IT’S GOING TO BE CLOSE: The election is going to be closer than most people think. I say this because I believe almost all the undecideds are going to go for McCain and there are more of them this election.
Few if any of the undecideds are Black. The polls show that they already know who they are voting for. Also, Whites for Obama are proud to proclaim their lack of bias. I believe that a large percentage of those who say they are undecided really just don’t want to admit they are not voting for Obama for fear of being thought a racist.
This is not to say that all or even most of them are motivated by race, the so-called Bradley Effect, named for the former Black candidate for the California governorship who lost even though the polls showed him easily winning. After all, there are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Obama. But, they still don’t want pollsters to think that race is the reason.
THE “CHANGE” WE’LL GET: For some clear incite to what an Obama presidency will mean, see Dan Henninger’s column in today’s WSJ. “The real ‘change’” we’re voting on, he says, “is not simply a break from the economic policies ‘of the past eight years,’ but with American economic philosophy of the past 200 years.”
What the Democrats want to do is move us in the direction of Western Europe. This ties in with my blog of Oct. 21, “Freedom & Equality.” The European model heavily favors equality over freedom. This means high taxation, massive redistribution of income, cradle to grave welfarism and a high level of government meddling in the economy to achieve social objectives.
It all adds up to chronic, high unemployment and low productivity rates, resulting in an average European standard of living 30% below the US. If Obama is elected, together with a liberal Democrat Congress, that’s where we are headed.
THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE: Tocqueville said, “In a democracy the people get the government they deserve.” What kind of government do people deserve who vote for someone because he promises to give them money confiscated from others through the use the government’s police power?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Kumbaya, Congress & "Taxes."
KUMBAYA; Obama doesn’t have to wait until he takes office to find out the results of his naivete in dealing with our enemies. Although he may be willing to meet with Iran “without pre-conditions,” Iran has already put us on notice that it does have pre-conditions, namely, total US withdrawal from the Middle East and cessation of US support for Israel. So much for the Kumbaya theory of foreign policy.
CONGRESS; Recent polls show this Democrat-controlled Congress with an approval rating of between 9 and 12%. Yet, other polls indicate that the Dems are almost assured of substantially increasing their numbers in both Houses. Do most voters not know that the Dems control Congress or is this more evidence of the well-known paradox that they think Congress is a bunch of crooks but their representative is great?
And if they don’t trust Congress, why would they want to give it more power by electing a President of the same party who is unlikely to use the veto power? Beats me.
OBAMA’S MIDDLE CLASS TAX; I think the reason that Obama is doing so well is that too many Americans are ignorant when it comes to economics. If people don’t understand how the economy works, then it is easy for politicians to deceive them.
Take corporate and business taxes. Many people don’t understand that living standards are directly tied to worker productivity. Capital investment in better machines and technology makes workers more productive. The more productive they are, the more they earn. As FedEx founder and CEO, Fred Smith, said in an interview in today’s WSJ, “the only way to make a blue collar worker earn more is to invest in capital, training and infrastructure. So the more you tax capital, the more you hurt workers.”
Next look at energy and environmental policies. You think everybody understands supply and demand? Apparently not. You’d think that when the Dems talk about severely restricting drilling people would realize that decreasing the supply of energy will increase prices, not just for fuel, but for just about everything they buy.
The there’s “cap and trade.” Under this scheme the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. This is nothing more than another tax on energy and manufacturing. The result will be higher prices on energy and on many products that Americans buy and use every day.
This is why an Obama presidency with large Democrat majorities in Congress will mean higher prices (same as higher taxes) and a lower standard of living, not only for “the rich,” but for all Americans.
CONGRESS; Recent polls show this Democrat-controlled Congress with an approval rating of between 9 and 12%. Yet, other polls indicate that the Dems are almost assured of substantially increasing their numbers in both Houses. Do most voters not know that the Dems control Congress or is this more evidence of the well-known paradox that they think Congress is a bunch of crooks but their representative is great?
