October 12, 2010

Lucid Links (101210, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 9:32 am

Just look at this ruthless, heartless, critique of our dear President:

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.

Who is the ignorant, conservative, RAAAAAcist Tea-Partying pundit who wrote this trash?

Well, it’s … uh … uh … Mark Halperin at Time Magazine (“Why Obama Is Losing the Political War”; HT To Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters, where the headline is “Time Magazine Shocker: Obama In Way Over His Head”).

I told ya, 2-1/2 years ago. The third- and fourth-last letters of yours truly’s acronym (Mr. “BOOHOO-OUCH”) stood for, and still stand for, “Objectively Unfit.” He remains so. Halperin is merely confirming the obvious.

__________________________________________________

Jihadi child abuse and deliberate child endangermentFrom Jerusalem (HT Atlas Shrugs):

The children’s role was to provoke Be’eri (an Israeli archaeologist) into killing or injuring them by attacking him with rocks (and having him retaliate). The photographers’ role was to photograph the children getting killed or hurt.

Read the whole thing.

__________________________________________________

Promises, schmomises (HT Hot Air):

Representatives Steve Driehaus of Ohio, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida and Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania were among the Democrats who learned that they would no longer receive the same infusion of television advertising that party leaders had promised. Party strategists conceded that these races and several others were slipping out of reach…

Cue up the band to play “Good-bye, Stevie” at about 11 p.m. on November 2.

I’d like to see an encore in the OH-31 State Rep race. It’s a tough district for anyone with an “R” by his name to win, but if it’s possible in any year, this would be the one. Mike Robison is a far superior candidate on the issues –especially compared to the incumbent, Steve Driehaus’s sister Denise.

Denise will say that she’s pro-life, and she’ll wave around her answers to this pro-life questionnaire as “proof.”

But as I explained two years ago in the case of her brother (“Steve Driehaus is NOT Prolife”), a politician cannot legitimately claim to be pro-life if he or she voted for and actively supported Barack Obama in 2008 as long as they were aware of his positions and record on life-related matters. On the assumption that Ms. Driehaus’s Wiki entry is correct about her being a Roman Catholic, and that she was aware of Obama’s stridently anti-life positions, Church doctrine, as expressed in layman’s terms here, could not be more clear:

4. If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?

… neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? (the answer which follows clearly also applies to active public support — Ed.)

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case … he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

Update: From Rothenberg Political Report (HT to a COAST e-mail) —

Media sources in the Cincinnati media market confirmed to the Rothenberg Political Report this morning that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has cancelled its media buys after this week.

… The DCCC has cancelled all of its reserved time at WKRC, the CBS affiliate in the market, for the weeks of October 19 and October 26. The Committee pulled over $200,000 worth of reserved time. The Committee also cancelled its time (over $75,000 worth of time) for those two weeks at WLWT, the NBC affiliate.

… Other Democrats could face the same fate in the next 24 hours, since the deadline for cancelling reserved time is fast approaching.

__________________________________________________

Pamela Geller at BigGovernment.com“Foreign Contributions: Investigating Obama.”

As I noted in November 2008 (Pajamas MediaBizzyBlog), based largely on work Geller originally did, “The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been and may still be accepting credit-card and prepaid-card contributions from overseas. … it is likely that the total dollar amounts involved run in millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars.”

__________________________________________________

Remember this the next time a leftist spouts crap about opening up the voting process and making it easier:

More Disgrace: … DOJ’s complete failure to ensure that military voters get their 2010 ballots on time.

There’s only one reason for this: Military members tend to vote Republican. DOJ is deliberately standing by why many states are failing to carry out their lawful duties, or is granting bogus requirement waivers based on non-excuses, or both. That Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is a rogue agency is no longer a debatable matter.

Update: There’s a reason Chuck Schumer is the guy being quoted in this story about failures by New York electoral boards to get military ballots sent overseas on time. This is the reason.

Share

5 Comments

  1. Do you have any statistics evidence to support this assertion?: “Military members tend to vote Republican”.

    The military member already has
    - socialized medicine;
    - a work environment like a GM plant union, e.g. lots of hierarchy and rules, standardized promotion system with well-published list of check boxes, ….I’d best not say more.
    - housing is provided, again contributing to a socialized mindset,
    - the pro-gun military voter is not necessarily a GOP voter, as Ohioans well know,
    - Well, that’s enough to show why I’m asking the question.

