USD College Republicans

Free trade: the new liberal taboo

From the Wall Street Journal
----
What a spectacle. It is now respectable for Democrats to assert, even to welcome, military defeat (see here). But if a Presidential campaign functionary so much as hints at support for free trade, he's banished to policy exile.

That's the meaning of Sunday's sacking of strategist Mark Penn from Hillary Clinton's campaign. In his noncampaign job with a PR firm, Mr. Penn had met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. to discuss the free trade agreement that President Bush sent to Congress yesterday. When word of that meeting leaked to a Wall Street Journal reporter last week, big labor went bonkers and Mrs. Clinton gave him the heave-ho despite more than a decade of loyal service. Maybe if Mr. Penn had called General David Petraeus a con man, he'd still have a job.

Mr. Penn's dismissal follows the previous humiliation of Barack Obama's economics adviser, Austan Goolsbee, for telling Canadian diplomats that Mr. Obama's anti-Nafta talk was merely campaign jive. Mr. Goolsbee has since all but entered the witness protection program. The grownups in both campaigns realize that free trade is good for the country, yet they must take a vow of public silence.

As recently as the 1990s, Bill Clinton's support for free trade was seen as a sign of his economic centrism and that he understood global competitive realities. In the 2008 campaign, free trade has become the primary Democratic taboo.
----

A few words from Matt about free trade and job losses:

We keep hearing that we're "losing jobs" to other nations due to free trade. That's true. However, those job losses aren't really losses. Why? Well, in many cases, the taxpayers are essentially subsidizing union workers' pay. What does that mean?

That means that a manufacturing worker might make $40,000 a year, but taxpayers might pay upwards of $100,000 in extra costs and taxes in order to keep himemployed. What's worse, the worker probably manufactures a product that can be made at a cheaper price in another country.

Upon closer examination, it's obvious that, while free trade might hurt a few people- like manufacturing workers in Ohio or Pennsylvania, it helps every American who buys things- almost everyone. It sounds crass and mean, but that worker's job simply isn't worth the expense that the taxpayers are forced to endure. It can be asserted that keeping these jobs in America is hurting the country more than it is helping.

Shhh...No one tell the Democrats.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 11:48PM Apr 07, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Greenspan endorses McCain

Arguably the most famous economist in the world has endorsed McCain.
---
"I'm Republican and I support John McCain, who I know very well and who I respect a lot," he said.
---
He said this during an interview about the possibility of a recession. This leads me to believe that he thinks McCain is the best candidate for handling such a situation.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 06:38AM Apr 07, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[2]

Another Hillary lie, among the many

Hillary Clinton has been telling whoppers...who would've thunk it?
-----
"Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. At one March rally in Wyoming, for instance, she referred to Ms. Bachtel, a 35-year-old who managed a Pizza Hut, as a young, uninsured minimum-wage worker, saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”

Mrs. Clinton does not name Ms. Bachtel or the hospital in her speeches. As she tells it, the woman was turned away twice by a local hospital when she was experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy. “The hospital said, ‘Well, you don’t have insurance.’ She said, ‘No, I don’t.’ They said, ‘Well, we can’t see you until you give $100.’ She said, ‘Where am I going to get $100?’

“The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn’t save the baby.”

Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said."
-----
The Democrats' hard luck stories are already stretched. Clinton's been turning them into outright lies! For shame!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 05:30PM Apr 06, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama's a liar- that's not "change!"

Obama lied!!
-----
During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago non-profit group that issued it. And it found that Obama – the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes adding to one answer.
-----
Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved – or even read – the latter questionnaire.

“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, in an emailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that some answers didn't reflect his views. His eleven years in public office do.”

But the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability. Those questions are central to efforts by Obama’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton to woo the superdelegates whose votes represent her best chance to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama.
-----
There are more nuances to this article; it's surprisingly long. Check it out.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:28AM Mar 31, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Hillary Clinton breaking the law (again)?

The Washington Times reports that Hillary may be breaking the law by taking contributions from Elton John.

