Obama's Victory--A British View

Thanks to my friend Andrew for bringing this to my attention:

An editorial from the London Daily Mail 1/6/09

Obama's Victory--A British View

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad, racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the U.S. mainstream media, who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, the Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, the comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups.

A victory for Obama worshipers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life, but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer, in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros, Moore, and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will, and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom . He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshipers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer t eachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

A victory for social democracy, even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America !


Obama Gave Biden Choice: VP or Secretary of State

Jill Biden let it slip on the Oprah Winfrey show that President Barack Obama gave Joe Biden a choice between being Vice President or Secretary of State. This would indicate that Obama wasn't particularly enthusiastic about having Biden or Senator Clinton filling either of their respective roles in his administration.

The 30 second version for the impatient...

...and the full version for those with a bit more patience. The relevant part begins around the 0:45 mark.

But here's the best part. Though Biden didn't deny his wife's comments on the air, a spokeperson released a statement denying Jill Biden's remarks just three hours later. Change we can believe in?


Franken, Sit Down and Shut Up

Apparently Democrat politicians with the first name Al have no concept of when to give up. We all remember the 2000 Presidential election between former Vice President Al Gore and then-Governor George W. Bush and the month-and-a-half-long recount that followed it. Gore simply would not concede defeat, recount after recount, to the point where the only way to salvage his reputation was to become a spokesman for global warming and gain public approval through rock star status. Well, former SNL comedian and liberal radio talk show host Al Franken has thrown his hat into the political ring by running for US Senate in Minnesota. The problem is he lost. True, it was a very small margin - literally a couple hundred votes - but he lost. But SHHH! Don't tell him!

It is required by law that when an election is that close, there must be a recount to verify the results. The recount has only recently begun, as it took weeks for the first count to be finalized. As the first count wound down, the gap suspiciously began to close up in Franken's favor. This sounds normal when taken at face value, but it is interesting when you consider that no new votes for Republican incumbent Norm Coleman were found towards the end of the initial count. In other words, as the counting process reached its end, all the votes were for Franken and none were for Coleman. That's extremely suspicious. One would think that there would be votes in both directions, but no, they were only for Franken. There are many Democrats in the state government who have expressed their desire to see Franken win, and it is believed by some that they are "helping" him now.

When a vote is too ambiguous to interpret, a candidate can request that it be reconsidered. Here is one vote that Franken has deemed to ambiguous to be counted:
Yeah. Real ambiguous. No foul play there! The claim is that there appears to be an X through the vote. Does Franken really think the people who would vote for him are stupid enough to accidentally vote for his opponent, cross it out, and then drop it in the ballot box? Does he give his voters that little credit? I'm not arguing with him, if he is saying that. If anyone really thought voting for a bigot like Al Franken was a good idea, I would question their soundness of mind too.

The point here is that Franken is clearly intent on stealing this election. That ballot was undoubtedly a counscious vote for Norm Coleman. No one can deny that. Even calling it into question is ridiculous and dishonest. Franken needs to face the facts. He came close, but he didn't make it. Let the recount continue as per the law, and then GO AWAY.


A Time for Choosing

Ronald Reagan addresses the 1964 Republican National Convention on behalf of that convention's nominee Barry Goldwater. In this excerpt, he describes the political situation of the time, both at home and abroad. It is eerily similar to the present-day. For the full speech, scroll  down to the bottom of this post and play the second video.

Full Speech:


Biggest Post-Election Stock Plummet In History

For those not yet convinced that President-Elect Obama's economic policies are bad for the country, consider this. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 486 points, or 5% today in the biggest post-election stock market slip in history. Observe:

(Repeats to widen distribution)
 NEW YORK, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Wall Street hardly delivered a
rousing welcome to President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday,
dropping by the largest margin on record for a day following a U.S.
presidential contest.
 The slide more than wiped out the previous day's advance, the
largest Election Day rally ever for U.S. stocks.
 The following table shows the percentage rise or decline in the
Dow Jones industrial average .DJI, Standard & Poor's 500 index
.SPX and Nasdaq composite index .IXIC on the day after a U.S
presidential election and who won the Election Day vote.
Year   Dow    S&P    Nasdaq  President elect
2008  -5.05  -5.27   -5.53   Barack Obama
2004  +1.01  +1.12   +0.98   George W. Bush
2000  -0.41  -1.58   -5.39   No decision: G.W. Bush v Al Gore*
1996  +1.59  +1.46   +1.34   William Clinton
1992  -0.91  -0.67   +0.16   William Clinton
1988  -0.43  -0.66   -0.29   George H. W. Bush
1984  -0.88  -0.73   -0.32   Ronald Reagan
1980  +1.70  +1.77   +1.49   Ronald Reagan
1976  -0.99  -1.14   -1.12   James Carter
1972  -0.11  -0.55   -0.39   Richard Nixon
1968  +0.34  +0.16    ---    Richard Nixon
1964  -0.19  -0.05    ---    Lyndon Johnson
1960  +0.77  +0.44    ---    John Kennedy
1956  -0.85  -1.03    ---    Dwight Eisenhower
1952  +0.40  +0.28    ---    Dwight Eisenhower
1948  -3.85  -4.15    ---    Harry Truman
1944  -0.27   0.00    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1940  -2.39  -3.14    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1936  +2.26  +1.40    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1932  -4.51  -2.67    ---    Franklin Roosevelt
1928  +1.20  +1.77    ---    Herbert Hoover
1924  +1.17   ---     ---    Calvin Coolidge
1920  -0.57   ---     ---    Warren Harding
1916  -0.35   ---     ---    Woodrow Wilson
1912  +1.83   ---     ---    Woodrow Wilson
1908  +2.38   ---     ---    William Taft
1904  +1.30   ---     ---    Theodore Roosevelt
1900  +3.33   ---     ---    William McKinley
1896  +4.54   ---     ---    William McKinley
* George W. Bush ultimately was determined the winner of the 2000
Source: Reuters EcoWin

Interesting, isn't it? Incidentally, last Saturday, CNBC's Larry Kudlow predicted a 1000-point Dow rally the day after a McCain victory. While this prediction doesn't necessarily mean that's what would have happened, it is interesting to note that upon the election of the candidate who promised economic stability and prosperity, the market took a historic turn for the worse. What does Wall Street know that we don't know? Hmm? Or maybe we do know, but were so mesmerized by a man who never says anything that we voted foolishly. Yeah, maybe that's it.


Bush is not the Spawn of Satan

I am no huge fan of President Bush. Anyone who knows me will tell you that. Not the best president in American history by any standards. But he's also not the vampiric mass-murderer he's made out to be. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, an intern for the 2004 Kerry campaign agrees with me. He said so in this morning's Wall Street Journal:

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

What must our enemies be thinking?

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

A similar article appeared in Sunday's Washington Post:
'My Heart and My Values Didn't Change'
In Bush, Loyalists See a Good and Steadfast Man Who Has Gotten a Bad Rap

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 2, 2008; A03

On a cold, gray morning a week before Election Day, President Bush briefly emerged from the White House for an unannounced visit to the headquarters of the Republican National Committee in Southeast Washington.

Outside the RNC building, Bush continued to face record-low approval ratings and a presidential campaign focused on his failings. But inside an overflowing conference room, he was greeted with roaring applause as he urged his fellow Republicans to keep pushing for the finish line.

"His general message was to thank the staff for everything we've been doing and encourage us to keep working hard all the way through Election Day," said one person who attended the closed event. "It was upbeat and very exciting."

Even for a declared optimist, Bush has appeared remarkably sanguine in this season of discontent. The economy is melting down, his own party has shunned him, and Tuesday's election is shaping up as a searing rebuke to his eight years in office.

Yet according to allies inside and outside the White House, Bush's mood remains buoyant and his attention is focused on the global financial collapse. In private meetings with business leaders, Bush has made a point of saying that he is happy the crisis happened on his watch so the next president and a new economic team do not have to grapple with it.

"His high energy level and spirit sets the tone for the rest of us," said Kevin Sullivan, Bush's communications director. "There's been no time to worry about any of this other stuff. . . . He believes the American people expect us to finish strong and to leave things in the best possible position for his successor."

