Jesse Jackson is sorry for admitting that he secretly wants to castrate Barack Obama for telling the truth. Former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) makes unwise and untimely remarks about Americans and the economy. David Oatney celebrates qualifying for the November ballot in his home town of White Pine, Tennessee.
I completely understand that when the economy is down, liberals tend to dramatically exaggerate the scale of the problem because they believe it benefits them politically. That reality, however, doesn't make former Senator Phil Gramm's remarks about America being "a nation of whiners" any less stupid:
Gramm stirred up controversy when he called the nation's economic malaise a "mental recession," then added, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."
Now Gramm says he was "talking about our leaders, not our people:"
Former senator Phil Gramm -- under fire for saying the United States has "become a nation of whiners" -- said in an interview today that he meant the nation's leaders were whiners, not its citizens.
It would have been much better, then, if Gramm had said "we as a nation have whiny leaders." He did not, and no matter what he meant, one would really think that his years of political acumen would have shown him that there are just some things you don't say in public.
Jesse Jackson has admitted how he really feels about the idea that African-American men need to take responsibility for their children. He is so offended by the idea that broken families are a problem in the black community that he would like to castrate Barack Obama for daring to admit this:
Many conservatives have understood for years that Jesse Jackson is the worst kind of blood-sucking political leech. He can't have a real political career of his own because other leaders in his own community understand that he is a hateful, poisonous man. Thus, since the idea of genuine political success isn't realistic for Jesse, he must settle for being an irritant and a parasite who can only feign importance. He is a swine who sucks at the teet of others' hard work, and then expects those people to kowtow to him.
I would suspect that Barack Obama believes this about Jesse Jackson also-and that he isn't the only person on his team who thinks that Jackson's influence among black voters is both unearned and unwarranted. The problem is that poor Obama can't afford to say so because corporate leaders and big Democratic donors actually think Jesse matters.
Barack Obama might be a better candidate if he could publicly disavow Jackson and all who associate with him.
Barack Obama wants to reiterate to "his friends on the Left" that they are misunderstanding him. Why, Obama has always sounded like a Republican, and has always held more moderate stances on the situation in Iraq, gun control, and the death penalty. Barack Obama is no flip-flopper, he says:
Asked by a voter about accusations of flip-flopping, Democrat Barack Obama dismissed the notion Tuesday that he has been shifting stances on Iraq, guns and the death penalty to break with his party's liberal wing and court a wider swath of voters.
"The people who say this haven't apparently been listening to me," the likely Democratic presidential nominee said in response to a question at a town-hall style event.
Since wrapping up the Democratic nomination last month, Obama has voiced positions that break with the Democratic Party's left and have seemed at times to shade his own past positions on a range of subjects. He's drawn criticism from some liberal Democrats who question his loyalty and from Republicans who accuse him of flip-flopping.
I am not one to state things in an overly simplistic manner, but you can cut the bull in these statements with a butcher knife. I'm not saying that because I do not believe Obama or because I think he is being disingenuous (although on a personal level, there is little question that he is), but because it is so crystal clear that he is playing raw politics that he might as well just be honest and admit "my positions on certain issues have changed." Obama would not be the first politician of either party to change their position when it became evident that their original ideas could render them unelectable, and that they had just better change their tune.
Barack Obama has reduced himself to playing a childish game of political pretend. He is going to pretend that he has not been an advocate for gun control in the past when we know that he has. Further, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised for Obama to sound in the coming weeks and months as though he is the champion of the very people who he accused of "clinging to guns and religion," and being "bitter."
Obviously, he has been taking lessons about how to lie or exaggerate his political positions in order to sound like a phony social conservative from his newfound friend Hillary Clinton.
It can't just be a racial issue. In 2006, Harold Ford Jr. carried dozens of white, rural counties and came within 50,000 votes of joining Obama in the U.S. Senate.
"Obama did not come over strong during the primary," said Joe Jenkins, Democratic Party chairman in Dickson County, a yellow-dog Democratic stronghold where Hillary Clinton won four votes for every one cast for Obama on Super Tuesday. "I just don't know how this is going to go down."
Ford, by contrast, showed up in Dickson County, pulled up a seat at the annual party fundraiser and talked and talked and talked until he'd won over and worn down as many skeptics as he could.
"Obama doesn't need Tennessee," said David A. Bositis, an expert on racial politics at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington. "Obama's base was highly educated, upper-income voters. Obama's not going to try to recast his campaign and claim that he's going to be the candidate of rural America.
The problem is that that is one of the things that Barack Obama tried to do during the Democratic primary campaign. For his backers and Leftist-inclined political scientists to now say that Obama "doesn't need" any State certainly runs contrary to the message that Obama was promoting in the primaries, and makes his message of "unity' appear disingenuous, and even downright fraudulent.
Further, the presidential vote is shaping up to be closer than Obama's people may realize. The idea that Barack Obama can afford to write off any State at all may be what dooms him at the end of the day. The final result on Election Night, while likely giving Democrats more seats in the House and possibly the Senate as well, is likely to be a nail-biter, and could be one where Obama will regret taking the attitude that he "didn't need" a State.
Frankly, I find the attitude of the Obama camp (I'll cut Obama a break and say that perhaps it is not one that he personally shares) to be bordering on the offensive.
Beginning this week, we're going to be taking a very serious look at electoral college possibilities for the 2008 Presidential election, and this will become a regular feature here at The World at the beginning of each week (Sunday or Monday). I'll start by taking a few weeks to map out various scenarios whereby each candidate could win. After that, I'll make predictions each week based on the situation on the ground, and will include those States that are just too close to call.
Our first scenario is a real possibility: A tie in the electoral college, and how exactly that could happen.
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'&amp;gt;Electoral College Prediction Map&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;
This kind of scenario is a realistic because we've heard Barack Obama's people talk about how they believe they have a chance to win New Mexico and Colorado, but John McCain is very popular in New Hampshire and could win there. If our other Red States remain red, and the Blue States stay blue, and Barack Obama wins Iowa the way that some commentators there expect he might, the map leaves us with a tie, 269 electoral votes each for John McCain and Barack Obama.
The election would then go into the House of Representatives, where a Democratic majority may not necessarily equate to a Barack Obama victory. State delegations will be under immense pressure from constituents to vote the way that their State voted, and when the House chooses the President of the United States, each State gets one single vote. Such circumstances could make the post-election hoopla in 2000 look like Disco Demolition Night compared to the tension we would see among the populace between Election Day and the day the House voted for the winner.
A conservative journal of social, cultural, and ecclesiatical affairs grounded in a realistic Catholic Christian worldview. It is my hope that this site will be a reflection of Christ,the teachings of His Holy Church, and of the basic vision of a Christian social morality.