SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 1:45:41 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224745
 
Sarah's Skirt Tails
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Is a dazzling damsel about to save fellow Republicans in distress? Polling finds that Sarah Palin's energetic message of freedom, and her record fighting corruption, may save GOP congressional candidates.

All year long, Republicans running for Congress have been facing impending disaster. Gallup polling showed collective GOP support in congressional races stagnant at 40%, while Democratic support between 51% and 55%.

But all that changed with the naming of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to the national ticket by Sen. John McCain. A new Gallup poll asking voters which party's candidate they would vote for in their congressional district gave the GOP their first gain all year, up to 45%, while the Democrats' support has diminished to 48%.

In another hopeful sign for Republicans, a Rasmussen poll shows a recent increase in those identifying themselves as Republican. After hovering below 32% for most of the year, those calling themselves Republicans rose to 33.2% in August, highest since last year. Gallup found that self-identified Republicans rose from 26% just before the GOP convention to 30%, while Democratic identification slipped to 35% from 37%.

Quinnipiac University surveys show Palin has helped McCain peel white women voters away from Obama in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Palin pick has also resulted in what Gallup called "a very substantial jump" in Republicans saying they're now more enthusiastic about voting in this election.

Rarely, if ever, has a vice-presidential pick had such impact. And no media pundit should be able to get away with claiming it has more to do with style than substance.

McCain likes to think of himself as a maverick. But what could be more rebellious, let alone pit bull-like, than running against your state's corrupt incumbent governor in your own party's primary? Or putting the governor's personal jet on EBay, or signing ethics reform, or getting rid of the governor's personal chef?

With a sizable majority of Americans demanding more domestic oil production, McCain chose a running mate from the state with the most to drill. Palin could give Obama, Biden and McCain a seminar on accessing oil and gas without devastating the wild.

McCain's running mate has also electrified the party's base by living up to the family values she espouses, suspending the state fuel tax and vetoing half a billion dollars in spending — the kinds of things Republicans used to do before they lost their way.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 1:47:19 PM
From: Hope Praytochange1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224745
 
over grown watermelons are left to be rotten in the field and used as fertilizer for next crop



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 1:48:50 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224745
 
Tough Truths About Obama's Character
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama's campaign is crying foul over John McCain's new hard-hitting ads. But the Democratic nominee has no one but himself to blame for his statements and his behavior.

One new spot slams Sen. Obama for riling up a crowd with his "lipstick on a pig" jibe on Tuesday, just days after GOP running mate Gov. Sarah Palin brought the house down at the Republican convention in St. Paul with her line about lipstick being the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.

Another ad hits the former community organizer for voting when a state senator for sex education for kindergarteners. A third commercial compares dozens of Democratic Party operatives sent to Alaska looking for dirt on Gov. Palin to ferocious wolves on the hunt in the Alaskan wilderness.

Obama has accused the McCain camp of "lies." But a careful look at the video of the full Obama lipstick statement to a rally in rural southwestern Virginia indicates that it was not innocent, but exactly what Sen. McCain is accusing it of being.

After rattling off a list of policy areas in which he charged that McCain was identical to President Bush, Obama accused his opponent of calling "the same thing something different."

He added, "you can put lipstick on a pig . . . ," and he paused. It was at that point that the crowd went wild, grinning and hooting — clearly recognizing it as a reference to Palin, whose lipstick one-liner was seen and heard by millions the week before. The roars were going full blast by the time Obama finished by adding, "it's still a pig."

The riff Obama was running through leading up to the lipstick crescendo is one he has used at a number of rallies, and matches nearly word-for-word a long bubble quote in a recent cartoon by Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles. The Joe Biden School of Speechmaking is apparently still in business, but this also suggests the lipstick quote was the new punch line in a planned verbal vignette.

Still, if for argument's sake we were to make the hard-to-swallow assumption that Obama was not referring to Palin, shouldn't he still have realized how foolish it was to use such an expression? With a woman on the opposing ticket, shouldn't he have been extra careful not to say something easily construed as a crass insult?

What does this say of his judgment? And what does it say of his character if, as is far more likely, the pig imagery was aimed at Palin?

Some media reports have alleged that McCain's charges in another ad regarding Obama's vote for kindergarten sex ed are false. "Learning about sex before learning to read?" the ad asks incredulously.

But a before-and-after examination by National Review's Jim Geraghty of what Obama supported as a member of the health and human services committee of the Illinois state senate reveals that the language "comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12" would indeed have changed to "comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12" had the measure become law.

Finally, a third commercial cites a Wall Street Journal report of "30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers" sent to Alaska to dig for dirt on Gov. Palin. "As Obama drops in the polls, he'll try to destroy her," the ad says.

Democrats deny sending operatives to the state, but consider that a July 30 posting on Obama's campaign Web site features a photo of a beaming Democratic State Sen. Hollis French, who leads the investigation into Palin's firing of the state's public safety commissioner, standing amidst numerous Obama for President placards.

Also in the photo is fellow Democratic State Sen. Kim Elton, head of the Alaska Legislative Council, who is refusing to replace French in spite of accusations that French is using his probe for optimum negative effect on Election Day.

Sen. Obama touts himself as a new kind of politician, who refuses to take the low road. In reality, he is a product of the leftish cadres of South Side Chicago, where cutthroat political tactics are just as ugly as the left's radical vision of the government replacing parents.

Sen. McCain is wise to shift from his frivolous Britney Spears "fame" ads to real reality TV with these new messages that expose Obama and his party.




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 1:52:40 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224745
 
Bush Doctrine? Palin Got It, Gibson Didn't
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Friday, September 12, 2008 4:30 PM PT

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' " —New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish. The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: The idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John F. Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 1:54:24 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224745
 
The Importance Of Age And Experience: A Clinton Catalog Of Missed Opportunity
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 11, 2008

Another of our youngest presidents, Bill Clinton, was 46 when sworn in and became the first Democrat since FDR to serve two terms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBD Series: The Importance Of Age And Experience

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Born in Arkansas, educated at Georgetown University and a graduate of Yale Law School, he was also a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. He had weaknesses as well as strengths but was popular with the average man and woman, and especially with minorities.

He was a smart politician and a great salesman whose way with words earned him the nickname of Slick Willie when he was governor of Arkansas.

The economy was strong during Clinton's term, benefiting in no small part from the collapse of the Soviet Union. It occurred during the Reagan-Bush years but paid a "peace dividend" in the '90s in the form of huge defense cuts that helped achieve a balanced budget.

After Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, Clinton wisely moved to the center and agreed over liberal objections to what turned out to be a successful restructuring of the welfare system. But an unrealistic attempt by Clinton and his wife Hillary to have the federal government take over and run the entire medical and health care system failed.

The late '90s saw the dawning of the Internet, a bounty of biotech start-ups and the rise to leadership of young, entrepreneurial companies such as Microsoft, Amgen, Dell, Adobe, Oracle, Cisco, Qualcomm, America Online and EMC, plus innovators like Home Depot and Charles Schwab. All had come public since 1982 during the low-tax Reagan-Bush incentive period. Stocks of these companies rocketed 25,000% to 90,000% from their offering prices.

It was a wild, anything-goes era much like the late 1920s. From September 1998 to March 2000, the Nasdaq composite index advanced 203%, or two and a half times the climax run in the Dow industrials from 1928 to the 1929.

Both markets blew up due to excessive speculation. Under Clinton's watch from March 2000 to January 2001, the Nasdaq market that had led the run-up plummeted 56%, the sharpest decline since 1929. But the boom was great while it lasted.

Arguments about who or what is best for the economy go on and on. But since World War II, the United States has done pretty well in every cycle regardless of the person or party in power. Our free-market economy, after all, is driven not so much by government as by entrepreneurs, innovators and inventors who start new businesses, create new products and generate new jobs for all who are willing and able to work.

But when it comes to national defense and foreign relations, the age, experience and judgment of the person occupying the Oval Office become absolutely critical.

History teaches that no matter how attractive younger, less-experienced presidents may be, they simply exercise more bad judgment and make the kinds of mistakes that take years to correct and sometimes put our country in danger.

Take, for example, the threat to our national security posed by Osama bin Laden and the terrorists of al-Qaida:

• It was only a month into his first term that President Clinton was tested by al-Qaida. On Feb. 26, 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in New York, killing six and injuring 1,000. Some of the terrorists were trained at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan. They had hoped to kill 250,000. But this was treated as a local police matter.

• In October of that year, Somali warlords with al-Qaida trainers and weapons shot down two Black Hawk helicopters. Seventy-three Americans were wounded and 18 were killed, some of them shown on TV as they were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. But Clinton retreated and withdrew all U.S. forces. Said bin Laden later: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

• In January 1995, Philippine police discovered that Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the Trade Center bombing, had another plan to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners over the ocean and crash a plane into CIA headquarters. Clinton's government was made aware of the plot.

• In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a joint Saudi-U.S. facility, killing five Americans.

• In June 1996, 19 Americans were killed and 372 wounded in a bombing at a housing complex in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, where U.S. forces were stationed. The attack was carried out by Saudi Hezbollah, with help from Iran and al-Qaida.

• In July 1996, the U.S. received from senior-level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

• In February 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri issue a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

• In May 29, 1998, after a series of deadly bombings stretching back six years, and with bin Laden urging attacks on the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan.

After months of planning and full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off by CIA Director George Tenet and others who were worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recriminations if bin Laden didn't survive.

• On Aug. 7, 1998, al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 200 and injuring 5,000. Clinton's team decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camp and a Sudan aspirin factory.

But they gave a 48-hour heads-up to Pakistan's army chief of staff so that India wouldn't think missiles were aimed at them. Forewarned, bin Laden and other leaders left, no terrorists were killed, and U.S. incompetence and ineffectiveness were on full display.

• On Dec. 20, 1998, intelligence learned that bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar, Afghanistan. But the U.S. passed on this opportunity, too, again fearing collateral damage and risk of failure. Clinton approved a plan by his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

• Next, the Pentagon created a plan to use a more precise HC130 gunship against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. General William Boykin later told the 9/11 Commission that "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks, and a lack of vision and understanding."

• On Feb. 10, 1999, CIA found out that bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning. The military failed to act, however, because a United Arab Emirates aircraft was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

• In May 1999, the CIA learned from several sources that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. All agreed this would be the best chance to get him, but word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were still concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours.

• In October 2000, the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

All told, the Clinton administration had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden but repeatedly could not make the decision to act. Too many departments were involved, creating too much confusion, and no leader was strong enough to make the tough call. All were timid and overly concerned about repercussions if they failed.

The Clinton administration also allowed the selling of vital defense technology and secrets to China. Now the Chinese have silent submarines we can't track.

Contrast this unwillingness to confront an enemy to the willingness of a more experienced, 62-year-old Harry Truman to defend Greece, beat the Soviet Union's Berlin blockade and stop North Korea from taking over South Korea. Or to the resolve of Ronald Reagan, who in his 70s defeated the Soviet Union and freed 20 countries and 240 million people.

Based on what these more seasoned presidents achieved, we rate Reagan as our fifth-best president, Harry Truman seventh-best and Dwight Eisenhower our ninth-best. Eisenhower entered office in 1953 when he was 62 and served two terms as a popular and productive chief executive until age 70.

Our three youngest post-war presidents — Kennedy, Carter and Clinton — were all intelligent and well-educated. But they were also inexperienced in matters of national defense and security and far from successful in dealing with America's hardened enemies. In some cases, they also failed to place competent people in Cabinet or advisory positions.

So, who would you rather have deal with and stand up to Putin's Russia, Iran's nukes, China's emerging power and al-Qaida's radical Islamic terrorists — someone in his 40s with little understanding of the military or someone in his 60s or 70s with sounder experience and judgment?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 2:04:06 PM
From: MJ3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224745
 
No way Kenneth.

Guiliani's criticism of Obama's 'Community Organizer' as Obama's #1 credential in politics is 100% spot on.

Guiliani, a previous Mayor of New York City, knows precisely what he is talking about-------and what all of America knows.

Your hero is sinking and sinking fast-------maybe he can go back to being a street organizer. But not in South Side Chicago--------the people there must be truly embarassed with Obama's campaign and all of the people he has denied knowing.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 2:07:55 PM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224745
 
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal
Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of
higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican,
a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that
her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what
he thought should be his .

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes
on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she
was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'
She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to
all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes
because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's
office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend
who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly
that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I
worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the
Republican party.'



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 2:07:55 PM
From: Ann Corrigan2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224745
 
Obama was a community agitator--he taught ACORN activists how to fraudulently register voters. Tomorrow Giuliani will leave another mad dog Democrat, Chuck Schumer, speechless--a feat only his fellow New Yorker could achieve.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 5:09:18 PM
From: Catfish2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224745
 
A WORD ON COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION

Since the topic of community organizers has been popular lately ... Ever wonder who founded this concept of community organizers in Chicago? This should give you a taste:

The seditious role of the community organizer was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a 'transformational Marxist' in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a 'long march through the institutions' by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

Look, folks. We already know this about Barack Obama ... the guy worships the ideals of socialism and wants to make sure that you live in a society that is based on "fairness" and "neighborliness." Setting aside whatever methods Obama may have practiced as a community organizer, his campaign policies assure you that he would rather use the force of government to make everyone "equal" rather than to promote competition, work ethic or capitalist enterprise.

boortz.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (46485)9/13/2008 7:34:24 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 224745
 
While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.
article.nationalreview.com