Others inside and outside the administration, however, say the upbeat talk masks disappointment and frustration among many White House staffers, who believe Bush's reputation has been unfairly maligned for a series of calamities -- from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to the financial crisis -- that were beyond his control and that he handled well. GOP nominee John McCain's escalating attacks on Bush's tenure have added to the irritation, these people said.

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.

"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."

None of this would matter, of course, if not for Bush's deep and abiding unpopularity. Bush has not commanded approval from a majority of the nation since early 2005, making him arguably the most disliked president since polling on the question began in the 1930s. A Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll last week put Bush's approval rating at 24 percent and found that McCain had made little headway in separating himself from Bush or his policies.

It's not for lack of trying. For the first time in recent memory, a sitting president has effectively sat out the presidential race, avoiding public appearances on behalf of McCain and other Republicans and raising far less money than usual in private fundraisers. Bush voted for McCain by absentee ballot rather than voting in person in Texas, as he has for the past three elections, and officials say he plans to spend election night at the White House rather than at a rally or other campaign-related event.

Bush held his last closed GOP fundraiser of the season nearly two weeks ago and cleared his schedule of public events from Friday through Election Day. Vice President Cheney, by contrast, held a rally for McCain in Wyoming yesterday -- an event to which the campaign of Democratic nominee Barack Obama was quick to call attention.

"This is unprecedented for a president to be this invisible during a campaign," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "This is what happens when you have a 25 percent approval rating."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Friday that plenty of Republicans wanted Bush to host fundraisers, but the president decided to focus on the economic crisis in recent weeks. Because of ongoing news events, Fratto added, "he's had to be a lot more visible than we would have liked during the most intense period of the campaign."

Aides say privately that Bush long ago made peace with his low approval ratings, which have persisted despite significant improvements in Iraq, the original source of his polling woes. Some current and former aides argue that Bush's unpopularity has made it easier for him to push ahead with difficult decisions, such as a series of dramatic interventions into the financial markets that have angered conservatives over the past two months.

"You're more liberated to act when you've internalized those low approval ratings," said Pete Wehner, a former top Bush adviser. "This is a White House and a president that are in some ways galvanized by a crisis."

Ari Fleischer, one of Bush's former press secretaries, said that although Bush is "not prone to talk about legacy," he and his closest advisers are confident that history "will remember him well."

"Would he like to be more popular?" Fleischer added. "Of course he would. Of course it bugs him. But it doesn't guide him or drive him."

There is little outward sign of irritation from Bush, who has maintained a sense of good cheer in many of his less-formal public appearances this year. During a celebration honoring Theodore Roosevelt's 150th birthday last week, Bush joked: "People ask me, 'Do you ever see any of the ghosts of your predecessors here in the White House?' I said, 'No, I quit drinking.' "

That enduring, frat-boy enthusiasm is exactly the sort of thing that riles his detractors, but supporters say Bush's optimism has been central to his political survival. "When you're inside, and the president is so optimistic, you're not paying as much attention to the noise outside," said Candida "Candi" Wolff, a former White House legislative affairs director. "It keeps everybody focused."

Bush's public schedule over the past few months has included a parade of farewell meetings with friendly foreign leaders, from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconito Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Bush has also let down his guard on a few occasions, showing traces of the kind of nostalgia he normally eschews.

In early October, for example, Bush made a side trip to one of his boyhood homes in Midland, Tex., which has been turned into a presidential historic site. Standing in front of the modest rambler that housed two future presidents, Bush recalled a farewell rally that he attended in Midland on his way to Washington in 2001.

"I said, 'You know, I'm not going to change as a person because of politics or Washington' -- that's what I said when I left," Bush said. "I think they appreciate that. I want them to know that, you know, even though I had to deal with a lot of tough issues, that I'm still the same person that they knew before and that, you know, I'm wiser, more experienced, but my heart and my values didn't change."

President Bush is a good man who made some bad decisions. If you disagree with him on policy, you are entitled to do so. I certainly do. But characterizing him as a demonic despot is just despicable. I certainly won't be painting horns on Obama after his inauguration.