Tag Archives: campaign

There Aren’t Liars and Damn Liars — Only Damn Liars

22 Nov

Mona Charen recently wrote a column titled “Remembering Stanley Ann Dunham Obama”.  Most of it is reproduced below, but I strongly encourage anyone who does not read Ms. Charen regularly to give her a try at    www.creators.com/conservative/authors.html .

Excerpt begins:  [Highlighting is mine]

Remember President Barack Obama’s mother? Though the airwaves currently echo with his vow “If you like your plan . . .” I keep remembering Obama’s account of his mother being denied coverage by her insurance company as she lay dying of cancer.

The moving and infuriating story was a staple on the 2008 campaign trail. His mother had insurance, he explained, but when she came down with cancer, her insurance company claimed her disease was a “pre-existing condition” and refused to pay for her treatment. In a debate with Sen. John McCain, Obama said: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

There would be, if it had been true. But when New York Times reporter Janny Scott researched the issue for her biography of the president’s mother, she discovered letters proving beyond doubt that Cigna never denied Stanley Ann Dunham coverage for her disease. The dispute was over a disability plan that would have paid some of her other expenses.

The White House did not deny Scott’s account, but shrugged it off as something that had happened long ago. Not so long that it couldn’t be milked one last time though, for a 2012 campaign film. In “The Road We’ve Traveled,” the message remained unchanged — a greedy insurance company had cut off Obama’s mother at her moment of maximum vulnerability, and it cost Dunham her life. . . .

It’s different in politics, explained Michael Cohen in the New York Daily News. The American people want too many contradictory things. “Seemingly, the only path to change is telling voters what they want to hear.”

Doubtless that’s what Obama tells himself to justify his deceptions. It’s a form of “lying for justice.” If your goals are noble enough, truth is an acceptable casualty.

Obama’s propensity to lie is finally widely acknowledged . . . .

It isn’t just that the pledge about keeping your plan was a noble lie — the whole law is based upon lies.

The Dunham tale was meant to personify the hundreds of thousands — or millions — of Americans who were “dumped” by insurance companies when they became sick. This is an invented tale, and might have been rebutted by the insurance industry if they hadn’t gotten into bed with Obama in 2010 in return for millions of coerced new customers. As the Washington Free Beacon reported, academic studies have estimated that policies were dropped in only four-tenths of one percent of cases in the individual market.

In a 2010 radio address, Obama said one carrier was “systematically dropping the coverage of women diagnosed with breast cancer.” The CEO of WellPoint, which had reason to believe the president was referring to her company, responded that they had provided coverage in the previous year to 200,000 breast cancer patients and had canceled just four policies for fraud or misrepresentation.

If there had been a true epidemic of wrongly canceled policies, wouldn’t there have been a slew of lawsuits and an outcry?

 The notion that the nation faced a “crisis” of “46 million uninsured” was also dishonest. Pre-Obamacare health care in America was hardly nirvana, but the truth about the uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, was that 71 percent were without insurance for a year or less. Only about 16 percent were uninsured for two or more years. More than 9 million of those counted among the uninsured were not citizens. Another 6 million who said they were without insurance actually were signed up with Medicaid, and 4 million more were eligible for Medicaid but had failed to enroll.

The true number of uninsured individuals was closer to 15 million (5 million of whom were young, single adults). There were many possible solutions for them that didn’t require tearing down the entire system. In any case, the CBO estimates that even if Obamacare were fully implemented and worked smoothly, the number of uninsured Americans in 2023 would be, drumroll please, 30 million.

Obamacare was never about the uninsured or justice for those badly treated by insurance companies. It was always about power — gaining it and keeping it for the Democratic Party and the central government. It was based on lies about the preceding system and sold on lies about its consequences.

[End of excerpt]

I was brought up to understand that lying, particularly chronic lying, was one of the basest acts of mankind, a powerful indicator of a low overall character.  This man Obama is a man of low character.  I think it was in a prior posting of a Mona Charen excerpt where she noted (and I paraphrase) that Martin Luther King longed for the day when, instead of being judged by the color of their skin, Americans would be judged by their character – and she notes that that day has finally arrived.  And that that is the problem – we Americans can now be judged by our character, and we are found wanting.