It's too long to post, and I need to get to class, so check out the link.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:56AM Mar 27, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]

Hillary's list of lies

Dick Morris has an interesting article on Real Clear Politics today
------
Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)
------
Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
------
It looks like she only has "experience" in lying!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 11:46AM Mar 26, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Democrats' infighting will surely ruin them

The Democrats are split!
-----
"Twenty-two percent (22%) of Democratic voters nationwide say that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that an identical number—22%--say that Barack Obama should drop out.

"A solid majority of Democrats, 62%, aren’t ready for either candidate to leave the race. Nationally, Clinton and Obama are running essentially even among Likely Democratic Primary Voters in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll."
-----
"Forty-seven percent (47%) of Obama supporters think Clinton should drop out. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Clinton supporters say Obama should drop out. Those who remain undecided are a bit more likely to suggest that Obama should leave. But, it’s worth noting that less than half of Obama supporters say Clinton should withdraw, less than half of Clinton supporters say Obama should withdraw, and less than half of undecided voters say either should withdraw at this time."
-----
Keep fighting, Democrats! Let McCain rise above the petty squabbling!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 11:09AM Mar 26, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]

News flash: Hillary lies about Bosnia

Hillary lied about her trip to Bosnia during the Clinton presidency

"Sniper fire?" Running to their cars? No way. This two-minute CBS report proves that Hillary was lying. Maybe it's a Clinton thing.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 10:38PM Mar 24, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[2]

Another new poll heavily favors McCain

A new Pennsylvania poll heavily favors John McCain
---
"Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee."
---
I'm willing to bet that this trend is similar in other states, as well.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 10:02AM Mar 21, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Hillary's REAL experience

One of my favorite websites, Gawker.com, has aninteresting insight into Hillary's "experience"

Caution--- the link leads to a site that might contain adult language!

"On the day that dozens of US cruise missiles rained down on Serbia in an attempt to punish Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic for the country's onslaught against ethnic Albanian separatists in Kosovo, first lady Hillary Clinton was far from the White House war room: instead she was touring ancient Egyptian ruins, including King Tut's tomb and the temple of Hatshepsut. And on the day before the signing of the Good Friday agreement in Belfast she was at an event called "Hats on for Bella" in Washington."

I can't say I'm not surprised.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 02:40PM Mar 20, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

McCain leading by DOUBLE DIGITS

John McCain now leads both Democratic candidates by double digits.

I know it's just a daily poll, but the Democrats make such a fuss when their candidate is ahead, so I thought I'd do the same.
---
***
McCain 49% Barack Obama 42%
McCain 51% Hillary Clinton 41%
***
---

Conjecture is fun, but only time will tell.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 02:37PM Mar 20, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

McCain presenting new face of Republican Party

John McCain has been putting forward a new image of the Republican Party.

Some of what he's been saying is the current party line:
--"We are now succeeding in Iraq and Americans at least, I believe are in significant numbers agreeing that the present strategy of the surge is succeeding and they want us to succeed," McCain said.

But some is brand new:
--"I am convinced that if we work at it, we will convince India and China that it is in their interests to be part of a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the Arizona Republican said.

What's interesting about this is that McCain actually seems intent upon fighting pollution. The Democrats, who often self-style themselves as being "green," barely talk about India and China's pollution problems, choosing instead to blame America first. It seems that McCain will fight pollution better than either Democrat would.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 02:29PM Mar 20, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

We knew it was coming: Obama's "race" speech

Here is the full text of Obama's "race speech" that was given today.

One interesting note: the word "change" is mentioned 5 times.

"...bring about real change."

"...a belief that society can change."

"...America can change."

"...nothing will change."

"...openness to change."

This is some one-time-only help I'm going to give Barack Obama. Here are a few words that are synonymous with change that you might be able to use to break up the "CHANGE" boredom:

Transformation
Metamorphosis
Transmutation
Adjustment
Transition
Refinement
Reversal
Readjustment
Modification
Switch
Modulation
Turnaround
Alter
Convert
Metamorphose

I think there may be enough there to last Obama the rest of the campaign.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 11:16AM Mar 18, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[3]

Tom Daschle on The Daily Show

Tom Daschle was on The Daily Show recently discussing, among other things, how he got to be a Democratic superdelegate.

