Quote Of The Day

"Ninety percent of black Democrats support Barack Obama. So that might leave an observer wondering: What the hell is up with that other 10 percent? Are they stupid? Do they hate their own race? Do they not understand the historical import of the moment? I can shed some insight on this demographic anomaly. In gatherings of black people, I'm invariably the only one for the Dragon Lady. I'll do my best to explain how those of us in the ever-shrinking minority of a minority came to our position. But, before going any further, let me fully disclose my predispositions. I disliked Obama almost instantly. I never believed the central premises of his autobiography or his campaign. He is fueled by precisely the same brand of personal ambition as Bill Clinton. But, where Clinton is damned as 'Slick Willie,' Obama is hailed as a post-racial Messiah. Do I believe that Obama had this whole yes-we-can deal planned from age 16? No, I would respond. He began plotting it at age 22. This predisposition, of course, doesn't help me in making the case against Obama, especially not with black people. But, believe me, there's a strong case to be made that he isn't such a virtuous mediator of race. And it's this skepticism about Obama's racial posturing that has led us, the 10 percent, into dissent. Let's begin with the locus classicus of Obama love, Andrew Sullivan's encomium in The Atlantic. He writes: "Earlier this fall, I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery; his address was wooden, stilted, even tedious. It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I'd just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader." This is presented as a confession, and Sullivan honestly admits his reaction is based on his stereotyping of blacks. Add to that another Obama supporter, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, calling Obama the first black politician to 'come to the American people not as a victim but rather as a leader.' You hear this kind of talk all the time. Never mind the dignified glories of Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Colin Powell, Kurt Schmoke, and others. We have arrived at the crux of the matter. So much of the educated white people's love for Barack depends on educated white people's complete ignorance of and distance from the rest of us. Barack is the black person they want the rest of us to be--half-white and loving, or 'racially transcendent,' as the press loves to call him. And, since picking a candidate makes you allies with his other supporters, why would I want to be allies with educated whites whose glorification of Barack depends in large part on their implicit denigration of the rest of us?" - Cinque Henderson, TV writer and black supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential in The New Republic about why he is skeptical about Sen. Obama

Quote Of The Day

"Climate change is real, and has been throughout Earth's history. But there is a huge difference between acknowledging this – and claiming: our use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change; future changes will be catastrophic; slashing carbon dioxide emissions will stabilize our fickle climate; and we can slash emissions without impairing energy use, living standards, jobs and civil rights. Over a dozen climate bills are pending in Congress. Hundreds more are pending at the state, county and city level. Unaccountable activists and judges say we must protect polar bears that unreliable computer models say might someday be endangered. Every proposal requires major reductions in greenhouse gases – many of them by 80% below 2005 emissions, a level not seen in these United States since 1909! Every one would give activists, courts and bureaucrats control over virtually any activity that produces greenhouse gases, and every aspect of our lives. Every one would curtail energy use and economic opportunity. Not one would make a serious dent in global CO2 levels or temperatures. Whether the blunt instrument is a carbon tax, a carbon offsets tax, a cap-and-trade tax, a carbon sequestration mandate tax, or a bloated bureaucracy tax, the effect on prices would be the same – and already stressed families would get another dose of economic arsenic. We cannot let that happen. In this election season, every thoughtful, caring citizen in our great nation must join me in challenging the modern-day Jim Crow laws that prevent poor people from having the energy they need to achieve Dr. King's dream of civil rights, equal opportunity and true environmental justice. Together, we can make that dream come true." — Roy Innis, national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and conservative

Richmond's Mayor Wilder Won't Seek Re-Election

Hat tip to reader BT about this news. Richmond, Virginia Mayor Doug Wilder will not seek a second term in office. Sources say that the moderate Democrat made his announcement in a staff meeting this morning at Richmond City Hall. In 2004, Mayor Wilder won election as Richmond's first mayor elected by popular vote. He had championed a new form of city government, whereby the mayor would be directly accountable to the citizens. Previous mayors were City Council members elevated to the mayoral position by a vote of their council peers.

Mayor Wilder pledged to root out corruption at City Hall. His tenure has been marked by numerous battles with City Council, namely over budgets and spending. His September 2007 "in the dark of the night" eviction of the City School Board and Administration out of their City Hall headquarters drew significant public scorn and cost the city an estimated hundreds of thousands of dollars. Two month ago, a judge ruled that the mayor had overstepped his powers. The mayor's attorney pledged to appeal the case to the state supreme court. Mayor Wilder was also criticized for failing to keep the Richmond Braves baseball team in their 40-year home at The Diamond.

The mayor's announcement not to run follows by one day the announced departure of Richmond Police Chief Rodney Monroe, who is taking the job at police chief in Charlotte, N.C. The hiring of Chief Monroe and the subsequent reduction of violent crime in the city is seen as one of Mayor Wilder's best accomplishments as Richmond's mayor.

Barack Obama's Macaca Moment?

Asks Plez, a black moderate-liberal Democratic blogger who supports Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid, argues no: "While engaged in a choreographed tour of a Detroit auto plant and getting barraged with questions from a pesky female reporter, Sen. Barack Obama said, 'Hold on a second, Sweetie...' Huh? Say what? plezWorld is aghast and appalled that our next president would be so flippant with a pain-in-the-ass reporter. HA HA HA! Come on, get a life! Some have wrongly compared this utterance to Sen. George Allen's 'macaca moment' that sank his re-election bid two years ago...Although, glib and a bit condescending, what Obama's words lack are the racist and xenophobic venom that dripped from Allen's lips. Obama shouldn't make it a habit to go around brushing off reporters and common folk, I think we get enough that from our current president. But this incident goes nowhere near the gold standard of inappropriate language that sunk George Allen's ship! And it is important to note that Obama did call the WXYZ reporter and apologized on her voicemail:"



Plez continues his commentary: "[Y]ou gotta love us politics! [I] read a comment where it was stated that this is the same as [H]illary [C]linton saying, "hold on there, boy" to a Black reporter! [H]mmmm, [I] think not! [I] guess [I] would be genuinely concerned if the reporter had been a man! *smile*"

My response: What Sen. Obama did to the female reporter was sexist and very condescending. I'm not buying Sen. Obama's claim that he calls men "sweetie" as well. He rightfully apologized because of politics. Yesterday I tried to explain to my conservative Republican uncle why Sen. Obama's comment was sexist - even pointing out how would he feel if he was a reporter and a presidential candidate did a racist, "Wait a second, boy" - but Unc wasn't buying the comparison. If the man is not in my circle and not older than I am, I'd be highly offended by being called "sweetie" too.

Rev. Peterson Blasts California Supreme Court On Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND) in Los Angeles, blasted the California Supreme Court for its 4-3 decision overturning Proposition 22, the initiative passed in 2000 affirming that only marriage between a man and woman is "valid or recognized in California."

"Sixty-one percent of California voters supported Prop 22 and now activist judges are overruling the will of the people," said the conservative Republican activist. "This decision should outrage and motivate all decent and law abiding Americans to support a marriage amendment. Homosexual activists are relentless in trying to normalize their abnormal lifestyle; and now a Republican-majority court is doing their bidding."

Rev. Peterson calls on black churches to support the marriage amendment. "The time is now for conservative black churches to join with white Christians in opposing this ruling. For far too long churches have sat on the sidelines while serious moral issues have been decided without their participation. This issue is about right and wrong. Changing the definition of traditional marriage to include homosexuals is wrong and Christians have a moral duty to speak out against it. Black ministers must encourage their congregations to support grassroots coalitions that seek to protect traditional marriage."

A coalition of churches and citizens has submitted 1.1 million signatures to California's 58 counties to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. Based on the reported number of signatures, it appears the initiative, known as the California Marriage Protection Act, will qualify for the ballot. This ruling by the California Supreme Court does not affect the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents any state from having to recognize a marriage performed in another state.