And if they don’t trust Congress, why would they want to give it more power by electing a President of the same party who is unlikely to use the veto power? Beats me.
OBAMA’S MIDDLE CLASS TAX; I think the reason that Obama is doing so well is that too many Americans are ignorant when it comes to economics. If people don’t understand how the economy works, then it is easy for politicians to deceive them.
Take corporate and business taxes. Many people don’t understand that living standards are directly tied to worker productivity. Capital investment in better machines and technology makes workers more productive. The more productive they are, the more they earn. As FedEx founder and CEO, Fred Smith, said in an interview in today’s WSJ, “the only way to make a blue collar worker earn more is to invest in capital, training and infrastructure. So the more you tax capital, the more you hurt workers.”
Next look at energy and environmental policies. You think everybody understands supply and demand? Apparently not. You’d think that when the Dems talk about severely restricting drilling people would realize that decreasing the supply of energy will increase prices, not just for fuel, but for just about everything they buy.
The there’s “cap and trade.” Under this scheme the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. This is nothing more than another tax on energy and manufacturing. The result will be higher prices on energy and on many products that Americans buy and use every day.
This is why an Obama presidency with large Democrat majorities in Congress will mean higher prices (same as higher taxes) and a lower standard of living, not only for “the rich,” but for all Americans.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Freedom vs. Equality
Freedom and equality are the two ideals upon which this Country was founded, as made explicit in the Declaration of Independence. The problem is that there is an existential tension between the two that gives rise to an irreconcilable conflict in our politics.
If freedom and equality are viewed as the extremes at opposite ends of a continuum, then absolute freedom would be chaos and total equality would be communist-style socialism (except for the party higher-ups who were always “more equal”). Most countries and all but a few nuts in America are somewhere in between.
Of course there is lots of room for major differences in that middle ground. Mother Nature is part of the problem. Obviously, we are not all born equal. Some are smarter, healthier, more motivated or born to more advantageous circumstances.
But it’s not all about nature. History is replete with stories of well-born ne’er-do-wells as well as those with no special gifts who, through hard work, determination and thrift, have achieved extraordinary success.
So the enduring struggle is about how much government should infringe on some citizens’ freedoms in order to achieve greater equality amongst all. One’s answer to that question determines where he stands on the political spectrum.
Today 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of all income taxes and the Federal Governments biggest function is redistribution of income through dozens of programs, the largest of which are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
We already have more net tax-beneficiaries then net taxpayers, a dangerous situation in a democracy where the majority can vote themselves an ever increasing share of the minority’s earnings.
Economics is a science of human behavior. We know from Psychology 101 that what you reward you get more of and what you punish you get less of.
Which brings us to the question, “How far can we continue in this direction before the producers decide to stop producing?” Obama's blatantly redistributionist tax plan makes it clear that he values equality over freedom and that he believes the producers are gluttons for punishment. We may soon find out.
If freedom and equality are viewed as the extremes at opposite ends of a continuum, then absolute freedom would be chaos and total equality would be communist-style socialism (except for the party higher-ups who were always “more equal”). Most countries and all but a few nuts in America are somewhere in between.
Of course there is lots of room for major differences in that middle ground. Mother Nature is part of the problem. Obviously, we are not all born equal. Some are smarter, healthier, more motivated or born to more advantageous circumstances.
But it’s not all about nature. History is replete with stories of well-born ne’er-do-wells as well as those with no special gifts who, through hard work, determination and thrift, have achieved extraordinary success.
So the enduring struggle is about how much government should infringe on some citizens’ freedoms in order to achieve greater equality amongst all. One’s answer to that question determines where he stands on the political spectrum.
Today 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of all income taxes and the Federal Governments biggest function is redistribution of income through dozens of programs, the largest of which are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
We already have more net tax-beneficiaries then net taxpayers, a dangerous situation in a democracy where the majority can vote themselves an ever increasing share of the minority’s earnings.
Economics is a science of human behavior. We know from Psychology 101 that what you reward you get more of and what you punish you get less of.
