Tuesday, 13 May 2008


Ken Berwitz

Do you trust a televangelist who has been shamed into reversing himself on overt intolerance? 

Maybe you do.  If so, you've got a greater capacity to get past the inexcusable (and a stronger stomach) than I do.

This article, which comes to us courtesy of www.thehillcom, will explain it all:

Posted: 05/13/08 04:39 PM [ET]

Pastor John Hagee, a supporter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), apologized Tuesday for comments he made about the Roman Catholic Church remarks that may be harmful to the presumptive presidential nominee.

Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful, Hagee said in a letter to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights.

After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism, Hagee added.

The pastor is head of a Texas mega-church and is also known as a televangelist.

Hagee was cast in the middle of presidential politics after McCain had to disavow his comments about Catholics. Hagees comments threatened to become an issue in the general election, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sought Tuesday to keep the controversy alive perhaps to balance out the GOPs likely use of the Rev. Jeremiah Wrights controversial statements against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Now that Rev. Hagee is apologizing for his anti-Catholic comments, does John McCain think that Hagee should also apologize for his other comments? said DNC communications director Karen Finney. If so, will he have the courage to say so publicly? Unless John McCains idea of being a new kind of Republican includes cozying up to radicals who compare women to dogs, hold racially insensitive fundraisers and call one of the worst natural disasters in our countrys history Gods punishment, he should renounce John Hagees endorsement immediately.

However, Donohue, one of Hagees fiercest critics, said the letter is sincere, adding that he considers the case closed and that the pastor has achieved reconciliation.

What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns, Donohue stated. But he has done just that.

William Donahue has told us he accepts this as a sincere apology (though I disbelieve he really feels this way no matter what he says publicly).  Personally, I don't accept it at all. 

Hagee called the Catholic church a false cult and an apostate church, among other things.  His sudden epiphany about what wonderful folks Catholics are seem very clearly to be politically driven and nothing else.

But, that said, the idea that the DNC is going to seize on this as a chance to turn the dialogue to Hagee instead of jeremiah wright is idiotic to the nth degree. 

Hagee may be an insincere blowhard, but at least when he was caught he did apologize.  jeremiah wright is a hate-filled Black supremacist.  And when he was caught he spewed his hatred even louder - and insisted that Blacks have some special right to be hate-filled in the bargain, which they do not.

McCain was not a member of Hagee's church, nor were his children baptized by Hagee. But he repudiated Hagee's views shortly after receiving his endorsement. 

His exact words?  Weve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagees, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.  That's pretty clear, isn't it?

Obama, by contrast, revered jeremiah wright.  He sat and listened to wright's spew for almost 20 years, and had wright marry him and baptize his children..  And when wright's ravings became known to the general public, all Mr. Obama could sputter out was that "I could no more disown reverend wright than I could disown my own White grandmother" -- and then told us all that granny was a racist.  Lovely.

It took another week or two before he did the politically correct thing and told us what a bad man wright was.

See a difference there?


Ken Berwitz

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is Jewish and appears to be a solid, reliably in-the-fold supporter of Barack Obama.

I've wondered in this blog why anyone who supports Israel, especially a Jew who supports Israel (not all do), would ever vote for Barack Obama.  And Cohen's latest colum is, I suppose designed to explain it to me. 

To tell you the truth, it doesn't.  But maybe you can find some logic that is eluding me.  The link is above, but here are a few selected excerpts:

McCain in the Mud

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; A15

In 2000, I boarded John McCain's campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express, and, in a metaphorical sense, never got off. Here, truly, was something new under the political sun -- a politician who bristled with integrity and seemed to have nothing to hide. I continue to admire McCain for those and other reasons, but the bus I once rode has gone wobbly. Recently, it veered into the mud.

I have in mind McCain's charge that Barack Obama is the favored presidential candidate of Hamas. The citation for this remark is the statement of Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas political adviser, who said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election." Yousef likened Obama to John F. Kennedy and said that Obama "has a vision to change America" and with it the world. Yousef apparently got so carried away that he forgot that Obama has repeatedly called Hamas a "terrorist organization."

McCain seems to have forgotten that, too. His campaign has sent out an e-mail showing how guilt by association really works. "Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders," it said. The message went on to claim that Obama's foreign policy positions have earned him "kind words" from Hamas.

Never mind that this was the sort of campaigning that McCain vowed to eschew. More to the point is what McCain said in his own defense. Not only was Yousef's praise of Obama "a legitimate point of discussion," he said, but everyone should understand that McCain himself will be "Hamas's worst nightmare." This aspect of McCain is my worst nightmare.