Advertisements

A Particularly Apropos Quote re: This Election

2 Oct

“The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.”  — Theodor Adorno (d. 1969)

Amen to that — at this point, I want to throw both of these guys out.  But, clearly, candidates degrading themselves is not a new problem.

 

[Adorno was a well-known German philosopher and writer]

Message to Mitt — “Do you have what it takes?”

17 Jul

Courtesy of my friend at http://Quixotetilts.blogspot.com

 

Obama to Mitt, “stop whining”. Quixote to Mitt, “cut it out Mitt, makes you look stupid”.

Mitt, this is not a game of tidily winks. It’s not even a prize fight. It is more akin to a duel to the death. The death of our nation that is. And even in a prize fight, I have yet to see a contender stop and ask his opponent to apologize.

The question to you from Quixote is this, “do you have what it takes to K O Obama”. Don’t let him manage your campaign. There is more than enough out there to put him on the canvas.

He came out of Chicago. His close associates were crooks. He has revealed absolutely nothing pertinent about himself. He has run the most secretive administration in recent years, maybe ever. He has broken ever campaign promise he made in his  run for the presidency. He has done a terribly bad job of running the country. He has ruined our reputation abroad. He has squandered the TARP money for no results. He worsened our economy. There are fewer people working today than when he took office even though he claims to have created millions of jobs.

You have supposedly, trained and capable political strategists. If what they have demonstrated thus far is the best they can come up with, you had better replace them.

And, what the heck are you going to do when elected? Do you have a plan? Can you communicate that plan to the voting public? Fifty-nine points ain’t gonna cut it. I’ll bet even you can’t recite them without notes.

In a few sentences, in 14 point type, on one sheet of 8 1/2 by 11 double spaced, just what the heck are you gonna do. Maybe  you should talk to ole Herman. You know the 9-9-9 man.

But absolutely “no more whining”.

More Campaigning Lies?

14 Jul

From the pen of Jonathan Last, in The Weekly Standard:

.  .  .  [T]he Obama campaign has been poor-mouthing for months in fundraising emails to supporters, begging for $50, $20, even $5. In these sad-sack emails, Obama’s people morosely say that they’re resigned to being outspent by the Romney money machine in November.

If only it were true.

The Washington Post’s Ed Rogers crunched some numbers the other day. Here’s what he came up with:


To date, the Democratic National Committee, the Obama campaign and Obama super PACs have raised $471,400,000. This does not include at least $400 million that the labor unions have pledged to spend on Obama’s behalf. The Romney campaign, Republican National Committee and Romney super PACs have raised $264,223,126—and much of that was spent during the Republican primary contest.


If Rogers’s math is correct—and I haven’t seen anyone challenging him yet—then what we’re likely to see down the road is basically what we’re already seeing now in Ohio and other battleground states: a well-financed Romney operation that’s still outspent by pro-Obama forces.

How Romney Can Win

10 Jul

I believe I found this column by Luigi Zingales on the City Journal site.  A thought provoking look at what could be Romney’s best bet for beating Obama.  Dr. Zingales is a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

 Excerpts from this column:  [Bolding is mine]

 How Romney Can Win

 [The GOP candidate should stand for free markets—and align himself with the vast majority of Americans.]

A recent New York Times op-ed by Bill Scher, “How Liberals Win,” must be commended for its honesty. Scher presents a compelling historical narrative of how Democrats are happy to ally themselves with big business in a Faustian pact to foster anti-market policies. From Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act, which promoted the cartelization of industry, to President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which bought off big pharmaceutical companies by suppressing free trade in the drug market, Scher describes how Democrats have promoted crony capitalism to foster their liberal agenda. They are pro-business—at least certain businesses—but fundamentally anti-market.

This is exactly the opposite of what most Americans want. According to a survey conducted as part of the Financial Trust Index, which I codirect, only 19 percent of Americans reject the free-market system. But 51 percent are suspicious of the excessive power of big business. In other words, they are pro-market, but not necessarily pro-business, especially when business is large and politically powerful.

