For those of you who have been vacationing in a distant land (or, alternatively, don't have access to FOX News), here are the comments Barack Obama made to a group of "wealthy donors" in Nancy Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments.
Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments. In fact, Obama's San Francisco statements provide no insight in the lives -- and beliefs -- of people in Pennsylvania. There are surveys of beliefs and attitudes that are completely at variance with Obama's views -- the standard ones we hear regularly from liberal journalists and politicians.
I've been writing recently about Rep. Jason Altmire, congressman from PA's 4th congressional district (west and north of Pittsburgh). I'm very curious what Altmire has to say about Obama's negative comments about small-town Pennsylvanians. Actually, I assume Altmire, like most PA Democrats, hopes the whole thing blows over.
The national media is based most of its comments on Obama's statement on the word "bitter." In other words, they're saying that bitterness is the core of the San Francisco remarks.Actually, Obama is saying that Pennsylvanian's Christian faith and their belief in the Second Amendment is reflective of social and economic disorder. He's also saying that many Keystone Staters don't like people who are know like them (us, since I'm one).
In fact, Obama's views reflect his tendency to make broad, racially focused statements about large categories of people. For example, Obama refers to his very untypical grandmother as "a typical white person." Of Kansas farm boys during his grandfather's childhood, Obama says "they stank like pigs." Since he never smelled a single such farm boy, one wonders how he knows.
Frankly, one also wonders: what's wrong with this man? If he is a post-racial candidate, as he has claimed, then why does he see everything through the prism of race (or class)? This graduate of Columbia and Harvard reflects the elitism and vague anti-Americanism of those institutions. He's not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate.(More to come.)
Showing posts with label Conservative Pennsylvania Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Pennsylvania Democrats. Show all posts
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
McCain, Make Nice with Hillary
Note: Today I'm using the column from my national blog (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/) but the points made have great applicability to the state of Pennsylvania.
John McCain needs to go after the Hillary Clinton supporters in much the same way that a wolf would a lamb chop. John is a sharp individual and he has many bright people around him (like Rick Davis, Patrick Hynes, and Carly Fiorina), and they can see that a big chunk of the Hillary voters, perhaps as many as one-third, are ready to go to McCain in the general election.
Mrs. Clinton has said nice things about McCain (and so has Bill), including the fact that, compared to Obama (who has a speech he delivered in 2002), he has "a lifetime of experience." Husband Bill said that McCain has done everything conceivable for his country "other than give his life."
It's time for McCain to reciprocate -- and make positive statements about Hillary Clinton as a Senator. That might disconcert charter members of "the vast right-wing conspiracy," but it would make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, McCain should restrict positive comments about Obama to the minimum possible. Obama is ready to be orator-in-chief but not commander-in-chief.
The Reagan Democrats of yesteryear (pro-life, pro-guns, pro-military) are voting for Mrs. Clinton, but iwthout enthusiasm. The more they find out about Obama -- everything from his support of live-birth-abortion to his rapt adoration of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his support of the Chicago Democratic machine -- the less likely they will be to vote for him.
In short, John McCain, make nice with Hillary Clinton. It won't save her campaign, which now looks like a death-march, but it will attract millions of Hillary-ites.
Note: Click on the following link to an important article on how Barack Obama's (Democratic) poll numbers are up and Hillary Clinton's money numbers are way down.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/hillarys_wrong_numbers_obama_p.html
JOHN MCCAIN 2008 LAUNCHES NEW WEB AD: "SACRIFICE"
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released a new web ad. The ad, entitled "Sacrifice," details how John McCain, like so many Americans who have answered our Nation's call in combat, understands that glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return.
"Sacrifice" will appear on national news and information websites.
VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Ixt-mh3qM; http://www.johnmccain.com/service/day4_webvideo.htm
Script For "Sacrifice" (1:40-Web)
ANNCR: In the chaos, destruction and shock of war, soldiers are bound by duty and military discipline to endure and overcome.
Their duty and loyalty belong to their country.
They find solace in their faith in God.
But their strongest loyalty, the bond that cannot break, is to the cause that is theirs alone -- each other.
It is through loyalty to comrades in arms that they begin to understand that to love one's country is to love one's countrymen, and to serve the national ideal that commenced their personal transformation.
When war is over, they might have the largest but not exclusive claim on the success of their nation's cause and seldom share in the blame for its failure.
But their claim is shorn of all romance, all nostalgia for the suffering with which it was won.
From that crucible they have but one prize, one honor: that they had withstood the savagery and losses of war and were found worthy by the men who stood with them.
This is the truth of war, of honor and courage.
Before John McCain went to war its meaning was obscure to him, hidden in the spare language of men who had gone to war before him and been changed forever by the experience.
The Naval Academy, with its inanimate and living memorials to fidelity and valor, tried to teach him this truth.
But he had interpreted the lesson, as he had interpreted his father's example, within the limits of his vanity.
He thought glory was the object of war, and all glory was self-glory.
No more.
For he learned the truth: there are greater pursuits than self-seeking.
Glory is not a conceit.
It is not a decoration for valor.
It is not a prize for being the strongest, the most clever, or the boldest.
Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to the cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return.
No misfortune, no injury, no humiliation can destroy it.
John McCain needs to go after the Hillary Clinton supporters in much the same way that a wolf would a lamb chop. John is a sharp individual and he has many bright people around him (like Rick Davis, Patrick Hynes, and Carly Fiorina), and they can see that a big chunk of the Hillary voters, perhaps as many as one-third, are ready to go to McCain in the general election.
Mrs. Clinton has said nice things about McCain (and so has Bill), including the fact that, compared to Obama (who has a speech he delivered in 2002), he has "a lifetime of experience." Husband Bill said that McCain has done everything conceivable for his country "other than give his life."
It's time for McCain to reciprocate -- and make positive statements about Hillary Clinton as a Senator. That might disconcert charter members of "the vast right-wing conspiracy," but it would make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, McCain should restrict positive comments about Obama to the minimum possible. Obama is ready to be orator-in-chief but not commander-in-chief.
The Reagan Democrats of yesteryear (pro-life, pro-guns, pro-military) are voting for Mrs. Clinton, but iwthout enthusiasm. The more they find out about Obama -- everything from his support of live-birth-abortion to his rapt adoration of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his support of the Chicago Democratic machine -- the less likely they will be to vote for him.
In short, John McCain, make nice with Hillary Clinton. It won't save her campaign, which now looks like a death-march, but it will attract millions of Hillary-ites.
Note: Click on the following link to an important article on how Barack Obama's (Democratic) poll numbers are up and Hillary Clinton's money numbers are way down.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/hillarys_wrong_numbers_obama_p.html
JOHN MCCAIN 2008 LAUNCHES NEW WEB AD: "SACRIFICE"
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released a new web ad. The ad, entitled "Sacrifice," details how John McCain, like so many Americans who have answered our Nation's call in combat, understands that glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return.
"Sacrifice" will appear on national news and information websites.
VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Ixt-mh3qM; http://www.johnmccain.com/service/day4_webvideo.htm
Script For "Sacrifice" (1:40-Web)
ANNCR: In the chaos, destruction and shock of war, soldiers are bound by duty and military discipline to endure and overcome.
Their duty and loyalty belong to their country.
They find solace in their faith in God.
But their strongest loyalty, the bond that cannot break, is to the cause that is theirs alone -- each other.
It is through loyalty to comrades in arms that they begin to understand that to love one's country is to love one's countrymen, and to serve the national ideal that commenced their personal transformation.
When war is over, they might have the largest but not exclusive claim on the success of their nation's cause and seldom share in the blame for its failure.
But their claim is shorn of all romance, all nostalgia for the suffering with which it was won.
From that crucible they have but one prize, one honor: that they had withstood the savagery and losses of war and were found worthy by the men who stood with them.
This is the truth of war, of honor and courage.
Before John McCain went to war its meaning was obscure to him, hidden in the spare language of men who had gone to war before him and been changed forever by the experience.
The Naval Academy, with its inanimate and living memorials to fidelity and valor, tried to teach him this truth.
But he had interpreted the lesson, as he had interpreted his father's example, within the limits of his vanity.
He thought glory was the object of war, and all glory was self-glory.
No more.
For he learned the truth: there are greater pursuits than self-seeking.
Glory is not a conceit.
It is not a decoration for valor.
It is not a prize for being the strongest, the most clever, or the boldest.
Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to the cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely, and who rely on you in return.
No misfortune, no injury, no humiliation can destroy it.
Friday, March 28, 2008
OBAMA AND ANTI-ITALIAN REMARKS
This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I'll be posting about Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and his anti-Italian remarks. As you may know, Rev. Wright blames what he calls the "Roman . . . the Italians" for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Does Barack Obama disagree with those statements? Who knows?
When he talks about the America-hating, race-baiting Rev. Wright, Obama chooses his words very carefully. He says he "disagrees" with the Pastor on several things, but he never identifies where his dissent lies. Somehow, no matter how despicable Wright's remarks are, Obama still continue to see him as his "uncle" and his "spiritual advisor."
Obama's refusal to disown and to repudiate this evil man calls into great question where the candidate stands on hate-speech.
When the time came for Obama to repudiate Wright and separate himself from the so-called "church," he instead turned on his Rhetoric Machine. He gave a speech about "race," a bunch of generalities that avoided any full repudiation of Jeremiah Wright.
Right now, the Obama campaign had placed a muzzle on wife Michelle, whose distaste for her country reflects the views of her long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The pastor himself appears to be in hiding, unwilling to explain or apologize for his hate-filled sermons and publications.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of Democrats (and at least one Republican, me) supporting the candidacy of a young man for the Pennsylvania House. About half the people there were Americans of Italian descent. They were aware of many of Wright's offensive statements, but were not aware that he had singled out Italians (Wright spoke of their "garlickey" breath) for condemnation. I didn't have the heart to tell them.
My wife is of Italian descent, as are our daughter and several grandchildren. Obama owes them -- and everyone else in Pennsylvania -- a full explanation, but I doubt it will be forthcoming.
Who exactly is Barack Obama -- and to what degree does he agree with his demagogic Pastor?
When he talks about the America-hating, race-baiting Rev. Wright, Obama chooses his words very carefully. He says he "disagrees" with the Pastor on several things, but he never identifies where his dissent lies. Somehow, no matter how despicable Wright's remarks are, Obama still continue to see him as his "uncle" and his "spiritual advisor."
Obama's refusal to disown and to repudiate this evil man calls into great question where the candidate stands on hate-speech.
When the time came for Obama to repudiate Wright and separate himself from the so-called "church," he instead turned on his Rhetoric Machine. He gave a speech about "race," a bunch of generalities that avoided any full repudiation of Jeremiah Wright.
Right now, the Obama campaign had placed a muzzle on wife Michelle, whose distaste for her country reflects the views of her long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The pastor himself appears to be in hiding, unwilling to explain or apologize for his hate-filled sermons and publications.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of Democrats (and at least one Republican, me) supporting the candidacy of a young man for the Pennsylvania House. About half the people there were Americans of Italian descent. They were aware of many of Wright's offensive statements, but were not aware that he had singled out Italians (Wright spoke of their "garlickey" breath) for condemnation. I didn't have the heart to tell them.
My wife is of Italian descent, as are our daughter and several grandchildren. Obama owes them -- and everyone else in Pennsylvania -- a full explanation, but I doubt it will be forthcoming.
Who exactly is Barack Obama -- and to what degree does he agree with his demagogic Pastor?
PA Democrats Uneasy About Obama
Later today (Friday), I'll be posting about a fascinating meeting I attended last night -- one with more than 100 moderate-to-conservative Democrats. There was great unease about the coming nomination of Barack Obama as the Party's nominee for President.
In the meantime, you'll be interested in the following -- about Obama's desire to raise taxes on most Americans.
Barack Obama appears to be proposing a tax increase for all Americans who make more than $75,000 per year. Key paragraphs:
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
He is also proposing to raise the capital gains tax, but refuses to say by how much: http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/news/nationalnews/barack__id_hike_capital_gains_tax_103875.htm
Barack Obama thinks higher taxes are a good thing
Andrew Malcolm and Mark Silva, Los Angeles Times, Top Of The Ticket Blog
March 28, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamathetaxrais.html
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama went after the "We're not paying enough taxes to the government" vote today during a television interview in New York.
First, he said the Bush tax cuts ought to die. He likes that top marginal rate of 39%. Although the non-partisan National Journal recently declared him the most liberal of the 100 senators, Obama denied being a "wild-eyed liberal," which wasn't what the Journal called him, but it sounds good on TV where everything moves by so quickly.
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
"Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize."
"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown?'' Bartiromo asked. "Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?"
"Well, look," said Obama, "there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office.''
Obama said, "I'm going to be sworn in in January -- we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point."
He was asked about the liberal tag. "I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works,'' the senator replied. " But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America."
"Obama’s completely disingenuous dodge on whether he would raise taxes during a time of economic slowdown is belied by his vote earlier this month," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Obama’s claims to the contrary, his votes to raise taxes on people earning as little as $31,850 are straight from the Democrats’ tax-and-spend playbook."
Steve says: Barack Obama talks regularly about doing away with "tax cuts for the wealthy." Apparently, the "wealthy" include working families with incomes above $32,000. Apparently, his tax plans do not go after the truly wealthy -- multimillionaires like John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and -- of course -- Obama himself, who has made millions on his books.
In other words, people who have large fortunes will do just fine under "President" Obama, while working families will be hit hard.A significant part of the "Bush tax cuts" consists of eliminating the marriage penalty, increasing the tax credit per year, and doing away with the "death tax." There's no indication Obama wants to continue such tax reductions for working families. Basically, his "economic plan" is to pay off low-income voters at the expense of everyone else.
In the meantime, you'll be interested in the following -- about Obama's desire to raise taxes on most Americans.
Barack Obama appears to be proposing a tax increase for all Americans who make more than $75,000 per year. Key paragraphs:
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
He is also proposing to raise the capital gains tax, but refuses to say by how much: http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/news/nationalnews/barack__id_hike_capital_gains_tax_103875.htm
Barack Obama thinks higher taxes are a good thing
Andrew Malcolm and Mark Silva, Los Angeles Times, Top Of The Ticket Blog
March 28, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamathetaxrais.html
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama went after the "We're not paying enough taxes to the government" vote today during a television interview in New York.
First, he said the Bush tax cuts ought to die. He likes that top marginal rate of 39%. Although the non-partisan National Journal recently declared him the most liberal of the 100 senators, Obama denied being a "wild-eyed liberal," which wasn't what the Journal called him, but it sounds good on TV where everything moves by so quickly.
Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.
"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.
"Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize."
"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown?'' Bartiromo asked. "Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?"
"Well, look," said Obama, "there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office.''
Obama said, "I'm going to be sworn in in January -- we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point."
He was asked about the liberal tag. "I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works,'' the senator replied. " But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America."
"Obama’s completely disingenuous dodge on whether he would raise taxes during a time of economic slowdown is belied by his vote earlier this month," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Obama’s claims to the contrary, his votes to raise taxes on people earning as little as $31,850 are straight from the Democrats’ tax-and-spend playbook."
Steve says: Barack Obama talks regularly about doing away with "tax cuts for the wealthy." Apparently, the "wealthy" include working families with incomes above $32,000. Apparently, his tax plans do not go after the truly wealthy -- multimillionaires like John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and -- of course -- Obama himself, who has made millions on his books.
In other words, people who have large fortunes will do just fine under "President" Obama, while working families will be hit hard.A significant part of the "Bush tax cuts" consists of eliminating the marriage penalty, increasing the tax credit per year, and doing away with the "death tax." There's no indication Obama wants to continue such tax reductions for working families. Basically, his "economic plan" is to pay off low-income voters at the expense of everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
