3 posts tagged “barack obama”
Roger Simon wrote a piece dripping with sarcasm for Politico today. And I love it.
Focusing on the outcry over the media coverage Sarah Palin has been receiving since the announcement about her taking the Republican VP slot last week, Simon perfectly enunciates what I never could in my severely limited attempts at voicing my opinions:
…On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry. We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked. We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
…We should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul. Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”
…Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq. Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried. Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)
On the other hand, I think that a portion of the coverage Palin has received is unfair. And, apparently, some of Hillary Clinton’s aides agree with me:
Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.
“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”
“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Ultimately, I like Palin. A lot.
But there’s still no way in hell that I’d ever attached my vote to a McCain campaign. The fact that they managed to find someone to run in the VP position who would do much better headlining the ticket doesn’t change the fact that McCain is a slimeball with nothing better to do than sell Americans out at the domestic level while playing up his foreign policy credentials. If we’re going to have four more years of mismanaged policy at home, why not put it all in the lap of someone as easy to write-off as Barack Obama?
Barring the possibility of McCain dropping out of the race in the next two months for age-related reasons, I will continue to throw my vote in for a post-Obamalyptic dystopian future where Americans are finally shaken back to reality.
Yeah, it sounds bad, but we have a nasty tendency of finding order only after chaos. Just look at Carter and his inspiration for Reagan.
Dear America,
I don't claim to be an expert in economics, but I'm certainly impressed by the generic understanding of supply and demand that you have exhibited as you've watched the gas prices rise over the last couple years. According to the Federal Highway Administration, you are driving less these days - presumably because you're fed up with paying high prices for gas. Given this reality, it's likely that this has led to more stability when it comes to the price of crude oil on the market. This, I assume, has contributed to the gradually dropping prices that we are paying at the pump.
The joy of a (relatively) free economy, like the one you are currently a part of, is that the consumer always has the final say in whether the economy fails or succeeds. If you don't like the price of something, you simply stop purchasing it or, in this case, limit your purchasing. This will force the producers to limit the prices that they apply to their products and, ultimately, both parties will benefit from a competitive market in which reasonable prices for quality products becomes the standard.
However, this slight deviation from your normal ignorance of the inner workings of our economy appears to have faltered in the realm of politics.
Currently, John McCain is desperately pushing his plan to expand drilling for oil off of the American coastlines. Inherently, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a potential future where we produce more of our gasoline locally. That, though, won't do much to alter gas prices - especially in the near future. According to just about everyone who seems to understand the gasoline-production process, any expansion in our local drilling would take several years to impact us directly, if at all. McCain's attempt to impress you with his deep understanding of your day-to-day struggle to fill up your gas tank at a reasonable price is certainly an attempt to pander to you for your vote. Please don't encourage this sort of thing, as you appear to know better than that - remember, supply and demand is the name of the game.
McCain, though, isn't the only politician trying to pull the wool over your eyes. His opponent, Barack Obama, is now pushing his plan to institute something called a 'windfall profits' tax on the oil companies. Now, being the good economists that you've demonstrated yourselves to be, you obviously know the difference between regular 'profits' and something called a 'profit margin.' You are also aware, of course, of the fact that the profit margins for our major oil companies remains at a steady 8% - 10% rate.
This means that our oil companies, who are the only producers available to us for gasoline, would be staring down the barrel of a serious cut into that significantly light profit margin rate in order to pay for Obama's attempt to pander to you.
Now, I'm not trying to tell you who you should vote for because, frankly, I'm not impressed with either plan. But I did want to address the fact that you are apparently aware (or should be) that the best way to deal with high gas prices is through limiting your use of it. Congratulations. Perhaps soon you'll come around to the fact that income taxes are the ultimate in modern techniques of federal enslavement.
Best of luck in November,
W.
Ever since I decided to add the Power Line blog to my ever-growing list of RSS feeds, I can't say that I've been disappointed in the least. I have come to learn that I can always expect intelligent news analysis there, whether I agree with the point of their articles or not.
To that end, as I'm trying to avoid delving into the still-developing political ramifications of the Virginia Tech shooting, I'd like to point to a Power Line article from a couple of days ago that really caught my attention.
While I openly reject the belief that the mainstream media is actively campaigning to get a Democrat into office, I don't think it's a stretch to recognize that the majority of our press is composed of left-leaning writers. So it goes. However, the Barack Obama quote from the cited AP article, when placed so closely to the photograph of he and Ludacris together, did raise my eyebrows.
Quintessentially, this is a prime example of why I don't think Obama is going to be able to squeak through as the Democratic nominee for President. Most of his political power is drawn from the fact that he's relatively unknown and, thus, doesn't have the same sort of baggage that most of his opposition is going to have (i.e. Hillary). Unfortunately, his lack of baggage will also happen to be his greatest weakness, magnifying any slight hypocrisies he may find himself stumbling into on the campaign trail.
Then again, I've been wrong before.
I did, after all, actually think that Bush was going to grow some teeth during his second term in office. What a joke that turned out to be.