 McCain's tax plan is a joke, and his foreign policy is frightening.

When McCain says that he would be Hamas's worst nightmare, what in the world is he talking about? Almost on a daily basis, Hamas launches rockets into southern Israel, occasionally killing some poor soul. The latest victim was a woman of about 70 who was killed yesterday. Israel usually retaliates, and Palestinians -- some of them just as innocent as the Israeli victim -- are killed. You would think that Israel would be Hamas's worst nightmare, but aside from the occasional -- and fruitless -- retaliatory raid, it cannot figure out how to stop Hamas's deadly activities. What would McCain do that Israel has not?

I hate to say it, but Yousef has a point. The Middle East desperately needs supple minds that are not mired in the past. I look at Gaza and don't know what to do. I have supported Israel in its policies there, but I have to admit that nothing has been gained from the non-recognition of Hamas. War doesn't work. Isolation doesn't work. For Israel, leaving Gaza didn't work, and, surely, McCain's threat to Hamas will not give it a headache -- a belly laugh is more like it.

My reaction to this is:  ????????????????????????????????

McCain is "in the mud" for noting that hamas wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election?  hamas DOES want Barack Obama to win the presidential election. 

A hamas spokesman DID say that the organization wants Barack Obama to win.  This is a source of humor to Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. Cohen thinks the hamas spokesperson "has a point"?  McCain's threat to be hamas' worst nightmare will give the terrorist group "a belly-laugh"?

What planet is cohen residing on these days?  Oh, never mind, I just realized that I know the answer already.  He is on Obama-uranus.  that is because of where his head is regarding his dearly beloved Barack...which I suspect you can figure out by the planet's name.

If it were only that hamas was rooting for Mr. Obama, there would be cause for great concern.  But what about the fact that Obama was an avid regular at jeremiah wright's church - where he called Israel "a dirty word" and "an apartheid state", and railed against it continually (along with similarly hate-filled railing against Whites and the USA)?  Would a supporter of Israel stay in that church?  Would a supporter of Israel allow the hatred spewed by its pastor to indoctrinate his wife and children?

And what about the stable of Israel-haters on Obama's staff?  Would a supporter of Israel assemble a staff like that?

One of them, robert malley, was just canned last week.  Why?  Because he was conducting a cozy dialogue with hamas, that's why.  And why was he canned?  From all appearances it wasn't because of his connection with hamas, it was because media finally started REPORTING his connection with hamas that forced Obama to act.

Nah, there's no reason for Richard Cohen to question Mr. Obama's support of Israel there.  That old man McCain is just "in the mud". 

And he gets paid to write this stuff?  There's another  ?????????????????????? for you.


Ken Berwitz


Here, courtesy of www.ynetnews.com, is a fascinating story.  It gives a context to the Middle East situation that most people don't have even the remotest clue about:


'Dead Gazan' alive and kicking

Rights group got it wrong: Gaza cancer patient who 'died while waiting for permit' still alive

Meital Yasur-Beit Or
Published:  05.13.08, 17:42 / Israel News

Stayin' alive: Muhammad al-Harrani, a father of six from Gaza diagnosed with cancer who reportedly died while waiting for a permit to enter Israel, miraculously "came back to life." This was not the result of a miracle, but rather, just part of the tactics used by al-Harrani's family in a bid to secure a permit for him.


Al-Harrani is currently awaiting an entry permit into Israel, so that he can undergo head surgery at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center and receive radiation and chemotherapy treatment. At the end of April he was summoned to a questioning session at the Erez Crossing as part of the permit process, but the session was postponed by a week.


On the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, al-Harranis story was published. His family reported to the Physicians for Human Rights organization that he died. The sick man could not withstand the wait for the permit, claimed Ran Yaron, Director of the Occupied Territories Department who blamed the Shin Bet for adopting cruel policies against cancer patients.


However, the next day, the organization discovered that al-Harrani was still alive. Members of group estimated that his brother, who reported the death, killed him so he does not report to the questioning session.


This is a rare case where a family member knowingly provided false information to the organization, Physicians for Human Rights said. Usually, the organization receives information from the families and from the hospitals, but in this case the information was received from the family and was not confirmed by the hospital."



Meanwhile, the Shin Bet sent the organization an angry response: We view these harsh accusations on your part with great severity; not even a minimal inquiry into the facts was conducted. The Shin Bet noted that due to the suspicion of his involvement in terror activities, al-Harrani was indeed called in for a security check, and it was indeed postponed by a week.