My response: A lot of folks are blowing up my email about this ruling. with most of them arguing that the ruling "trashes traditional marriage." I disagree with Rev. Peterson and these folks. This is a small-government, conservative ruling. Government should not be in nanny-state mode of interfering with what consenting, non-related adults not harming others wish to do. I would recommend that they and Rev. Peterson focus on the pretty high rate of divorces in this country. Before anyone asks, I believe that government should not ban polygamous marriages either. Marrying an animal isn't equal because animals cannot provide consent. A brother and sister marrying doesn't qualify because of risks to offspring. If you don't like gay marriage, you have the choice to not be in one.

COUNTRY OF THE WEEK: Myanmar/Burma: Did You Know?

— Myanmar/Burma is the largest nation of mainland Southeast Asia

— It was a British Colony from 1885 until 1948

— In 2005, the military junta relocated the nation's capital from Yangon, also known as Rangoon, to Naypyidaw

— Myanmar/Burma is one of the Southeast Asia's poorest nations. Until the 1950s, it was the region's wealthiest country

— 90% of the world's ruby gems come from the country

— The government recognizes 135 distinct ethnic groups in the country, organized into 8 major national ethnic races

Sources: Myanmar.net, Los Angeles Times, Wikipedia

Shady McCain

Angela Winters, a black moderate blogger, writes about the wife of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain: "So we all know that Cindy McCain is loaded. She's an heir to the Anheuser Busch fortune and has millions upon millions. But it's Obama that's the elitists [sic]. Whatever. Because she has so much money, I can understand that she doesn't know exactly all of her investments, but she should have gone over them with her husband's campaign people when he decided to run for President or at least when he got the nomination. After the way the Clinton's investments and Obama's tax returns were made media meat, she can't say she didn't expect it. So either she looked and didn't care or didn't look. Because it wasn't until an AP Reporter pointed out to her that she has holdings in the Sudan that she decided to sell them off....This while her husband has been a critic of the violence in Sudan and has advocated for international financial sanctions against Sudan. Cindy's funds were worth more than $2 million. Now I'm wondering why she refuses to release her tax records. What else might one find?"

RAFIQUE TUCKER COMMENTARY: When You Put It Like That...

The moderate-liberal Democratic blogger: "You know, I've always held that the meme that Obama is somehow less than supportive of Israel, or wants to appease terrorists in the Middle East is false and ridiculous. I still hold to that, but I must admit I find this disquieting: It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment. Lee Smith explains what's wrong with Obama's analysis: Obama's language is derived from those corners of the left that claim Hezbollah is only interested in winning the Shia a larger share of the political process. Never mind the guns, it's essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics! – and its own foreign policy, intelligence services and terror apparatus, used at the regional, international and now domestic level. But the solution, says, Obama, channeling the man he fired [Robert Malley] for talking to Hamas, is diplomacy. Yeah. Like I said, disquieting."

Quote Of The Day

"Soon after the real colonialists left Africa, a new breed of Western colonialists emerged: the statist Non-Governmental Organisations that want to save us from everything from genetically-modified food to globalisation - and growth. These 'consumer' and humanitarian groups and 'development' charities are united in the belief that modern industrial civilisation, profit and competition are unethical. In their view, people, particularly in developing countries, would be better served by state control that puts 'equity' and the redistribution of wealth ahead of the economic dynamism that has enriched the West and such eastern countries as Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. But despite their claims to speak for the poor, only a few hundred of the several thousand NGOs registered at the United Nations come from developing countries. The vast majority are from the USA, with many from Britain, France and Germany. These groups have influence way beyond their size. Many poor countries do not have the technical capacity to formulate their own policies for services such as health, so they consult NGOs or bodies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), mandated with providing impartial scientific advice to governments. The WHO has been colonised by these NGOs, acting as policy consultants and playing a big part in formulating the WHO's technical and policy advice to members." — Temba Nolutshungu, director of Free Market Foundation of Southern Africa and South African libertarian

I.C. JACKSON OP-ED: Obama In Grand Rapids: Bipartisan BBQued B.S.!

