Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘elections’

Deep-rooted narcissism

Posted by Richard on July 31, 2008

Bob Bidinotto:

When it gets so bad that late-night comics like David Letterman and Jon Stewart are making sport of him, you'd think that Obama's handlers would be trying to do something about it.

But the problem with deep-rooted narcissism is that it can't be disguised or controlled; arrogance is so much part of the narcissist's psychological makeup that he simply cannot help but find new, almost daily, forms and forums in which to express it. Here is Obama's latest gaffe, which has already become the target of MSM, talk-radio, and blogger mockery:

Stumping in an economically challenged battleground state, Obama argued Wednesday that President Bush and McCain will resort to scare tactics to maintain their hold on the White House because they have little else to offer voters.

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

"…all those other presidents on the dollar bills"? Did we miss something? Have we already had that election?…

No wonder that the David Letterman audience exploded with laughter the other night when, in a list of "Top Ten Reasons Why Barack Obama May be Over-Confident About the Election," reason number six was: "Getting his head measured for Mt. Rushmore."

… Hubris has dashed the lofty dreams of more than one Democratic candidate, despite weak Republican opponents — and given the latest polls, it appears that it is setting off alarm bells with the electorate this year, too.

The problem for Obama is that megalomania is so much a part of him that there's probably not a damned thing he can do to hide it. So, I'm sure the gaffes will continue, every time he speaks without the discipline of a text prepared for him by others

Obama thinks some people are "scared" of him because of how he looks. But a lot of us are turned off (not "scared") because of how he sounds — like a slightly less stiff, more pigmented version of John Kerry.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 16 Comments »

Watch this!

Posted by Richard on July 27, 2008

David Aitken has finally ended his long hiatus from posting (and hopefully he'll be posting more regularly again; he has a knack for finding good stuff).

I guess David thought this was just too good not to share. And he's right! 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Hope for Venezuela

Posted by Richard on December 3, 2007

Venezuela's voters have rejected Hugo Chavez's attempt to become the next Fidel Castro of Latin America:

CARACAS, Venezuela: Voters in Venezuela defeated a contentious referendum that would have given President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced early Monday.

The results were a stunning defeat for a leader who was trying to extend already broad powers and lead his country in a radical new direction.

The commission said 50.7 percent voted against the referendum and 49.3 percent voted in favor. The results were all the more surprising given that Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power.

"The result is quarrelsome," Vice President Jorge Rodríguez said in comments broadcast on national television.

Opposition leaders were more upbeat. "Tonight, Venezuela has won," said Manuel Rosales, governor of Zulia State and the opposition's candidate in presidential elections last year.

Chavez's many high-profile American supporters, including Sean Penn, Naomi Campbell, Danny Glover, and Kevin Spacey, don't seem to have helped him. Asshats. 

All the pre-election polls not paid for by the Chavez regime indicated about a 10-point advantage for the "No" vote, so the narrow loss suggests that the actual results were so overwhelmingly anti-Chavez that the usual cheating couldn't fully offset them. Even though representatives of the "No" side were apparently prevented from witnessing the vote counting. I credit Jimmy Carter, who in 2000 and especially in 2004 legitimized what were clearly fraudulent election results. This time, he was absent. Thank you, Mr. Carter (you contemptible POS). 

For now, there is hope that Venezuela will avoid becoming yet another Stalinist state. Assuming Chavez allows these results to stand. For the latest news, check out The Devil's Excrement, Venezuela News and Views, and Caracas Chronicles.

Bravo! 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Fred’s different, and that’s good

Posted by Richard on September 8, 2007

Stephen Green observed that Fred Thompson's announcement on Leno was somewhat anticlimactic, given all the hype surrounding his non-candidacy, and then added:

UPDATE: Down in the comments, Frank Martin says, "I get the feeling watching Fred that he would drop out of the race tommorow if you showed up fishing pole in hand with a 5lb folgers coffee can full of nightcrawlers."

I get the same feeling, Frank.

Me, too. But I like that about him. It certainly makes getting elected harder, but I'm much more comfortable with a presidential candidate who doesn't lust after the power quite as much as most do. The ones who've devoted every waking moment since they were eleven to achieving the presidency, like John Effin' Kerry, give me the creeps.

OTOH, Thompson's political experience was as a senator. Senators are generally self-important windbags full of opinions and ideas, but completely lacking the skills needed to implement their ideas, or direct others, or run large organizations. (Representatives are the same, only less self-important and more everything else.)

OTOOH, Thompson's a Hollywood actor, and that worked out pretty well last time. 

I dunno. They all suck to some degree. But don't they always? Next spring, maybe it'll become clearer who sucks the least.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

GOP fundraising surprise

Posted by Richard on July 7, 2007

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the 2008 presidential race yet. Maybe I'm just being an old fuddy-duddy, but I think the 2008 election campaign belongs in 2008. So I've studiously avoided watching any of the already numerous "debates" the two major parties have held, and what I know of the various campaigns is pretty much limited to what I hear on a newscast or see when skimming the headline news stories.

But yesterday, Doug Mataconis at The Liberty Papers pointed out a bit of political news that caught my attention: The Ron Paul campaign has more money in the bank than John McCain. In terms of campaign cash, Paul is in third place (albeit a distant third) behind Giuliani and Romney.

It wasn't that long ago that many "experts" considered McCain practically a shoe-in for the nomination. Now, his campaign seems to be in free-fall. Good. I've never liked McCain, who's always struck me as an authoritarian at heart with a bullying and vindictive streak. And the Incumbency Protection Act, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, is just one his many sins that I can't forgive. 

I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul's relative success. I'd sure like to see him promote a return to small-government Republicanism and spark a revival of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. But I'm afraid he's spending most of his time and money talking about Iraq, because that's what gets him news coverage and attracts eager volunteers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Sarkozy elected

Posted by Richard on May 6, 2007

Nicolas Sarkozy easily won France's presidential election today, despite his Socialist opponent's warning to voters that electing Sarkozy would lead to violence in the streets (which reminded me of the ominous American leftist slogan, "No Justice, No Peace"). Voter turnout was the highest in decades.

The AP reporter has trouble hiding her disappointment that a pro-American, anti-Socialist won, describing Sarkozy as "a charismatic but divisive figure known for uncompromising, even brutal language." I suppose that's a reference to his calling the rioters who burned 10,000 cars in 2005 "scum," when the preferred term was "poor youths lacking jobs and hope."

No news reports ever, ever characterized these "youths" any more precisely than that, so no one knows if they shared anything else in common — say, a religion. Of peace. But curiously, the same youths with their purely economic grievances also vandalized numerous synagogues and Jewish cemetaries, and quite a few Jews were attacked in the streets.

Charles Johnson is conducting a poll at LGF, asking readers to predict how many cars will be torched because of Sarkozy's victory. Due to the time difference, if you wait just a few more hours, you may be able to eliminate one or two of the answers. 

UPDATE: Car torchings, rioting, and general mayhem by "disaffected youths" broke out in Paris, Marseilles, and other French cities, but there aren't a lot of news stories about it. LGF has some news and links, and some burning car pictures. Maybe you should just go to the main page and keep reading. 

In addition to some good news updates, Pajamas Media can lay claim to the best damn headline possible for this event:

C'est le Matin en France

 I laughed out loud and got a tear in my eye simultaneously. It just doesn't get any better. (HT: Instapundit)

UPDATE: They've "updated" the story at Pajamas Media (by ripping out what was there before), and in the process discarded their marvelous headline. I hate it when they do that. Especially moronic in this instance — that was a classic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Sarkozy — hope for France?

Posted by Richard on May 2, 2007

(UPDATE, 5/6: He won easily . Vive la France!) 

France's run-off election is Sunday, May 6, and polling data from last weekend showed center-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy with a 53%-47% lead over Socialist Ségolène Royal. If Sarkozy wins, and if he lives up to his promise and holds true to his own rhetoric, he just may pull France out of its death spiral. I sincerely hope so — I've done my share of good-humored France-bashing, but it saddens me to see what's been happening to that once-great country.

