In a side by side comparison, Palin would be more qualified to be president than Obama.
This amusing but factual comparison in Redstate sets it out clearly: Palin on the left (for once), Obama on the right. Read the whole thing at www.redstate.com posted on 30 August 2008 by Jeff Emanuel.
attends Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau and grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God
|Attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a "black liberation theology" church formerly led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and governed according to the Black Value System|
|Current Job||Governor of Alaska||Junior Senator from Illinois|
|Previous Public Jobs||
Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002); President of Alaska Conference of Mayors;
City Council member (1992-1996)
State Senator (1997-2004);
Governor for 2 years;
Mayor for 10 years
|Foreign Relations experience||Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia)||
Chaired Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session;
once gave a speech to 200,000 screaming Germans
|Military Affairs experience||
Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard;
Son is enlisted Infantryman in U.S. Army
|Private Sector Experience||
|Associate at civil rights law firm|
|Speaking ability||Beautifully executed initial stump speech in Dayton, OH hockey arena without a teleprompter||An enter…wait–did you say without a teleprompter??|
‘Fighting climate change,’ writes Christopher Booker in the Telegraph, ‘has become the single most expensive item on the world’s political agenda.’ One estimate of the cost is $45 trillion.
The article exposes the ‘outright falsifications’, the ‘bogus science’. the ‘politicization of the IPCC [the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] ‘, and the ‘flimsiness of the case for global warming’.
The ‘hockey-stick’ graph which warmists like Al Gore have used to stir up concern almost to the point of panic is revealed to be a prize piece of nonsense:
The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction. Again and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious "hockey stick".
Initially the advocates of global warming had one huge problem. Evidence from all over the world indicated that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today.
This was so generally accepted that the first two IPCC reports included a graph, based on work by Sir John Houghton himself, showing that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.
The trouble was that this blew a mighty hole in the thesis that warming was caused only by recent man-made CO2.
Then in 1999 an obscure young US physicist, Michael Mann, came up with a new graph like nothing seen before.
Instead of the familiar rises and falls in temperature over the past 1,000 years, the line ran virtually flat, only curving up dramatically at the end in a hockey-stick shape to show recent decades as easily the hottest on record.
This was just what the IPCC wanted, The Mediaeval Warming had simply been wiped from the record.
When its next report came along in 2001, Mann’s graph was given top billing, appearing right at the top of page one of the Summary for Policymakers and five more times in the report proper.
But then two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, got to work on how Mann had arrived at his graph.
When, with great difficulty, they eventually persuaded Mann to hand over his data, it turned out he had built into his programme an algorithm which would produce a hockey stick shape whatever data were fed into it.
Even numbers from the phonebook would come out looking like a hockey stick.
Yet governments are relying on such ‘evidence’ to damage our way of life beyond recognition.
Read the whole article here.
… may be in our sights. Gender should not matter in public service, any more than race, but to many it does.
Sarah Palin, running mate of John McCain, came across in her speech today as strong and competent.
Her record is one of integrity, probity, energy, common sense, and real accomplishment.
The only fault I could find with her speech was that she said – or seemed to say – ‘nucular’ (like Homer Simpson) instead of ‘nuclear’. I hope I’m wrong about this, but in any case it’s not a significant flaw.
… and a worthless speech.
Not worth deep analysis, but Power Line dusts it off effectively:
Fireworks! The perfect end to an evening of BS slinging of historic proportions. Barack Obama is a demagogue who will stoop to any lie or distortion; the question is how many people he can fool. On that, the jury is out. The answer will emerge between now and November.
It will take some time to dissect all of the foolishness we heard tonight, but here are a few observations:
Obama outlined, in the vaguest terms possible, countless billions or trillions of new federal spending. How would he pay for it? By "closing corporate loopholes"–like what? The idea that Obama’s orgy of spending can be funded by "closing corporate loopholes" is frankly childish. By increasing taxes on the top 5% of taxpayers, i.e., precisely those who are grossly over-taxed already. The top 5% already pay 60% of all federal income taxes. And by "eliminating programs that no longer work." Really? Which ones? No one seriously imagines that Obama–let alone the Democratic Congress!–has any intention of eliminating any significant government programs.
Obama says he wants to become independent of foreign oil in ten years. How? By tapping natural gas reserves. I wonder whether Obama, unlike Nancy Pelosi, understands that natural gas is a fossil fuel for which we must drill offshore, in ANWR, etc. There was perhaps some news here: Obama also came out for developing nuclear energy, yet another flip-flop. But does anyone imagine that nuclear energy development would go forward in a Democratic Congress and White House? In one of his many cheap shots, Obama said that we import three times as much foreign oil as when John McCain went to Washington. That’s no doubt true, because the Democratic Party has enacted legislation that makes it illegal to develop our domestic resources.
