"I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community."
Well, now that Wright has been disowned, you better watch yourself "black community" -- you're probably next on the chopping block of political expedience.
It's too bad I can't comment on the Barometer website, because I think Rachel Spitler would be very interested in learning what happens when Wright's comments are "available in their full context."
Bill Bradbury, Oregon’s gerrymandering, electioneering Secretary of State, has now sunk to a new low. Thursday afternoon, Bradbury addressed students in the MU Lounge on the subject of global warming. Now wait, since when is Bradbury qualified to talk about science? He’s not a scientist, he’s a former businessman turned politician.
Which is why, perhaps, The OSU Daily Barometer’s account of the event said it “echoed Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’” As noted in a Liberty Blog post on Wednesday, many are questioning the scientific validity of Gore’s data. But Bradbury quoted some of Gore’s data, made a bad analogy about an orange, and compared global warming to fascism.
Bradbury’s brand of politics as Secretary of State has been shameful. The idea that he was qualified to speak about science, more so than the well-respected science professors of all political stripes employed at this university, is political cronyism at its highest level. The Barometer didn’t indicate who sponsored he even, but those people should find remember that unless political manipulation is the goal, it’s best to let scientists talk about science.
On this Earth Day, it is worth mentioning the people no one will mention today. Scientists around the world have been facing professional, social, and political repression for stating that they do not agree with the consensus of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change).
Lawrence Solomon has recently published an account of these scientists called The Deniers.National Review Online interviewed him about the process of creating the account, as well as some less than well known information about the IPCC and Al Gore’s methods. Since it is guaranteed that you will see some Global Warming hysterics today, I strongly urge you to read his interview as another perspective.
And we thought we were done with Mitt Romney? Not So Fast! An active campaign to get Romney selected as Sen. John McCain’s running mate is underway, as demonstrated (in part) by this Facebook group. The group’s admins list seven reasons why McCain should select Romney:
1. Romney has shown that he can win Michigan and places like Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado, and some other "purple" states that could go either way in the general election. -Romney can win Michigan because he’s from there. McCain will do fine in “purple” states on his own because he appeals to the center, something Romney could never do. In many “purple” states (aka Swing States), Romney is actually a liability.
2. Romney doesn't have any skeletons in his closet that could hurt McCain. -This is because Romney’s skeletons are in the living room serving coffee. Gun control, his alleged “flip-flop” on abortion, and Mormonism, be they real problems or not, are going to be a liability. We didn’t make him our presidential nominee for a reason.
3. Romney could still sell his turnaround the economy strategy and McCain could say that he would let Mitt write the economic strategy. I’m sorry, did I miss the memo? Romney can manage money, I get it. I haven’t seen a strategy.
4. They both agree at the importance of protecting America and increasing the size of our military. So does everyone else in our party, except for Ron Paul, who isn’t really in our party.
5. Mitt can use his very impressive fund raising machine to help McCain raise money since McCain is still very short on funds. He should have been doing so already.
6. Romney would be a perfect candidate to strengthen the three legs of the conservative movement. I don’t even get what this means, or how McCain would need help.
7. Romney will be a very strong candidate to succeed McCain after McCain serves one term. Et tu, Brute? Seriously, though, are we talking about ’12 already. And I thought this cycle was bad.
All that aside, I can see why Romney would be a good VP nominee. But saying, as the group title does, that a McCain/Romney ticket is “OUR LAST HOPE” reeks of a political sore loser and trying to come in second place. This isn’t the Soap Box Derby, there is no prize for second.
According to a recent poll, Sen. Hillary Clinton is leading Sen. Barrack Obama in the Pennsylvania Primary by an even 20 percentage points, with four percent left undecided. Additionally, ten percent of those surveyed, likely Democrat primary voters, say they would never vote for Sen. Clinton, whereas 24 percent said they would never vote for Sen. Obama.
The question remains whether or not Sen. Obama has support among, and the ability to turn out, young voters who are not considered “likely primary voters.” If he does, then most of the poling data that comes out during this cycle is off. If not, then the hype and mystique that Sen. Obama has worked up over this past month was a sham. He has convinced many of his inevitability, but has offered up little proof of this. A month of loud and uplifting (only in that it is so empty it can lift itself and take voters with it) does not a successful campaign make.
Behold, Oba-rack Kenobami, master of Jedi mind tricks:
Click to watch
In the interest of entertainment and shameless self-promotion, I am cross-posting my recent Barometer article ("Obama-dise Lost") that talks about what those of us unfazed by his mind tricks see in Obama.
Ever since Barack Obama’s grand speech in Philadelphia, where concerns over comments made by his pastor of two decades were supposedly addressed and put to bed, the media has dutifully pared down its coverage of the incident. But why?
Obama’s campaign has been carried by constant references to ‘hope,’ ‘change,’ and a number of other nebulous-yet-inspiring adjectives. In an apparently still-‘racial’ America, he is the post-racial candidate. He is post-partisan and post-‘politics-as-usual.’ No doubt he starts his day with a healthy bowl of Post Raisin Bran, inspiring even the common breakfast cereal to transcend its wheat-based nature. Essentially, Obama has built his campaign on the idea that he is above the other candidates on a near-metaphysical level. He dispenses rhetoric like grace from on high in order to heal the wounds of the nation.
But Obama has two problems that give lie to his messiah-like facade – his wife, Michelle Obama, and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Recent campaign events involving his wife suggest that all may not be right in Obama land. In February she said she was finally proud of her country for the first time in her adult life (this came, of course, after her husband took the lead in the Democratic primary). The New Yorker reported last month that she considers the United States to be “just downright mean.” And last week during a speech at CarnegieMellonUniversity, as CMU’s newspaper The Tartan reports, Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators were handpicking who sat in the bleachers behind her – according to race, that is. The Tartan quoted her staff as saying, “‘Get me more white people, we need more white people.’ To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, ‘We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.’” Apparently, Michelle Obama’s plan to fix the racial picture in America involves simply switching out who is in the frame.
Obama’s (now former) pastor/mentor Wright is on a whole other level of appalling. YouTube has plenty of video showing Wright giving spittle-flecked sermons that the 9/11 attacks were proof that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” that the United States government created the AIDS virus to wipe-out colored people, and that we live in the “U. S. of KKK A.” He even conveniently summarized his views by repeatedly screaming “God DAMN America!”
Barack tried lamely to separate himself from Wright’s sermons by condemning them, but then he claimed he could “no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community.” I have a difficult time believing Wright is representative of the black community, and I doubt the black community is taking kindly to being lumped in with an America-hating, conspiracy-spouting racist.
But even if Obama had completely dismissed Wright, the whole episode shows how feeble Obama’s message of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ actually is. First, it took Obama 20 years of listening to his pastor’s garbage to even say anything about, and even then only after it became public. I don’t think Obama actually believes the things his pastor said, but that he never expressed disagreement with it before seems to say that he doesn’t take his religious life very seriously and thus his recent statements condemning Wright are merely a political play.
Secondly, why is it that two of the people closest to the Incarnation of Hope and Change are so angry? If Obama’s wife and mentor are both bitter about America, how can anyone think him capable of healing a nation? If this is how far Obama has gotten after 20 years with Wright and 15 years with Michelle, what do we expect him to do in only four (or even eight) years as President?
By March 17, Hillary had taken a slight lead over Obama in Gallup’s daily poll, mostly as a result of Wright’s comments hitting the news cycle. This decline is evidence that once Obama’s stainless exterior was cracked by ‘pastor-gate,’ many voters didn’t see him as ‘hopey’ or ‘changey’ as before. It seems the real Obama is just a regular politician – one who speaks loftily but without real substance, views his faith through the lens of his politics, and tries to be all things to all people.
