Taxing Your Good Health

That is what will happen if Democrats get their way with single-payer health care--socialized medicine--in this country. And the President admitted as much in his infomercial last night:

As a candidate, then-Sen. Obama bashed his rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, for proposing that Americans be mandated to have health insurance.

"She'd have the government force you to buy health insurance," he said Feb. 23, 2008. "I disagree with that approach. I believe that the reason Americans don't have health care isn't because no one's forced them to buy it, it's because no one's made it affordable."

But now the president is acknowledging that his thinking on the issue has "evolved" and he could support a law mandating that individuals purchase health care coverage, with fines for those who do not.

Obama stressed that there must be some kind of waiver for those who are simply unable to afford it.

"People have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we've got to have healthier people not opt out of the system," the president told ABC News.

As he notes, in order for this system to work--to actually drive down costs--you have to include healthy people as well as the sick--everyone is forced into the plan. Many of these healthy people do not have health insurance or carry insurance with really high deductibles because they are healthy and do not need it.

In a single-payer system, the healthy would be forced into the same health plan as the sick--effectively taxing their good health and eliminating all other choices open to them. This is utilitarian leveling at its, well, level-best. In order to reach a more equal outcome for everyone, Obama and co. will tax your health and infringe on your liberty.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Fearmongers & Hypocrites

In yesterday's post about DC Opportunity Scholarships, I made an oblique reference to Rahm & Co.'s fear mongering. That they are all a bunch of hypocrites (for accusing President Bush of doing the same thing they openly admit doing now) goes without saying.

I only point it out so that my liberal friends understand that whatever moral high ground they thought they occupied for 8 years, well, they don't occupy that territory anymore.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, right?

Jonah Goldberg, one of my fav. pundits, opined on just this line of thinking (Democrat party fear mongers) in his column yesterday. An excerpt:

Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I’m a jerk, for want of a harsher word not printable in this space?

I ask because I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.

“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. “They are opportunities to do big things.” Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience at the European Parliament, “Never waste a good crisis.” Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is “great opportunity in the midst of” the “great crisis” befalling America.

Bush & Rove and all the rest never admitted that what they were doing was scaring people in order to enact their agenda. The ardently insisted that such was not the case.

Whether you believe that or not, one thing is certain: Emanuel & Clinton & Obama openly admit that they are taking advantage of the crisis to promote their agenda.

Just because you agree with Obama's agenda and disagreed with Bush's does not make you noble, or what they are doing, good.

It makes you a hypocrite.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Raising The Bar

This is up there with saying that ol' bi/post-partisan-Obama is governing from the "center-right" because he nominated Hillary Clinton--friend of conservative-Republicans everywhere--as Secretary of State. (thanks to Morgan H. for the image)

Reads the Washington Post headline: Obama Sets Expansive Goal for Jobs - Plan Aims to Create or Save 2.5 Million Positions by 2011

Has the WaPo turned into the Onion? How can they put something like that on the front page ... and keep a straight face? Could you imagine if President Bush had made such a claim? Yeah.

If you thought the media's inthetankedness for Obama would end with the election, think again: They got him there, now they aim to keep him there for 8 years (or longer, Obama willing).

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barney Frank Ought To Win The Fannie/Freddy Blame Game

I'm going to keep banging this drum until the true story is told. This is a government caused problem and the primary sponsors were Democrats and the main Democrats were Senators Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rep. Barney Frank. They helped craft the legislation and culture the enabled Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to tip the economy into crisis.

There should have been better regulation of Fannie & Freddy. President Bush tried to do it in 2003 and John McCain tried to do in 2006--only to be stonewalled by Democrats.

When you have an institution--like Fannie or Freddy--that has overt backing by the federal government, which takes away the risk of bad investments, you must--MUST--couple that with regulation that ensures these pseudo-governmental institutions do not make bad investments that put the whole economy at risk.

Democrats pushed Fannie & Freddy to buy risky mortgages and stonewalled initiatives to regulate Fannie & Freddy so they didn't meltdown.

This is what happens when Democrats' governmental philanthropic whims become public policy.

(h/t DrewM @ Ace of Spades)

UPDATE: David Boaz blogging at Cato @ Liberty hammers on some of the same things I've been writing about for the last few weeks:

A page one Washington Post headline reports, “Credit Crisis Has Given Obama a Distinct Edge.” Which must be really frustrating for McCain, because McCain did try to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2006. Obama, meanwhile, as I reported at the American Spectator, received more donations from Fannie Mae in four years than any other senator (except Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd) received in twenty years. That’s quite an accomplishment–more money from a primary creator of the financial meltdown in just four years than senior members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Richard Shelby, Spencer, Bachus, John Kerry, and Roy Blunt got in entire 20 years that the Center for Responsive Politics tallied. And of course, Obama chose former Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson, who was found to have jiggered the books, to head his search for a vice president.

