Combs Spouts Off

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

  • Calendar

    January 2021
    S M T W T F S
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘presidential candidates’

Hillary hits glass ceiling

Posted by Richard on June 3, 2008

It's all over, according to AP, CNN, and CBS. And it's a familiar story for feminists. A highly educated, highly competent, incredibly bright woman (the smartest woman in the world, according to her supporters) spent years in the shadow of a less disciplined, less competent man. She supported him through thick and thin, sublimating her own ambition and career goals to support his.

Eventually, she stepped out of his shadow. She joined the world's most prestigious boys' club and proved she was as tough and competent as any of them. She decided the time was ripe for her to move up to the executive suite. She'd paid her dues — and then some. It was a promotion that she was clearly entitled to. 

But then, as she was poised to assume the role for which she'd been working for decades, along came some wet-behind-the-ears, inexperienced male competitor. Compared to her, he was an intellectual lightweight with an incredibly thin resume. It should have been clear to all the decision-makers that she was the far superior candidate for the position. But he was young, handsome, charismatic — and male. He got the promotion, and she was passed over.

Another outrageous example of the gender bias that permeates our sexist society. I wonder how N.O.W. and other feminist organizations will react to this injustice. 

Well, really, I don't. I'm sure their commitment to liberal/leftist ideology in general will trump any concern they have for women's rights and gender equality in particular. The "little ladies" will obediently climb aboard the Obama bandwagon. If they didn't, the men who run things would call them racists. 

UPDATE: Instalanche! And not just a quick "Heh!" — Glenn posted a teaser quote. Thanks, Glenn! To those of you who aren't sure — yes, my tongue was firmly in my cheek while writing this. It's not easy satirizing the left these days, is it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 15 Comments »

The must-have McCain sticker

Posted by Richard on June 2, 2008

Someone at the Libertarian Party national convention was handing out Vote Republican kits — the "kit" consisted of a clothespin for your nose. Along the same lines, Kevin Baker of The Smallest Minority came up with the political bumper sticker of the year, a must-have collector's item even if you don't plan to put one on your car to declare your tepid support:

 F^*k it! McCain '08

Kevin has teamed up with Jed Baer of FreedomSight to make the sticker available for order (and help Jed out at the same time, which is also a good thing). Kevin explains it all in this post. In the update near the end, he sends you to Jed's order page — so if you're in a hurry, just go directly there and click the image to order.

Do it now! You never know how long something like this will be available, and you don't want to miss out, do you? Get a few extras for friends and relatives. And the next time you're out shopping, pick up a bag of clothespins — there could be a shortage later in the year.

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

LP nominates Barr, Root

Posted by Richard on May 26, 2008

The Libertarian Party nominated former Republican Congressman Bob Barr and Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Root as its candidates for President and Vice President. The good news is that Barr and Root were apparently the only two presidential candidates (out of 13) who wouldn't sign a pledge — promoted by the 9/11-Truther group Libertarians for Justice — demanding an investigation into "what really happened" on September 11, 2001.

The bad news is that Barr and Root both just barely won, so nearly half the LP delegates were prepared to have the party represented by someone who's at least open to some truly insane conspiracy theories. Furthermore, Barr barely beat Mary Ruwart, who got some media attention when she refused to back away from an earlier defense of child pornography and prostitution. 

The other bad news is that Barr, although not nearly anti-military enough for the "purists" in the party, seems to believe that the only way the US might be at war with radical Islam is if we attack Iran — a depressingly naive and ignorant position, if you ask me.

The "purists," who call themselves "the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party," are apparently outraged that "Republican pragmatists" have taken over, and the recriminations and name-calling have begun. Some people have denounced Barr as a "neocon," further evidence that most of the people who denounce others as neocons don't have a clue what a neocon really is.

Here are some links where you can find lots more:

Nothing from David Aitken yet. I know he attended; I think he was a delegate; I hope he'll share his observations and impressions. 

I'm glad I didn't attend. There would have been trouble. 

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

Mixing politics and religion Obama-style

Posted by Richard on May 15, 2008

Remember all the fuss last December over the bookshelves in this Mike Huckabee Christmas greeting ad?

