BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Election ’08 Archive

Thursday

16

October 2008

0

COMMENTS

Thanks For Electing Me, You Racists!

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Identity Politics

Jack Murtha continues the if-you-don’t-vote-for-Obama-you’re-a-racist parade, going so far as to insult his own constituency:

Mr. Murtha said it has taken time for the state’s voters embrace a black presidential candidate.

“There’s no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area,” said Mr. Murtha, whose district stretches from Johnstown to Washington County. “The older population is more hesitant.”

Bitter clingers, no doubt.

Friday

10

October 2008

0

COMMENTS

Still Not A Right

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Lost in the financial hysteria was a very important question asked of the two candidates during the second debate. Brokaw queried, “Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?”

McCain’s response was reasonable, though not profound:

I think it’s a responsibility, in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that — that I have, that will do that.

But government mandates I — I’m always a little nervous about. But it is certainly my responsibility. It is certainly small-business people and others, and they understand that responsibility. American citizens understand that. Employers understand that.

Obama’s reply, in addition to being a rambling excuse to hit on numerous irrelevant talking points, revealed a fundamental misunderstanding common to the left on the nature of rights:

Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills — for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

The problem with Obama’ reply is that, in carving out a “right” for something like health care, he is creating a burden on others and violating actual rights. In order to supply this right to a product, Obama must ignore property rights and demand a specific allocation of resources that a respect for people’s property rights might not produce.

For a more thorough discussion on why health care is not a right, see my previous post on the subject.

Tuesday

7

October 2008

0

COMMENTS

WaPo Distorts Logic To Defend Obama

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Media Bias

This election cycle has seen a proliferation of “fact checking” and “ad watching” columns and websites, all pretending to peddle impartial analysis of candidate claims.   While useful in the aggregate, some of these are little more than venues for partisan advocacy under the fig leaf of impartiality.  The most recent such Ad Watch column by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post exemplifies this behavior.

Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are — (Barack Obama:)“. . . just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.” (Narrator:) How dishonorable. Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops. Increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals. Too risky for America.

ANALYSIS

This John McCain ad blatantly distorts Barack Obama’s words in an effort to paint him as callous about the role of the U.S. military. The commercial truncates a comment that Obama made to a voter in New Hampshire in August 2007. According to the Associated Press, the senator from Illinois brought up Afghanistan when asked whether he would withdraw troops from Iraq to fight terrorism elsewhere: “We’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” In short, Obama was saying he wanted to avoid just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, not that this was all that American troops were doing. His meaning was the opposite of what is portrayed in this spot. Civilian casualties have been rising in Afghanistan this year, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last month apologized for U.S. airstrikes that have killed civilians.

This is an utterly dishonest analysis by Kurtz.  Obama was indeed saying he wanted to avoid air-raiding villages, but that doesn’t preclude him from also saying that it’s all that American troops are doing.  Those two positions can be held simultaneously, much to Kurtz’s chagrin.  So while it’s true that the ad does not include that Obama wants to avoid “just air-raiding villages,” it doesn’t claim he wants to encourage it either, and thus can’t possible portay the opposite of Obama’s meaning, another of Kurtz’ false conclusions.  And that issue isn’t even the point.  Whether or not Obama wants to avoid it is immaterial to his assertion that “just air-raiding villages” is what he thinks we are doing now.

Kurtz would have us believe that Obama is just mentioning civilian killing air-raids as a hypothetical outcome of having too few troops, but that’s an overly generous reading of Obama’s statement.  While Kurtz scolds the McCain camp for cutting out part of the quote, Kurtz himself completely ignores an important qualifying clause from his analysis.   If Obama did not believe we were “just air-raiding and killing civilians,” why would he then immediately and describe how that is presently affecting Afghanistan, when he says it “is causing enormous pressure over there.”  He doesn’t say that it “would” cause pressure, he says that it “is.”

Kurtz is free to conclude that Obama didn’t mean to imply that he thought that American troops were only air-raiding villages and killing civilians, but it’s not dishonest to point out that, if taken how it was actually delivered, it’s exactly what his statement claims.  If Obama was overly flippant and imprudent in his response, that’s his fault and his problem.   Obama is prone to these kind of gaffes when speaking off the cuff and without his precious teleprompter to guide him.  Falsely attacking McCain as a liar is apparently how Howard Kurtz wishes to contribute to the Obama campaign and cover up this particular shortcoming of The Messiah.

Thursday

7

August 2008

0

COMMENTS

Strategic Reserve Or Vote Buying Stash?

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

Barack Obama has a solution to high gas prices: use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race.

…His proposal comes a month after Obama said he would consider using oil from the reserves only in a “genuine emergency,” such as “terrorist acts.” Aides said the plan is not a reversal because he would replace light crude oil in the reserves with less-expensive heavy crude. They also noted that the senator from Illinois last week described the country’s economic conditions as an “emergency.”

So not only is this yet another in a long line of flip flops, it’s also a stupid idea. Granted, it’s not as morally repulsive and economically damaging as his rehashed call for government sanctioned thievery (“windfall profits tax”), but it’s a blatant misuse of the strategic reserve for the purpose of electoral benefit.

The SPR was established in response to the Arab oil embargo. Its purpose is to provide a temporary cushion against physical shortages in the oil supply, thus protecting the economy from excessive damage during emergency situations and also to discourage attempts at using oil as a political weapon. The key point here is that SPR is intended to be used for transient emergencies.

There is no such physical shortage at present. The price of gasoline right now is reflective of growth in global demand, not dramatic decreases in supply. Opening SPR would likely have a depressive affect on gas prices, but it would be temporary and would do nothing to solve the issue that has created those prices in the first place. Unlike the situations SPR was designed for, this is not one we can just wait out. Furthermore, as oil demand grows the size of the reserve that is needed to successfully protect the economy during times of physical disruption increases. Using SPR now would only make it more difficult to protect the economy should a true shortage or interruption arise in the future.

Although the reserve has been used for political purposes in the past (in the nineties some was sold off to trick people into thinking the government had become fiscally responsible), such actions should be opposed. The SPR is not a vote buying slush fund to get Barack Obama elected.

Sunday

3

August 2008

0

COMMENTS

The Flips Just Keep On Flopping

Written by , Posted in Election Time

Is there any doubt left that Obama is one of the most cynical political calculators to run for President in recent memory? There shouldn’t be:

Obama says give Fla. and Mich. delegates full vote

Now that Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination for president, he wants convention delegates from Florida and Michigan to have full voting rights at the party’s national convention.

Obama sent a letter Sunday to the party’s credentials committee, asking members to reinstate the delegates’ voting rights when the committee meets at the start of the convention in Denver.

…Now that Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination for president, he wants convention delegates from Florida and Michigan to have full voting rights at the party’s national convention.

The most ardent opponents of seating Michigan and Florida delegates were all Obama supporters and underlings. His website published in April a list of articles and editorials vehemently opposing the seating of delegates, clearly condoning this position. But that wasn’t the Barack Obama he knew.

Thursday

24

July 2008

0

COMMENTS

Taxes For You But Not For Me

Written by , Posted in Election Time

That’s the attitude of the committee hosting the Democratic National Convention.

The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention has used the city’s gas pumps to fill up and apparently avoided paying state and federal fuel taxes.

The practice, which began four months ago, may have ended hours after its disclosure. An aide to Mayor John Hickenlooper released a statement Tuesday evening saying that Denver 2008 Host Committee members would pay market prices for fuel and would also be liable for all applicable taxes.

However, Public Works spokeswoman Christine Downs told City Council members just hours before that host committee members were fueling up at the city pumps. The city does not pay taxes on the fuel for its fleet, and Downs said the host committee would not either.

The disclosure brought immediate scrutiny. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said the practice “would seem” to be illegal and referred the matter to the state Department of Revenue.

Nonprofits, such as the host committee, are subject to state and federal gasoline taxes, according to the Department of Revenue.

Who cares what the rules are for non-profits? We’re democrats, we don’t have to obey the rules.

Tuesday

15

July 2008

1

COMMENTS

Candidate Big-Ears Still Being Picked On

Written by , Posted in Election Time

I’ve previously pointed out Obama’s cynical quest to wrap himself in a blanket of victimhood. The recent episode over a New Yorker cover, one which uses satire to make fun of the right, is yet another example.

The cover features Obama adorned in Muslim garb giving a fist-pound to his militant dressed wife. A flag can be seen burning in the fire place beneath a poster of Osama bin Laden.

The Obama camp quickly disparaged the rendition as tasteless and out of line, and is now out trumpeting the same line about attacks which are supposedly coming from the right, but which this and other episodes illustrate are far more likely to sprout from the left.

Jeff at ProteinWisdom tackles it from another angle and makes some even better observations:

Clearly, this magazine cover was an attack on a cartoonish version of rightwing critics of the Obamas who the artist recognizes aren’t happy with the couples’ past associations or some of their publicized rhetoric and published writings. Hell, it could have been drawn by our old buddy thor, if you think about it — given that it attempts to ironize away any and all suspicions people have about the Obamas’ worldview and their social and professional coteries by over-exaggerating those suspicions to the point where they will (the artist hopes) appear downright silly. And in so doing, the intent is to shame those who would in the future raise such questions about the Obamas and their associations — or at the very least, to have a readily available iconic referent that indexes such knowing mockery.

…The irony here — and it is choice, believe me — is that this satire was intended as an attack on the right. But now, because the artist tried to attack the right in a way he believed clever and ironic, he is being attacked by the left — his own tribe! — for launching an attack on the right that those on the right, the left is coming to fear, could use against the Obamas, either out of idiocy or malice.

This position, of course, assumes that those on the right are so stupid or unworldly that they aren’t able to suss out satire directed their way — and this is (deliciously!) the fear of some on the left, one born of their own prejudices. These leftwingers, of course, “get it” themselves, so it is really not the cover itself that angers them. Rather, these would-be pragmatists worry that the illiterate righties who people their fevered dreams might not. And then what?

Sadly, this is a bit like taking Swift to the woodshed over “A Modest Proposal,” or Christopher Guest to the woodshed over This is Spinal Tap.

What the progressive handwringers should be doing is gleefully and full-throatedly noting the satire, then preparing to laugh at anyone who sees this as an accurate depiction of Obama. What they should be doing is enjoying a wry smile at their next cocktail party over the (presumed) idiocy of the rightwingers who might take this cover at face value, so shallow is their understanding of the literary arts.

But the real irony here is they can’t do that — and that’s precisely because their worldview is predicated on being able to control “meaning” by consensus. And one of the problems with such an incoherent method for determining meaning (by way of reliance on a given interpretive community’s ability to shout down competing interpretations), is that, at least in theory, another interpretive community can come along and claim another, diametrically opposed meaning, and — if their will to power is stronger — control the narrative by way of severing any ties to original intent.

In short, the left fears being hoist by its own incoherent linguistic petard.

…And so we have the wonderful spectacle of (some — not all, naturally; hi, Scott!) leftwingers falling all over themselves to denounce a satire that they themselves understand and can readily recognize (and would probably enjoy) because they fear that it can be “used” against them by rightwing caricatures who they fear either are too daft to understand the satire, or else might adopt the same incoherent interpretive method that certain worldviews rely upon to destabilize meaning and turn it into what is essentially a battle of interpretive will.

Thursday

10

July 2008

0

COMMENTS

A Nation Of Whiners

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Election Time

Phil Gramm, top economic adviser to the McCain campaign, correctly diagnosed a problem with contemporary Americans society:

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”

“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

“We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy’s problems is one reason people have lost confidence. Various surveys show that consumer confidence has fallen precipitously this year to the lowest levels in two to three decades, with most analysts attributing that to record high gasoline prices over $4 a gallon and big drops in the value of homes, which are consumers’ biggest assets.

“Misery sells newspapers,” Mr. Gramm said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”

Gramm is right on the money. Economists have for years been mystified by the stark divergence between actual conditions and public opinion about the economy.

This is not to say that everything is fine. Indeed, the last year has seen objective indicators turn for the worse, thanks largely to the skyrocketing price of oil, though it still doesn’t merit the level of national angst we see today. Nor does this recent change retroactively justify the people who have been crying “recession” for the entirety of the Bush administration.

The overly sour public mood is easily attributable to the grossly distorted and hyperbolic news coverage we’ve been inundated with. One of the primary indicators that the public mood is not justified has been the disparity between how people rate their own finances versus how they think others are doing. Generally they have said their situation is okay while everyone else is doing poorly. Well how would they know? They get it from news, of course.

McCain, sadly, has no room for such honesty on his Straight Talk Express, though there’s plenty of room under it:

“So, I strongly disagree,” McCain told reporters gathered for a press conference that was added to his schedule following a town hall meeting near Detroit at least in part to deal with Gramm’s comments that the economy was not in as poor shape as is portrayed.

…”I believe that the person here in Michigan who just lost his job isn’t suffering from a ‘mental recession,'” McCain said, citing Gramm’s remarks published in the Washington Times. “I believe that the mother here in Michigan, around the country trying to get enough money to educate her children isn’t ‘whining.'”

America, McCain made sure to note, “is in great difficulty.”

“Vote McCain: Because the democrats just aren’t gloomy enough!”

Obama, for his part, thought whining about the comments would be a perfect response to being accused of belonging to a nation of whiners:

“It’s not just a figment of your imagination,” Obama said. “Let’s be clear. This economic downturn is not in your head.”

“It isn’t whining to ask government to step in and give families some relief,” he said, drawing a standing ovation from the nearly 3,000 people in a high school gymnasium. “And I think it’s time we had a president who doesn’t deny our problems or blame the American people for them but takes responsibility and provides the leadership to solve them.”

Rumor has it Obama then passed out tiny violins.

Tuesday

8

July 2008

0

COMMENTS

Obama Wants To Do What?

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Foreign Affairs & Policy

Is this for serious?

Obama promised to increase AmeriCorps slots from 75,000 to 250,000 and pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011.

Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona also supports an expansion of both programs and has stressed public service, including in the military, during campaign appearances.

Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he also said the nation’s future and safety depends on more than just additional soldiers.

“It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia,” he said.

Obama had first outlined many of the proposals he talked about Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

What in the world does that mean?  A civilian national security force?  Is he really suggesting a brand new program with the same budget as the military?

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen proposed. I can’t wait to see how he equivocates, backtracks and flip-flops on this statement.

Saturday

21

June 2008

1

COMMENTS

Obama Continues Victim Campaign; Plays Race Card

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Identity Politics

In case you needed more proof that Obama is auditioning for the job of Victim-In-Chief, the oppressed Senator said this at a Florida fundraiser:

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’”

This is change? Looks like the same worn-out, democrat playbook to me.