Red State

Like Allahpundit, I am unsurprised that the context on the longer Obama Muslim admission thing indicates something different than the shorter clip:

Note that post is not a reflection on Dan. Indeed, I agree with his point that Obama's problems in this regard are largely Obama's own fault: the man continues to be more concerned with denying rumors about his religion than he is with explaining why those rumors shouldn't matter in the first place. Nonetheless, this is almost certainly just Obama not being able to talk artfully without a Teleprompter. Nothing new, in other words.

Moe Lane

PS: Also, not that I want to be mean about this or anything, but it's kind of disingenuous for Obama to complain about being linked to the Palin smears when it's his own finance people that are participating in them.

This is not exactly what I had in mind when I said Obama should address his Muslim issue head on:

John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.

I did try to find the context of the clip. All I can find is this from ABC:

Obama also suggested that the McCain was behind persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim rather than a Christian.

"These guys love to throw rocks and hide their hand," Obama said, referring to the Republicans.

Reminded that McCain and his top aides have denied pushing the Muslim rumor, Obama said the rumor is "being promulgated on Fox News ... and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks."

He later added, "What I think is fair to say is that coming out of the Republican camp there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith."

As I said in "Obama Should Confront His Muslim Problem Head On," I was raised to respect others and was taught that I should strive, like God, to be "no respecter of persons." I've always tried to do that. It does not matter to me what a person's religious beliefs are. What is important to me is that our leaders have some religious belief.

At 11AM Eastern Time on Sunday, September 07, 2008, the Treasury Department released the text of a joint statement regarding the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The statement contains remarks by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Director James Lockhart of the newly-chartered Federal Housing Finance Agency. (The FHFA now has regulatory oversight over the GSEs.)

As expected, the GSEs will enter government conservatorship (which is not the same as receivership). Several additional steps have been announced as well, and some new text regarding these additional actions was released as well.

You can read the Paulson/Lockhart statement here. Read on for commentary on specific points in the statement. As soon as I can, I’ll give you commentary on the other parts of the release, relating to the specific actions being taken.

Read More

That title is in response to this unintentionally hilarious Open Left article ("Do They Really Want To Go There?"], which starts off with explicitly comparing - complete with pictures - Governor Sarah Palin to George Wallace (not-dumb of them, except that Wallace was a Democrat) and Pontius Pilate (dumb of them), and Senator Barack Obama to Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr (smart of them, except that King was a Republican{*}) and Jesus Christ, Savior and Messiah (very, very, very dumb of them). Then we get a video of the Left's modern Savior and Messiah - hey, they're explicitly making the comparison - blah blah blah, the usual text from Matthew 25 (looks like he's using the NIV, which is a safe choice), and finishes up with, and I am not joking:

Cut welfare spending: go to Hell. It's just that simple.

Well, OK: there was another two sentences, but the unintentional irony of watching a Lefty use "Pharisee" as a slur without even looking it up first on Wikipedia was sufficient to move even such as me to pity. We'll just pretend that he meant to end it with the words above, and move on.

Read More

Yesterday, I noticed these very strange first two paragraphs of a Politico story:

The liberal blogosphere was abuzz Friday with news that a friend of Sarah and Todd Palin had tried to seal his divorce records.

Surely, the Netroots speculated, that friend must be the unnamed business partner whom this week’s edition of the National Enquirer alleges — without proof so far — was romantically linked to Palin. The McCain campaign's characterization of the story as a "vicious lie" seemed to only fuel more speculation.

The reporter makes explicit that he (or at least they. The they of the media and the Politico) are being driven by the netroots. At least the Politico is self-conscious enough (or post-modern enough) to admit its role in the farce. He goes on to note:

Those who couldn’t make it to the Palmer courthouse in person were out of luck for much of Friday, since the court’s website crashed from all the traffic directed to it by a link on Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

It couldn't be clearer that the media is not being driven by the responsible lefty news outlets like Talking Points Memo, but by the delusional crazies like DailyKos and FireDogLake (and, now, sadly Andrew Sullivan, once a serious person).

In that context, Diane West quotes Steve Schmidt in the Washington Times

Mr. Schmidt said. "Many reporters have called the campaign and have apologized for asking the questions and said, `Our editors are making us do this, and I am ashamed.'"

These are the same editors that are signing off on stories, and probably encouraging them, like Vogle's. It is clear who to blame both for the irresponsible coverage and the self-destruction of the media's credibility.

At this rate, they will continue to destroy themselves and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. In a twisted, way I think, "bless their hearts." They'll defeat themselves and Barack Obama. Two birds with one stone.