It’s not that the Emperor Obama isn’t wearing any clothes; indeed, he’s fully clad. He just shops at the same store where Hillary gets her pantsuits. He is just like every other politician the Democrats have put forward, spouting the exact same liberal platform (wrapped up in that patented Obama rhetoric). He’s a normal, run-of-the-mill Democrat.
And, perhaps, being normal is what threatens Obama's campaign the most.
A recent ABC NEWS story reported that most US Military personnel preferred one of the Democrat presidential hopefuls in the upcoming election. Despite the fact that most American military personnel voted for President Bush in 2004, ABC interviewed five soldiers who all seemed to support a Democrat. (four for Senator Barack Obama, one for Senator Hillary Clinton) None who were interviewed supported the presumptive nominee, Senator John McCain.
I honestly don’t think it would be that hard to find a soldier who supported McCain. This whole story smells greatly of a pro-Dem piece of yellow journalism, and a sad statement about media’s involvement in politics. Stories such as this serve less to report the news and more to disseminate a viewpoint. One that may be grossly out of line with what the reality of the situation suggests. How many soldiers are in favor of McCain? With news reporting like this, we will never know.
I've still got some reservations about the guy, but at least while watching this I can breathe clear and easy; I've yet to see another campaign ad that captures patriotism like this one. I felt like one of those women who faint at Obama rallies. Just before I lost consciousness, I could hear and feel the words, "Yes, we can!" escape my lips...
The 2008 Oregon Legislature “not-so-special” Special Session has finally ended. More money was spent, and government now does more things. But the most ominous legislation passed, at least in my view, was a HJR (House Joint Resolution) stating that everyone has a “universal right to health care.”
There are a lot of places that this could go, and I don’t like any of them. Whether it be regulation of insurers, state subsidies of insurers, or blatant socialized medicine, the road to government intervention is health care is now wide open. When government guarantees rights, it feels the need to do something to protect them. Unlike any other right, however, this one is going to cost money.
The Liberty website will be updated soon, on which you can check out my column “The Matter of Rights,” which more clearly lays out why these notions of entitlements as rights are bogus.
Perhaps this is why the original Star Wars movies are so popular and have such staying power--they can be easily explained by a multi-tasking three-year-old. For your protection, I'm giving this video a severe cuteness warning.
The question: Can you name one accomplishment in the political career of Barack Obama?
The answers:
"Umm, well he can speak really well! That's not a political accomplishment? Oh...well, he's black! Did I mention he's black? That's an accomplishment isn't it?...That's true, I guess he didn't really have any control over that..."
Or my personal favorite, from the first video--
Yellow-Shirted Man (with smug tone):"He's a great oratater like Jesse Jackson!"
Questioner (exasperated): "What isthat?!?"
All this goes to show that Obama's run a fantastic (although vague) campaign. All his supporters seem to know or care about him is that he is...well, a well-spoken black Senator. Nobody opposes Barack Obama because he is a great speaker, because he's black, or because he's a Senator.
No, I think it's something a little more substantial--like say, oh I don't know, maybe being the most liberal Senator in Congress? Wisely, Obama has spoken very little about his policy views. So until the candidates for each party are chosen, it looks like the Obama campaign is going to continue to be all about that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you hear, "Yes, we can!" and "Fired up, ready to go!"
Barack Obama: Pro-hope (as well as the requisite 'audacity' that accompanies it), Pro-dreams, Pro-future, and also very much in support of generic "good feelings."
Many have expressed concern over Romney's authenticity and whether he really believes any of the conservative principles he touted to voters during his campaign. The only way I can see it after this speech is that either: 1)Mitt Romney believes what he says, and he is committed to conservatism and America or 2)Mitt Romney is a liar on the level of Bill Clinton, saying anything to get elected, even to the point of lying in his withdrawal speech.
I think, after hearing and reading this speech, Romney is a fantastic American and I hope that he finds a place to prove his talents for these next four years.
UPDATE: A sentimental look at what might be in 2012...
