Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?
August 4, 2008; Page A12
The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.
[Barack Obama]
Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.
Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.
Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).
If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.
In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.
If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.
Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?
The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of "windfall."
General Electric profits by investing in the alternative energy technology that Mr. Obama says Congress should subsidize even more heavily than it already does. GE's profit margin in 2007 was 10.3%, about the same as profiteering Exxon's. Private-equity shops like Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, which recently hired Al Gore, also invest in alternative energy start-ups, though they keep their margins to themselves. We can safely assume their profits are lofty, much like those of George Soros's investment funds.
The point isn't that these folks (other than Mr. Clinton) have something to apologize for, or that these firms are somehow more "deserving" of windfall tax extortion than Big Oil. The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.
It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.
"The Paris Hilton Tax Break" [John J. Miller]
If it's so awful to pull Paris Hilton into politics, as John McCain recently did in a commercial, then Barack Obama shouldn't have dragged her into a Senate debate two years ago, when he attacked the repeal of the death tax:
Mr. OBAMA: Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the complete repeal of the estate tax.
First of all, [let's] call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is—the Paris Hilton tax break.
In these remarks, Obama mentions "the Paris Hilton tax break" four times — check out the Congressional Record, June 8, 2006 (pages S5616 and S5617).
More Obama, from the same speech:
So if the Republicans want to bring up their Paris Hilton tax break to use it as an election issue later, I say go for it. Because I can think of no better statement about where and how we differ in priorities than that.
We will now wait for liberals to explain the political etiquette of Paris Hilton references: Okay when Obama uses them to condemn tax cuts, but not okay when anybody else uses them to criticize Obama.
08/04 10:46 AM
Seems like people are finding out about Barry and don't liek waht they see.
Poll info:
MCCAIN NOW LEADS OBAMA:
This is the first time McCain has enjoyed even a statistically insignificant advantage of any sort since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3 (see recent daily results). . . . A week ago today, Obama had a three-percentage point lead and the candidates were even among unaffiliated voters. Today, McCain leads 52% to 37% among unaffiliateds.
McCain is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 51%. That is the lowest rating for Obama since he wrapped up the nomination.
You can headline it "No Mo for B.O." if you want to be cute. Given the adulatory media coverage to date, this suggests significant weakness on Obama's part. (Via JWF).
What about the ads that McCain has run were racist???
The Obama campaign's continuing denial of reconciliation in Iraq
By TigerHawk at 8/04/2008 04:41:00 AM
With the great statistical improvement in violence in Iraq, the response from the left has been to claim that sectarian violence has only declined because the massive amount of it that has already occurred has greatly diminished the opportunity for more of it (because Iraqis have segregated along sectarian lines, for example). Well, if this is not a great sign of the subsantive "national reconciliation" that critics of the Petraeus strategy have been claiming has not happened, I do not know what would be:
For years, when she approached Iraqi Army checkpoints and produced an identification card for soldiers to study for clues about her sect, Nadia Hashim used a simple formula to signal the mostly Shiite Muslim force that she, too, is a Shiite.
"I am one of you," she'd say.
The soldiers would harass Sunnis, but they'd simply wave Hashim through.
Now her pat line gets her an official reproach.
When a relative used it recently, a soldier admonished the driver and the passengers. "'We are Iraqis, and you shouldn't say such a thing,' " recalled Hashim.
Of course, the other side of it certainly must also be true -- the violence of 2006 - 2007 has greatly reduced both the appetite and the opportunity for more of the same, and even the linked article (which has many more anecdotes after the lede) argues that today's peace might degrade. It is interesting, though, that the government of Iraq seems to be going to a real effort to remove sect from official consideration, even at the level of the soldiers and police, and its motivation seems to be to bolster its own popularity (perhaps the most encouraging of various alternative motives).
In any case, this story caused me to wander over to Barack Obama's web site and read the still extant "fact sheet" on Iraq. I encourage you to do the same. It struck me as extraordinarily out-of-date for a campaign position document. For example:
More than 1,000 Iraqi civilians die every month. Sectarian death squads roam Baghdad. The humanitarian crisis that President Bush says would accompany American troop withdrawals is occurring right now.
I am interested in the reaction of readers, but it seems to me that Obama's official pronouncements on Iraq reflect a denial about the very much changed situation there that would provoke contemptuous jeers (or at least tough questions) from the press if it were the McCain campaign that was so out of touch.
LMAO
Obama was attacked ( rightfully ) for his arrogance.
It was Barry who said he didn't " look like the other presidents
What do YOU think he was referring to??
Using Barry's pathetic attempt at victimization. you wouldn't be able to criticize him for anything
NO you won't change his mind
YEp, it makes no sense that in organization would pass up the chance to take on the US in " their " area of the world and fight them on favorable terms ( guerrilla warfare ) with a chance for an outstanding strategic and PR victory.
Nah, they just want to hide out in Afghanistan and Pakistan and build up their strength.
But, for what??
This was their gilded opportunity and they lost.
They admit it in the documents we've been able to obtain
Just like Sortaqueen is hoping for many deaths of Israelis and a Pal victory, he hopes for AQ to succeed because the US is the source of all evil
He's trying to make Kerry seem like the height of stability and honesty
As He's Consistently Said... He's Been Saying this for Years.
He's Said From the Very Beginning that the Energy Policy He Formerly Espoused was Wrong.
Posted by: Leon H. Wolf
Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 10:25PM
19 Comments
This, really, was about as predictable as the sun rising in the east this morning:
My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.
But on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."
"I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.
I don't know why Barack Obama bothers giving speeches anymore, since everyone in America already knows what he's going to say anyway.
Amazing people still take this empty ( designer ) suit seriously
You got it wrong Peggie
It's Barry's lead that has disappeared as people get to know his arrogance more
Remember all those contests at the end of the primaries when Hillary almost beat him?
He's gonna have to convince people outside of Blacks and ultra liberals that he's worth their vote. HE's gonna have a hard tome at that
sent in some surogates or more to the point, lent some thugs their name and let them run us around for a few years.
LMAO at the trail of though here
AQ sent their B team because they really didn't want to win the fight in Iraq????
Just goes to show that having access to information doesn't make you smart- you glibly quote stuff, but let you moonbat frame of reference make you sound like a fool
Yeah it was just the B team and we really didn't care, so no big deal
Too fuckn hilarious in the depth of the stupidity and persistent refusal to acknowledge reality
So, Iraq was a prime opportunity to establish a power base in a country in chaos due to poor was planning by the US at first.
They really want Afghanistan, right?? But the Taliban was controlled there. Yes, they are making a resurgence, but even your boy Barry wants to do a surge there.
They took out the AQ's to chemical guy in Pakistan where they do have greater strength
Hey Peggie, you love polls- how come you haven't cited the ones that show the race as a dead heat??
Well, I guess you know better than the many AQ documents seized that admit their defeat in Iraq
We made it the frontline because of our presence. And they clearly lost, Only the delusional few still can't acknowledge it
Just as you refuse to admit the progress the surge brought- also allowing for political progress- 15 of 18 goals met
I guess you missed the news of their chemical expert who was killed in PAKISTAN
The only dope is what you've been smoking to perpetuate the 60's haze of a socialist utopia you're still dreaming of
I think the change Barry is tlaking about is his constnatly changing positions according to the political winds at the time.
