And here we have Obama attempting to salvage a concern about the track record the government has with regards to mis-managing just about anything it lays its hands on. In his own words, “It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems” (emphasis added).

One thing is becoming increasingly evident, as more of Obama’s impromptu exchanges surface – he has a most difficult time presenting himself in a coherent manner. Perhaps the Left was correct in their concerns about Sarah Palin’s lack of experience, because we’re certainly seeing Obama demonstrate his.

Interesting, to compare these two photos, one of President Obama, and the other of President Bush.

Further commentary at American Thinker (HT: Ron’s Bloviating),

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

Okay, today’s lesson is to test how well you’ve been paying attention. Listed below are gaffes uttered by a prominent politician. Your task is to choose whether the gaffe was committed by: a) George W. Bush, b) Sarah Palin, or c) Joe the Plumber (no, he’s not a politician, but he’s been in the political limelight).

Good luck.

Our person in question:

1. Made the claim that the 1908 Model T had better fuel efficiency than a typical 2008 SUV.
2. Repeatedly pronounced the word Orion as “OAR-ee-on”.
3. Referred to Great Britain as England.
4. Referred to the “Austrian” language.
5. Thought that the nation of Turkey is older than the U.S.

Well, how’d you do? Truth be told, this was a trick quiz. Each gaffe listed above was committed by our own President Barack Obama*. While no one is immune from making minor goofs, I have to wonder, how would the media have treated these slip-ups had they been committed by Bush?

* HT: (HotAir) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

From President Obama,

Today, …the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility.

This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists. We will help Iraq build new ties of trade and commerce with the world. And we will forge a partnership with the people and government of Iraq that contributes to the peace and security of the region.

The only thing new about this strategy is that Obama has shifted (i.e., changed his mind) regarding his approach towards our presence in Iraq. Remember, this is the same person who opposed the Surge, who once gave up hope on succeeding in Iraq, and who once stated that the lives of troops killed in action were “wasted”. (HT: HotAir)

Life is, by no means, fair. Many times, our fortune, or failure, is simply a matter of being in the right place at the right time – of having that lucky break. What we’ll see, in the next few years, is Obama receiving the accolades for any progress to be displayed in Iraq. Bush, in our media’s shortsightedness, will take more than his share of the blame for what it cost to succeed – the failures, mistakes, and blood. Yet, he is the one who was fated to do the dirty work.

And, I think that history will eventually provide us with the clear picture of who accomplished what.

If you’re curious about what Jim Wallis, CEO of the Christian social justice organization Sojouners, thinks about President Obama’s views on abortion, then take a look at the BeliefNet article, Jim Walllis Supports Obama’s Abortion Approach. An excerpt,

In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of abortions in this country and around the world.

Nonsense.

Let’s take the roof off of this argument by substituting a couple of choice words into the original…

In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized slavery debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of slaves in this country and around the world.

If you truly care about social justice, Mr. Wallis, then please call a spade a spade; but don’t patronize us with rhetoric which is illogical, at best, and immoral, at worst.

Five days in, and President Obama has made at least two significant moves: One, he signed an executive order which will effectively close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, thereby releasing terror suspects; two, he issued a memorandum which lifts a ban on U.S. funding for international groups that perform abortions.

Score:

Terror suspects – 1, Unborn children – 0

Change? Certainly. Hope? Hardly.

Christians, pray for Obama.

From CNN, Poll finds great expectations for Obama,

“My fervent prayer is that there will be peace on Earth in all nations, and let all countries unite together to make this dream come true,” said iReporter Shari Atukorala of Kandy, Sri Lanka. “To the President-elect Barack Obama: Sir, you can do this for all of us.”

Utterly amazing.

Is this perception of Obama common? Maybe so. Also from the CNN article,

The public thinks it’s likely that Obama will improve race relations, improve economic conditions, bring stability to the financial markets, make the U.S. safer from terrorism, reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, win the war in Afghanistan and remove U.S. troops from Iraq without causing a major upheaval in that country.

How much of this adoration, do you think, has gone (and will go) to Obama’s head? At what point does admiration for one’s leader turn into adoration, albeit worship, of one’s leader?

On the one hand, reality may rear its ugly head and simply educate the many ignorant, but sincere, idealists who have put their faith in Obama; on the other hand, the cult of worship, is an enticing temptation, which strokes at the very essence of the narcissist’s ego.

Christians: pray for Obama

As I noted in this post at my New Covenant blog, Princeton bioethicist Robert George, in his article Obama’s Abortion Extremism, stated,

That post, and the follow-up A Comprehensive argument against Barack Obama, were intended to expose Obama’s truly pro-abortion position, for any non-Christians that may have stumbled upon this site. Imagine my surprise when, the very week after I posted, I found myself in an argument with a Christian friend who adamantly considers Obama to have a distinctly pro-choice position.