Shouldn’t somebody in the media ask Obama why he was Fannie Mae’s favorite senator?

Hey media elites, how about this: How about you do your jobs and pose this question to Barack Obama?


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Donald Trump Endorses John McCain

I haven't been able to find a transcript from his interview with Greta Van Susteren to quote, so you'll just have to rely on my note taking.

Donald on the economy:

It will get worse, but then it will get better. It always gets better. I think it was important that they saved AIG. We'll see what happens with their new round.

What about Sen. McCain saying he would fire the head of the SEC?

It's certainly a strong statement. I guess he's saying that he wants tighter regulation. A lot of people like Christopher Cox and I think he's done a very good job.

You have now formally endorsed Sen. McCain?

I have. I've known him for a long time. I was amazed that Hillary Clinton wasn't chosen as his Vice Presidential candidate. I've known John McCain for a long time. He's a great guy, a great man. He's a very strong guy, a very strong leader and he's very, very smart.

What is the difference between Senator McCain and Senator Obama in your eyes?

One of the differences is that Senator Obama wants to raise taxes beyond belief and Senator McCain doesn't. And in a fragile economy like we're in right now, you can't go around raising corporate taxes and lots of other taxes. You just can't do it. Then you really will see the Great Depression.

You're one of the richest guys. Senator Obama says he won't raise taxes on the people who aren't rich.

You know what I find? I find when people say that and they're raising the taxes on the rich, they end up raising the taxes on everybody. And ultimately that's what would happen. John McCain is not going to be raising taxes and could even be lowering taxes. Frankly, that's the language I like to hear. Because the economy is very weak and very fragile and any talk of tax increases; it's over, it's going to be over. I endorsed John McCain. I've known him for a long time. He's a brilliant guy. And I think he'll be a great President.

Why do you think Senator Obama didn't pick Senator Clinton to be his runningmate?

[bunch of inconsequential stuff about Joe Biden]

Hillary Clinton ran for office and probably got more than 50% of the votes. So, it's a little bit of a strange situation that she didn't get the nomination to start off with. But she ran and she got at least 50% of the vote. So you would have certainly thought that he would have picked Hillary Clinton and I think it would be much different poll numbers. Right now the polls are about even and in some polls I guess McCain is leading. I think if he chose Hillary Clinton you might not have that.

So why didn't he pick Senator Clinton?

I guess he didn't get along with her. I guess he didn't like her. I guess he felt uncomfortable with her or Bill. I can tell you I know both of them and they are fantastic people. And they've already proven to be good team-players. Because she took a lot of abuse in my opinion. I think she was she was pretty badly abused in that campaign.

What about Sen. McCain's choice of Governor Palin?

I think it was brilliant. I think it was a great testament to him. I mean, he took a chance on somebody. It's been amazing--the response--I don't think I've ever seen a response like this. Some negative, but mostly positive. And she's amazing. She's just amazing. She has totally united the Republican party like I've never seen before. It was a brillian choice and I think she'll be fantastic.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barack Obama: Stonewalling Important Change

Fannie and Freddy didn't get to where they are without a little help from enablers in Congress--especially in the Senate. And these enablers didn't go un-rewarded. Greg Mankiw outs the biggest recipients of donations from Fannie & Freddy. The biggest beneficiaries might surprise you. Or maybe not.

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

1. Dodd, Christopher J, D-CT
2. Kerry, John, D-MA
3. Obama, Barack, D-IL
4. Clinton, Hillary, D-NY

This is exactly the type of political corruption Obama rails against time and again. But when it came to actually doing something, he looked the other way in favor of campaign donations. This is the politics he learned in Chicago.

Senator Obama reaped the rewards of stonewalling reform that would have averted the bailout, will he now reap the political punishment? Obama's co-conspiracy to look the other way helped cause the housing crisis he now blames on President Bush.

Talk about lipstick on a pig; in Barack Obama, the old, corrupt politics are made new. Or, at least, given a fresh coat of paint.

(h/t RD @ Pendulum Politics)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Fine Time For A Vacation

The grand dame of conservative politics, Peggy Noonan wrote about the almost imperceptible shift in the Presidential race yesterday. She wrote that for the first time in the election, it looks like John McCain just might maybe have a shot.

She's not alone in thinking so.

The trend & projection lines at fivethirtyeight.com seem to agree with her.

It doesn't help that Democrat leaders in Congress and Obama* are on the wrong side of the drill-here-now question. This really looks like a winner for Republicans in November. At the least it staunches the bloodletting everyone has predicted for the last 2+ years.

The Democrat brand has been taking hits. First, the news that wasn't new--John Edwards' affair. Then, Detroit Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick (D) was arrested, again. We hate to bring up Eliot Spitzer, but, well, there he is too.

