You might think this is funny.
I found myself shouting at the computer screen a few minutes ago, spitting mad and cursing up a storm. The tirade stopped almost as fast as it started, when I realized what a spectacle I was making of myself. Lucky thing I live alone.
And what brought on this emotional storm? A blog essay entitled “Obama sought rape victim for ad”.
Seems the campaign for the Democrat candidate is seeking a female rape victim to use against the Republicans. The thrust of the ad will be that sexually abused women should vote for the Democrats because Republicans don’t fight for rape victims.
We don’t? That is news to me. Looks like it is the Democrats who let the victims down.
There are a lot of things in this world I can’t do anything about. This is one of them.
Your piece is moving; it is obviously genuine, but I also enjoyed your film noir style. It’s a warmth in the irony that surely helps you deal with such situations, but also leads people to trust you.
As a McCain supporter, your post illustrates what may be the most frustrating aspect of the events of the past couple of weeks on Wall Street.
The slow-motion meltdown of our financial system has for all intents and purposes made this into a single-issue campaign, and the single issue happens to be McCain’s Achilles’ heel, even if only by dint of belonging to the same party as George W. Bush. So, in spite of all the Democrats, and the Obama campaign in particular, have done and said to tear down McCain and Palin, and alienate voters over the course of the campaign, and in spite of McCain’s overall superiority as a candidate, Obama nonetheless appears poised for a big win in November simply by having gotten incredibly lucky, and having such a potentially campaign-crushing turn of events fall into his lap.
“…simply by having gotten incredibly lucky…”
A lot turns on luck in politics.
Three presidents with stellar careers prior to the presidency have gone down as chumps: Van Buren, Cleveland, Hoover. Why? All walked into major downturns in the economy and got the blame.
I hope for all our sakes that does not happen now.
But if it does, it will not look like “luck” for Obama to win in a few weeks.
The fundamental question is whether or not children should be punished for the crime committed by their father. Liberals claim the child must die, even if the father is set free by the court. Some conservatives agree.
So, should the child die if the father raped the mother?
If a mother has the right to kill her child before it is born, does she not also have the right to kill the child after it has been born? Why or Why not?
Remember:It is written “What the Mother Giveth she may take away.” Should this right continue for as long as her child shall live?
Can the mother kill the child if she is raped even though the child’s father is the rapists but the child was not concieved by sperm ejaculated during that rape?
Why or why not?
“The fundamental question is whether or not children should be punished for the crime committed by their father.”
No, it isn’t. The fundamental question is which political party does more to aid crime victims.
My position is that at least the GOP doesn’t have a record of trying to take away the very tools average people desperately need to prevent future crimes.
If you want to start a discussion on abortion, then get your own blog. Don’t go off topic on one of my posts.
James
Looking at it from outside I’d say you guys veer from one extreme – great joy as McCain will win “with a landslide” to complete depression because he has no chance. If the poll figures are anything to go by, there is everything to play for. If they are not anything to go by then all bets are off anyway. Yes, yes, Lex, there is Intrade but not everyone seems to believe in them even if their past record is quite good. Didn’t, I understand, give good odds on Palin being picked so this election may be beyond anyone’s ability to predict.
The bulk of this disgraceful (for the Dems) story reminds me of a supposed episode during the Biafra war when a British reporter was heard to ask as he walked past a group of terrified refugees: “Anyone here been raped and speaks English?”
I give McCain/Palin 60% at winning… and that will be in spite of themselves not because of themes3elves.
I’m with Vince P on this one.
All the signs were there for an easy Kerry win back in 2004. High voter turnout, lots of new voter registration, the media loved him, Bush was facing some harsh criticism for our handling of the Iraqi reconstruction. (Considering what the country had before we got there, maybe I should say “The Iraqi construction!”)
Didn’t happen, obviously. The election was even relatively tight, although not as neck-and-neck as in 2000. Didn’t stop the Left from inventing conspiracy theories as to why Kerry lost, though.
Looks like the same thing is happening this time around, although it seems that the Dems are trying to come up with reasons why their guy didn’t win before the first ballot is cast.
The race is close, but McCain has a better chance to carry the day than anyone is willing to admit.
James
arm all our daughters with guns? no thanks. What the Democrats mean–and if you are honest you know this–is that women should have the right to elect abortion if they so want it and not be forced to have a rapists’s baby, as Palin is on record as believing. In fact, state by state, the more guns readily available the more death by guns…
Now: which party would prefer to end the right to abortion:? Which party believes in sex education and the m,aking available birth control information and devices?
the issue is not guns but rape and abortion rights…any honest reader knows that is what was intended.
