My Flickr Pics
Aug
19
Obama and the Chicago Machine
Filed Under Politics, Sports: NFL | Leave a Comment
Obama’s political cowardice
One of the more puzzling developments in Obama’s career is how he has been able to position himself as a reform style politician - as an outsider who can come in and clean up the mess politicians have made. This simply doesn’t match reality.
And yet the media seems uninterested in exploring and explaining Obama’s past. At the start of his career you could make the argument that this is the kind of politician Obama was seeking to become, but his ambition seems to have quickly pushed this idealism aside. Making his career in Chicago, and Cook County Illinois, gave Obama the chance to put some substance behind his words. But at practically every opportunity he has chose the safe route rather than the route of reform; of challenging the system.
Back in July Michael Van Winkle, a Chicago resident, offered a quick rundown of this rarely talked about aspect of Obama’s career:
He has a track record of putting party over principle.
In 2006, he endorsed the re-election of Rod Blagojevich, despite very real concerns about the Governor’s ethics. Since the endorsement, Blagojevich has come very close to full blown indictment, so close that some Illinois Democrats tried to have him recalled. But Obama’s voice has been silent on the matter.
In 2007, incumbent Cook County Board President and long-time Machine candidate, John Stroger, faced a tough challenge from a reform candidate in the Democratic Primary. Obama refused to make an endorsement.
When John Stroger was incapacitated by a stroke two weeks before the election, Obama was silent. When the Machine told us Stoger was fine and only admitted the seriousness of the stroke once the deadline for candidate filings had passed, Obama remained silent. And when the Machine replaced John Stroger with his inexperienced and unimpressive son, Todd, well Obama endorsed him. Since Obama’s endorsement, Todd Stroger has gone on to break promises, lie to the public, and raise taxes to support six-figure salaries for his family and friends.
Even now, Obama is putting politics over principle in Illinois. Illinoisans have a chance to reform state politics by voting “yes” for a consitutional convention on a November ballot question. But Obama’s own campaign mastermind, David Axelrod, has been hired to oppose the effort.
I’m not blaming corruption in Illinois on Obama; let’s be clear. But he’s done very little to stand up for principles and good governance in a state that deperately needs principled and bipartisan leadership.
Tom Bevan provides further details on the consequences of Obama refusing to take a stronger stand in the Cook County Board election:
Whether Obama’s endorsement would have mattered or not is beside the point. Endorsements are, as a matter of practical politics, mostly symbolism. By choosing to stay neutral in the race and to not go the extra distance to endorse Claypool, Obama signified that he was for reform and change - but only up to a point.
As it turned out, there was a bizarre epilogue to this race - and one that proves these kind of decisions have real world consequences. A week before the primary, Stroger suffered a severe stroke. The resulting outpouring of sympathy played at least some part in the final outcome: the reformer Claypool lost by six points, 53 to 47.
Stroger stayed out of sight for weeks and eventually it came to light that after recognizing he would not be able to stand for re-election, he engineered a deal from his hospital bed to install his son, Todd Stroger, on the ballot. The move was decried by many, including Claypool, for what it was: a bald act of nepotism. Despite Todd Stroger’s youth, inexperience, and his reputation as a corrupt, machine-style ward boss, Obama not only endorsed Stroger in the general election but heaped praise on him as a “a good progressive” - a claim that no one who knows him could make with a straight face.
In the end, Todd Stroger won election in November 2006. Since taking office as Cook County Board President, however, he has been an unmitigated disaster. With runaway tax increases and the county hospital system in crisis, Stroger has been busy packing the County payroll with allies at the expense of taxpayers, including more than a dozen friends and relatives making more than 0,000 per year.
As I noted yesterday, Obama likes to talk about his stance against the war in Iraq as difficult and courageous when it was really just smart politics. Here was a true chance to be courageous, to put real political capital on the line, and Obama refused to stand up to the political machine. And there were real world consequences in the form of continued corruption, nepotism, and bad government.
Only those who view Obama through rose colored glasses, however, will be surprised by any of this history. Obama’s political mentor, and the politician who gave Obama what little legislative accomplishments he has, was a member of the Chicago machine and continues to treat public office like a family business.
