BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Election Time Archive

Saturday

14

June 2008

2

COMMENTS

Obama Seeks To Be Victim-In-Chief

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Media Bias

Having successfully dispatched Mrs. Inevitable in the Democratic primary, Barack Obama has begun a new phase of his presidential campaign: playing victim to dirty GOP tactics.

Bravely carving out a path to be the nation’s first Victim-In-Chief, Barack Obama and his useful idiots in the media are sounding the siren call about anticipated GOP attacks. The Obama campaign has wrapped itself up in a blanket of victimhood, a fact which the media has dutifully been alerted to so that they can loudly spread Obama’s tales of woe. ‘Michelle Obama is being attacked by the vicious GOP,’ they proclaim, largely ignoring the role of Clinton democrats in spreading the rumor in question.

In waging his victim campaign, Obama has taken the typical liberal tactic of attempting to prove an action by highlighting the reaction. In other words, he is running around acting offended that his wife is a target, even though she hasn’t been in any significant sense. “She must be a victim of GOP attacks, or else why would Barack be so upset?” the thinking goes. Democrats routinely fall for such fallacious acting. Sen. Obama has even launched an “anti-smear site” where he can overreact to supposed attacks 24/7.

The media has completely abandoned any pretense of objectivity and has taken to parroting this new campaign line regarding attacks-not-yet-waged (but we know they’re coming!). CNN bemoans that “conservatives are likely to throw some jabs at [Barack’s] wife, Michelle Obama.” This must be a new form of journalism I am unfamiliar with, wherein the reporter uses a time machine to anticipate future events. More likely it’s just the typical democratic-water carrying; a favorite media pastime. Others, such as Maureen Dowd, are doing their part by playing the race card on Obama’s behalf, whining that valid questions regarding Michelle Obama’s own campaign statements amount to an attempt at “mining a subtext of race.”

Obama is likely to find a receptive audience for his new strategy. Liberals are documented whiners who seem to find things to cry about in all circumstances. Victim hood is something these poor, put-upon people can relate to.

While whining about bullies may be a good way for democrats to get elected, it’s not a good way to govern. When the next terrorist attack occurs, a President Obama crying to the U.N. is not going to prove particularly helpful. Somebody should get the Senator some tissues; it’s going to be a long campaign.

Friday

6

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

Why Barack Obama Cannot Unite America

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Liberty & Limited Government

It is accepted conventional wisdom that the American polity is contentiously divided along partisan lines in a way unlike ever before. While the veracity of this statement is historically debatable, it cannot be doubted that Americans are strongly entrenched along partisan lines. Barack Obama has sold himself as the candidate best suited to bridge this divide.

Embedded in Obama’s soaring rhetoric is a bold collectivist agenda. He sees a future where we, through government action, “provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless.” He mocks those who want to reduce the size and scope of government – by allowing people to choose their own health care, their own schools and their own futures – as supporting “social Darwinism.” Obama proposes to implement these government programs in the name of social justice, but an understanding of democracy demonstrates that what we’ll actually see is a further erosion of social cohesion. He’d replace the Ownership Society with a Nanny Society.

Democracy is more inherently responsive to the preferences of citizens than any other form of government. This should not mask the fact that government, even when democratic, cannot come close to matching the ability of free markets to respond to the wide variety of preferences of ordinary people. Conversely, government action forces individuals into choices they do not want. Milton Friedman observed that, “the characteristic feature of action through explicitly political channels is that it tends to require or to enforce substantial conformity.”

Imagine two neighboring families of different backgrounds looking to school their children. Each family wants to ensure their children’s education does not conflict with their cultural and religious traditions. In a free market system these families can both find adequate education by placing their children in schools that meet their own standards. In the present system, however, government education has forced conformity, meaning that both of these families preferences cannot be simultaneously satisfied. The two families must place their children in the same school due to their geographic proximity, despite their expressed differences. If they wish to influence their children’s education, they must then do so through political channels. Thus, when these two families both lobby the local school board for conflicting educational goals they become, thanks to government, not just neighbors but political opponents.

