Conservative blog: Sweetness & Light

Inside-the-Beltway blog: Politico’s “44″

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

From Merriam-Webster.com

In the Journal today Pete DuPont provides a quick sketch of an Obama Presidency.

Update:  Thinking along the same lines is the NRO editorial board.

In this column on NRO, Bill Whittle provides a transcript of the most important passages in the video Feddie blogged at 8:05 this morning, below.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you the man who may soon be making Supreme Court nominations:

In today’s WSJ, courtesy of Carnegie-Mellon economist Adam Lerrick.

In today’s NY Post Ralph Peters consults his crystal ball and, oddly enough, what he sees is roughly the same as what Sen. Biden described yesterday at an appearance in Seattle.

It would be nice if the press were to report Biden’s remarks extensively, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

I really don’t think Obama is giving his supporters good advice:

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

For your Saturday afternoon enjoyment, The Idiossey: The Not-Really-That-Epic Poem of Obamacles.  (Warning: Spit-take alert!)

Recently I’ve heard Obama and his supporters repeatedly use a phrase that, as a conservative, I think is wonderfully tone deaf.  I finally saw it in print in Byron York’s NRO column today:

Speaking to reporters in Illinois this week, [Obama] took pains to play down the razzle-dazzle [aspect of his acceptance speech]. “I’m not aiming for a lot of high rhetoric,” he said of his upcoming speech. “I’m much more concerned with communicating how I intend to help middle-class families live their lives.”

“People know that I can give the kind of speech that I gave four years ago,” Obama continued. “That’s not the question on voters’ minds. I think they’re much more interested in, what am I going to do to help them in their lives? And so, in that sense, this is going to be a more workmanlike speech.”

Can you think of a more intrusive or condescending way to say that “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” than this?  The phrase is clunky, to boot.  And I hope it forms the rhetorical core of his acceptance speech.

Just saw this on Lucieanne.com:

Barack Obama’s campaign responded sharply to a new McCain webad depicting Obama as a parody of a biblical prophet. “It’s downright sad that on a day when we learned that 51,000 Americans lost their jobs, a candidate for the presidency is spending all of his time and the powerful platform he has on these sorts of juvenile antics,” said spokesman Hari Sevugan. (Snip) The ad, released only on the Internet, is the latest in a series mocking the Democratic nominee.

C’mon, you don’t fight humor by sounding like the Church Chat Lady or Aunt Esther. You fight humor with humor. Here are some lines that I thought of on the way home from the gym today:

(more…)

Rod Dreher has penned some good observations on the latest dust-up in the race contest for the presidency. You can read it here. I published these comments in the combox:

(more…)

Andrew Ferguson offers a deft and (to me) surprising analysis of Obama’s Berlin speech: “For all the talk about this being our time and us being the people, Obama shows no sign of really believing we live in portentous times. This is surely part of his appeal. It’s not surprising that when he came to Berlin and said nothing at all, none of his admirers seemed disappointed. After eight years of overheated history, nothing comes as a relief.”

David Pryce-Jones thinks that western Europeans’ “Obama mania is only the flip side of anti-Americanism.”

Investors’ Business Daily considers Obama’s rhetoric about ”economic justice” and concludes that it ”simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It’s a euphemism for socialism.”

Michael Boskin makes the case that Obama’s tax and trade views, if enacted into law, would result in “a serious setback” for the US economy. 

Just FYI:  Today RCP’s Electoral College crystal ball says Obama 238, McCain 163, Toss-Up 137.  However, their No Toss-Ups call is Obama 322, McCain 216.

A quick look this morning at two of the big online prediction markets — Intrade and IEM — confirms that Obama remains a heavy favorite to win in November.   Lo!  The Lightworker approacheth.  Our deliverance/salvation is truly at hand.

And yet:  The Dow moved into “bear market” territory yesterday, closing at 11215 — down more than 20% from its October 2007 high of 14164.

So:  Where the heck is the Obama rally?  I guess we just have to wait a while longer for Wall Street to notice that Nirvana is just around the corner.

Mary Anastasia O’Grady worries about the similarities.  In the accompanying video, beginning at 2:42, she explains what happened when Argentina abandoned the ideals of private property and limited government, and why that should matter to American voters.

Check out “The Great Seal of Obamaland” — from the NYT, believe it or not!  (Although you’ve got to wonder what this blog post will do for Mr. Broder’s career prospects there.)

This will be a continuing story throughout the election. Don’t hold your breath to see any of these campaigners in your neighborhood.

Sen. Obama has just released some vague information on his economic plans, and it comes as no shock to discover that his promise of “change” is a warmed over return to FDR’s Keynesian nightmare. Like always, his “plan” is long on rhetoric and short on specifics, but all the moldy oldies are there: ending current tax “cuts,” massive increases in government spending, raising the capital gains tax, and generally taxing the hell out of the rich (or as I like to refer to it, shifting resources from the productive to the counterproductive).

I particularly enjoyed when Sen. Obama responded to McCain’s push for tax cuts by stating, “I’ve seen no evidence that…would actually boost the economic growth and productivity.” How nice for him, then, that the WSJ took the time to profile a new study showing that small government works.

For those who don’t want to read the whole piece, here’s the money shot:

The early supply-siders were right. My findings firmly reject the widely held view that lower taxes inevitably result in cuts in public services, slower growth and widening income inequalities. Today’s policy makers should take note of how tax cuts and the pruning of inefficient government programs can stimulate sluggish economies.

Reagan 1, FDR 0

From an AP story about Sen. Obama’s visit to Mount Rushmore:

Obama said it was his first visit to the landmark.

He did express curiosity about the filming of a chase scene in “North by Northwest,” Alfred Hitchcock’s 1959 classic starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint that included a death-defying scramble over Rushmore’s presidential faces.

“How did they get up there in the first place?” he asked ranger Wesley Jensen.

“They didn’t. It was a movie set,” Jensen told him.

You can watch a good bit of the relevant sequence here.

Hat tip to K-Lo at The Corner.

More: Looking for the video link, I ran across a blog about the movie that Hitchcock fans will enjoy. It includes a storyboard with still photos from the Mount Rushmore scene on pages 9 and 10.

Edward Luttwak’s column in today’s NYT makes what may turn out to be quite an important point.

I hesitate to add anything to the torrent of commentary on Sen. Obama’s press conference performance yesterday.  However, there is one line in it that is not getting the attention it deserves.  It occurs early in his remarks.  Here it is in full, with the troubling language in bold:

His [Wright's] comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

To whom is Sen. Obama referring when he speaks of “those who prey on hate”?  One possibility is that he is referring to fringe groups that most Americans would agree are defined by their hatred — the Klan, etc.  That’s a possibility.  Maybe there is some evidence that groups actually predicated on racial hatred have sought to exploit the Rev. Wright situation, but I am unaware of any news reports of Klan PR campaigns directed to this end.  Maybe I am simply ill-informed.

There is another possible meaning in Obama’s phrase, however.  I worry that Sen. Obama may tend to view anyone who opposes him as someone who ”prey[s] on hate.”  As Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out, Obama often refers to unnamed others who seek to “distract” voters and “divide” voters and so on.   But there’s something even more disturbing about the “those who prey on hate” formulation.  If

those who prey on hate = GOP, or even

those who prey on hate = GOP + Democrats and Independents who don’t support Obama,

then don’t be surprised if conservatives develop a somewhat paranoid view of the Senator’s crusade for “change.”

are up at Scrappleface.

Ross Douthat nails it:

I have no doubt that many, many Democratic politicians have put in an appearance at churches whose pastors share Wright’s outlandish political views without anyone kicking up a fuss, just as Republican politicians have long accepted the support of figures like Falwell without taking too much heat about it. The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn’t just Obama’s supporter; he’s his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that’s considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

Read the entire post. It’s worth your time.

Consider this an open thread to discuss the substance, style, and likely impact of Obama’s speech re: Rev. Wright’s incendiary (and repulsive) comments on the dem-nomination race.

Update: My buddy, Erick Erickson, was not at all impressed. Charles Murray, on the other hand, thought it was “flat-out brilliant.”