I was astounded to hear my friend, a professor with probably close to 40 years in academia, make (what I consider) arguments typically promulgated by liberals and liberals within academia. Perhaps, in retrospect, given the fact that my friend has spent so much time within academia, regardless of whether or not it was secular academia, I should not have been surprised to hear liberal arguments.

Initially, I was informed that Obama was pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Upon my asking what the difference was I was given the argument that Obama is “personally opposed to abortion, but…”. I was about to offer the suggestion that one take that same personally opposed statement and substitute the word “slavery” or “rape” for “abortion”, and then see how absurd it sounds, but I was immediately informed that Obama has said he would sign on to a ban of partial birth abortions would they only offer an exception for cases of rape or incest. (note: Robert George’s article shreds such claims. More on that later.) I was then told that it was essentially not pro-life to allow a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to die rather than remove (abort) the “fetus”.

Do you see the problem with these arguments? They play with words (e.g., “personally opposed”). They use the exception as determiner of the rule (e.g., cases of rape or incest). They ignore the humanity of the unborn (e.g., referring to the unborn child as a “fetus”).

In further conversation with my friend, attempts were made to compare the devastation of the war in Iraq as not indicative of the Republicans truly having a pro-life position. Of course this is nothing more than diversion. Even if such a claim were true, how does that, I wonder, have anything to do with the devastating fact that 4,000 unborn children are aborted every day?

I was given this website to refer to as, supposedly, an objective basis for determining the position of Obama. I noted, to no response, that the website makes multiple references to Obama supporting a “woman’s right to choose”, yet never completes the statement (i.e., a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child).

I offered the article by Robert George, an article by Steve Wagner (Stand to Reason), as well as the National Right to Life Committee’s recent interaction with Barack Obama, as information outlets to help one understand Obama’s actions with regards to the abortion issue. Unfortunately, my friend considers third-party sources to be hopelessly biased and, as a result, would not even reference my recommendations, preferring to simply listen to what each candidate states themselves.

Are there other Christians who have turned a blind eye to the actions of Barack Obama with regards to the abortion issue? Are there other Christians who don’t view the issue of abortion as a major concern?

Greg Koukl, in his Oct. 20th weekly radio show, recently stated (28:30 into the program),

It seems to me, based on what Robert George has written, the lesson is this: If you are radically pro-choice, Obama is your man. But, if you think that abortion in all its forms, the garden variety of abortion, plus partial birth abortion, plus large scale production and destruction of embryos for embryonic stem cell research, plus allowing babies who survive abortion to die, plus having the government pay for all of this with your tax dollars – If you think this is wrong, because of the wanton destruction of defenseless human life. Then it seems to me you better invest your vote elsewhere. And if you believe God cares about these things, I don’t know how you can vote for Obama, and then stand before God and say, “I made the good, right, moral choice…”

If you are not aware of the candidate Barack Obama’s actions, with regards to abortion, I invite you to take a look at the data presented by Robert P. George, and see how it squares up with the statements made by the candidate Obama. It should be (painfully) clear that Obama is no friend of the unborn.

Note: I’ve updated this post to more accurately reflect the context of Obama’s statement regarding his two daughters.

A rundown, at HotAir, of candidate Barack Obama’s positions and history on abortion, taxes, radical associations, foreign policy judgment, disdain for the heartland, use of the race card, and lack of accomplishments.

Of particular concern, and what I would argue is evidence of the consequences of our country having state-sponsored killing of over 40 million unborn children, since Roe v. Wade, is this video snippet. This candidate, my friends, is someone who would consider his own grandchildren to be a punishment upon his daughters if they had the unfortunate luck to have been conceived while his daughters were still teenagers.

When we don’t view the unborn child as a human being, then it’s not so difficult to see it as a “punishment”.

Unfortunately, I think too many Americans are buying in to the rhetoric that Obama dishes out, with regards to his views on abortion. They consider him to be “pro-choice”, rather than “pro-abortion” (after all, so they say, who in their right mind would call him pro-abortion?). They trump the argument that we cannot legislate morality (to which I argue that virtually every law we have is a legislation of morality). They trump the supposed fact that Obama would sign on to abortion restriction laws were they to include an exception for the life of the mother (to which I wonder why they ignore the FACT that abortion is legal throughout the entire 9 month term of the baby?). They trump the comparison of the thousands of dead, due to the war in Iraq, and ask how moral that decision was (to which I ask, if they want to do some comparisons, how do those thousands compare to the 40+ million abortions since 1973?).