Sarkozy may not be a Thatcher or Reagan, but he's as close as the French have come in quite a long time — a Gallic Thatcher who just may be able to snatch France back from the socialist decay and decline and the social disintegration that have all been accelerating in recent years. He recently pointed the finger of blame for France's woes directly at aging 60s radicals and their intellectual heirs:

A week before the climax of France's presidential election, Nicolas Sarkozy, the neo-Gaullist favourite, yesterday delivered a striking show of force as he attacked the leftwing "heirs of May 1968" in the biggest rally of the campaign so far.

Mr Sarkozy blamed the "moral crisis" in France today – including violent crime, rebellious youth, lazy benefit claimants, uncontrolled immigration and corrupt company bosses – on the social revolution sparked by student protests in the French capital almost 40 years ago.

He presented himself as the "candidate of the people" and listed his values as "justice, effort, work, merit and reward".

Mr Sarkozy blamed "May '68" for eroding the moral values of capitalism and said this had contributed to the current controversy over failed company bosses receiving big "golden parachutes". "The heirs of May '68 have undermined the values of citizenship," he said. The biggest cheer came as he quoted Ms Royal's reaction to the riots by hundreds of youths in Paris's Gare du Nord train station last month, which she blamed on "a gulf between the youth and the police".

At times, Sarkozy is downright inspiring and, well, Reaganesque. Take, for example, a speech he made in London earlier this year to French expatriates:

Standing in the heart of the financial district, Sarkozy heaped compliments upon his country's historic enemy. The British capital was, he said, a "town that seems more and more prosperous and dynamic every time I come here." More important, it had become "one of the greatest French cities." He understood, furthermore, that hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen had moved to Britain because "they are risk-takers, and risk is a bad word" in France. With distinctly un-English passion (some things never change), he pleaded with them to come back:

Come home, because together we will make France a great country where everything will be possible, where fathers won't fear for the future of their children, and where everyone will be able to make their plans come true, and be responsible for their own destiny.

Sarkozy sounds like a supply-sider. Here are some snippets from an interview published in the Financial Times, conducted by its sister publication, Les Echos:

Les Echos: Since Ségolène Royal unveiled her ‘Presidential Pact’, do you believe the battle (for the presidency) is becoming a battle between two social projects?

Sarkozy: Yes. We now know where Madame Royal’s project is headed… It’s a return to the era of (former socialist Prime Minister Lionel) Jospin. The values Madame Royal puts to the fore are those of state handouts and mollycoddling, egalitarianism and levelling. She retains the 35 hour week, she doesn’t encourage work, she still doesn’t say if she favours overhauling taxes, but we know she wants to overhaul spending. …

Les Echos: Madame Royal develops the idea of ‘donnant-donnant’ (two-way co-operation). It’s not exactly mollycoddling, is it?

Sarkozy: She may put it thus, but what conclusion does she draw? None. It’s the same for the reform of the state. It’s the same for public debt. She judges the level “unsustainable” but what does she announce? More spending. When I talk about rights and duties, I am precise: no minimum benefits without working in exchange; no papers to stay in France long-term if one can’t write, if one can’t read, if one can’t speak French; no increase in minimum pensions without consolidation of the pension system. …

Les Echos: When it comes to costing your (Presidential) programmes, you both face the same criticism: plenty of spending and little detail on the cost savings!

Sarkozy: I will of course respond to that charge, but there is no point in getting into the detail of the proposals if you don’t understand the logic that binds them. The cornerstone value of my programme is work. The strategy that gives credibility to everything I do is to say to the French people: ‘You are going to earn more because we are going to work more’. And that is how, collectively, we are going to encourage wealth creation. I want to make France the country of innovation and audacity.

Les Echos: In your programme, is it coherent to want simultaneously to reduce national insurance contributions by €68bn over 10 years and reduce the state debt to 60 per cent of gross domestic product by 2012?

Sarkozy: I didn’t pick the €68bn figure by chance. That reduction will allow us, over 10 years, to reduce the pressure of our tax and national insurance charges to the average of the EU15. … Is it compatible with the debt reduction objective? There are the figures, but above all, there is the logic. My strategy is to think we will reduce our deficits and our debt the day we reinstate (the value of) work.

Les Echos: How much does your programme cost, and how would it be paid for?