If Spitzer were still around, he likely would have had a prominent part to play in the DNC later this month. We know for certain John Edwards would have after his endorsement of Barack Obama when Hillary was still in it.

And speaking of Hillary, there are rumblings about how much of a symbolic show she wants to make of her run at the convention. After endorsing Obama, Hillary wasn't treated super well and that didn't sit well with Bill.

Imagine how this could play out at the convention. Former President Clinton speaks one night and we all know how good he is at the convention speaking thing. Then his wife, once-time-would-be President Clinton speaks the next night. Obama is good. But he and his speech writers are going to have to come with something extraespecially good for his speech to close things out.

Watch the trend lines and opinion polls. It's not unlikely that we get to the convention, listen to Bill and Hillary, and have mass nostalgia among the Democrat conventioneers.

All of this is to say that it is probably not the best time for Obama to join Congressional Democrats on vacation. Sure, Americans have said that they're on Obama-overload. But to whom, exactly, is he going to cede political airtime?

Oh yeah, the Olympics. Thank goodness for the Olympics.


*Guitar Hero: Over-the-top performance, no real skill or experience.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama, Meet Straw Man, Straw Man, Meet Obama

In response to McCain's most recent adds lampooning the junior Senator from Illinois' rock-star status, Obama trotted out his favorite straw man argument:

What they're going to do is make you scared -- of me, He's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. He doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills

You see, this is a pretty clever argument to make. Which Republican or McCain surrogate has tried to make someone scared of the big bad Obama? Which Republican has said Obama is not patriotic enough? Which Republican said he has a funny name? Which Republican pointed out that Obama doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills?

The last accusation is particularly galling. Because he's making a prediction of future attacks "what they're going to do ..." he doesn't have to come out and say, 'So and so said I don't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills'--essentially calling someone--Republicans, conservatives, the McCain camp--a racist. This is outrageously offensive and insulting and is just the type of racial grievance politics Obama was supposed to leave behind--remember the whole post-racial load of garbage we were fed?

Furthermore, all those "future accusations" Obama made about the mysterious others who will try and dissuade people from voting Obama, well, the Clinton campaign and all her surrogates--presumably good Democrats the lot of 'em--already made all those accusations.

This is the dirty little secret about this election. Clinton played dirty, really dirty and because it was Democrat vs. Democrat, black vs. woman, the MSM didn't really know what to do.

Contrast that now with the response to McCain's latest ad and their general critique: Obama is more rock-star politician (we prefer the Guitar Hero* metaphor) than potential President and he lacks any qualifying experience whatsoever. Somehow, Obama morphed this into a race/patriotism thing (well, you read the quote above) and the MSM is buying into it.

And just because they're playing true to form and we expected it all along doesn't make it any less sucktastic when we see it in print.

*Over-the-top performance, no real skill or experience.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Devil Gets His Pitchfork

We're always sad to see a fellow believer lose the faith. For that reason, we took Obama's resignation from Trinity United pretty hard. But when a supposedly faith-full decision is made for purely political reasons, what can you expect?

All of this raises a larger point that we have pointed out numerous times--mainly that Barack Obama, despite his unified rhetoric, is just like every other politician.

But that doesn't quite do it justice. Beyond choosing his church out of political expedience--Trinity United is a hugely influential church on Chicago's south side--Obama has demonstrated over and over again that the most important consideration in any decision is the political one.

Before anyone gets all in a tizzy over that last point, can anyone cite one example of a bipartisan or post-partisan stand that was politically unpopular? Anyone?

You can't because he hasn't.

Obama isn't post-partisan (whatever that means) post-race or even bipartisan. His voting record in Congress is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's.

John McCain is by far the most moderate candidate in this presidential race. Obama's prop-machine is doing it's darndest to paint him as Bush's 3rd term, a la Bush Senior, but they are so far unable because this country recognizes that McCain's maverick label is a deserved one.

Whatever we true conservatives may think about McCain's campaign finance reform and position on immigration, the independents and moderate Democrats in this country recognize that John McCain is more centrist than either of the two Democratic candidates. This is why he polls so well among those voters. It's why more states are up for grabs this November than might have been in 2004.

One point about McCain and Iraq, before we close. Before "the surge" became The Surge (!), John McCain advocated for a drastic increase in troops on the ground. Heck, he was critical of Rumsfeld's limited footprint policy from day one.

Savvy observers of the Iraq war recognize that McCain was right and that his staunch defense of our presence there and in Afghanistan, while clearly not a politically popular one (contrast again with Obama), has been emphatically affirmed.

The political gains Bush and McCain and others said would come in the wake of the security gains are happening every day. Things are drastically improved. And with that improvement, a lot of the wind has been taken out of the sails of the anti-war left.

The decision between McCain and Obama becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day: want a President willing to make tough decisions that buck partisan politics and, when necessary, popular opinion? The choice is clear: vote for John McCain.