Since al-Harrani did not arrive at the questioning session, he will have to bear the consequences or future damage that may be caused to him, in line with his refusal to cooperate in the procedure, the Shin Bet said. 


Yes, you read that right.  Israel provides hospital services to palestinian Arabs in Gaza.  And a lot of it.


But wait.  How can that possibly be?  Isn't Gaza a cauldron bubbling with hatred for Israel?  Why is Israel treating their sick?  Why isn't Israel telling them to use the money they spend on weaponry to treat their own people?  Why is Israel literally freeing up money for hamas to use for killing Jews?

It's not like there is some reciprocal agreement here.  It's not like anyone in Gaza is doing anything to benefit Israelis.  So what is this all about?


It's called HUMANITARIANISM.  Israel puts humanitarianism ahead of the considerations I mentioned above.  And it is a humanitarianism that is not in any way returned by Gazans.


Think about it.  A suspected terrorist expects to be given world-class medical care in a hospital located where he would commit the terrorist acts.  His family lies about his condition and claims he died, which means Israel, instead of getting credit for its humanitarianism, is made out as a villain. Yet his lying family STILL expects Israel to provide him the treatment, and Israel STILL is likely to give it to him.  With nothing in return.


No other country on earth would do this, folks.  Not a one..


Ken Berwitz

The New York Times is in the midst of a continuing hissy-fit over the United States Supreme Court ruling which permits states to insist that voters prove they are legal before voting.  This morning's editorial is the latest example.

Here is what the Times has to say about it:


The Myth of Voter Fraud

Missouri and at least 19 other states are considering passing laws that would force people to prove their citizenship before they can vote. These bills are not a sincere effort to prevent noncitizens from voting; that is a made-up problem. The real aim is to reduce turnout by eligible voters. Republicans seem to think that laws of this kind will help them win elections, but burdensome rules like these and others cropping up around the country pose a serious threat to democracy and should be stopped.

The Missouri legislature is, as Ian Urbina reported in The Times on Monday, on the verge of passing an amendment to the State Constitution that would require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. In addition to the Missouri amendment, which would require voter approval, Florida, Kansas, South Carolina and other states are considering similar rules.

There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.

There is, however, ample evidence that a requirement of proof of citizenship will keep many eligible voters from voting. Many people do not have birth certificates or other acceptable proof of citizenship, and for some people, that proof is not available. One Missouri voter, Lillie Lewis, said at a news conference last week that officials in Mississippi, where she was born, told her they had no record of her birth.

Proof of citizenship is just one of an array of new barriers to voting that have been springing up across the country. Indiana adopted a tough new photo ID voting requirement, over objections from Democrats that it would prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot. The critics were right. In last weeks Indiana primary, a group of about 12 nuns in their 80s and 90s were prevented from voting because they lacked acceptable ID.

As with Missouris proposed amendment, the driving force behind strict voter ID requirements in general is not a genuine effort to prevent fraud, since there is virtually no evidence that in-person voter fraud is occurring. It is, rather, the Republican Partys electoral calculations. Barriers at the polls drive down voter turnout, especially among the poor, racial minorities and students groups that are less likely than average to have drivers licenses, and that are more likely than average to vote Democratic.

The imposition of harsh new requirements to vote has become a partisan issue, but it should not be. These rules are an assault on democracy itself. The current conservative Supreme Court showed last month, in its ruling upholding the Indiana ID law, that it will not perform its historical role of protecting voters. That puts the burden on state legislators, governors, state courts and ordinary citizens to ensure that the right to vote is not taken away for partisan political gain.

I literally shake my head in disbelief when reading this.  What a load of you-know-what.

With apologies for repeating myself, what I wrote yesterday fits perfectly again today:

Try taking a book from the library by just telling them your name as you walk towards the door.   See how fast they stop you.

Try paying for a supermarket order with a personal check by just assuring them you're you.  See how fast they demand ID.

If ID is second-naturedly required for things as simple as getting a book out of the library or buying groceries or 100 other everyday activities, why is it a hardship at the voting booth?

The answer, of course, is that it isn't at all.  In the real world, people have to identify who they are for even the simplest everyday activities.  But in the happy horsemanure world of the New York Times, it is a hardship almost too much to bear. 

And the paper's proof that this is too burdensome for voters?  They found ONE WOMAN in Missouri who can't locate her birth certificate. Ooooooooooooooh, wow.