Constantly opposed off shore drilling- changed
Firm deadline to pull out troops- changed
etc etc
He's just another hack pol and dangerous because of his lack of experience
Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling
Email this Story
Aug 1, 7:40 PM (ET)
By MIKE GLOVER
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks at a town hall meeting in St....
Full Image
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.
Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. acknowledges an audience member's...
Full Image
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.
In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.
"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."
Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators - five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. answers an audience member's question,...
Full Image
The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.
Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.
The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.
"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."
Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."
Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.
The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.
In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"
Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relie on
"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."
Clearly not very well for AQ
AQ, Obama and Kissinger
Posted by: McQ
On the day combat tours in Iraq were cut from 15 to 12 months we hear this:
The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization.
U.S. officials say there are indications that al-Qaeda is diverting new recruits from going to Iraq, where its fighters have suffered dramatic setbacks, to going to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they appear to be making gains.
So tell me again how Iraq was a 'diversion' from the main fight against AQ in Afghanistan?
And tell me again how Iraq wasn't, in fact, the "central front" in the fight against AQ?
AQ obviously thought it was, committed vastly more terrorists to its effort there than Afghanistan, openly called it the "central front" in its war against the US and is now diverting its assets from that effort because it has become an unmitigated disaster for them.
On a related subject, Dr. Henry Kissinger makes a stab at diplomatically pointing the out the obvious to the Obama campaign and the Democrats:
The U.S. presidential campaign has been so long and so intense that it seems to operate in a cocoon, oblivious to changes that should alter its premises. A striking example is the debate over withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
Over the past year, many have proposed setting a deadline for withdrawal. Proponents have argued that a date certain would compel the Iraqi government to accelerate the policy of reconciliation; would speed the end of the war; and would enable the United States to concentrate its efforts on more strategically important regions, such as Afghanistan. Above all, they argued, the war was lost, and withdrawal would represent the least costly way to deal with the debacle.
These premises have been overtaken by events. Almost all objective observers agree that major progress has been made on all three fronts of the Iraq war: Al-Qaeda, the Sunni jihadist force recruited largely from outside the country, seems on the run in Iraq; the indigenous Sunni insurrection attempting to restore Sunni predominance has largely died down; and the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad has, at least temporarily, mastered the Shiite militias that were challenging its authority. After years of disappointment, we face the need to shift gears mentally to consider emerging prospects of success.
[...]
Establishing a deadline is the surest way to undermine the hopeful prospects. It will encourage largely defeated internal groups to go underground until a world more congenial to their survival arises with the departure of American forces. Al-Qaeda will have a deadline against which to plan a full-scale resumption of operations. And it will give Iran an incentive to strengthen its supporters in the Shiite community for the period after the American withdrawal. Establishing a fixed deadline would also dissipate assets needed for the diplomatic endgame.
Shorter version - "The facts have changed but your position hasn't. It makes you look stubborn and unwilling to admit your mistakes. Isn't that your criticism of George Bush?"
Kissinger goes on to point out that he is a friend of McCain's and occasionally advises him. But his point is valid regardless of any relationship. Timelines have no business being considered in what is emerging as a success for the reasons Kissinger outlines.
Obama’s Racism Card
The charge against the McCain campaign is a flat-out smear.
By Rich Lowry
Editor’s note: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact: kfsreprint@hearstsc.com, or phone 800-708-7311, ext 246).
Jesse Jackson must have been forgiven by the Obama campaign and welcomed into its inner circle. Because it sure seems as if he’s giving the campaign advice.
Responding to a McCain ad knocking him as a world celebrity, Barack Obama essentially accused the McCain campaign of race-baiting. It was a hair-trigger resort to the charge of racism of the sort that Jackson built a career on, making himself radioactive and anathema to the political center.
In 24 hours, Obama had lurched his carefully crafted brand in Jackson’s direction. And for what?
The McCain ad intersperses footage of Obama’s massive political rally in Germany with images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton before asking “is he ready to lead?” It’s rare that a political candidate is criticized for being too popular, but that’s the import of the ad, and its inclusion of Spears and Hilton has been called even by McCain sympathizers “stupid,” “childish” and “juvenile.”
But the McCain ad had a serious point, one the Obama campaign obviously felt it couldn’t ignore. Obama can be as arrogant, gassy and remote as other members of the country’s aristocracy of fame. If this celebrity framework is successfully imposed on Obama, the entire repertoire of Obamania — the mass rallies, the soaring eloquence, the picturesque cool of the candidate himself — risks becoming a liability.
In a statement Obama repeated three times, he said what George Bush and John McCain are “going to try to do is make you scared of me. 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 those dollar bills.” Translation: Bush and McCain are going to go all Bull Connor on me.
Neither has done any such thing, of course. McCain has distanced himself from attacks with the remotest hint of racial undertones. When a talk-radio host mentioned Obama’s middle name several times in the course of an introduction of McCain at a rally, McCain roundly denounced him. When the North Carolina Republican Party ran an — entirely aboveboard — ad linking Obama with his longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, McCain loudly objected. Obama’s charge is a flat-out smear.
Afterward, an Obama spokesman implausibly insisted the dollar-bills comment was not about race: “What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington.” This is rich. George Washington didn’t serve in Washington either, given that the capital of the country was first New York and then Philadelphia. His path to the presidency went through Trenton, Valley Forge, and Yorktown (granted, quite different than Obama’s). As for the other presidents, neither Abraham Lincoln, nor Andrew Jackson, nor U.S. Grant was a Washington time-server prior to winning the White House.
Obama clearly was talking about race. He said much the same thing in Berlin: “I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.” Did he merely mean that he has better-fitting suits and a slimmer frame?
Obama has apparently been spoiling to throw out the race charge. When he won the North Carolina primary, he said McCain would “play on our fears” and “exploit our differences.” In June, he said Republicans were going to run against him saying: “He’s young and inexperienced, and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
Obama hopes to use the racism card to inhibit all criticism of him, with the presumed cooperation of the press. But there’s a much larger downside. Obama’s race is a political advantage so long as it is sold in a post-racial context. If his background is a symbol of how we can get beyond the poisoned atmosphere of both racism and the hyperactive, opportunistic charges of racism, it’s a boon to his change-and-unity candidacy. That’s why Jesse Jackson expressing a desire to perform emergency surgery on Obama was a priceless assist.
Now, Obama could throw it away in a fit of self-destructiveness worthy of ... dare we say it, Britney Spears?
Paranoid much? [Mark Hemingway]
I see that Rick Perlstein isn't just under the impression that McCain's "Celeb" ad is racist, but also that it's a deliberate attempt to invoke comparisons between Obama and Hitler, and was even shot to look just like Triumph of the Will — "I actually wonder if the Republicans had a crew on the scene to capture just the right angles," Perlstein says.
I would say something about how pathetic and silly this is, but Ross Douthat beat me to the punch:
Here's a tip for liberals: If your candidate is going to stage enormous rallies in front of tens of thousands of chanting Germans (with monuments to Prussian military might in the background) in the middle of his Presidential campaign, it isn't the GOP's fault if the footage comes out looking a little like Hitler at Nuremberg.
07/31 05:44 PM
Self-Smear [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
Interesting juxtaposition:
Obama camp now: John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
Obama in Berlin: “I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.”