 Huckabee in front of subliminal-cross bookshelf

Liberals were all upset at Huckabee's "subliminal" attempt to mix politics and religion (in a Christmas greeting, no less). Some religious leaders objected:

Catholic League president Bill Donahue said Huckabee went beyond wishing people a joyous holiday. Donahue said he was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message.

“What he’s trying to say to the evangelicals in western Iowa (is): I’m the real thing,” Donahue said Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends. “You know what, sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is.”

And libertarian Republican Ron Paul flirted with Godwin's Law, suggesting there was something quite ominous about it:

Asked about the ad today, Ron Paul decried Huckabee's religious iconography with his own veiled reference on Fox and Friends:

"It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, 'when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.' Now I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don't think I would ever use anything like that."

I wonder if Ron Paul, Bill Donahue, the folks at Huffington Post, and the Kos Kids were reduced to apoplexy when they saw the flyer the Obama campaign is distributing in Kentucky:

Obama flaunts his faith Back of Obama faith flyer

Somehow I don't think so. After all, Barack — or should I say Barry? — is just trying to counter those rumors that he was brought up Muslim. And look, he's promising us Hope! And Change!

Double standard? What double standard?

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

Huckabee for Veep? Yuck!

Posted by Richard on May 13, 2008

If this story is true, John McCain is about to make it utterly impossible for me (and lots of other libertarian, classical liberal, and economic conservative types) to vote for him:

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is at the top of the list of John McCain's possible running mates, according to a top McCain fundraiser with ties to his inner circle.

Economic conservatives are likely to oppose the choice of Huckabee as McCain's vice presidential candidate, given the populist tone of his campaign and his tax record as governor of Arkansas.

But in his "Capital Commerce" column for U.S. News & World Report, James Pethokoukis points to the fundraiser's disclosure and cites several factors that could make Huckabee a strong asset for McCain.

For one thing, the former Baptist minister is a great campaigner who could garner support in the South among social conservatives and at the same time appeal to working-class voters in the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Huckabee would also appeal to many more voters on a "he cares about me" level than millionaire investor and possible vice presidential choice Mitt Romney, especially given all the turmoil on Wall Street this year.

<snark>Yeah, that's how "maverick" McCain can solidify the base and restore the Reagan coalition: pick a tax and spend, anti-business, anti-free-trade, populist demagogue who makes people think "he cares about me."</snark> Excuse me, I have to go throw up again. 

McCain's Portland speech on the environment and global warming, in which he embraced "cap and trade" (AKA "ration and tax") greenhouse gas controls, was bad enough. At this point, I'm a long way from ready to vote for him (although I keep making myself read that Obama statement on Supreme Court justices). 

A McCain-Huckabee ticket? I won't vote for that under any circumstances. I'll just cross my fingers that Obama doesn't do too much harm (before becoming the next Carter and being crushed in 2012).

I'll vote for the Libertarian Party nominee. 

Unless it turns out to be this guy instead of this guy.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Obama on judges

Posted by Richard on May 9, 2008

Maybe if I read the following CNN transcript excerpt every day until the election, it will motivate me to vote for McCain: 

BLITZER: You used to teach constitutional law.


BLITZER: You know a lot about the Supreme Court. And the next president of the United States will have an opportunity to nominate justices for the Supreme Court.

BLITZER: Are there members, justices right now upon who you would model, you would look at? Who do you like?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think actually Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges.

I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge. What you're looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it's clear. Now, there's going to be those 5 percent of cases or 1 percent of cases where the law isn't clear. And the judge then has to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings.

And, in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who's sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power, and, as a consequence, can't protect themselves from being — from being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for judges.

Yes, we can have more justices like Ginsberg and Souter, who'll ignore the Constitution and turn the courts into "a refuge for judges." Excuse me, I have to go throw up.

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

Hillary is not running to lose

Posted by Richard on April 23, 2008

I heard an interesting Obama supporter on the radio this morning. He argued that he and millions like him are justifiably "disgusted" with America and feel like they're living in an "occupied" country. He said there's no freedom because corporate interests and the military-industrial complex control everyone and everything. And he said that Hillary Clinton and the Bushes are part of the same groups that are controlling everything. If Hillary got the nomination, he claimed, she'd "run to lose" in order to serve the interests of these groups that control everything.

