Redstate

I too saw those Politico comments in Ben Smith's blog, and frankly couldn't believe it. The Left is so in the dark with regards to Middle America; just when I think they couldn't be more clueless, something like this shows up and makes me shake my head in disbelief.

Every time I see a post like this, I wonder if America is made of up of JUST lefties.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_re_us/poll_dissatisfied_americ...

Huh? What does a right track/wrong track poll have to do with misperceptions about Middle America?

Interesting topic, though. I will always answer that the country is on the wrong track until the day Amendment XVI is repealed and intrusive taxation abolished. Does that make me a leftist, too?

you lefties can't even figure out the question!

Obama is known for having the craziest, most obnoxious supporters on the Internet. I seriously think that part of the reason why a third of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee is because they hate his supporters so much.

Obama is known for having the craziest, most obnoxious supporters on the Internet.

Only because Ron Paul dropped out of the race. He had the neo-Nazi community and the 9-11 conspiracy theory community on his side.

I read the transcript from this CNN segment on a blog last night. My husband and I actually fell over laughing at Jack Cafferty comparing working class people in PA to AL Queda terrorists. I was wondering if anyone else noticed what a fool Cafferty made out of himself during this segment. I'm glad that I'm not alone. I'm beginning to think that the whole media has gone crazy.

that all the 9/11 hijackers were ALL unemployed steel workers?

Janis, I forgot about the "steelworker coalition" that was part of the 9/11 attacks. Thanks for reminding me. (snark) :-)

of the 9-11 hijackers was an EMPLOYED steelworker! Yeah! You didn't think about THAT, now did you. Kinda puts it in a different light.

AQ never votes Republican.

They don't get that Obama said the following:

1. Religion is a crutch.
2. Small-town folks buy guns to feel better.
3. Small-town folks dislike people unlike themselves.
4. Small-town folks are anti-immigration.
5. Small-town folks are anti-free trade.

The first one should offend anyone that is religious. The second one is typical liberal thinking. In case you didn't know, he's calling small-town folks stupid. The third one is a typical assumption for people that have never spent significant time in a small town. The fourth one is hilarious. The small towns that Obama refers to are made up of immigrants. The last one is true because many of the people there still blame their former employers for plant closures instead of the unions that put made it economically unfeasible for those companies to continue.

I'm convinced that there is nothing Obama could say that would convince at least half of his supporters that he is completely unqualified for the Presidency.

I especially had a good laugh over Cafferty's claim that McCain is an out-of-touch elitist.

"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson

I'm convinced that there is nothing Obama could say that would convince at least half of his supporters that he is completely unqualified for the Presidency.

That's because it's Obama's supporters who are the really bitter ones in this campaign.

Go read the comments on left-wing blogs like Daily KOS. They are in full agreement with Obama, because they are bitter as hell too: Bitter at Bush. Bitter at Hillary. Bitter at corporations. Bitter at the military.

And Reverend Wright and his supporters are the most bitter of all.

So when Obama says that "They in small-town America are bitter," he really means "We are bitter."

...illegal immigrants have no rights beyond those granted by treaties with their home countries. Accordingly, most "rights" are inapplicable to illegal aliens (and since they are, after all, "illegal," they may not even have these protections).

The unfair wages are certainly an issue because these workers compete with and displace actual American and legal immigrant workers. Under the table, they are effectively "tax advantaged."

Your last proposal is not an either/or question. The composite position is best: raise security to enforce current law, then let the floodgates of legal immigration open. Of course, one must also prevent new immigrants from collecting government
-provided social services to prevent them from milking us.

He's like the nation's therapist. He'll justify your feelings, no matter what they are, and whether he agrees with them or not. He's the typical charismatic leader. Everyone walks away feeling good about themselves because their feelings and perceptions been acknowledged and legitimized.

"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson

Having never spent any significant amount of time in rural Pennsylvania, I'll refrain from making broad declarations as to how these folks feel.

You have to wonder just how much time Jack Cafferty and Gloria Borger have spent with out-of-work Pennsylvanians. My guess is that it approaches zero -- which makes you wonder what exactly they're thinking they're qualified to affirm Obama's comments.

Obviously, the AQ comment is just insane -- and, considering rural Pennsylvania's role in 9/11, insensitive as well.

Could these people be any more obvious that they're in the tank for Obama? Toobin showed his hand when he pointed out that this primary battle is bad -- for Democrats, he means.

(n/t)

You're right that a lot of people -- including Republicans (although I don't think it's 2/3 of them -- think that free trade is a net negative for us.

People are just so ignorant of history, especially economic history. And it's impossible to consider the alternatives in the abstract.

What they leave out is that foreign countries are run by humans who have the ability to form reactions to our actions. That's why Ohioans cheer when Barack Obama pledges to do away with NAFTA, while Canadians panic and ask his aides whether or not he's serious.

Who cares what they think, right? Well, we should.

The Great Depression was set off by poor monetary controls over the boom/bust cycle. But its fate was never actually sealed until Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Quite a few countries responded in kind with their own trade barriers with the US.

The aftermath of this tariff -- which was popular among nervous American workers, but strongly discouraged by gobs of economists who knew better -- is the stuff of economic legend. I'll let Wikipedia sum it up for me, but I'll preface it with the wise words of Santayana: those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.

This was a policy aimed at bolstering American workers against foreign competition, remember.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119144942897748150.html

"By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president."

My main point is that it's a mistake to summarily dismiss and demean those with whom you disagree (as Obama did). I've voted Republican since 1996 -- and I've never voted Democratic, but I see the same attitude amongst the Republican "elites" that I see amongst the Democratic "elites". It's unconstructive and insulting.

I don't see people clamoring for mile-high tariffs. Either you are misreading people or you are intentionally setting up a straw man. I disagree with free trade as it is practiced in its current form. I disagree with policies that ENCOURAGE companies to move jobs and capital offshore. I disagree with policies that hold us to different environmental and labor standards than our trading partners. I disagree with policies that allow trading partners to manipulate currency rates. I disagree with governmental policies that discourage innovation here at home. I disagree with prohibitive corporate tax rates. There are lots of ways to improve our trade policies short of legislation that would cause the next Great Depression. If some in the GOP would be a little more cognizant of that and a little less dismissive of real concerns from intelligent and well-meaning voters, they could regain a lot of respect and trust.

Please allow me to present the conservative arguments addressing your concerns with free trade.

1. Outsourcing/Offshoring

Outsourcing occurs because firms can find lower costs per unit of output elsewhere. If wages are comparatively cheap around the world, then labor-intensive production processes (I'm thinking agriculture) are naturally better-suited for being performed abroad, and we are better off trading for it. The panacea for attracting economic growth and jobs is favorable tax treatment. High tax rates discourage businesses from locating here. Ditto over-regulation, lawsuits, etc.

2. Currency Rates

We can manipulate our rates too, just as they can. Revaluing the dollar, however, requires contractionary policies, leading to economic downturns. Other countries, when they devalue their currencies, speed their own inflation. In the long run especially, these manipulations are costly to the practicing countries. In the long run, though, innovation and growth drive currency values, since demand for a currency depends on how much people around the world want that currency to do business.

3. Innovation/Tax Rates

No contest here - we agree. Lower tax rates on ALL income (especially the uppermost bracket) and ALL businesses aren't very popular, though. Patent protection is also very good.

4. Current Practice

The practice of free trade without comparable cooperation from partners is disturbing, and constitutes a well-reasoned noneconomic argument against unfettered free trade. In other words, free trade is a two-way street. I liked (and you might too) Rep. Duncan Hunter's position on "mirrored trade," which attempts to resolve the geopolitical problems in the free trade approach.

There is no way to lower taxes so far in America that an American worker becomes as cheap to hire as a worker in Bangladesh or Africa.

Workers in those countries are willing to work for a salary that's a mere fraction of what an American worker is paid. Even if you reduced that worker's tax burden to ZERO, he would still be more expensive than the worker in Bangladesh, because the cost of living in America is much higher than it is in Bangladesh. And because workers in America have higher expectations of a standard of living. Even if you lower taxes to ZERO, an American worker is simply not going to live in an overcrowded hovel or do without good health care or the luxuries of life, just to become more competitive with workers in Bangladesh.

Logically, if Americans were prepared to compete for jobs with workers in India and the Third World, they could get on an airplane and go live in the Third World and work there. But most don't.

I really liked Duncan Hunter. He was my initial favorite for the presidency (then Fred, then Mitt). He makes a LOT of sense on trade.

I'm just saying that we should give American companies a better chance to compete by negotiating better trade agreements. And that the kamikaze free-traders would do better to avoid condescension and derision when talking about an issue that 2/3 of Republicans are unhappy with.

There are costs to free trade. But there aren't alternatives.

You're wanting to set up trade barriers, call them a new kind of "free trade", and hope that they don't cause the same backlash and repercussions that every other protectionist move we've ever made has caused -- up to, and including, GWB's steel tariffs.

Everything you're saying amounts to you not liking the entire concept of comparative advantage. But, like I say, we have to consider the alternative in the abstract -- such that you can wax poetic about "different environmental and labor standards".

Nobody doubts that a lot of people are concerned about the effects of open trade. It amounts to a resistance to change -- because change doesn't happen overnight and it isn't painless.

But, as Obama economic adviser (and all-round smart guy) Austan Goolsbee courageously pointed out to George Will, probably only about 20% of job displacement happens because of trade. Most of it happens because of technological advancement. And surely you wouldn't advocate that we slow technology, simply because it can do jobs humans used to do in less time for less money.

But that's precisely what you seem to be advocating about trade. You'd just as soon we forgo any benefits to capitalizing on comparative advantage because doing so usually involves the attrition of jobs here.

The problem with Smoot-Hawley wasn't that the tariffs were high -- because, really, they weren't that high. The problem is that others responded in ways that were (a) unexpected, and (b) devastating to both our economy and theirs. And that's why Bretton-Woods came about.

I've seen this play before. I know you mean well, but what you're talking about would be economically disastrous.

"There are costs to free trade. But there aren't alternatives."

Of course there are alternatives to the VERSION of free trade that we now practice. We should negotiate better trade deals. Ours are excruciatingly one-sided. If anything, I consider our free trade as it is now to be economic socialism. It amounts to little more than a redistribution of global wealth. I know the old "a rising tide lifts all ships" mantra and I agree to a degree. However, as our trade deals are currently negotiated, we give and give and give and give and give...and then take a little. Someone mentioned Duncan Hunter. I thought he was one of the Republicans who made perfect sense. We should have trade practices in which we mirror what our partners do. If China wants to manipulate the currency rates, then they suffer an equivalent penalty. You may call that a trade barrier. I call it fairness and equity. Fairness and equity are not bad things. Getting screwed over by an incompetent trade representative and unscrupulous trading partners are bad things.

You say I'm "waxing poetic" about environmental and labor standards". Well, why shouldn't we have require fair standards? For pete's sake, we put American companies at a HUGE disadvantage by forcing them to compete against overseas companies that will eat our lunch on unfair terms every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why should we do that? Give our companies a chance to compete. Obviously, there will still be imbalances (like with wages), but that doesn't mean that we should bend over and touch our toes and get reamed across the board on every single possible competitive advantage. I'll guarantee you that when other countries are the biggest and strongest, they won't return the favor and hand over every advantage to us.

Of course we shouldn't show technological advancement. I never said that we should and that's not the point of this discussion. I'm just saying that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be screwed over again and again and keep going back for more.

I'm not saying we could or should save every job. I'm not saying that we should put up unfair trade barriers. I'm saying that we should start watching out for our own interests for a change.

I believe in American ingenuity and I want a strong America. If we give our companies a chance to compete on a more level playing field (by cutting tax rates, for instance), American companies CAN compete and they won't have to abandon these shores. That would be good for American companies, good for Americans, and, yes, still good for the global economy.

In my econ classes, especially Labor, 4.9% unemployment means that the economy is OVERemployed! 5.0% is the usual figure for the natural rate of unemployment.

.

there is no doubt he has worked across the aisle as some old posts here will attest to the detriment of his standing with conservatives.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Check out Ron Paul, h ttp://www.ronpaul2008.com/. This guy is the real deal. No to Juan McCain!

------
MT 08

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

would anyone check him out? Oh an we do not use Mexican names to discuss our nominee but thanks for being silly.....which of course is what I tend to find Ron Paul devotees to be.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Obama and Lugar worked on nuclear proliferation together. I will assume that loose nukes count as a "major issue."

Sen. Obama was one of twenty-six cosponsors, and Sen. Lugar was responsible for all of the heavy lifting.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, Senator LUGAR has already outlined the legislation that we are reintroducing here today and the process that has led us to this point, so I will be brief.

I don’t want my brevity to be confused with indifference towards this legislation. I want to underscore the importance of this bill in establishing a broad framework to more effectively combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional weapons. As I have said before, these are two critical issues that directly impact the security of the United States.

In some ways, the bill has already had its desired impact. There was a reorganization of the State Department that will improve the Department’s ability to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional weapons. Moreover, the legislation has focused additional highlevel attention—the scarcest commodity in Washington—on these Issues.

However, there is more that needs to be done. I believe the Senate can and should move this bill in an expeditious fashion. We have already held a hearing on the bill, worked with the State Department to update and improve the legislation, and have received endorsements from an array of non-governmental organizations that follow these
issues.

I will defer to the Chairman on the procedural issues, but my hope is that we can report this bill out of the Foreign Relations Committee as soon as possible and work for Senate passage shortly thereafter.

In closing, I want to thank Senator LUGAR for his steadfast commitment to these critical issues and look forward to collaborating with him in the coming months on this legislation.

S.2566 - Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006 died soon after the bill was Reported to the Senate.

Smells like opportunism, not bipartisanship.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

And she's right to think so: this primary election is in the hands of the Party apparatus right now, and if you don't think that both the uncommitted and the Obama super-delegates aren't being privately pressed on this I'd be wistfully amazed at your innocence. :)

At some point, the Democratic Party is going to have to decide which event is going to be more of a hindrance in their drive for the White House: nominating Obama, or having a riot in Denver. Fortunately for us, they're institutionally inclined to dither.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

At this point, neither Obama nor Clinton can clinch a pledged delegate majority unless the other drops out.

The only reason the primaries even matter anymore is that the results are going to be sliced, diced, folded, spindled, and mutilated by the campaigns to sell themselves to the superdelegates.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater