This web ad by Senator John McCain’s Presidential campaign, while perhaps more in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh than Senator McCain, proves one thing: that McCain has found his big guns, and he is finally willing to use them on Senator Obama. The new few months are going to be dirty, folks
EDIT: 6/24/09 to fix broken link.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin, which drew a crowd of 200,000, will likely go down as one of the oddest moments in electoral history. A candidate for the President of the United States visited Europe and the Middle East, holding talks with top-leaders and delivering speeches like a foreign dignitary, topped off by a speech in Berlin, near the Branderburg Gate, discussion the destruction of walls. What’s more, 200,000 enthusiastic, American flag waving Germans showed up to listen to the speech in person, more than would ever appear (either in favor or against) for a speech by the current President Bush. Senator Obama is not campaigning for the President of the United States, it would seem, but to be the leader of the free world (or at least Europe).
A few observations are necessary. First, Obama is experiencing incredible European support—62% of German citizens, 64% French, and 60% of British voters would all vote for Barack Obama if given the opportunity. And while it is understandable that Senator Obama would seek popularity on the world stage (restoring America’s respect in the world has been a frequent topic of his campaign), his virtual super-star status in Europe makes his speech look like he is President already, making policy and traveling the world as an official ambassador of American good will and, of course, hope.
Second, his reference to “walls”:
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
Referring to cultural and social differences as “walls’ smacks of elitist multi-culturalism, and is a slap in the face to those who remember the real walls that snaked through Berlin less than 20 years ago. Soviet Communism presented a very real and dangerous threat—similar to the one currently being brought forth by Islamic terrorism. But to compare religious and cultural differences to the fundamental political differences of freedom that separated the Soviet Union from the rest of Western Europe is an unforgivable mis-proportioning of the past.
Third, his comments on terrorism are strikingly absent of any mention of Iraq.
“This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it [italics added]. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.
The question remains then: how do we stand? Do we stand passively to the side as extreme terrorists reenter Iraq and create a Vietnam withdrawal-like nightmare? Or do we stand shoulder to shoulder with them again the tyranny of these networks? Do we have the responsibility to finish what we began, Senator Obama? Where do we draw the line?
And finally, why didn’t the Senator deliver his address in German? If he wants me to speak Spanish when I go to Mexico (or merely further South), I expect him to speak German when addressing thousands of adoring German citizens. Perhaps they didn’t understand what he said after all.
Reacting to Obama’s “regret” for letting his daughters participate in a Hollywood TV interview, Luke Boggs raised the issue of Senator Barack Obama’s “Regretful Syndrome” in this Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial:
So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision [especially when there was nothing to regret]. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling “Obama” and “regrets” yields more than a million hits.)
The Senator’s regrets include business deals with now-convicted felon Chicago real estate baron Tony Rezko, calling American lives lost in Iraq “wasted,” and various other verbal and policy missteps. As Boggs ask, how many “regrets” can a President have before he dooms an entire nation? The office of the President requires firm decisions that cannot be reversed—essential to the security and safety of the nation. Actions with regrets in the Oval Office will not be mere violation of faux-pas or political correctness, but issues of life and death in many cases. Strong character in judgement and the ability to fairly judge the character of those around you are both necessary and vital qualities that the next President of the United States must process. And Senator Obama appears to offer very little of either form.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia was not only an important decision for the 2nd Amendment and gun owners, but also shows very clearly the precarious balance of the court. The Heller decision has something in common with the week’s earlier decision regarding the death penalty for child rapist (Kennedy v. Louisiana). Both cases were decided by a 5 to 4 majority: with Justice Kennedy being the fifth vote in each decision. His vote in the Louisiana case was a disappointment to those who favor the death penalty and oppose convoluted readings of the Constitution. His vote in the Heller case is a surprise and a thrill, as it allowed the court to make the proper, Constitutional decision; protecting the value of the 2nd Amendment and ensuring gun owners the right to keep their firearms.
Justice Kennedy’s pattern of being the pivoting “swing” vote in countless decisions is disturbing for many reasons. But it is illustrative of the import of a judge’s character. Judges without solid, grounded principles of justice and fairness deliver popular opinions designed to maintain popularity and image, subverting justice and placing the focus on themselves and not the law they are suppose to protect. Presidents and governors must be accurate judges of character if the legal system is to stop its decay into arbitrary legalism. Judges do matter, and a candidates ability to select qualified and principles judges is as much of a reflection on him as it is our justice system.
After my previous post commenting on rising oil prices and the logical result (decreasing oil usage), I am heartened to see that at least someone in this presidential election understands simple economics. At least, as they apply to oil usage.
Barack Obama said on Saturday Americans would start changing the kinds of cars they drive if gasoline prices continue to climb and said he owned a hybrid vehicle, though he doesn’t drive it much.
Without specifically telling Americans to stop buying gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, the Illinois senator said higher fuel prices would lead to a shift (Reuters).
I’m not quite sure why we need to mention his personal hybrid vehicle, but it is good to hear that the Senator at least understands basic market forces as they apply to the consumer. Now if only he had a better grasp of macro economics…
