You Stay Classy, Washington D.C.

Looks like the "great orator" continues to rely on the teleprompter. This time, he actually thanked himself during a St. Patrick's Day speech. This was apparently due, not to Obama's narcissism, but rather to his reading of whatever was put in front of him.

Wasn't that a punchline in Anchorman: The Ron Burgandy Story?

Pssst...you're the president now...take off the training wheels.

Remind me again why Bush, McCain, Palin, et. al were considered to be so dumb?

Hat tip: Infidels are Cool

I Guess All Green People Look The Same To Him...

I was just watching Obama give a stump speech in Ohio, and he was trying to make a joke about John McCain being a "sidekick" to President Bush (a joke that he already had used, by the way).

"He's like Kato to the Green Lantern. Y'all remember that. Those of you who are over a certain age."

If you're going to make a pop culture reference, it's usually a good idea to get it right. Bruce Lee's Kato played the sidekick of Van Johnson's The Green Hornet.

Just a couple of thoughts...

* He couldn't come up with a better example of a sidekick in the last 40 years??

* Maybe he didn't want to. After all, unlike Obama's ticket, the one without the experience is usually the sidekick. Guess he didn't want to point that out too much.

* Another reason he shouldn't have choosen the show "The Green Hornet"? Kato kicked some serious ass. If I had to be any sidekick, Kato's a pretty good one to be.

UPDATE: It wasn't worth another post, but I just watched Obama say that we don't know what John McCain stands for because "he's talked a lot about me" but not the issues. This is after discussing for five minutes what he thinks McCain did wrong, including what I wrote about above. In fact, after writing the post, and this update, he's still talking about McCain. Does he understand the meaning of "hypocrite"?

Uh-Oh-Seven!

I actually like Daniel Craig as an actor, but I was a little bothered by his reasoning in answering a question for Parade Magazine:

"I finally ask this British actor a deeply American question: 'Who do you think would be the better James Bond—Barack Obama or John McCain?'

Craig doesn’t hesitate. 'Obama would be the better Bond because—if he’s true to his word—he’d be willing to quite literally look the enemy in the eye and go toe-to-toe with them.' "

Maybe someone should point out to Craig that one of the two actually has "quite literally looked the enemy in the eye and [went] toe-to-toe with them." Every day for five years.

Guess which one.

Deep In The Heart Of Taxes

It's things like this that made me dig Larry Elder. Although I already knew most of this, I still had a few surprises, like this:

A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now -- both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

It just goes to show that for the most part, people are stupid. I'm not just talking about Democratic people, either. And perhaps I should say "uninformed" rather than "stupid." For example, I wonder who people picture when they think of "the rich"? As Elder points out, to be in the top five percent, you only need to make more than $153,542. That's a lot, but I'll bet when you think of "the rich" you think of a lot more wealth than that.

One last thought...I found it interesting that Obama and Biden, who try to pass themselves off as men of the people, donated a much smaller percentage of their incomes than those greedy Republicans President and Mrs. Bush. Only $3,700 in charitable donations over 10 years, Senator Biden? Say it ain't so, Joe.

But I Could Be Wrong...

I'm not just some guy who lives to bash the media (see below). I call 'em like I see 'em, and here's two that I think the AP did all right with.

Fact Checking the Debate
I have small issues with a few of the things said, but overall, I thought it was fair.

Who Won Debate? TV Pundits Don't Agree On a Winner.
Again, pretty fair overall.

For my money (I watched it twice) I thought it was mighty close. In the end, I have to give the smallest of margins to McCain for a couple of reasons:

1. He finished strong. He got better and better while Obama just seemed to become more and more flustered.
2. Unlike some others out there, I didn't think McCain had to wow people over with this debate. In fact, I think that although Obama was more eloquent "off-the-cuff" than he usually is, I'm not sure if he rose to the expectations people had for him. That performance was a far cry from a candidate who is supposed to lead us into the promised land, or send a tingle up our legs, or whatever. Is that, then, a failure? A letdown? I don't know. I'm not sure I want to watch either one of them for the next 4-8 years, honestly.
3. One moment that really stood out to me. After McCain talked about the bracelet from the soldier's mother, Obama tried to counter with his own "I have a bracelet" story. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't remember the soldier's name, and had to look down at his notes. It was a cringe-worthy moment, and made McCain look genuine while making Obama look too rehearsed and phony.
4. One last thought. It worries me that Obama argued that going into Iraq to remove Saddam created our problems today with Iran by taking away an enemy of theirs. I'm sure it's true, of course, that Iran becomes stronger when you take away their aggressive enemy, but is Obama really implying that we should have left a guy who was not only torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, but also participating in the largest scam in history (oil-for-food) in power simply because he might have kept his neighbor in line? That's genuinely scary. That's like the FBI saying "let's not bother going after Al Capone because he keeps the other families in check." First of all, I could make the argument that if we were to leave Saddam in power, that would have been an even more risky move as Iran still would have had plenty of reason (if not more reason) to pursue nuclear weapons with a psychotic dictator just over the border. Add to that that Saddam would likely have become even more aggressive in return, and you have a bit of a powder keg. Not good. Second, the only reason that Iran is stronger with Saddam gone is because the country (Iraq) is "in between" governments right now. I think the argument can be made that once a new government is firmly established in Iraq, especially one that is on friendly terms with the west, not only will Iran lose any strength they may have gained, they will lose some of what they originally had. Of course, all this is speculation, but as I said, that kind of logic, that kind of thinking, from someone about to take the oval office, really scares me. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on it yet.

The Proof Is In The Pudding...I Mean Voting

So you think McCain doesn't know much about the economy? Think he's out of touch with what the people want? Just in case you'd better take a quick look at this. It's a report on the Senate, put out by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW).

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of CAGW. The CCAGW mission is to advocate the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government through nonpartisan public education programs and lobbying activities. Each year, CCAGW tabulates its Congressional Ratings, evaluating how each member of Congress measures up on key tax and spending votes.

The report on the Senate covers 35 key votes from last year, explains whether the taxpayers "won" or "lost" the vote, and follows up by tabulating how often each senator was on the side of the taxpayers. Some very interesting results:

• Obviously, Sarah Palin is not on the list since she isn't a senator, but John McCain? On the side of the taxpayers 100% of the time. That's right--he voted against waste and to benefit the taxpayers every single time. And his lifetime record is 88%. Not too shabby. In fact no other senator had a 100% rating for last year.
• Barack Obama, who claims to be on the side of the taxpayers, measured fairly close to the bottom of the barrel at 10% (18% lifetime). But that's not even the worst percentage...
• Obama's running mate, Joe Biden (along with a bunch of other senators) came in at 0% (22% lifetime). That means in every single vote that he cast for those 35 key votes, he voted on the side that would hurt you, the taxpayer. Every single time.

I think it's pretty clear who's really got our best interests in mind.

*To be fair, though, most Democrats score consistantly poorly on these rankings, mainly because they always want to--you guessed it--raise taxes. They're generally for bigger government, also. So if you see the government taking more of your money and spending it to spread its influence into more and more of your life as a good thing, then maybe you're all right with the Obama/Biden rankings.

More on Experience

I was reading Linda Bergthold on HuffPo regarding Sarah Palin. I'm always struck by that attitude (and maybe it's the circles I move in, but I see it sooooo much more in Dems) when someone believes in something so completely that they can't even imagine that someone would see it differently. I see it a lot in reporters and academics. Regardless, I really had a hard time with Bergthold's piece:

I think we will look back at today as the day when the Republicans most certainly lost the Presidency.

I think she's half-right. This is the day that decides the election. I'm just not so sure this is going down as a loss for the Republicans.

In choosing Sarah Palin of Alaska for Vice President, the Republicans have made a cynical but clever choice. At least they think it is clever. She is a woman, young (44 years old)

So...she's a young, good-looking minority...

a Governor (only two years)

So...she's run a state. (The largest one in the nation, by the way. More than twice as large as the next largest.) And Obama has run how many states? (Hint: it rhymes with "zero.")

a mother (five children)

So...check me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Obama hasn't passed up a chance to get his two moppets in front of the cameras, to show what a great family man he is. Frankly, I'm impressed that she can run a family of five and hold down a job like Governor.

pro-life, and pro-gun.

Yes she is...that's why she's a Republican.

But what is she not? She is NOT pro-choice.

What?! How dare she?! You mean a woman might find abortion wrong? (See. This is that lack of acknowledgement of the other side of the argument that I was talking about.)

She has NO national experience. She has never been under the intense scrutiny of a national campaign.

This is true. You could say that she is a change from those same old politicians that we're all used to. You might even say she is a change we can believe in.

She is under investigation for some incident in Alaska that is messy and personal.

I'm sure any pertinent details about this will come out, but I would be careful dwelling on this if I were the Obama campaign, especially considering the stench of scandal after scandal around Obama himself.

She has no international experience. Her experience governing is in a very small state,

As opposed to Obama's vast international experience, I guess. How many times did he go to the Middle East, again? And as I pointed out, Alaska is the largest state. I think what Bergthold means is a sparsely-populated state. But even then, it's more populous than Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota, and it's in the same neighborhood as South Dakota...oh, and Deleware--the state represented by VP candidate Joe Biden.

famous for its "Bridge to Nowhere" kind of political graft. Her Republican colleague in that state, Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted for corruption.

Now Bergthold is just being intelectually dishonest. She's trying to associate Palin with Stevens, graft, and the "Bridge to Nowhere," as if Palin is guilty by association. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think it's a stretch to even call Stevens a "colleague." Palin is well-known for fighting (with Democrat Eric Croft, with whom she filed an ethics complaint against State Attorney General Gregg Renkes) against ethics violations and "pork" projects. "In the roughly three years since she quit as the state's chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy," and she enjoys--depending on what poll you look at--somewhere between a 70-90 percent approval rating. The truth is that while Obama likes to talk about change, Sarah Palin has already implemented many changes of that type. Oh, and I'll give you one guess which Alaska governor cancelled that "Bridge to Nowhere" that Bergthold mentioned...

I think Bergthold needs to check her pants...something smells like it's on fire.

I like Palin. If this election is about change, the one who really represents change and reform is Sarah Palin. I think the Dems made a huge mistake in not including Hillary Clinton on the ticket, and it opened the door for Sarah Palin. But that's how these things work--chance. If not for a speech given at the 2004 Democratic Convention, there's not a chance in hell that Barack Obama would be where he is now.

By the way...all this "no one knows her" business? Notice the date and title of the Weekly Standard article I linked to above: "The Most Popular Governor" 7/16/07 (emphasis mine).

UPDATE: Someone pointed out to me that despite Bergthold trying to link the "Bridge to Nowhere" to Palin (she, in fact, canceled it), maybe we should lay it in the lap of those who voted for it...including Senator Barack Obama. (According to factcheck.org, McCain "tried, unsuccessfully, to add a 'sense of the Senate' amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation.")

And You Never Let Robin Drive the Batmobile

I think the Obama campaign is going to have a tough time criticizing the choice of Sarah Palin as VP, considering Obama himself has experience issues.

The McCain ticket is Batman and Robin. The Obama ticket is Robin and Batman.

Jimmy Carter is an Assdart

In an interview with USA Today and others...

"Former president Jimmy Carter called Republican presidential candidate John McCain a 'distinguished naval officer,' but he said the Arizona senator has been 'milking every possible drop of advantage' from his time served as a prisoner of war in Vietnam."

So fucking what?

He was in a Vietnamese prison camp for five and a half years! Do I need to point out that that's a year and a half longer than Carter's entire term as president? Did I mention it was a Vietnamese prison camp? As far as I'm concerned, the guy has earned the right to bring it up as much as he wants to. Ten times a day for the rest of his life. Twenty. He could begin the answer to every question he's ever asked from this point on with it and I'd still say he's entitled.

"What can I get you today, Sir?"
"Well, When I was in a Vietnamese prison camp for five and a half years, I ate nothing but maggoty rice and bugs, so I think I'll have a Big Mac."

"Hello. Can I ask who I'm speaking with?"
"Well, when I was in a Vietnamese prison camp for five and a half years, they called me 'White Devil,' so I'll go with that."

If it was anyone but Carter, I'd say that he/she should know better.

Dat's What I'm Talkin' Bout

I link to him, so you should be reading him anyway, but just in case you're not, you need to check out this article from Larry Elder. It's a pretty good example of why, although I don't really like either candidate, I think Obama is far less qualified than McCain, and consequently a less appealing choice.

And don't forget to read the last two paragraphs.

The following day, on "Meet the Press," NBC's Andrea Mitchell said some "Obama people" suggested that McCain heard the questions in advance because he "seemed so well-prepared."

Indeed, McCain did seem better prepared — to lead this country, that is

Ah, yes...of course. McCain couldn't possibly be better organized, better prepared, a better speaker off-the-cuff. He must have been cheating. So according to Obama and/or his "people" McCain has played the "race card" and now he's playing the "already read the card" card. What's going to happen when that deck runs out?