Over the decades, as government has vastly expanded the scope of its involvement in private affairs, citizens have been forced into an ever growing number of these confrontational situations. With so much personally at stake in every governmental decisions, it is little wonder that many have taken an adversarial view of politics. Further expansion of government is clearly not the answer. If we want to restore social cohesion we must begin extracting government from the decisions that matter most to us. Barack Obama’s optimistic rhetoric, no matter how expertly delivered, cannot heal America so long as he is advocating for more of the collectivist action which has brought us here in the first place.

Wednesday

4

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

Obama Gives Big Government Liberal Speech

Written by , Posted in Election Time

Barack Obama has adorned himself the savior of America, condescendingly declaring that he can “make this country great again.” We don’t know what America was before Obama, but it was apparently anything but great.

The big finale of the speech was indistinguishable from the type that would be delivered by Hugo Chavez or any other populist leftist.

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

Does anyone actually find this inspiring? If so, allow me to say in plain english what he actually means.

This is the moment when we nationalize health care.

This is the moment when we ruin our record low unemployment rate with liberal policies.

This is the moment when we move to a centrally planned economy in the name of environmental stewardship. No aspect of economic activity will be out of the reach of regulators.

This is the moment where we surrender against our enemies, signaling a return to the time when they could attack us with impunity.

In summary, this is the moment where America would join the rest of the world as unexceptional and utterly dependent on government. Lest we forget, a government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it away.

Barack Obama is a good saleman, but the old consumer warning comes immediately to mind: buyer beware.

Wednesday

28

May 2008

0

COMMENTS

Racists Threaten Obamatopia

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Identity Politics, Media Bias

The narrative for the general election is being cast and anyone who doesn’t immediately jump on the Obama bandwagon will be accused of racism. CQ Politics frets that Obama will face a “racial challenge” in the general election. To substantiate the proposition that people who don’t support Obama are all just evil racists, the article rests heavily on Newsweek poll, an organization with a history of using shoddy polling methodology.

While Illinois Sen. Barack Obama runs dead even with Arizona Sen. John McCain in a new Newsweek poll at 46 percent each with 8 percent undecided, the survey took a hard look at the race factor by employing what it called a “Racial Resentment Index” to further analyze voting blocs and it concluded that, “Obama’s race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters.”

Questions in the poll that tested voters on issues that involved race included views on affirmative action, whether blacks or whites lost out more because of racial preferences in things like hiring or school admissions, whether racial discrimination or personal responsibility accounted for problems facing black Americans, opinions on interracial marriage and dating and reaction that white voters would have if a black American with equal education and income moved into their neighborhood.

Measuring people’s motivations is admittedly a difficult task, but this is a horrible conceptualization of racism. Newsweek’s “Racial Resentment Index” doesn’t measure racism, it measures liberalism! The only questions that possibly have anything to do with racism are the last two; the rest are just direct measures of an individual’s proclivity toward liberal policy. Support affirmative action? If so, you’re a good non-racist (liberal)! See everyone as victims rather than in control of their own destiny? If not, you must be a racist (and an evil conservative)!

Be prepared: the media will, at the behest of the Obama campaign, continue to assault non-Obama voters and insist on labeling them all racists, with ever greater frequency, the closer we get to the election.

Tuesday

25

March 2008

0

COMMENTS

Warning: Heretics Herein

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Energy and the Environment

The following two articles demonstrate acts of modern heresy on the part of the authors.

The first article, by Christopher Hitchens, dares challenge the Church of Obama and the recent Greatest Speech Ever Given™. He offered his usual attacks on religion (as a whole) that I didn’t care for, but the rest of the article is superb.

…Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago “base” in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu. It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way. By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement.

This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been?and were?applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it “inflammatory” to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it “controversial.” It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

…To have accepted Obama’s smooth apologetics is to have lowered one’s own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

The other heretical article I wish to highlight involves a direct attack on the foundational pillars of the Goracle and his cult of Global Warming Alarmism.

…These 3,000 yellow sentinels –about the size and shape of a large fence post — free-float the world’s oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

…When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Let the inquisitions begin!

Thursday

31

January 2008

0

COMMENTS

Geriatrics For Change

Written by , Posted in Election Time

If there is one thing to be said about this election cycle, it’s that the word ‘change’ has been used entirely too much. The most comical moment came when John Edwards attempted to erect a force field of change around himself and cast any criticisms of his ideas as nothing more than the evil forces of the status quo fighting against the holy warriors of change. Watch this bit of self-serving pandering for a refresher:

John Edwards is a mere tag along, hopping on the bandwagon to score political points in his desperate (and now failed) campaign. It is Barack Obama who has been at the forefront of the change movement and its onslaught against rationality. But an interesting thing has happened: the agent of change, the great black hope himself, is racking up endorsements from the old guard liberal establishment. First it was former Senate leader Tom Daschle. Now the agent of change has managed to find himself caught in the gravitational pull of Ted Kennedy.

The media will never call Obama on running an outsiders campaign while drawing the support of such old, entrenched liberals. Nevertheless, if Obama is getting in bed with Ted Kennedy then I have one piece of advice: bring scuba gear.

Thursday

21

December 2006

0

COMMENTS

Friday

10

November 2006

0

COMMENTS

Just In Case It Wasn't Already Clear

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Liberty & Limited Government

If it weren’t already clear enough, Cato-at-liberty looked at the National Journal vote ratings for all the Republicans who lost their seats on Tuesday. Not surprisingly they found that, “[t]he great majority of losing Republicans were economic moderates or liberals.” Keep this in mind when Republican “moderates” conspire with the media to sell their election day fabrication that Republicans lost by being too conservative. It simply doesn’t fly, atleast not on the economic scale.

Tuesday

24

October 2006

0

COMMENTS

Freudian Slip?

Written by , Posted in Election Time

Commenting on what will happen if Democrats win the House in November, Nancy Pelosi sputtered out this gem of a quote:

The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America’s children.

How right you are, the Democrats are children. We saw that when they threw a bunch of hissy fits following the 1994 elections and stormed out of committee meetings because the voters took away their candy. We saw it again when the White House was completely trashed following at the end of the Clinton Administration. And now, a prominent Democrat has finally admitted the truth: our country will be back (atleast in part) in the hands of children if we let the Democrats win in November. Not, mind you, that it’s in good hands now.

Hat tip: Wizbang

Saturday

16

September 2006

0

COMMENTS

Idiotic Media Theory Of The Day

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Energy and the Environment, Media Bias

Falling oil prices – get ready for this – are a dastardly scheme to aid Republicans in November! Or so ponders CNN’s Bill Schneider.

In a September 15 report for “The Situation Room,” CNN reporter Bill Schneider wondered if the current decrease in gas prices has been timed to help Republicans in the midterm elections. He ominously asked:

Schneider: “The drop in prices may last a couple of months, long enough to get through the November election. Could that be what the oil companies want?”

Does this mean that high prices in the spring and summer were an attempt to hurt the Republicans? This theme, that oil companies are trying to aid the GOP, was repeated or insinuated throughout the report. In the segment, which aired at 4:40PM, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced Schneider by noting that a form of smog reducing gasoline will be pulled “as we head into the fall and the November elections.”

Will this gas price hysteria never cease? When gas prices go up, oil companies are evil gougers. When gas prices go down, oil companies are evil meddlers helping their evil Republican friends.

Never mind the falling price of oil. Never mind the end of summer and the decline in demand for gasoline that always follows.

Oh no, we will stand no market explanations here. Clearly these evil oil giants have nearly omnipotent market powers to raise and lower prices as they please (which they inexplicably never bothered to use until Bush came into office) and they are now using it to thwart the Democrats carefully laid plans to blame rising gas prices on Bush.

Yeah, you know what’s coming. I can’t help…it just has to be said.

Nuanced.