Which brings us to the question, “How far can we continue in this direction before the producers decide to stop producing?” Obama's blatantly redistributionist tax plan makes it clear that he values equality over freedom and that he believes the producers are gluttons for punishment. We may soon find out.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Can Joe save McCain?
Can Joe the Plumber save the McCain campaign? He certainly has injected the biggest boost since the announcement of Sarah Palin as running mate.
It has frustrated me for weeks that McCain couldn’t articulate the obvious deceit in Obama’s “tax cut for 95%” of families. Since about 40% of them already pay no income tax, this was never a tax cut, but a simple transfer of money from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Calling it a tax cut does not change the fact that it is just a huge, new welfare program.
Finally McCain has picked up on the public response to Joe and is starting to hit this point in his speeches and commercials.
Obama’s portrayal of this income transfer as a tax cut shows his cynicism and contempt for the intelligence of the American electorate. (Unfortunately, this attitude is not entirely without basis.)
Did you ever see one editorial in the dominant, liberal Obamedia debunking this charade? What does it mean for the future of our Country when the overwhelming majority of the media is a branch of one political party? A fair and independent press has always been an essential ingredient of a functioning democracy. (Yes, I know, we’re technically a constitutional republic, not a democracy.)
The media have always leaned heavily portside, but this year they have abandoned any pretense of objectivity. They have become part of the Obama campaign. If he is elected, how can we expect fair and honest reporting on him and his administration?
It has frustrated me for weeks that McCain couldn’t articulate the obvious deceit in Obama’s “tax cut for 95%” of families. Since about 40% of them already pay no income tax, this was never a tax cut, but a simple transfer of money from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Calling it a tax cut does not change the fact that it is just a huge, new welfare program.
Finally McCain has picked up on the public response to Joe and is starting to hit this point in his speeches and commercials.
Obama’s portrayal of this income transfer as a tax cut shows his cynicism and contempt for the intelligence of the American electorate. (Unfortunately, this attitude is not entirely without basis.)
Did you ever see one editorial in the dominant, liberal Obamedia debunking this charade? What does it mean for the future of our Country when the overwhelming majority of the media is a branch of one political party? A fair and independent press has always been an essential ingredient of a functioning democracy. (Yes, I know, we’re technically a constitutional republic, not a democracy.)
The media have always leaned heavily portside, but this year they have abandoned any pretense of objectivity. They have become part of the Obama campaign. If he is elected, how can we expect fair and honest reporting on him and his administration?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
From Deconstruction to Obama
America appears to be close to electing as President a man about whom we know little and the little we know, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, is disturbing. How have we come to this point?
For most of its existence, America knew who it was and for what it stood.
We knew it because we studied our shared history, our founding fathers and the enduring documents they produced which served as the guiding principles of our Republic.
But beginning in the 1960s, we started down a new path called deconstruction. Everything we knew about our Country, we were told, was wrong. The singular, overarching fact about the Founders was not their wisdom, courage or patriotism, but that many of them were slave owners. Judging them by the mores of today rather than those of their own time, this fact was deemed to make irrelevant, indeed, delegitimatize, their virtues and contributions.
American history class became little more than an immersion in the sins of our past. Slavery, Manifest Destiny’s devastation of the American Indians, Hiroshima, these came to define America. The bold idealism of The American Revolution, the price paid for abolition in The Civil War, the blood and treasure spent to defeat aggression and totalitarianism in two World Wars, the spread of American-style freedom and democracy around the world, these are underemphasized at best, distorted at worst.
Then there came the undermining of, among some communities the utter destruction of, the American family by well-intentioned, but, alas, misguided welfare expansion. And, finally, the driving of religion from our schools and other civic institutions.
This deconstruction has left many Americans, especially amongst the young, without a sense of who they are and what America stands for. We Americans are no longer unified by a shared belief in the goodness of our heritage and the soundness of our institutions. Nature abhors a vacuum. That void gets filled by the ideas and images we are inundated with every day, glamour, celebrity, sexiness.
