Redstate

Posted at 8:00am on Jul. 4, 2008 In Praise of Barack Obama

Giving credit where credit is due.

By Leon H Wolf

Via the AP comes this news that Barack Obama has changed his mind, and is rejecting at least some of the extremism of NARAL, Emily's List, and other radical abortion organizations. The money graf:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Read on...

Posted in 2008 — Comments (37)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:04am on Jul. 4, 2008 Walking Back The Cat

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Of all of the major Presidential candidates, Barack Obama has been the one who most consistently opposed the war and most consistently garnered the approval of antiwar voters with his promise to end American involvement in Iraq in 16 months after his inauguration, should he win the Presidency. Indeed, several times in debates and on the campaign trail, Obama was asked whether he would reconsider his Iraq policies in the event that General Petraeus or other members of the military asked him to in light of what the conditions on the ground might be. And each time, Obama refused.

However, when it comes to his Iraq policy, Obama may now be softening:

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to "refine my policies" about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

Of course, the practical translation of the above is "get ready for the antiwar movement to be thrown under the bus." Just as Obama has cut his ties with longstanding political supporters--thus embittering some of them and just as Obama has decided to support FISA reform--thus embittering the netroots, Obama has now pledged to "refine" his Iraq strategy after having initially pledged not to.

Look, I understand that there are practicalities involved in politics. And Barack Obama now appears to be embracing those practicalities. That's fine and good as it goes but with each passing day, it becomes clearer and clearer that while Barack Obama is an eloquent man with a winning campaign trail style, there is nothing special or extraordinary about his brand of politics.

He's just another Democratic party politician. And because Obama has been selling his politics as some extraordinary new batch of leadership and policies, the more people realize that Obama is just another Democratic party politician, the more pronounced their sense of disillusionment with him is likely to be.

Oh, and see this, this and this. The Obama campaign had to call a press conference to try to kill any talk that he is changing his position, but you can tell that the press is not buying it and that they are calling him on a whole host of inconsistencies between his prior position and his current one. He also accuses the McCain campaign of "prim[ing] the pump" to somehow mislead the public on Obama's position, which is bizarre and unsupported. It is difficult to see how Obama can "refine policies" concerning a troop withdrawal without potentially refining the 16 month timetable that he set for himself so his claims that he would leave the timetable untouched even though he might "refine policies" makes no sense and can't even plausibly be offered up as promises. I realize there is a need to spin this as not being a big deal, but it just isn't going to wash, as this story indicates.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Flip-Flopping | Iraq — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:59pm on Jul. 3, 2008 "We're All Gonna Die!!!!!!!!!!!"

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Historian Thomas Madden explores the reasons for the spate of declinist literature concerning the future of American power:

Here's my theory: Prosperity and security are boring. Nobody wants to read about them. The same phenomenon occurred in ancient Rome, the last state to acquire such a firm hegemony. By the second century B.C., Roman citizens were affluent and their empire no longer had any serious rivals. With the dangers past and the money rolling in, they developed a taste for jeremiads. If you had a stylus, ink and scroll you could hardly go broke telling the Romans their empire, culture and way of life were yesterday's news.

Polybius blamed pandering politicians, who, he predicted, would transform the noble Republic into mob rule. Sallust claimed that Rome's vicious political parties had "torn the Republic asunder." Livy wrote his entire "History of Rome" just so that his fellow citizens could "follow the decay of the national character . . . until it reaches these days in which we can bear neither our diseases nor their remedies."

The Romans may have been unquestioned masters of their world, but they sure didn't like reading about it. And when the empire actually did start its decline in the third century A.D., criticisms and predictions of collapse became noticeably thinner on the ground.

The military dictators who seized power in Rome and led the empire on its downward spiral did not much like reading about their own shortcomings, and they had ways of making sure that they didn't have to. These were the days of the panegyric - an obsequious form of literature that praised the emperor and empire to the skies. When you start seeing those, it's time to worry.

We're certainly not seeing that yet. Of course, I remember back in the 1980s and 1990s when a previous spate of declinist literature hit the bookstores. We've done fine since then. I suppose that there is a certain cache in looking at a crystal ball, seeing doom and spreading the message of doom to the masses. It makes you look really far-sighted in the eyes of some, as opposed to people like Madden who actually resist trendiness and keep some semblance of nerve as they cast a prophetic eye to divine the true state of America's destiny.

