Archive for October, 2008

Still Not Over…

October 30, 2008

Dick Morris offers some thoughts on where the presidential race stands now.  Could we be in for another 2000 election scenario?


Obama Declared the Winner

October 28, 2008

CNNPolitics notes that the bi-monthly Newspaper The New Mexico Sun News decided to go ahead and declare Barack Obama the winner of the presidential election for its October 26-November 8 issue.  This may have been a foolish, counterproductive move.  I am not joking when I say this: it is very possible that a number of Obama supporters will think the race actually is over as a result of reading this headline and will not, therefore, vote.

A Journalist Laments Media Bias

October 28, 2008

Michael Malone, a media insider, has written a scathing piece criticizing the mainstream media for their bias in this presidential election.  He writes,

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Toward the end of the piece he suggests the reason why: in this election, editors see an opportunity for the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine,” a law that would put restrictions on their competitors (alternative media) and possibly save the mainstream media as an industry.  I think it is quite plausible as a theory.  If so, then what is happening before our eyes is a selfish betrayal of the public.

Media Bias: It’s More about What They Don’t Say

October 27, 2008

Back in 2004, when there was a hint of a (false) suggestion that President Bush’s service in the National Guard had been less than honorable, the media had a field day with it (one that ended Dan Rather’s career).  They were zealous to investigate a story that had important implications for a presidential candidate.  It didn’t matter that the story wasn’t true.  All that mattered was that it was out there, and for that reason it deserved a great deal of attention.

Apparently, their zeal only goes in one direction.  I haven’t heard a word from them about this.

UPDATE: The judge punted and threw out the lawsuit without considering its merits because he deemed the plaintiff to have no standing.  It will be appealed to the Supreme Court, setting us up for the possibility that Obama could be elected next week and then sometime later deemed constitutionally unqualified to serve as President.  So, let’s recap on the reasons not to vote for Obama:

(1) His election will precipitate a national crisis as foreign powers test him (Joe Biden guaranteed this!).

(2) His experience is negligible; he has not even finished a complete term in the Senate, and for most of his partial term he has been campaigning for President, which he himself had previously sworn off ever doing (for precisely that reason) in 2004.

(3) His views on abortion are at the far-left extreme.

(4) He regrets that the Constitution does not make provision for the redistribution of wealth, but he will seek to enact such policies legislatively (against the Constitution).  Is he a socialist?  Probably not.  But his commitment to at least a semi-Marxist idealogy trumps his commitment to the Constitution.  How can a man swear to defend the Constitution if he holds to an idealogy that negates it, at least in some respects?

(5) He wants to meet personally with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions.

(6) He will raise taxes during an economic recession, further compounding the problem.

(7) He has not proposed how he will pay for his massive spending proposals.

(8) His background is littered with shady connections: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, etc.

(9) An Obama presidency, combined with an almost certain Democratic Congress (perhaps even filibuster proof) would result in two years of pure, unadulterated liberalism, and we could expect to see an expansion of government like we have not seen since the 1930’s.   

(10) If elected, an Obama presidency might precipitate a constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules that he is constitutionally unqualified to serve as President.

It is hard to imagine a more solid case against a presidential candidate.

Are We in Bizarro World?

October 26, 2008

Here is a clip of a reporter relentlessly going after a certain candidate for vice president…and that candidate is, surprisingly, not Sarah Palin:

The Obama campaign has now cut off all interviews with the TV station.

Words of Wisdom

October 25, 2008

“At the end of your life, you’re lucky if you die.”–Flight of the Conchords

Krauthammer on the Election

October 24, 2008

Charles Krauthammer’s column today in the Washington Post (online) is simply excellent.  He makes a solid case for John McCain, turning attention away from economic woes to the simple reality that we live in a dangerous world, and with regard to national security, McCain is by far more worthy of our trust than is Obama.  He writes:

There’s just no comparison. Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis “generated” precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he’s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

I hope we are not so blinded by the economy on November 4th that we put into office a man not ready or capable of leading us wisely in these dangerous times.

The Pro-Choice Double Standard

October 23, 2008

I had an interesting conversation with my wife yesterday about a recent episode of Dr. Phil that she saw.  Apparently, Dr. Phil recently featured a male guest who had fathered a child out of wedlock with a woman who thought she could never get pregnant.  He wanted her to terminate the pregnancy, but she wanted to keep the baby.  The man was trying to make a legal argument that he should have a right to choose not to be a father every bit as much as she has the right to choose not to be a mother.  He wasn’t trying to force her to have an abortion.  He was just trying to get off the hook for child support. 

I have never thought of it this way before, but the pro-choice movement really only gives a choice to the women involved in a pregnancy.  If a man fathers a child, society tells him to step up, be a man, and take responsibility for what he has done.  We hear nothing about the scared young man (or boy) facing a difficult personal decision about whether or not he wants to be a father at this time.  Instead, when it comes to the man involved, society suddenly becomes gung-ho about personal responsibility.  “When you choose to have sex, you choose the consequences of your actions,” we tell him. 

And then we turn to the woman and say, “This is a difficult situation, and we want you to know that we will not force you to be ‘punished with a baby,’ as St. Obama has said.  We are sensitive to the deep personal struggle you must be having right now, and we want you to have the freedom to make the best possible choice for yourself and your body.  If having this baby in any way threatens your health (in the loosest possible sense of that term, encompassing emotional, relational, and even financial well-being), then you have every right to terminate your pregnancy and choose not to be a mother at this time.”  We demand personal responsibility from the man and bend over backwards to encourage the woman to feel free to make the choice to dodge responsibility.

Perhaps an interesting legal challenge to the Roe v. Wade decision would be to argue that it violates the equal protection clause by not giving the same kinds of freedoms to a man that it gives to a woman.  If that argument is ever made, it would not be a victory in principle for the pro-life movement (since it would not rest on pro-life theory), but it would be a practical victory (since it would overturn Roe v. Wade).  One powerful way to make an argument against another position is to employ the reductio ad absurdum, the argument by which you carry your opponent’s view to its logical conclusion, which reduces to absurdity, a view that he or she would never hold.  By doing so, you expose the weakness in his or her present position by showing that there is no inherent barrier in that position that prevents the absurd conclusion that you have drawn.  In this case, I believe the logic of the pro-choice movement inevitably leads to allowing men the same rights as women when it comes to parenthood.  Fathers should have a choice about whether or not they want to be fathers; they should be allowed to opt out of child support if they like.  It is simply inconsistent for prospective mothers to be given a choice when fathers are demanded to step up and take responsibility for what they have done.  Of course, very few in the pro-choice movement actually believe this, but I don’t see how you can avoid this conclusion, given their arguments.

In truth, as a society we should demand that all people, men and women, take responsibility for their actions.  That means fathers must continue to be on the hook for child support.  But it also means that mothers don’t get a free pass to avoid the consequences of their actions.

The Horror of Abortion

October 22, 2008

Justin Taylor has a great post on so-called “single issue” voters.  The point he makes is not that we consider abortion to be the only important issue.  It is, rather, that “abortion is the great moral outrage of our day.”  He also provides a link to the video below.  I first saw this video at a church event in Marshall, Texas, back in 2002.  I didn’t realize that it was available on the internet.  Be advised, it is horrific, but it is only a documentation of the true horror of what abortion is.  It is time for the public to wake up to what we are doing to our children:

It Ain’t Over…

October 21, 2008

Thomas Sowell has a good column on polls, the media, and the state of the presidential race.  Ann Coulter has made a similar argument.