Listening to his rant, two thoughts occurred to me. First, I was struck by how much his world-view resembled that of some of the more looney Ron Paul supporters I've listened to. There is a space where the "true believers"* in the messianic ultra-leftist Barack Obama are practically rubbing shoulders with the "true believers" in the libertarian Ron Paul. That space is the fever swamp of generalized disaffection, unfocused resentment, and bizarre conspiracy theories involving mysterious, powerful groups that control everything. I expected this Obama supporter to start ranting about the CFR and Bilderbergers, had he not been cut off.

The second thing that occurred to me is this: Just how divorced from reality do you have to be to believe that Hillary Clinton would take a dive?

* If the phrase "true believers" doesn't immediately ring a bell, I strongly recommend to you Eric Hoffer's essential book about how frustrated, alienated, and dissatisfied individuals are drawn to mass movements, The True Believer.

Oh, yeah — congrats, Sen. Clinton, on a great victory in Pennsylvania. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will be practically giddy tomorrow about how well Operation Chaos is working. 

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

Obama’s bitter roots

Posted by Richard on April 16, 2008

Last Saturday, one of our breakfast group said something along the lines of "can you believe Hillary's trying to make a big deal out of Obama saying some Americans are bitter?" This was news to us, but we agreed it seemed silly and not exactly important news.

Days later, it's still news. I've since read the complete Obama quote and gotten the whole story (including his non-apologies and the "clarifications" from his staff that just made it worse). Now, Clinton's criticism no longer seems as silly as it did when I'd only heard the short, Obama-sympathetic (probably NPR) version of the story.

Obama was speaking to an audience of rich liberal San Franciscans when he characterized the working-class people of fly-over country as bitter, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, bigoted yahoos. He thought his remarks were off the record, so it's likely that either (a) he was being candid and this is what he really thinks, or (b) he was saying what he thought these rich liberal donors wanted to hear.

Knowing something of Obama's background and ideology, I lean toward explanation (a). There's a decades-old joke that goes, "I love humanity. It's people I can't stand." This mindset is endemic in leftist circles, especially among the many in the socialist and far-left intelligentsia who come from an upper or upper-middle class background, attended prestigious schools, and are certain that the average American is an ignorant bumpkin who doesn't know what's best for him.

Tom Sowell addressed this phenomenon in his latest column:

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction – and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working-class people.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

"The working class," said Karl Marx, "is revolutionary or it is nothing." That is, they mattered only insofar as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Jean Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

Think Sowell and I mischaracterize Obama's ideology by comparing him to socialists and Marxists? If you haven't read Obama's Dreams For My Father (and I haven't; only excerpts), read this PrestoPundit post. According to Greg Ransom, Obama made it clear in the book that "his father's ideals were a driving force in his life," but never described those ideals. So Ransom did some research into the political life and writings of Barack H. Obama, Sr. This was one hard-core socialist dude — a man who railed against "weak-tea" African socialism and in favor of "scientific socialism" (a.k.a. communism), who was allied with communist Oginga Odinga against moderate socialist Jomo Kenyatta.

As I've learned more about Obama's history, friends, mentors, and associations, it's become clear that he's the most radical leftist presidential candidate of any stature since Henry A. Wallace. He's also charismatic, articulate, and able to speak in airy generalities that appeal to many people. That's a frightening and dangerous combination.

UPDATE: One of the really amusing ironies of this affair is that Hillary Clinton, a hard-core anti-gunner and liberal elitist par excellence, has been defending Christian gun owners. It was almost enough to make me tune in tonight's Democratic debate to see if she'd defend gun ownership. … Almost.

Instead, I settled for Stephen Green's drunkblogging of the event. Which included this profound observation: 

I’m an atheist and Obama is a churchgoer, and yet I get the feeling I have more respect for Christians (at least white Christians) than Obama has.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Condi for Veep?

Posted by Richard on March 28, 2008

The possibility of a McCain-Rice ticket came up in the comments to this post a couple of weeks ago. I noted, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that "'McCain-Rice 2008' fits nicely on bumper stickers." Now, according to Ron Kessler, anonymous Republican sources are claiming she's quietly let it be known she might accept if asked:

One source told Newsmax that she expressed interest in the possibility when Rudy Giuliani was running for president. Another source said she has more recently let her interest be known discreetly within top Republican circles, presumably including John McCain's camp.