I would assume out of hand that states which pass voter ID laws will be intelligent enough to provide legal recourse for a special case such as this.  Assuming Missouri does, the Times is down to no examples at all.

When I read this kind of ridiculosity (my made-up word, which fits so well here) --  when the Times' editorial writers angrily tell me that voting fraud is a myth, there's no evidence that it is a significant problem, yada yada yada -- I question their sincerity. I wonder if their real agenda is giving people with no legal right to vote a way to do so.  Don't you? 

A myth?  No Evidence?  Maybe, for one tiny little starter, the Times' editorial staff would like to read this analysis by the University of Pennsylvania , which begins...  

More people are registered to vote than there are residents of legal voting age in two states and 241 counties in the United States.

The article goes on to talk specifically about voter fraud.  And, again, this is just one tiny little starter.  There are countless other articles and analyses that show voter fraud as well.

Think of it as the tip of an iceberg.  A very, very, very big iceberg.


Ken Berwitz

Here is a lot of the answer to that question.  It is taken from the end of an Associated Press story today.  The AP apparently didn't consider it important enough to separate into its own story:

Earlier, the Senate rejected, 56-42, a broader Republican energy plan that called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some offshore waters that are now off limits to oil development.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said more domestic oil production is needed to keep prices in check and to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports. But opponents said the Alaska wildlife refuge and coastal waters that have been off limits to drilling for 25 years ought to remain out of bounds to oil companies.

"We can't drill our way to lower prices," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

No ANWR drilling and no additional offshore drilling.  Why?  Because "We can't drill our way to lower prices".  In other words Senator Durbin is telling you that more domestic production, thus less importing of foreign oil, will not help matters.

Please remember that comment every time you go to a gas station.  And remember which party tried to increase domestic oil and which party prevented it from happening.


free "We can't drill our way to lower prices" Yes because the democrat party has been blocking it for a long time. Lets hope somehow the voters are made aware of this. But i doubt it, It seems everything is Bush's fault. (05/13/08)

steve schneider it will take more than just more drilling. the oil companies need to be allowed to build more refineries,they are now operating at full capacity, this has been blocked for years. additionally, i can't remember the last time a nuclear reactor was built, this too has been blocked by congress. it's no mystery why gas prices are high. it's simple supply and demand. but, it's easy to villify the oil companies, but the real problem is the us gov't. who has done nothing for more than 30 yrs. steve (05/14/08)


Ken Berwitz

How I wish we could get through the entire presidential campaign without being subjected to racist filth like this.  But evidently we can't.

Here, courtesy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is what I'm talking about:

Cobb bar protested as racist for Obama T-shirts
Mulligan's selling shirts with 'Curious George' picture

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/13/08

Marietta tavern owner Mike Norman says the T-shirts he's peddling, featuring cartoon chimp Curious George peeling a banana, with "Obama in '08" scrolled underneath, are "cute." But to a coalition of critics, the shirts are an insulting exploitation of racial stereotypes from generations past.

T-shirts sold by Mulligan's Food & Spirits show the character Curious George above Barack Obama's name.
"It's time to put an end to this," said Rich Pellegrino, a Mableton resident and director of the Cobb-Cherokee Immigrant Alliance. It was among the organizations gathering outside of Mulligan's Bar and Grill Tuesday afternoon to protest the "racist and highly offensive" shirts.

"There's no place for these views, not in this day and age," he said.

Just down the street from Marietta's famous Big Chicken, Mulligan's has carved a provocative niche in an increasingly multicultural area, thanks to its owner's ultra-conservative political views. If you live in Marietta, it's impossible not to know what's on Norman's mind, as he posts his views on signs in front of Mulligan's.

Among his recent musings: "I wish Hillary had married OJ," "No habla espanol and never will" and the standard "I.N.S. Agents eat free."

"I'm saying out loud what everyone in this town whispers," Norman said.

Whatever residents think of the signs, organized opposition to his blunt commentaries ongoing for 16 years had been nonexistent. No longer, says Pellegrino, who, though familiar with Norman's politics, said he was still surprised by the stark imagery of the Obama T-shirts.

"There's a lot of people hurt by this," he said.

Norman said those offended are "hunting for a reason to be mad" and insisted he is "not a racist."

Why picture Obama as Curious George? "Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears, he looks just like Curious George," Norman said.