Nobody expected Obama to become a one issue crusader against corruption in Chicago. Even most anti-machine politicians attempt to work within the system. But it is one thing to remain silent and another to use the system to climb the ladder and then claim to be something different. Obama’s record is the record of a politician accommodating himself to the system not challenging it. But of course, it is hard to win elections running as just another politician.
Obama’s reformer image is an illusion and a dangerous one because it hides his real record and masks his real character.
Aug
18
When asked by Rick Warren what his most difficult (I think Warren used the phrase “gut wrenching”) decision was Obama cited his opposition to the war in Iraq. This is not surprising because Obama clings to this decision, and the speech that went with it, with alarming desperation. He attempts to use it at every
opportunity as proof that he has the judgment to be president; that his utter lack of experience shouldn’t count against him. But the idea that this was a courageous choice is misleading.
As a number of people have pointed out, Obama at the time was a state senator for a liberal district. Being anti-war in Hyde Park isn’t all that courageous. His liberal supporters were against it and his connection to the speech was a longtime supporter and fundraiser who was anti-war.
David Mendell’s biography of Obama sets the scene:
As a still unannounced Senate candidate, Obama for months had been quietly courting what he considered his two strongest bases of support—Chicago’s so-called lakefront liberals and African Americans. The lead organizer of the downtown Chicago anti-war rally was Bettylu Saltzman, a liberal stalwart among the city’s elite lakefront crowd whose admiration for Obama dated back more than a decade.
Just who was Saltzman? She was an important person for an aspiring politician like Obama:
[H]er biggest political role came when, for four years, she ran the Chicago-based office of Senator Paul Simon. While working for Simon, Saltzman formed a close bond with one of Simon’s chief political minds—Axelrod, who had comanaged Simon’s first Senate campaign. The two would talk on the phone almost daily, each sharing a passion for political gossip and Chicago Bulls basketball. By 2002, Saltzman was a major Chicago fund-raiser who could not only tap into her own wealth but had big-money connections that could help raise substantial cash for any political candidate.
This is the political environment in which the invitation to speak was given and, later, accepted. As Mendell points out “Saltzman knew from conversations with the lawmaker that he did not support an Iraq invasion.”
So this was not a decision that would test your conscience but rather a decision about what was the best political strategy. But even that wasn’t that hard of a decision:
He consulted with Shomon, still his main political adviser at the time, and Shomon told him that it was a no-brainer—if Saltzman was urging him to speak, he could not refuse. Moreover, Obama was trying to draw Axelrod onto his Senate campaign team. It would not be wise to disappoint Saltzman if he wanted her to continue lobbying Axelrod on his behalf. So Obama agreed to speak.
So an important fundraiser and political figure in Obama’s base, and a connection to key figures Obama is trying to attract, asks him to speak at a rally and say something he believes and this is a
“gut wrenching” decision? This is his courageous judgment?
No, I am afraid this is just another indication that Obama is often a skilled politician who is not afraid to seize an opportunity when one is presented. Obama simply wouldn’t have been able to run for the US Senate or for president without the backing of his rich liberal supporters and fundraisers. Making a speech
against war was a smart thing to do and Obama was smart enough to recognize this and to take advantage of the opportunity (something Hillary Clinton was unable to do).
But it is far from courageous and it is an awfully odd example of a “gut wrenching” decision given the circumstances. Just another example of how Obama’s words rarely match reality.
Don’t Buy the hype. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
Aug
15
Obama’s Abortion Con Continues
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
The religious left’s bait and switch
What you have to understand about Obama’s, and the Democratic Party’s, push to appear moderate on abortion is that it is part and parcel of a bait and switch by the religious left. What they want you to focus on are “social justice” issues rather than the “culture war” hot button issues like abortion, marriage, gay
rights, etc.
There is a two part problem to this:
1) social justice always means more government spending and programs rather than actually helping the less fortunate.
2) they want to avoid talking about issues like abortion and marriage because they are firmly to the left of the majority of believers, and most American, on these issues.
Judith Warner outlines it for you. First she quotes a number of prominent members of the religious left offering their Obama spin:
“They reached out to us,” said Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical leader who was consulted on the abortion language, and who on Tuesday convoked a rather remarkable phone press conference in which a group of Republicans, Catholics and evangelicals came together to publicize and promote the new Democratic statement.
