Saturday, August 23, 2008

It's Biden!

The AP is reporting that Joe Biden will be Obama's VP nominee. Obama's campaign said they will start sending the text messages out around 5am tomorrow morning. I thought those people were suppose to know before everyone else. Of course I've had this nailed for months. Although I never thought to post it here so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. I predicted that Obama would pick Biden months ago. The reason Obama needed national security credentials. Of course this is a double edged sword for the Freshman Senator. By picking Biden, Obama basically admits he's weak on national security. This of course gives the McCain camp lots of ammunition.

I have a couple more VP profiles to write. After I finish those I'll let you know who I think the Republican VP nominee should be.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Obama says he's made his choice and he's not telling.

In other words, na na a boo-boo I know something you don't know. “I did say that I’ve made the selection and that’s all you’re going to get,” He also said, "Wouldn't you like to know?" to reporters in Virginia when asked who it was.

I don't know, but it seems like aggravating the press might not be the best strategy. Also maybe it's comments like those that make it easy to paint him as a egomanical know-it-all elitest snob. Either that or a five year old. It can be hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Panic Sets in, Media Clamors for Hillary as Veep

For more by Scott Martin, go to Conservatism Today.

They know I'm right. And now Obama's media cheerleaders have come to the conclusion that the Messiah needs a savior, and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Anderson Cooper nears this conclusion in his piece yesterday at

Still, this should be a huge wake-up call to Obama and the Democrats. From my perspective, Obama needs to introduce a game changer — and fast — before public opinion starts to gel around the notion that he is a phenom who deserves great respect but is not seasoned enough and would be too much of a risk in the Oval Office.

In part, he needs to change the narrative of the campaign — away from the notion that the biggest single problem facing the country — the “transcendent” threat of our time, as McCain argues — is terrorism... Either Democrats persuade the country why they should now take charge or perhaps they aren’t ready to govern after all.

But it can’t stop there. Obama must also introduce a game changer

through the way he signals who will be in the Oval Office with him. After all, no president governs all by himself; the success or failure of an administration also rests heavily on the team he assembles to work at his side.

If he were to surprise the country — and the press — by naming Hillary Clinton as his running mate, he could turn the race upside down... No one else would so galvanize the Democrats, bring a fighter to his side, and send a clear message that an Obama administration would bring experience to solving problems both at home and abroad. Has anyone looked what happened to jobs and wages under Bush vs. Clinton? The comparison is startling. And remember that a quarter of Hillary’s voters still haven’t “come home” to the Democratic column.

Cooper is, I believe, correct that this would be a game-changer. But does anyone think Obama can swallow his significant pride and ask her to join him? Don't forget, he'd be getting Bill too. I wouldn't put anything past someone as greedy for power as Obama is, but this is highly doubtful in my book.

Meanwhile, Margery Eagan of the Boston Herald comes to the same conclusion:

Hillary’s marauding women may be vindicated yet.

The tide has turned for The Precious, The One, The Eloquent and Elegant and Lithe and Liquid and Cool as a Cucumber - except for those unfortunate stick legs (which explain the sweats on the basketball court).

What happened to Obama’s Midas touch? Was it overkill at Coronation Berlin? The tongue-tied orator this weekend uh-uh-uh-ing before the evangelicals at Saddleback Church, his stumbles replayed all over the Internet? I watched and felt - how could this be? - like I was watching a George Bush press conference, sweating it out and wondering, “Oh no! Doesn’t he know the answer to the question?”

The best part of this is seeing all the buyer's remorse some of his biggest backers are going through.

I can’t say I have Obama remorse. Yet. But I’m nervous. How did he get so annoying? I wish he’d save nuance and sanctimony for senior seminars; give America some straight answers; crack some jokes at his own high-horse expense; convince me he’s up to this and soothe my furrowed, fretful brow.

That’s what McCain’s done lately. It’s working.

When a big-time Obama backer is wondering how the candidate became so annoying, things are going in the right direction.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Six Reasons Michael Moore is a Clueless, Leftist Moonbat

For more by Scott Martin, visit Conservatism Today.

Noted political analyst, Marxist and propagandist Michael Moore finally weighed in with his advice to the Obama camp. In a piece entitled "
How the Democrats can blow it, In six easy steps," the communist sympathizer details how Obama could lose what Moore calls the "most winnable presidential election in American history." (What does that even mean? Haven't all presidential elections been exactly 100% winnable by somebody?) Ignoring the fact that I don't think much can save Obama at this point, (which I will detail soon in a post I'm working on called "10 Reasons Obama Will Lose in November") let's take a look at the genius at work. I'm going to give the reader credit and avoid liberal use of the Sarcasm
tag, but just pretend it's all over.

1. Keep saying nice things about McCain.
2. Pick a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican.
3. Keep writing speeches for Obama that make him sound like a hawk
4. Forget that this was a historic year for women.
5. Show up to a gunfight with a peashooter.
6. Denounce me!

Remember, these are how Obama can lose, according to Moore. On the first one, I think Moore is right, Obama needs to start being meaner to McCain. He should start referring to him as "old man" during their dabates, as in "don't tell me what America should be doing, old man." College kids love other defiant youths who don't take any guff from The Man. He could add a "John McCain is so white..." comic routine to his stump speeches. That would go over well with his core audience, and certainly wouldn't upset anyone. And Moore is right when he says he shouldn't note that McCain is a war hero. Instead he should rip McCain for not being smart and courageous enough to avoid being taken as a POW.

Moore's second tip is equally profound. Obama must pick a leftist woman, preferably one of color. Unfortunately, most female, black, leftist politicians are considered outright moonbats by most of America, so he probably needs to suck it up and pick a white woman. Two come to mind immediately. There is Arizona's governor Janet Napolitano, who would shore up his illegal immigrant vote. But I'm thinking he already has that demographic pretty well sewn up. So my choice is anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan. Picking Sheehan would make Speaker Pelosi eternally grateful, as she would get to avoid trying to out-leftist Sheehan in a run for her house seat. This would also allow him to make inexperience his ticket's main positive. If you really want to run against McCain as "Bush's 3rd term," nothing would do it like this. Imagine VP candidate Sheehan stalking Bush at his ranch, threatening to starve herself to death until we leave both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Third, Moore again hits the nail on the head. Barack Obama needs to be making speeches that make him out to be the peacenik hippie that he always wished he could be.Along with this, he needs to quit bathing. If he hasn't already won the Europeans over, this would do the trick. It's a well-known fact that American voters in time of war love politicians with no military experience, foreign policy experience, and who just want to allow everyone to live in peace and happiness.

Point four is obvious. Obama's constituency demands that all people be defined by their race, sex, ethnicity, income level, education, etc. But Moore doesn't stop here, he brilliantly notes how Michelle Obama needs to be made a front-and-center piece of his election campaign.

Michelle Obama has been one of the most refreshing things about this election year. But within weeks of the end of the primary season, the handlers stepped in to deal
with the "Michelle problem."

What problem? She speaks her mind? She wears what she wants? Her biggest sin, according to the punditocracy, was to say that, as a black woman, this may be the first time in her adult life she's been really proud of her country. Shock! Surprise!
Outrage! But not from any of the black women I know.

Yes, Americans love rich women who have received every possible benefit in their adult lives due to the color of their skin. And the fact that she emerged from this experience bitter and disparaging of her country makes her an exceptional voice for all those down-trodden people who are only able to earn a few hundred thousand dollars per year, and only because of who their husband is.

The fifth one is equally genius.

As they smear you, your family, your religious beliefs — cower, back down, go on the defensive.
If they say you should quit your church, quit your church! If they explode over your speaking the truth about the anger and despair of the white working class, take it all back!

Obama should immediately return to his church. Heck, going back to number three, he could quickly dump Cindy Sheehan and name Reverend Wright as his vice president. And he should embrace his comments about middle Americans bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. In fact, he could point to his wife as a shining example of how to make bitterly clinging to your religion work for you, with no need for guns. It takes a true warrior to cling to their bitterness without the aid of a machine gun.

Finally, by all means, he should embrace Michael Moore's support. I almost fell off the chair when I read this:

I remember poor John Kerry not even being able to admit, when asked by Larry King, if he had seen Fahrenheit 9/11. "No," he said, "I haven't. . . . I don't plan to, right now." But he had indeed
seen it. I sat there watching him say this, and I just felt sorry for him and for the election he was about to lose...

So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected.
Because when you denounce me, it's not really me you're distancing
yourself from — it's the millions upon millions of people who
feel the same way about things as I do. And many of them are the
kind of crazy voters who have no problem voting for a Nader just to
prove a point.
I love how Moore accurately depicts people who like his views as people who are crazy enough to vote for Ralph Nadar. It's probably the truest thing he said in the whole piece.

If Barack Obama has any hope left of winning in November, we can only hope he heeds Moore's advice.

Monday, August 18, 2008

How the tax system works.

I've seen this other places but I'll give the Hat Tip to The General Ledger You may have seen this before, but it's worth reading it again to remember the lesson.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beerand the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.So, that's what they decided to do.The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemedquite happy with the arrangement, until one day,the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers, he said,'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyonewould get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is$3.33.But if they subtracted that from everybody's share,then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end upbeing paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughlythe same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six were better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20.', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! ''That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks! ''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor! 'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is some what friendlier.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Is it now the G-7.

Sec of State Condalezza Rice just refered to the G-7. Could this mean the Russia is going to be kicked out of the G-8? I would expect other sanctions has the situation moves forward. I will look into this further later tonight.