Planned presidency

 electoral politics  No Responses »
Oct 232008
 

Today I realized one more thing that’s irritating about the way the left is treating Joe the Plumber. They keep talking about what would happen under Obama’s plan. It’s that word plan.

In the olden days it wouldn’t have been called a plan. It would have been called a campaign promise.

We all know what those are worth. But some people somehow think calling it a “plan” somehow makes it legitimate. Under Obama’s plan, he’s going to tax us a lot and somehow that is going to generate magic revenue that he is going to graciously bestow on people. We know it’s all pie in the sky, and we know he knows it, because he’s dressing up his handouts and calling them “tax cuts.”

But that’s not what’s really annoying about all of this. What’s annoying is that people think the economy can actually be planned. But the only part that’s a sure thing is the tax increases. That we can count on. In fact, we can count on getting even more of those than are being promised. There is a huge government constituency that will hold Obama to those promises. As for the rest of it, that part can no more be planned than affordable housing can be planned. And we now see what all of the plans to give us affordable housing got us.

BTW, I googled “Obama’s plan” and “McCain’s plan” (with the quotes). “Obama’s plan” gives 516,000 hits, and “McCain’s plan” 310,000. That would be a reason to vote for McCain over Obama, especially when you notice that there are a lot more web pages that talk about Obama’s plan as though a plan is a good thing. That’s a good reason to vote for McCain (but it’s not a good enough reason).

Obligatory non-sequiturs

 Bash the Messenger  No Responses »
Oct 222008
 

Maybe somewhere, someday, a news editor will tell reporters and writers that there is no law requiring them to fill up space in a news article with non-sequiturish quotes that do nothing to explain or illustrate. At best, they are just a way for the writer to slime the article with his/her editorial biases. At worst, they just waste the reader’s time.

The AP article linked here is an example of what I’m talking about. It’s actually an informative article. But why the man-on-the-street quotes? They’re inserted almost randomly. The article could be improved by just omitting them.

Here’s the crap that could just as well be removed, or could be randommized and inserted anywhere else and make just as much (or as little) sense.

“I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don’t think Obama has been around long enough,” said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.

But Karen Judd, 58, of Middleton, Wis., said, “Obama certainly has sufficient qualifications.” She said any positive feelings about McCain evaporated with “the outright lying” in TV ads and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin, who “doesn’t have the correct skills.”

Said John Ormesher, 67, of Dandridge, Tenn.: “I’ve got respect for them but that’s the extent of it. I don’t have a whole lot of affinity toward either one of them. They’re both part of the same political mess.”

More clarity

 Free speech  No Responses »
Oct 222008
 

When Barak Obama says he wants to “clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum,” maybe he’s trying to be Bush III: URL and URL

Greed-based voting

 Uncategorized  No Responses »
Oct 222008
 

This morning while getting some internet and coffee, I overheard a conversation at the next table. The nice elderly couple were explaining to the waitress how they used to vote Republican, but this year were voting for Obama. They were concerned that the Republicans had run our country so far into debt. They were also concerned that they weren’t getting enough Medicare spending and whatever else it is that older people want the government to do for them.

I guess some people are their own worst enemies.

Too bad it’s the younger generations, like that of the young waitress who wasn’t so sure Obama was right, who will have to pay most of the price for their greed.

A Twofer: Joe Plumber and Bill Ayers

 Bash the Messenger  No Responses »
Oct 182008
 

This is one of the best campaign seasons ever. The election won’t be so good, because there is a danger that either Obama or McCain will be elected as our next president. But the campaign itself is giving us an acrobatic show such as has never before been seen.

On the one hand the leftMediaDem crowd thinks it’s terrible, just terrible for Republicans to try to play up Obama’s association with the likes of Bill Ayers and Acorn. “Their vilest hour” wrote Frank Rich in the Wall Street Journal.

But along comes Joe the Plumber, who of course needs to be thoroughly vetted. And it turns out he may have some sort of family connection to Charles Keating. And that connection is somehow of the utmost importance to the election.

Aren’t these contortions wonderful? It’s like a gymnast trying to do the parallel bars and the flying rings both at the same time.

Plumbing the depths of leftism

 Bash the Messenger, Welfare-police state  No Responses »
Oct 172008
 

Before getting to Joe Plumber, let me point out that I didn’t watch the debate. I haven’t watched a presidential debate since Lieberman vs Cheney, and the last one before that was probably Bush the First vs Dukakis. I prefer to watch the post-debate spin. Wasting time on the actual debate would hinder me from concentrating on what’s important.

So here’s how the left-wing activist group Associated Press is trying to spin it in an article by John Seewer.

