Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Sarah Palin

Sara Palin in WSJ on Obamacare, Your Money AND Your Life Posted: 08 Sep 2009 07:25 PM PDT There is a Classic Jack Benny routine that reminds me of Obamacare. In the routine Benny is accosted on the street by a robber with a gun, “your money or your life,” threatens the thief. The master comedian takes his classic pose with his open palmed fingers on the side of his face and remains silent. “Well ?” says the gunman. “I’m thinking” says Benny, “I’m thinking” If Obamacare gets passed in its present form that choice will not be open to many Americans, the government will definitely take out money and,in some cases, as heath care gets rationed they will take your life also. That is the message that former Alaska Governor gives in an Op-ed in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal; Obamacare is too expensive, will lead to health care rationing, and will build a massive and inefficient federal bureaucracy. Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care The president’s proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers. By SARAH PALIN Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law. Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us. We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit. How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree. Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.” With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep. Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .” First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .” Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration. Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure. The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times. Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats. Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care. Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.” We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it. Today Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) circulated a draft outline for healthcare reform legislation. The outline does not include a public option, however, it creates Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OP)s- which are nonprofit, member-run health insurance companies. The framework also suggests a few revenue provisions for healthcare reform, including a 35 percent tax on insurance companies and insurance administrators for any health insurance plan that is above $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for family plans. It would also impose an annual fee of $2.3 billion on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector and an annual fee of $6 billion on the health insurance sector, both beginning in 2010. Higher rates would be paid by larger families, older people and smokers. That’s just what people need more taxes. Baucus gave the Republicans on the committee 24 hours to agree with his proposal. I’m not sure what he meant by this maybe after 24 hours he will begin to kill one Senior per hour until they agree. Wednesday Night the President will be making his “revised sales pitch” to Americans, it is almost certain that the President will not substantially address the issues that Palin addresses above. Until then it will be difficult for the POTUS to change very many minds.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Advertisements

McCain’s Mistake: Moving Right

“Instead of moving to the center, he [John McCain] moved to the right. He put Sarah Palin on the ticket, which pleased the right but, as we’re now seeing in these polls, her appeal does not go much beyond that.”
— CBS’s Bob Schieffer on the October 24 Evening News.

“I think he’s abandoned the principles of his campaign in 2000, and that’s probably why he’s in the difficulty he’s in….He’s really become a captive of the right wing of his party and its agenda and it shows, particularly through the pick of Sarah Palin.”
— Author and former Washington Post and Time reporter Carl Bernstein, on CBS’s Late Late Show, October 27.


Return to the Article

Camp Followers

By Patrick Buchanan

Perhaps the only institution in America whose approval rating is beneath that of Congress is the media.

Both have won their reputations the hard way. They earned them.

Consider the fawning indulgence shown insider Joe Biden with the dripping contempt visited on outsider Sarah Palin.

Twice last weekend, Biden grimly warned at closed-door meetings that a great crisis is coming early in the term of President Obama:

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. … Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said … we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

A “generated crisis”? By whom? Moscow? Beijing? Teheran?

This is an astonishing statement from a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has access to the same intelligence as George Bush. Joe was warning of a crisis like the Berlin Wall of July 1961, where JFK called for a tripling of the draft and ordered a call-up of reserves, or the missile crisis where U.S. pilots like John McCain were minutes away from bombing nuclear missile sites in Cuba and killing the Russians manning them.

Is Russia about to move on the Crimea? Is Israel about to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites? What is Joe talking about?

If one assumes Joe is a serious man, we have a right to know.

Instead, what we got was Obama’s airy dismissal of Joe’s words as a “rhetorical flourish” and a media — rather than demanding that Joe hold a press conference — acting as Obama surrogates parroting the talking points that Joe was just saying that new presidents always face tests.

Had John McCain made that hair-raising statement, he would have been accused of fear mongering about a new 9/11. The media would have run with the story rather than have smothered it.

Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe declared a few weeks back, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and … said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.'”

Nice historical reference. Except when the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television.

Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history. Or Dan Quayle?

Joe gets a pass because everybody likes Joe.

Fine. But Joe also has a record of 36 years in the Senate.

Has anyone ever asked Joe about his own and his party’s role in cutting off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the greatest strategic defeat in U.S. history and the Cambodian holocaust? Has anyone ever asked Joe about the role he and his party played in working to block Reagan’s deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, and SDI, which Gorbachev concedes broke the Soviets and won the Cold War?

