The rhetorical flourishes of an Obama speech may be Reaganesque, but the message is all Karl Marx.
In today's energy speech in Michigan, Sen. Obama attacks a major corporation by name -- Exxon-Mobil -- and shames them for having the audicity to ... are you ready for this? ... make a profit!
This is a corporation that just recorded the largest profit in the history of the United States. . This is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That's more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that's costing you more than $4-a-gallon.
Does Obama even realize he is attacking a private company that employs thousands of Americans? Or that it only controls 3 percent of the oil industry, which despite its size makes it incapable of controlling the market price for oil or the price of gasoline at the pump? Does he understand the free market system at all?
Would Obama prefer Exxon go out of business, costing thousands of American jobs and untold millions in tax collections, further reducing the supply of oil and raising gas prices even more?
Winston Churchill famously said:
Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.
Private enterprise is a remarkably resilient, steady and sturdy horse pulling the wagon of American prosperity. Obama seems to view profitable companies as the enemy.
In the war of ideas, sometimes you win small battles in the midst of losing a war.
The local media narrative surrounding the anti-American elements of the 9/11 Memorial is reflected in Sunday's story by Matt Benson:
Most famously, in the months leading up to the 2006 general election, GOP gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil vowed to tear down the memorial if elected. He wasn't.
Of course that's true as far as it goes. But here is the part of this story the media always seems to forget about. As I concluded my speech at the Memorial two weeks after it was dedicated, on Sept. 25, 2006, I said:
The new monument will include at least these three phrases from 9-11 that are missing here:
Now I know that so-called "big oil" has become a popular scapegoat for high gas prices, but in a free market economy companies can only charge what the market will bear. As this ABC News article notes:
Make no mistake about it, oil companies are gushing in dough. But when you look at their profit margins, they are actually lower than Microsoft’s, Google’s or IBM. And no one is suggesting a windfall tax for them.
And of course it wouldn't work. Oil companies would respond to the increased cost by raising prices to get back to the level of profit that the market supports.
More importantly, all freedom-loving Americans should be deeply distressed at the notion that the federal government has the power to choose industries or companies that are unpopular and take away their money.
Barack Obama made millions of dollars with two best-selling books. Under Obama's approach to the use of political power, why couldn't the government declare everything above $50,000 in profit to be a "windfall" to be confiscated and given to others?
RUMORS OF CONSERVATISM'S DEMISE HAVE BEEN GREATLY EXAGGERATED
July 31, 2008
I live in Congressional District 5 in Arizona, which is currently represented by a lifelong liberal Democrat named Harry Mitchell.
As I observe the Republican primary, every single Republican candidate is running as a conservative and a Reagan Republican, no matter what his or her actual history or voting record.
Even Congressman Mitchell is showing signs of doing what he did in 2006, when he actually tried to present himself as more conservative on many issues than then-Congressman J.D. Hayworth.
If political conservatism is out of fashion, this is awfully strange behavior.
The back and forth between political candidates over "negative attack ads" has devolved over the last few election cycles into utter goofiness.
The latest ad war between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama is typical. Sen. McCain Wednesday introduced a new TV ad that critiques Sen. Obama's policy proposals and dings him as more celebrity than substance:
Sen. Obama's campaign responded by complaining, then quickly launching a negative ad attacking McCain for attacking him:
If you watch the ads back-to-back, you'll notice the irony -- the Obama ad is at least as much a "negative attack ad" as McCain's.
Voters are entitled to full information. That means they should hear not only each candidate's views, but also his or her differences with an opponent. The use of contrast ads that emphasize your strengths and critique your opponent's policy positions, experience or ability are not "negative attack ads." They are a service to voters.
Sen. McCain is perfectly justified in pointing out to voters that Sen. Obama opposes drilling for oil and supports tax increases. And it's fine for Sen. Obama to complain about being attacked, but his harsh attack in response makes him look a bit inconsistent.
Though contrast ads are necessary, candidates should make every effort to be accurate and truthful in their characterization of opponents. Dirty campaigning is to mischaracterize or smear your opponent with false accusations or characterizations in an attempt to mislead voters.
For example, the night before my win in the Republican gubernatorial primary, the Arizona Democratic Party spent $100,000 calling Republican primary voters and urging them to vote against me, creating a phony "conservative" organization to falsely accuse me of supporting "amnesty" for illegal aliens. In fact, the Democrats pretending to be conservative Republicans were accusing me of taking the actual position of their own candidate in order to hurt me in a Republican primary. That's deceptive, dishonest, and dirty. When confronted, they lied about it to the media for two weeks. When they finally admitted it, the story was almost completely ignored. And to my knowledge, the supposedly objective, hard-hitting local media never even asked Gov. Napolitano whether she approved of the dishonest tactics of her Party, or furthermore, whether she knew that the State Party she controlled was spending so much money in a dishonest attempt to affect the outcome of the Republican primary.
By contrast, our campaign produced some hard-hitting "attacks" on Gov. Napolitano. But the ads were truthful and accurate and based on statements and policy positions she had taken. While some would dispute the conclusions we drew, no factual element of our critique of the Governor was ever refuted.
Sen. McCain has already proven his willingness to challenge his supporters who stray beyond critiques of Sen. Obama into the realm of personal insults and false attacks. As this campaign progresses, the media should do a better job of explaining the difference between ads that critique or contrast, as compared to ads that are deliberately false and designed to mislead.
It used to be said that patriotism was "the last refuge of scoundrels." I think that must have been before desperate Arizona politicians decided they could balance their budgets by promoting vice and lawbreaking.
The latest government proposal to acquire "easy money" comes from Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, who has proposed putting slot machines at Sky Harbor International Airport.
The door was opened to this nonsense by Gov. Napolitano's budget, which relies on increased lottery sales and more speeding tickets through photo radar.
Government's voracious appetite for your money apparently knows no boundaries. Even those who believe gambling should be legal recognize that it introduces significant harm into the community, breaking up families and leading to crime, bankruptcy and addiction. For government to need money so desperately that it actively encourages people to engage in destructive behavior is foolish.
Added to traditional "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco, it appears the government of Arizona is relying less on your ability to make positive contributions to the economy by starting and growing a business, and more and more on you behaving badly.