Can anyone be called pro-abortion? What if:

• someone would consider his own grandchildren, still in the womb, to be a punishment on his daughters?
• someone would, as his first act as President, sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would “abolish bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws nationwide while implementing tax-payer funded abortions” (quote via HotAir)?
• someone condemned the Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial birth abortions?
• someone considered that caring for an infant born alive, after an abortion, to be an undue burden on the original decision of the doctor, and mother of the child?
• someone stated, on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, that “Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.”?
• someone who, although he claims to be pro-choice, would strip funding from pro-life pregnancy crisis centers?

Yes, I’d call someone like that pro-abortion.

Rod Dreher thinks that conservatives who think that McCain won the latest debate are all wrong. He trumps polls which show Obama as the victor and he links to John Podhoretz as support. Podhoretz states,

The general feeling on the right side of the blogosphere is that this was McCain’s best debate and he did himself a lot of good. I think people on the Right were so relieved that the debate finally turned to matters of ideological and partisan moment — abortion, ACORN, Ayers, trade, spending — that, perhaps for the first time in his political career, they graded him on a curve. The problem, in my view, is that the shorthand in which McCain spoke about these matters made them comprehensible only to those of us who are already schooled in them. In almost every case, Obama answered McCain’s shorthand with longhand — with detailed, even long-winded answers that gave the distinct impression he was more in command of the details of these charges than the man who was trying to go after him on them.

We’re not the audience for these debates. Undecided voters are, and undecided voters are, or so studies tell us, often astonishingly ill-informed. You can only bring up new issues if you’re able pithily to explain the context and meaning of them. It is not a rap on McCain to say he’s not good at it; he doesn’t want to bother with the introduction. But in a setting like that, the introduction is what matters, far more than the attack.

I think there’s something inherently wrong with Podhoretz’ reasoning, though.

Consider the… undecided voter. I think there are both informed and ill-informed undecided voters. I know of people who have not decided who they will vote for precisely because they are aware (informed) of both McCain’s and Obama’s positions. They’re frustrated with the choices (or lack thereof) before them, and their frustration manifests itself in the form of indecision.

Now, consider the astonishingly ill-informed undecided voters. If such people are so astonishingly ill-informed, then such people have not put forth the effort to follow the candidates, and their positions. Thus, if such people have not taken the effort to become informed, up to this point in the campaign, then why should we expect that they will park themselves in front of a television and watch a 90 minute debate? Furthermore, if such people can only respond to pithily explained positions, then long-winded answers will be lost on them. Hence, such people will only respond to short campaign ads, the likes of which we will undoubtedly see in the next 2 1/2 weeks.

A recent commenter to my Comparing Alaska and New York City; Does size matter? post has taken issue with my extended comparison of infrastructure requirements between Illinois and Alaska, and how such requirements relate to experience in one who governs Alaska vs. in one who is a US senator for the state of Illinois.

Ansley stated,

…There’s not even 700,000 people in Alaska. The mayor of New York City has big fish to fry, my friend….each city has its own unique challenges, but the fact is, the more people you have in an area, the trickier things become.

My first reaction would be to wonder whether or not the critic has been to Alaska and seen, firsthand, how they deal with the logistics of managing such massive sea and air travel, in such extreme locations and weather conditions? Winter conditions that shut down most US airports are simply business as usual in Alaska. While working in Valdez, I was sent home only once, due to weather (and that was because the snowstorm had been dropping snow at the rate of 1 foot per hour for more about 4 hours). It’s not unusual for a typical Valdez snowstorm to drop 4 feet of snow. Once, when landing in Anchorage, the pilot informed us that the current temp was 0 degrees F. He also noted that the current ambient temp in Fairbanks, where the plane was headed, was -43 F. Did you catch that? It’s -43 F, yet they’re going to land and disembark because… it’s business as usual.

Simply put, you don’t manage that type of infrastructure, in that kind of weather, over that expanse of territory, unless you know exactly what you are doing.

But, to address the nonsensical population argument, let’s take a nonsensical look at it in terms of how it supposedly applies to the running of various countries, states, or cities. First, let’s use the following population values, from Wikipedia:

• US = 305,312,000
• China (PRC) = 1,321,851,888
• India = 1,132,446,000
• Russia = 142,008,838
• Canada = 33,390,000
• California = 36,553,215
• Illinois = 12,852,548
• NYC = 8,274,527
• Alaska = 677,000
• Illinois(2) = 642,627

Using the Deepak Chopra / Ansley argument, it appears that running the US is roughly 1/4 the job of running China or India (I’ll give you 4 US presidents for your 1 Chinese premier – and I’ll throw in an extra president for half a dozen Chinese gymnasts). Yet, we see that running the US is about 2 times the job of running Russia (that must explain why Putin has the time to go tiger hunting!), 9 times greater than running Canada (yet another reason for our friends up north to hate us), 8 times greater than California (so former / current actors shouldn’t have a problem running Cal-ee-for-nee-uh?), 24 times greater than Illinois, 37 times that of NYC, and a whopping 451 times more complex than running Alaska!

Case closed? End of story?

Not so fast, census breath.

Isn’t the point here to compare experience levels with regards to being in charge of – as in – managing and running something (i.e., executive experience)? While Palin is actually running Alaska, Senator (did you catch that? – “Senator”) Obama is not running Illinois. In fact, he is only one of two senators, along with around 18 congressmen. Surely we can’t take Illinois’ total population of 12.8 million when comparing Obama’s responsibilities with that of Palin’s, can we? So, let’s do an Obamadjustment to the population of Illinois. First off, since he’s one of two senators, we need to cut the 12.8 million in half, to 6.4 million. And, since he shares responsibility with all those congressmen, let’s half the 6.4 to 3.2 million. Finally, since Obama isn’t really running the state (that’s left for the… ahem, governor), let’s take only, say, 20% of the 3.2 million. Now we’re left with an adjusted population (Illinois(2)) of 642,627 that we could reasonably attribute to Obama’s non-executive responsibilities.

Well, using our adjusted number, we see that running the US is 475 times greater than Obama’s current non-executive role. That puts him behind the governor of Alaska, in terms of population comparisons.

The thing is, Obama isn’t running for VP.

From Glenn Reynolds, a link to a story about Obama threatening the licenses of TV stations that run an NRA ad.

Change… we can believe in.

Here’s the ad:

In Obama and the Palin Effect, Deepak Chopra states,

Now, that was an interesting comparison, wasn’t it? Chopra is arguing that because the number of Alaska’s 683,478 residents is about one-tenth the number of New York City’s 8,274,527 residents, the task of governing Alaska must also be about one-tenth the job of governing NYC.

But let’s take a look at this graphically. Below is a bar-chart histogram which compares both New York City (NYC) and Alaska (AK) with regards to their population levels.

Clearly, the population of NYC dwarfs that of AK.

However, what if we were to look at the size of NYC as compared to that of AK? The chart below illustrates this for us.

So, in terms of area (square miles), Alaska’s size (656,424 sq. mi.) so overwhelms that of New York City’s (469 sq. mi.), that NYC doesn’t even register on the chart. Simply put, Alaska is 1,400 times the size of New York City.

Using Chopra’s reasoning, this must mean that, in terms of area to govern, the job of running Alaska is expanded to the scale of running 1,400 New York Cities!

I wondered how these resource-based comparisons played out when comparing Obama’s state of Illinois to that of Palin’s Alaska. So I did a little bit of research. I found the results interesting.

Read the rest of this entry

Just what is John McCain up to?

In the movie Jaws, when the fictional Captain Quint makes first contact with the great white, and the shark behaves unexpectedly, he tells Police Chief Brody, “I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.”

On McCain unexpectedly picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, Kirsten Powers wonders,

I can’t help wondering if this is a trap. The McCain camp watched and learned as Obama supporters offended Hillary supporters by their treatment of her. The McCainiacs had to know that this group is incapable of behaving, that Palin would bring out their worst instincts.

Ed Morrissey states,

This trap has two doors, as Powers notes, and the Obama campaign and its supporters fell through both of them. First, it didn’t take long to speak dismissively of Palin as a “beauty queen” and a “small-town” hick, even though she governs the state of Alaska and has a favorability rating in the 80s…

The bigger trap, though, was the knee-jerk attack on Palin’s experience. Calling her a “small-town mayor” only underscored Obama’s own woeful lack of experience…

and then wonders,

Did McCain set Obama up to fall into this trap? If so, then perhaps that more than anything demonstrates how poor a candidate Obama is and how much more masterful McCain can be. Would you rather have the man who set the trap dealing with our enemies abroad, or the man who fell into it?

At the Belmont Club, Richard Fernandez states,

…McCain will take risks, but only after figuring the odds.

…

He has the ability to wait patiently until his opponent commits himself to a move then ruthlessly strikes to exploit it. He gives nothing away to clue his opponent on which way he is going to turn. Then suddenly he snaps the stick. A collection of links by Glenn Reynolds reveals a sudden appreciation by McCain’s opponents of his unpredictability. Some are hesitating to criticize Palin’s relative youth and inexperience, lest they fall into the Trap. What trap? A classic AP head says it all: Analysis: Palin’s age, inexperience rival Obama’s.

He’s a 72 year-old Maverick who, it would appear, knows his way around.

Also see:

Mark Steyn’s The Hostess with the Moosest

HotAir’s Desperation from Democrats