    Don’t assume military voters vote on national security. An Afghanistan surge policy does not necessarily get the vote of Joe or Jane soldier/sailor/airman.

    Anyone got National stats on the military vote? Not just assumptions? Especially a trend over generations would be interesting. And attempts to adjust for “vote the incumbent who keeps my base getting earmarks” local distortions. And the analysis is of the current military vote, not including veterans who are separated/retired.

    Really curious. I’ve never seen a real analysis of the votes by CURRENT MILITARY.

    Comment by Cornfed — October 12, 2010 @ 10:59 am

  2. #1, Here’s a start:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/06/world/fg-troops6/2

    The most comprehensive look at the military vote is an annual survey by the privately owned Military Times newspaper, which in a voluntary poll of 4,300 subscribers in September found overwhelming support for McCain, 68%, compared with 23% for Obama.

    I know that’s not necessarily impressive, so I’m looking some more.

    Again, this isn’t conclusive, but there’s no way the Gore people would have gone after the overseas military ballots as they did in 2000 if they were even-steven D-R:

    How Gore Cheated American Troops Serving Overseas
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/8/225831.shtml

    Ah, I think this is pretty good:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5693
    The “enlisted military,” at 67-24 McCain v. Obama, was only one point lower than the 68-23 cited above.

    You would have a long way to go to prove that “enlisted military overseas” would vote in a manner significantly different. The contention that the poll involved was “voluntary” (i.e., not random and scientific) is worth considering, but I don’t know how you would ever do a truly random, scientific poll of troops stationed overseas.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 12, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

  3. #1, Yeah but most military don’t have a very high opinion of the socialized medicine they receive and hardly want to see it foisted onto the public at large.

    As for the GM thing, that’s a bit vague and general, what you describe (rules and hierarchy, promotion system) pretty much could describe any kind of organization, union and otherwise. Your comparison of military structure is shallow and more than a bit odd. “Hey, this GM Union Shop is run kinda sorta like the army, I’m gonna vote Democrat now!” Sorry, just don’t see it.

    And with housing, that does not contribute to socialist thinking at all, as military members understand that their is a big difference between them getting certain entitlements for putting their life on their line for their country and the implementing of such a scheme on the civilian population at large. And don’t forget, many of them see the housing as a temporary situation, not as a permanent fix for the rest of their lives.

    As for national security, your contention that it does not influence military voters is absurd. Of course the military prefers a government that supports their mission and what they stand for (which is Republicans, not Democrats the vast majority of the time.) Why would a surge not influence them, a surge gives them a better chance for them to survive and have a successful mission. Don’t forget, the motivation for most people to sign up for the military in the first place is because they are motivated by ideas like freedom and patriotism, two things liberals are very much lacking in belief in. Those veterans who become Oliver Stone types don’t usually become that way until *after* they join.

    Lastly, your assumption about guns is a bit weak. Of course not everyone who is Pro-Gun is conservative, but it’s more than a bit likely that they are just as a liberal is more likely to be pro-abortion. “Despite the evidence, they may not be Republican after all” is not a very convincing point.

    Comment by zf — October 12, 2010 @ 7:50 pm

  4. Also, I’m not sure when trips to unionized auto plants to examine their hierarchical structure became a part of a soldiers tour of duty…and why would living in spartan crowded barracks with untold other men endear a solider to socialized housing?

    Comment by zf — October 12, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

  5. #2. Thanks very much for links. Something I’ll try to peruse more soon. I do read Military Times regularly.

    #3-4. Good counter-points. My examples are too colored by the civil-service union, desk-job acquisition land, and officer territory. As a minor defense, that’s why I asked started right out with a question.

    As a note, Florida has no income tax. So, that military voter is not necessarily stationed overseas. They even are from Florida, or switched to Florida residency when stationed in FL at some point in their career. Some of those military voters are stationed somewhere in CONUS, and I’ve always wondered if Gore was short-sighted to fight off their votes; of course, severely short-sighted ethically but perhaps also short-sighted in his self-interest.

    The enlisted stationed overseas wasn’t considered much in my simplistic demographic analysis; they are really putting themselves on the line. As far as the officers go, …I’ll just say I like lots of what Gates is doing. We’re due for a generational debate on the military. The “all-volunteer force” approach is ready for some studies and discussion.

    Comment by Cornfed — October 16, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.