Fueling speculation that she would consider being on the ticket, Rice appeared for the first time this week at the so-called Wednesday meeting run by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Rice spoke for 20 minutes at the off-the-record meeting of conservative leaders, then took questions for 20 minutes.

Presidential candidates, White House aides, Cabinet officers, and members of Congress routinely speak to the group, but the talks generally are far shorter. In her talk, Rice stuck to foreign policy. When asked about her future, she said she plans to teach at Stanford, where she was once provost, and she plans to write a book.

Asked for comment, an aide to Rice said it was "not true" that she has expressed interest in a run and pointed to what she said at the Wednesday meeting about intending to return to Stanford.

Of course, almost no one ever admits to wanting the VP slot. It seems to be standard procedure for those interested to deny wanting the job, while leaving the door open.

"She would be a good vice presidential candidate because she would be a good president," Norquist commented to Newsmax.

While conservatives generally like the idea of her running on a ticket with McCain, their only concern is her stand on abortion. In a 2005 interview with The Washington Times, Rice described herself as "mildly pro-choice" and a libertarian on the abortion issue.

That and her strong support for gun rights, rooted in a compelling childhood memory, are two reasons I've always liked Condi and used to hope she'd run for president. I've cooled on her lately because of some truly stupid statements and actions regarding Israel and the so-called "peace process," but I suppose she's just carrying out the orders of yet another American president who wants to "solve" the "Palestinian problem." 

I really don't like McCain (although my concerns regarding domestic and economic issues are assuaged somewhat by the fact that his chief economic adviser is Phil Gramm). But adding Rice to the ticket certainly would make it more appealing to me — and I suspect a lot of people would feel that way.

And don't forget that McCain is already 72. If he's elected, he'll be 77 at the end of the first term. Condi is a youthful 54. Is it too soon to register, or even  

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

The Tonya Harding Option

Posted by Richard on March 26, 2008

Yesterday, Jake Tapper of ABC News reported on his blog a conversation with an anonymous Democratic Party official in which said official used an interesting metaphor:

The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option — the first time I've heard it put that way

Since then, everyone from Doug Mataconis to Andrew Sullivan to ABC's Good Morning America has talked about Hillary's Tonya Harding Option. But if this was really the first time Jake Tapper "heard it put that way," he hasn't been reading the other ABC News blogs. Tom at Corrente pointed out that this metaphor didn't originate with an anonymous DNC official, but with Sen. Obama himself, and he linked to this December 28 post on the ABC News blog, Political Radar:

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Vinton, Iowa Thursday that he's not going to pull a Tonya Harding on his rival candidates.

"Folks said there's no way Obama has a chance unless he goes and kneecaps the person ahead of us, does a Tonya Harding," Obama joked, referring to the female skating champion who conspired to harm a competitor during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.

"We decided that's not the kind of campaign we wanted to run," he said.

I suspect that Tom is correct, and Tapper's anonymous source is someone from the Obama campaign, not just a "Democratic Party official":

So, yes, this is the Obama people whining about the unfairness of it all. They really need to try a new frequency these days.

Be that as it may, would it surprise anyone if Clinton, Inc. really did kneecap Obama (either literally or figuratively)? If I were him, I sure wouldn't agree to meet someone in Fort Marcy Park.

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

Obama Spend-o-rama rejected

Posted by Richard on March 21, 2008

Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard, a generally low-profile, unassuming politician, engaged in a marvelous bit of political theater this week. He had his staff start analyzing the 188 spending proposals that Sen. Barack Obama has so far outlined to enact his grandiose agenda. They only got through the first 111, but Allard combined the funding for those and introduced it into the budget debate as Amendment 4246 (PDF).

The 5-year cost of just 60% of Obama's agenda? $1.4 trillion. $300 billion in the first year alone, more than 60% larger than any one-year budget increase ever. How do we pay for such a spend-o-rama? Obama claimed he'd pay for his agenda by letting the Bush tax cuts expire (i.e., everyone's taxes go up) and by raising taxes on "the rich." But the math doesn't add up, as Ross Kaminsky pointed out (emphasis added):

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who spoke immediately after Allard, re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama’s proposed spending increase “is bigger than the 5-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer.”

Burr argued that Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame.