Obama said he is happy to debate John McCain about who has the judgment and temperament to guide foreign policy. Of course, he has had many opportunities to do so, and has ducked them. Does this mean that Obama will now accept McCain’s challenge to a series of town hall appearances? But what about Obama’s foreign policy judgment? He barely mentioned Iraq–once, in the distant past, his signature issue–but never referred at all to the surge. Obama was dead wrong on the most important foreign policy issue that has arisen during his time in the Senate, and he failed even to mention it, let alone try to justify his error.
Rather weirdly, Obama attacked McCain for alleged unwillingness to "follow Osama bin Laden to the cave where he lives." If this means anything, it means that Obama is still in favor of invading Pakistan. Again, no one really believes Obama will do this; it’s just another example of how he doesn’t feel any obligation to conform his words to reality.
He says we "don’t deter Iran by talking tough," so how, then, do we deter Iran? Obama offers no clue. Likewise with Georgia; "talking tough" won’t stop the Russians. True enough; deterring the Russians requires military capability. Yet Obama has pledged to reduce our military capability. So how, exactly, are the Russians to be stopped?
Obama is utterly unreliable every time he recites a statistic. Examples could be multiplied endlessly; to take just one, he said tonight that "the average American family saw its income go down $2,000 under George Bush." That is untrue. Here are the real median household income figures from the Census Bureau; click to enlarge:
Inflation-adjusted median income during the Bush administration is up, not "down $2,000" since 2001, and it increased again last year.
Of course, Obama has no intention of appealing to the well-informed. Like other Democrats, he feeds on ignorance. Whether a majority of voters are ignorant enough to swallow Obama’s whoppers is, as yet, unknown.
One last thought: was there a single sentence in Obama’s speech that could not have come from Jimmy Carter?
Peter Wehner writes on Commentary’s Contentions website:
It is striking that when speaking about Barack Obama’s years in Chicago, Democrats invoke like an incantation his work as a community organizer–which I gather is not all that impressive–rather than his record as a state legislator. You would never know that Obama does in fact have a legislative record; it’s simply one Democrats cannot highlight without doing enormous damage to Obama.
I have written pieces that document Obama’s overall legislative record and his fluctuating and misguided positions on Iraq. And today the Washington Times does us the service ofexamining, with some care, Obama’s record as an Illinois state senator. According to theTimes,
Sen. Barack Obama will portray himself Thursday night as an agent of change for mainstream America, but his eight-year voting record in the Illinois Senate shows the Democrat was on occasion an agent of isolation who took stands – particularly on anti-crime legislation – that put him to the left of his own party.
Mr. Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers; was among only four who voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences and to increase penalties for “gangbangers” and dealers of Ecstasy; and voted “present” on a bill making it harder for abusive parents to regain custody of their children, a Washington Timesreview of Illinois legislative records shows.
You might think that Obama’s voting record in Illinois would be of intense interest to the media, given how few achievements Obama has and how little is known about him. But you would be wrong. There has been far more attention on his biography than on his stands on the issue or his underlying political philosophy. For example, Obama is able to take the most radical stand on abortion imaginable, and yet there is far more coverage given to the number of houses owned by Cindy McCain.
Barack Obama, based on his voting record, has established himself as the most liberal nominee since George McGovern. On issue after issue, Obama has positioned himself outside–and in some instances far outside–the American political mainstream. We can only hope that during the next 68 days there will be far more attention devoted to the substance of Obama’s record rather than his rhetoric and the mood he evokes.
Senator Obama, building on his post-primary victory, will try mightily to pretend that his political views are significantly different than his political record. His campaign depends on obscuring the reality of that record. Any person whose campaign is predicated on creating such large distortions and deceptions ought not to be elected President.
Obama and Biden both want closer US ties to Iran.
‘Sen. Barack Obama and his newly-picked running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, may have sparred during the primaries. But on one issue they are firmly united: the need to forge closer ties to the government of Iran.
Kaveh Mohseni, a spokesman for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, calls Biden “a great friend of the mullahs.”
He notes that Biden’s election campaigns “have been financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network,” a loosely-knit group of wealthy Iranian-American businessmen and women seeking to end the U.S. trade embargo on Iran.
"In exchange, the senator does his best to aid the mullahs,” Mohseni argues.
Biden’s ties to pro-Tehran lobbying groups are no secret. But so far, the elite media has avoided even mentioning the subject.