Doesn’t Obama need to explain why he’s hurling such undignified attacks at his own campaign?
07/31 05:09 PM
Presumed Racist [Peter Kirsanow]
Obama's statement yesterday about Republican scare tactics is merely the latest in a string of statements in which he suggests that certain Americans are intrinsically racist, and those Americans aren't just confined to political opponents. His declaration that his grandmother was a "typical white person," was, at the time, derided primarily because it was seen as Obama "throwing her under the bus" for political expediency. But the statement's premise — that the "typical" white person is a reflexive racist — is at least as offensive.
Similarly, the commentary surrounding Obama's statement to San Francisco elites about bitter, working class voters focused largely on the condescension in his claim that such folks "cling to guns or religion." Somewhat ignored was the clause "...or antipathy to people who aren't like them..." Again, Obama is branding a huge swath of the American populace in unsavory terms.
During the primaries his campaign lept upon any statement that was even remotely related to color as evidence of racist intent. This is, to say the least, peculiar for someone whose campaign was based in part on racial transcendence. Even more so for someone who doesn't seem to have encountered any pernicious racism or racial barriers in his personal life. His profligate insinuations of racism now are far beyond unseemly. As the possible next President of the United States, he needs to be called on it.
07/31 01:58 PM
Obama, Unions and the secret ballot
Posted by: McQ
If you're ready to revisit the era of union strong-arm tactics and closed shops (which have seen businesses flee for 'right to work' states), a vote for Obama is recommended.
"We're ready to play offense for organized labor. It's time we had a president who didn't choke saying the word 'union.' A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers," Mr. Obama told the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2.
"I will make it the law of the land when I'm president of the United States," Mr. Obama told the labor federation.
Of course, this promise explains why the SIEU is dropping $150 million in the effort to get him elected and why the AFL-CIO has "a ramped-up campaign" to help Obama win. In fact the AFL-CIO is committed to a 600,000 mailing to uncommitted voters on Obama's, and thereby the union's, behalf.
While Obama loves to claim he doesn't take money from "corporate lobbyists", he's hip deep in union money. And if you don't think they expect some real pay back when the election is over, then you don't know unions very well.
And what is it they want? The right to legally intimidate as they attempt to organize:
The AFL-CIO's campaign Web site features numerous quotes from Mr. Obama pledging to pass the card-check bill that would allow workers to form a union simply by collecting a majority of cards signed by workers supporting the unionization of their employer's business.
Under current law, once a majority of workers submit cards requesting union certification, an election is held in which workers vote by secret ballot on whether to ratify unionization. The pending bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act, does not require the secret ballot vote unless at least 30 percent of workers call for it.
The Obama campaign says the card-check bill will not necessarily deny workers the right to a private ballot.
"This is simply a debate over process. But it is up to the workers, and they should be free to choose their process," said campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro. "If they wish to vote by secret ballot instead of a card-check process, they can. The law does not strip them of that right."
But Mr. Obama is quoted in the AFL-CIO campaign Web site flatly saying the proposed law "will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card-checks and strengthen penalties for those employers who are in violation" - thus bypassing the ballot procedure. Union leaders have said they prefer this to an open election in which employers and unions compete for worker votes.
The House passed the card-check bill last year by a 241-185 vote, but it was blocked in the Senate where Democrats fell nine votes short of the 60 votes needed to end a GOP filibuster
Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, announced it was launching the Workforce Freedom Initiative, a counteroffensive against the AFL-CIO's efforts to "take away the protection of a private ballot, giving union organizers free rein to publicly pressure workers into signing cards stating support for a union. This is un-American," said Chamber President Tom Donohue.
The Chamber will mount a "multimillion-dollar effort [to] galvanize small-business owners, workers, community leaders and citizens to preserve the rights and freedoms of Americans in the workplace," Mr. Donohue said.
"The obvious intention and design of the bill is to eliminate private ballots as the primary means of certifying unions in this country," said Steven Law, the Chamber's chief counsel.
The private ballot is an absolute necessity for fair elections and anyone with the IQ of a three day old halibut knows that. Unions will spend upwards of $300 million during this campaign season to elect someone who will sign legislation eliminating that obvious safeguard and toss it off to 'an argument over process'. And he will also repeatedly remind you he is in nobody's pocket when he does so.
Obama wants a "peace dividend"
Posted by: McQ
This was linked previously by Lance, but it deserves a post of its own. We've been through this before:
Barack Obama said Friday that persuading NATO allies to contribute more troops to Afghanistan could lead to U.S. troop cuts and help improve the U.S. economy, with reduced military expenditure being diverted into tax cuts to help middle class families.
As you see more and more specifics from this guy (see reparations post) the scarier he gets.
We're presently engaged in building up the military because we've found that our doctrine of being able to fight two mid sized wars simultaneously can't be done with the military of the size it is today.
Why? Because it puts too much stress on the force, doesn't allow for the appropriate amount of downtime for training and can't be sustained.
All of those points were points the Democrats have been pounding for years.
"If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term, which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle class families who are struggling with higher gas prices that will have an impact on our economy."
Why is it that the first thing any Democrat wants to do is cut military spending? And yet they get all huffy when you point out that national security isn't their strongest point. As Baseball Crank points out:
The last thing we need is a president who thinks that national security in an active theater of war is a prime target for penny-pinching. It's also a rehash of John Kerry's effort to turn Iraq into a domestic-spending issue.
Except this time it is Afghanistan that would be effected - the supposed righteous war.
Some may ask, "why is it important to be able to fight two wars simultaneously". Deterrence. If your potential enemy knows your force structure would only allow you to deploy and fight one war (and again I want to point out we're talking about mid-sized conflicts, not world wars) at a time, they simply wait for you to become engaged in that war and then make their move in another area of the world knowing full well you can't respond. So the size of our force is critical to maintaining that deterrence level against those who might take advantage of a situation otherwise.
This statement by Obama also demonstrates his ignorance about NATO. Presently the brunt of the fighting in Afghanistan is being carried by 3 nations - the US, Canada and Britain. Baseball Crank discusses why that is so:
Second, while he gave a nod in his big national security speech to "greater contributions — with fewer restrictions — from NATO allies," Obama misses the fact that more European troops, especially from the Western European continental states, invariably means more restrictions on effective prosecution of war. A cumbersome joint multinational command was a serious handicap to U.S. efforts in Somalia and Kosovo, and even under Bush the Afghan operation has not been free of such difficulties with European troops who fight, if at all, under a patchwork of restrictive rules of engagement.
Most of our NATO allies are not, let me repeat that, not going to commit combat troops to Afghanistan. And if they do, they will be in very small numbers. The UK and Canada are very unlikely to commit more combat troops. But it is combat troops which are most needed there. So when Obama talked about "surging" a couple of combat brigades into Afghanistan, that brought smiles to the faces of the Europeans, because it essentially took the pressure off of them to do that. Now they'll send a portable potty platoon here and a mess kit repair battalion there and claim to have fulfilled their NATO duties.
So while Obama talks about surging troops in Afghanistan on the one hand, he's talking about cutting the military on the other. That's asinine. And it is a direct reflection on both his inexperience and his judgment. In fact, saying things like this moves him from the 'scary' category to the 'dangerous' category.