Asserts the Grand Rapids, Michigan resident and conservative Republican, responding to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign rally - where former presidential candidate John Edwards endorsed him - yesterday in her city: "Oh my God, I'm so mad right now I could spit. I can't believe that people are falling for this crap. I understand that everyone isn't a conservative Republican like me, and that's okay. Even if you are a true Democrat, you HAVE to know that you are being taken for a ride. John Edwards [yesterday] left the stage after promising the Iraq War would be ended in 2009. Are you stupid or crazy? War is VERY complicated, and a country's actions in international conflict have SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES!!! You don't just pull out because Granny wants to see JohnBoy!!! Oh my GOD! I don't like the war, either, but I know enough about LIFE and COMMON SENSE to know that you just don't stop fighting bec[au]se you don't like it. The kind of reper[cu]ussions that come from such childish, emotional solutions will cripple us as a nation when the next 9/11 type terrorist attack takes place...And now Obama is recapping the socialist lies and propaganda that Edwards spewed out. Oh my God...No one who works should ever want. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Everyone who works is not fiscally responsible! Most poor proplr [sic] are poor because of what they have and have not done in their lives, not because of the big bad Republicans. You have to be an idiot or an emotional basketcase to buy into this mess. OH MY GOD!!!! He is telling people that they will never want under his leadership! 'We can do this!' THAT IS A SATANIC LIE!!!! Didn't JESUS say that the poor you will have with you always? Do you know why he said that? Because, among other reasons, there will always be people who are trifiling [sic], ignorant, and irresponsible. Everybody isn't, but enough are to where you can't make blanket statements like these Democrats are making unless you are a LIAR! You really don't see this?"

She continues her commentary: "If you say you read the Bible and you listen to this crap and believe it, I question your intelligence or your integrity. You either don't read it as much as you say you do or you don't understand it yet. How can I say that? I can say that because if you can't tell that this is the biggest pack of lies ever perpetuated upon the American people, then something is wrong with or deficient in your understanding. Period. Only 1 of 2 things will happen if Obama is elected: either his childish views on politics and reality will screw the country up for years, or, the more likely thing, he will pacify you for 8 years, talking about how change is coming when it's really not because his big white teeth are not magic wands that change the realities of life just because they shine their light on your TV screen. Jesus..."

My response: Tell us how you really feel! This commentary is not the language that I would have used to try to persuade folks to my side of the aisle, but to each her own. While I disagree with about 75% of Sen. Barack Obama's policy positions, I would not define his campaign as "the biggest pack of lies ever perpetuated upon the American people." Hardly. Oh, say, the idea of black inferiority perpetuated via slavery & Jim Crow would be on the list far ahead of anyone's campaign this year. So I guess I have a deficiency. The comment about Sen. Obama's teeth was a low blow too. Just focus on his policies.

The Future According To McCain

Alan Stewart Carl responds to Sen. John McCain's (R-Arizona) speech today laying out what he envisions for America's future by 2013 should be elected president. The moderate blogger, who is leaning toward supporting Sen. McCain's presidential bid, writes: • “The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.” Now, who wouldn’t support that outcome? Of course, the only way this happens is if our troops stay and it certainly isn’t a 100% probability that our presence will actually lead to a stable Iraq, let alone a democratic one. In fact, I think 'functioning democracy' is a visionary blind spot that McCain could do without. I’d settle for 'functioning, non-threatening government.' But I still generally prefer McCain’s vision to the far more reckless notion that Iraq will magically heal itself (rather than collapsing into horrific violence) if we just withdrew. • The Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced. • The Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced. Uh-huh. Great. How? With whose resources? • “The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants,” McCain said. “There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.” Well, if the Taliban threat is reduced and Iraq is much more peaceful, I suppose finding Osama bin Laden is more likely, although I’m not holding my breath. As for terrorist attacks here? We can only hope and pray McCain is right."