Sarkozy: My programme will cost €30bn over five years, of which €15bn comes from reductions in taxes and charges. But I want to add two key points that must be understood. First, it is not the same thing to spend to assist, and to spend to invest. €9bn for research and innovation are not the same as €9bn spent to create new rights without matching responsibilities. On the one hand, there is investment, on the other mollycoddling. Then, you have to realise that lightening national insurance charges and taxes on overtime will bring in Value Added Tax receipts. …

Les Echos: What would be the first sign of commitment to debt reduction?

Sarkozy: The implementation of the principle that we would not replace more than half of the civil servants who retire. During the past 20 years, France has created a million public sector jobs. I would make reform of the state a key presidential project.

Not bad. Not bad at all. I can think of an allegedly free-market, limited government political party in the United States that could use some leaders who speak like that. Bonne chance, Monsieur Sarkozy! 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

GOP leadership vote now is wrong

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

About a bazillion bloggers, myself included, have expressed dissatisfaction with the current GOP congressional leadership and with its effort to hurry a vote so it can maintain its control of the House Republican Conference for the next Congress.

The vote is currently scheduled for this Friday, and a number of big hitters, including Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed, have expressed displeasure with what Hugh called "the arrogance of a defeated leadership doing a bum’s rush" when what’s called for is reasoned debate, agreement on a set of "First Principles," and then the selection of leaders.

What I haven’t seen is a more fundamental criticism of this hurried vote. Regarding the Congressional leadership, the Dirksen Congressional Center says this (emphasis added):

At the beginning of each two-year congressional session, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate meet separately to organize and select their leaders. The Republicans call their internal party organization the "Conference" while Democrats call their party organization the "Caucus."

Both parties in each chamber hold organizational meetings where their members elect their own leadership, adopt internal rules for how their party will operate, and draft their version of the institutional rules for either the House or the Senate. These meetings are closed to the public and to the press.

Excuse me, Republican leaders, but this Friday is not the beginning of the congressional session. And unless I’m very confused, the members of the House Republican Conference who will vote this Friday are the current members. At least 29 of those voting (probably more, since 8 races are undecided and I think there are some retirements) won’t be members of the next Congress. What business do they have helping to elect the party’s leadership for the next Congress? Most of them are part of the reason that the next House Republican Conference will be in the minority!

This "hurry up and vote" business is a bunch of BS, and Republicans with any guts and integrity at all ought to stand up and say so.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Almost finished counting

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

One week after the election, the Denver Election Commission is almost finished counting ballots. That means we may soon get official results for two state-wide races and a local referendum that have been up in the air.

The referendum is Mayor Hickenlooper’s "kiddie tax" to fund pre-school, about which columnist Peter Blake said, "you know they won’t finish counting until John Hickenlooper’s pre-school tax passes." It looks like Blake was right — it trailed after election day, it continued to trail all week, but lo and behold, as we approach the end of the count, it’s miraculously surged ahead by a thousand votes.

The statewide races are at-large Univ. of Colorado Regent and Secretary of State. Actually, the candidates for the latter didn’t wait for the official results — today, Democrat Ken Gordon conceded to Republican Mike Coffman, and the two pledged to work together to prevent future recurrences of this year’s voting fiascos, of which there were plenty. In Douglas County, the people who stuck it out didn’t finish voting until after midnight. In Denver, the wait was up to five hours because it took poll workers on laptops up to 20 minutes to connect to a central server and validate each voter.

Denver’s counting problems were largely the result of misprinted bar codes on 70,000 absentee ballots, requiring them to be sorted by hand. Pueblo reportedly also isn’t finished counting, but no one there offered an explanation. Denver had a host of other problems, including multiple ballot errors discovered before the election and the incorrect postage amount printed on absentee return envelopes. Then there were thousands of ballots that the Commission said "weren’t filled out right," so they’re being "copied" to new ballots to be scanned. Yeah, right…

Denver’s Clerk and Recorder, who is the appointed member of the three-person election commission, resigned today. He was supposed to be the "technology chief" to guide the two elected commissioners, but it turned out he’d padded his resume.