One thing is certain. You cannot say you embrace moderate politics and choose Barack Obama over John McCain.

So, Obama & change you can believe in?

With John McCain you don't have to believe, you can know just by looking at his long record as a reformer.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Religious Generosity

This is a bit of a follow-up to our note about social conservative philanthropic attitudes toward lesser developed countries. The Journal Editorial Report brought the Hudson Institute's Index of Global Philanthropy to our attention. Among other things, this report showed that private organizations sent more than $35 billion to other nations with $8.8 billion coming from U.S. religious charity.

This report highlights a key difference between the liberal and conservative approach to charity, philanthropy and aid. Conservatives are often criticized for their skepticism of large government programs which will supposedly help the poor domestically or internationally.

It's not that conservatives don't have the bleeding hearts of their liberal friends, it's that we don't see appropriating someone else's money and creating vast government programs to spend it, while patting ourselves on the back, to be all that grand of an idea.

It's easy spending someone else's money--the "rich," for example--try spending a little of your own.

Government programs like the ones Clinton & Obama champion are simply liberal guilt for not giving, expressed in yet another bloated bureaucracy. These bloated bureaucracies serve only to create more job opportunities for self-righteous young progressives who shun the selfish and greedy business world. You know this world--the one that creates all the wealth and prosperity that allows them to fund their quest for a liberal, multi-cultural, hand-holding utopia.

Next time someone tries to peddle the canard that liberals are the only ones who care about the poor and suffering and that conservatives just want to get "theirs," well, remember that it is conservatives who actually give theirs while liberals want to spend yours.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

End of the Road

We're almost as sad to see Hillary Clinton leave the race as we were to see Romney's exit. Any bets on whether or not her exit speech will be as classy as Romney's?

But we don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves.

The Former Clinton Advisor (the world is full of 'em, isn't it?) we listened to this morning doesn't think she'll drop out until 3 June at the earliest. That means we've got, what, 3 more weeks of wackiness left? Whatever it takes to keep Barack fighting on two fronts.

Because, and we'll be honest here, we need the help. It's a theme we've touched on before, but Hillary's attack dogs have done a good job of de-canonizing Barack. Rev. Wright and his comments about Obama being just another politician helped too.

And even if it didn't really show up in the Democratic primary, you can bet it will in the general election. There, the moderates/independents/undecideds who aren't sipping the kool-aid will take a hard look at Barack's unity rhetoric and his divisive relationships and decide if reality matches His Airiness.

(it doesn't)

Because the truth is, he's just another San Francisco Democrat who has been able to mask his condescension in platitudes about change and hope. Or should we say Change! and Hope!. Yeah, that's better.

But we're not so wonkish that we think this Presidential election should be a non-stop policy debate. There is more to being President than just advocating another social or economic whatever policy. We are electing a man (or, and this one hangs by a thread, woman) full of world views and attitudes and personality and their life philosophy, how they see America and her place in the world and how they view everything from her history, the Founders, etc., will shape how they will be as President and what types of decisions they will make when the proverbial hits the fan.

We debate all the time with friends (usually libertarian leaning) who do not care about abortion as a political issue. We care about it because it is part of a bigger issue about the question of life. Questions about how someone comes into this life and how they exit it are important.

And even if the President may not author legislation one way or the other about abortion, what he thinks about it is important to us. Because the Presidency of the United States of America is more than just signing Congressional legislation and nominating Supreme Court judges (all important), it's about being the leader of the greatest country in the world and, as such, holding forth on all the important issues.

You may not like President Bush, but the the ability of the President to influence and persuade on a number of issues is incredibly powerful and does affect public opinion. This is why we want a President who matches our worldview as closely as possible.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Wright Fallout

Yesterday we wrote, "The Obama campaign might want to do a little investigative work to see if Rev. Wright is on the Clinton campaign payroll." Hmmm.

Today, per Drudge, these are the headlines:

Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?
Press Club president responds: Reynolds pitched Rev. Wright two years ago
Gingrich: Wright May Be Deliberately Trying to Hurt Obama

The implication of the first two is that the Clinton camp had something to do with Wright's appearance before the National Press club--something we joked about yesterday. The last article, by Newt Gingrich, speculates about Wright's motives, something we also wondered at.

Regardless of where you stand (non-issue, important issue), our overriding point from yesterday stands: Rev. Wright's insistence on publicly defending himself thrusts the issue Wright back into the news-cycle and does damage to the Obama campaign. Formally denounced or not, anytime anyone who is vaguely familiar with Rev. Wright hears his name uttered on the news or sees it in the newspaper, they will automatically associate it with Barack Obama.

And really, there's no blaming Republicans generally or the McCain campaign specifically for this one. All of this is a product of the long, drawn out Democratic campaign and the Clinton attack machine.

