Tenet to fabricate a letter describing a level of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida that simply did not exist. The White House has denied making that request, and Director Tenet has denied receiving it. The former agency officers Suskind cites in his narrative have, for their part, publicly denied being asked to carry out such a mission.
“Those denials are powerful in and of themselves. But they are also backed by a thorough, time-consuming records search within CIA and by interviews with other officers — senior and junior alike — who were directly involved in Iraq operations.
"To assert, as Suskind does, that the White House would request such a document, and that the agency would accept such a task, says something about him and nothing about us. It did not happen. Moreover, as the public record shows, CIA had concluded — and conveyed to our customers — that the ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were not as close as some believed.
“While recounting his tale, Suskind has accused the agency of violating the National Security Act. That basic law specifically prohibits covert actions ‘intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.’ CIA knows and respects the legal framework within which our democracy conducts intelligence activities.
"To state what should be obvious, it is not the policy or practice of this agency to violate American law.
“If that were not enough, Suskind also alleges that the United States knew before the start of hostilities with Iraq that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of WMD. That, too, is both false and wrong.
"False because the Intelligence Community assessed that Saddam Hussein had such weapons.
"Wrong because it implies the Community chose to ignore information of which it was genuinely convinced. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor did CIA pay or resettle Tahir Habbush, Saddam Hussein's intelligence chief. That conclusion comes from a review of our files and checks with our officers. Indeed, our government considers Habbush to be a wanted man.
“Two former senior British intelligence officers have also released statements taking issue with Suskind. They each describe his work as ‘misleading.’ CIA has made its own inquiries overseas and no one — no individual and no intelligence service — has substantiated Suskind's account of Habbush or the bogus letter. At this point, the origins of the forgery, like the whereabouts of Habbush himself, remain unclear. But this much is certain: Suskind is off the mark.
“Intelligence is a difficult profession. We are typically called upon to uncover information that the enemies of our country are most eager to conceal.
When we fall short in that tough mission, we acknowledge our errors and learn from them. We are accustomed to criticism. But Suskind goes well beyond rational critique. Frankly, those he maligns with his book deserve far better.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Democrats Could Boot Lieberman
Democrats angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s support for Republican John McCain are likely to strip him of his committee leadership if they gain several seats in the November election.
Delegates from Lieberman’s home state Connecticut demanded during the Democratic Convention that party leaders punish Lieberman, who plans to speak at the upcoming GOP convention and was even said to be on McCain’s “short list” of potential running mates.
“He’s a traitor to his party,” declared Jennifer Just, a delegate from Woodbridge, Conn.
Lieberman successfully ran as an Independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary, but he still sits in on Democratic caucus meetings.
Democrats have been reluctant to punish Lieberman for several reasons, The Hill newspaper reports.
For one thing, he has reportedly given more than $200,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to help Democratic Senate candidates win election this fall.
More significantly, if he caucused with the Republicans instead of the Democrats there would be a 50-50 split in the Senate and Vice President Dick Cheney would tip the balance of power to the GOP through his tie-breaking votes, The Hill noted.
Plus, Lieberman heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and sits on the powerful Armed Services Committee because of his association with the Democratic Conference.
However, the Congressional Quarterly predicts that Democrats could pick up five or six seats in November, and if that is the case, the party won’t need Lieberman’s vote to hold a majority.
“I can’t wait until we expand our majority in the Senate so he can be stripped of his committee,” said delegate Just.
And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that Democrats “won’t need him to make the majority. And it will be interesting to see what the leadership in the Senate, the Democratic leadership in the Senate, does at that point in terms of Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship of his committee.”
Lieberman’s fellow Connecticut senator, Chris Dodd, said that while Lieberman agrees with McCain’s policy on the Iraq war, he otherwise agrees with Democrats on “95 percent” of issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Poll: Most Americans Would Back a Strike on Iran
More than 6 in 10 Americans — 63 percent — say they would approve of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis, a new poll reveals.
Somewhat fewer, 55 percent, would approve of a strike on Iran by the U.S. and its allies, according to the poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
A solid 80 percent of those polled said Iran would likely use nuclear weapons if it acquired them.
Also, 87 percent of American voters believe a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the U.S.
Americans worry about the direct threat to Israel from Iran “and fear Iran’s potential to share nuclear technology with terrorist groups,” Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research told the Jerusalem Post.
However, 62 percent of respondents feel it is still possible to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
That is the approach the Bush administration currently favors.