He's pledged to Barack Obama- I wonder if he was a recipient of part of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Obama has been giving to superdelegates.

Jon Stewart made a good observation- Daschle is already pledged to Obama, though South Dakota hasn't yet voted. While superdelegates are not obliged to follow their state's wishes, one would think it would behoove him to obey the South Dakota party that kept him in power until Thune kicked him out.

In the interview, Daschle insinuated that the superdelegates are in place because the Democratic Party doesn't want someone like Cobert to be the nominee. So what he's saying is that the Democratic doesn't trust the average citizen? That sounds pretty elitist to me.

He also discussed his book about health care. He says we need an "autonomous board" should operate the health care system. That sounds eerily like a central committee system of sorts. I'm not totally sure about his plan (I haven't read the book), but if it's a government plan, forget it.

Of course, Stewart was supremely polite to Daschle, listening to him and not interrupting him, unlike other people he has interviewed.

This is the first I've heard from Daschle in a while. It's so sad to see an old gray politician who still pretends he's relevant.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 01:31PM Mar 10, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[7]

Big hat, no cattle

Check out Tim Carr's most recent Volante column.

It discusses the fact that Barack Obama's message of "hope" and "change" sound good, but are just empty rhetoric.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 07:13PM Mar 09, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Hillary and Obama: Frighteningly populist

The Economist has a great story today about Obamanomics.

"FOR a man who has placed “hope” at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a “post-partisan” centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know “Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of ‘the idle holders of idle capital’ or upon the side of ‘the struggling masses’?”

Honestly, listening to either Clinton or Obama speak is like sitting in on Marx while he was writing "Das Kapital." I'm not forwarding the "Democrats are socialist" rhetoric for nothing. They're bringing it upon themselves with their policy ideas.

"What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence."

Look at Africa, then look at the US. Then have Barack Obama tell us that we've got it bad.

"The sad thing is that one might reasonably have expected better from Mr Obama. He wants to improve America's international reputation yet campaigns against NAFTA. He trumpets “the audacity of hope” yet proposes more government intervention. He might have chosen to use his silver tongue to address America's problems in imaginative ways—for example, by making the case for reforming the distorting tax code. Instead, he wants to throw money at social problems and slap more taxes on the rich, and he is using his oratorical powers to prey on people's fears."

That's exactly what the Democrats are doing- preying on people's fears. The average person doesn't know much about the often-unintuitive principles of economics, and they're preying on that lack of knowledge.

Let's hope people wise up before November.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 12:35PM Feb 29, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[2]

Canada and Mexico upset at Dem candidates

Mankiw and the Financial Times report that the Canadian and Mexican governments are not happy with the Democratic presidential candidates

Here's a quote from the Financial Times article:
---
Mexico and Canada on Wednesday voiced concern about calls by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, as the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete to adopt the most sceptical stance towards free trade ahead of next week’s Ohio primary election.

In a televised debate on Tuesday night, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton both threatened to pull out of Nafta if elected president unless Canada and Mexico agreed to strengthen labour and environmental standards.

Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico’s ambassador to the US, told the Financial Times that the US, Canada and Mexico had all benefited from Nafta and warned against reopening
negotiations.

“Mexico does not support reopening Nafta,” he said. “It would be like throwing a monkey wrench into the engine of North American competitiveness.”

Mexican diplomats believe a renegotiation could resurrect the commercial disputes and barriers to trade that the agreement itself was designed to overcome.
---
Mankiw also quotes Tufts economics professor Daniel Drezner:
---
Democrats cannot simultaneously talk about improving America's standing abroad while acting like a belligerent unilateralist when it comes to trade policy.
---
When the Democrats talk about their dislike of unilateral action on behalf of the United States, it's obvious that they only mean foreign policy. Drezner's quote is spot-on.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 01:58PM Feb 28, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

On the Democrats on trade

Don Boudreaux has an excellent post on Cafe Hayek today. Boudreaux is the Chairman of the George Mason University Department of Economics. He has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, and Reason Magazine.