He done gone and wrote something very smart and equally depressing. Personally, I go for very smart and tremendously cheerful in my choice of reading and if wishing made it so, I would wish and write that Jon Henke is dead wrong in his arguments.

But of course, he isn't. He's identified the dynamic he discusses quite effectively. It will play out with Swiss watch-precision in the aftermath of any nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And unless we find a way to break out of that dynamic, we will be left to lather, rinse and repeat the next time a similar situation rolls around.

Asif Ali Zardari is the top man in the country now. Obviously, nation-state interests will change very little--if at all--but the United States had better be preparing on how to deal with Zardari. Pakistan will remain something of a powder keg for the foreseeable future; there was a suicide bomb attack outside of Peshawar just today and with the continued presence of al Qaeda in the country and tensions between Pakistan and India threatening to flare up to dangerous levels from time to time, the region will need expert attention from American policymakers.

It would be nice if we got some commentary regarding the state of affairs in Pakistan from the people on the campaign trail. Alas, thus far, there hasn't been all that much of that.

It is increasingly clear that Joe Lieberman is completely on the outs with the Democrats and that even a thin margin in the Senate is not going to prevent some serious retribution from the Democrats for Lieberman's decision to support John McCain and to speak at the Republican National Convention. Republicans see this and are preparing themselves for an opportunity to persuade Lieberman to make the switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

This can best be accomplished by promising to ensure that Lieberman maintains his seniority if he joins the Republican Caucus. If the Senate Republicans do this now, we will have a 50-50 tie in the Senate and Vice President Cheney will cast the deciding vote that will allow Republicans to organize the Senate in a manner that is more to their liking. In the event that Senate elections this year do not go as badly as Republicans fear they might, Lieberman could very well represent the difference between a Republican minority and a Republican majority in the Senate. Efforts should be made to convert him post haste.

Oh, and enough with the Lieberman hatred from the Democratic side. Democrats were more than willing to trot out Jim Jeffords as an avatar of principle when his conversion gave Democrats a majority in the Senate. And former Representative Jim Leach was wheeled out to the masses during the Democratic National Convention to show them how a Republican could vote for Barack Obama. That Leach put people to sleep instead of causing them to change their vote is a side matter--the point is that Democrats are more than willing to call people who convert to the Democratic side "principled" while calling Democrats who turn into Republicans "latter day Benedict Arnolds." One does tire of the hypocrisy after a while.

You would have thought that the Democrats learned something from the 1988 Presidential election. You would have thought wrong:

This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage -- with dramatic effect, no doubt -- and tell the story.

No, I won't question the patriotism of others. But that doesn't change the fact that visions of 30 second spots are currently dancing in the heads of McCain campaign poobahs.

Bob Woodward has a new book out. Flash: It's not very favorable to President Bush. No surprise there. But it actually may tell a story different than what the author intends. It shows that Bush's surge strategy may go down as one of the greatest turnarounds in American military history.

Yes, I know the jury is still out on Iraq, and things could still go wrong. And I also know that Woodward's book shows the president was slow to adopt the surge strategy. But I also know that in the end he made the right decision, and his detractors in the Senate did not.

It was not long ago that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was saying the "this war is lost." And he was not alone. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama agreed with Reid to the point of trying to cut of funding for our troops.

Now Obama says the surge was a "success beyond our wildest dreams." But he still refuses to admit that he made a mistake. Even if he wins the presidency, any objective historian will have to judge him harshly for having sold our military and our country short in their time of greatest need.

Can you imagine the outcomes of some of our other wars if the Obamas and the Reids of the time had prevailed? Suppose someone like them had managed to cut off funding for, say, Lincoln's forces in the grim days after Gen. Joseph Hooker got his tail kicked at the Battle of Chancellorsville. There were plenty of people in the North who wanted to throw in the towel after that. If they had got their way, and forced a negotiated peace with the South, things could have ended up very different indeed.

I wonder what Obama would have thought of that historical outcome?

Or imagine if some historic Reid or Obama, fed up with Gen. George Washington's loss of New York City in 1777, tried to completely cut off all support that kept his little army alive on the banks of the Delaware River. There would have been nothing left to attack Trenton with a few weeks later. The game would have been up and the American Revolution lost.

I wonder what Reid would have thought of that outcome?

Luckily for America, Washington and Lincoln did not succumb to the defeatists of their times. They had a greater faith not only in their military forces but also in America's cause.

And so did George W. Bush. This president has been maligned for many mistakes. He may not always have made the right decisions. And he did take a long time to get the military strategy right. But so did Lincoln and Washington. People should remember that when they judge Bush's legacy.

Even the Brits, whose politics are not ours, get it, as evidence by this post from London's Daily Telegraph broadsheet.

On Friday night in Sterling Heights, Mr McCain's selection of Mrs Palin appeared to have utterly transformed his campaign and made easier the task of converting Reagan Democrats to McCain Democrats.

Even some Canadians, like Dr. Salim Mansur, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario. He writes in the Edmonton Sun:

Similarly, McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a fine demonstration of an OODA loop decision messing up the Democrat's campaign, built on the phony slogan for "change." Palin strikes the near-perfect note of a "change" candidate headed for dysfunctional Washington, whose poster face is the six-term senator and capitol insider Biden.

Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The OODA loop is of the military, used in decision-making when the situation is voluble. The decision to select Palin has energized the Republican base, brought the critical ground troops-volunteers on board for the final two months, increased donations, increased enthusiasm, and started to attract the Reagan Democrats, such as they are today. John McCain says that they are going to Washington without concern for "breaking the china," and that is what many in small-town America want to hear. Obama said of small-town America that their bitterness compels them to rely on their instruments of force and their mythology. In contrast, John McCain and Sarah Palin offer them hope and a china-breaking change from the status quo. Hope and Change from McCain and Palin. Barry offers them only bitterness. Go figure.

Read More

A worker at Denver's Invesco Field saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage.

Even though The Democrats had no use for the flags, the Republicans did. The Democrats' discarded flags were used at a McCain/Palin event in Colorado Springs.

You would think that when your standard bearer has a record of disrespecting the flag, and even replaces the American flag with the Obama logo, his campaign would be a lot more sensitive to the issue.

Some in the elite media have belittled Governor Palin's role as commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard.

Greta Van Susteren went and got the facts about Governor Palin's performance as head of Alaska's National Guard from Major General Craig E. Campbell. Watch the interview:

That interview was more than enough to convince Jennifer Rubin that Governor Palin's role as commander of the Alaskan National Guard adds more gravitas to the Governor's experience:

I confess I thought the “head of the National Guard” argument was a weak one in defense of Sarah Palin.  But this is actually a fairly illuminating interview which explains what she did and how she did it.  You actually learn something about Palin and how she operates.

This is one of those instances where the talking point sounds goofy on the surface, but actually has some merit.

Obama has no similar experience to prepare him to be commander in chief.

Interesting - and I'm not being sarcastic, here: it is interesting, and I've had to do the same thing myself - how five minutes of conversation turns into a couple of paragraphs. I have no complaints about the article, by the way: the text was fair and the guy who wrote it was both polite and friendly. No gotchas.

Moe Lane

PS: via the article's comments section there's a local Utah blog (Ladies Logic) that has a bunch of stuff up about the convention, including one video about the not-quite-violent confrontation between radical anarchists and the Westboro Baptist Church.

What? No, actually, that one's easy. You root for injuries.

Apparently, logic was not a required class in whatever med school Rahul Parikh attended. Via Ross Douthat comes this mind-bendingly stupid argument:

We could ask, given that Palin had no doubts about seeing her pregnancy through, why she bothered to take a genetic test. Why not, as you might expect a woman in her position and with her outspoken beliefs to do, decline any testing or counseling? Of course, it seems very reasonable to want to know about the health of your baby and to have time to prepare (emotionally and otherwise) for a baby that may have a genetic disorder. But that doesn't negate the fact that by having a blood test, Palin was given a choice about what to do.

...Her supporters say that Trig signals that she practices what she preaches. But her decision to have him is also a sign of her hypocrisy.

Look, it is definitionally impossible to be a person who both practices what she preaches and a hypocrite at the same time, as everyone who knows the actual definition of "hypocrite" (as opposed to the liberal definition of "hypocrite," which is "Republican that I really, really don't like") knows. But let's give Dr. Parikh the benefit of the doubt and take his "argument" to its logical conclusion. It is of course legal to get an abortion in this country for absolutely any reason, or for no reason at all. Therefore, any decision to have a child necessarily involves a "choice" as to whether to have an abortion, regardless of whether the person making it gives serious (or any) consideration whatsoever as to have an abortion. Therefore, by this logic, any pro-lifer who has a child is a hypocrite.

This kind of "argument" isn't the product of logic or reason whatsoever. In fact, even a moderately intelligent person who had control of their senses would be embarrassed to make it because they would immediately realize how stupid it sounded. But it just goes to show that Sarah Palin's critics have completely lost control of their mental faculties - there is no argument, no matter how weak or unfounded, that is unfit for use against Palin. No discernment is used to discard the arguments that are clearly inappropriate. So eager are Palin's critics to beclown themselves that they are willing to state in consecutive sentences that she not only practices what she preaches but also is a hypocrite.