“Everyone from this White House, including the vice president’s office, is in agreement that the military action is not the best option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic and economic pressures,” an American official told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
But Ignatius added that if the diplomatic track does not work, “and there are no signs yet that Tehran is willing to bend, all the deadly options will remain on the table.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. I Never Called Hillary 'She Devil,' Chris Matthews Says
There’s no doubt that “Hardball” host Chris Matthews used the expression “she devil” when talking about Hillary Clinton — but he insists he never called her that.
On the Nov. 18 telecast of the NBC-syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” the host discussed Republican attacks on Hillary, who was then the Democratic presidential front-runner.
“She devil?” he said, “Republicans are absolutely demonizing Hillary Clinton.”
While he spoke, an image of Hillary appeared on screen with the words “She Devil?” below it. Later, an image of Clinton with devil horns appeared on screen.
Paul Bedard observed in U.S. News & World Report’s “Washington Whispers” column that Matthews, who has been mulling a run for the Senate in 2010, was “concerned he ruined it with the women vote.”
But Matthews now tells Bedard: “I never called her a she devil . . . You can see it is where we introduce the topics to the show.”
He claims Media Matters for America took the expression out of context.
“This stuff has been cooked up,” he said.
Media Matters spokesman J. Jioni Palmer retorted that Matthews has a pattern of “sexist comments.”
Matthews’ mouth got him into trouble back in February 2007 when he used “the f-word” while referring to President Bush’s ranch during an appearance on the “Imus in the Morning” show.
This past January he stirred up protests when he said the reason Hillary was a senator and candidate for president “is that her husband messed around.”
Feminist leader Gloria Steinem and the heads of four prominent women’s groups complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Democrats in Israel Angry Over N.Y. Pol’s Support for Huckabee
Democrats living in Israel have criticized longtime New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind for crossing party lines to express support for Republican Mike Huckabee.
At a recent press conference in Jerusalem, Democrat Hikind jokingly announced that he endorsed Huckabee for president, and Huckabee said he wished he enjoyed such support from more Republicans, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
Joanne Yaron, chairwoman of Democrats Abroad Israel, said she is puzzled by the ties between Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, and Hikind, a former follower of Jewish extremist Meir Kahane.
Hikind — who represents a Brooklyn district with a large population of Orthodox Jews — has said he has “no regrets” regarding his involvement with Kahane, according to Haaretz. An Orthodox Jew himself, Hikind took office in 1983 and hosts a weekly radio program.
Hikind and Huckabee visited Israel at the invitation of the Jerusalem Reclamation Project, a foundation working to move Jews into Jerusalem’s Muslim Quarter.
Hikind said at the press conference that while “everyone says Jerusalem shouldn’t be divided,” Huckabee is the only one “who really means it.”
This is not the first time Hikind has broken ranks with Democrats. He supported Republican George Pataki for governor in New York, and George W. Bush for president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. We Heard . . .
THAT John Edwards’ admission that he had an extramarital affair damaged a Texas congressman’s chances of becoming Barack Obama’s running mate on the Democratic ticket.
Rep. Chet Edwards — no relation to John — was on Obama’s “short list” of potential vice presidential candidates up until the time Edwards confirmed a tabloid’s report that he had an affair with videographer Rielle Hunter, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
Chet Edwards said, “I would have to think that a bumper sticker that said, ‘Obama/The Other Edwards’ might have been a bit difficult.”
THAT Barack Obama risked alienating Chicago Cubs fans when he questioned their enthusiasm for the team at its home park, Wrigley Field.
Asked who he would root for if the Cubs faced their rivals from Chicago‘s South Side, the White Sox, in the World Series, Obama said: “Oh, that’s easy. White Sox . . . You go to Wrigley Field, you have a beer, beautiful people up there. People aren’t watching the game. It’s not serious. White Sox, that’s baseball. South Side.”
THAT Michael Dukakis has “apologized” for losing the 1988 presidential race to George H.W. Bush, saying if he’d won, George W. Bush would never have been elected president.
During an interview with “CBS Evening News” anchor Katie Couric on Tuesday, Dukakis said: “Look, I owe the American people an apology. If I had beaten the old man you [would have] never heard of the kid and you wouldn’t be in this mess. So it’s all my fault and I feel that very, very strongly.”
August 28, 2008
Obama Stage Will Look Like Temple
Obama Stage Will Look Like Temple
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:40 AM
DENVER — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.
The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos' National Football League team plays.
Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington's Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party's nomination for president.
He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.
The show should provide a striking image for the millions of Americans watching on television as Obama delivers a speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination.