The ballot errors, bar code problems, and dysfunctional software are all courtesy of Sequoia Voting Systems. Nope, they’re not associated in any way with Diebold. They’re apparently closely connected to the government of Venezuela. That’s right, moonbat conspiracy theorists — if anyone screwed with Colorado’s elections, it was your commie hero, Chavez.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The dinosaurs are still powerful

Posted by Richard on November 13, 2006

There’s been no shortage of analyses and finger-pointing to explain the GOP’s "thumpin’" this year. It was Iraq. No, it was corruption. They were too extreme. No, they abandoned their conservative principles. Immigrant-bashing hurt. No, failure to close the borders hurt. And on and on… I think one of the primary causes is something almost no one’s discussed — and some, like Dean Barnett, explicitly rejected. 

Hugh Hewitt, lots of bloggers, and other voices of the "new media" like to disparage the "dinosaur media" and point to declining ratings for network news, falling readership and revenue for the big liberal papers, and other signs of the declining influence of the mainstream media. They exaggerate the truth. The dinosaurs may be in decline, but they’re still immensely powerful and can crush you when they make the effort. And, boy, did they make the effort this time!

Yes, it’s the same media as in 2002 and 2004, as Barnett noted. But, (a) they really pulled out all the stops this time, and (b) their relentless propaganda campaign against Bush and the Republicans had a cumulative effect.

Lenin said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." After hearing it repeated as fact a bazillion times, most Americans believe that Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD threat and Saddam’s support of terrorists. After three years of negative stories from Iraq outnumbering positive ones by approximately ten thousand to one, most Americans believe the situation is hopeless.

Story after story about DeLay, Cunningham, Foley, and Ney hammered into the American consciousness the Democratic talking points about the "Republican culture of corruption." But there’s nary a media mention of more than 70 Democrats with ethical or legal problems, including Reps. Jefferson, Murtha, Rangel, Mollohan, Conyers, and Schakowsky, Sens. Boxer and Reid, and Govs. Blagojevich and Corzine.

For sure, the Republicans’ wounds were largely self-inflicted. After 2002, Hastert dismantled the Contract with America’s ethics and accountability rules, and the Republicans became arrogant, fat, and lazy. They governed like Democrats, and the American people rejected that, as they usually do. Meanwhile, the Democrats recruited a bunch of candidates who sounded like Republicans, and the American people elected them.

If they’re going to turn things around in 2008, the Republicans need to clean house. They need new leaders like Reps. Pence and Shadegg, and Sens. Kyle and DeMint. They need to embrace the primary candidates backed by the Club for Growth — 7out of 8 were elected this year.

But they need one more thing: an effective strategy for countering the power of those media dinosaurs, because they’re not dead yet.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Good election news

Posted by Richard on November 8, 2006

As regular reades no doubt could guess, I’m not exactly cheerful about spending the next two years hearing about Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel, and Judiciary Chair John Conyers. And I’m disappointed by the departure of Rumsfeld. Nevertheless, I’m basically a "glass half-full" sort of guy, and I think there’s some good news related to yesterday’s elections.

One big bright spot: the property rights protection movement racked up an impressive string of victories. Ten of twelve ballot measures passed, and eight of them are constitutional amendments (one victory, Louisiana, was in September). Only California and Idaho defeated citizen initiatives dealing with eminent domain. They were thrilled yesterday at the Institute for Justice:

“Election Day usually reveals how polarized public opinion can be as campaigns focus on highly divisive issues.  Today, however, the vast majority of voters across the country all agreed that the fundamental right to property must be protected,” said Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners in Kelo before the Supreme Court.  “Citizens around the nation agree that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo was wrong.  As we’re seeing tonight’s results, this issue cuts across party lines, state borders and socioeconomic levels.”

“The American people are furious their property rights are up for grabs to the highest bidder,” said senior attorney Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo case for the Institute.  “They understand that the U.S. Supreme Court declared open season on everyone’s property and the resulting momentum for eminent domain reform shows no sign of slowing.  The significant margins in the votes today show just how wrong a narrow majority of the Supreme Court was.”

The margins were truly significant, typically three or four to one.

Here’s another bit of good news: Dennis Hastert won’t run for minority leader. I’ve made clear my low opinion of Hastert. I think he bears much of the blame for the Republican losses. Hastert helped create the "culture of corruption" by dismantling the 1994 ethics and accountability reforms. His lack of principles, inarticulateness, and focus on wielding the levers of power helped create the widespread distrust of the Republican Party.