“The committee worked hard to give language that gave evangelicals and Roman Catholics the sense that they could participate in the Democratic Party without the compromise of their convictions,” Tony Campolo, a prominent evangelical, and a member of the Democratic platform committee, said in the conference call.
Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Orlando, Fla., and a former head of the Christian Coalition, went even further. “Pro-lifers of both parties can now support Senator
Obama,” he said.
Only one small problem, the facts simply don’t support the view that Obama and the Democrats moved toward the center at all:
There is nothing new in the Democratic position. The abortion plank’s first sentence, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right,” is, arguably, the most powerful statement in favor of abortion rights that the party has ever made. Some pro-choice activists find it less grating to the ear than the old Clintonian formulation, which promised in the 2004 party platform to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”
[. . .]
If there is any sort of olive branch on offer to the anti-abortion community right now, it seems to me to consist chiefly of this week’s spin campaign, which gave cover to evangelicals and Catholics who have come out as pro-Obama (or as willing to talk to Obama) and now may well need to save face.
Ironically, after revealing the sham that is the supposed compromise Warner is compelled to defend the basis of the con:
Sanctifying life – without care for the living — is little more than a morality play.
Supporting families is a moral choice.
No, sanctifying life is about moral choices. Either killing innocent children is wrong or it is not. There is no “play” involved. One moral question is not erased because another one follows it. The choice to support families is not more important than the choice of whether to let them exist in the first place.
This mindset views the act of allowing a baby born after an unsuccessful abortion to die as inexplicably tied up with how much money the government spends on health care and adoption. This is the height of moral sophistry.
But this is what the left wants to make this about: showing compassion through government programs. Because that is something they can support without resort to morality. What unites the religious left with the atheistic/agnostic left is their profound belief in government as THE agent of compassion and morality; as the moral voice of its citizens. And it is this error that leads them both to pound the table for more and more programs even after decades of failure (does anyone think families are better off because of the rise in social spending in this country?) and to adopt moralistic language with which to coach their secular arguments.
Obama and his allies want you to believe that he is compassionate and moderate simply because he uses faith based rhetoric to call for traditional big government solutions. They want you to ignore his extremist views on abortion because he supports increased spending on pre-natal care and adoption tax
credits.
But this is con game of the highest order. A man who can’t see the fundamental moral question involved in not allowing a living breathing baby to die in the name of political ideology does not deserve your trust.
Obama has had multiple chances to prove that he really is different and he has failed. It is becoming clear that perhaps the only principle that Obama isn’t willing to compromise on is abortion on demand and at tax payers expense. And to add insult to injury, he insists on lying about it.
So much for all that talk about hope.
Aug
15
Forgotten Books
Filed Under Books and Culture | Leave a Comment
I was asked by Patti Abbott to offer a post for her Forgotten Books series and like everything else in my life right now I am running behind.
The book that came to mind was A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck. This was one of my earliest reading experiences and it made a big impression on me. The story taught me how books can communicate not only action and adventure but depth and emotion. I was drawn into the life of the characters in the way only great books can draw you in.
Here is the publishers description:
In the daily round of his thirteenth year, as the seasons turn and the farm is tended, the boy — whose time is the only-yesterday of Calvin Coolidge, whose people are the Plain People living without “frills” in the Shaker Way — becomes a man.
That is all, and it is everything. The boy is mauled by Apron, the neighbor’s ailing cow whom he helps, alone, to give birth. The grateful farmer brings him a gift– a newborn pig. His father at first demurs (”We thank you, Brother Tanner,” said Papa, “but it’s not the Shaker Way to take frills for being neighborly. All that Robert done was what any farmer would do for another”) but is persuaded. Rob keeps the pig, names her, and gives her his devotion … He wrestles with grammar in the schoolhouse. He hears rumors of sin. He is taken — at last — to the Rutland Fair. He broadens his heart to make room even for Baptists. And when his father, who can neither read nor cipher, whose hands are bloodied by his trade, whose wisdom and mastery of country things are bred in the bone, entrusts Rob with his final secret, the boy makes the sacrifice that completes his passage into manhood.
