This Washington Times editorial higlights the problems Barack Obama is having with Jewish voters. It’s bad enough that Sen. Obama has a problem with that voting block. What’s worse for Sen. Obama is that John McCain knows it and is exploiting the situation:

On Friday, Robert Malley, an Obama advisor, resigned from the senator’s campaign as reports surfaced that he had met with the terrorist group Hamas. Last month, Hamas political advisor Ahmad Yousef said on WABC Radio in New York that he hoped Mr. Obama would be elected president. Mr. McCain said Hamas would never want him to be president, “so if Mr. Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

Mr. Obama sternly rejected the Hamas endorsement, but the latest Gallup polls suggest he has a significant and growing problem in keeping Jewish voters in the Democratic fold. The latest Gallup polls show that in a contest with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama would secure 61 percent of the Jewish vote to the Republican’s 32 percent. In 2004 and 2006 elections, by contrast, Jewish voters favored the Democratic Party by a 75 percent to 25 percent margin. This suggests that support for the Democratic Party standard-bearer among Jews could be approaching its lowest levels in decades. The Republicans’ best showing was achieved by Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he won 40 percent of the Jewish vote. (continue reading post »)

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 

I’ll give Juan Williams credit for talking about the Obamessiah’s race-related problems. It’s something that Democrats better come to grips with. Here’s the heart of Juan Williams’ article:

Hillary Clinton, down to her last straw, is making the case that she is the better candidate to run against the Republicans because, unlike Barack Obama, she can win white Democrats.
She is right. But because she is daring to touch the hot button of racial politics, she is being told to shut up or risk being charged with exploiting racial tensions for political advantage.
The facts are stubborn, however. Since his phenomenal win with 33% of the white vote in nearly all-white Iowa, Obama has been unable to get a firm grip on white Democrats. He has won a majority of these voters in only six states, the biggest of which is his home state of Illinois. Clinton has defeated Obama among white voters in key states such as California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Exit polls show Clinton winning an overwhelming average of 57% of white Democrats since the February Super Tuesday elections.
If you think none of this is a real issue for Democrats as they try to win the White House, then listen to Republican guru Karl Rove. Citing Obama’s inability to get more than 30% of Catholics or working-class white voters in a big state such as Pennsylvania, Rove recently wrote: “Defections like this elect Republicans.”
And now we are heading into a general election with an even larger group of white voters in play, key independents and suburbanites in “toss-up” districts that swing between Republicans and Democrats.

It would be wrong to think that this problem is all because of Jeremiah Wright. I think Obama’s problem stems as much from his SF fundraising speech as it stems from Jerremiah Wright. The combination of the Wright videos and the fundraising speech are a toxic mix that’ve sucked the air out of Obama’s campaign, especially with white voters. (continue reading post »)

Last week, El Tinklenberg was endorsed by the Blue Dog Democrats, a group often thought to be comprised of moderate Democrats in the House. Mr. Tinklenberg is running against my representative, Michele Bachmann. I’ve often thought that this group was similar to the DLC in that they’re still liberal, just not as crazy as loons like Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich.

According to the Club For Growth’s Congressional Scorecard, that’s sometimes the case but it isn’t always the case. First let’s look at what’s posted on Tinklenberg’s blog about the Blue Dogs’ endorsement:

The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.

With a description like that, you’d think that they represented the pro growth ‘wing’ of the party. Let’s compare that with CFG’s ratings.

Nick Lampson, TX-22, is the highest rated Blue Dog. He’s rated 194th with a 29% rating. FYI- TX-22 is Tom DeLay’s old district. Jim Cooper, Jim Matheson and Gene Taylor follow closely behind with 28%, 28% and 27% respectively. (continue reading post »)

Dr. Susan Rice, one of Sen. Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, got caught telling a whopper today. LGF gets credit for catching this whopper:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Sen. Obama will want to distance himself from Dr. Rice’s comments. In most instances, Obama could say that Dr. Rice didn’t speak for him on this issue. This time, he can’t because Dr. Rice isn’t just another dime-a-dozen adviser. Dr. Rice served as Sen. Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during the 2004 campaign.

This transcript utterly refutes Dr. Rice’s statements:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

CLINTON: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous. (continue reading post »)

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 

Two years ago, Sen. Debbie Stabenow was re-elected to a second term. Unfortunately, she still hasn’t learned Economics 101. Proof that she’s clueless about economic principles is what she said while delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address. Here’s one example of Sen. Stabenow’s economic illiteracy:

“Republicans want more drilling, more consumption and more tax giveaways for the big oil companies,” she said. “Democrats say that those are exactly the policies that got us into this mess to begin with.”