In fact, by inverting Scher’s argument, one can see that a pro-market, but not pro-big-business, platform would be a winner for Republicans. From Tea Party supporters to Republican-leaning independents, a vast majority of potential Republican voters already hold these positions. The party establishment lags behind, partly for ideological reasons and partly for financial ones.

Ideologically, the Republican establishment doesn’t appreciate the difference between being pro-market and being pro-business. .  .  .  

Romney might be precisely the right person to lead the effort.

First, only someone very confident of his pro-market credentials can take the risk involved in challenging the power of big business. .  .  .  Second, Romney’s experience at Bain Capital makes him potentially more attuned to the market’s needs than to the interests of large corporations. .  .  .  .  Third, his wealth puts him beyond the need to cater to big corporations for a future job or donations to his presidential library.

 For all of these reasons, Romney is eminently qualified to make the pro-market case. .  .  .   Pledging a better future for America by defending the American free-market system against a Southern European–style crony capitalism is the perfect way to do it. It’s time for Romney to pick up this flag.

[End of excerpt]

Any thoughts?

Racial Double Standard? Black Professor Weighs In

22 Jun

Excellent essay called “Racial Double Standards” by Walter Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University – he also happens to be a black conservative.  And I believe he is on target with this piece.

 http://www.creators.com/conservative/walter-williams.html

Excerpts from this essay:

 Back in 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said we were “a nation of cowards” on matters of race. Permit me to be brave and run a few assertions by you just to see whether we’re on the same page. There should be two standards for civilized conduct: one for whites, which is higher, and another for blacks, which is lower. In other words, in the name of justice and fair play, blacks should not be held accountable to the same standards that whites are and should not be criticized for conduct that we’d deem disgusting and racist if said or done by whites.

You say, “Williams, what in the world are you talking about?” Mitt Romney hasn’t revealed all of his fall campaign strategy yet, but what if he launched a “White Americans for Romney” movement in an effort to get out the white vote? If the Romney campaign did that, there’d be a media-led outcry across the land, with charges ranging from racial insensitivity to outright racism. When President Barack Obama announced his 2012 launch of “African Americans for Obama” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjoHA5ocwU), the silence was deafening. Should the same standards be applied to Obama as would be applied to Romney? The answer turns out to be no, because Obama is not held to the same standards as Romney.

Liberals won’t actually come out and say that criticism of Obama is in and of itself racist, but they come pretty close. .   .   .  

Racial double standards also apply to how crime is reported.  I’m betting that .  .  . mobs of white youths .   .   .  would be major news.  .  .  .  racist whites organizing unprovoked attacks on innocent black people and their businesses.” If white thugs were actually doing that, politicians would be demanding answers. Such random attacks do happen, but it’s blacks preying on whites.   .   .   .

Racial double standards are not restricted to the political arena and crime reporting; we see it on college campuses and in the workplace. Black people ought to be offended by the idea that we are held accountable to lower standards of conduct and achievement. White people ought to be ashamed for permitting and fostering racial double standards that have effects that are in some ways worse than the cruel racism of yesteryear.

[End of excerpts]

 

It’s Bush’s Fault! A New Conservative Response

15 Jun

I am oddly intrigued by the latest conservative twist on Obama’s message.  Not entirely sure that I am comfortable with it, but it is certainly representative of the lengths to which the parties will go to denigrate the other side.

 As I understand it, the argument goes something like this.  Obama & Company continue to blame Bush for the mess we’re in with the economy, deficit, and debt – in fact, they seem to be ratcheting the argument up, the deeper into the campaign we get.

 HOWEVER – the conservative response to this, according to the newest conservative thought, should simply be that if we suppose the liberals to be correct about it being Bush’s fault, and if, in three-and-a-half years, Obama & Company have not been able to make things any better – even with Democratic control of both houses of Congress for the first two years (indeed, things are even worse in some areas) then we definitely do NOT want to re-elect Obama (& Company).

 Isn’t this an interesting counter-point?