Shoulda said rouge on a corpse

I absolutely don't believe Obama was jabbing at Sarah Palin with his "lipstick on a pig" remark yesterday, and I hope she and McCain laugh it off or shrug it off. Repay him with grace for his gracious refusal last week to drag Bristol into the campaign. Send him a gift box of lipsticks from Avon and move on. I'll bet that around the Illinois Senate where Obama served, as around the Colorado Senate where I served, two of the cliches to describe a futile spin effort were that you can try to put lipstick on a pig or rouge on a corpse, but you'll fool no one. Young Obie probably absorbed both in his vocabulary when Sarah was unknown beyond Wasilla. Don't you know he wishes now that his preferred cosmetic for mocking his opponents' claim of change had been rouge.

If the remark wasn't a slur, though, it was still a gaffe, a big and easily avoidable one. Which gives more evidence that Obama is badly off his game right now, rattled by the Palin phenomenon and the dramatic momentum shift since his Invesco acceptance speech. (How long ago that already seems!)

Any candidate thinking clearly on his feet, as you simply have to do at every moment in the big leagues, would have done a silent self-edit when "lipstick" and "pig" presented themselves in the same sentence and instantly substituted -- rather than added, as he did, too late -- the smelly fish reference or something else with no double entendre. Barack did this to himself because he's obviously not thinking clearly at this season of unexpected adversity.

You can hardly blame the poor guy. It's tough out there all of a sudden. Exhibit A would be the New York Times front-page story last Sunday: "Rival Tickets are Redrawing Battlegrounds. Palin Helps GOP Put More States in Play." It said in part:

Fresh from the Republican convention, Senator John McCain’s campaign sees evidence that his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is energizing conservatives in the battleground of Ohio while improving its chances in Pennsylvania and several Western states that Senator Barack Obama has been counting on, [including] Nevada, New Mexico [and] Colorado.

Exhibit B, corroborating this, is the 13,000 who turned out for McPalin in Colorado Springs on Saturday. With any other running mate, Mac would have drawn about 1300.

Exhibits C and D, a couple of columns that have made waves this week on talk radio and the conservative blogs. Pundits can say anything, of course, and two swallows don't make a summer, but what's striking is the confident prediction of not just defeat but decisive defeat for Obama, partly as a result of the VP matchup.

Heather Higgins, board chair of the Independent Women's Forum, wrote on Townhall.com:

Here’s an unconventional prediction: in this race, unlike those before, the Vice President will actually matter, particularly in what they capture relative to that anti-Washington sentiment. Barring major mishap, here’s a second unconventional prediction: this isn’t going to be a close election, but will look far less like 2000 or 2004 than it does like McGovern in ’72.

And Spengler (pseudonym of an Asia Times columnist whose identity not even Google seems to know) wrote in his latest piece, which Rush Limbaugh trumpeted to the world on Tuesday:

Obama will spend the rest of his life wondering why he rejected the obvious road to victory, that is, choosing Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. However reluctantly, Clinton would have had to accept. McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza yesterday: rejecting Clinton in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain's selection was a statement of strength. America's voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.

That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event. Obama is the most talented and persuasive politician of his generation, the intellectual superior of all his competitors, but a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it. Obama's prospective defeat is entirely of its own making. No one is more surprised than Republican strategists, who were convinced just weeks ago that a weakening economy ensured a Democratic victory.

To repeat, and use another cliche, these are but straws in the wind. But it was interesting to hear Hugh Hewitt, no incautious cheerleader, also speculating yesterday that we may be seeing everything start to crumble for Barack Obama and the supposed Democratic sure thing.

One reason, then, for Obie not to have made the safer remark in his Ohio speech that "You can't put rouge on a corpse" is that he may be starting to get morbid feelings about his own chances in November. Final cliche: Never mention rope in house of a hanged man.

Barack channels Marx

It's no accident that Obama dwells on the purported economic malaise as his main selling point. His solution is the Marxist one: redistribution. This is why he constantly refers to “taxing the rich” as the solution, a solution that all good Marxists long to impose on our nation. But would it really be a solution? Consider the underlying assumptions. The first assumption is that the economic pie is fixed and can be taken for granted. When Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital in the 1840’s, the industrial revolution was young and its underlying economic theories were largely unformed. Marx drew upon the agricultural themes laid down by Malthus. Wealth was indestructible land, and the income crops grew regardless of who owned the land. Therefore, why would not industrial wealth be the same: fixed and indestructible? And if “justice” in agriculture is to redistribute the land, why would not workers “owning the means of production” not be the same expression of justice?