Politicians in past elections have typically spoken from the convention site itself, but the Obama campaign liked the idea of having their man speak to a larger, stadium-sized crowd not far from where the Democratic National Convention is being held, at the Denver pro basketball arena.
Obama was taking a page from the campaign book of John Kennedy in 1960 when the future president delivered his acceptance speech to 80,000 people in the Los Angeles Coliseum.
Once Obama speaks, confetti will rain down on him and fireworks will be fired off from locations around the stadium wall.
Democratic convention organizers said the theme for the evening is "Change We Can Believe In," which has been a consistent message of Obama's presidential campaign.
Oscar-winning actress and singer Jennifer Hudson will sing the national anthem that night.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:40 AM
DENVER — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.
The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos' National Football League team plays.
Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington's Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party's nomination for president.
He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.
The show should provide a striking image for the millions of Americans watching on television as Obama delivers a speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination.
Politicians in past elections have typically spoken from the convention site itself, but the Obama campaign liked the idea of having their man speak to a larger, stadium-sized crowd not far from where the Democratic National Convention is being held, at the Denver pro basketball arena.
Obama was taking a page from the campaign book of John Kennedy in 1960 when the future president delivered his acceptance speech to 80,000 people in the Los Angeles Coliseum.
Once Obama speaks, confetti will rain down on him and fireworks will be fired off from locations around the stadium wall.
Democratic convention organizers said the theme for the evening is "Change We Can Believe In," which has been a consistent message of Obama's presidential campaign.
Oscar-winning actress and singer Jennifer Hudson will sing the national anthem that night.
Don Imus: Obama an 'Empty Suit and a Phony'
McCain's VP? Lieberman? Romney? Ridge? Vote Here Now
Don Imus: Obama an 'Empty Suit and a Phony'
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:18 PM
By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
Nationally syndicated talk radio host Don Imus says he will back John McCain for president because Barack Obama is “an empty suit and a phony."
Imus, appearing on Monday's Fox News broadcast of "Your World with Neil Cavuto," said, "I have personal experience at that. When I made my remarks about the Rutgers basketball team, which was mean-spirited and directed at people who did not deserve to be made fun of — and was not funny — I apologized for that. I didn't offer any lame excuses, [but] he refused to place into context either my life … or any of the work that I had done in my life," Imus said.
"As I pointed out to Al Sharpton, I slept in the house here at the ranch with more black children who are not related to me than either one of them [the Obamas] ever have. And then when this psychopath Rev. Wright shoots his mouth off, and I wasn't serious, [but] he was serious making outrageous reprehensible remarks."
Imus continued, “The first thing Senator Obama asked all of us to do was to place this clown’s life in perspective and to consider the context. That's nonsense. I don't detest Senator Obama at all, I just think he’s disingenuous and a phony.”
Imus poked fun at the current Democratic National convention asking, “Why do the Democrats invite every loser — Dukakis and Gore and John Kerry and Clinton — hanging around to remind everybody that here is another guy who couldn't get it done. I don't get that. It just reminds us that it’s been one disastrous campaign after another.”
As for McCain, Imus said he thinks the Arizona senator “has the potential to be a president in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and I love the guy.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Don Imus: Obama an 'Empty Suit and a Phony'
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:18 PM
By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
Nationally syndicated talk radio host Don Imus says he will back John McCain for president because Barack Obama is “an empty suit and a phony."
Imus, appearing on Monday's Fox News broadcast of "Your World with Neil Cavuto," said, "I have personal experience at that. When I made my remarks about the Rutgers basketball team, which was mean-spirited and directed at people who did not deserve to be made fun of — and was not funny — I apologized for that. I didn't offer any lame excuses, [but] he refused to place into context either my life … or any of the work that I had done in my life," Imus said.
"As I pointed out to Al Sharpton, I slept in the house here at the ranch with more black children who are not related to me than either one of them [the Obamas] ever have. And then when this psychopath Rev. Wright shoots his mouth off, and I wasn't serious, [but] he was serious making outrageous reprehensible remarks."
Imus continued, “The first thing Senator Obama asked all of us to do was to place this clown’s life in perspective and to consider the context. That's nonsense. I don't detest Senator Obama at all, I just think he’s disingenuous and a phony.”
Imus poked fun at the current Democratic National convention asking, “Why do the Democrats invite every loser — Dukakis and Gore and John Kerry and Clinton — hanging around to remind everybody that here is another guy who couldn't get it done. I don't get that. It just reminds us that it’s been one disastrous campaign after another.”
As for McCain, Imus said he thinks the Arizona senator “has the potential to be a president in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and I love the guy.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