But thus far, in America's story, the optimists have been right far, far, far more often than the pessimists have.

Or as Ben Franklin put it after the Constitutional Convention:

I have often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicisitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.

It still is.

Posted in America | History — Comments (44)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:34pm on Jul. 3, 2008 Happy Independence Day.

The Glorious Fourth.

By Moe Lane

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Posted in Culture | Declaration of Independence — Comments (32)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:01pm on Jul. 3, 2008 Watch out for all those bitter folks in the crowd, Barry -- they tend to cling to things [Open Thread]

By Jeff Emanuel

Courtesy of Roll Call($) comes this wonderful report:

Obama May Campaign at NASCAR Races

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the coming weeks may become the first Democratic presidential nominee to attend a NASCAR stock car race in 16 years, his campaign confirmed today.

“We would love to make it to a NASCAR race if the schedule permits,” Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki told Roll Call Thursday afternoon. “In the meantime, we plan to continue campaigning in communities across the country including small towns and rural communities where people are dissatisfied with the leadership of the last eight years and looking for a new direction for the country.”

The sight of Barack Obama attempting to mingle with a demographic he so publicly despises and looks down on should be an interesting one indeed. Further, the entertainment value provided by liberal elites who try to do "normal people" things is practically endless, as the two scenes below from the 2004 campaign remind us.

By the way, anybody remember the wonderfully eloquent attempt to blend in just before the hunting trip chronicled above by asking, "Can I get me uh huntin' license here?"

Delicious. I can't wait to see what Obama tries to do to blend in with these bitter hayseeds who are always clinging to guns and religion.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Liberal elites trying to blend in with the unwashed masses | NASCAR | Obamafiles — Comments (78)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:27pm on Jul. 3, 2008 Barry caves again - "not wedded to a particular timeline on Iraq"

By bs

Promoted from blogs. But don't worry that we'll stop at this - we all want a slice of this one. - Moe Lane

Hey, Moe - the reversal cometh.

The Politico is reporting that The Obamessiah, the One who was to be our savior from Iraq, is now backing off of his dogmatic "get the heck out of Iraq NOW" position.

The Spelunker now says

“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters in Fargo, N.D., according to CBS News. "When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

Really. Well, I'm just floored. Who would have thought that he would have caved on yet another position?

Read on.

Posted in 2008 — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:05pm on Jul. 3, 2008 A Belief In Small Government is "Strange and Outlandish"

By Erick

In Georgia's 10th Congressional District, Paul Broun is being challenged in the Republican Primary by State Representative Barry "The Lemming" Fleming.

They had a debate last night.

As you all know, Paul Broun is a small government conservative's conservative. The man takes no prisoners in his quest for limiting government. He has voted against federal medical marijuana laws on the principle of federalism, against federal housing programs on the principle of smaller government, and against funding Planned Parenthood on the principle of life.

Paul Broun is to the House of Representatives what Tom Coburn is to the Senate: a take no prisoners, conservative bad ass.

Paul Broun is a class act. Unfortunately, because Broun believes small government is a hill to die on, his challenger, Barry Fleming, is going after him.

In what I think is a first for a Republican candidate anywhere, Barry Fleming, a Republican, has called Congressman Paul Broun's conservative political philosophy "strange and outlandish."

And this guy wants to replace Paul Broun as the Republican standard bearing in the 10th Congressional District.

We should make sure that does not happen.

Posted in 2008 | Barry Fleming | GA-10 | Paul Broun — Comments (10)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:47pm on Jul. 3, 2008 New boss Steve Schmidt set to tighten McCain's campaign

He'll keep but transform McCain's "regional managers"

By Mark Kilmer

Yesterday, John McCain put Steve Schmidt in charge of his campaign, while former campaign jefe Rick Davis was moved into heading the veep search, fundraising, etc. We had some questions, and we've now some answers, thanks in part to a McCain memo reported in a blog entry from Chris Cillizza, who seems to be having as much fun as Jake Tapper, albeit perhaps in a more Obama-centric manner.