The next assumption is the desirability of a “steady state” economy. The green movement which opposes population growth and economic activities of most kinds are the natural allies of the Marxists. Both groups strive for the mythical static economy that neither shrinks or grows, that is predictable and controllable, that is “in harmony with nature”.

But these assumptions are false and dangerous. It is no accident that most of the ardent Marxists are liberal arts majors, gleefully devoid of real economic knowledge! The typical Marxist is a professor somewhere who continually spouts off about “the workers” without owning a pair of coveralls and without calluses on his hands. With tenure, feeding at the public trough in some state university, the professor doesn’t know what he doesn’t know!

For one thing, to define justice as equality is a mistake. Not all members of society have equal gifts. If the entrepreneurial spirit and success are punished, all of society is poorer! Once the seizure of power and the redistribution is over, the economy will contract, bringing with it poverty for all. “ Equal outcomes” means all of society equally poor at the subsistence level.

The next thing the Marxists don’t get is that wealth is NOT a static fixed pie! Economies grow or die. To stick to the agricultural metaphor, entrepreneurs can, in effect, "create farmland." The wealth pie expands or contracts depending on the policies and incentives put in place. For Obama to dwell on the “haves” and the “have nots” is a fraud. With 70% of the millionaires in this country SELF MADE, the real issue is between the “doers” and the “do nots." But every member of society CAN be treated with equal dignity!

This is the fraud perpetrated on blacks in this country by the likes of Jesse Jackson. Rather than tell his flock to stay in school, to work hard and to work to improve their lives, he tells his people they are victims. The problem is “white people conspiring to keep you down." Dropping out of school, getting pregnant at 13, being content to stay generation after generation on welfare has “nothing to do with their poverty!” His solution is to march on the capital and demand that society just “give” them money, (such as the “reparations for slavery”, classic victimology!) But the promise of America is not equality of condition but equal opportunity. Until these leaders change this emphasis, blacks will remain on the bottom of the economic ladder.

The last thing the Marxists don’t understand is the American ideal, which is if you work hard, there’s no limit to what you can achieve. The “rags to riches” stories are what attract people to this great land of ours! Americans want to get ahead. Americans want to do well, they want to grow their potential, not be stuck in a static planned economy with a Marxist Party elite telling them how to live their lives.

The two nominees: What we know

Now that the conventions are over, a 60 day sprint to the general election for president remains. The conventions were alternately interesting, boring, predictable and downright electrifying -- embodying all that is compelling about American politics. It was great theater. But now it's time for substance, because this is really the most important job interview in the world. The seriousness of this endeavor should be obvious to anyone paying attention since 9/11/2001, and has been compounded further by $4 gasoline, a banking and mortgage mess and a general slowdown in the economy.

The choice we make in November -- particularly in light of a certain Democrat majority in both houses of Congress -- will be extremely critical to the future of the country. While every four years we hear "this is the most important election in memory" -- this really is.

So it is time to get serious. And in that vein, I'd like you to consider the following:

This election will be about more than character and experience -- but it is important to keep in mind that in a president, character counts more than almost anything else. Though Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Denver was full of "I will save the country" promises, the reality is that in our system of shared powers, the president can't work miracles. He's part of a complex dance with the House, Senate and Judiciary. Where the president's decisions alone matter most is in his role as Commander in Chief. Most everything else requires at least some advice, consent or legislation from the Congress.

A good example of the importance of presidential character and judgment is Harry Truman: when he became president in 1945 the only real tools he brought to the job were his good instincts, his basic values and a strong sense of right and wrong. He also brought to bear a strong ethic of public service, which enabled him to avoid the temptations of personal enrichment that ensnare so many in government. The president must have a solid sense of ethics and a well-defined moral code to be successful. It is far more important than any policy prescription -- especially in times of crisis.

On this score the choice is clear. As we saw last night in his speech to the RNC, and as we know from his well-documented bio, John McCain's life has been about public service. He's the personification of courage in so many ways -- a man who has give so much to his country, and understands that the first and last job of holding public office is serving the people -- not himself. Moreover, in a lifetime of being in the public eye, his values, character and judgment are well documented and proven. He's been right more often than he's been wrong, and he has the internal compass and fortitude to stand up to criticism from within his own party -- which he has often been subject to. He's not right on all the issues, but we know who he is and what he stands for.