Permalink | Comments ( 10 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections
QandO
Obama endorses reparations (update)
Posted by: McQ
I pointed out, yesterday, the latest in redistributionist schemes being cooked up ala "global warming". Dale notes that the belief in a Democratic win seems to be bringing these sorts of ideas and potential claims to the fore as they line up for their hopeful piece of the pie.
If you don't think that possibility exists, let me point out a few words that should finally convince you. From Barack Obama yesterday while addressing minority journalists:
"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
Our "tragic history"? A tragic history, in my estimation, would be one that still exists now as it did then. Someone, anyone, tell me - Would you consider the steps made to remedy those situations of our "tragic past" an "acknowledgment" of them that has been done through "deeds"?
Civil war, Constitutional amendments, laws, set-asides, preferences, enforcement, cultural change, etc.
Yet here again, these are deemed insufficient. Instead, "reparations" and "deeds" are mentioned in the same breath by a supposedly "post-racial" candidate for President of the United States. And what that simply means is another in a long line of redistributionist schemes based in historical wrongs and the premise they've not been addressed.
This. Has. Got. To. Stop.
And this nonsense has absolutely no business being endorsed by a presidential candidate of either of the major parties.
This is, as Dale says, madness.
UPDATE: Oliver Willis decides that I'm the one "distorting" what Obama said, because, you know, Obama really didn't say what he said, or at least, he really didn't mean it:
He said as far as reparations were concerned that he was more interested in strategies to lift people up from the legacy of discrimination. Such strategies would include improving inner city schools, so students received a quality education.
Of course, it should be clear here that were a tap-dance such as this attempted by someone on the right, Oliver would denounce it as "spin". But since Obama said it, it is, of course, gospel. And of course, it is even evident in the spin that he isn't denying he believes in reparations. He's simply trying to redefine it for his convenience.
Permalink | Comments ( 6 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 ) | Category: Elections
Presidential Idol [Peter Wehner]
Dana Milbank’s column in the Washington Post, “President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour,” is worth reading, if only for these paragraphs:
The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls — just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service hustled him in through a side door — just as they do for the actual president.
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
Not to everyone.
Any man who believes he is “the moment that the world is waiting for” and views himself as the symbol of the possibility and best traditions of America is an individual of staggering arrogance. That is doubly so when, like Obama, you have achieved nothing so far in your life — in terms of scholarship or literature, legislation, acts of valor, self-sacrifice, or anything else – that qualifies you to view yourself in quasi-Messianic terms.
One increasingly senses with Obama that he views himself not as a presidential candidate but as a world celebrity, with all the vanity and arrogance that accompanies such people.
Obama, a literate man, might want to reacquaint himself with the Book of Proverbs, which warns that “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall,” and the story of Icarus.
Barack Obama is a very talented political figure, but he is not indestructible. And right now he is flying closer and closer to the sun. At some point – it’s hard to tell when – the wings of wax will begin to melt.
07/30 07:51 AM
Be Very Afraid [Peter Kirsanow]
Sen. Obama: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
Simple assignment for the press corps: ask the senator to name three specific traditions to which America will return upon his election and why his election will prompt their return. No teleprompters allowed.
Seems like reality doesn't agree w/ you :
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Email a Friend Email to a Friend
Advertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that Barack Obama’s Berlin bounce is gone. Obama now attracts 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%. Compared to a week ago, Obama has gained a single percentage point (see recent daily results
And you're still delusional enough to think Ron Paul is gonna play a meaningful role in anything???
Too funny
Why so?
It's perfectly in keeping with Barry's putting politics/his needs above all else
Just like his blowing off the trip to see the wounded troops while in Germany
Paper, rapped for outing Obama note, claims campaign pre-approved leak
By Israel Insider staff July 28, 2008
Bookmark to del.icio.us
What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign. Maariv, the second most popular newspaper in Israel, was roundly criticized for publishing the note Obama left in the Kotel. But now a Maariv spokesperson says that publication of the note was pre-approved for international publication by the Obama campaign, leading to the conclusion that the "private" prayer was intentionally leaked for public consumption.
At around 5am last Thursday, Obama arrived at the Kotel, or Western Wall, abutting the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount. Accompanied by the Rabbi in charge of the site, Shmuel Rabinovich, he reportedly heard Psalm 122, which contains a prayer for the peace of Jerusalem, touched the wall briefly and then deposited a note of prayer into a crack between the ancient stones, in keeping with the tradition of visitors to the site. On his way out, he was briefly heckled, with one man calling out that "Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Remember what you see here." Trying to drown out the critics, a few supporters chanted his name.
Subsequently, it was reported that a yeshiva student filched the note that Obama placed in the wall and then Maariv published it in the next day's newspaper.
For that "scoop" the paper has come under fire. Yediot Aharonot, the country's most popular daily, published an article Friday saying it had also obtained the note but decided not to publish it, to respect Obama's privacy. Other Israeli media outlets initially ignored the story, or picked it up only after the initial publication had triggered a controversy.
"Lord - Protect my family and me," reads the note.
"Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."
However, it now appears that Maariv had collaborated with the Obama campaign in getting the "private" prayer, with its "modest" supplicaton to the Lord, out to the public, buffing his Christian credentials and showing his "humility."
A Ma'ariv spokesman was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that "Barack Obama's note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel, a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem."]
The paper added that is was "pleased" with its "journalistic accomplishment."
[Update as to Maariv's statement as published in Haaretz on July 28]: "Obama's note was published in Maariv and other international publications following his authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem."]
If correct, It appears that Obama made Maariv and other media an instrument of his will. The media, of course, was a most willing tool.
The campaign might be less pleased with another pronouncement by Maariv: "In any case," the spokesman said, "since Obama is not a Jew, publishing the note does not constitute an infringement on his right to privacy." Apparently, to the paper, Gentile prayer doesn't count.
If the Maariv statement about pre-approval of publication of the note is true, it would mean that the Obama campaign had managed the event brilliantly, if deceptively, getting the double benefit of appearing to be victimized by the invasive Israeli press and prayer-thieving Jew while at the same time leaking out his humble Christian plea to the Lord.
Already by the weekend, a (relatively) slick video appeared on YouTube that blended Obama's Western Wall prayer with various church scenes, crosses aplenty, a dove of peace, and a soundtrack based on Amazing Grace. The video closes with a "vote" button and an invitation to visit the official campaign website:
Revelation of this latest Obama collaboration with the media might detract a bit from the perceived sincerity of the prayer and strike some as an especially cynical use of the Kotel and an obstensibly private prayer to the Deity as a campaign prop. Most politicians suffice with getting a photo-op. Obama may be the first to take a prayer-leak on the Wall.
Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
July 29, 2008; Page A17
[nowides]
What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?
[Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession]
AP
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.
To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.
Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.
First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.
The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!
[Boskin]
Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)
On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.
On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.
Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.
Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.
Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.
History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.
Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Why Do Europeans Love Obama?
Let us count the ways:
1) Obama’s tax code, support of big government programs and redistribution of income, and subservience to UN directives delight the European masses—especially at a time when their own governments are trying to cut taxes, government, seek closer relations with the US, and ask a petulant, pampered public to grow up.
2) He offers Euros a sort of cheap assuagement of guilt—in classic liberal style. When Obama says falsely that he does not look like other Americans who have addressed Germans (cf. Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice who have represented US foreign policy abroad the last 7 years), Europeans feel especially progressive—and therefore need not worry that no one of African ancestry would ever become a European Prime- or Foreign-Minister.
3) Europe is weak militarily and won’t invest in its own defense. But with Obama, they believe the US will subject its enormous military strength to international organizations—usually run by utopian Europeans. So they will play a thinking-man’s Athens to our muscular Rome. They especially lap up Obama’s historical revisionism in which he lectures about the world’s effort to feed Berlin or tear down the communist wall, never the solitary, lonely efforts of a Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan to confront the evils of communism when almost everyone else preferred not to.
4) Style, style, style. Remember socialist Europe is where we get our designer eyeglass frames, Gucci bags, and French fashions. Instead of a strutting, Bible-quoting Texan, replete with southern accent and ‘smoke-em’ out lingo, they get an athletic, young, JFK-ish metrosexual, whose rhetoric is as empty as it is soothing. The English-only Obama lectures America on its need to emulate polyglot Europe; while a Spanish-speaking George Bush is hopelessly cast as a Texas yokel.
5) Obama reassures Europeans that they, not American right-wingers, “won” the classical debates of the 1990s over economics, foreign policy, and government. He is a world citizen, who buys into human-created massive global warming, wind and solar over nuclear and clean coal, high taxes, and cradle-to-grave entitlements, and resentments of the rich. There is a certain European “We told you so” that comes with his election. In short, we elect a world citizen with a European view, and put behind us the embarrassments of a Texan or cowboy actor.
The final irony?
The hated George Bush is still around; Chirac, Schroeder, Villapin et al. are history. Iraq is secure. Iran is becoming isolated. North Korea supposedly is denuked. And America is reassuring a jittery Europe that we will stick by them in a world of bullying Russians and Chinese.
A Modest Prediction
In 5 years, Europeans will prefer George Bush to a “We are right behind you” Obama.
What a difference a year makes!
A little more than a year ago most Americans—and nearly all the Democratic opposition in Congress—opposed the surge of troops into Iraq and Gen. David Petraeus’s change of tactics.
The conventional wisdom after four long years of war was that we were stuck in the middle of a hopeless civil war. There was no American military solution to quell the violence. The Iraq government was not only incompetent, but proof that democratic government itself was incompatible with Middle Eastern culture and religion.
Pundits were advocating trisecting the country into separate Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish enclaves. Our presence in Iraq caused us to have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, while empowering Iran, and helping al Qaedi to gain new recruits in a new theater of operations. Democratic presidential candidates were hammering each other over Iraq and demanding that those who had voted to authorize the invasion apologize for their vote. Barack Obama wanted all American troops out by March 2008.
A New Political Reality
And now? July is closing with the fewest number of American combat fatalities since the war started. There is no civil war. The Maliki government has put down Shiite militias and won back Sunnis into the elected administration, and, as an autonomous and confident government, is in tense negotiations with the US over future basing of American troops. Al Qaeda has been humiliated and routed from Iraq. American troops, versed in counterinsurgency, are being redeployed to Afghanistan to reapply what worked against jihadists in Iraq. Iranian-backed militias are being disbanded or have fled back into Iran. The additional surge troops are now out of Iraq. Democratic opponents suddenly concede that the withdrawal of American troops should be predicated on conditions on the ground. Anti-war activists critique Iraq more as a possibly successful war not worth the human and material costs rather than an effort long ago lost.
What Happened?
So what happened in the last twelve months to cause such a radical turn-about in Iraq and here at home? The surge added some needed troops, but more importantly sent the symbolic message that the United States was not leaving, but determined—militarily—to defeat terrorists and give the Iraqi government critical time to consolidate its authority.
The so-called Anbar awakening in which Sunni tribal leaders turned on al Qaeda and joined forces with us was not caused directly by the surge, but would have failed without the confidence more Americans were on the way to support their fight against al Qaeda. Americans began to turn from counter-terrorism to counterinsurgency tactics that meant dispersing combat troops out of compounds and into Iraqi neighborhoods where they could protect Iraqis who resisted terrorism.
Don’t Forget …
Two critical developments are relatively unappreciated, but likewise proved critical. The first was the continual growth and improvement in the Iraqi security forces that now include many veteran units that have learned to confront and defeat terrorists.
Second, between 2003-7 American forces took an enormous toll on jihadists. We have heard mostly how many Americans have been lost, rarely how many of the enemy they have killed or wounded—but the aggregate number is in the tens of thousands. Even in postmodern wars, there are finite numbers of skilled combatants—and many of them simply did not survive their encounter with American troops.
Nothing New
None of this volatility is new in American military history. The American Revolutionary War ebbed and flowed for nine years, variously pronounced won, lost, and won again. The Union thought it had won, then had lost, and finally won the Civil War during the last 16 months of the conflict. The Philippine insurrection, in various phases, lasted 14 years, often praised as won and condemned as lost. No war was more mercurial than the Korean between 1950-53, in which the American public was convinced the war was hopeless before it ended in1953 with the preservation of South Korea.
In most of these struggles, the efforts of just a few rare individuals—a Washington, Grant, Sherman, Ridgway—proved crucial. We remember their names, not the thousands of pundits who declared them incompetent and their wars lost. Long after a Seymour Hersh, Moveon.org, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid and others are forgotten, Americans will still remember what David Petraeus did for our country. Amen to that!
Read bullet | (31) Comments
Blackwater Got the Gig Securing Obama in Afghanistan
July 25, 2008 05:00 PM ET | Paul Bedard | Permanent Link
Sen. Barack Obama has not been a fan of private police like Blackwater in war zones, and some news outlets even reported that they were spurned for his trip last week to Afghanistan and Iraq. But Whispers confirms that Blackwater did handle the Democratic presidential candidate's security in Afghanistan and helped out in Iraq. What's more, Obama was overheard saying: "Blackwater is getting a bad rap." Since everything appeared to go swimmingly, maybe he will take firms like Blackwater out of his sights, the company's supporters hope.
LMAO
Another day in Arafatistan
An Israeli operation in Hebron has resulted in the death of the terrorist mastermind of the suicide attack on Dimona earlier this year. Carl in Israel has posted a good round-up. The Jerusalem Post reports:
The IDF said that in a joint Border Police and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) operation the forces surrounded a house where 25-year-old Shihab Na'atsha, a Hamas explosives engineer, was hiding. The IDF said Na'atsha had assembled the bomb belt used in the Dimona attack on February 4 that killed 73-year-old Lubov Razdolskaya and wounded 40 other people....
Troops surrounded the house in Hebron early Sunday morning and exchanged fire with Na'atsha, calling on him to exit the building. Once he refused to surrender and after hours of gunfire, the IDF bulldozed the house. His body was later removed from the rubble.
The IDF added that during the heavy exchanges of fire, troops heard explosions from inside the house, presumably from bombs stored inside. Two additional terror suspects were apprehended during the operation.
Na'atsha and his ammo dump somehow went undetected by the "security forces" of the Palestinian Authority, only to be discovered by Israelis in an operation of the kind that Secretary Rice finds to visit indignity on Palestinian Arabs.
The Carbon Credit Scam and the Democratic Convention
Posted by: Erick Erickson
Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 08:34AM
12 Comments
You've got to read this.
The eastern Colorado wind turbine tapped for the Democratic National Convention's carbon-offset program has one problem: It doesn't generate any electricity. Convention organizers are now being questioned for their eagerness to market those credits to delegates.