You know what day it is! It's Mitt's last chance to turn things around, and a major test for the Democrats to see if Sen. Obama's message of change is more "changey" than Sen. Clinton's message of change.
I've got class for a few hours today, but I'll keep updating the results as they come in and I get a chance.
My hopes: Mitt stops the bleeding and an enraged McCain says something stupid, while Hillary stomps Obama
My predictions: McCain "straight-talks" his way to the nomination, and Hillary stomps Obama.
California-McCain 40%, Romney 36%, Huck 10% This state is critical for Romney. Whether he wins or not, he at least needs a significant chunk of delegates to even think about continuing after today. Jim Geraghty reminds that these are preliminary results, without a district-by-district breakdown, and likely without 3 million absentee ballots. This might get a lot closer.
Missouri-Romney 36%, McCain 32%, Huck 25% This was also a big state for Romney. It will be a major surprise if he holds on for the win here.
Georgia-Huck 34%, Romney 31%, McCain 30% While I don't know the strategic importance of Georgia, I think it will be exciting to see how it turns out with all three candidates so close.
New England- McCain wins pretty handily. No surprise there. Liberal is as liberal does. **Massachusetts, Romney's home state, is an obvious exception, but Delaware apparently is also going Mitt's way.
The South- Not counting the ones mentioned above, Huck is leading in most Southern states, followed by McCain and Romney, respectively. McCain has a slight lead over Huck in Oklahoma, though Romney is close enough that he might be able to stage a comeback...
McCain's winning his home state of Arizona, but only by five points...
WARNING: EXIT NUMBERS EARLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL VOTES:
OBAMA: Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...
CLINTON: Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26... California: Clinton 50, Obama 47... New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43... Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31... Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41...
There are a couple close states there, but it looks like most Democrats have decided one way or the other. I also notice that Obama seems to have a lot more states behind his name. What else could explain it but....the audacity of hope. Well, my hopes were apparently too audacious because neither Mitt nor Hillary are winning out and out, but where there's a clever marketing strategy, there's a way:
UPDATE (11:15 pm): Well, my predictions were kind of right. McCain "straight-talked" his way through the day, and Hillary leads Obama, but she certainly didn't stomp him. She may be stomping her feet right now, as Obama did fairly well today. Things are much closer for the Democrats because (as far as I can tell) each state gave out delegates proportionately rather than 'winner-take-all' like many of the Republican primaries did.
The winner-take-all states explain the much bigger difference in the GOP numbers. To borrow a nearly worn-out phrase, I Hate Huckabee. Clearly, he fancies himself a vice president. It would be tempting to vote against a McCain-Huck ticket simply out of spite. Must...resist...cultural suicide...
Alas, it seems this spells the end for our hero Mitt Romney. We hardly knew ye. There are only three words that can express my disappointment and shame:
Like California, Oregon's legislation has no ceremony requirement. All marriage and civil union legislation require a ceremony, whether religious or civil, to be considered valid. In California and Oregon couples are only required to register their domestic partnerships through the submission of a paper form. Additionally, the Oregon statute contemplates that the domestic partnerships are only valid in the state of Oregon. All other marriage and civil union laws assume the validity of such relationships in every other jurisdiction. These changes may have been placed to avoid any conflict with the Oregon constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Clearly this legislation doesn't violate the letter of the same-sex marriage ban in the Oregon constitution, but I think it would be difficult to argue it doesn't violate the spirit of it. I don't know how this law can really be pleasing to either side of the debate, as to conservatives and traditionalists it represents a poor-man's version of gay marriage, while for gay rights activists it should represent....a poor-man's version of gay marriage.
The only requirement for obtaining a legal 'domestic partnership' is that the couple must fill out a form and file it with a County Clerk, kind of like going to the DMV, or filing your taxes--you know, those other mundane things the government makes you do.