I am not sure what qualifies as a “Forgotten Book.” Although it is still available in mass paperback (with this rather garish cover) and Peck is a prominent author I have never heard anyone else mention this book. Not even as part of a discussion of their childhood reading. And I have yet to come across it and any of the used bookstores I frequent.
It was, however, a part of my start as a life long reader. So if has become a forgotten book, it would please me to know that this post might introduce a few readers to this worthy classic.
Aug
14
The media buys Obama's abortion con
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
It is about the sanctity of life, not government spending
The Democratic Party is planning a convention designed to soften the edges on the party’s support for abortion rights, with a revamped platform and a speaking lineup that reinforces efforts to broaden Democrats’ appeal on the hot-button issue.
Oh sure, if by softening you mean being even more pro-abortion than ever.
Obama supports a policythat can arguably be called infanticide
and the Democrats remove language from the platform that called for abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” and insisted on a right to an abortion regardless of the ability to pay. So abortion on demand
paid for by the government. This is softening? Just because a nominally pro-life politician gets a speaking slot and some pro-life folks were in on the discussions?
This is the media buying the spin. The Democrats having been trying to soften their image for some time but the hard core abortion zealots get angry even when they move rhetorically to the center - hence the platform changes. But the key is that all of this is mere appearances. They have never supported anything in
actual policy. No parental notification, no to partial birth bans, no to required counseling, etc.
They want you to believe that government spending on pre and post natal care or other welfare programs somehow makes them compassionate and working to reduce the need for abortion. But this
is the part of the con as well. The sanctity of life can not be massaged away by government spending or programs. The issue is the murder of millions of innocent children not how best to encourage
healthy children.
And Obama even voted against giving children born in a botched abortion this fundamental right to life - a policy that NARAL refused to oppose! Does the fact that he supports more government spending on natal health care suddenly change the fact that he supports the deliberate killing of innocent babies living and
breathing outside the womb?!?!
Obama may talk nice about pro-lifers and use his famous charm but he
is an abortion extremist. The media simply refuses to accurately report the truth.
And pro-life voters shouldn’t be conned by this ruse.
Aug
12
Obama’s abortion extremism and deception is coming to light.
Yuval Levin explains:
Six years ago, Congress passed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act,” making it illegal to kill a child who is fully born during an attempted abortion. The bill passed without a single opposing vote in either house, and was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2002. When he was a state senator at that same time, Barack Obama opposed a state version of the bill in Illinois.
His explanation for the vote since then has been that the state version did not include a so-called “neutrality clause” which says explicitly that the bill is not meant to influence the legal standing of a fetus before birth one way or another. The federal law contained such a clause, and the state law, Obama has long insisted, did not. As recently as June 30, the Obama campaign made that case to answer the charge (in that case from Bill Bennett) that Obama had opposed the Born-Alive Act.
But now, the National Right to Life Committee has uncovered proof that Obama in fact voted in committee against even the version of the Illinois Born-Alive Act that did include exactly the
same “neutrality clause” as the federal bill. On March 12, 2003, when the bill was being debated, an amendment was added that inserted the neutrality language of the federal bill verbatim into
the Illinois bill. Obama voted for the amendment (that’s the vote on the left-hand column on this committee vote record), and then voted against the amended bill (that’s the vote on the right on the same document). All the Democrats on the committee (which Obama chaired) followed his lead, and the bill was defeated.This was, again, legislation that in the same form had by then passed unanimously at the federal level. Even NARAL did not oppose it. Apparently Barack Obama did, and his old explanation for doing so seems at odds with the facts.
So not only is Obama far outside the mainstream on the issue of abortion, but he refuses to honestly explain his position. This is new politics? This is Hope and Change?
Nope, this is the ugly side of Obama. And it is a side he very much doesn’t want Americans to think about. But this election is too important to ignore these ugly truths.
Don’t Buy the Hype, Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid.
Aug
12
GOP Senators undermine energy focus
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
Maybe we are the stupid party
Believe it or not, I am frequently the one arguing in favor of compromise and coalition building in order to get things done. But a modicum of party discipline and common sense has to be involved or strategic compromise becomes surrender.
It seems a few GOP Senators can’t see the difference.
Kimberley A. Strassel brings us the ugly truth:
Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election.
That’s right. Just as the GOP finds an issue it can run on and build some excitement a group of wisemen step up to torpedo the whole thing:
And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson — alongside five Senate Democrats. This “Gang of 10″ announced a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break Washington’s energy “stalemate.” What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.
That’s because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast — putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska’s oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.
The highlight is instead billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . .
oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn’t have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.
Nice work Senators. I hope you enjoy being in the minority. Because if you prefer this kind of symbolic grandstanding while undermining your party in return for zero actual policy gains then
that’s what you can expect.
There are just some situations that require you to step up and grab the opportunity to highlight the stark differences between you and your opponents. This was the time for Republicans to prove that they really believed what they said about increased domestic energy and an all of the above energy policy. This was a chance for elected officials to prove to their supporters that they wouldn’t weasel out of yet another chance to take a stand.
Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson you failed. While leadership was trying to actually succeed you kicked them in the junk. I hope you feel good
about that when you look your colleagues in the eye.
Aug
6
Interview with Jennifer Rubin
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
As part of my effort to provide interesting and unique content at Obama’s Con I thought it would be worthwhile to interview writers, bloggers, journalists, and others who are covering the 2008 race. I figured it was an useful way to get the informed opinions of the people who cover the race every day.
To kick this off today I spoke with Jennifer Rubin. Click on the link to listen.
Jennifer’s coverage of the 2008 election can be found around the web at outlets like The American Spectator and Human Events, among others, and she also blogs regularly at Commentary Magazine’s Contentions blog.
Jennifer graciously agreed to speak with me about the campaign and offer her perspective on how someone as inexperienced as Obama came this far, his perceived weaknesses as a candidate, the role of media bias, the impact of new media, and more. I hope you enjoy our conversation.
Aug
6
TNR’s “Obsessive” Coverage
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
I mocked The New Republic earlier for its utter lack of irony awareness, but I wanted to add another thing that I find humorous about TNR. The huge gap between what their blogs claim to provide but fail to deliver.
The Stump claims to provide “Obsessive coverage of the ‘08 race” and yet yesterday had a grand total of five posts and today includes only one that was actually posted at 12:44 last night. This is obsessive? Under what definition?
They used to advertise the other blog, The Plank, as “The smartest blog on the web. Period.” At least they
had the decency to take that banner down.
It seems the folks at TNR have taken up the bad habits of lefty blogs: arrogant assertion and snarky commentary backed up with nothing more than bravado.
Aug
6
Obama Irony Alert
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
Check out this New Republic post on Even Bayh as a potential VP for Obama and note the incredible lack of irony:
But ideology isn’t the only reason some of us are wary of Bayh.
Another is his history of accomplishment–or relative lack thereof.
I’ve been reading clips and calling around Captiol Hill lately,
looking into Bayh’s record. And I’d be hard-pressed to name an
issue on which he’s really distinguished himself. There’s no
legislative agenda or intiative for which he is particularly
famous. And there are no episodes in which he demonstrated
particularly astute judgment.Bayh may be smart, dedicated, and thoughtful. But the singular
achievement for which he seems to be known is that he’s managed to
get elected–and remain popular–in a state that’s not generally
fond of Democrats. And even that is something for which he can’t
take full credit himself, given that he is part of an Indiana
political dynasty. If he had been born “Evan Smith” instead of
“Evan Bayh,” would he have pulled this off?This matters because–as I’ve written before–I think the most
important criteria for picking a running mate is choosing somebody
capable of serving as president in a time of crisis. It’s
particularly important when choosing somebody as young as Bayh,
since–if all goes well–he’ll become the heir apparent eight years
hence. Accomplishments don’t necessairly equal readiness to be
president. But, all other things being equal, I’d argue they are a
decent indicator.
Hmm, name another US Senator who lacks experience or singular accomplishment other than getting elected . . .
So Obama has to find a VP who has a record of accomplishment because he has none himself? Interesting argument. I guess if you are a Democrat it is too late to question whether Obama was the right choice in the first place.
Don’t buy the hype, don’t drink the Kool-Aid
-
Syndicate