HOLLAND, Ohio (AP) — Joe the Plumber’s story sprang a few leaks Thursday. Turns out that the man who was held up by John McCain as the typical, hard-working American taxpayer isn’t really a licensed plumber. And court documents show he owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes.

It’s the typical government-centric point of view. A government-centric reporter defines a plumber as someone who has made proper obeisance to the ruling class so as to have been graciously granted the proper documents. A people-centric reporter would think of a plumber as someone who does plumbing work for other people who need to have such work done.

And the $1200 in back taxes? Doesn’t that help make McCain’s point?

If a person owes more money to the bank than his home is worth, the left holds that up as a failure of capitalism. They want the government to take over. But owing $1200 in back taxes is somehow not seen by these same people as a failure of big government.

Clarify the public interest obligations

 Bash the Messenger, Free press  No Responses »
Oct 172008
 

Barak Obama’s web site says he wants to encourage diversity in media ownership rather than consolidation. That’s a good goal, but there are no specifics and it would be contrary against every specific policy he has ever supported. So color me suspicious. He needs to be questioned on just how he thinks he would accomplish that.

Also consider the weasel words in the same paragraph in which he talks about diversity: “As president, Obama will … clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

That doesn’t sound like an endorsement of the freedoms listed in the First Amendment. Why do those “obligations” need to be clarified, anyway?

Vladimir Putin has been clarifying the public interest obligations of the news broadcasters in Russia.

Hugo Chavez has been clarifying the public interest obligations of the news broadcasters in Venezuela.

Nancy Pelosi has been trying to clarify the public interest obligations of our news broadcasters.

The government of China was busy clarifying the public interest obligations of its news broadcasters during the Olympics.

So why do we need clarified obligations. What’s wrong with just maximizing First Amendment freedoms?

What we need clarity on is what he meant by Obama’s statement. It’s probably too much to expect his adoring groupies in the MSM to bother him with questions, though.

H/T to Paul Greenberg who called attention to Obama’s statement in his article, “The Unfairness Doctrine. And it was good to see him mention Nat Hentoff, who is 83 years old now. When Hentoff is gone, there will be no more liberals.

Tactics

 Bash the Messenger  No Responses »
Oct 122008
 

Today’s headline: “John McCain and Sarah Palin try new tactics”

I went to Google News and searched for the words “Barak Obama John McCain Tactics” What did I learn? I learned that John McCain often tries tactics, but Barak Obama very seldom does. Maybe tactics are a Republican thing.

I tried again, replacing the word “tactics” with “accused”. The result is not quite as clearcut. McCain does some accusing, but Obama does a lot more. Maybe when McCain does it, it’s tactics, but when Obama does it, it’s an accusation.

No other gods

 Welfare-police state  No Responses »
Oct 122008
 

For a moment I thought Obama was showing signs of being something that people of the younger generations may have read about but have never seen: a liberal. It was when I saw the headline:

“Obama: ‘Subsidize’ Americans who can’t afford health insurance.”

That’s something I could support. Provide health care vouchers for the poorest of the poor. In itself it wouldn’t be enough to deal with the problem of people who have chronic, pre-existing conditions that would price anyone out of the health insurance market. But it could do a lot, and do it in a pro-choice way that would harness market forces to create better health care options for all of us.

But alas, that’s not what Obama meant. His is just another of the same-old, same-old leftwing fascist proposals. He can’t get out of the old ruts of the Democrat party. He does say some words about letting people choose, but the effect of his every proposal is to eliminate choice.

He wants to require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. That is going to drive private health insurance prices way up and eliminate private insurance. It means we’ll all be in his government plan which is NOT an insurance plan in any meaning of the term, which means we’ll have more of the same social pathologies that are destroying the UK, the Netherlands, and other countries that have gone that route.

Obama claims to love markets, but in fact it’s quite the opposite. He adheres religiously to the first commandment of the leftwing catechism — a slight variation on Martin Luther’s version:

Thou shalt have no other gods before The Great God, The State.

What does this mean? We should fear, loathe, and mistrust markets and personal choice above all things.

Doubletalk vs term limits

 Term limits  No Responses »
Oct 112008
 

USA Today editorializes against term limits, giving the old, tired (and untrue) reasons why it’s better to have entrenched incumbents in our nation’s legislatures rather than inexperienced rookies. Then it tells us there’s a better way to replace entrenched incumbents with inexperienced rookies: Do away with legislative gerrymandering.

I’ll bet USA Today is hoping people won’t notice the doubletalk.

Doing away with legislative gerrymandering is a good idea, but there’s no reason why it can’t coexist with term limits. We can do both. In fact, we’re more likely to have both if we have term limits.

H/T to Don Bon Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek for leading me to the editorial, by way of Howard Rich who points out other flaws in it.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries