No Runny Eggs

A key issue in this campaign has been whether Barack Obama has the experience to make  significant decisions.   We’ve seen partial answers to that question and they’ve not instilled confidence.  

In his response(s) to the Russian invasion of Georgia, we saw Barack’s ability to adapt to new situations.   Unfortunately his adapting came after his initial response to the invasion was horribly botched.

We’ve also seen Barack’s capability to be open and flexible in decisions making.   In Obama’s position on:

1. The immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
2. Accepting public financing
3. Handgun Bans
4. Immunity for Telecom Companies
5. Meeting with the leaders of terrorist nations with no preconditions

and most importantly, his desire to debate John McCain “anytime, anywhere,” we’ve seen Barack change his mind once he found that his earlier position was not politically  expedient.

Finally, we’ve seen Barack recognize the limits of his own  knowledge when at the Saddleback debate, in response to one of the most important questions politically and theologically, Barack Obama said  it was “above my paygrade” to determine when life began.

Today, in an interview with ABC’s “Thisweek,” Barack Obama gave his  “final answer”  on whether he is ready to make key decisions.   In a discussion about his tax policy and how/if he may alter it if the economy is weak, Barack said:

“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”

Whe further asked:

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

Obama replied:

“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”

With his first statement, Obama shows that he recognizes the importance of lower taxes.   He tacitly admits that leaving money in family’s pocket books, rather than the government’s, is the right answer.   Yeah for Barack!   In his second statement, Barack confirms his inability to lead.  

In his second statement, Barack confirms for us that the economy benefits from lower taxes even on those he considers “rich.”   Why else would he hold imposing his taxes increase?   They’re rich after all.   Whether the economy is doing well or poorly doesn’t affect their “richness.”   If they are by definition “rich” imposing additional taxes on them will do no more harm to them in a poor economy than in a good one.   In fact, those who are “rich” tend to do better in poor economies because arguably, they are in a better position than others, to invest in assets that have depressed pricing.   No, what Barack isn’t telling you, but what is inherent in his answer is that increasing taxes on the rich, has a negative impact on the economy.   Barack doesn’t want to stomp out additional economic embers in a lackluster economy.   He only wants to do it when the economy is good.

In this last answer we find the absolute worst kind of decision making by a leader; knowingly making the wrong and harmful decision because it is politically popular. That kind of decision is summed up musically in the following video:

Perhaps Barack Obama has a future doing the remake: “If taxing you is wrong, I don’t wanna be right!”

Now that Sarah Palin has given her acceptance speech, it’s clear why the Left had reason to attack her….She’s Really Good!   But that’s really hindsight.   As I watched the attacks become more and more personal and vicious over the past 3 days, I kept wondering why?

It’s obvious that the Left doesn’t like Republican or Conservative women.   However, I’ve never seen the level of attacks that Sarah Palin has experienced in just 72 hours. While women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole  and even Condoleezza Rice have been degraded, none of them have seen the full fledged, scorched earth approach that Sarah Palin has experienced.

As I’ve previously discussed, the Left is all about emotional responses, even to situations that require significant thought.   So, I know the response is emotional.   But, what was the stimulus for the level of emotion that is being vented?

I suppose part of it could be that the MSM, the Left and frankly just about everyone else, was surprised by Palin.   While Obama’s campaign had talking points on all of the other folks that were alleged to be on the short list, they completely overlooked Palin.   I could imagine that some of the ferocity was an attempt to catch up after having been caught flat footed.

I suppose part of it also could be that the  announcement of Palin took Obama out of the news flow.   With an ego as big as  Obama’s, I don’t imagine it was easy being upstaged…especially by a woman!

I also suppose it could be that  the pick of Palin made Obama’s first public choice, his choice of Biden for VP, look silly.   Obama had first pick in VP.   Rather than picking the person who could shore up his party, extend his meme of “hope and change” and solidify his party, he, with his first pick, picked the equivalent of the kid who has been playing right field and batting ninth his entire career.   As an aside, I agree with Rudy Gulliani that Biden may want to ensure that he has the VP offer in writing.   As the days go on Obama is going to second, third, fourth and many more times reguess that choice.

All of those issues could be the reason why the Left has come unhinged but it doesn’t feel as if any one, or the combination of the three really explain what’s happening.

Yesterday, it finally hit me.

Who on the left, defines what a woman should be and how she should act?   Yup, the National Organization for Women (NOW).  

Who did NOW support for President?   Yup, Hillary Clinton

There’s a woman running in this election, what is her name?   Nope, not Hillary Clinton, it’s Sarah Palin!

And there’s the problem.   The left is all about identity politics; identity politics and making sure that the various groups maintain the identity of victimization that the Left has scripted for them.   African Americans are supposed to suffer from the ills of slavery and racism and unable to advance in the economic strata.   Teenage girls who become pregnant are supposed to be reliant on Planned Parenthood for their “pregnancy options” to ensure that they aren’t “punished by a baby.”   Women are scripted to be continually “rising” but never “attaining.”  

Sarah Palin represents not just a cracking of the glass ceiling ala Hillary Clinton, but a complete shattering of it if she and John McCain win.   A shattering brought to you not by the party of victimization but the party that believes an individual’s value is not defined by their identity, but by their abilities and their hard work.   This leaves the Left and especially NOW, nearly apoplectic.   Sarah Palin is exposing the false claims  of victimization that NOW and the Left have spewed about women for over 40 years.  

NOW was organized in 1966.   It’s core mentality comes from women who came of age during the 60’s and early 70’s.   Those women are now in their 50’s and 60’s.  

The reason the Left has become so vicious towards Palin is a combination of the items I previously listed.   Those  and Sarah Palin  exposing and negating the victimization of women that has been perpetuated by groups like NOW.   NOW’s reason to exist, the thing that gets them up in the morning and gives them a reason to breath is about to be cut out from underneath them and that makes them mad.   But what really gets the cranky old women, the NAGs going,  is that they are about to lose the love of their life not to a peer, another cranky old woman but to a smart YOUNGER WOMAN with a positive outlook on life.   Losing your love to a younger woman, no matter that it’s your own fault, really pisses them off!

This party’s starting at 7 (or thereabouts). Because I don’t trust the alphabet soup to carry the speeches, I’ll point you to Ustream’s live stream.

About ten days ago we were having a national discussion about Barack Obama’s abortion positions.   Along with his Saddleback performance, the issue was regenerated when tapes of his Illinois Senate floor debate, along with the transcript, surfaced.

One of the issues that Obama raised as onerous in the “born alive” bill, was having a second doctor involved to determine the viability of the child.  

From the transcript, Senator Obama discussing the need for a second doctor:

So — and again, I’m — not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limb and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Further on, Obama adds:

…an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

(Emphasis mine in both quotes)

A couple of things to note:

First note in the first quote that Obama is so far left on the abortion topic that he is unable to refer to a live baby as a “baby.”   Abortion extremists are loathe to refer to anything other than the birthling of a fully desired pregnancy a “baby.”   Giving anything other than this the term “baby” undermines their intent to keep anything unborn as nothing more than an inanimate object.   Calling it a “baby” undermines their desire to keep all abortion options open at all times.

Second, if you want some insight as to how Obama will handle Ahmadinejad, take another look at that first quote.   Obama didn’t even have the cojones to take a stand on whether they were discussing a fetus or a baby. He completely sidestepped the issue. Can you imagine him taking to Ahmadinejad? “I’d like to discuss your nuclear weapons or freedom tools, however way you want to describe them.” On the plus side, this may be the first core issue I’ve seen Obama hold to; he claimed it was above his paygrade to determine when life began, at the Saddleback debate and he had the same opinion back in 2002!

Third, this second doctor issue is a complete canard. When a premature birth occurs, it is very typical to have not only a second doctor, but a second medical team involved in the event. The obstetrician stays with the mother while the second doctor and team attend to the premature infant. In the event of a failed abortion what do we have? A premature infant! So if that is already typical procedure in most hospitals, why would that be onerous in this case? The answer to that is yet another quote from Barack Obama:

…that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

That last quote says all anyone needs to know about Obama’s position on abortion…it’s always about abortion, never about life.

After having been caught flat footed by the choice of Sarah Palin as the VP pick, Team Obama and surrogates have been scrambling this weekend to catch up.   In looking over the various stories posted, there appear to be two themes:

1. Palin is inexperienced
2. Palin campaigned for Gov. supporting the “Bridge to nowhere” and flip flopped after she won.

I don’t want to spend much time on the first issue except to say, Geraldine Ferraro.   Geraldine Ferraro had an entire 6 years of elected experience as a Congressional Representative from New York when she was tapped to be VP.   Evidently, 6 years of elected experience is adequate but nearly 8 years as Mayor and Governor (not counting 4 more years as City Council Person) aren’t enough.   I love that new math!

What about the Bridge to nowhere?  

I’ve read enough accounts that it appears sure that during her Gubernatorial campaign, Palin supported the bridge.   I’m also convinced that Palin changed her mind on the Bridge sometime in 2007.   However, I don’t think the “flip-flop” description fits on this one.

There appear to be a couple of different accounts as to why Palin changed her mind on the Bridge to Nowhere.   The first is provided by this article from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

As for the bridge money, Palin contacted Young the day after the Minnesota bridge collapse about giving them the Ketchikan funds, Leighow said.

Young advised her that he thought it would violate public law and the subject did not come up again. Staff members who were present during their meetings said they had no recollection of the governor suggesting the funds could be used for other transportation projects in Alaska.

The second is outlined in this article from Business Wire:

Treat: To Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) for announcing the state would drive a stake through the heart of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and focus on other transportation priorities. Gov. Palin directed the Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) to create a list of other uses for the $36 million in federal money that will be freed up with the desertion of the project. The DOT will also work to come up with a more financially responsible solution, such as improved ferry services, to serve the residents of Gravina Island. “Bridge to Nowhere,” RIP.

So what do we have?

Either Palin rejected the Bridge to Nowhere because she thought the Federal Government could better use the funds elsewhere i.e. a major arterial that had just collapsed and needed replacing, or she felt that the price tag had gotten too high and that there were more cost efficient ways to solve the problem.

Washington is filled with people who believe that their entire value is determined by how much money they control. It’s filled with people who’s solution to every problem is to take more of other people’s money and throw it at their particular pet project.

Isn’t it refreshing to see an elected official actually use their brain, and the judgement we elected them for, and say “Hey, I know we were headed this way, but the circumstances have changed. Let’s find another solution!” In Washington, a person who tries that tack will either be labelled a “Maverick” or “inexperienced.”

If thinking that includes common sense, comes from “inexperience,” sign me up for a whole lot more of it!