I'm using it as a response to the USD Dems' Ryan Cwach who, in a criticism of my most recent href="http://media.www.volanteonline.com/media/storage/paper468/news/2008/02/27/Opinion/Democrats.Promises.Take.Form.Of.Nursery.Rhymes-3237174.shtml">Volante column, defended the Democratic candidates' positions on free trade.

The Boudreaux has many links in his post. In order to get them, you'll have to click the above link and read the original post.
-----
Shift Happens

Don Boudreaux

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are increasingly hostile to trade (or so they say on the campaign trail -- admittedly not a stage on which truth and frankness get many lines).

There are countless distressing facets of this anti-trade nonsense. One of these is the weaselly "I'm for free trade as long as it's fair trade" refrain. Such a claim (now as familiar in political campaigns as Dunkin' Donuts) is a cowardly attempt by the candidate to stand on both sides of the issue by invoking a word ("fair") loaded with emotion but devoid, in this context, of meaning. No one, as far as I know, favors unfair trade -- but by slapping the label "unfair" on any trade that a candidate's favorite constituents dislike, that candidate can oppose free trade while claiming still to support free trade.

Such a rhetorical gimmick is unfair.

Also distressing is the fact that Austan Goolsbee, the fine economist who is a close adviser to Obama, apparently is ignored by the would-be President of the USA on this front. Of course, I have no knowledge of what Goolsbee says and doesn't say to Obama, but I presume that Goolsbee isn't in the anti-trade camp. Consider that just this past June Goolsbee had this excellent column in the New York Times, with this key passage:

We [Americans] hate experiencing major adjustments and industry transformations that force people to look for new jobs. That experience has made many skeptical about the future of the United States in the world economy. Yet the evidence seems to show that for all our dissatisfaction, we are the most flexible economy around and may be best poised to take advantage of the coming changes on a global scale precisely because we are so good at adjusting.

A related source of distress is Alan Blinder's recent skepticism of trade -- his lending his good name and the prestige of the economics profession to protectionists. It's very bizarre (especially in light of the fact that Blinder wrote this). In today's New York Times, "Economic Scene" columnist David Leonhardt quotes Blinder as saying that "Trade has winners and losers ... and there have been a lot of losers in Ohio." I've written elsewhere about "winners and losers" from trade. But I can't resist making my point again, if only in a slightly different way.

Trade is just one manifestation of consumer sovereignty. Just as there are, by Blinder's calculus, winners and losers from consumers shifting their expenditures from goods made in America to goods made abroad, there are winners and losers from consumers shifting their expenditures from goods made in Illinois to goods made in Arizona - and from consumers shifting their expenditures from donuts, beef, cigarettes, whiskey, and train travel to bagels, fish, yoga lessons, wine, and air travel. Trade plays no unique, or uniquely important, role as an avenue of economic change spurred in part by consumer sovereignty. The only practical way to rid the economy of such "loses" is to try to freeze it, a futile step that will in the long-run only make losers of everyone.
----
A great post.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 03:13PM Feb 27, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama's Patriot Act

Barack Obama's got a Patriot Act of his own!

It's a bill that would essentially punish companies that engage in smart business. Because smart business is unpatriotic.

"Mr. Obama's proposal would designate certain companies as "patriot employers" and favor them over other, presumably not so patriotic, businesses."

Here's the kicker:
---
"In other words, a patriotic employer is one which fulfills the fondest Big Labor agenda, regardless of the competitive implications. The proposal ignores the marketplace reality that businesses hire a work force they can afford to pay and still make money. Coercing companies into raising wages and benefits above market rates may only lead to fewer workers getting hired in the first place."
---

This reflects a large- and rather dumb- shift in economic policy. The column says of this:

"Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.

"He has it backwards: The offshore activities of U.S. companies tend to increase rather than reduce domestic business. A 2005 National Bureau of Economic Research study by economists from Harvard and the University of Michigan found that more foreign investment by U.S. companies leads to greater domestic investment, and that U.S. firms' hiring of more offshore workers is positively, not negatively, associated with the number of American workers they hire. That's in part because often what is produced overseas by subsidiaries are component parts to final, higher-value-added products manufactured here."