In the most crucial vote he ever cast — to give Bush a blank check for war in Iraq — Joe concedes he got it wrong.

Is Joe’s record of having been wrong on Vietnam, wrong in the Cold War, wrong on the Iraq War, less important than whether Sarah Palin tried to get fired a rogue-cop brother-in-law who Tasered her 10-year old nephew to “teach him a lesson”?

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know,” says Joe humbly. Given his record, it is understandable Joe has forgotten so much of it.

Saturday, the New York Times did a takeout on Cindy McCain that delved back into her problem with prescription pills. Yet when Hillary’s campaign manager, Mark Penn, brought up Obama’s cocaine use on “Hardball,” he was savaged by folks for whom the Times is the gold standard.

The people apparently had a “right to know” of Bush’s old DUI arrest a week before the 2000 election, but no right to know about how and when Obama was engaged in the criminal use of cocaine.

The media cannot get enough of the “Saturday Night Live” impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all.

Can one imagine “Saturday Night Live” doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her “I’ve never been proud” of my country, this “just downright mean” America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?

“Saturday Night Live” would be facing hate crime charges.

How do we know? When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and The Messiah.

Is there a media double standard? You betcha.

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/camp_followers.html at October 27, 2008 – 08:24:43 AM PDT

_uacct = “UA-31527-1”;
urchinTracker();

Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47

by  Ann Coulter

10/22/2008 Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47

by  Ann Coulter

10/22/2008

The media are acting as if they completely and fully vetted Obama during the Democratic primaries and that’s why they are entitled to send teams of researchers into Alaska to analyze Sarah Palin’s every expense report.

In fact, the mainstream media did no vetting. They seem to have all agreed, “OK, none of us will get into this business with Jeremiah Wright, ‘Tony’ Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and everyone’s impression of an angry Michelle Obama on ‘The Jerry Springer Show.'”

During one of the Democratic primary debates, Hillary Clinton was hissed for mentioning Syrian national Rezko, and during another, ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one question about William Ayers.


In the past week, TV anchors have taken to claiming that Obama “refuted” John McCain’s statement that Obama launched his political career at the home of former Weather Underground leader Ayers.

No, Obama “denied” it; he didn’t “refute” it. If “denying” something is the same as “refuting” it, then maybe the establishment media can quit harping on Palin’s supposed lack of qualifications to be president, since she too “refuted” that by denying it.

Back before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers’ house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

The Times has now stripped this item from its Web page, but the great blogger Patterico has preserved it for posterity on his Web page.

Obama’s glib remark that “Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago; 40 years ago when I was 8 years old he engaged in despicable acts with a domestic group. I have roundly denounced those attacks” — doesn’t answer anything.

First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.

Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he’s teaching at a university — even when you consider that it’s an ed school — except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors — 99 percent if you don’t include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison — i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.

Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI’s most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).

While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!

Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master’s degree in “writing” through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.

But Obama thinks it’s a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.

Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I’ve got the letter right here!

The media keep citing the fact that the money Obama and Ayers distributed to idiotic left-wing causes came — as The New York Times put it — “from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.”

Great Republican though he was, Walter Annenberg died in 2002. The money came from the Annenberg Foundation, which, like all foundations, distributes money to projects that its founder would despise. John Kerry ran for president on the late John Heinz’s money. That didn’t mean Republican Heinz was endorsing Kerry.

As John O’Sullivan says, any foundation that is not explicitly right-wing will become a radical left-wing organization within a few years. It could be the Association of University Women, the American Association of Retired People, the American Rose Growers, the Foundation for the Study of Railroad Engineers or the Choral Society of Newport Beach.

Left-wing radicals swarm to free foundation money, where they can give gigantic grants to one another and they will never have to do a day’s work. That’s exactly what Obama and Ayers did with Annenberg’s money.

None of the Annenberg money went to schoolchildren. It went to Ayers’ left-wing crank friends to write moronic papers that we hope no one ever reads.

Instead of teaching students reading and writing, Ayers thinks they should be taught to rebel against America’s “imperialist” social structure. In 2006, Ayers was in Venezuela praising communist dictator Hugo Chavez, saying, “We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.”

He has backed a line of schoolbooks such as one titled “Teaching Science for Social Justice.”