If the Republicans really have been chastened and want to mend their ways, in January they’ll follow Human Events’ advice and elect Mike Pence minority leader. Furthermore, they should correct a mistake they made when DeLay departed and pick John Shadegg over Roy Blunt for the number two post, minority whip.

More good news came via Josh Poulson, who argued that the GOP lost because it "abandoned its libertarian wing," and cited a couple of interesting related items. One is this post at Economist.com about the growing clout of Libertarians:

GLUM Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn’t just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush’s much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America’s fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.

In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn’t been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.

The other item is Sen. Tom Coburn’s statement on the elections:

“The overriding theme of this election, however, is that voters are more interested in changing the culture in Washington than changing course in Washington, D.C. This election was not a rejection of conservative principles per se, but a rejection of corrupt, complacent and incompetent government.

“A recent CNN poll found that 54 percent of Americans believe government is doing too much while only 37 percent want government to do more. The results of this election reflect that … the Democrats who won or who ran competitive races sounded more like Ronald Reagan than Lyndon Johnson.

“This election does not show that voters have abandoned their belief in limited government; it shows that the Republican Party has abandoned them. In fact, these results represent the total failure of big government Republicanism.

“The Republican Party now has an opportunity to rediscover its identity as a party for limited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Most Americans still believe in these ideals, which reflect not merely the spirit of 1994 or the Reagan Revolution, but the vision of our founders. If Republicans present real ideas and solutions based on these principles we will do well in the future.

Read the whole thing. If you’re a discouraged limited-government type, libertarian or conservative, you’ll feel better — and you’ll be glad there are people like Tom Coburn in politics.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Kinsley embarrassed by Democrat plan

Posted by Richard on November 7, 2006

Captain Ed pointed to a remarkable column by Michael Kinsley posted last night in Slate and appearing this morning in the Washington Post. Kinsley did what apparently alrmost no one in the country bothered to do: to get a sense of what a Pelosi-led House would be like, he read the 31-page "manifesto" issued by House Democrats in June, "A New Direction for America." His critique, coming from a bona fide liberal with no love for Republicans, is devastating.

Kinsley noted that the Pelosi plan is heavy on bromides, promises of tax credits, misleading nonsense like calling for an end to the "Disabled Veterans’ Tax," and lots of new spending, but it’s light on fiscal responsibility (emphasis added):

Honesty is not just therapeutic. Fiscal honesty is a practical necessity. "New Direction" quite rightly denounces the staggering fiscal irresponsibility of Republican leaders and duly promises "Pay As You Go" spending. But in the entire document there is not one explicit revenue-raiser to balance the many specific and enormous new spending programs and tax credits.

But Kinsley put a dagger in the Democrats’ heart — remember, this is an anti-war liberal — when he looked at their "New Direction" for Iraq (emphasis added):

… For national security in general, the Democrats’ plan is so according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It’s mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats’ plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces.

Older readers may recognize this formula. It’s Vietnamization — the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."

Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document — although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for governing.

Read the whole thing. Read Captain Ed’s comments. Then go vote.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Unintentional honesty?

Posted by Richard on November 3, 2006

Yesterday, I said Kerry probably didn’t intend to insult the troops because he didn’t intend anything. But today there’s new evidence that, even if he didn’t mean to say it, Kerry probably thinks what he said. In other words, in the great tradition of "fake but accurate," Kerry’s "botched joke" may have been "misspoken but honest." John Solomon of the Associated Press (can you believe it?) reported that Kerry’s comments in a candidate questionnaire from his 1972 congressional campaign "mirror" the statement that he now claims was an inadvertent gaffe (emphasis added):

After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities

Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply ‘doing its job.’

Couple that with his organizing of the 1971 "Winter Soldier" hearings (full of liars and frauds, many of whom were never in Vietnam, and some of whom subsequently testified that Kerry pressured them into saying they committed war crimes) and his subsequent Senate committee testimony. Then add his accusations against U.S. troops in Iraq, such as this statement on ABC’s Face the Nation less than a year ago:

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," Kerry said Sunday.