The DNC has contracted with Vermont-based NativeEnergy to offer delegates "Green challenge" carbon offsets to soften the environmental impact of convention travel. That money is then invested in carbon-free "green" energy sources around the country, including a wind turbine installed this year by the Wray School District RD-2. But a Face The State investigation reveals the district's turbine has never produced marketable energy due to massive equipment malfunctions.
The Democrats encouraged people to participate in carbon offsets. One of the programs listed was this wind turbine. It does not work. But, on the bright side, the school system is getting lots of money even though it cannot deliver its part of the offset.
Carbon offsets are a scam. They always have been. They always will be. This is just another example. But you know what? Let's not be surprised. The Democratic Party is used to operating like a third world kleptocracy.
though they have good reason to fear an attack on themselves and to do what they can to prepare for that
There's the crux of the matter
You believe this statement that's either incredibly naive or just plain stupid
Thankfully, the rest of the world doesn't see the need to rationalize any behavior that allows enemies of the US and Israel to continue with their attempts to destabilize and do harm to both.
Clearly, to any but the most myopically biased ( that would be you ) can see that Iran has been an active promoter of terrorism that has nothing to do with any defensive tactics
Even the EU has come around to realize the threat they pose and has finally agreed to sanctions
Want Cheaper Oil? Support Speculation, Don’t Curtail It
Trashing speculators is all the rage, but let's separate the myths from the facts.
July 24, 2008 - by Jeffrey Carter
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have issued irresponsible statements regarding speculation.
Speculation on regulated exchanges is a necessary part of the oil market and provides a valuable function with excellent oversight. Advocates of curtailing, or worse eliminating, speculation are unenlightened or do not understand how markets function. Let’s separate the myths from the facts.
Myth: Speculators are bad for markets.
Fact: Many statistics have been thrown around about oil speculation. Airlines claim speculation is driving prices higher because speculators trade 66% of all the futures contracts. This is likely a correct statistic. Speculators do the bulk of trading volume because they buy and sell the market. Speculation is the grease, called liquidity, which makes the market engine function. High levels of liquidity mean the market is more competitive and gives participants a tighter bid/ask spread. This makes transaction costs cheaper, and it’s much easier for consumers (airlines) or producers (oil companies) to hedge business risks. For every buyer (long), there is a seller (short). It is a zero-sum game. Speculators can lose money. Amaranth Trading lost billions in 2006 because they were wrong. The volatility of the market makes it a very risky way to make a living.
Myth: No one is watching speculators.
Fact: Sufficient checks and balances already exist for oil market participants. Speculators deposit margin money to trade and hold positions. Margins are based on volatility, dynamically set by exchanges, and overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is overseen by Congress. Exchanges use a sophisticated algorithm to establish margins. It calculates the volatility, position concentration, and liquidity in the market, and comes up with a margin dollar number. Traders that cannot meet margins have their positions liquidated by clearing firms. Regulated markets are transparent and “marked to market” every day. Mark to market means that every trading account is margined and debited or credited each and every day according to a settlement price set by the market. Higher margin requirements will decrease volume. Decreased volume means less liquidity and more volatility, which means higher oil prices for consumers. Margins should be set neither high nor low, but appropriate for how the market is trading. Higher margins will limit the ability for businesses to hedge their risk because it will tie up additional capital. If low margins are indeed the reason for high oil prices, then we could manipulate the market and set very high margins on buying of crude, and low ones for selling. The market will reflect the headline price airlines desire, but it won’t be the true economic cost of the commodity. There is no need to politicize the process of margins with more government; regulated exchanges do a good job of setting appropriate margins today.
Myth: Speculators don’t take “delivery” of a commodity so they only want the price to go higher.
Fact: There are concerns about speculators that don’t take “delivery” of oil. Since commodities have been traded, few speculators ever take delivery. A small majority of contracts are delivered, but all participants want the threat of delivery so the futures price replicates the underlying commodity. The futures market is an efficient way to discover what the actual price should be. A centralized marketplace lowers transaction costs. Speculators are not taking delivery and hoarding oil to keep it off the market and artificially increase the price.
Myth: Speculators are making prices in oil higher for consumers.
Fact: High prices in the oil market have nothing to do with speculation. Demand for oil is “inelastic.” People will pay about any price for oil relative to other commodities. Increased worldwide demand is the cause of price increases. The United States cannot control this demand. Refusal to drill for more oil has constrained supply growth. America has not developed nuclear, wind, solar, or any other types of energy. Because demand has grown with restricted supply, prices have nowhere to go but up.
Conservation is nice, but only higher prices will influence conservation and demand. If we agree conservation is “good,” we can use “positive economics” to encourage it. Increasing taxes on consumption will effect change. Regulations like CAFE standards mean little. We can talk about conservation all we want, but until prices go up, we won’t use less. Lack of refining operations has created a bottleneck on supply. This unintentionally increases the price of energy. Without the ability to turn new supplies into a useful product, we still will have a problem. Lack of refinery capacity causes “whip” in the supply chain for oil. Whip in production increases costs and increases prices. America hasn’t let the oil companies get control of supply chains because it has limited the amount of energy they could get, as well as their capacity to turn it into useful products. We need to end this limitation.
The biggest myth of all is that if the government limits speculation, prices will go back to “normal.” That is far from the truth. It will still occur, but in unregulated places, like unregulated over-the-counter as well as foreign markets where we have little control or oversight. Oil prices will still be set by supply and demand. Businesses and consumers will pay an even higher price, because speculators and liquidity were driven out of the market by federal fiat. Oil prices have dropped in the last few days due to developments in the marketplace, not because of federal action. The solution does not lie with shooting the messengers of price discovery — the speculators.
You must be kidding: Obama says residual troop levels in Iraq are “entirely conditions-based”
posted at 7:32 pm on July 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
I wrote about this a few days ago when he ducked Katie Couric’s question by torturing the distinction between tactics and strategy. According to The One, the president sets the strategy: Most troops out in 16 months but some left behind for various missions. The generals supply the tactics: To carry out those missions responsibly, we need X number of troops. What does X equal? Why, it’s … “entirely conditions-based”:
In Iraq, it’s not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country. But there’s always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders’ saying he’s not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them?
Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they’re going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We’re going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We’re going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We’re going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.
You’ve been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you’d need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?
I do think that’s entirely conditions-based. It’s hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.
Team McCain points to Bob Novak’s column this week citing unnamed Obama advisors as saying this could mean leaving as many as 50,000 troops in place. According to a recent essay by Colin Kahl, who runs Obama’s working group on Iraq, in the “near term” they might keep as many as 12 brigades there for “overwatch,” i.e. support, duties.
If Obama’s top priority really is withdrawal, his Iraq policy should begin by setting the number of troops he’s comfortable leaving in the field and then asking for recommendations on which missions are feasible given that number. The fact that he’s going about it the other way, starting with the missions and then building any drawdown around them, is a decidedly McCain-esque (i.e. conditions-based, i.e. responsible) approach. He tweaked McCain this morning for having lately come around to so many of his own positions, but in light of this, he and Maverick are almost mirror images on Iraq now: McCain thinks troop levels should depend on conditions but concedes that 16 months is a “pretty good timetable” whereas Obama thinks 16 months is a pretty good timetable but concedes that, er, troop levels should depend on conditions. Nuance. Predictably, the McCain camp is crowing about it. Here’s their statement, hot off the presses:
“Today Barack Obama finally abandoned his dangerous insistence on an unconditional withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by making clear that for the foreseeable future, troop levels in Iraq will be ‘entirely conditions based.’ We welcome this latest shift in Senator Obama’s position, but it is obvious that it was only a lack of experience and judgment that kept him from arriving at this position sooner.
