Category Archives: ethics

John Kerry whopper on FNS – no mandates in Obama health care plan

John Kerry, appearing this morning on Fox News Sunday, told a huge whopper, even by Washington DC standards:

WALLACE: Senator Kerry – and we’re running out of time in this segment, but I want to address something that McCain went after Obama on, and that is proposing more than $800 billion in new spending.

Doesn’t Obama have a government solution to every problem?

KERRY: No, absolutely not. If you look at his health care plan, which John McCain mischaracterized, calling it a government plan, you will see a plan that is entirely a market-based, market-oriented, free-choice plan, nobody mandated to do anything. So the answer is no, that’s not true.

Really, Senator Kerry? Nobody mandated to do anything? Can anyone think of any examples of federal laws that don’t require anyone to do anything? Don’t laws by definition require somebody to do something? Do liberals ever think before they speak? Do they ever consider the truthfulness of their statements before they make them? These are of course rhetorical questions.

Obviously, there are all sorts of mandates in Barack Obama’s proposed health care plan. And of course, this would only be a first step. Once they establish the collectivist notion that it’s the federal government’s responsibility to provide health insurance to every American, then there will be additional mandates and taxpayer expense later.

From the Obama website:

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 – $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

So that’s the plan – higher taxes, and anti-market mandates, quite the opposite of Kerry’s ridiculous assertion.

As an aside, the opening line from Obama’s health care page:

“On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes – government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules.”

This is also quite obviously untrue. Who’s proposing that there be “no rules” for health insurance companies? John McCain isn’t advocating anything like that. The Republicans in Congress aren’t advocating anything like that. It’s a complete and total straw man, they just made it up, with total disregard for the truth. We’re beginning to see a pattern here from Obama and his spokesmen, and it’s not change, or anything else, we can believe in.

Republicans and Taxpayers vs. Democrats and ACORN

As we all learn the details of the proposed federal government bailout of Wall Street, one important point needs to be remembered. All parties have agreed that this is a real crisis, that threatens to possibly throw the U.S. economy into a deep recession or even a depression. In the midst of trying to negotiate legislation to help fix the problem, the Republicans in the House tried very hard to keep American taxpayers off the hook for as much of this $700 billion bailout as they could. The Democrats tried to inject various pay-offs to their left-wing political cronies, like union bosses and ACORN-type Democrat-allied political organizations.

This is truly scandalous, a gross violation of the public trust. Just try to imagine the outcry if Republicans had worked to give billions of taxpayer dollars to right-wing political activist groups in a bill to fund the cleanup and rebuilding after hurricane Katrina. It’s absolutely shameful, and the public ought not be allowed to forget it (Certainly Barack Obama, who once worked for the corrupt ACORN, ought to be asked about it).

The Republicans need to drive this point home at every opportunity from now until November 4th, and beyond.

Obama: The Audacity of Projection

Barack Obama makes stuff up to falsely accuse Republicans of making stuff up:

“When [the Republicans] say this isn’t about issues it’s about personalities what they’re really saying is “we’re going to try to scare people about Barack’,” he told a small gathering at a glass factory near Scranton. “‘We’re going to say that you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’ Just making stuff up.”

But those Internet rumors about him being a Muslim started during the Democrats’ primaries. And Obama very clearly has a pattern of longstanding relationships with radicals like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, that is a fact. And who said he isn’t patriotic? Obama is just making stuff up. We might say this is an instance of “the pot calling the kettle black”, but then some deranged lefty would probably call that evidence of racism.

Who can trust Barack Obama now?

From the Washington Post (via WSJ.com):

The foreign minister [Hoshyar Zebari of Iraq] said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”

So if you’re on the left and favor surrender and retreat from Iraq, or you’re a conservative and favor victory, how can you have any real confidence in Obama’s position(s) on the war at this point?

From CNNmoney.com (also via WSJ.com):

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

So whether you’re a private-enterprise loathing Marxist or a believer in American free markets, how can you have any real confidence in Obama’s position(s) on free trade or the economy at this point?

And of course there’s Obama’s recent decision to walk away from his pledge to accept public financing for the general election:

In a widely expected move that will give Democrat Barack Obama a huge cash advantage over Republican John McCain, Obama announced Thursday morning that he will be the first modern presidential candidate to decline public financing in a general election.