Forget about Ayers’ domestic terrorism when Obama “was 8 years old.” Does he agree with Ayers’ idiot ideas right now?

An echo of Alabama

October 18th, 2008 @ 6:44 pm – by lotus · 1 Comment

At Slate, Alabamian Diane McWhorter (author of Carry Me Home and A Dream of Freedom) writes:

I finally understand the switch of doom that tripped somewhere deep in my soul during Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention. Her rhetorical star turn—the exuberant snideness, the gut-level rapport with the audience, the frank pleasure at being a yokel on the big stage—reprised the great gifts of the politician who dominated my youth: George Corley Wallace, perpetual governor of Alabama and frequent candidate for president of the less-than-United States.

U.S. Rep John Lewis of Georgia also noticed the similarity. He issued a statement last week accusing Palin and John McCain of “sowing the seeds of hatred and division.” He invoked “another period, in the not too distant past,” when George Wallace “created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights.”

So how is Sarah Palin like—and not like—George Wallace? And how much is John McCain relying on tactics Wallace used? The answers: more than she can probably know and more than he appears to have admitted to himself. …

This textured read includes some Wallace history I either never knew or had forgotten — the passage about his addressing an audience including two men who would, one week later, bomb the 16th Street Baptist Church and kill four little girls attending Sunday school, resonates deeply. I recommend it, even as its last sentence haunts me:

“Let us hope that [McCain] will not also be afflicted with George Wallace’s compulsion to atone when it is too late.”

(h/t Kycol)

Filed Under: Herald & Examiner

Daily Kos

The New Stabbed In the Back Myth

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM PDT

(From the diaries. Susan)

Germans had been shaken to their roots by defeat in 1918. The emotional impact was all the more severe because German leaders had been trumpeting victory until a few weeks before. So unbelievable a calamity was easily blamed on traitors.

Robert Paxton
The Anatomy of Fascism
2005

With the prospect of a bone-crushing election defeat staring them full in the face, the diehard rump of the conservative movement is already busy fashioning a narrative to explain the dissolution of its world — the one that Ronald Reagan built and that George W. Bush (with an assist from Wall Street) has thoroughly trashed.

And the emerging story line appears to be, roughly, that ACORN did it.

Given the underlying proclivities of the modern conservative movement (Sarah Palin division) we should have understood that sooner or later it would come to something as absurd as this. Failed authoritarian movements needs scapegoats the way fecal coliform bacteria need a steady supply of raw sewage, and this one has a lot of failures that need explaining.

The remarkable thing, of course, is the right’s effort to make the ACORN boogie man do double duty: responsible not only for the looming “theft” of American democracy (per John McCain) but also for bringing the US and global financial system to its knees (per any number of conservative quacks economists and cranks pundits).

You have to admit: That’s a damned impressive revolutionary track record for an obscure group of community organizers operating on a shoestring budget. I mean, who needs the Red Army when you’ve got ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act?

It would be easy to dismiss this lunacy as a manifestation of what the social scientist Richard Hofstader called the “paranoid style” in American politics. And some liberals have already made the connection. As far as the grassroots hysterics are concerned(i.e. the sort of people who are obsessed with the kerning and font size on Barack Obama’s “alleged” birth certificate) this is no doubt true.

But I think by now it’s also very clear that the GOP high commmand — as far back as the Twin Cities white power rally, if not before — deliberately adopted the demonization of ACORN/community organizers/the poor as a proxy for the hatred that no longer dares to speak its real name (except at the occasional Sarah Palin rally).

I think this strategy serves two purposes. One is obvious: to play upon traditional racial and class resentments to try to win back middle-class and working-class voters who might otherwise be waivering as they watch their jobs, their homes and their already inadequate retirement savings go spinning around the hole in the bottom of the economic toilet bowl.

We can take a page from John Lewis and call this the George Wallace gambit — not the Wallace of the stand in the schoolhouse door or the bridge at Selma, but rather the Wallace who ran for president in 1968, ’72 and ’76 and managed to attract quite a few Northern Democratic votes with his attacks on school busing, affirmative action, fair housing laws and other examples of “social engineering” foisted upon Regular Joe (Joe Sixpack’s dad and Joe the Plumber’s granddad) by Ivy League professors and pointy-headed government bureaucrats.

Exactly who was supposed to benefit from all that social engineerin’ was left unsaid, just as it is today.

Students of American politics know that Wallace’s populist rabble rousing was quickly expropriated by the GOP and — watered down for respectable middle-class consumption — became one of the weapons used by Richard Nixon and his pit bull of a running mate, Spiro Agnew (Sarah Palin with jowls) to crack open the New Deal coalition.

The ACORN monster, in other words, is a stock character out of a play the Republicans have been performing with mind-numbing efficiency for the past 40 years — making it the political equivalent of what The Fantasticks is for suburban dinner theater.

Given that the same attacks have been used, in some form or another, against a long line of lily white Democratic candidates, it would be unfair to characterize them as coded attempts to make an issue of Obama’s race per se. That’s a line the GOP high command apparently is still not willing to cross, even as coded attacks on Obama’s alleged “foreignness” (i.e. his middle name) have become the order of the day. It is, however, an obvious coded attack (and very lightly coded at that) on the inner-city poor. And in American political slang, “inner-city poor” is simply a five-syllable substitute for “black”.

However, as the McCain campaign descends into bitter futility (clinging to its guns and its religion all the way) and the band of the USS Republican Party assembles on deck to strike up “Near My God to Thee,” the anti-ACORN hysteria is starting to look less like a coherent campaign attack and more like a post-defeat rationalization. Clearly, conservatives are preparing themselves to take a knockout punch. Unfortunately it appears a big part of this psychological armouring will be convincing themselves the election was stolen, not lost. Even worse: stolen by the same “socialist” extremists who destroyed the American economy by forcing the banks to give loans to the n——.

This, of course, is not how the new stabbed-in-the-back myth will be expressed in polite conservative company (i.e. among the David Brooks and Ross Douthats of the world). But anyone who doubts that is the way it will be internalized among the many new members of the Sarah Palin Fan Club simply hasn’t been paying attention.

Choosing ACORN (and/or its constituents) as the scapegoat for the implosion of the biggest credit bubble in American history and, simultaneously, a wholly fictional attempt to steal a presidential election, may seem like a bit much. Why not pick on someone a bit more believable — like, say, the demon id from Forbidden Planet?

The GOP at times has tried to do this — citing, variously, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Democrats in Congress (i.e., the demon id from Forbidden Planet) and greed and corruption on Wall Street as the prime villains. But for various reasons (such as the fact that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, was a Fannie Mae lobbyist, or that Wall Street is the ideological Vatican of the same militant free market doctrine that modern conservatism has sworn to defend) none of these have proven very satisfactory. As I once noted of the effort to blame the nearly invisible anti-war movement for the debacle in Iraq:

The best scapegoat is one that is both blameless and weak. Blameless, because it relieves the truly guilty parties of the need to decide who among them must take the fall. Weak, because the guilty themselves have been weakened by defeat, and even a modest defense might enable a truly blameless set of scapegoats to convince the country of their innocence.

Given the fratricidal war brewing on the right over which faction (neo, paleo or psycho) is responsible for conservativism’s 1918, that comment appears particularly relevant now.

We don’t need to hark back to the unfortunate history of a certain Central European country in the 1930s to understand how poisonous this kind of political myth making can become. Powerful elements of the Republican Party and the conservative “movement” aren’t just preparing themselves to go into opposition, they’re preparing themselves to dispute the legitimacy of an Obama presidency — in ways that could, if taken to extreme, lead to another Oklahoma City.

It’s hard to tell to what degree the GOP high command fully understands or is trying to feed these dynamics (indeed, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to even tell who the GOP high command is these days). The last thing I want to do is get into an arms race with the wingnut right when it comes to paranoid conspiracy theories. (That’s one race the left will always lose). Still, the recent statements of John McCain and his Bircher-influenced running mate aren’t exactly reassuring:

My opponent’s answer showed that economic recovery isn’t even his top priority. His goal, as Senator Obama put it, is to “spread the wealth around.”

You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism.

I’ve been following politics for going on 35 years now, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Republican candidate publicly refer to his Democratic opponent as a “socialist” — not even while hiding behind a cardboard cutout like “Joe the Plumber”. This from a man who told the entire nation on Wednesday night that believes an obscure nonprofit group is “perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

Likewise, I don’t think there’s ever been an American vice presidential candidate who explicitly referred to entire regions of the United States as “pro-American” — with the clear implication that other regions are something less than “pro-American.” Not since the Civil War, anyway.

We’ve crossed some more lines, in other words — in a long series of lines that have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the ultraconservative wing of the Republican Party and an explicitly fascist political movement. And John McCain and his political handlers appear to have no moral compunctions whatsoever about whipping this movement into a frenzy and providing it with scapegoats for all that hatred, simply to try to shave a few points off Barack Obama’s lead in the polls.

To call this “country first” only works if you assume your opponents (and scapegoats) are not really part of that same country. And we all know where that leads.

It may lead us there yet, or to something like it. Middle class America has clearly entered a prolonged period of economic pain — on top of the existing climate of cultural disorientation and rapid demographic change. Conventional assumptions (401k plans are an adequate substitute for company pensions; black men can’t be elected president) are toppling left and right. Scapegoats that seem remotely plausible only to the most deranged partisans may appear less fantastic to the apolitical majority by and by. And even a party that has nothing left to offer America but fear itself may eventually find itself in a seller’s mar

Ann Coulter

Pull The Hair Plug On This Guy

by  Ann Coulter

10/08/2008

If Sarah Palin had made just one of the wildly inaccurate statements smugly uttered by Sen. Joe Biden in last week’s vice presidential debate, there would have been 3-inch headlines in newspapers across America. (I can almost hear Katie Couric asking me, “Which newspapers?”)

These weren’t insignificant errors, such as when Biden said, “Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie’s restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years.”

It turns out that Katie’s restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. The only evidence that he spends any time in Home Depot is that it appears that a pipe wrench fell on his head one too many times.



Palin would surely have been forced to withdraw from the ticket had she said something like that, but most of Biden’s errors were not trifling mistakes like these. They were lengthy Lyndon LaRouche-like disquisitions that were pure fantasy from beginning to end.

For example, Biden said about Hezbollah: “When we kicked — along with France — we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.” Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon.

He continued: “I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.'” This is madness — Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon.

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of foreign policy.

Biden also stoutly denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Liberals find it hilarious that McCain can’t use a computer keyboard on account of his war injuries, but Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over the Internet of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year.

Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama’s answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no.”

And that’s still not all! Obama’s own Web site says: “Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to remember well-known facts.

Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney’s “dangerous” belief that “he’s part of the legislative branch.” The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney “works in the executive branch” and has “no authority relative to the Congress.” Biden huffily added: “He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”

Palin would have had to deny that Alaska is a state in the union in order to say something comparably stupid.

Article II, not I, describes the executive branch. Someone tell Biden, who is supposed to be a lawyer. Apart from getting the Articles of the Constitution mixed up, what on earth does Biden mean when he says that the vice president “has no authority relative to Congress,” apart from breaking ties?

The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. I realize that Biden may not be able to count to two, but Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress — the one Biden is in, for crying out loud — which is what you might call “authority relative to Congress.”

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of the Constitution.

In one especially hallucinatory answer, Biden authoritatively stated: “With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. … We spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, since 9/11, we’ve spent $172 billion in Afghanistan and $653 billion in Iraq. The most money spent in Iraq came in 2008, when we have been spending less than $3 billion a week. So by Biden’s calculations, we’ve spent only about $9 billion “on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country.” There isn’t even a “9” in $172 billion.

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of math.

In the same answer, Biden went on to claim that “John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported.”

The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the ’90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: “Last week, Senate Republicans thundered ‘no’ to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994.” Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That’s the treaty Biden says “every Republican has supported.”

Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn’t picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to function as vice president.


Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” and most recently, “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.”


Reader Comments: (

1064

)

Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers. Click to view all

Everyone with an ounce of sense knows Biden is a dumbjerk!!!stupid is not the word for it. keep it coming Ann!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MCCAIN/PALIN ’08!!!!!!!!!

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:20 PM

LIGHTS,, in the Desert Southwest/LRWGA

Just goes to show, libs can lie from dawn to dusk and the obots will love them all the more.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:23 PM

Jerry

tBiden certainly is a dimby. The idea of both of them “in control” of the government is downright scary. About a few days ago, I saw a hilarious article on a conservative web site, the story was called “Two Years” about what it would be like if these two pickle heads stole the election.. Hope it doesn’t happen.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:24 PM

Tim R., Baoton MA.

Palin has more integrity and intelligence than Biden and Obama put together. Too funny. I love how all you zombified libtards slammed McCain for his pick, and look what you’ve got. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

P.S. But, let’s not forget that Biden won the debate. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!

Jay
Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:24 PM

Jay, Olathe, KS

But Ann, EVERYONE in the media says that Biden won “on substance”… HAHAHA! I heard Bob Schieffer say so himself. Even I knew that Biden was full of crap. He was simply making stuff up… like always does and always has. He’s a pathological liar of the highest order.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:29 PM

Gerry

tSenator Biden and young inexperienced boss, are both stupid. The scary thing is it appear Senator McCain is planning to loss this election. Governor Palin may be strong, but she is not running for President.

Instead of the strong Sarah Palin we have the weak Senator McCain. Senator McCain who does not seem to believe it is proper for a Presidential Candidate to be mean to his opponent. Senator McCain who is not willing to tell the TRUTH about what happen with the Economy since it might offend his opponent. Senator McCain just does not seem to have leadership qualities.

We need a strong leader who will fight for the American People, and the American Constitution. We need Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

Oct 08, 2008 @ 06:36 PM

Thomas, Fargo


How about the one that took my breath away—the riff about the primary importance of IDEOLOGY in qualifying a SCOTUS nominee!

Not only is Biden deeply disturbed, he has a badly flawed memory (or is it just the usual leftist mental filter distorting everything that enters his head?).

The saddest part of all is that most Americans are so ignorant that relatively few were even aware of his erroneous statements—certainly not perky but stupid Katie Couric, who undoubtedly reads the NT Times!

It’s Frontier Woman vs. Metrosexual Chic! Hold your breath — who is going to win this clash of the archetypes? This is not just a matter of style — Frontier Woman triggers a host of very real American associations — self-reliance, strong family bonds, courage in the face of danger, moral strength, independent thinking.

On the other side, Metro Chic has its own hold on our Effete Elites. It all comes down to the Western Enlightenment versus Metro Socialism.
Sarah Palin is a mythic figure out of the American imagination. That why she scares the Effetes and Corruptocrats. She’s John Wayne and Annie Oakley all rolled into one. Governor Palin is  America’s Everywoman, who faced and defeated the Corruptocrats in Alaska. Now she is heading up Main Street along with maverick John McCain, the Arizona sheriff, as the comfortable  townsfolk are hiding scared under their beds.
And that big cattle baron on the hill? He’s sneakily trying to undermine and destroy the Girl Deputy. He controls the newspapers and spreads vicious rumors, just his usual way of doing business. That’s the meaning of the Credit “Crisis” and the packed hog sausage Congress just made, supposedly to save us from the Fraud Crisis. We have just seen the cover ripped off an open Washington DC secret — the blatant ongoing exploitation by Democrats of Freddie and Fannie Home Fraud, which you and I will be paying for, for years to come.
Nothing could better symbolize the clash between our values and theirs. There’s Franklin Raines, the 90 million dollar slickster, who told Congress a few years ago that Fannie and Freddie just made free money. Home loans carried no risk! Just open the spigot and it’s beer and hog bellies for everybody.
Would you buy a used buggy whip from these guys? From Barack Obama’s “home mortgage advisor” Jim Johnson? From Barney Frank’s boyfriend at Fannie?
But it’s not just the F & F Fraud; it’s the phony oil crisis, the global warming hyper-scam, the constant purchase of cheap Leftie votes from the poor, unfortunate and easily suckered, the vicious Eternal Establishment at CIA and Treasury, plus the foreign Rogues Gallery in North Korea, Iran and Russia, and lastly our cowardly “allies” in Europe, all topped off with an endless flow of media lies…
You name it, it all comes down to another mythic metaphor —  the stinking Augean Stables of Washington, DC. In Greek myth it took Hercules to divert a river to wash out the Stables. We could use a few fresh Alaska snowstorms to help out here. The Potomac River is way too polluted.
But the Corruptocrats can see Mac the Sheriff and Sarah the Deputy walking up Main Street, and they’ve been taking potshots over and over again. They’ve been at it for a long time, enough to make old Sheriff Bush nearly helpless after eight years of daily abuse.
Is help finally on the way?
You’ll see the bullets flying hot and heavy in the last four weeks before November 4. Get ready to duck and weave, and answer them back if you can get a clear shot.