For gay rights activists, who like to claim that there is no qualitative difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, this should be an absurdity. The 'partnership' has been designed to confer the rights of married couples onto homosexual couples, but in a watered-down version, sort of the gay-rights equivalent of "separate-but-equal," if you will. If I were a gay-rights activist, I would settle for nothing less than full legal recognition of homosexual marriage. Anything less would seem like a condescending 'gift' from the legislature: "Sure, you can get a domestic partnership, but you'll never be able to receive full marriage benefits." If homosexual and heterosexual relationships are interchangeable and do not differ (which, of course, is not true), then it is essentially discrimination to offer gay couples anything less than marriage.
As one article points out, this domestic partnership law creates inequality. Though it claims to create something different from marriage, heterosexual couples are not allowed to enter into a domestic partnership, they can only be married (I would imagine that members of the same family are not allowed to be domestic partners either). This puts Oregon in the awkward position of creating marriage laws based only on who people are having sex with, which is especially problematic since American culture since the 1960s has been trying to prove that who we have sex with doesn't matter at all.
My girlfriend's brother once made the point that if he and his brother lived together, combined their incomes, and then sought the legal benefits of marriage (or 'domestic partnership'), they would be denied, even though as brothers they would likely be more committed to supporting each other than most other couples (gay or straight). This example reinforces the point that these laws are merely vehicles for 'normalizing' homosexuality. Some may try to say there is a difference between marriage and civil unions, or marriage and domestic partnerships. Ultimately, however, the question comes down to: are homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones? If they are the same, as gay-rights activists claim, then I have a hard time seeing how the legal benefits of marriage could be denied to anybody: two men, two women, three men and two women, two brothers, a fraternity, a man and his dog, etcetera etcetera ad nauseum.
Instead of hiring a writer with a differing perspective to balance out the pages of the Forum section, Daily Barometer Forum Editor Ashley Slocki has decided to hire someone who thinks like everyone else in her department. Sara Gwin recently made her debut, and her most recent column amounted to “I’m sorry I’m white”
In a nod to self-deprecating, hand wringing white guilt, Gwin takes a number of instances at McKayHigh School (a majority black high school with a principal who, according to a former student, recruited black students who had been expelled from other Salem area high schools for violence or weapons charges) and cobbles them together into “institutionalized racism.” Gwin also seems to feel guilty that she managed to succeed and that she wasn’t able to “deny those rights.”
Gwin speaks of “eradicating racism.” As a pragmatist, I can tell you, straight-faced, that this idea is impossible. And while we by no means live in a perfect society (as there is no such thing), the idea that a person achieved simply because they were of one race or another is entirely fallacious. Gwin makes modern American society sound like pre-WWII American society, and with the exception of a few old codgers, we have changed so much.
I think I grew up in a pretty color-blind society, and I’m glad I came to one here at OregonState. Gwin looks for racism, even when it’s not racism, and is willing to typecast all of you as God-awful racist thugs in order to prove a point. I look around me and am sure that I did not succeed because of my race, or even my gender, but because of my merits. As I reread her article, I am convinced that one of those merits is that I am better at picking opinion writers than Ashley Slocki. The Forum Section continues to sink to new lows in one-sidedness and quality of content.
In case you haven't heard enough of the candidates all calling themselves the "candidate of change," here's David Bowie to help us lighten things up a bit.
I mean, I knew they had a great defensive line, and a powerful running game. But after the game ended, it finally hit me.
The Giants? Really??
What happened to this football season? The Cowboys, Packers, Patriots, and Jaguars all had great seasons, heck even the Browns won ten games. But where was I when the Giants became not just a Super Bowl-caliber team, but the National Champions?
Oh well. I'm happy for Michael Strahan--he's put in a lot of work to get that ring. I bet Tiki Barber is pretty steamed though...
This picture has been around for a long time, but I just stumbled upon it again. This is proof that no matter what the Democrats, the Europeans, or the Islamists say, we are on the right side in this war. The right side, and the winning side.