Mr. Carl continues his commentary: "• A “League of Democracies” has supplanted a failed United Nations to apply sanctions to the Sudanese government and halt genocide in Darfur. Well, that’s interesting. Darfur has exposed the UN’s ineffectiveness and an alternative international solution is needed for that crisis. The question is, does McCain see this League of Democracies forming simply to combat the human rights abuses in Sudan or might there be a more permanent role for such a body? Kind of a non-militaristic, more expansive NATO? • The United States has had “several years of robust growth,” appropriations bills free of lawmakers’ pet projects known as “earmarks,” public education improved by charter schools, health care improved by expansion of the private market and an energy crisis stemmed through the start of construction on 20 new nuclear reactors. This whole comment is what critics dislike about McCain. He often proposes small changes that he envisions will create big results. Personally, I prefer taking things slowly and not enacting sweeping new legislation and creating big new government agencies before we’ve tried less intrusive and less costly options. He’s probably right that the nation will grow robustly and I’d imagine it will do so more under the favorable tax policies of McCain than the squeezing tax policies of Obama (although I imagine business will do fine under either). Even though McCain’s stand against earmarks is highly principled and admirable, eliminating these budget-bloaters won’t be enough to balance the budget. And charter schools won’t fix public education by themselves although, again, I’d have preferred us going this route before enacting the monstrosity that is No Child Left Behind. On this list, only the proposal of 20 new nuclear plants would have clear and dramatic effect. If we want our energy needs met in the next 20 years without maintaining our enormous fossil fuel consumption, nuclear power is the only solution with guaranteed returns."

And more: "• Democrats are asked to serve in his administration, he holds weekly news conferences and, like the British prime minister, answers questions publicly from lawmakers. “I will respect the responsibilities the Constitution and the American people have granted Congress,” the senator said, “and will, as I often have in the past, work with anyone of either party to get things done for our country.” The best is saved for last. This is one of the key reasons I like McCain (and one of the reasons many Republicans don’t). The man has a record of bipartisanship. Unlike Obama, who talks big about unity but spent his Senate term voting and acting solidly Democratic, McCain has bridged the two parties time and time again. When he says he’ll have Democrats in his administration, you know he isn’t just talking about token Democrats. And his desire to have British-style meetings with Congress is brilliant and bold. Our President should be more available and more accountable to Congress as they are our direct representatives. After eight years of the secretive George Bush, an available John McCain is a pleasing idea."

My response: I pretty much agree with Sen. McCain's speech here, although I see that he didn't delve into the culture wars issues where I disagree with him (e.g., abortion, gay marriage. legalizing drugs). It should also be pointed out that Sen. McCain's aggressiveness re: Sudan is tainted by the fact that his wife just pulled $2 million worth of investment fund shares from companies with links to Sudan (by the way, release those tax returns, Cindy). Rush Limbaugh was railing against this speech earlier this afternoon, decrying the rise of what he calls non-conservatives in Congress and candidates running for the White House.

Conservative Democrat Travis Childers Takes Key Mississippi Race

Politik Ditto, a black conservative Democratic blogger, says thumbs up to a new member of the U.S. House of Representatives: "Travis Childers is my kind of guy: pro-life, against reckless spending, serious about tackling illegal immigration and anti-gay marriage. Yes folks, conservative Democrats are alive, well and can make a difference in this country..."

Religious Liberty Vs. Religious Toleration

William Weston, a sociology professor and moderate Democrat, writes: "I have been reading John Pottenger's Reaping the Whirlwind: Liberal Democracy and the Religious Axis this week. Pottenger believes that modernity has produced a new 'axis' which is reorienting the whole world. He calls this 'the religious axis,' which seems to me an odd name for a cultural foundation that restricts religion so much. I would call it 'the modern axis.' Whatever you call it, though, the idea is interesting.Pottenger says these three factors form an interlocking foundation of modern cultures: 1) The world should be understood through rational and empirical examination; 2) Individuals should [have] developed personal ethics, as through conscience; 3) Society should not simply grant religious toleration to non-favored religions, but religious liberty to all. In this book the third point is the one he works the most with. He is argues that liberal democracy must fight against its tendency to institutionalize the majority faith. It would be easy to elevate the faith of the majority, and only tolerate the other faiths. It is particularly tempting to enshrine the founding faith of a society as the permanent basis of its culture, no matter what changes later in the composition of the population or the culture of the world. What liberal democracies must do, he argues, is establish religious liberty for all, not just religious toleration. This is an interesting idea, and certainly has many consequences for politics. He considers Christian Reconstructionism, old-time Mormonism, and Uzbekistan's embrace of Islamic nationalism as all bad moves away from religious liberty toward mere toleration."

He adds: "I think Pottenger makes some important mistakes. In particular, he does not credit the difference between changing the culture by religiously converting individuals, and changing the state by religiously changing the laws. He is right in criticizing the Christian Reconstructionism of Rousas Rushdoony as trying to do the latter. He is wrong in treating garden-variety evangelicals, who do aim at individual conversion within a secular state, as doing the same thing as the Reconstructionists."

OP-ED: The Size Of The Military Industrial Complex

The moderate-conservative Republican blogger writes: "Continuing to challenge various theories that provide cover for shallow criticism of the Cobbian Oeuvre, I will begin a series on the theory of 'war socialism' as I understand it. The theory of warsocialism [sic] attempts to explain American politics in terms of a political slight of hand that defies normal human concerns by duping Americans into believing that war is the health of the nation. The results being a callous disregard for the actual welfare of humans by the US government and a perpetual need for violent conflict around the world. Essentially, it portrays the American economy as a sort of military shark that needs to war in order to survive. I seek to debunk this notion as paranoid and in service to a shallow anti-Americanism that defies the facts of the actual economy of America and the politics of Americans. Item 1. The size of the military-industrial complex. According to the information I have collected, the US spent in 2007 during its prosecution of the small war in Iraq, approximately 550 billion dollars on defense, about 17% of the federal budget. I will take this figure to represent the size of the Military Industrial Complex. Note that this overstates the actual size of the MIC because it represents not only all of the goods and services provided by defense contractors on an annual basis, but the personnel costs for the Armed Forces itself. Comparing this generous figure to GDP of about 13.7Trillion, it works out to about [more] than 4% of the country's energies on an annual basis. Considered another way, America is 96% not the military industrial complex, even being generous to what the size of it is.'"

He continues his commentary: "Item 2. The size of other industries. In particular I will focus on several industries larger than the MIC.a. Construction: 1.196Tb. Information: 891Bc. Health Care & Social Assistance: 1.207Td. Manufacturing: 3.916Te. Finance & Insurance: 2.803Tf. Professional, Scientific & Technical Services: 886Bg. Retailing: 3.056Th. Wholesale Trade: 4.634T. These figures, incidently, account for the employment of approximately 77 million Americans. Conclusion: The military industrial complex is dwarfed by several ordinary industries individually and collectively. It is not anywhere near the largest sector of the American economy. The health of the American economy is not dependent on military spending."

Bush On Political Attack: Suggests Obama And Democrats Seek “Appeasement” Of Terrorists

Argues The Moderate Voice, a moderate-liberal blog, about Dubya's speech today before the Israeli Knesset: "President George Bush has all-but-formally entered campaign 2008 today suggesting — from foreign soil yet — that the Democrats would want 'appeasement' of terrorists, in language sharper than usual. What you read below is one reason why many\independent [sic] voters who were once Republicans or voted Republican could well cast a massive protest vote in November. Many independent voters don’t agree with or look favorably upon political discussion that demonizes the other side and tries to push hot buttons. But it is also an indication why George Bush will go down as one of the most polarizing, partisan and divisive Presidents in all of American history: “...'Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,' said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 'We have heard this foolish delusion before,' Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. 'As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'

The commentary continues: "The downside: it is the 'vote for us or die' tactic. The upside: it confirms that this theme wasn’t just a product of Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove but came right from the top. The upside for Republicans: it will give Rush, Sean, et. all a theme they can use throughout the campaign....This could also whip up conservatives and get them to the polls. The downside for Republicans and upside for Democrats: This will unite Democrats more than former Senator John Edwards’ endorsement of Obama and will not play well with many independent voters who want to sweep away divisive, polarizing politics."

My response: I'm an independent swing voter (I gave 58% of my ballot to Republican candidates and 42% to Democratic candidates in the 2006 general election), but I'm with President Bush on this issue. I'm not with the "let's play footsies with our enemies and hope they like us" crowd, but more in line with Machiavelli. This is no more a political attack than the Obama campaign's inferences about Sen. McCain's age. Sen. Obama and Democrats are capable of defending themselves on issues.