Obama says he doesn't pander to special interests. This is a direct contradiction of that assertion. In fact, the assertion is a BOLDFACED LIE. This proposal came right from the mouth of labor unions like the AFL-CIO, and there's no denying that fact.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 02:34PM Feb 27, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[2]

Matt Hittle's Volante column 2/27

Hi all,

Please check out my column in this week's Volante It's called "Democrats' promises take form of nursery rhymes."

It's about the Democrats' campaign promises and why they're nothing but fairy tales.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:25AM Feb 27, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Another note on Obama's lack of accomplishments

I recently posted a video detailing the fact that many Obama supporters can't even identify any of his accomplishments. Rightfully so- they're extremely few in number.

Here was a comment posted with regard to this video:
---
"Here is a list of accomplishments of Obama's. Lugar-Obama legislation, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, He also was very active in Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. There are other reasons to support a leader than just his senatorial accomplishments. Obama, whether you want to admit it or not, has the ability to inspire and unify a country and that is what his supporter was trying to say. Mind it was stupid for him to not know about Obama's accomplishments, but that has nothing to do with Obama's record."
---
The commenter is way off-base on these assertions.

First, it's interesting that his"list" of Obama's accomplishments includes only three things- only one of which Obama took the lead on with one other senator. There's not much you can do it two years, so I don't blame the Obama supporters. Rather, I blame his shocking lack of substantive experience.

The commenter accidentally (or deliberately) didn't mention that John McCain also introduced the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, in addition to Coburn and Carper. He also got it wrong on the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. JOHN MCCAIN was among the original sponsors of this legislation. Obama was among the "25 other senators" who were not named in the press release because they were hangers-on.

These two pieces of legislation were only some of the most recent of McCain's 21 year Senate career and his four year career in the House. That's the kind of substantive experience we need in the White House.

Next, the commenter says that Obama's record essentially doesn't matter. Are you kidding? Do you think that his oratory ability will help in in foreign policy, for instance? NO WAY. Take Kennedy- the Obama cult loves to find similarities with Kennedy. Kennedy was also a great speaker but screwed up the Bay of Pigs AND got the US deeper into the Vietnam debacle.

Obama inspires, all right. He inspires his followers to demand bigger government and more bureaucracy. His policy proposals will "inspire" ("force" is a better word) the American people to surrender many of their financial freedoms to the government.

Obama's ability to tell swindle his followers into thinking his presidency would be a make-believe land of happiness and sunshine IS NOT a prerequisite for the presidency.

-Matt Hittle

Obama is

Posted at 08:00PM Feb 24, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[4]

Obama supporters clueless on his Senate record

Even Obama supporters can't identify anything he's done!

This is a video clip of Texas Democratic State Senator Kirk Watson being interviewd by Chris Matthews during MSNBC's election coverage.

Matthews repeatedly asks Watson to name legislative accomplishments achieved by Barack Obama.

Here's the big surprise:

Watson is UNABLE to name ANYTHING.

Listen carefully at the end of the video- you can hear the studio workers laughing at him.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 05:49PM Feb 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[3]

The best line of the night

In their 1,000,000,000,000th debate, Hillary and Barack got a bit heated.

I spent most of the time watching The Dirty Dozen and writing a paper.

I did, however, hear the best line of the night, from Hillary.

She said that Obama's "change" is "change you can Xerox."

CLASSIC and TRUE.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:16PM Feb 21, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

Obama panders to special interests

Barack Obama panders to his union special interests, even when American diplomacy is at stake.

From the Wall Street Journal:
---

Barack Obama has pledged to "renew American diplomacy." Except, apparently, when it might interfere with an endorsement from the Teamsters.

President James Hoffa bestowed the powerful union's blessing on Mr. Obama yesterday, not so coincidentally only days after the Senator declared his opposition to the pending U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In a statement inserted in the Congressional Record last week, Mr. Obama said he believes the pact doesn't pay "proper attention" to America's "key industries and agricultural sectors" like cars, rice and beef. Opposition to free-trade deals is now a union litmus test, especially for the Teamsters and Service Employees International Union, which endorsed the Senator last Friday.

Try squaring Mr. Obama's views on the FTA with his criticism of the Bush Administration for not negotiating with unfriendly regimes, taken straight from an online position paper: It "makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership." Or consider this promise from his Asia policy paper: Mr. Obama "will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia" and "work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity."

Consider also that Seoul is willing to open up some of its own politically sensitive industries, such as banking and cars, for the FTA. Mr. Obama might take a look at a report last fall from the International Trade Commission, which says the FTA is expected to boost U.S. GDP by $10 billion to $12 billion annually and that the impact on American employment would be "negligible." In exchange, consumers in both countries would enjoy lower prices and a wider range of goods.

Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has put a lot of political capital behind the trade pact and President-elect Lee Myung-bak is also a strong supporter. The men, who represent opposing parties, don't agree on much but they have agreed to push the FTA through the National Assembly as early as this week. A U.S. "no" would be a huge embarrassment for them -- and for American "diplomacy."
---

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:53AM Feb 21, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

More on the cult of Obama

I'm studying for an exam I have at 9:30, so I will just go head and post the entire piece- it's rather short.
---

When backing Barack feels like joining a cult
---
I’m an Obama girl and my man throttled Hillary Clinton, again, Tuesday night.

Suddenly, the impossible is real.

Suddenly, I’m nervous. Very nervous, actually.

I’m nervous because an otherwise normal grownup told me yesterday she’s watched the will.i.am (Black Eyed Peas) “Yes We Can” Obama video about 100 times and gets “weepy” every time.

I’m nervous because a longtime political type, normally quite cynical, now waxes rhapsodic about Obama’s “cool.”

“He’s elegant, controlled, the best-dressed candidate ever,” he says. Never a red tie, yellow or bright blue. No, Obama does a subdued lean charcoal gray suit with a gray or silvery tie. Everything muted, measured, fluid. “He floats onto the stage, a bit of the Fred Astaire thing going.”

Fred Astaire?

This same man, 100 percent anti-illegal aliens, fears Obama could pull a Reagan or a JFK on the Mexican border, head down there, chanting, “Tear down this wall!” or even do an “Ich bin ein Tijuana!!!”

He’s with Obama anyway.

I’m nervous because Harvard political genius Elaine Kamarck told me Hillary understands the various messes we’re in far better than Obama.

Suppose Kamarck’s right?

I’m nervous about the “O’Bambi” factor. Will the terrorists move in next door when Obama’s in the White House?

I’m nervous because Michelle Obama, about whom I just wrote a fawning puff piece, now says that until her husband’s stunning ascendancy, she’s never before been proud of America. Huh?

Barack now claims she didn’t mean it. Oh, yes she did. We all know the insufferable, holier-than-thou, Blame-America-First types who lecture the unwashed from the rarefied air of Cambridge and Brookline.

If I wanted lecturing, I’d be with Hillary.

I’m nervous because too many Obama-philes sound like Moonies, or Hare Krishnas, or the Hale-Bopp-Is-Coming-To-Get-Me nuts.

These true believers “Obama-ize” everything. They speak Obama-ese. Knit for Obama. Run for Obama. Gamble - Hold ’Em Barack! - for Obama. They make Obama cakes, underwear, jewelry. They send Valentine cards reading, “I want to Barack your world!”

At campaign rallies people scream, cry, even faint as Obama calmly calls for the EMTs. When supporters pant en masse, “I love you!” (like The Beatles, circa 1964), Barack says, “I love you back” with that deliciously charming, almost cocky smile.

Oh - I’m nervous because it’s all gone to his head and he hasn’t even won yet.

I’m nervous because it’s gone to a lot of other people’s heads as well. Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings introduced Obama last week in Baltimore and said, “This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world.”

“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” says George Clooney.

“I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

I’m nervous because nobody’s quite sure what Obama stands for, even his supporters. (“I can’t wait to see,” said actress/activist Susan Sarandon, declaring full support nonetheless).

I’m nervous because even his biggest fans can’t name Obama’s accomplishments, including Texas state Sen. Kirk Watson, an Obama-man who humiliated himself when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked him about five times to name something, anything, Obama’s done. Watson hemmed. Watson hawed. Watson gave up.

I’m nervous because John McCain says Obama’s is “an eloquent but empty call for change” and in the wee, wee hours, a nagging voice whispers, suppose McCain’s right, too? Then what?
---
-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:01AM Feb 21, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

More comments on Obama's lack of substance

Another columnist, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, is commenting on the frightening lack of substance behind Obama's "change" and "hope" mantras.

Technically, he's critiquing the Clinton campaign for their "heavy-handed" tactics and "clumsy aggression" in their accusation that Obama plagiarized. In the same breath, though, Taranto, states that because Obama's rhetoric is so empty, he is FORCED to pick and choose others' words. An interesting argument.

Here are the pertinent sections:
----
"But isn't it a bit heavy-handed to accuse Obama of plagiarism? This is a serious charge in academia and journalism, professions in which words are the final product. By contrast, language is a mere instrument for politicians. They hire speechwriters to put words in their mouths, something that would also be frowned upon in academia and journalism. Are voters really going to be dissuaded from backing Obama because as a politician he failed to adhere to the ethical standards that would have applied if he were a professor or a reporter? Not likely.

"Wolfson's comment is a striking example of the Clinton campaign's clumsy aggression. Obama's use of Patrick's rhetoric actually does bolster Mrs. Clinton's argument against him, but in a more subtle way. How ridiculous is it that Obama is borrowing someone else's empty rhetoric in order to defend his own?

"And empty it is. Although the other two examples are arguable either way, "We hold these truths . . ." and "I have a dream" were anything but "just words." They were words that held enormous meaning because of the historical context in which they were, respectively, written and uttered. Can the same be said of Obamanalities like "Yes, we can," or "Change we can believe in"?

"Mrs. Clinton is right that Obama has a talent for speaking that leads him to think he can get away with having nothing to say. It's too bad her advisers lack the mental dexterity to make this point effectively."
---

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:31AM Feb 20, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

The Obama delusion

Robert Samuelson's article on Real Clear Politics.

It's a substantive explanation why Obama's buzzwords "hope" and "change" are masking a glut of run-of-the-mill Democratic policies. I will cut and paste, as I think you should read Samuelson's words directly.
---
Samuelson's introduction:
---
"It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner, precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken."
---
Samuelson discusses why Obama's policies aren't anything special.
---
"By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter, he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

-- Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).

-- Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.

-- Expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."

-- Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goodie-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing him of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim."
---
Now, Samuelson describes a classic Democratic tactic- telling everyone what they want to hear:
---
"A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far.

Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling."
---
Samuelson's conclusion:
---
"He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't."
---

This is one of the best articles I've read in quite a while. It totally destroys an article that the USD Democrats recently posted an article from The Nation, called "A History of Hope." It details why "hope" is so important to the Democrats. It puts big-government presidents like FDR and LBJ on a pedestal. Of course, it contains no substantive facts or figures detailing Obama's policies. Those USD Democrats even called us who see through Obama's smoke-and-mirrors "close minded [sic]" and "obviously not familiar with American history." On the contrary, we small-government Republicans are all to familiar with the American history detailed in the article. We know that several of the presidencies mentioned were periods of immense government growth. They were also marked by the enactment of irrational policies that are screwing us over today: Social Security, The Great Society [which included woeful anti-poverty policy, Medicaid, and Medicare], escalation in Vietnam...Need I continue?

For the Democrats, it's all about the "feeling" in the air around Obama. It's all about the nebulous "je ne sais quoi" of Obama. Unfortunately, those hazy concepts won't get things done. Neither will Obama.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 12:11AM Feb 20, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[3]

MORE evidence that Obama is a farce

David Brooks has a great op-ed in the New York Times today.

The first half is just humor, but the second half truly details why Obama doesn't exemplify "change" like his rabid followers think he does.
----
"Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.
---
He continues:
---
How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.
---
It's obvious that Obama is NOT the embodiment of change. He appeases labor unions, gets cash from lobbyists, votes liberally, bribes superdelegates, and panders to various special interests!

But, like I said in my recent column in the Volante, Obama truly thinks he can do good. Brooks agrees: "Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them."

Just more ammunition in the fight against the fakery that is Barack Obama's campaign.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 10:50PM Feb 19, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]

A grim look into a Democratic presidency

Here is another great Wall Street Journal column out today.

Arnold Kling discusses the massive government bureaucracy that will be created with Democrats controlling both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. It's so well-written that I'll just copy and paste. Caution: This is very scary. The nanny-state policies discussed here almost echo the former Soviet Union. And that's just what we will get with Chairman Clinton or Premiere Obama.
----
On taxes:
----
"From a tax perspective, the Democrats will be constrained. All of their beloved "middle-class tax breaks" will be inoperative unless the alternative minimum tax is curtailed. The tax increases that they plan for high-income taxpayers will serve mostly to make up for lost revenue from reforming the AMT. There will be essentially nothing left over for new spending.

This means that from a spending perspective, the Democrats also will be tightly constrained. They will start with a fiscal deficit. After claiming for the last eight years that Social Security does not need to be fixed, they are going to find that in order to meet its obligations Social Security is going to absorb funds from other programs (or require tax increases).

How can the Democrats implement policy changes without large spending increases? The answer is regulation. The business sector is going to be increasingly told what to sell and how to sell it. Particularly in health care and energy, firms are going to be accountable to bureaucrats, not to customers. Products and services will be designed in Washington, not by competition."
----
On health care and energy:
----
"Regulations and mandates are an alternative to budgetary spending. For example, if politicians do not want to spend money on recruiting a volunteer army, they can institute a draft. Similarly if politicians do not have the resources on budget to pay for universal health insurance, they can pass a law making the purchase of health insurance mandatory. If such a law is effective, then the uninsured will be "drafted" into the army of the insured."

"Once health insurance becomes a regulated utility, the next step will be to go after pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. We can expect major government initiatives to control drug pricing and research and to require hospitals to limit treatments.

"Businesses that affect the consumption of energy will also be managed by regulators. We can expect utility deregulation to be halted and reversed. Alternative fuel mandates and emission controls will be gleefully enacted.

"New homes, automobiles, and appliances will have to meet design standards set by government. Specific technologies, such as compact fluorescent bulbs, will be required.

"These regulations will tend to raise prices to consumers. Politicians will want to avoid blame for this, so they will look for ways to force companies to subsidize low- and middle-income consumers. Thus, during the next administration's second term we can expect to see price control mechanisms enacted for many energy-related products and services.
----
Kling concludes:
----
"Many Americans will welcome the regulatory state. Many others will accommodate it. Only a minority of us will oppose it. Somewhere down the road, as people see the indignity of the many intrusions and the adversity of the consequences, I hope that there will be a backlash. Otherwise, if the era of mandates emerges as I fear it will, then the engine of capitalism in America may run out of the fuel of competition."
---

What an excellent column! The Democrats need to understand that, in some instances, government is needed. In others, it ISN'T. This concept seems foreign to the Dems, whose party is quickly becoming the party of the extreme Left-wing.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 01:29PM Feb 19, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[1]

Democrats: No "change," just status quo politics

The Democratic presidential candidates are at each other's throat yet again.

They're now fighting over single sentences!
---
Here's Patrick at a rally for his gubernatorial campaign on Oct. 15, 2006, during the final stretch of his successful campaign against then-Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (R):

“But her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is that all I have to offer is words — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, [applause and cheers] that all men are created equal.’ [Sustained applause and cheers.] Just words – just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words! ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words!”

Here’s Obama on Saturday night at the Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s Founders Day Gala in Milwaukee:
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words! [Applause.] ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words — just speeches!”
---
I dislike both candidates, but seriously, what is going on? Is Hillary THAT desperate to attack Obama? Is Obama THAT set on returning fire every time she attacks?

For two candidates who advocate "change," this sure seems like status-quo politics.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 06:13PM Feb 18, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008  |  Comments[0]