“John McCain has always held the position that any withdrawal from Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground. With the incredible success of the surge, which John McCain advocated, it is increasingly likely that U.S. troops will be able to withdraw with victory in hand. John McCain had long urged Barack Obama, who opposed the surge, to return to Iraq in order to see the immense changes in the security situation there since his last visit. Now that Obama has finally met with General Petraeus, it appears that he has also come to the conclusion that troop levels in Iraq must be based on the conditions on the ground.”
The key remaining conceptual difference between them is, of course, the type of missions they have in mind for residual troops. McCain surely imagines something more ambitious, Obama something more limited and support-oriented. Watch for the debate to shift to that subject next, especially in light of the big AP story this afternoon talking about troops in the field already shifting to peacekeeper roles (which they’ve had for awhile in some parts of Iraq) and reconstruction support. Are U.S. peacekeepers out of the question for President Obama? We’ll see.
Update: Per the last paragraph and the evolving scope of the mission, a reader notes that Obama’s residual force would theoretically contain no combat troops. Big difference with McCain, to be sure, but again — read the AP story. There’s not much combat going on in Iraq anymore that would require combat troops anyway. The issue now is peacekeepers, troops who are going to walk the beat, see sporadic action, and reassure Iraqis that there’s a strong security presence available to deal with contingencies while the IA gets up to speed. How about it, BO?
All the News that Fits the Agenda
I don't think we've written anything about the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. It isn't really our beat. As Roger Simon points out, however, the press's boycott of the story has become newsworthy in its own right, with the Los Angeles Times ordering its bloggers not to mention it.
I also find it ironic (though hardly surprising) that the New York Times has yet to mention the Edwards/Hunter story. The contrast with its behavior vis-a-vis John McCain is obvious: in that case, the Times didn't just report on a baseless rumor about McCain, it actually started the rumor. Given that Edwards is a former vice-presidential nominee, until recently a candidate for President, and currently, once again, a possible vice-presidential nominee, the paper's attitude toward the two stories can be reconciled only by the fact that McCain is a Republican and Edwards a Democrat.
Rush knows what moment it is
On his show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh provided his take on Obama's sermon to the Germans as it was delivered. At one point Rush explicated this key portion of the text:
People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. (cheers) At times we struggle to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people, we've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
Rush's sense of "the moment" fleshes out what I tried to say briefly yesterday:
So now he has to go apologize for the United States of America. What is it? He's black, he's running for President of the United States, "We haven't perfected ourselves." You know, that's a key phrase, by the way, is one of the things that drives liberalism is the fact that they think people and institutions can be perfected. They think they can be perfect. And when nothing is perfect, then everything's wrong. But this is just beyond the pale. He's talking to Germans and making excuses for the United States of America, which to this day defends and protects Germany? (interruption) Exactly right. This is insulting. It is demeaning. "We have made our share of mistakes. There are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." This is Iraq. But he's not a candidate, folks. He's just a guy strolling through the forest there who happened to see a microphone and a podium.
He says, "Oh, there's about 100,000 people out there. I think I'll go make a speech." This is change. But ladies and gentlemen, if you are wondering when you hear Obama talk about change, this is it. The change is: America sucks, America's deficient, America's guilty, but America is now willing to pay the price because we have a Messiah who understands the faults, the egregious errors made by the United States and her people. We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world. And we torture. And we, of course, are biased against people who want to get into our country illegally. We have a lot to pay for. Not to mention that we are primarily the country responsible for climate change, shrinking the Atlantic coastline, melting the Arctic ice. This is the change. You want change? This is the change.
Suffice it to say that Rush knows exactly what "moment" it is.
Posted by Scott at 5:35 AM | Permalink | E-mail this post to a friend |
July 24, 2008
The Washington Post nails it
I've alluded to the Washington's Post outstanding editorial from yesterday about Barack Obama and Iraq, but it merits more attention than that. I'd like to focus in particular on two points that may not have received sufficient emphasis on this blog and others.
First, Prime Minister Maliki's statements (which are not fully in line with Obama's anyway) do not reflect the views of Sunni leaders in Anbar province. As the Post notes (and Obama has acknowledged) these leaders say that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects, and that they are worried about a rapid drawdown.
Incidentally, this view badly undercuts Obama's efforts to minimize the impact of the surge by insisting that the "Sunni awakening" was the key factor. If Sunni leaders still believe that American troops are essential, even after al Qaeda has been routed, then the role of our troops, and of the new strategy associated with the surge, must have played a critical role in sustaining the "awakening" when al Qaeda was running rampant.
Second, the Post brilliantly takes on Obama's claim that Afghanistan is the "central front" in the battle against terrorism:
[T]here are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.
The Post calls Obama's position here "eccentric." I would have said "cynical, " and the last sentence in the quotation above hints at this, I think. Either way, Obama's position is misguided and dangerous.
Playing Innocent Abroad
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: July 25, 2008
Radical optimism is America’s contribution to the world. The early settlers thought America’s founding would bring God’s kingdom to earth. John Adams thought America would emancipate “the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.” Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush preached their own gospels of world democracy.
Skip to next paragraph
Barack Obama is certainly a true American. In the first major foreign policy speech of his campaign, delivered in Chicago last year, he vowed a comprehensive initiative to “ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy.” America, he said, must promote dignity across the world, not just democracy. It must “lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.”
In Berlin on Thursday, it was more of the same. Speaking before a vast throng (and a surprising number of Yankees hats), he vowed to help “remake the world.” He offered hope that a history-drenched European continent could “choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday.” He envisioned “a new dawn in the Middle East.”
Obama’s tone was serious. But he pulled out his “this is our moment” rhetoric and offered visions of a world transformed. Obama speeches almost always have the same narrative arc. Some problem threatens. The odds are against the forces of righteousness. But then people of good faith unite and walls come tumbling down. Obama used the word “walls” 16 times in the Berlin speech, and in 11 of those cases, he was talking about walls coming down.
The Berlin blockade was thwarted because people came together. Apartheid ended because people came together and walls tumbled. Winning the cold war was the same: “People of the world,” Obama declared, “look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together and history proved there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”
When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.
But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.
When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, their rhetoric soared, but their optimism was grounded in the reality of politics, conflict and hard choices. Kennedy didn’t dream of the universal brotherhood of man. He drew lines that reflected hard realities: “There are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin.” Reagan didn’t call for a kumbaya moment. He cited tough policies that sparked harsh political disagreements — the deployment of U.S. missiles in response to the Soviet SS-20s — but still worked.
In Berlin, Obama made exactly one point with which it was possible to disagree. In the best paragraph of the speech, Obama called on Germans to send more troops to Afghanistan.
The argument will probably fall on deaf ears. The vast majority of Germans oppose that policy. But at least Obama made an argument.