If Obama wanted to raise taxes on only the top 1% (earning over $365,000) to fund his plans, those citizens’ tax bills would have to rise by over $40,000 annually, an increase of 57%. Given the impossibility of that scenario, even under complete Democratic control of government, the tax hikes would have to trickle down to the American middle class.

“So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more.

Obama claims to want to “balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security Surplus.” Combining that laudable goal with Obama’s massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise $5,300, or 61%. For taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be over $12,000, or 74%, and for the top 1%, earning over $365,000, “their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500 (132%)!

And remember, that's only to pay for 60% of the Obama agenda announced so far. There's another 40% yet to be analyzed and added to the bill. And it's nearly eight months until the election, so there's plenty of time for more pandering and promises and additional spending proposals.

Allard's "Obama Spend-o-rama" amendment was rejected 97-0 Thursday. But Allard had made his point: the far-far-left agenda of Barack Obama and the massive, unprecedented tax and spending increases they'd require are either unserious, cynical posturing and pandering … or totally insane.

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

Pot, meet kettle

Posted by Richard on March 11, 2008

Geraldine Ferraro, who's on Hillary Clinton's finance committee and works as hard as her health permits on the Clinton campaign, is the latest member of the Clinton machine to play the race card (emphasis added):

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign – to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. …"

In case you've forgotten or are too young, Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's vice presidential running mate in 1984, and if she wasn't a woman, she would not have been in that position. 

OK, I couldn't resist that bit of snarkiness. But I suspect Ferraro is correct to this degree: I believe there are more Americans who might be inclined to use their vote to reject racism than to reject sexism.

I think she's wrong about a "woman (of any color)," though. I think far more Americans might be inclined to reject both racism and sexism than to embrace either.

Too bad for the Republicans that Condi Rice wasn't interested in higher office. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Perverting the process

Posted by Richard on March 5, 2008

When Democrats crossed party lines in the early Republican primaries to vote for John McCain, members of the media thought it was interesting, exciting, and an expression of democracy in action.

When Republicans listened to Rush Limbaugh and crossed party lines to vote for Hillary Clinton, the same people described it as "causing mischief" and perverting the democratic process. 

Personally, I think Hillary owes her resurgence more to Lorne Michaels than Rush Limbaugh. Two weeks in a row, Saturday Night Live opened with wickedly funny skits portraying the news media as "in the tank" for Obama. Not only did those skits influence voters, they apparently shamed members of the media into finally throwing Obama something other than softballs:

It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

I can't wait to see the next Saturday Night Live

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Don’t Democrats care about Mexicans?

Posted by Richard on March 5, 2008

"NAFTA-gate," the story about the Obama campaign reassuring the Canadian government that his anti-NAFTA campaign talk was just to fool the rubes, is still resonating (and may have hurt him in Ohio). I missed it initially, but apparently there are allegations that the Clinton campaign also contacted the Canadian government about Obama's promise to "opt out" of NAFTA, and questions continue to be asked.

But here's a question I don't think has been asked of either campaign: Did you contact the Mexican government about this issue?

Clearly, threats by leading U.S. presidential candidates to scrap NAFTA have caused concern in both Ottawa and Mexico City. At least one and possibly both Democratic campaigns thought the Canadians deserved some explanations, reassurances, or at least respect. There's no indication that either campaign thought to extend the same courtesy to the Mexicans. 


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

Obama lied, relations with Canada died

Posted by Richard on March 3, 2008

So let me see if I've got this straight: Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, campaigning in Ohio, both denounced free trade, and Obama promised the adoring, fainting throngs that when he becomes President, he'll scrap NAFTA. Then, Canada's CTV network reported that Obama's campaign had previously contacted the Canadian government to assure them that the anti-NAFTA talk was just to fool the rubes.

The Obama campaign called the CTV story a lie and a smear.  So CTV named names — Austan Goolsbee, Obama's chief economic advisor, and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago — and confirmed the story with a "high level source" in the Canadian government.

Well, it turned out that one of the consular staff who attended the meeting with Goolsbee took notes. The Canadian government, apparently more than a little annoyed by the Obama campaign, has widely circulated his memo, which confirmed the CTV account of the meeting. 

The Obama campaign, in a hole and still digging, insists that the Canadians are either stupid or liars.

Won't it be great when Obama restores respect and affection for America throughout the world? 

No word yet on what the rubes in Ohio think about this cynical pandering. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »