On Fox News Sunday, McCain Hits Obama on 'Redistribution of Wealth'

John McCain is on message and hitting the right notes these days. This is from his appearance this morning on Fox News Sunday:



John McCain: "I started turning it around the other night when we challenged Senator Obama's words. He is the most eloquent person I've ever known in politics. But he said he would on offshore drilling, he would, quote, 'consider it,' when he made several other statements that were clearly equivocation. But you've got to nail it down and pin it down. I'm very pleased with what happened at the debate, because it helped define the issues with the American people. And Joe the Plumber is the average citizen, and Joe the Plumber is now speaking for millions of small business people all over America, and they're becoming aware that 'we need to spread the wealth around' is not what small business people want. And before we go into this business of, well, they wouldn't be taxed, etc., 50% of small business income would be taxed under Senator Obama's plan. That's 16 million small business jobs in America, and that's what Joe the Plumber's figure d out. Finally, could I just say, where are we in America where a candidate for president comes to a person's driveway, he asks him a question, doesn't like the answer, and all of a sudden he's savaged by the candidate's people? Savaged by them. Here's a guy who's a private citizen. What's that all about?" ....

John McCain: "I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth. He said himself, we need to spread the wealth around. Now..."

Fox News' Chris Wallace: "Is that socialism?"

John McCain: "That's one of the tenets of socialism, but it's more the liberal left, which he's always been in. He's always been in the left lane of American politics. That's why he voted 94 times against any tax cuts or for tax increases. That's why he voted for the Democratic budget resolution that would raise taxes on some individuals who make $42,000 a year. That's why he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate."

Wallace: "But, Senator, when we talk..."

John McCain: "So is one of the tenets of socialism redistribution of wealth? Not just socialism, a lot of other liberal and left wing philosophies. Redistribution of the wealth, I don't believe in it. I believe in wealth-creation by Joe the Plumber."

Source






Powell's Motivation

So Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama. Obviously, on the merits, it makes no sense for a man who was "proud to be a soldier" during the Reagan presidency to endorse a man came to prominence on the strength of his desire to force our defeat in Iraq. And here's what Powell said at the 2000 Republican Convention:

[Republicans] are the party committed to lessening the burden of taxes, cutting government regulations and reducing government and cutting government spending - all for the purpose of generating the higher economic growth that will bring better jobs, wages and living standards for ALL our people!

So how does that square with his support of the farthest-left candidate ever to run for President on a major party ticket -- a guy who wants to impose job-killing, economy-crushing tax increases on Americans as the country teeters on the brink of recession?

What is Powell's MacGuffin? He claims it isn't race. Okay, fair enough. And it certainly isn't personal antipathy to John McCain (who agreed with him about the necessity of the Iraq war), whom he says would be a "good president."

Instead, as the linked piece above notes, he says based his decision -- supposedly -- on John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin and the alleged Republican efforts to claim Barack Obama is a Muslim (despite the fact that no respectable, well-known Republican has done anything of the sort; John McCain's denunciation of Republicans that say Obama's full name; and McCain's refusal to bring up Obama's relationship with the hatred-spewing Reverend Wright).

His rationale for his endorsement is what gives the game away. They're two of the tropes most beloved by the elites and the media. Coincidence? I think not. Colin Powell has long been known as someone who cares enormously about the opinion of the elite media -- and, frankly, elites of all kinds. Clearly, his reputation has taken a beating in those rarified circles ever since he (along with Joe Biden, incidentally) supported the Iraq war. He's desperate to regain his supposed "stature," and this is a quick and easy way to do it.

Obviously, if his support for Barack were predicated on principle alone, Powell would have endorsed him back in July, when Barack was courting him, well before the Democrat Convention -- when it would have been huge. Instead, he chose to wait until the media had anointed Obama a certain winner, and the polls are encouraging.

Look, everyone has to do what they have to do to get by. And for Powell, it may have been that the chance to rehabilitate himself among the Manhattan and DC cocktail party elites was simply too tempting to pass up. So be it.

But what his endorsement highlights again is that this race isn't just about left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative. It's about elites vs. normal, everyday Americans.

One final thought: If his support for Barack were because of nothing more than unalloyed admiration, here's a final question. Some on the left have claimed that Powell was "duped" by President Bush into supporting the Iraq war. Well, if that's true, what's preventing him from being "duped" again, this time by Barack Obama?

Source (See the original for links)






Why Electing Obama Is an American Nightmare

If elected, Senator Barack Obama will be my president as well. In these difficult times, I will support him in the few areas I can and major in challenging him where I must, but here is a summary of the reasons not to give him that opportunity.

In these perilous times, Obama's lack of a proven record and relevant experience is a major concern. When you hire anyone to a critical job, you look to their experience. The President of the United States should not be an entry-level position! Experience matters! It's not a sufficient qualification, but it's certainly a necessary one.

Without a track record of impressive experience, voters look at a candidate's judgment. That's why Obama's judgment in picking friends and advisors remains relevant. His close associations with the fraudulent-ridden ACORN, controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, convicted influence-peddler Tony Rezko, and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers invite more questions than trust.

At a time when a troop surge has reduced violence, damaged al Qaeda and allowed the Iraqi government to make progress on key milestones, Obama still promises to "bring the war to an end in 2009!" He wants to save $9 billion a month in Iraq and shift the focus to Afghanistan. But he also wants to cut investments in missile defense systems and slow our development of future combat systems. Obama calls for a world without nuclear weapons and promises to develop no new nuclear weapons. Such judgments project weakness as Commander in Chief. Obama's weakness would be provocative!

Obama says that he's a "uniter," but where's the evidence? He voted with the Democrats 97 percent of the time. He's a proven tax-and-spend Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He's only a uniter if you'll unite with his partisan position. Unlike McCain, he's never disappointed his own party by crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans.

Obama calls for "Change You Can Believe In," but where is his record of championing positive reform in Cook County, in the Illinois legislature or in his short time in the US Senate. As Senator, he's authored no important legislation and hasn't even convened a hearing on the one subcommittee he chairs. He's devoted his many gifts to chronicling his own life's story and running his presidential campaign. While Alaska Governor Palin took on entrenched corruption in her own party, Obama benefitted from the equally corrupt Chicago Democratic machine. As they say-"High wind, big thunder, no rain."

His unrealistic and restrictive plan for energy independence is limited to investing in a few, new sources of energy that are not ready to carry the load for our energy independence. His partial plan does not provide for the "all of the above" reliable sources of power and jobs that industry and citizens need now.

Obama wants to raise corporate taxes, inheritance taxes, and income taxes and social security payments for the top wage earners. No reputable economist suggests raising taxes when America needs economic growth. Punishing success limits capital investment. Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times and never introduced any legislation to lower anyone's taxes. You want Obama's "Hope"-I hope you enjoy your change in taxes and the economic malaise it'll create!

News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said during an interview with Fox Business Network: "I like Sen. Obama very much..but his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to...give us a lot of inflation.... ruin our relationships with the rest of the world, .slow down the rest of the world, and.make people frightened to add to employment. You are going to find companies leaving this country.. (H)is policy is really very, very naive, old-fashioned, 1960s."

FDR reminded Americans, "The only thing to fear is fear itself." Obama talks hope but sells doom and gloom for the middle class. He justifies change by suggesting that we're stuck in Iraq and reframes our economic downturn as a recession or worse. Obama blames the Bush economic policy for our current problems, but it was that same Bush plan that helped America bounce back quickly from the 2000 to 2001 downturn. Investor's Business Daily reported IRS data that shows that the average U.S. income had increased five straight years through 2006.

The Bush economic plan isn't the problem. Abuses on Wall Street and in financial institutions had been growing. Bush, McCain and many Republicans called for stronger regulations in 2005. Democrats refused to go along with proposed Freddie and Fannie reforms and helped expand the sub-prime mortgage fiasco by encouraging unwise "affordable housing" mortgages. Who are the top two recipients of PAC and individual contributions from Fannie and Freddie-Chris Dodd and Barack Obama! You want Obama in charge of reform?

For all his talk on self-reliance, Obama treats citizens as victims incapable of rising to the challenges they face. Obama's "hope" rests in what government can do for you, not on what you can do for yourself or our country. At a time we are struggling to pay for the entitlements we already have, Obama calls for substantial government subsidies for healthcare, college, foreclosure relief, and alternative energies. Milton Friedman said it well, "There are no free lunches." We can't afford an Obama presidency and more "free" entitlements!

The Democrats chose an intelligent, eloquent but untested newcomer as their standard bearer. Charles warned us of the nagging doubt months ago: "The oddity of the Democratic convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed one is a stranger-a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night." This seemingly neverending campaign cycle has provided Americans with a long engagement, but don't make the mistake of giving him the ring on November 4th.

Source






Newsweek Debunks "Kill Him" Rumors; Obama Knew They Were Bogus Before Debate

Newsweek reports that not only were the reports that folks attending a McCain rally yelled "kill him" likely false -- but also that Obama knew these reports were false before using them in last week's debate:

"During a heated moment in his final presidential debate with Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama noted the anger of some supporters at rallies for McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "All the public reports suggested," Obama said, that people shouted "things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him'." Making a death threat against a presidential candidate can be a crime.

But even before Obama cited "reports" of the threats at the debate, the U.S. Secret Service had told media outlets, including NEWSWEEK, that it was unable to corroborate accounts of the "kill him" remarks-and according to a law-enforcement official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a political matter, the Obama campaign knew as much. Now some officials are disgruntled that Obama gave added credence to the threat by mentioning it in front of 60 million viewers. At this point in the campaign, said one, candidates will "say anything to make a particular point."

This, of course, is merely the latest example of Obama's willingness to inaccurately portray himself as a victim and flagrantly gin up sympathy votes, while simultaneously, ignoring the really, really objectionable behavior his own supporters engage in

Source (See the original for links)





Obama Is Wrong About Colombia

Labor unions are much safer under Uribe

He reached into his memory bank for whatever he had been told to say about Colombia. He seems to have found his hard drive loaded with Big Labor talking points. Here's what it spit out: "The history in Colombia right now," he said, "is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination, on a fairly consistent basis, and there have not been prosecutions."

Mr. McCain should have blown the whistle right there because bearing false witness against your neighbor, who also happens to be a friend, is a foul. Labor killings in Colombia have gone down sharply in the past five years and convictions have gone up. Mr. Obama was wrong. Moreover, Mr. McCain missed an opportunity to ask Mr. Obama how he squares his antagonism toward Colombia -- whose president has an 80% approval rating -- with his promise to boost America's image abroad.

An American politician ought to know better than to deliver a morality lecture to Colombia. American demand for cocaine, which funds Colombia's worst criminality -- including the bloodthirsty Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) -- has nearly wrecked that beautiful country. Colombians, who have bravely cooperated with the hapless U.S. "war on drugs," have paid a steep price.

By the time President Alvaro Uribe took office in August 2002, Colombia was almost a failed state. That year there were 28,837 homicides nationwide, making it one of the most dangerous places on planet Earth.

There were also 196 union members killed that year. Their deaths were not unrelated to the political violence sweeping the country. The dominant public-sector unions have their roots in a revolutionary ideology that they share with the FARC. This has put them on the left side of Colombia's violent politics for decades. On the other side have been those who took up arms to oppose guerrilla aggression.

Mr. Uribe has worked to restore peace by strengthening the state. This has been bad for both sides. But as the rebels have been pushed back, FARC sympathizers have run to Washington to discredit Mr. Uribe. Democrats have welcomed them. Meanwhile the death toll has dropped dramatically, and union members have especially benefited from improved security.

As a Journal editorial on Friday explained, from 2002 to 2007 the number of murdered Colombian union members dropped by almost 87%. By any fair standard that is progress, especially considering the pattern Mr. Uribe inherited. In 2000, 155 unionists were murdered and in 2001, 205 died. The numbers only started to come down when he took the helm.

In October 2006, the president created a special investigative unit inside the attorney general's office to handle union murders. The unit began operations in February 2007, and it says that as of this August "some 855 cases have open investigations" and that "179 security preventive detention measures have been issued, 61 cases are ready to be referred to court for trial, and 115 suspects have been convicted in 75 sentences."

It is far safer to be a union member today in Colombia than to be a member of the general population. This is a fact, and it would be interesting to know why Mr. Obama has repeatedly refused to acknowledge it.

Is it because of his heavy reliance on campaign contributions from the antitrade AFL-CIO? Or perhaps, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Obama has an ideological bias in favor of Colombia's hard left. If it's the latter, then it is worth asking whether an Obama presidency would change U.S. foreign policy to look more favorably on insurgents of the FARC variety.

Source





Obama Campaign Demands Ban On Republican Jewish Group, Escalates Thuggish Intimidation

Obama shill Mel Levine has never been shy about throwing around his AIPAC credentials. That's a good strategy given how his pro-Obama arguments are mindbogglingly stupid, but it does beg a question: given how the Obama campaign is on the attack against AIPAC, aren't Levine's credentials kind of a bad thing? Maybe someone should ask him about that. Not a Republican though, because they're not allowed:

Barack Obama's campaign has decided advisers and representatives of the Democratic nominee for president will no longer debate officials from the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). This prohibition led Wednesday to the canceling of a debate scheduled for Sunday at Valley Cities Jewish Community Center in Van Nuys organized by the Council of Israeli Community in Los Angeles [CIC]. Larry Greenfield, California director of the RJC, said he still plans to show up. His counterpart, former Rep. Mel Levine, who is a Middle East adviser for Obama, will not participate in what would have been his fourth debate with Greenfield.

That's the nice way to describe it. What actually happened is that the Obama campaign demanded that the CIC ban Greenfield from the debate as a condition for their participation. They're doing the same thing all over the country: no preconditions for meeting Iran but thuggish demands before they'll sit down with American Jews. And they're getting really good at this game: have someone spend months organizing a non-partisan event, pull their people out right at the end, and then shriek about partisanship. The only thing left is for them to threaten legal action. Then it would be a perfect replay of how they detonated the anti-Ahmadinejad rally. The CIC, for its part, is pissed:

"It will be perceived as they are chickening out from a debate and they are ignoring the Israeli community and don't want to face the truth that the McCain campaign is putting out," Linder said. "You are leaving Larry on a stage to put out the information he wants without being rebutted. The Israeli community needs to hear, face to face, both sides, so that people can decide who they want to vote for."

The Obama campaign is saying that they won't debate because of the RJC's "continual dishonesty." Which would already be incoherent if the RJC was actually being dishonest - in democracies, debates are exactly how we settle these things. But it's an especially disingenuous move given how the RJC's accusations are demonstrably true:

"My appearing with him gives him a prominence that he doesn't deserve," Levine said when asked about the cancellation Wednesday afternoon by the Journal. "The RJC's tactics have been continually dishonest, and the campaign has made a decision to not keep getting on the same stage with them." Levine pointed specifically to the RJC's constant attacks on Israel-critic Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is an Obama foreign policy adviser but not concerning Obama's Israel policy, and its claims that Obama would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Indeed, Obama has said he would meet with leaders of rogue nations, but Ahmadinejad, a rabid anti-Semite, isn't the head of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei is.

Two things going on here. One, the Obama campaign is embarrassingly pathetic when it comes to addressing the valid concerns of American Jews. Two, they seem hell-bent on using their political power to prevent anyone from pointing that out.

Nice to see Obama finally claiming Brzezinski. Last time the campaign got pushed on it, they trotted out Wexler to say that Brzezinski was "not an adviser to the campaign and has done no work for the campaign." So either they're lying now or they were lying then (hint: they were lying then - and they knew just who to go to). But being almost honest doesn't make this argument any less asinine. Brzezinski believes that US tensions with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are caused by US support of Israel. So when Obama asks him how the US can repair relations with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia - what exactly do you think he's going to tell him?

I'm also glad that Obama is finally admitting that he'd meet Iran without preconditions. For a while the campaign was claiming the opposite. So either they're lying now or they were lying then (hint: they were lying then). But that doesn't make this version of the argument any more true. For the record: Levine is stealing this argument from Joe Klein, although Klein may have gotten a little help from elsewhere. It was a dumb argument then - but now? Come on. I know that the Obama campaign is using the Big Lie strategy to deal with Biden's anti-Israel record. But there's actual video and photographic proof that Obama promised to meet with Ahmadinejad. That's why Richardson - among others - explicitly criticized him for... wait for it... wanting to meet with Ahmadinejad.

And if he did mean that he'd meet Khamenei without preconditions? That's somehow better? Khamenei has repeatedly declared that Iran is trying to wipe out Israel. He openly supports Ahmadinejad as the President of Iran. He's trying to make sure that Ahmadinejad stays the President of Iran. This is the "dishonesty" that justifies banning conservative Jewish Americans from democratic forums?

It'd be nice if the Obama campaign's attempted thuggish ban was just because they were afraid to defend their awful arguments. But this is more basic: the Obama campaign is silencing opponents because it can. They've been using legal threats to shut down events and kill political messages that they don't like. They're not even in power yet and they're already threatening political opponents with jail time. They brag about the organized mobs that they activate to "fight the good fight" and prevent critics from speaking out. In the meantime they are quite literally blackmailing political opponents into silence. Across the country, Obama's more enthusiastic partisans have taken to violently intimidating conservatives and destroying their property. Just yesterday they demanded an FBI investigation into the FBI investigation of their ACORN allies. This is not a campaign that takes criticism well.

So who knows - maybe Greenfield is lucky. The last citizen who had the temerity to publicly question the purity of The One was savagely destroyed by the press after Obama and Biden repeatedly stocked the fire by mocking him on globally-broadcast news stations. Little 12 year old girls are being viciously smeared for daring to look up to America's most successful female politician.

From textbooks instructing students about Obama's "life of service" to illustrated children's books about "the name the whole world knows" to Obama Youth chanting and marching in lockstep to beatific children singing hymns about their Leader - let's just build a giant statue of him on a horse and get it over with. This election isn't about winning. As Obama's more honest supporters boast, they're in it to "crush the spirits" of social conservatives and foreign policy "neo-conservatives." Luckily "neo-conservative" is in no way a leftist code word for "pro-Israel Jew." So no cause for alarm.

Memo to ostensibly pro-Israel Obama supporters: circa 2010 there are going to be headlines about the "severe crisis in US-Israel relations." You're not going to be able to say that you didn't know.

Source (See the original for links)

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)