Schmidt is strengthening the McCain national HQ in Virginia, which should mean a more focused, message-driven national campaign, although he evidently will not scrap the regional manager concept crafted by Davis, wherein eleven managers ran the campaign in specific geographic areas. But though the basic structure of the strange scheme will be intact, the more dangerous parts of the notion will be transformed:

Under the Schmidt regime, it seems as though these regional campaign managers will be far more like field operatives than managers of a specific geographic region.

Schmidt will also hire national political director and a field director. Of this, Schmidt writes in the memo obtained by Cillizza:

"These individuals will work with all of you and with [deputy campaign manager] Christian Ferry to increase our capacity to reach out to voters, build coalitions, identify supporters, and ultimately turn them out to the polls on November 4. We will be enhancing our headquarters political capacity to provide additional resources to you and your regions."

This sounds as if it could be similar to what Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman did for President Bush in 2004, which is a good sign. Some appeal, some GOTV, is more important now than it was in 2004, when Bush faced a political dud in JF Kerry.

Hopefully, Schmidt will have his operation ready to work full capacity by the time of the conventions, for though neither candidate has emerged as a clear front-runner as yet, one suspects that an energetic, precise, and talented organization such as Obama is believed to have will be on the top of its game when the campaign begins in earnest. McCain has to be ready to emphasize his strengths and to exploit Obama's weaknesses as the fly from out the woodwork.

Posted in Archived | campaign | McCain | Steve Schmidt — Comments (8)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:02pm on Jul. 3, 2008 Democratic Party contemplating cutting a day off of convention schedule.

For a Party so supposedly loaded down with cash, they're doing a lot of austerity programs.

By Moe Lane

I can't seem to avoid the front page today. Via Hot Air:

A short but sweet gathering
July 3, 2008

Barack Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee are toying with a convention scheduling change that has been broached before in theory but never seriously considered: cutting the party's conclave in Denver short by one day to give Obama an extra day of post-nomination bounce in the crowded August calendar.

For the last several decades -- when conventions became forums that merely rubber-stamp a presumptive nominee -- they have traditionally run from Monday through Thursday. Increasingly, both parties have struggled to offer something of interest during the first couple of convention nights, and the television networks have responded by dramatically reducing live coverage. The only truly significant event has been the nominee's acceptance speech, delivered during prime time on Thursday evening.

But Obama aides have floated the idea of ending the Denver convention on Wednesday, Aug. 27, instead of Thursday, Aug. 28.

You'll notice - although the LA Times didn't - that the aforementioned Obama aides completely overlooked the fact that their blithe suggestion would muck up network lineup schedules. The time to do that was four months ago, guys. Springing it on them seven weeks out isn't very nice.

Read on.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | DNC | Obamafiles | Things to Do In Denver When You're Broke — Comments (46)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:35am on Jul. 3, 2008 Question

By Erick

In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the 5-4 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.

Justice O'Connor wrote, "Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

If the decision were issued today, no doubt the Supreme Court would have struck down Grutter. O'Connor was replaced by Alito and Roberts took Rehnquist's spot. Kennedy had sided with Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas in the minority.

It has not been twenty-five years since Grutter, just five years. But in those five years we have seen the first American-American Presidential nominee for the largest political party in the nation, which also happens to be the same party that historically has been most antagonist to minorities: on the losing side of the Civil War, the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. It was Senator Obama's political party that implemented Jim Crow laws and that tried to filibuster all major civil rights legislation of the twentieth century.

With Barack Obama's ascendency, are racial preferences still needed? Has affirmative action finally out lived its usefulness? If not now, what about next year if Barack Obama becomes President?

I suspect the history Barack Obama is making will give Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy a second bite at the affirmative action apple.

Posted in Law — Comments (55)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:55am on Jul. 3, 2008 First Principles

By Fred Thompson

Friends, below are the remarks I'm just about to give to the National Right to Life 2008 Convention. I thought you might be interested in reading them.
------

First, I would like to thank you for your support in my recent political endeavor. In that business, many are called, but few are chosen. We took a strong stand for the principles we believe in, and together I believe we made a difference in the debate that will ultimately benefit our country.

The fact is – I have not changed my mind about any of what we discussed. The issues. Our nation’s values. And most important, our principles. And as I watch the presidential campaign I am convinced more than ever of the importance of these principles and I bet you feel the same way.