A couple of weeks ago we listened in on an off-the-record conference call with the the McCain communications people. There was of interesting stuff, but the one we keep thinking about was the rumor out of the Clinton camp: somebody attached to Team Clinton told a friend in Team McCain that they had 2 more bombs to drop on Obama. We don't know if arranging a press conference for Jeremiah Wright was one of the two, but judging from the fallout, bravo, if it were.

Nice to see the old lady hasn't lost her touch.

*UPDATE 30 April 6:19pm MST: James Taranto on one Obama supporter's attempt to use Romney and Mormonism to obfuscate the Wright thing.

Uh, Melissa Harris-Lacewell*? Please do not try again.

*the name of the aforementioned Obama supporter.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Rev. Wright Won't Go Away

(For the record, Obama agreed that the Wright issue is a legitimate one.)

No doubt about it, Rev. Wright is not on Barack Obama's team.

If he were, or if there were any coordination between the two, he wouldn't have done the Bill Moyers interview and he wouldn't have appeared before the National Press Club.

Seriously, there is no scenario under which these things could have played out well for Barack Obama. Rev. Wright might have been able to repair, somewhat, his own reputation. But forcing himself back into the news does Obama no favors.

It doesn't help Barack's image as a uniter, not a divider, that Wright characterized attacks on his sermons "not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church." We don't believe that Rev. Wright is representative of black churches everywhere. You better believe that Barack Obama doesn't want to turn this into a black vs. white issue.

It doesn't help that he said in his National Press Club appearance that Obama would say whatever he had to say to get elected:

Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable.

As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

Just Another San Francisco Democrat.

It doesn't help that Wright didn't back away one whit from his belief that 9/11 happened because of terrorist sins in America's past.

It doesn't help that Wright didn't back away from his comparison of U.S. Marines to the Roman soldiers who killed Jesus.

One other note: Lots of applause and laughter for Wright's comments from the fawning press corps. Of course, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

If Rev. Wright really wanted Barack Obama to be the next President, he would have kept his mouth shut. Defending his previous statements in these two forums just forces an issue damaging to Barack Obama, back into the news cycle.

Look, the Rev. Wright, Barack Obama link isn't going to affect the votes of die hard, left wing Democrats. It's not going to affect the votes of die hard, left wing Republicans. It will, however, affect so called moderate voters--especially the ones for whom Obama's "post-partisan" politics held appeal.

It's a damaging story arc because it exactly contradicts the PR image Barack Obama and his team have worked so hard to create.

The Obama campaign might want to do a little investigative work to see if Rev. Wright is on the Clinton campaign payroll.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Pennsylvania Aftermath

Image link

What to make of tonight's results? Everyone we read and listened to in the days leading up to Pennsylvania said that Hillary needed to win by 10 points to stay in the race. Not only could she stay in the race with such a difference, it would help her make the case to superdelegates that she was the only candidate who had a chance against McCain in big swing states. With a good showing in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, she seems to be right.

And this raises an honest and legitimate question: is Barack just a regional--southern--candidate? If the Democrats had a Republican (read: American), winner-take-all style election, this thing would be over already and Hillary would have won it.

Is there an argument to be made that Hillary is a candidate who can win the general election, while Barack is not? Do any of you buy that argument? If not, how do you explain her performance in all these key states? Will you just overlook it?

In 2004, Howard Dean and his group of netroots, young supporters were pushed aside by establishment Democrats in favor of John Kerry, because he was more electable. Or, at least, they thought so. If they do the same with Hillary, we suspect that because of Barack's broad popularity--particularly among African-Americans--that it could very well tear the Democrats apart.

Poll numbers seem to indicate that neither group would support the other in a general election. We suspect this is more true of Barack supporters than it would be of Hillary, but we don't know. Based on purely anecdotal evidence from our friends who also happen to be Barack supporters, we could see larger numbers of Obamamaniacs voting for McCain in the general election if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.

Given that many of Hillary's supporters are moderate, blue collar, social conservative voters (Pennsylvania, Ohio) the same may be true of her backers.

And all of this leads us to strongly disagree with some of the comments after the last post. This election is infinitely interesting--made more so because of the Democratic primary.

With Hillary's impressive win in Pennsylvania, it looks like we'll continue to enjoy it for a few more weeks.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Pennsylvania Day-Eve, &c.

Because we traveled to sunny Southern California last weekend, we weren't able to do our regular reading. This meant, much to our dismay, that we read USA Today. We used to enjoy reading USA Today. It had all these cool features and graphics and stats on the sports page--it was certainly better than our hometown sports page.

Then came the internet.

And our reading taste matured, a little.

After awhile, we realized that USA Today is horrible reporting, horrible writing for the liberal semi-literate. We read, for example, their reportage on the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania and could not believe the amount of editorializing in what was supposed to be a just the facts, please, ma'am article. Mostly it was about the plight of Democrats who can't decide which minority they feel more strongly about giving a chance--a woman or a black man.