Obama’s decision represents a break from the strong signals he sent last year about his commitment to the public financing program. It means his campaign, which has shattered fundraising records, won’t accept the federal system’s $84 million in taxpayer money, but also won’t be subject to its $84 million spending limit.

obama - words are cheap As a pattern emerges, the question arises for any voter (anyone who isn’t going to vote for the Democrat no matter what he says): how can you now trust what Senator Obama says on any issue? Whether it’s the war, the economy, taxes, Social Security, health care, anything at all – with this pattern of saying contradictory things about so many of the major issues of the campaign, depending on the audience, how can you possibly trust that he’s actually going to deliver on anything you want?

We suspect Mr Obama will try to take the country as far to he left as he could get away with, but who’s to know at this point? Maybe he wouldn’t surrender in Iraq. Maybe he wouldn’t really try to crush American free enterprise and drive up energy prices with punishing tax increases and mandates.

Now, while it is certainly true that all politicians try to mold their message to gain as many votes as they can, with John McCain you still know pretty well where he stands on the major issues of the day, even if you don’t agree with him on everything. But whether you’re liberal, conservative, or in the middle, how does anyone know at this point what Barack Obama would really do for/to the country? Who’s willing to roll the dice with their vote in November? Who can believe a story that keeps changing?

Obama: People he appointed to work on his VP search “aren’t folks who are working for me”?!?

This one really takes the cake, even by the low standards Senator Obama has set in some of his previous statements, like claiming he didn’t really know people he’s known for twenty years (Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger Flav, Tony Rezko, William Ayers… Doesn’t Obama know anyone who isn’t a kook and/or a crook?).

obama - words are cheap From the ABC News “Political Punch” blog, in response to a question about Obama’s appointment of Jim Johnson (who seems to have received some really primo loan terms from Countrywide) and Eric Holder (who recommended the Marc Rich pardon to president Clinton) to head his VP search committee:

“Well, no,” Obama said. “It becomes sort of a, um, I mean, this is a game that can be played – everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships…

“So this – you know, these aren’t folks who are working for me,” Obama said.

People who are heading up your VP search are “tangentially related to the campaign”? They don’t work for Obama? Who’s actually going to believe such a whopper, besides some of Obama’s most obsessed cult-like followers?

Is Obama doing some sort of grand sociology experiment, to see how many outrageous things he can say and still remain a viable candidate for national office? Are we Americans all being “Punked”? He’s got to be kidding.

More from:
Hot Air
The Campaign Spot
Commentary

Video

Obama boldly vows not to take money from a small fraction of “special interests”

Barack Obama continues to peddle the nonsensical and disingenuous claim that he is practicing “a new kind of politics” and is not beholden to “special interests”. And his DeMSM allies at the AP continue to eat it up uncritically.

…Obama imposed on the DNC the same ban on money from federal lobbyists and political action committees that he has placed on his campaign.

….

By banning federal lobbyist and PAC money from the DNC, Obama sought to avoid an inconsistency with his own campaign’s fundraising policy. The ban applies to future fundraising, meaning the party won’t have to return money it has already raised from lobbyists and PACs.

obama - words are cheap “Today as the Democratic nominee for president, I am announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard – we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Bristol, Va.

“We are going to change how Washington works. They will not run our party. They will not run our White House. They will not drown out the views of the American people.”

….

The new fundraising policy is not expected to hurt the party’s fundraising ability because lobbyists and PACs do not constitute a major source of money.

But as we noted last month, Obama is up to his eyeballs in special interest money and influence. Whether or not they employ officially registered lobbyists or use PACs is entirely irrelevant. He’s taking their money, they’re working to get him elected, he’s doing their policy bidding. This is just more meaningless talk and symbolism. He’s promising not to accept money from what would be a small fraction of his potential donor base any way, while raking it in from “special interests” he supports. The Man of Action Adjectives strikes again.

Barack Obama, Influence Peddler?

The Washington Post had an article implying some sort of ethical lapse by Senator John McCain because he was involved in negotiating legislation related to a land transaction in Arizona, which also involved practically every other high level politician in that state. This is a pretty high bar for ethical conduct – Congress passed legislation, a constituent benefited = scandal? The Post is really reaching there.