Much of the rest of the speech fed the illusion that we could solve our problems if only people mystically come together. We should help Israelis and Palestinians unite. We should unite to prevent genocide in Darfur. We should unite so the Iranians won’t develop nukes. Or as Obama put it: “The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”
The great illusion of the 1990s was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn’t matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of this mind-set. This was the end of history on acid.
Since then, autocracies have arisen, the competition for resources has grown fiercer, Russia has clamped down, Iran is on the march. It will take politics and power to address these challenges, the two factors that dare not speak their name in Obama’s lofty peroration.
The odd thing is that Obama doesn’t really think this way. When he gets down to specific cases, he can be hard-headed. Last year, he spoke about his affinity for Reinhold Niebuhr, and their shared awareness that history is tragic and ironic and every political choice is tainted in some way.
But he has grown accustomed to putting on this sort of saccharine show for the rock concert masses, and in Berlin his act jumped the shark. His words drift far from reality, and not only when talking about the Senate Banking Committee. His Berlin Victory Column treacle would have made Niebuhr sick to his stomach.
Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.
an experienced friend of the military/a guy who does his job for the district
Friend of the military who falsely accuses Marines of atrocities???
Some friend
Does the job for the district by being the biggest pork queen in Congress??
Odd criteria you have
Obama gives Kumbaya Speech in Berlin
Leftist platitudes dressed up as destiny
Posted by: Kevin Holtsberry
Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 01:58PM
0 Comments
In a way that is so typical of Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee's much hyped speech in Berlin today sounded grand and important, but contained nothing but platitudes and leftist, and multicultural, rah-rah. What it really came down to, after a long history lesson on the Berlin Airlift, was Obama the messiah giving the world a giant pep talk.
Can we solve all the world's problems and bring utopia on earth?
Yes, we can!
Think I am joking about utopia? Sadly, I am not. Read on.
Here is some of what Obama called the world to do:
*
End racism, antisemitism, religious bigotry, class envy, and nationalism:
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
*
Defeat terrorism.
*
Build a world without nuclear weapons:
This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
*
Bring a "new dawn" to the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
*
Save the planet from global warming and thus stop flooding, storms and famines:
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.
The only thing offensive about any of this stuff is the messianic language and the hyperbolic attempt to rally the world when you are a unaccomplished US Senator who was given the platform because you are running for president and the object of world wide media obsession.
This was not a serious speech by a serious person, but another attempt by Obama to seem important by giving a big speech on a grand stage. There is nothing in that speech that is meaningful, insightful, or useful. It is a an amalgamation of liberal idealism and arrogant do-goodism. It is an attempt to paint the world as in some kind of universal crisis so that Obama can claim the leadership role and the mantle of change not just in a presidential election cycle but worldwide.
I am sure speech will play well in Europe, whose devotion to idealistic Utopian schemes is well known, and among the liberal media, who faint every time Obama rises to speak. But I fail to see how it wins him any votes in the battleground state of the Midwest. And perhaps that is the silver lining.
Just look at Deval Patrick in Mass. for a look at what happens when you elect an incompetent to office based on his lofty oratory.
He's been a disaster in Mass and Barry would be as bad but on a much larger scale
Sightseeing or Wounded Soldiers? For Obama, an Easy Choice
Politics is largely about priorities; so is life, for that matter. Barack Obama's priorities were put into sharp relief today when he canceled visits to two American military bases in Germany. He still has time, of course, to play the "rock star" in front of cheering multitudes of Germans. Ed Morrissey broke the story:
Der Spiegel’s blog reports on Obama’s priorities:
1:42 p.m.: SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. “Barack Obama will not be coming to us,” a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. “I don’t know why.” Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.
The message here is that thousands of screaming German fans at the Tiergarten take precedence over visiting Americans serving their country at Rammstein and Landstuhl. Maybe one of the networks following Obama could interview a few of the soldiers about how they perceive that set of priorities from Obama.
Landstuhl, of course, is where soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are sent for treatment. Obama's visit there no doubt would have included meeting some of them.
It turns out that Obama didn't stiff the servicemen because of a schedule conflict. Rather, as Jake Tapper pointed out, apparently without knowing that Obama had canceled planned visits to the two military installations, Obama is going sightseeing in Berlin tonight. I can't say it any better than Ed did:
Obama canceled a previously-planned stop to visit thousands of American service personnel, including troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan being treated at Landstuhl, so he could hold a political rally for Germans and go shopping in Berlin. Now that’s a nice set of priorities for a man who wants to become Commander in Chief.
Posted by John at 11:36 AM | Permalink | E-mail this post to a friend |
Obama's committee of the hole
During the run-up to the primaries, Senator Obama did not appear in the Senate to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment calling on the government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist entity and thus suffer the imposition of sanctions. On the day of the vote on the amendment, however, Obama issued a statement announcing that he would have voted against it. In the statement, the closest he came to addressing the merits of the amendment was his assertion that "he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran." The amendment passed the Senate 76-22 on September 26, 2007, with many Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, and Chuck Schumer voting in its favor.
Obama subsequently advanced three explanations for his opposition to the amendment. The McCain campaign usefully compiled them here. Obama mercilessly attacked Hillary Clinton for her vote in favor of the amendment. At a Democratic candidates' debate in December before the Iowa caucus, for example, Obama returned to the theme of his September 26 statement. The New York Daily News reported:
Monday's revelation that the Iranian nuke threat was hugely overblown gave Clinton's rivals new zeal to criticize her vote to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Obama likened it to her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "This saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq," he said.
We can infer from his statements that Obama is opposed to "saber-rattling," and that designating the IRGC a terrorist organization is rattling the dread saber. Appearing before AIPAC the day after he secured the Democratic nomination, however, the time for Obama to rattle the saber arrived. Or at least the time had come to support the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, eight months after the Senate vote on the subject. At his speech to the AIPAC policy conference in Washington on Wednesday, Obama called for "boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization."
Campaigning in Israel yesterday, Obama held a press conference in Sderot. There he claimed membership on the Senate Banking Committee that passed the Dodd-Shelby Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2008. The Senate Banking Committe passed the bill out of committee last week by a vote of 19-2. Obama stated:
Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.
As John notes below, however, Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking Committee. Obama claimed membership on the committee so that he could count the committee's action as one of "my deeds."
The bill passed out of the Senate Banking Committee appears to derive in part from other Senate bills (S.3227 and S.970) with which Obama had essentially nothing to do. Last week Obama issued a press release applauding the Senate Banking Committee's passage of the sanctions act, "which includes provisions Obama offered last year in the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (S. 1430)." Whatever sanctions on Iran Obama supported in 2007, however, apparently did not constitute saber rattling of the kind that Obama imputed to Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the Democratic primaries.
Barack Obama has proved himself an extraordinarily cynical politician. He doesn't believe in much, but he certainly believes in his own power to make voters believe whatever he says, even when what he says today contradicts what he said yesterday, and even when it constitutes a bald fiction, such as his claim that the Senate Banking Committee is "[his] committee."
Some day it may begin to dawn on attentive observers that Obama represents a type that flourishes on many college campuses. The technical term that applies to Obama is b.s. artist. Obama is an overaged example of the phenomenon, but his skills in the art have brought him great success and he's not giving it up now.
To comment on this post go here.
Posted by Scott at 6:09 AM | Permalink | E-mail this post to a friend |