Polls still show that both camps will be extremely bitter if the other side wins. What does that bitterness get them? John McCain. Awesome.

Then there's Buzz. Liberal Rev. Buzz Thomas thinks we should all do our religious duty and quit having so many children. It seems the Holy Algorian Environmental Apocalyptic is not satisfied with its denunciation of our (collectively speaking) carbon producin' ways, they're now calling out our kids. This op-ed piece is so ridiculous, we regret even linking to it.

Back to Pennsylvania.

We think tomorrow holds bad news for Obama supporters. No, we're pretty sure he's still going to win. The McCain people we talked to last week are all gearing up for Obama like it's a foregone conclusion. But they, and we, will be more than happy to see Hillary do well in Pennsylvania and continue the fight. The more she bruises him, the less saintly he looks.

And because Hillary is doing the dirty work, McCain and the Republicans won't be the ones blamed for spoiling everyone's Barackian day-dreams. Killing the messenger and all that. Even if the messenger (Hillary) is right about Obama.

With Hillary providing the smack in the face, McCain ought to be able illustrate the extreme left liberal nature of Obama's positions. America is a center-right country, after all, and that's pretty much what McCain is--center-right.

Which brings us to our point about McCain: we've gone from reluctant support of John McCain, to downright admiration for the man (Obama supporter's note: not veneration or adoration). One of the things we appreciate most is McCain's ability to identify talented people and put them in the right spots. We believe that a President McCain will be able to focus on a few of his favorite things--foreign policy, military--and leave the rest to a capable cabinet. Because he's loyal, he'll support them and stand up to the Democrat bullies in Congress. He won't try and micromanage everything.

Hillary would micromanage everything. And if you thought Bush was a "for us or against us" President, wait until you see Hillary.

Obama would community organize everything. That's no way to run a Presidency. What do community organizers do, anyway?

*UPDATE 10:55pm MST: Be sure and check out Emmitt Smith's mock draft. Lots of laughs.

Also, Mark Steyn's weekly installment. He is the best and this week's column is particularly good.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Dem Debate

We've scanned the web to get a general sense (salute) of last night's Democratic debate and have been surprised to find that we disagree with most people--at least, according to the Drudge Report poll.

We thought Hillary was sharp, composed, articulate, funny at times, and generally, good. Obama was less impressive than usual. And we don't mean, less impressive according to the standard he set for himself. He seemed less articulate and more convoluted in his logic than we have seen him in the past. We were especially bothered by his default tack: lecturing.

George Stephanopoulos was good. Charlie Gibson was also good. We were shocked, shocked that these two guys actually put hard questions to the two candidates. This was a sharp departure from the love-fest nature of past Dem debates.

On Monday was we drove somewhere, we listened to the Sean Hannity show on the radio. We don't listen to Hannity very often, but when he has an interesting guest, we like to tune in. And on Monday, he talked to Karl Rove and George Stephanopoulos. Sean wanted to know why the press hadn't asked Obama about William Ayers. We won't get into the nitty gritty of the relationship, suffice it to say that Obama's relationship with this admitted terrorist is troubling.

Stephanopoulos has taken a lot of flak today for posing that, and other questions, to Obama. What do these people think? That McCain or anyone else is going to let Obama slide on these things in the general election? The only reason Obama has been as successful as he has been so far is because the press has treated him differently to how they have treated Hillary Clinton.

And this may be the wonderful irony of this election. Because of the press' love for Obama, they may in fact be doing him a disservice by not giving his record the vetting and scrutiny it might normally get during this stage of the campaign. As a result, things are going to come out in the general election--Chicago machine--that will seem like they are being sprung on or swift-boated on the Obama campaign. The truth? The press won't have done it's job so it will take that long to be found out by bloggers or some other source.

This is the double edge of the fawning press sword. Sure, he gets good, free, propaganda from the MSM, but because they don't ask the tough questions he doesn't have to sort through any of the tough things in his past. And we suspect this stuff will come back to bite him.

We first read Stephanopoulos' book, All Too Human, back in 2002. It was fascinating for a number of reasons: it was a window into Clinton's presidency and showed the man to be a flawed genius; it talked extensively about the policy development and rivalries among the Clinton staff; it illuminated interesting points in American history. Now, Stephanopoulos' book suffers from all the same problems common to memoirs: it is hugely tainted by the bias of the author.

It has but one source.

Still, Stephanopoulos seemed pretty fair in the book. He didn't point a finger at everyone else and exculpate himself. He certainly showed himself to be a smart, fair, and idealistic young Democrat. We obviously don't agree with his politics, but his book presented him as fairly reasonable.