He said it's just a coincidence that the character he chose for the t-shirt is a monkey. Norman said proceeds raised from sales of the T-shirts will be donated to the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Nation of Islam and the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials were among the organizations represented at Tuesday's rally.

"Mulligan's is promoting and selling racially offensive T-shirts, and Marietta and Cobb County residents and taxpayers abhor and cannot condone, any longer, this type of divisive and incendiary behavior in our community," said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of GALEO.

Pellegrino said Mulligan's is giving Marietta a bad name, adding that the critics intend to remain vocal.

"These T-shirts were almost a Godsend," he said. "We're a coalition now, and we're very determined."

You want disgusting?  This is disgusting central.

No self-respecting charity would touch money that came from the sale of such racist garbage with a ten foot pole.

And, while I agree that the nation of Islam is racist too,  the fact that it was part of the protests does not change what these t-shirts are.  Not one little bit.

Does mike norman have a RIGHT to sell racist t-shirts?  I suppose he probably does. 

Should you be sickened by mike norman and his t-shirts"  Well, that depends -- do you have even the slightest sense of decency?  If so, the answer is yes.


Ken Berwitz

Since John McCain became the presumptive Republican candiate for President, we've all heard campaign operatives for Barack Obama - and Hillary Clinton too - referring to a McCain presidency as "Bush's third term". 

First off, congratulations to them.  It is an excellent political strategy.  George Bush is a very unpopular President, one that even his fellow Republicans are by and large going to run against, and John McCain supported him twice (albeit not happily the first time).  If I were a Democratic strategist I would tie McCain to Bush every way I could.

But the answering strategy you're about to read, via excerpts from Jeffrey Lord's piece in www.americanthinker.com, hadn't occurred to me.  And the more I think about it, the better it sounds for McCain. 

Here it is.  See if you agree (read the whole article by clicking here):

Jimmy Carters Second Term
By Jeffrey Lord
Published 5/13/2008 12:07:55 AM

You have to admit it takes guts. Audacity, even.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of the Democrats, has in essence just defeated the heiress of the Clinton era by campaigning as the heir-apparent of the Carter era.

The question for the rest of the year is this: Are there enough voting Americans who survived the disastrous odyssey through the late 1970s that was led by blessedly now ex-president Jimmy Carter? While Ronald Reagan is rated in poll after poll by Americans as a great president, (most recently he rated second only to Lincoln), are there enough people who recall that Reagan's election came about because of Carter's...ahhh..."performance" in the Oval
Office? And will they be able to make the Obama-Carter connection for younger voters hearing terms like "windfall profits tax" for the first time? More to the point, can Senator John McCain do this?

The greatest charade of the year thus far is the idea that something "new" is being said in this campaign. By anybody. To be bluntly accurate, the only thing new is that one of the final two candidates is black. It seems to escape some that in a country even as young as America, 55 presidential elections (2008 is the 56th) covers just about all the ground there is to cover in debating any given next four years in the life of the United States.

Which makes the audacity of the Obama campaign more than amusing -- and amazing -- to watch. Consciously or not, Obama has selected the philosophical template of the Carter administration, from defunding the military, fighting the "special interests" down to imposing the windfall profits tax on the rich. Well, as Justice Clarence Thomas might say: whoop-dee-damn-do! This is precisely the philosophy of Jimmy Carter, although Carter had the good sense not to campaign as the pacifist he really is in 1976, waiting until the moment his hand came off the bible for that.

IS IT POSSIBLE that America really wants to return to those depressing days of gas lines and leisure suits? Of malaise and shock over the aggressiveness of America's enemies? The days when the policies Obama is advocating raised unemployment rates, interest rates and inflation rates into the double digits? When America's enemies looked the President of the United States in the eye -- and found he really wanted to kiss them on the cheek?

After all of those 55 previous elections for president, with policy results seriously on record from George Washington to George W. Bush, it doesn't take much now to understand what doesn't work. The policy failures, not only of American presidents but world leaders in general, are all right out there to be seen.

Obama's windfall profits tax idea? A Jimmy Carter biggie. "Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits," fumed Carter on national television in 1980. The New York Times agreed, warning darkly that "legislators who sit by idly while oil profits soar will have to answer to the voters." With Democrats controlling Congress they got their way. As if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose. Eventually even the Times was agreeing the tax had to be repealed, and by 1988 Reagan, who campaigned against it, signed the repeal (by a Democrat Congress no less) into law. And Obama wants to do this all over again? Yes. It's not only not a new idea, it's not a better idea. Yet in terms of Obama, most tellingly it was a Carter idea.