Without a solid framework provided by a proud history, valued traditions and beliefs, it is not surprising that many judge a candidate by the cheap, ephemeral coin of the day.
For most of its existence, America knew who it was and for what it stood.
We knew it because we studied our shared history, our founding fathers and the enduring documents they produced which served as the guiding principles of our Republic.
But beginning in the 1960s, we started down a new path called deconstruction. Everything we knew about our Country, we were told, was wrong. The singular, overarching fact about the Founders was not their wisdom, courage or patriotism, but that many of them were slave owners. Judging them by the mores of today rather than those of their own time, this fact was deemed to make irrelevant, indeed, delegitimatize, their virtues and contributions.
American history class became little more than an immersion in the sins of our past. Slavery, Manifest Destiny’s devastation of the American Indians, Hiroshima, these came to define America. The bold idealism of The American Revolution, the price paid for abolition in The Civil War, the blood and treasure spent to defeat aggression and totalitarianism in two World Wars, the spread of American-style freedom and democracy around the world, these are underemphasized at best, distorted at worst.
Then there came the undermining of, among some communities the utter destruction of, the American family by well-intentioned, but, alas, misguided welfare expansion. And, finally, the driving of religion from our schools and other civic institutions.
This deconstruction has left many Americans, especially amongst the young, without a sense of who they are and what America stands for. We Americans are no longer unified by a shared belief in the goodness of our heritage and the soundness of our institutions. Nature abhors a vacuum. That void gets filled by the ideas and images we are inundated with every day, glamour, celebrity, sexiness.
Without a solid framework provided by a proud history, valued traditions and beliefs, it is not surprising that many judge a candidate by the cheap, ephemeral coin of the day.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
"Nice Oil" and Obamath
I’m going to touch on several subjects today, starting with the sudden silence about those greedy oil speculators and Big Oil’s excess profits. Three short months ago these market players were the object of daily media outrage. We heard about how they were able to drive up the price of oil for their own selfish gain without regard for consumers’ pain.
Now that the price of oil has been cut in half, back to about where it was a year ago, why aren’t the former villians being lauded for their commendable change of heart? After all, if speculators and oil companies are able to control the price of oil, as we were assured they could, why are they now not be hailed for their generosity and humanitarianism?
A predictable effect from lower oil prices is that there will be less corporate investment in alternatives. This will give government, especially an Obama administration, the cover to plunge into a New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence.
Which reminds me of a factual error Barry committed in the last debate that tells us something about his worldview. In one of his rambling answers, he threw in, Biden like, the claim that the Government invented the computer. Actually, the first real computer, UNIVAC, was developed by a couple of guys at the Rand Corporation. But never mind.
I’m not saying he was lying. (He may have been thinking of the Internet, but, of course, we know that was invented by AlGore.) But I think it evidences a belief that government, not private enterprise, is the fount of all human progress.
Not only does the history of human invention refute this idea, but a President who believes such nonsense, backed up by an equally delusional Congress, is likely to launch an expansion of government, which combined with runaway entitlement spending, would hasten the arrival of our national bankruptcy.
Changing subjects, remember New Math? Well, now we have what I call Obamath. What’s great about Obamath is that it frees us from the discipline of those pesky rules and axioms that those dead white guys like Euclid came up with. They’re soooo yesterday.
Here’s an example: with Obamath you can give a tax cut to 95 % of Americans even though 40% of them already don’t pay taxes. Here’s another: you can increase spending by $800 billion without raising total taxes, even though there is already a deficit. See? Isn’t this a lot better than that old mean-spirited math?
To lend a little perspective, consider that the total net worths of The Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans, $1.57 trillion, would only run the Federal Government for half a year. Yet, under Obamath we can pay for almost a trillion of new spending just by raising marginal rates a few points on the top 5 %. I hope there will be a quiz?
Now that the price of oil has been cut in half, back to about where it was a year ago, why aren’t the former villians being lauded for their commendable change of heart? After all, if speculators and oil companies are able to control the price of oil, as we were assured they could, why are they now not be hailed for their generosity and humanitarianism?