And after last night's debate, he gained a whole lot more credibility in our eyes. He asked tough questions of both Hillary and Barack--questions no one else seems to be asking. Partisan supporters of both camps certainly didn't like Stephanopoulos' questions, but we sure did.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Politicians As Usual

Before and after skiing today we've been watching General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the television. Good stuff. Senator Obama just finished asking his "questions" of these two good men.

A few thoughts:

- these hearings, and especially Hillary and Barack's performance in them, show that winning a primary election is more important to them than what is going on in Iraq. Hillary last September and Barack today both tried harder to score political points than have a constructive conversation about the future of Iraq. Could anyone say the same of John McCain? We didn't think so.

This is just one more sign that Obama is cut from the same cloth as every other smooth-talking politician.

- The way Hillary spoke to Gen. Petraeus last September ("willing suspension of disbelief") and Obama's anti-war lecturing (the war was a "blunder") reflect the type of adversarial relationship the left (and dominant) wing has had with the military since Vietnam. Their badgering and abuse of General Petraeus is shameful. They use him as a cut-out for President Bush--the rightful recipient of their ranting and raving.

We know grandstanding is a Senate tradition, we just wish these two Presidential candidates would forbear when speaking to a man who is clearly doing his best to serve his country.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

(Late) Sunday Night Links

These are the stories we've been reading this weekend.

- From the Daily Press, the unintended consequences--black market goodies--of public schools' crackdown on high calorie snacks. Libertarians & econ enthusiasts like us will love this one. (hat tip: Matt Lybbert)

- The Guardian reports on an female Iraqi sprinter who will compete in the Olympics this summer. Our feel-good story of the week, this definitely wouldn't have happened when Saddam was chairman of the Iraqi Olympic Committee.

- Before the Supreme Court is a very interesting case regarding the criminal trials in Iraq of men holding dual citizenship (US/Iraqi & US/Jordanian). Spiker, what say you?

- Writing in the LA Times, former Ambassador to the UN, and a man for whom we hold a great deal of respect, John Bolton, addresses Taiwan's complicated position. We know very little about this area of the world--what we learned in our Chinese history course at BYU and what we've read since then. Hopefully resident China/Taiwan expert, Dallas Stahle, will weigh in.

- Last, but never least, the only columnist we read every week no matter what (okay, we pretty much always read Daniel Henninger, too)--Mark Steyn. This guy is great. Smart, clever, and insightful. We're sure our liberal friends wish they had someone like him.

This week Steyn analyzes the state of Hillary's campaign. Writes Steyn,

The other day I gave a talk and a Democrat in the audience demanded that I disassociate myself from the sleazy attacks of some Republicans who’ve been referring to “Barack Hussein Obama.” I said I’d be happy to disassociate myself from (Clinton supporter) Bob Kerrey who’s been floating the whole nudge-nudge-Hussein-the-secret-Muslim thing, and to disassociate myself from (Clinton supporter) Bill Shaheen who’s been pushing the Obama-spent-most-of-the-Seventies-selling-cocaine rumors, and to disassociate myself from (Clinton supporter) Andrew Young who’s boasted that Bill Clinton has slept with more black women than Obama. And golly, after I’d got through disassociating myself from all the Democrat sleaze about Obama, I had no time to peddle any sleaze of my own.

Pretty much sums up how we feel.

*UPDATE 31 March 2008 4:38pm MST: Check out Ryan Decker's review of WFB and one of his recent books.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Karl Rove Is Awesome

Image link

Yesterday a friend of ours attended the Karl Rove fundraiser we first linked to on Wednesday. We asked him to take notes and he obliged, writing down a number of interesting things Rove had to say about the current election and President Bush.

- Rove was introduced by Republican congressman, Doc Hastings, who said of Rove that he "understands policy." Ah, the power of understatement.

- Karl opened by saying that he had a lot of "fun" in the White House and then launched in to talking about Clinton and Obama.

- Of Hillary, he said that she was the first, and to his knowledge, the only First Lady to have an office in the West Wing. If anyone had anything they wanted to run past Bill, it went through Hillary first. We leave it to the reader to discern whether this was because Hillary had a lot of influence over Bill or if she just wanted to insert herself wherever possible.

- Regarding their politics, Rove said that Hillary was obviously a liberal Democrat but that Barack was a really, really liberal Democrat.

- Rove said that he first knew Obama through his former deputy, Ken Mehlman who had known Obama at Harvard.

- On their separate spending proposals (to date, not including any future general election bribes/commitments), of which Obama has pledged $662B and Hillary $695B, Rove said that such increases would cause the budget to increase by 25%. Do your own math on what that would require in the way of new and increased taxes.

- When Justices Alito and Roberts reached the Senate floor for confirmation (both of which, mind you, had broad bipartisan support), both Hillary and Barack voted against their confirmation.

Yeah, that Barack, he's such a bipartisan unifier.

- Rove also noted that Obama voted against increased spending to give soldiers much needed body armor, MRE's, and fuel.