Supplies of oil are stretched thin. Each summer, we struggle refining oil because we haven’t built a new refinery in 30 years. Meanwhile, Democrats filibuster drilling in ANWR, off the Atlantic Coast, the Gulf Coast and in the Pacific.

In other words, Democrats are perplexed with high gas prices. They’d have a different approach if they accepted the fact that prices spike when demand outstrips supply. They wouldn’t be perplexed if they embraced capitalism instead of socialism.

Here’s more proof that Sen. Stabenow and her cohorts don’t have a plan on bringing down the price of oil:

She promoted the Democratic proposals for changing energy policy. Those call for:

• Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies.
• Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy.
• Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.
• Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full.
• Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high.

In other words, Democrats think that they can drop the price of gas to consumers while they’re increasing oil companies’ cost through higher taxes. The only way prices drop while costs are increasing is with price controls.

Based on the Democrats’ talking points, they want forced socialism in the form of demanding oil companies to do what the government wants them to do. This is typical liberal top-downism.

Another way Democrats want to make the cost of energy more affordable is by stopping the evil oil companies’ price gouging. It’s a nice, time-tested line but it’s more about sounding like you’re fighting for the little guy than about actually doing something.

More important in understanding this is hearing what Democrats aren’t saying. They aren’t saying that they’ll increase refining capacity. They aren’t saying that they’ll follow France’s lead in building more nuclear power plants. They aren’t saying that they’re increasing refinery capacity. In other words, they’re avoiding saying that they aren’t doing anything to cut the cost of driving a car or heating a home.

That isn’t a plan. That’s chutzpah.

Technorati Tags: Gas Prices, Energy Policy, Refineries, Nuclear Power, Tax Increases, Debbie Stabenow, Big Oil, Democrats

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This post shows how Team McCain is painting a rather unflattering portrait of Sen. Obama. Personally, I think McCain’s been effective in that mission. Here’s how Sen. McCain has gone about defining the Obamessiah:

Defining one’s opponent is a key task of any campaign, and simply put, McCain has had a long head start. As early as Feb. 12, the day McCain and Obama each won primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., McCain suggested Obama was guilty of hollow promises and a messianic self-image.

“To encourage a country with only rhetoric, rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people, is not a promise of hope,” McCain said, alluding to Obama’s speaking skills and campaign theme. And in another jab he added, “I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need.”

I’m betting that the judgment theme will be particularly effective, especially if Sen. McCain highlights the illogic of Obama’s willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad while criticizing Hamas, which is funded in part by Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

Let me suggest that a single meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad will boost the terrorists’ morale more than the war in Iraq ever did.

This question remains: What’s the logic behind such a policy? Would a President Obama want to meet with terrorists just for the sake of meeting with them? If that’s his belief, would Obama’s foreign policy reflect that naive attitude? Would Obama’s foreign policy be a rehash of Jimmy Carter’s disastrous foreign policy of pacifism? (continue reading post »)

Fred Barnes’ article says that Republicans are justified in feeling gloomy about this election. That pessimism, I believe, is Beltway-centric. First, let’s see what Mr. Barnes has to say:

“It’s the erosion in party affiliation that’s pulling McCain down,” says a Republican strategist, and it could doom his chances of winning the presidency. The strategist fears Republican leaders and McCain campaign officials “don’t realize the trouble they’re going to be in.”

I’ve said this before and I’ll repeat it as often as I think it needs repeating: I’d fire every GOP strategist with a defeatist attitude. I’d also advocate cleaning house at the RNC headquarters until they stopped undercutting reform-minded conservatives. Real conservatives haven’t been recruited in recent years. We’ve been told that real conservatives can’t get elected in certain swing districts.

That’s BS.

Reaganite conservatism is more than taking stands on a handful of issues. It’s really a philosophy, a philosophy that applies common sense to problems. It’s a philosophy that mandates doing everything possible to help people be more free and more prosperous. It’s not that complicated. This is too important a principle to not repeat it:

Conservatives’ first priority must be about using common sense in putting together policies that make the most amount of people free and prosperous. (continue reading post »)

According to this NY Times article, John McCain intends on painting Barack Obama as being soft on Hamas.

For his part, Mr. McCain has taken pride in the enmity with which he regards Hamas. “I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare,” he said late last month in a conference call with conservative bloggers.

Conversely, he has tried to portray Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas.

“I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States,” Mr. McCain said to the bloggers. “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

It isn’t surprising that the NY Times is ‘reporting’ that Sen. McCain has implied Sen. Obama is “sympathetic to Hamas.” Sen. McCain is simply suggesting that Sen. Obama’s policies towards Hamas won’t be as effective as Sen. McCain’s will be.

Obama, meanwhile, will point out that he’s spoken out against Hamas in harsh terms. The problem for Sen. Obama is that he’s been less than harsh in dealing with Iran, which is training Hamas terrorists:

TEL AVIV, March 5 — The chief of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, said Monday that the Islamic movement Hamas had sent dozens of men from Gaza to Iran for military training. (continue reading post »)

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 

According to this transcript of this morning’s Glenn Beck Show, a Harvard vice president is speaking out against taxing the rich. Who would’ve thought you’d ever see that? The good news is that Glenn attempts to point out ‘the error’ in the VP’s thinking. Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript:

Well, now in Massachusetts they are looking to tax college endowments, university endowments that have more than a billion dollars in it. They say that by doing this, they can put more than a billion dollars a year into the state revenue. Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over a billion dollars. Now, the universities are very upset and here’s quite possibly, I want to frame this. I want to frame this. I want this on my wall of my office. When a nonprofit, when a nonprofit is making money, it’s mind-boggling. Why tax them?

Now, one guy who is head of the ways and means committee in Massachusetts says it’s mind-boggling that an entity wouldn’t be paying taxes that has $34 billion. How can you justify that when people can’t afford to live, how could you justify not taxing them? Ready? Here it is. This is what I want framed. Kevin Casey, Harvard’s associate vice president for government, community and public affairs said, “You can’t do that. You’d be taxing success.” No, it gets better. “And over time this would put us at a competitive disadvantage. It would hurt the state.” No, you’re kidding me. It’s like you’re taxing success by taxing people who are making money and who happen to be richer than others? You’re taxing success? Boy, Kevin, I never looked at it that way. You might be onto something there. “Over time this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage.” No, it would put Harvard at a disadvantage against those who didn’t get taxed? No. Who might pay a lower tax? It might put that company at a disadvantage? No, no, Kevin, you’re looking at it wrong. We’re just trying to help out Greater New Haven State Technical College. That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re only trying, it’s affirmative action for Greater New Haven State Technical College. We’re trying to help them. We’re trying to level the playing field. It’s only out of fairness, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It might put them at a — no.

You can’t write stuff this bizarre. A Harvard vice president looking out for the…rich? That’s just too rich. I loved the line about “Kevin” not seeing this tax scheme as “affirmative action for Greater New Haven State Technical College.” When I read that line to King, he couldn’t stop laughing. The truth be told, I was laughing just as much.

There’s a couple of bigger points worth making in this, though. First, I don’t think it’s wise to tax endowment funds. Secondly, I think it’s worth keeping that quote handy when we want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Mr. Casey obviously thinks that it isn’t right to tax success when it involves his university. Conservatives should ask Mr. Casey if he thinks it’s unfair to tax success when it comes time for the university and fair to tax success if it’s an oil company.

Above all else, I’ll remember this moment because it isn’t likely to happen again in my lifetime.

Technorati Tags: Harvard, Endowments, Tax The Rich, Massachusetts, Affirmative Action

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Sen. Obama’s campaign slogan has been “Change You Can Believe In” seemingly forever. I’ve been thinking that that slogan needed changing since he was exposed as an old-fashioned politician. I’ve finally figured out what a new, ‘truth-in-advertising’ slogan would say. Thanks to Jack Kelly’s column, and Captain Ed’s post, I think the new slogan should be “Inexperience We Can’t Afford.” Here’s what I’m referring to:

In defending his stated intent to meet with America’s enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

I spoke about Obama’s victory speech here, at which time I ridiculed Sen. Obama’s statements. Sen. Obama sounds just like other Democrats when he says that we need to bring the troops home from Iraq and that we need a surge of diplomacy.

It’s time for Sen. Obama to understand the worthiness of what I call the Reagan Principle. You’ll recall that President Reagan didn’t get into negotiations on arms control treaties until he’d scared the daylights out of the Soviets. He didn’t believe in having summits just for the sake of having summits. His strategy proved right when the Soviet Union collapsed after briefly toying with what’s best described as limited freedom, aka glasnost.

Let’s remember the lesson UBL took from our leaving Somalia too early. Here’s what bin Laden told ABC’s John Miller:

“Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows,” the terror chief recalled. “America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

Sen. Obama’s foreign policy is driven by a pacifistic mindset. It isn’t informed by learning history’s lessons.

That’s the type of inexperience we can’t afford in wartime.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Foreign Policy, Pacifism, Ronald Reagan, Glasnost, JFK, FDR, Harry Truman

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog