Perhaps We Should All Write-In "God"

James Taranto makes a truly profound comment.

The comment that impressed me most is in the midst of a post in which he, like so many others, takes Obama to task for belittling people of faith, gun owners and people who have strong views on illegal immigration and other cultural issues. Of course, as he usually does, Taranto articulates this much better than everyone else. I won't add more to it except to note, as I did in the following post, that Obama is out of touch and way outside the mainstream of American thought. Each of us should fear a candidate who has so little respect for so many (I believe the majority) of Americans.

What I want to point out, however, is this gem buried in Taranto's piece:

Obama said in Indiana, "They don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them." He went on to explain that they should vote for him because if elected, unlike all previous presidents of either party, he will improve their material well-being.

Obama's promise rests on a false premise: that it is within the power of the president to restore the Rust Belt's luster. Every incumbent president in living memory has sought at least one additional term, and the Keystone State has for decades been a key electoral battleground, both large and closely contested. If presidents had the power to make Pennsylvania's declining towns wealthy, don't you think one of them would have done so by now?

In truth, the decline of industries is simply a fact of life, like old age, sickness and death. Yet just as new generations supersede the old, a free economy produces innovation that gives rise to new industries. And while some places have declined, the nationwide economy has grown impressively for most of the past quarter-century.

If politicians could come to grips with this concept - that they can't control or manage the forces of the economy and, with respect to most matters of the market, they are powerless except to screw things up even more - we would be more free and more successful. Freedom and success lead directly to fairness and compassion.

Those Stupid, Narrow-Minded Religious Rubes...

I don't as a general rule discuss social issues on this site. But I do cover elections. Can a politician do anything more stupid (yet alone more bigoted) than criticizing working families for having religious beliefs?

What was Obama thinking? He really is that out of touch, isn't he?

I have never been a Clinton fan, and question their honesty, but I have always believed the Clintons generally fall somewhere within the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Obama once again is proving that he is way outside the rather broad confines of mainstream.

Eugene Kane: Yes, the Scrutiny of Obama Will Intensify (But It Is Because He Is the Front Runner, Not Because He Is Black)

Frankly, I thought it would happen much sooner.

Eugene Kane wrote on Sunday that the attacks on Barack Obama will intensify now that Obama is a front runner. In a sense, Kane is right. Of course, one person's attacks are another person's scrutiny. But, in any event, it will intensify.

Kane did not specify that Obama will be attacked because he is black, but he sure implied it.

Like many black voters, Murphy is concerned about possible pitfalls for Obama, in particular negative media attention that will attempt to derail his momentum. That attention will almost certainly come in the form of scandalous allegations and innuendo, some of which is already making its presence felt in the blogosphere.

Murphy has seen some of it already. He said it's an indication that Obama is making people nervous.

"He's willing to take on the status quo," said Murphy. "That means they will try to attack him at every turn."

Kane seems to think that the treatment Obama is starting to receive is unique. He seems to forget the beating Bush took for his alleged drug use or the debate over Kerry's war service. He ignores all of the comments about Reagan's age. He overlooks the accusations that Al Gore used his sister's smoking-related death for political gains (even though Gore owned lots of tobacco stock). He doesn't seem to know that Bob Dole was accused of a sweetheart deal on his condo or that Clinton was pilloried for doing favors for, and accepting contributions from, chicken magnate Tyson. And Kane seems not to know that Kennedy was accused of being beholden to the Vatican.

Oh, I almost forgot. Kane did not mention the abuse John McCain took last week in the New York Times. Such a story is inconvenient.

Second choices have always fallen mostly under the radar, but front runners are targets. They are attacked, or scrutinized, because they have the audacity to believe they just might become the leader of the free world.

Truth be told, Obama has received more of a pass than he deserves. Clinton has feared alienating black voters, and the press has feared being labelled racist.

Sure, our politics can be somewhat uncivil. But it is not new (William Henry Harrison called Martin Van Buren a "little squirt wirt wirt," and Van Buren responded that Harrison and his supporters were drunks), and it is not based on race.

Kane, cry foul all you want, but don't try to tie it to race. Doing so simply diminishes your candidate by suggesting the rules should be different for him than they were for those who came before him.

Obama might very well be our next president. He should not get there simply because he has received a kid gloves treatment that no one else has received.

Michelle Obama Telling Us How "Our Lives Will Be"

Michelle Obama:

We get change because folks from the grass roots up decide they are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be - when they decide to roll up their sleeves and work. And Barack Obama will require you to work.

He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage.

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed...

Okay, perhaps my last post was wrong. Maybe Hillary's rhetoric is no more radical than the rhetoric from the Obama camp. For a while, Barack said nothing but gave us "hope." Maybe there is nothing more there. Or maybe his wife is giving us a real picture of what life will be like under an Obama presidency.

Consider this: I am "sick and tired of other people telling [me] how [my life] will be."

That is precisely why I am a conservative. I do not want other people making decisions for me. I certainly do not want government to do it. I want to decide for myself where I work (and whether to work), what to do with my money, whether I drink or smoke or eat fatty food, what to read or hear, where to send my kids to school and how to raise them, and what kind of car to drive.

"Manage the Economy"???

Last night, I was struck by a term used in Hillary Clinton's speech in Texas. Clinton said that she is the candidate who is best able, from day one, to "manage the economy."

My jaw dropped. Did she really say that? When will the first retraction come?

I did some looking tonight and realized that Hillary and her campaign have been using that phrase for a long time. Amazing.

For years, candidates and politicians have talked about fixing things in the economy or stimulating the economy. Even Republicans, who like to talk about the free market, fall into that trap.

But "manage the economy?" Even Obama, despite making almost the same proposals as Hillary, does not go so far as to use that phrase.

Believing one can manage the economy is arrogant to the highest degree.

Hillary did not lose the presidency simply because of the use of this phrase. Such a suggestion would ignore all of her personal shortcomings, the failure of her campaign startegy and the public's distaste for her and her husband. However, perhaps this is indicative of just how tone deaf her campaign became.

By the way, for an excellent (albeit simple) article on "Managing the Economy," see this recent article by John Stossel.