Senator Barack Obama on the other hand openly supports all sorts of new programs and spending that will directly benefit his supporters, and to paraphrase racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, no one bats an eye.

The AP reports, “…the American Federation of Government Employees announced its support for Obama. The union claims about 600,000 members who work in the federal and Washington, D.C., governments.”

The SEIU union has also endorsed Obama. These are folks who will work to get Obama elected, and then he will turn around and increase their budgets, and payrolls. Not quite a quid pro quo, but certainly a direct benefit. These are “special interests” in a way no energy or pharmaceutical company could ever be. But Obama claims to be “against Washington lobbyists and special interests” and the MSM doesn’t question it. If any group ought to be restricted in their political activity, government employee unions should be, on the grounds of a conflict of interest. But this is routine – government employee unions work very hard to get liberal advocates of bigger government elected every cycle. Of course Obama has every right to advocate for a more bloated federal budget, but he should end the sanctimony about changing “the old politics” in Washington.

Another instance of Barack Obama “plagiarism” identified?

Barack Obama is getting hit by the Hillary Clinton campaign for alleged plagiarism in part of a speech Obama delivered on Saturday in Wisconsin. It doesn’t seem on its face to be a huge deal for one politician to borrow a good line from another politician, but it does take away from Obama’s aura of authenticity and originality as a candidate just a bit. (The video of the Patrick and Obama speeches can be viewed here.)

But is this borrowing just a one time incident, or part of a pattern going right to the heart of Obama’s deep message of hope and change? We found some disturbing video evidence that suggests it is a pattern. Readers can decide for themselves; the video is here (Warning: may be disturbing to some viewers). We report, you decide.

SEIU, Union of Big Government, Endorses Barack Obama

Lots of news outlets, like The Washington Post, The Hill, USA Today, and the AP, reported that the 1.9 million member SEIU union endorsed Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.

The AP describes the union this way:

The politically active union represents workers in health care, building services and other industries. It has donated more than $25 million to candidates in the past two decades, most of it to Democrats.

Hmmm, what could those “other industries” be? What all these outlets failed to mention is that close to half (about 850,000) of the union’s total membership is made up of state and local government employees.

Imagine, say, a big defense contractor like Lockheed Martin endorsed a Republican candidate who was promising to buy a lot more Lockheed Martin products. It would be presented in the press as a direct conflict of interest or even as a sign of corruption. Recall all the grief Vice President Cheney got for simply talking to energy providers about energy policy after he was already elected. But a left-wing organization of government employees who will directly benefit from Democrats’ promises of ever more spending on government programs isn’t even worth mentioning. Presenting people that have a direct financial interest in bigger government as just another group of “working people” doesn’t present the full story.

CBS News reported:

Separately Thursday, Obama also won the backing of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a politically active union with significant membership in the upcoming Democratic battlegrounds.

The 1.3-million member UFCW has 69,000 members in Ohio and another 26,000 in Texas.The food workers also have 19,000 members in Wisconsin, which holds a primary Tuesday.

The union is made up of supermarket workers and meatpackers, with 40 percent of the membership under 30 years old. Obama has been doing especially well among young voters.

So it’s important to mention that the UFCW is “made up of supermarket workers and meatpackers”, but not to say anything about the makeup of the SEIU, where the membership is actually relevant.

John Edwards for AG?

Columnist Robert Novak reported:

Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

If true, this should disqualify Barack Obama from consideration for the office he seeks. The mere consideration of the idea that utterly phony ambulance chaser John Edwards would be put in charge of the Justice Department would conclusively demonstrate a complete lack of good judgment on Obama’s part. It would also be a purely political move, not merit-based, which would belie Obama’s campaign theme of “getting rid of business as usual in Washington.”

A good line from Power Line’s John Hinderaker: “I can think of a few worse cabinet appointments than this one–Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Defense, for example–but not many.”

And from Hot Air: “Silky v1.0: Ambulance chaser. Silky v2.0: Al Qaeda chaser.”

(That’s probably an overly optimistic view. The Democrats seem more interested in using the law to go after those trying to fight al Qaeda than for going after al Qaeda – telecom companies that cooperated with the government in surveillance of suspected terrorist activity, citizens who report suspicious activity on airplanes, the Bush administration, that sort of thing.)