A predictable effect from lower oil prices is that there will be less corporate investment in alternatives. This will give government, especially an Obama administration, the cover to plunge into a New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence.
Which reminds me of a factual error Barry committed in the last debate that tells us something about his worldview. In one of his rambling answers, he threw in, Biden like, the claim that the Government invented the computer. Actually, the first real computer, UNIVAC, was developed by a couple of guys at the Rand Corporation. But never mind.
I’m not saying he was lying. (He may have been thinking of the Internet, but, of course, we know that was invented by AlGore.) But I think it evidences a belief that government, not private enterprise, is the fount of all human progress.
Not only does the history of human invention refute this idea, but a President who believes such nonsense, backed up by an equally delusional Congress, is likely to launch an expansion of government, which combined with runaway entitlement spending, would hasten the arrival of our national bankruptcy.
Changing subjects, remember New Math? Well, now we have what I call Obamath. What’s great about Obamath is that it frees us from the discipline of those pesky rules and axioms that those dead white guys like Euclid came up with. They’re soooo yesterday.
Here’s an example: with Obamath you can give a tax cut to 95 % of Americans even though 40% of them already don’t pay taxes. Here’s another: you can increase spending by $800 billion without raising total taxes, even though there is already a deficit. See? Isn’t this a lot better than that old mean-spirited math?
To lend a little perspective, consider that the total net worths of The Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans, $1.57 trillion, would only run the Federal Government for half a year. Yet, under Obamath we can pay for almost a trillion of new spending just by raising marginal rates a few points on the top 5 %. I hope there will be a quiz?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Healthcare Demagoguery
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Denver General Hospital on Wednesday and used the opportunity to once again obfuscate the healthcare issue in her endless push for nationalization of the industry.
After stepping over the bodies of those who had died for lack of treatment, she said, “The most industrialized country in the world should not be refusing healthcare to anyone.” The Speaker speaks nonsense.
Nobody is being denied healthcare, as evidenced by the huge number of Medicaid patients, including illegal immigrants, overwhelming Denver General and other hospitals.
She proceeded to commend DG for providing “high quality, low cost healthcare for all patients.” Low cost for whom? Sure, it’s low cost for many of the patients, but not for taxpayers. And not for people who pay for their own health insurance.
Finally, Pelosi rolled out the familiar and baseless assertion that healthcare is a right. Really? I’d like her to tell us where that right comes from. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution and healthcare is not one of them. Shelter is a more fundamental need than healthcare, but we don’t have a right to a free house.
Dem. Rep. Dianne DeGette, who accompanied Pelosi, threw in the old canard about the 47 million uninsured. That figure includes 12 million illegal immigrants. It also includes millions of young, healthy people who make a rational choice to forgo health insurance, preferring to spend the money on other things. And millions more of the uninsured are people who are between jobs. This year’s uninsured are not all the same people as next year’s uninsured.
Pelosi, DeGette and others who really want total government healthcare, deliberately blur the distinction between healthcare and health insurance.
Not having health insurance is not the same as not having access to healthcare. Not everyone has health insurance, but, through Medicaid, even the poorest have access to healthcare.
After stepping over the bodies of those who had died for lack of treatment, she said, “The most industrialized country in the world should not be refusing healthcare to anyone.” The Speaker speaks nonsense.
Nobody is being denied healthcare, as evidenced by the huge number of Medicaid patients, including illegal immigrants, overwhelming Denver General and other hospitals.
She proceeded to commend DG for providing “high quality, low cost healthcare for all patients.” Low cost for whom? Sure, it’s low cost for many of the patients, but not for taxpayers. And not for people who pay for their own health insurance.
Finally, Pelosi rolled out the familiar and baseless assertion that healthcare is a right. Really? I’d like her to tell us where that right comes from. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution and healthcare is not one of them. Shelter is a more fundamental need than healthcare, but we don’t have a right to a free house.