There has been a lot of talk about the need for change in this country. That is Senator Obama’s mantra, of course. And all of the commentators say, “It is a change election.” Well, I can understand why the call for change is so powerful considering the pitiful condition that our country is in.

We simply have the most prosperous, freest and strongest country in the history of the world. So we can understand why liberal politicians and their supporters see the need for great change.

On a more serious note, we have long recognized the role change plays in lives. Edmund Burke wrote extensively about it in the 18th century. He said that change was inevitable and when properly guided, change was a process of renewal. But it was his opinion that the man who loves change is disqualified from being a reformer because of his lust … to be the agent of change.

Remind you of anybody you know?

Please do read on below the fold . . .

Posted in Life Issues — Comments (34)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:38am on Jul. 3, 2008 And so we wait for the Great Obaman Reversal on Iraq.

We also wait for everyone's June fundraising numbers, but that's a different issue altogether.

By Moe Lane

Like Glenn Reynolds, I am nigh-breathless from waiting to see how long it'll take for Senator Obama to finally integrate objective reality into his Iraq position, which is slowly but surely looking more and more absurd every day. As Brother Soren notes, Obama's surrogates are already doing an admirable job of muddying the waters, but the IDB/TIPP poll referenced (but not linked to) in the link above is grim news to anybody wanting to cut and run. When you have half of independents and 45% of Democrats now disagreeing that the war is lost, you have a problem with being a Democrat running on a campaign that the war is lost.

So... we wait for him to cave on his most fundamental, bedrock policy position. I expect that it'll be right after that trip to Iraq and Afghanistan that the VRWC shamed him into making. And when he does, the derision and mockery that will ensue over this last, best betrayal of the progressive netroots will make our reaction to the Democratic cave on FISA look like an Elks Club Amateur Comedy Night.

Just thought that I'd share.

Moe Lane

PS: Exit question, as Allahpundit would say: Do you think that the netroots support the Democratic Party in the same way that I was a New York Mets fan, growing up? Because damned if I can see how they're getting any practical return on their money, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Iraq | Obamafiles | The Great Netroots Betrayal — Comments (12)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:10am on Jul. 3, 2008 New game: Try to figure out what the Obama campaign thinks about Iraq

By Soren Dayton

Over the last 48 hours, senior advisers in Barack Obama's campaign have articulated (at least) 3 separate positions on Iraq. Chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, campaign co-chair Senator McCaskill, and foreign policy advisor Susan Rice all expressed different positions. Watch them:

Today, all those advisors--and more--are trying to explain Obama's policies on the morning shows. Perhaps someone will be able to coordinate these chuckleheads, but it probably won't be the Obama campaign.

Perhaps you can try to figure out what their policy will be. They certainly don't seem to know.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Iraq — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:06am on Jul. 3, 2008 A Roundup of the Colombian FARC hostage rescue.

Which, by all accounts, was one for the books.

By Moe Lane

As you've no doubt heard, fifteen hostages were rescued yesterday from the South American terrorist group FARC. Actually, what you probably heard was that French-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt (oddly, though she ran for President of Colombia, it's never the other way around), Three Americans, and mumblemumblemumble some Colombian guys mumblemumblemumble got rescued, but that's just the American media's little way.

But I digress.

Read on.

Posted in Colombia | FARC | Foreign Affairs | The War On Terrorism | Uribe — Comments (16)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:02am on Jul. 3, 2008 Have You Been Wondering Why High Commodity Prices Haven’t Created a Wage-Price Spiral?

Dow Chemical: A Canary in the Coal Mine?

By blackhedd

I’ve been writing here about high inflation for nearly a year and a half. I think the Federal Reserve has been running an extremely accommodative monetary policy for quite a long time, much longer than the mainstream press has been screaming about high food and oil prices.

But why we aren’t seeing the classic sign of hyper-inflation, a wage-price spiral? Wage increases are the channel through which inflationary pressure metastasizes to the point that it can destroy an economy.

That isn’t happening this time, for a lot of reasons, all of which are interesting. But there is one in particular that is worth calling out because it illuminates a key aspect of tax policy.

In short, businesses are unable to pass increased factor costs on to consumers.

Keep reading…

Posted in Dow Chemical | Economy | federal reserve | inflation | wage-price spiral — Comments (14)/ Email this page » / Read More »