And what of Barack Obama? He's obviously smart and well spoken. But we really don't know anything about him. Where are his good friends who will vouch for him? His classmates at Harvard who know his background and character? The Obama campaign has been designed to hide the real Obama, by being a carefully controlled, crafted and scripted program that has shielded him from questions about his past.

In the one setting where he took direct questions -- at the Saddleback Church debate with Rick Warren -- his answers were unclear, vague and indecisive. One gets the very real sense that we don't know what he thinks because he doesn't know what he thinks. We don't know why he wants to be president -- except that he wants to "change" America. We don't know how, or why, or what change that is, however. He thinks (and his wife obviously also believes) that America is somehow "broken". But how will he "fix" it?

What we do know about Barack Obama is that on the few issues where he has taken a stand, his judgment has been poor. Here's a sampling:

** We don't know much about Obama's background, but we do know that he and his family attended a a racist and anti-American church for 20 years. We know that the pastor, Jeremiah Wright, married Obama and his wife Michelle and baptized his two children. We know that Obama stood behind Wright until the pastor's comments made it politically untenable, and then (and only then) did he move to distance himself.

** We know that Michelle Obama wrote a thesis at Princeton that promoted black seperatism as a worthy goal and who said 'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost."

** We know that Obama has had a relationship for the past decade with William Ayres, a noted 1960s radical and unrepentant member of the Weather Underground terrorist group. We know that Obama has been to Ayres home and that they sat on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge together (read more about it here: Obama Needs to Explain his Ties to William Ayers ). As Michael Barone reports:

Ayers was one of the original grantees of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform organization in the 1990s, and was cochairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one the two operational arms of the CAC. Obama, then not yet a state senator, became chairman of the CAC in 1995.

Later in that year, the first organizing meeting for Obama's state Senate campaign was held in Ayers's apartment. Ayers later wrote a memoir, and an article about him appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001. "I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers is quoted as saying. "I feel we didn't do enough."Ayers was a terrorist in the late 1960s and 1970s whose radical group set bombs at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

** We know also that Obama has a relationship with convicted felon Tony Rezko, who was involved in a shady deal to help Obama purchase his home in Hyde Park, Chicago.

** We know that on the issue of welfare reform, Obama took a position in the Illinois State Senate that he was against it -- fearing (as most liberals did) that it would force people off the rolls and onto the streets. Bill Clinton, to his great credit, pushed the Democrats to support it 1996 and it has been an unprecedented success. Obama admits now that he made a mistake in opposing it -- but it shows that he fundamentally misunderstands human nature: when people have the right incentives, they are capable of providing for themselves. But Obama's judgment is mired in the victimization mantra of the left.

** We know that Obama has been wrong on Iraq. He will claim his judgment about the war itself in 2003 was right, and that he opposed the war from the beginning. But Obama didn't have a vote on it, and it was relatively risk free for him to take that position. And, in any event, his claim that he was right on the war because he opposed it -- because it has been a "failure" -- is not at all a given. We don't know what the long-term results of the fall of Saddam Hussein will be, but if the current events are a sign of things to come, history may very well judge the war in Iraq as a success.

** With certainty, however, we know that he opposed the surge and wanted to remove U.S. troops staring in January 2007. That would have resulted in chaos and the destruction of the nascent Iraqi state, and provide a vital victory for Al Qaeda and the insurgency. It would have been a disaster for American interests, providing Iran with access to one of the largest supplies of oil on earth. Obama can't even admit that he was wrong on the surge -- and has said repeatedly that he would oppose it all over again, even knowing what he knows now.

** We know that Obama's domestic policies on virtually everything -- from taxes to healthcare -- put him on the wrong side of history. We know from our own experiences and the record now in Europe that high taxes on corporations and investments impede economic growth. Obama's plans to raise corporate, dividend and estate taxes are precisely opposite of what the growing economies of the world are doing. His polices on healthcare expand the role of government and place draconian requirements on small and medium sized businesses -- the very engine of growth in our economy. His energy policy is one that is based on extensive government investment in alternative energy technology -- but largely at the expense of current oil supplies that are needed to drive prices down.

** In fact, Obama is on record as believing that higher gas prices are acceptable as a way of forcing conservation. He doesn't seem to care if we pay more at the pump if it facilitates his goals of saving the planet from global warming. In an interview with NBC News in June, Obama said this:

When asked by Harwood if higher gas prices were an incentive to shift to alternative means of energy, Obama said the U.S. has "been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage." When Harwood followed up and asked if the higher prices then could actually help, Obama responded this way: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.

The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."

The goal of lower emissions and reducing greenhouse gasses is a good one -- but doing it in a way that punishes those who can least afford it is not the way to go.

**************** If you want change, voting for Obama/Biden is not the way to go. If you want to shake up Washington, sending Obama and Joe Biden and his 36 years in the U.S. Senate -- to conspire with a Democrat Congress is not the way to go. Obama and Biden will only expand government in line with special interests -- teacher's unions, environmentalists, trial lawyers and all the usual suspects.

John McCain, however, has a record of opposing special interests -- of both parties. He will be a thorn in the side of Pelosi and Reid and serve as a needed check and balance to one-party rule. He will compromise when needed to advance the public good, but he will be a strong advocate of responsible government that will be sorely needed with the Democrat's in control of Congress.

We have a simple choice to make the election: between a man with a solid, known track-record of courage and compromise, and a man with almost no record to speak of. It's a choice between someone who has the right motivations for seeking the presidency, and a man who's background leaves many questions unanswered.

This is no time to take a flier on Barak Obama.

Drill down to candidates' principles

(Denver Post, Sept. 7) Quick, who was Henry Cabbage Cod? Oops, I mean Henry Cabot Lodge. Who were Bill Miller and Sarge Shriver? Ed Muskie and Lloyd Bentsen? All were losing vice-presidential candidates of the past half-century, the first two Republicans, the others Democrats. Go to the head of the class if you knew that. Most people wouldn’t know or care. Outside the Beltway, there’s general agreement that the vice-presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm, uh, spit, as Jack Garner, VP under FDR, memorably put it. This year we have Sarah Palin the terrific versus Joe Biden the soporific. Their debate will be a doozy. But after November, one will become a historical footnote and the other will become auxiliary equipment, unlikely to either replace the 44th President or impact his administration much. That’s the American way. The 2008 election, like all of them since 1788, is about the men who would be President and the principles by which they would govern, period. While Palin-watching, Ayers-bashing, and other sideshows will continue to enliven the campaign, voters mustn’t be distracted from the big policy issues if we are to decide wisely. Two of the biggest are energy and health care.

Both are vital. To make them more affordable, should government get more involved, or work on getting out of the way? I’d say the latter, as a believer in individual liberty and free markets, based on our country’s unequaled success with voluntary approaches to abundance and innovation. McCain, though imperfect, is closer to this standard than Obama. That’s my reason, more than party or personality, for favoring him.

To illustrate why getting out of the way is better and what it would look like, I call to the witness stand Joseph L. Bast of the Heartland Institute. The nonpartisan Bast – I doubt he’s ever voted Republican OR Democrat – wrote a series of issue guides called “Ten Principles.” As the rhetoric gets thick this fall, these booklets can help cut the fog.

Here are Joe Bast’s ten principles for energy policy: First, he warns, energy independence is an illusion; we’ll always have to import. Gasoline prices are market-driven. Global warming is not a crisis. Air pollution is not a major public health problem. Mercury from coal-fired power plants isn’t either.

That’s five, and by now you’re either liking these or steamed up. But be aware his argument for each (online at Heartland.org) is meticulously documented. The other energy principles are these: Biofuels should not be subsidized. CAFÉ mileage standards for vehicles sacrifice lives for oil. Electric deregulation is still necessary. Liquefied natural gas is part of the solution. Nuclear energy is too.

Emotion and hope favor the windmillers, data and reality favor the drillers. McCain-Palin want to drill, as does Bob Schaffer in his Senate race with Mark Udall. May their tribe increase. Republicans in Colorado and nationally also want to avoid Canada-style socialized medicine, and here too the liberty-minded Bast gives good reasons why.

His ten principles for health policy build on the cornerstone that health care isn’t a right but a service – and as such, best delivered by the market. To minimize government interference, we should repeal many existing regulations, reduce reliance on third-party payers, and help only those who need help. Single payer is not the answer.

Rounding out the Rx list on health care, Dr. Bast urges: Encourage entrepreneurship. Expand health savings accounts. Expand access to prescription drugs. Reduce malpractice litigation expenses. And finally, encourage long-term care insurance.

While you may prefer a different yardstick for health policy or energy, the ones from Heartland Institute work for me. Comparing platforms on these and many other issues, the GOP decisively trumps the Dems. Obama’s big-government future repels me. I’ll take McCain, warts and all.

Palin pick a masterstroke

The choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain was a political masterstroke. Here are five reasons why. 1) Obama, with his "change" mantra, had positioned himself prior to the Convention as a "post-partisan" outsider who is going to change Washington. That's his schtick. It is the only real raison d'etre for his candidacy, because he lacks a signature issue or a track record of experience on major policy questions. It's the whole "we are the change we've been waiting for" thing. And it has worked pretty well for him so far -- or at least until this past week. 2). Obama's choice of Joe Biden and his extremely partisan acceptance speech showed clearly that the "emperor of change" isn't wearing any clothes: he's actually become a standard liberal Democrat running what will be now a highly partisan campaign. It will now be mud-slinging, personal and very populist. Michelle Obama's role at the Convention was to cast the Obama family as a "up-from-the-bootstraps" success story -- a middle class family. It goes perfectly with Biden's story, and it is prep for a John Edwards-style "two Americas" campaign based on liberal, populist rhetoric. Obama was the #1 most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate and Biden was #3. Not much "post-partisan" in that.

3). McCain is the real change agent in this campaign -- and always has been. He's been consistently against the Washington establishment, and has confounded the Republican party and the Bush administration in many areas. A McCain presidency would most certainly NOT be an extension of the Bush years.

4). Palin is the perfect complement to the McCain maverick narrative. She's been a reformer in Alaska and has a record of accomplishment that has included going against the entrenched interests of other Republican power-brokers. She told the Federal government that they could keep the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and has been an anti-earmark hawk. She is a real change agent. She hasn't just talked about it like Obama -- she's done it.

5). Palin will appeal immediately to many women who supported Hillary Clinton -- and the more that Obama and Biden try to bully her as not being "up to the job" the more they will run the risk of alienating women. The Obama campaign will have to tread lightly, though I don't think they will be able to -- for their arrogance and anger is just too great.

I expect that Palin will be in for a rough ride -- but if she can establish herself in the eyes of America as a credible leader, she will provide a great contrast to the pompous Biden. It was a great choice -- worthy of the gambler that is John McCain.

* * * * * *

It will be interesting to watch the feminists get tied in knots over the Palin selection. It seems on its face pretty simple: Two parties, three men, one woman. The Republicans have the woman -- so you would think that the feminists would support Palin as a matter of principle: only the second opportunity in history for a woman to become Vice President.

Don't hold your breath on that: the feminists have proven before that liberal orthodoxy is more important than gender. So the fact that Palin is pro-life will automatically disqualify her as being the "right" kind of woman for the feminists, who only support those who hew to a strict ideological agenda. It is much like George Bush not getting any credit for having a black woman as Secretary of State; because Condi Rice is on the wrong side of their issues, she simply doesn't count. The same will happen with Palin -- and it further proves that the Democrats have a very small tent, indeed.

* * * * * *

Did you hear that Barack Obama's first reaction to the Palin nomination was to question her experience? Isn't that rich? Does Obama really want to have that discussion? The Democrats' new narrative is that the Palin selection takes the issue of experience "off the table". Oh, really? Let's see: Palin was mayor of a small town in Alaska and then governor of the state for 2 years -- a chief executive role where she was responsible for working with the legislature on economic, budget and energy issues. She reigned in pork spending, challenged "big oil" and took on a culture of corruption. Her record in Alaska is full of accomplishment for such a short period -- she definitely has much to show for her time in office. She's also got a great personal story.

And what about our Obama? Well, let's see...eight years in the Illinois State legislature and then four years in the U.S. Senate -- a legislative role where you don't command anything larger than your senate staff. In those four years he has sponsored no legislation, and though he Chairs the Foreign Affairs sub-commitee on Europe (which oversees NATO and thus Afghanistan), he never held a hearing. Not one. Obama started running for president after just 18 months in the Senate, of course, so he really has been a Senator for a scant two years or so. His tenure in the Illinois State Senate was marked by a huge number of "present" votes on major issues -- 130 times according to the NY Times. Voting "present" means abstaining -- essentially taking no stand. According to the Times, many of these were on sensitive or critical issues. That's what Obama calls leadership?

In any event, the race is really between Obama and McCain -- not Obama and Palin. And that race isn't even close on the question of experience.