If McCain loses it will not be just because of the economy! I have never seen a campaign so poorly run or a candidate doing all possible to lose credibility…
Fred:
I think you will have a difficult time if you look for honesty here. I imagine most of the writers here didn’t support mcCain in the primaries now he is the greatest thing beside govenor Palin.
I imagine most writers, some who call the Wall Street Journal a liberal rag (beside the editorial content), only read partisan, blogs, Opinion pages and magazines.
Because remember, folks, supporting the less bad solution out of a choice of shit sandwitches is fundamentally dishonest, wrong, and bad.
Well, Phil gets the point. He admits McCain Palin is the better part of shit.
Sorry, Phil,
Let me be clear. It is my experience with this blog, is they are very supportive of the ticket and have not denounced much about. For example, some writers views of Sara Palin.
Now if you guys want just a conservative echo chamber, that is fine. Some liberal blogs are the same. I guess it is just dissappointing because of the name of this blog which would imply their would be some degree of intellectual heft. Alas, there does not seem to be much. (Although, Phil, perhaps, through your admission, maybe there is a bit).
“In fact, state by state, the more guns readily available the more death by guns”¦”
…because people who are more likely to be victims of criminal violence are more likely to arm themselves.
Unless you are suggesting that firearms have some sort of bizarre mind control power, turning law abiding people into violent criminals. But I know you wouldn’t ever mean something that was so divorced from reality.
The problem I have with proponents of gun control is that they refuse to acknowledge that the basic premise of their position has been discredited. And it has been discredited for years!
In 2005, a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences was published. It seems that, even after exhaustive research, not a single scrap of evidence could be found to support the idea that any gun control laws had ever reduced crime or violence.
This post over at The Volokh Conspiracy summed it up at the time.
“Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn’t identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. From the assault weapons ban to the Brady Act to one-gun-a-month restrictions to gun locks, nothing worked.”
And yet, for some reason, those on the Left cling bitterly to the idea that yet another law restricting firearms will actually work!
Why do you guys do this? I thought you were supposed to be the Reality Party.
Bradley left a comment where he said….
“I guess it is just dissappointing because of the name of this blog which would imply their would be some degree of intellectual heft. Alas, there does not seem to be much.”
I dunno, Bradley. I don’t see too many people from the other side of the aisle who are willing to acknowledge the facts of this subject.
James
Bradley writes:
I imagine most of the writers here didn’t support mcCain in the primaries now he is the greatest thing beside govenor Palin.
“Imagine” is the correct word.
I imagine most writers, some who call the Wall Street Journal a liberal rag (beside the editorial content), only read partisan, blogs, Opinion pages and magazines.
There’s that word again. Another false statement by Bradley.
Let me be clear. It is my experience with this blog, is they are very supportive of the ticket and have not denounced much about. For example, some writers views of Sara Palin.
My goodness, are you suggesting that you weren’t clear before? I must have imagined it. What I’m not imagining is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Now if you guys want just a conservative echo chamber, that is fine. Some liberal blogs are the same. I guess it is just dissappointing because of the name of this blog which would imply their would be some degree of intellectual heft. Alas, there does not seem to be much. (Although, Phil, perhaps, through your admission, maybe there is a bit).
Echo chamber… echo chamber… am I imagining it or is this term often used by people who have no argument? We don’t have intellectual heft! Maybe we should eat more of whatever you’re eating. Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for playing.
“Obama sought rape victim for ad”
Mmm…
Let me get this straight: some fellows at the Obama campaign actually believe that a rape victim can ideally make the case for the pro-abortion liberal agenda?
What’s the reasoning behind this ad? What’re the voters suppose to think when they see the new ads?
I think it doesn’t make sense and it won’t fly too high. Besides, the democrats are risking being labeled as spineless and dirty manipulators trying to make political profit out of victims of rape.
It is a cheap and very silly ad based on a false idea: that Americans will vote the Democratic ticket under the premise that if they themselves, or some women in their family is ever raped and gets pregnant, then, under a liberal/democrat abortion-fostering government, be able to legally and happily abort in a clinic (at the taxpayers expense, of course).
Yeah right!
As if most people lived their lives under these and other equally stupid assumptions!
A friend lives in Pennsylvania. 2 weeks ago the NRA ran ads in Pa claiming Obama was against guns. As you knoe Obama threatened legal action against the stations and cable companies that carried the ads. Now there are no NRA ads.
Obama knows how to get things done! He gives good speeches. He believes in state sponsored business.
Do you think he can make the planes run on time?
Will he have the first All Black cabinet?
“Phil Fraering Says:
October 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm Because remember, folks, supporting the less bad solution out of a choice of [crap] sandwitches is fundamentally dishonest, wrong, and bad.”
No, it is not dishonet. If the damage factor of X is 10 and the damage factor of Y is 10000000 and it is certain that either X or Y will be done, then doing X is the right choice.
You want to get ticked? Here:
===================================================
From the AP story about the bailout that passed:
Add on the $3 billion funding dollop for rural school programs over the next five years. And another $8 billion over the same period in disaster aid, much of it for Midwestern states. And toss in unrelated legislation, far-reaching in its own right, requiring insurance plans to provide better benefits for mental health.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
***What*** the > > F * * * < < is any of this doing tossed into an emergency bailout bill?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>:-(
Remember in November:
Just Fire these bastard pieces of s***.
Fire all of ’em.
.===================================================
Jonathan:
I didn’t think you could get it.
> I hope for all our sakes that does not happen now.
> But if it does, it will not look like “luck” for Obama to win in a few weeks.
Hoover, at least, screwed the pooch when it came to his “fixes” for the problem. Not necessarily his fault, but that was the case, nonetheless. And FDR only came in and exacerbated the problem, drawing it out and creating a legacy of incompetently designed institutions whose failure has been at the heart of two of the worst downturns since the Great Depression — S&Ls & “Fannie Mac”… the Ponzi Scheme of Social Security sits back waiting to pounce.
Obama, OTOH, is going to utterly screw things up with obvious signs that what he is doing is wrong.
The Iran Hostage crisis showed, very clearly, the limits of Soft Power. Jimmy Carter’s near perfect record of negative Foreign Policy accomplishments is a shining example to us all. Obama is an advocate of Soft Power, in spite of this blatant evidence.
The whole of the 70s repudiated Keynesianism, and the history of both Russia and China have repudiated Marxist economics. Both systems, however, are at the heart of the Obamanectomy about to be performed on the US Economy, should he win. US productivity will tank. Those with money WILL leave the USA for better tax climes. The economy, which has grown by a fact of 10 in the last 25 years (DJIA – 1983-2008), thanks to free market policies initiated under Reagan, will take a down spiral like it did in the 1970s, and, until someone with a brain gets back in charge, will at best remain neutral, much as the US Economy did for almost 20 years in the 60s and 70s (check the DJIA for 1963-1982).
I lived through the 1970s. It wasn’t fun. If Obama gets elected, they’re going to be back with a vengeance. And Obama will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in US History — worse, even, than Jimmy Carter.
And every time a black man runs for PotUS for the next 20-30 years, the first response is going to be — “Yeah? Look what happened the last time.”. For the first black PotUS, we need Jackie Robinson, not J.J. Walker. After that, skin color finally won’t matter ever again to the position.
Has anybody here taken an economics course. Reagan’s tax cuts coincided with the beginning of new era of monetary policy. I never hear conservatives talk about that when they talk about the 80s. Funny.
I remember the 80s.. Reagan and O’Neil made a deal to cut taxes and cut spending at half the tax-cut rate. ( or something like that)
They shook hands, and then ONeil promptly broke his side of the deal and increased spending.
Tax cuts don’t cause budget problems… spending does.
I may be mistaken, but didn’t Reagan have a veto?
Wasn’t much of this spending military? And don’t use the tiresome argument “well, the military needed to be built up to win the cold war” because you just said “Tax cuts don’t cause budget problems”¦ spending does.”
Well I guess you can but it is a contradiction.
There is no evidence that in the longterm, tax cuts increase revenue. There is evidence is that they do in the short-term but I don’t feel like getting into.
Has anybody here taken an economics course. Reagan’s tax cuts coincided with the beginning of new era of monetary policy. I never hear conservatives talk about that when they talk about the 80s. Funny.
No, Bradley. You ARE the only one of us who has ever taken an economics course. Isn’t this obvious?
As to the substance of your comment, are you saying that monetary policy was responsible for the economic boom that began in the 1980s, and that tax-rate reductions played no part? Please clarify.
BTW, who are these conservatives you speak of, who never mention 1980s monetary policy? Is it someone in this discussion? If so, you might consider addressing your comments to that person directly. If not, why are you complaining to us?
Did the ad ever get created or run? The original article on Politico says that the evidence that Obama’s campaign looked for a rape victim for an ad is “an email obtained by Politico.”
Premature to get apoplectic about this.
Some people laugh at this idea. Its called the Laffer curve. It predicts that if you reduce income taxes you get more money. When Reagan heard about the Laffer curve, he cited it when he lowered tax rates. It worked. He got more money in tax receipts.
This gave the Democrats fits. They went into denial. And stayed there. They claim that taxes are so low today that it can’t happen again.
Obama is the exact opposite of Reagan. Where Reagan wanted to get the government offf the backs of the people, Obama wants to put it firmly on their back, like a drug habit.
Obama caused this current market catastrophe. For 2 years Obama has been bad mouthing the US and its economy. Like a classic short-seller trying to make money by forcing the stock market to crash and burn, Obama has take every minor imperfection and magnified it into major evidence that the Economy has failed.
Now the crash has arrived because Americans have lost confidence in themselves, their jobs and their country — all thanks to Obama and his band of merry men.
Now is the time for Americans to wake up and realize that Obama has lied and that America is still striong and our economy is still strong and will be strong as long as we believe in it. It is time to say “Get Thee behind me Obama”, it is time to leave the darkness and embrace the light.
> In fact, state by state, the more guns readily available the more death by guns”¦
This is flat out complete BS. Further,
1) Murder is only one crime. Guns prevent far more crimes than they are used in, usually in an undocumented manner. Often just the sound of the gun being cocked, or it being visibly waved, encourages thieves, muggers, rapists and assorted other thugs to look elsewhere for easier prey.
2) If you want facts, the fact is that the more relaxed “concealed carry” laws are, the LESS crime.
3) Both the UK and Australia have defacto outlawed all citizen gun ownership. Crime rates in both places have shot through the roof, particularly home-invasion robberies where the home owner is PRESENT (most robberies in the US occur when the home owner is AWAY… and if there is anything worse than having your home robbed, it has to be standing there helplessly watching while it happens and fearing for the well-being of yourself and your loved ones). Further, most criminals are young, tough thugs. With guns missing from the mix, their preferred victims? Women and seniors — both of whom tend to lack the physical capacity to resist the young toughs.
4) What stats in support of your claim invariably do two things —
a) Assume that any crimes are normalized across the entire populace. In real fact, most of the individuals who are murdered with guns are other criminals. When criminal-on-criminal stats are removed, America’s high murder rates are much closer to those of other Euro nations.
b) Assume that the same crimes would never, ever be committed in the absence of guns. While guns certainly increase the probability of a murder or suicide attempt being successful, they don’t eliminate the intent.
“Gun Control” laws should be called what they really are — “Victim Disarmament” laws.
.
>>> There is no evidence that in the longterm, tax cuts increase revenue. There is evidence is that they do in the short-term but I don’t feel like getting into.
> Some people laugh at this idea. Its called the Laffer curve. It predicts that if you reduce income taxes you get more money. When Reagan heard about the Laffer curve, he cited it when he lowered tax rates. It worked. He got more money in tax receipts.
Bradley, there’s no evidence your IQ is above 30, given your statement that tax cuts don’t increase revenue… “short term”/”long term”? WTF does that mean? In every instance tax cuts have been implemented, revenues have *risen* shortly thereafter. Are you attempting to claim that they somehow drift downward after going up?
I’m sure that there is an optimum point at which cutting taxes will lower revenues, and raising taxes lowers revenues. But the Dems don’t care one whit about balancing jack, about anything but funding whatever handout they currently support in order to get themselves re-elected.
In classic terms, this is the main flaw of Democracy (and one reason we were never supposed to be a Democracy in the first place, but a Republic) — it’s called “Bread And Circuses”.
Once slightly more than half the population gets the idea that they can make the other not-quite-half pay for their food and entertainment, that society is doomed. We are pretty much just about there, it appears. If Obama gets elected, we will, indeed, be there.
We stand on a cusp, apparently foolishly ready to venture forth into, as the Chinese put it, “interesting times“.
> It is my experience with this blog, is they are very supportive of the ticket and have not denounced much about. For example, some writers views of Sara Palin.
OK, explain to me, please — why should I waste time denouncing McCain or Palin at this point, just because I may thoroughly disagree with them both on any number of matters?
Because the fact of the matter is, whether I want to vote FOR them or not, it is blatantly self-evident to me who I want to vote AGAINST.
M/P may not support policies with which I fully agree, but Obama/Biden quite evidently support policies with which I strongly dissent.
Hence, “intellectual honesty” does not call for me to waste time detailing my disagreements with M/P, when I am so blatantly at odds with O/B.
The choice is clear, the vote required is self-evident.
Only an imbecile studying to be an idiot — and failing — would imagine otherwise.
AFTER the much more immediate question is resolved, THEN I will spend time concerning myself with the actions and policies of M/P.
To paraphrase:
“Intellectualism is the impotent shadow of action. Or, more simply: ‘Maybe You Think Too Much?'”
.