Just recently, Biden was one of 16 U.S. senators who voted against a bill that would add Iran’s Revolutionary Guards corps to the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations, because of its involvement in murdering U.S. troops in Iraq.’
Read the whole Newsmax article here.
Nancy Pelosi does not know that natural gas has to be drilled for.
Power Line reports and comments:
So it’s beyond dispute: Nancy Pelosi really does not understand that natural gas is a fossil fuel. This is truly shocking. Pelosi is one of the principal people responsible for setting the nation’s energy policy. In the House of Representatives, she has blocked exploration and development of natural gas resources as well as other fossil fuels, thereby raising the price of gasoline at the pump and energy costs across the board. And she has wielded this immense power while being ignorant of the most basic facts about energy. She is not qualified to carry on an intelligent conversation about energy, let alone set the nation’s energy policy.
The folks at the Institute for Energy Research have prepared a primer on energy for Mrs. Pelosi’s benefit:
Natural gas is colorless, odorless fossil fuel that is prized for its cleanliness and its many uses – including energy. It is produced in much the same way as oil – by drilling for it – and is often produced in conjunction with oil.
Pelosi’s ignorance is deadly; she says she is a big booster of natural gas, but she literally fails to understand that to get natural gas we have to drill for it, onshore and off. Hence this exchange yesterday:
BROKAW: Sounds like we’re going to have offshore drilling.
PELOSI: No, no, no.
Nancy Pelosi’s ignorance is costing every American money, impairing our economy, depriving us of untold hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, and endangering our national security. One wonders how long voters will be willing to put up with Democratic control of Congress.
George Will asks:
There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today’s politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, "saving the planet," and promising edicts to "require" entire industries to reorder themselves?
In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign’s scabrous fundraising, exclaimed: "Where’s the outrage?" This year’s campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?
Read his whole article on Obama’s airy-fairy, rather puerile promises and what they’d cost the tax-payer here.
Charles Krauthammer writes:
It’s not until paragraph six that NATO, a 26-nation alliance with 900 million people and nearly half of world GDP, unsheathes its mighty sword, boldly declaring "Russian military action" – not aggression, not invasion, not even incursion, but "action" – to be "inconsistent with its peacekeeping role."
Having launched a fearsome tautology Moscow’s way, what further action does the Greatest Alliance Of All Time take? Cancels the next NATO-Russia Council meeting.
That’s it. No dissolution of the G-8. No blocking of Russian entry to the World Trade Organization. No suspension of participation in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics (15 miles from the Georgian border). No statement of support for the Saakashvili government.
Read the rest of this important article here.
Rafael D Frankel, correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, wrote in the August 12, 2008 edition:
"I want [the Israelis] to come back," says Riyad al-Laham, an unemployed father of eight who worked in the area’s Jewish settlements for nearly 20 years. "All the Mawassi people used to work in the settlements and make good money. Now there is nothing to do. Even our own agricultural land is barren."
Located in the middle of Gush Katif, the former block of Jewish settlements here, Mawassi fell within the security cordon the Israeli army threw around its citizens from 2002 to 2005, when attacks from the neighboring Palestinian town of Khan Yunis came almost daily.
During those years, the people of Mawassi continued to work in Gush Katif, mainly as farmhands in hundreds of greenhouses the Jewish settlers operated.
Mr. Laham and many others in Mawassi say they preferred the relative economic security of those days to the current destitution, even if they are now free from Israeli occupation.
"Freedom to go where?" Laham asks. "I have no fuel now for my car. Where can I go? Freedom is a slogan. Even for a donkey you need money – which I don’t have."
Three years ago, before Israel withdrew, Mawassi was a town of fertile corn crops and greenhouses, which – like the ones in the Jewish settlements – grew cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, and strawberries.
Now, in the ethnic Palestinian section of town, nearly half the land lies barren.
Only shells remain of many of the greenhouses that were stripped of valuable materials.
A city that fed itself with its produce and the money its men made from working with the settlers, Mawassi is now dependent on food handouts from the United Nations.
Like the rest of Gaza, its people lack cooking gas and petrol, even if they feel more secure without Israeli soldiers all around them.
In the Bedouin section of town, Salem al-Bahabsa sits with five of his 24 grandchildren in front of his chicken coop. Goats and sheep wander around the other parts of the Bedouin quarter, where people live mostly in tents with tin roofs.
"We are all now unemployed and depend on charity for food," Mr. Bahabsa says. "My sons were farmers in the greenhouses. We worked in the settlements and had resources. Now, I don’t think I could survive without [the UN]…. Before was better."