Another Carter favorite was to appear to attack the wealthy, going after "rich businessmen" who enjoyed themselves with the "$50 martini lunch." Elected, Carter went after the martini business lunch tax deduction all right, but then quickly turned on the middle class with a Social Security payroll tax. Obama is already well on board with Carteresque rhetoric about "tax cuts for the wealthy." What taxes will a President Obama raise that, as with Carter, can't be discussed as a candidate?

Appeasement and the notion that we can look evil in the eye and smile? Another Carter favorite (captured forever with the image of the American president kissing Brezhnev on the cheek at a Moscow summit in 1979) that more famously was the notion underpinning British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's desperate face-to-face sitdowns with Adolph Hitler. Didn't work either time, nor will it ever work as Obama seems to be seriously proposing with Iran. Why? Because bullies are bullies -- be they Russian Communists, German dictators or Iranian mullahs. Senator John McCain succinctly sums up Obama's take as a lack of both judgment and experience, which surely is true.

BUT OBAMA'S VIEWS are also something else. They are the product of a world view that has been around for centuries -- failing every time it's tried. Obama's campaign website says Obama "will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global." He also pledges to stop the research and deployment of a missile defense, the same system that Reagan created to end the Cold War.

America was led down this philosophical garden path most recently by Carter. Whether advocated by Carter in 1979, Chamberlain in 1939 or a President Obama in 2009, the philosophy behind this idea has simply never worked. Period. Yet , to borrow from Reagan's line in his debate with Carter, here we go again.

With all of the sweep of American history to look back on, with virtual libraries of history recording what works and what doesn't when running the American government, Obama has stunningly selected the Carter policies as his role model.

Tax cuts? Not for Obama. Military superiority? No, not for Obama. Do tax cuts work? Yes, as shown by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43. Military strength? Yes, decisively too. From Lincoln's Union Army to Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet and his maxim to "talk softly and carry a big stick," from Wilson's Allied Expeditionary Force to FDR's vow to victory "so help us God" to Ronald Reagan's peace through strength, the idea of overwhelming military superiority works -- if the enemy believes you will use it. Or you actually use it.

But Obama, as with Carter, is having none of these approaches. From hiking Social Security payroll taxes to investing 20 percent less in defense budgets to telling Americans they had an "inordinate" fear of Communism, step by step Carter's policy selections and his decisions on the role of government led the American people down a dark and dangerous path that produced the worst economy since the Great Depression along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a beachhead in Central America with the Communist take-over of Nicaragua. When his policy towards Iran resulted in abandoning the Shah in favor of the extremist mullahs and the taking of American hostages, Carter's military was in such bad shape that American soldiers died in the Iranian desert during a miserably failed rescue attempt.

PERHAPS MORE ASTONISHING than his advocacy of a return to Carterism, Obama channels the Republican president to whom Carter was frequently compared -- Herbert Hoover. Obama is completely on board with protectionism, seemingly oblivious to the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley tariff that was a product of the Hoover administration in 1930. Upping the tariff on some 20,000 goods it is famous forever as the disastrous idea that deepened the severity of the Great Depression.

One has to wonder about the survival prospects down the road for the Democrats. They either can't get elected because their ideas are so bad -- extremist or tried and true failures -- or every once in a good while the latest crowd of American voters actually forgets their history (or never learned it in the first place) and gives a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton a go at holding the reins. Enemies are then appeased, taxes raised, and judges go wild -- which in turn creates a new generation of conservatives who begin to understand why the last generation voted Republican.

The question for Senator McCain, accused by Obama of wanting to serve George W. Bush's third term, is whether he will hold Obama's feet to the fire on Obama's apparently passionate desire to serve Jimmy Carter's second.

Now that is an interesting strategy. 

Lord goes into great factual detail to show how many parallels there are between Mr. Obama and carter, who - surprise, surprise - is supporting him.  And they certainly exist, don't they?

Will a campaign like this work?  No one knows for sure, of cours.  But it might.  Especially for supporters of Israel (which means a large majority of the voting population). 

Simply stated, the more the McCain compaign puts jimmy carter on the front burner, the harder it will be for supporters of Israel (especially Jewish supporters of Israel) to pull the lever for Barack Obama.

For these reasons, it seems evident that the more prominent a role carter plays in the general election, the better off it is for John McCain. 

Maybe the clincher is that, like him or not today, George Bush won the last time he ran for President.  carter didn't. 

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!