The record strongly suggests that John Effin’ Kerry has for more than three decades consistently viewed the men and women of the U.S. armed forces with disdain, suspicion, and contempt. He may or may not have intended to speak the words he spoke this week, but they express what’s in his heart — misspoken but honest.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention: Kerry’s view was and is dead wrong — it’s not poor, uneducated, black and brown people with no alternatives who are fighting this war. According to a study I reported on last December, enlistees in the military are wealthier, better educated, and more rural than the average 18- to 24-year-old, and their ethnic makeup is just about representative of the general population.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kerry apologizes, troops plead for his help

Posted by Richard on November 1, 2006

After practically every veteran in the country except John Murtha and Wesley Clarke called for his head, and Democratic candidates fell all over themselves canceling appearances with the French-looking senator (who, I’m told, served a few weeks in Viet Nam and subsequently testified under oath that U.S. military personnel routinely committed war crimes, and who just a few months ago accused U.S. troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children), John Effin’ Kerry has finally done what anyone with a lick of common sense — not to mention an ounce of basic decency — would have done 36 hours ago:

WASHINGTON — Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, under intense fire from both parties for remarks made Monday in which he suggested U.S. troops are "stuck in Iraq" because of their education, issued an apology Wednesday afternoon for what he called "my poorly stated joke."

"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop," Kerry said in a statement published on his Web site.

Kerry said he regrets that his words "were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended."

Of course, Kerry’s apology was in keeping with his generally arrogant, condescending, and tone-deaf manner. Instead of standing in front of the cameras (as he did when he ranted about distortions by the "White House mouthpiece" and "right-wing nut jobs") and at least simulating looking the troops in the eye, he posted the brief statement on his website. And he managed to make it into one of those non-apology apologies: "I’m sorry you’re so stupid that you didn’t understand it was just a botched joke, and I’m real sorry that you can’t understand how Bush and his evil minions are twisting this and manipulating you for their nefarious purposes."

Truth be told, I’ve thought about it and decided his "botched joke" explanation and insistence that the insult was unintentional are probably true. My guess is that, as usual, someone told Kerry where to go and when to speak, and provided some words for him to say. He proceeded to read them with his usual level of awareness and involvement — meaning he was probably only marginally aware of what he was saying, didn’t realize that the education/Iraq bit was a joke, and maybe didn’t even realize he’d flubbed it or how badly. He didn’t intend to insult the troops because he didn’t really intend anything — except to go through the motions he’d been scheduled to go through.

John Effin’ Kerry strikes me as the quintessential empty suit. I am so glad Karl Rove got those Ohio voting machines reprogrammed! (That’s a joke, moonbats.)

Meanwhile, it’s clear to me that the morale of our troops in Iraq is high, that they’re defiant of fhe critics, and that they’re clever and funny:

Troops' humorous plea for help from Kerry

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Bush on the important issues

Posted by Richard on October 31, 2006

On Hannity & Colmes last night, Sean Hannity interviewed President Bush, and of course, the election was the first topic (emphasis added):

HANNITY: All right, so there you are. You think the GOP holds both houses. You’re confident. You made the statement that your opponents, Democrats, are picking out the drapes a little bit too early.

BUSH: That’s right.

Well, you know, in 2002, a lot of the pundits didn’t get the off-year elections right. In 2004, a lot of people thought I was going down eight days before the election. And in 2006, there is a lot of predictors saying that, you know, the Democrats will sweep the House and maybe take the Senate.

And I just don’t see it that way, because I think most people, when they take a look at the candidates and the positions of the candidates, realize that protecting this country and keeping this economy going are the two most important issues. And you can’t protect the country if you retreat from overseas, and you can’t keep the economy growing if you raise taxes. And that’s exactly what the Democrats in the House would like to do.

That’s the case for voting Republican about as clearly and succinctly stated as it can be.

You could fill a book with all the things wrong with Republicans (and match it page for page with one on the faults of Democrats). But when all is said and done, it’s hard to deny the importance of national security and taxes — and on those two critical issues, the Republicans get it mostly right, while the vast majority of Democrats are completely, utterly, and dangerously wrong.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »