Category Archives: elections

Barack Obama Patriotism Flip-Flop

Barack Obama – April 10, 2012:

“I’m a firm believer that whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, that you’re a patriot, you care about this country, you love this country,” Obama said at an intimate fundraiser in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. “And so I’m not somebody who, when we’re in a political contest, suggests somehow that one side or the other has a monopoly on love of country.

Barack Obama – July 3, 2008:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

obama - words are cheap


Axelrod opposes Obama energy policy on This Week

Obama adviser David Axelrod, this morning on ABC News This Week:

Well, look, we always want lower gas prices, because that’s good for our economy.

Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu, in 2008:

“Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Cadidate Obama, when asked about rising gasoline prices in 2008, didn’t say he wanted them to go down, he said:

“I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”

So contrary to Mr. Axelrod, the president’s policy goal in this case is clear, and it’s working as planned. The Democrats want higher energy prices, in order to make Americans use less energy. President Obama and David Axelrod can’t make the record go away with cheap campaign talking points.

Words are cheap, gas is expensive – that’s the Obama record…

obama - words are cheap

Cain on Romney and religion

Herman Cain on the latest media-generated controversy over Mitt Romney’s religious views (via NRO):

Herman Cain refused to wade into the controversy over whether it is accurate to call Mitt Romney a Christian or not.

“I’m not running for theologian in chief,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union this morning. “I’m a lifelong Christian and what that means is one of my guiding principles for the decisions I make is I start with do the right thing. I’m not getting into that controversy. He’s a Mormon. That much I know. I’m not going to do an analysis of Mormonism vs. Christianity for the sake of answering that.”

Funny, the media seem to be much more concerned with this type of question than they were in the last presidential election cycle when Racist Reverend Wright’s parishioner was running.

Cain answered the question the way it should be answered, which is not to answer it. Theological differences are as old as religion. But they have no place in a political campaign. Values are a separate issue. It matters greatly if a candidate for office accepts or rejects America’s traditional Judeo-Christian values. But people with very different theological views can and do advocate the right values. All the candidates should follow Cain’s lead and refuse to play the media’s game.

On a related note, it was unfortunate to hear some conservatives, most notably William Bennett, attribute what is a legitimate theological debate to bigotry. Perhaps he meant only that it was bigotry in the context of whether to support a political candidate. In any case, theological differences are not bigotry. Bennett should know better than to use that kind of left-wing “argumentation” style.

Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press this morning, and on a few points it sounded a bit like he’s running in the Democratic Party primary.

Gingrich came out opposed to the Republican plan to reform Medicare, instead essentially signing on for the Democrats’ call to wring some waste and fraud out of the current system. He also handed the Democrats an easy talking point: “Even Newt Gingrich thinks the Republican agenda to destroy Medicare and kill seniors is radical and extreme!”

He also came out in favor of an individual federal mandate to buy health insurance. He tried to distinguish his mandate from the Obama mandate, but with little success.

Sandbagging your fellow Republicans in congress and offering tacit support for a key (unconstitutional) component of Obamacare is a very strange way to begin a run in a Republican primary. Not a strong start.

In a better moment, Gingrich responded with appropriate indignation when MTP host David Gregory made a ridiculous charge (he likely just read it on some lefty blog somewhere) of “coded” racism, regarding Gingrich’s reference to Obama as the “food stamp president”.

MR. GREGORY: First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president.

REP. GINGRICH: Oh, come on, David.

MR. GREGORY: What did you mean? What was the point?

REP. GINGRICH: That’s, that’s bizarre. That–this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that–and what I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have–I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.

Many on the left see the racist bogeyman in any criticism of the president, or cynically and maliciously try to score political points with the charge. Good for Newt for fighting back and knocking down the insinuation.

UPDATE(via Hot Air): A spokesman for Rep. Paul Ryan responds to the hit on his Medicare reform proposal:

“The solutions offered by Chairman Ryan and advanced by House Republicans make no changes to Medicare for those in and near retirement, while offering a strengthened, personalized program that future generations can count on when they retire,” Sweeney says. “Far from claims of radicalism, the gradual, common-sense Medicare reforms ensure that no senior will be forced to reorganize their lives because of government’s mistakes. The most ‘radical’ course of action on Medicare is continue to cling to the unsustainable status quo.”

“Serious leaders,” he adds, without naming names, “owe seniors specific solutions to avert Medicare’s looming collapse.”

Democrat Jerry Brown to attend hate group fundraiser tonight

So Jodie Evans, one of the founders of anti-American hate group Code Pink, who told a Gold Star mom that her son deserved to die in Iraq, is hosting a fundraiser for Jerry Brown, Democratic Party candidate for governor of California.

It’s amazing the double standards Democrats/liberals seem to get away with. (See, for example, Obama, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright).

Just try to imagine if Meg Whitman, or any other Republican candidate, were to attend a fundraiser hosted by Fred Phelps of the “Westboro Baptist Church” (he’s a Democrat, but leave that aside for the sake of argument). Her political career would end that day. Yet Jerry Brown will remain a viable candidate.




The Tea Party Convention and the emerging permanent Democratic majority

If conservatives want to guarantee permanent control of Congress for Nancy Pelosi and re-election for Barack Obama in 2012, one great way to help them towards that goal is for conservatives to appear to the average voter as a bunch of angry crackpots. Unfortunately, this seems to be the unofficial theme of this weekend’s “National Tea Party Convention”.

Exhibit One:

“I have a dream,” he [WorldNutDaily founder Joseph Farah] said. “And my dream is that If Barack Obama even seeks re-election as president in 2012 that he won’t be able to go to any city, any town, any hamlet in America without seeing signs that ask ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate?'”

(According to this account, Andrew Breitbart was at the convention, and forcefully argued against the birthers. So there was at least one adult in the room.)

Exhibit Two:

On Thursday night, giving the opening address, former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo (Colo.), who ran for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination as an anti-immigration candidate, railed against Obama and “the cult of multiculturalism.” Americans could be “boiled to death in a cauldron of the nanny state,” he said. “People who couldn’t even spell the word ‘vote,’ or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House.”

When Tancredo said, “His name is Barack Hussein Obama,” the audience booed loudly.

Come on, the contemptuous reciting of the President’s middle name was played out in 2008. And attacking people who don’t speak English well, many of whom are citizens or legal residents of the United States, will turn off many voters as mean-spirited and divisive. You don’t win elections by division, you win by addition.

It’s perfectly legitimate to point out Obama’s left-wing ideology, but tone and presentation are vitally important in building a majority political coalition. (A majority of Democrats polled by Gallup say they have a positive view of socialism, so Democrats can’t turn around and claim “socialist” is some kind of smear.)

This may be a way for a few hundred people in a meeting room in Nashville to feel better; it is not any way to build a majority of voters to throw Pelosi and company out of their leadership positions. Of course the DeMSM are going to try to portray all conservatives as angry, intolerant fringe figures. But there’s nothing to be gained by helping them do it.

Angry rants, purity tests, conspiracy theories, etc. from the right, all help Democrats get re-elected and maintain their majority. No doubt there are a lot of good people at the convention who have legitimate concerns about the continuing damage the Democrats have planned for America. But politics is about building a majority coalition in order to win elections. The Tea Party movement can’t lose sight of that fact and succeed.

Chinese government implements Fairness Doctrine

A CNN blog reports on Democrats’ desire to censor conservative talk radio hosts:

Dems target right-wing talk radio

WASHINGTON (CNN) – ” More and More Democrats in Congress are calling for action that Republicans warn could muzzle right-wing talk radio.

Representative Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York is the latest to say he wants to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine,” a federal regulation scrapped in 1987 that would require broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues.

“I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.

Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa added their voices recently to those calling for a return of the regulation.

Republicans oppose the Fairness Doctrine, arguing it would be wrong for the federal government to monitor political speech on the airwaves, in order to require opposing views.

It isn’t hard to imagine a different level of reaction from places like CNN if Republicans were in the majority and threatening the licenses of broadcasters who don’t have enough conservative views on the air. They’d probably even go so far as to report it on the air, rather than merely on a blog post on their website. Words like “fascism” and “Mccarthyism” would be used. And they’d be right. The Democrats are ready to go after talk radio only because the most popular voices on the air are conservative. It is entirely based on viewpoint.

In a similar story from the AP:

China to create blacklist of local journalists

BEIJING (AP) – ” China plans to create a blacklist of journalists who break its reporting rules, state media reported Friday, adding to an array of controls used to restrict its domestic media.

According to a report in the China Press and Publishing Journal, the agency that exercises control over the state-owned Chinese media plans to “establish a database of media professionals with a bad record.”

It said reporters who violate the rules or laws will have their press cards taken away. “Their names will be entered into the list and they will be restricted from news reporting or editing work,” Li Dongdong, deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publication, was quoted as saying.

As noted here at, the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” isn’t the only way for Democrats to try to suppress conservative speech. There are a number of less direct or perhaps less visible ways for them to try to accomplish the same goal. The Democrats’ willingness to even consider such an open and direct assault on the 1st Amendment should be very troubling to every American who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And a fascist doctrine roundup from Michelle Malkin.

Colin Powell endorses Obama

Colin Powell has for a long time struck us as a mushy moderate, David Gergen type, and not much of a deep thinker on most issues, way too concerned about what the “world community” (i.e. pacifist, welfare statist Europe) thinks, and his comments today did nothing to change that assessment. We won’t dwell on his endorsement of Obama, which is really not a surprise at all.

First, a bit of positive – in Powell’s area of expertise, which is military matters, he remains stalwart on the liberation of Iraq, to his credit:

I’m well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn’t get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I’ve never blinked from that. I’ve never said I didn’t support a decision to go to war.

And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific. The troops had done a great job. But then we failed to understand that the war really was not over, that a new phase of the war was beginning. And we weren’t ready for it and we didn’t respond to it well enough, and things went very, very — very, very south, very bad.

And now it’s starting to turn around through the work of Gen. Petraeus and the troops, through the work of the Iraqi government, through our diplomatic efforts, and I hope now that this war will be brought to an end, at least as far as American involvement is concerned, and the Iraqis are going to have to be responsible for their own security and for their own political future. …

How Powell squares that view with Obama’s opposition to the successful surge, and his desire to pull out regardless of conditions on the ground, Powell didn’t say.

But when you get outside of national security matters, Powell seems to understand things less than, say, Joe the plumber:

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.

Of course taxes are necessary, and of course John McCain has never said nor implied otherwise. But to suggest that “all taxation is redistribution” is just asinine. It should be obvious to anyone, even to Colin Powell, that paying to build a road in no way compares to Obama’s plan to take money away from some Americans to send unearned checks to other Americans (for the purpose of buying their votes).

(It would have been nice to hear a good follow-up question for Powell, to ask him how much “the rich” now pay, in order to gauge his understanding of the issue. Answer: “The rich”, i.e. the top 5% of earners in America, pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. It would be really nice if someone asked Barack Obama or Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid for that matter, that question. But which reporter would want to put their guys on the spot?)

And to focus on people like Mr. Ayers and these trivial issues, for the purpose of suggesting that somehow Mr. Obama would have some kind of terrorist inclinations, I thought that was over the top.


And to sort of throw in this little Muslim connection, you know, “He’s a Muslim and, my goodness, he’s a terrorist” — it was taking root. And we can’t judge our people and we can’t hold our elections on that kind of basis.

But no one in the McCain campaign, certainly not John McCain or Sarah Palin, has said nor implied that Obama is a terrorist or has terrorist inclinations, or that he’s a Muslim. Barack Obama has a long and consistent pattern of allying himself with far left, radical individuals and groups. Of course that’s relevant to the campaign. Of course the DeMSM would be all over it, non-stop, if John McCain had similar associations with any far-right equivalents of Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, etc.

And notice that Powell didn’t show any discomfort with all the “negativity” coming from the Obama campaign and his allies in the press. In what moral universe is it worse to point out Obama’s ties to a parade of radicals, which are true, than to compare John McCain to George Wallace, which is nothing but a despicable slander of the lowest kind? And how in the world does Powell think Obama is going to bring Americans together again by accusing anyone of racism who dares to criticize him?

“Joe the Plumber” vs. the DeMSM

One day after the final debate between Senator Government and Senator McCain, less than three weeks until the election, and the pathetic DeMSM have already done more investigation of Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher than they have of Barack Obama in two years.

Every Republican office-holder or candidate in America should from now on treat members of the mainstream media as hostile Democrat partisans, because in truth that’s what they are. A return to the days of mere subtle liberal bias in the media would be a big step up at this point.