We think this is called supporting the troops without actually, you know, supporting the troops.

- He said that he didn't like Hillary, but he grudgingly admitted that she could handle the presidency.

- Rove said that Barack was "one of the most cooly arrogant people in politics." He said that he was "smart and arrogant but he doesn't do his home work." Because of this, Rove doesn't believe that Obama is up to the task. He does not believe that Obama is competent.

- Talking about Obama's background, he said that Barack was a "Chicago machine politician." We suspect there will be more stories about his Chicago background as the election continues.

- Karl predicted that Obama will win the Democratic primary. He admitted that he had first predicted a win for Hillary and that the reason he was wrong was because her "fatal flaws" had emerged earlier than he originally anticipated.

- Switching gears a little bit, Rove talked about Dino Rossi's run for Governor in 2004 in which high shenanigans in King county caused Rossi to lose the election by just over 100 votes. This wouldn't have happened, Rove pointed out, if the 6000 voters in Eastern Washington who voted for President Bush had also voted for Dino Rossi.

With Governor Christine Gregoire's approval rating at an all-time low, those voters will be the key to getting Rossi elected this fall.

- Observing John McCains crossover appeal, Rove suggested that for the first time in a number of years, the Pacific Northwest--specifically Washington and Oregon--could be in play. In our opinion, Oregon has a greater chance of voting for McCain than does Washington, but hey, there's always audacious hope, right?

- For those worried about increased threats from Iran and North Korea and a retreat in either Afghanistan or Iraq, Rove said that "President Bush will exercise all the power available to him to accomplish these goals and keep America safe."

- Widely criticized as an uncaring warmonger, completely out of touch with reality or the impact of the war on soldiers and their families, Rove pointed out that President Bush has in fact met with the families of nearly 3000 soldiers who have lost their lives in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Rove said it was the President's habit to schedule these meetings as the last item of the day so that he would not have to leave early. He further said that it was his habit to give these families as much times as they needed and let them say whatever was in their hearts.

The picture of an uncaring President Bush could not be further from the truth.

Rove spoke of one meeting with the family of a soldier from Reno, Nevada. He attended the meeting with President Bush. This story echoes pretty much exactly what Rove told my father and those with him at the dinner yesterday.

He said that President Bush typically asks each member of the family if there is anything he can do. He finally turned to the father who, Rove noted, seemed a little reserved, to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Rove assumed the father would say something critical of President Bush and the war, which happens from time to time. Instead, the father was angry that Navy regulations prohibited him from serving.

His oldest son, a Marine, had died while serving near Fallujah. His second son was also serving in the military and he wanted to join to honor his sons and provide medical service to hurt soldiers.

So, he asked President Bush to grease the wheels so that he could join the Navy Medical Corps. Krissoff said that his "goal is to work in a combat surgical unit, a forward unit."


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barack Obama & The (Rev.) Wright-Wing Nut

Image link

If it's alright for the liberal press to call into question Mitt Romney's judgment for being a member of a church that denied the priesthood to blacks over 30 years ago, then Barack Obama's ongoing, 20-year, close personal relationship with his America-hating pastor is fair game.

Among other things, Reverend Wright preached that:
- The US is like al-Qaeda
- HIV is a genocidal plot by the American government to eliminate African Americans
- Drugs are/were promoted by the government as a way to imprison blacks
- America deserved 9/11
- FDR and the US government knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor
- Honored virulent anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan and traveled with him to visit Libyan tyrant/terrorist Muammar al-Gaddafi
- Uses anti-semitic language**

The list goes on. And it's all sick. The last thing Obama needs now is for someone to find a clip of Rev. Wright ranting with a cut to Barack and family in the audience, cheering and nodding their heads. Believe it or not, we honestly hope Barack never found himself nodding as this crazed loon spouted off about some crazy 9/11 truther-inspired conspiracy.

Here are the links:
Obama And The Minister
As Obama Talks Religion, Questions Surround His Controversial Pastor
Wright Leaves Obama Campaign
Obama Denounces His Pastor's Statements

Could you imagine if this were John McCain or even Hillary Clinton and their white religious leader were doing the same thing? We strongly defend Wright's right to say these things (and, after all, this isn't Canada), but he and those who associate with him will suffer the consequences in the court of public opinion. And in Pennsylvania next month.

It looks like Christmas came early for the Clinton camp this year.

We don't think Barack Obama hates America or believes what Reverend Wright preaches, but maybe his attitudes are closer to the attitude of his wife who infamously stated that Barack's candidacy for President was the first time she has been proud of her country.

If he doesn't agree with these things, why did Obama associate himself with Rev. Wright for 20 years?


*UPDATE 15 March 5:07pm MST: Video from Barack Obama's interview with Major Garrett on Fox News.

**UPDATE 17 March 12:59pm MST: A sample of Rev. Wright's anti-semitic language:

In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.