In case you were wondering why his message is 10 parts gassy “change” to every one part specific policy proposals, here's why...How doctrinaire is he? He’s to the left of Russ Feingold. And moving leftward every year relative to his colleagues: He was the 16th-most liberal senator in 2005, 10th-most in 2006, and number one with a bullet now. Election year pandering to outflank Hillary among the base or is he really “evolving” in office, as the left likes to say of politicians who drift this way? Whatever the answer, it ain’t good. In fairness, he’s only very marginally worse than Hillary, the difference coming in her commendable willingness to take a hard-ish line on the Revolutionary Guard.
I've heard some people say they might just vote for Obama out of spite for both Hillary and the GOP, usually citing an argument along the lines of, "Well, if we're going to have a liberal president no matter what, I'd rather it be a Democrat. At least they're predictably liberal and if things go badly, we can blame their party instead of ours. Then we'll blow them out of the water in 2012!"
I heard similar arguments during the 2006 midterm elections, and frankly I think they're absurd. People seem to forget that election years aren't the only times important things have to be dealt with. September 11th wasn't during an election year. The Bush tax cuts weren't. The amnesty bill this past summer wasn't either. The idea is to vote for somebody who you think will do what is best over the course of four years as President, not just who seems interesting right now. If another terrorist attack happens, if the country falls into a recession, if a tax cut (or tax increase, for that matter) passes Congress...who do you want sitting in the Oval Office?
What to do about John McCain's surprisingly meteoric rise to GOP front-runner status? Is he really who he says he is?
McCain has cast himself as the stoic "straight-talker" who can help our troops win in the Middle East, stop pork-barrel spending in Congress, and stand up for America on the world stage. Unfortunately, he's also the Democrat-enabling Senator who help construct monstrosities like McCain-Feingold (curbing free speech via "campaign-finance reform"), McCain-Kennedy (the lovely amnesty bill Congress tried to ram down our throats last summer), and most recently, McCain-Lieberman-Obama (his newest effort to wring money from taxpayers to stop global warming). He's the guy who voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. He's the candidate who proudly touted his New York Times endorsement in the face of the conservative base. It seems as though he's thrown his "straight-talk" gimmick out the window, especially after Florida and last night's debate, when he insisted Mitt Romney wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq (despite nearly every single media outlet that investigated the issue calling him on the smear).
There's also this little chart, showing that McCain's lifetime conservatism ranking in Congress is lower than Chuck Hagel's. Granted, he wasn't always so liberal, but the longer McCain stayed in Washington, the less conservative he became. Inconceivable!
The newest charge McCain has to face, obviously, is whether or not he is a flip-flopping RINO--the same charge that has been leveled at Mitt Romney since he announced his candidacy. The difference, it seems, is that while Romney held liberal positions in the past, he now claims he has different views, and is asking America to let him prove his conservative bona fides; McCain, on the other hand, used to be more conservative, but claims to be one now despite his recent liberal voting and legislative record and dodging questions about his principles.
In the end, the question is not about who is or is not a flip-flopper (they are, after all, politicians). The question is this: do Republicans want to nominate a conservative? If the answer is yes, then I can't see how McCain is an acceptable candidate. Military valor and surge-support aside, he not only sponsors liberal legislation, he seems to have no problem spitting on the base whenever they dare question his principles. In my opinion, it's much more important to nominate a candidate you actually would want as president, rather than one you think might stand a better chance against the Democratic nominee. As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
With the new edition of The Liberty about to hit newsstands, it’s time to get the blog back up and running. And the upcoming “Special” Session of the legislature is also looming upon us. Later this week the Oregon Supreme Court will review the Constitutionality of the upcoming Session, which could have all been avoided had the Governor simply declared an emergency. You can check out the full story here, as reported by Sen. Larry George, who originally sued to stop the session.
The session will go on, as the leadership will find a way to make it happen. Everyone will show up. A couple Liberty staffers will even be interning. But it is a dangerous road that state government is starting down. God help us if the US Congress is the model that the Oregon Legislature is morphing into.