THOMAS SOWELL OP-ED: Too "Complex"? Part III

The conservative commentator opines: "In one of those typical San Francisco decisions that makes San Francisco a poster child for the liberal left, the city's Board of Supervisors is moving to block a paint store from renting a vacant building once used by a video rental shop. That paint store is part of a chain, and chain stores are not liked by a vocal segment of the local population. Chain stores are already banned from some parts of San Francisco, and at least one member of the Board of Supervisors plans to introduce bans on chain stores in other areas. Chain stores have been disliked for decades, at both local and national levels. Taking advantage of economies of scale that lower their costs of doing business, chain stores are able to charge lower prices than smaller independent stores, and therefore attract customers away from their higher-cost competitors. The economics of this is certainly not too 'complex' to understand. However, politics is not economics, so politicians tend to respond to people's emotional reactions-- and if economic realities stand in the way, then so much the worse for economics."

Mr. Sowell continues his commentary about private property rights: "There was a time when courts would have stopped politicians from interfering with people's property rights by banning chain stores. After all, if whoever owns the vacant video rental store in San Francisco wants to rent it to the paint company, and the paint company is willing to pay the rent, why should politicians be involved in the first place? However, once the notion of 'a living Constitution' became fashionable, the Constitution's protection of property rights has been 'interpreted' virtually out of existence by judges. The biggest losers are not people who own property but people who have to pay higher prices because politicians make it harder for businesses that charge lower prices to come into the community. Despite the political myth that government is protecting us from big businesses charging monopoly prices, the cold fact is that far more government actions have been taken against businesses that charge low prices than against businesses that charge high prices. The biggest antitrust cases of a century ago were against the Great Northern Railroad and the Standard Oil Company, both of which charged lower prices than their competitors. The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 was called 'the anti-Sears, Roebuck law' because it was directed again this and other chains that charged lower prices than smaller retailers could match. For a long time, there were so-called Fair Trade Laws designed to keep low-cost businesses in general from charging low prices that drive high-cost businesses out of business. Fortunately, enough sanity eventually prevailed that Fair Trade Laws were repealed. But the emotional needs that such laws met were still there, and today they find an outlet in hostility to Wal-Mart and other 'big box' stores -- especially in San Francisco and other bastions of the liberal left."

And more: "People have every right to indulge their emotions at their own expense. Unfortunately, through politics, those emotions are expressed in laws and administrative decisions by people who pay no price at all for indulging either their own emotions or the emotions of the people who vote for them. That is why the Constitution tried to erect barriers to government power, of which property rights were one. But, once judges started saying that 'the public interest' over-rides property rights, that left politicians free to call whatever they wanted to do 'the public interest.' Neither economics nor property rights are too 'complex' to understand. But both get in the way of willful people who seek to deny other people the right to make their own decisions. Anyone who doesn't like chain stores is free not to shop there. But that is wholly different from saying that they have a right to stop other people from exercising their own freedom of choice. That's not too 'complex' to understand."

Edwards' Endorsement And VP Choice

John Kay discusses former Sen. John Edwards's endorsement yesterday of Sen. Barack Obama. The moderate-liberal Democratic blogger writes: "I think he's playing for another shot at Veep, and it's not impossible, since he's got delegates, and they're important this time. Whadja think? Will Obama pick Edwards, Clinton, Webb, Bredesen (my guess, because of geography), or somebody else?"

My response: It would not be wise for Sen. Obama to pick Mr. Edwards as his running mate. Mr. Edwards did not prove himself to be influential as Sen. John Kerry's running mate in 2004. No way should Sen. Obama pick Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate either. Sen. Obama would have to deal with former President Bill Clinton interfering with his administration, and the baggage that the Clintons bring. This is politically incorrect but politically true: it would also not be wise for Sen. Obama, who is black, to pick a female as his running mate. That's a losing ticket, as that is "too much" change for Americans to handle at once. Not to mention two U.S. Senators on a ticket isn't wise, so Sen. Clinton and Sen. Jim Webb (who has even less experience as a U.S. Senator than Sen. Obama, although he has solid military credentials) won't cut it. Sen. Obama needs a staunchly moderate or conservative Democrat, a governor or someone with strong executive experience, and who is a white male as his running mate. Preferably one from the South or West. Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee might work.