Dem. Rep. Dianne DeGette, who accompanied Pelosi, threw in the old canard about the 47 million uninsured. That figure includes 12 million illegal immigrants. It also includes millions of young, healthy people who make a rational choice to forgo health insurance, preferring to spend the money on other things. And millions more of the uninsured are people who are between jobs. This year’s uninsured are not all the same people as next year’s uninsured.
Pelosi, DeGette and others who really want total government healthcare, deliberately blur the distinction between healthcare and health insurance.
Not having health insurance is not the same as not having access to healthcare. Not everyone has health insurance, but, through Medicaid, even the poorest have access to healthcare.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Government's Role in Crisis
As much as I admire Sarah Palin, I can not let stand her answer to a question regarding the financial crisis. “Darn right,” she said, it was all the fault of those greedy Wall Street types. Greed, like the poor, is always with us, but this whole mess would not have happened without the active involvement of the Federal government.
Congress started pressuring Fan & Fred back in 1992 to make more loans to low and moderate income borrowers. In 1996, the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) told F&F that 42% of their loans had to go to borrowers with below median income for their areas. This mandate was increased over the years until it reached 52% in 2005.
Then there was The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977, which “encouraged” banks to make more loans to shaky borrowers. Such loans, as a percentage of the total, increased in more recent years with rising home values.
Then there was the Fed, pushing the Fed Funds rate down to 1.25% in 2003 to revive the stock market. This made possible the low “teaser’ rates on adjustable rate mortgages. For more details, see “How Government Stoked the Mania,” by Russel Roberts in the Oct. 3 WSJ, from which facts herein were drawn.
These government intrusions, and others, into the market economy set the stage for the excesses that led to current situation. It is not the proper role of government to pressure private actors in the market economy to violate sound business practices and risk taxpayer (F&F) and depositor (banks) money to achieve a political objective, i.e., increased home ownership.
Also, if the Fed would stick to its role as defender of the currency, instead of arrogantly trying to manage the stock market and the economy, we would not be here today.
I fear that one aspect of the rescue plan may be setting the stage for the next crisis. That is the “temporary” increase in FDIC insured deposits to $250,000. Recall that it was the increase from $40,000 to $100,000 that led to the S&L debacle 20 some years ago. It encouraged depositors to go for the highest rate, ignoring the banks financial soundness. Don’t we ever learn?
Congress started pressuring Fan & Fred back in 1992 to make more loans to low and moderate income borrowers. In 1996, the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) told F&F that 42% of their loans had to go to borrowers with below median income for their areas. This mandate was increased over the years until it reached 52% in 2005.
Then there was The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977, which “encouraged” banks to make more loans to shaky borrowers. Such loans, as a percentage of the total, increased in more recent years with rising home values.
Then there was the Fed, pushing the Fed Funds rate down to 1.25% in 2003 to revive the stock market. This made possible the low “teaser’ rates on adjustable rate mortgages. For more details, see “How Government Stoked the Mania,” by Russel Roberts in the Oct. 3 WSJ, from which facts herein were drawn.
These government intrusions, and others, into the market economy set the stage for the excesses that led to current situation. It is not the proper role of government to pressure private actors in the market economy to violate sound business practices and risk taxpayer (F&F) and depositor (banks) money to achieve a political objective, i.e., increased home ownership.
Also, if the Fed would stick to its role as defender of the currency, instead of arrogantly trying to manage the stock market and the economy, we would not be here today.
I fear that one aspect of the rescue plan may be setting the stage for the next crisis. That is the “temporary” increase in FDIC insured deposits to $250,000. Recall that it was the increase from $40,000 to $100,000 that led to the S&L debacle 20 some years ago. It encouraged depositors to go for the highest rate, ignoring the banks financial soundness. Don’t we ever learn?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Joe "Pinocchio" Biden
There probably are factual inaccuracies, exaggerations and errors on both sides of every political debate. Sarah Palin had a few, including the claim that Obama voted to raise taxes on everyone making over $42,000. That was a non-binding resolution.
But for sheer volume and audacity, Joe Biden surely set a record. Biden just makes up the facts that support his position as he goes along. I guess he figures that if he says it with enough conviction, which he certainly does, people will believe it. And he know that the dominant, liberal media won’t blow his cover.
Following are some of his more egregious “misstatements” from the recent debate. The first 5 deal with foreign policy, supposedly one of his strengths:
· Pakistan has the capacity to launch a nuclear strike against Israel.
Wrong. Pakistan has nuclear weapons but not the missile capability
to reach Israel.
· The US and France drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
This is no doubt big news to Hezbollah, who is still there.
· Obama didn’t say that he would meet with Ahmedinijad without preconditions.
Obama did say it and Biden knows that because he sharply criticized Obama for saying it.
· NATO Gen. McKiernan said a surge strategy would not work in Afghanistan.
The Gen. said principles of the surge strategy would work there. Maybe a little Clintonesque parsing of words there, but obviously intended to mislead.
· McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq.”
Biden and McCain both voted for the Iraq War Resolution. But when things got tough, Biden wanted to withdraw in defeat, while McCain supported the surge, which all now agree was successful in turning the war around.
· McCain voted the same way Obama did on a bill that would have raised taxes on the middle class.
Wrong. McCain was not present for that vote.
· The VP’s only role in the Senate is casting a tie-breaking vote.
Actually, as Gov. Palin said, Art. 1, Sect. 3 of the Constitution says the VP shall be “President of the Senate,” which is why the Veep is the “presiding officer of the Senate.”
· At the debate, Joe said “Drill we must!”
He has consistently voted against offshore drilling, characterizing it as “raping the continental shelf.”
· Biden accused McCain of weakening regulation of FNMA and FRMC.
This was an outrageous assertion. McCain co-sponsored legislation to step up oversight of Fan and Fred in 2005 and Dems lined up in droves to vocally condemn the idea as unnecessary and an attempt to deny home ownership to low income Americans.
You probably didn’t get this from the major networks or print media.
But for sheer volume and audacity, Joe Biden surely set a record. Biden just makes up the facts that support his position as he goes along. I guess he figures that if he says it with enough conviction, which he certainly does, people will believe it. And he know that the dominant, liberal media won’t blow his cover.
Following are some of his more egregious “misstatements” from the recent debate. The first 5 deal with foreign policy, supposedly one of his strengths:
· Pakistan has the capacity to launch a nuclear strike against Israel.
Wrong. Pakistan has nuclear weapons but not the missile capability
to reach Israel.
· The US and France drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
This is no doubt big news to Hezbollah, who is still there.
· Obama didn’t say that he would meet with Ahmedinijad without preconditions.
Obama did say it and Biden knows that because he sharply criticized Obama for saying it.
· NATO Gen. McKiernan said a surge strategy would not work in Afghanistan.
The Gen. said principles of the surge strategy would work there. Maybe a little Clintonesque parsing of words there, but obviously intended to mislead.
· McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq.”
Biden and McCain both voted for the Iraq War Resolution. But when things got tough, Biden wanted to withdraw in defeat, while McCain supported the surge, which all now agree was successful in turning the war around.
· McCain voted the same way Obama did on a bill that would have raised taxes on the middle class.
Wrong. McCain was not present for that vote.
· The VP’s only role in the Senate is casting a tie-breaking vote.
Actually, as Gov. Palin said, Art. 1, Sect. 3 of the Constitution says the VP shall be “President of the Senate,” which is why the Veep is the “presiding officer of the Senate.”
· At the debate, Joe said “Drill we must!”
He has consistently voted against offshore drilling, characterizing it as “raping the continental shelf.”
· Biden accused McCain of weakening regulation of FNMA and FRMC.
This was an outrageous assertion. McCain co-sponsored legislation to step up oversight of Fan and Fred in 2005 and Dems lined up in droves to vocally condemn the idea as unnecessary and an attempt to deny home ownership to low income Americans.
You probably didn’t get this from the major networks or print media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)