Showing posts with label JohnFund. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JohnFund. Show all posts
Nancy Pelosi understands economics?

Nancy Pelosi understands economics?

This is surely comforting. The WSJ's Political Diary has this discussion by John Fund.

Blue Dogs who are dragged into Speaker Pelosi's office should be aware of just how she is selling the health care bill. Yesterday, she told supporters it represented "real change," because it meant "a cap on your [health care] costs, but no cap on your benefit."


Of course, Nancy Pelosi is the same person who believes that the health care and energy legislation are both stimulus packages.

“I do think the health care bill is a stimulus package. I do believe the energy bill was, (with the) creation of new green jobs, a jump start,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Ron Paul likes Sarah Palin

Ron Paul likes Sarah Palin

John Fund has this in the WSJ's Political Diary today:

Even though Mr. Paul has clear disagreements with Senator McCain on the Iraq War and civil liberties issues, he seems more forgiving towards his running mate Sarah Palin. "She said nice things about me on MTV," he told me at last week's GOP convention. "I hear nice things about her from my supporters in Alaska."

Mr. Paul is referring to an MTV interview in which Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Paul as "a good guy" who was "independent of any party machine" -- much as she was during her own climb from the Wasilla City Council to the governor's office in Juneau. . . .
John Fund on predicting the election

John Fund on predicting the election

John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary:

Uncertainty is stalking Democratic watering holes in Washington, where diners had been counting on appointments in an Obama administration.

The latest Real Clear Politics average of published polls shows John McCain now taking the lead from Barack Obama 47% to 46%. The newest of those polls (USA Today/Gallup) shows Mr. McCain with a ten-point lead among the most likely voters -- often the most reliable measurement of the electorate that actually shows up on Election Day. Typically, only two-thirds of registered voters end up voting, and those who do vote tend to be more Republican -- one reason for Barack Obama's superhuman efforts to sign up new voters and get them to the polls.

The McCain surge following his convention is genuine. Its message for the Obama campaign is that they can't expect to win the election simply on the unpopularity of the Bush administration and the strength of their man's personal appeal. . . .

In fact, since 1968, no Republican has done worse on Election Day than he was doing in major polls taken around Labor Day. On that basis, Mr. Obama should worry that Mr. McCain has now tied him or is leading in current polls.
John Fund on why Biden was picked as VP

John Fund on why Biden was picked as VP

John Fund at the WSJ's Political Diary has this point:

CNN's Jessica Yellin revealed over the weekend that Mr. Obama's key aides "think the press loves Biden and so the press will sort of go easy on him on the past gaffes and when he's contradicted Obama."
Governor Ed Rendell Attacks Media Over Bias for Obama

Governor Ed Rendell Attacks Media Over Bias for Obama

The Politico has this amazing discussion. What makes it more amazing is the way the "big-time media figures" tried to force him to stop talking. Here is a former head of the Democratic Party, a politician as liberal as any major political figure, and governor of Pennsylvania who was upset about the media being biased against Clinton and for Obama and he is treated as some loony uncle.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell was supposed to give “closing remarks” during this afternoon’s Shorenstein Center-sponsored panel discussion with all three Sunday show moderators — NBC’s Tom Brokaw, ABC’s George Stephanopoulous and CBS’s Bob Schieffer — but instead, he opened up a can of worms about bias in 2008 election coverage

"Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing," said Rendell, in the ballroom at Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. "It was embarrassing."

Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election. Brokaw and Rendell began debating campaign coverage, including the on-air comments by Lee Cowan, and when MSNBC came up, Rendell went after the cable network.

“MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign," Rendell said, who called their coverage "absolutely embarrassing."

Chris Matthews, Rendell said, "loses his impartiality when he talks about the Clintons.”

At that point, PBS's Judy Woodruff, who was moderating the moderators event, said: "Why don’t we let Governor Rendell sit down."

That was met with applause from the crowd of big-time media figures, which included Arianna Huffington, Gwen Ifill, Al Hunt, and Chuck Todd.

Woodruff allowed Brokaw to respond, and in defending the network, he said that Matthews and Keith Olbermann are "not the only voices" on MSNBC.


John Fund at the WSJ's Political Diary has this slightly different take on this:

Mr. Rendell, a Hillary Clinton backer, came to bury the Big Three, not to praise them. He told the crowd of 300 political luminaries that the media's coverage of the Democratic primaries had elevated personalities over substance and he complained of sexism in its treatment of Senator Clinton. He called the media's kid-gloves handling of Barack Obama "absolutely embarrassing," and suggested that the media had essentially given the presumptive Democratic nominee, whom he now supports, "a free pass." Journalists, he said, had allowed themselves unprofessionally to be "caught up with emotion and excitement" in the historic nature of the Obama candidacy. He even called MSNBC "the official network of Obama's campaign."

Tom Brokaw jumped to his network's defense, saying he and others had expressed dissatisfaction with on-air comments by NBC reporters like Lee Cowan. He also agreed that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews had "gone over the line" at times in comments about Mrs. Clinton but emphasized they were "commentators" and not reporters.

Mr. Rendell wasn't mollified. "Chris Matthews loses his impartiality when he talks about the Clintons," he told the audience. At that point, moderator Judy Woodruff moved to wind up the proceedings before they could become even more heated.

Many in the audience were surprised at the extent to which Mr. Rendell was still carrying a torch for Hillary Clinton and criticizing media coverage of Barack Obama. "I thought he was a Democrat," one person next to me commented. "Here, he is a Hillarista first," her companion commented. "Her campaign for the next presidential election begins at this convention."
Obama caught making up false record on abortion to mollify opposition from pro-lifers

Obama caught making up false record on abortion to mollify opposition from pro-lifers

John Fund at the WSJ's Political Diary:

Obama's Abortion Position? It's a One-liner

. . . Mr. Obama eroded many of those gains [with pro-life voters] last Saturday when he told Pastor Rick Warren during a nationally televised forum that deciding when the rights of personhood should be extended to the unborn was "above my pay grade." Even Doug Kmiec, a conservative Pepperdine University lawyer who has become one of Mr. Obama's most prominent pro-life backers, was unsettled. He called the candidate's answer "much too glib for something this serious."

Mr. Obama compounded his problems after the forum when in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, he accused pro-life groups of "lying" about his record in the Illinois State Senate on legislation that would have protected viable babies born after botched abortions. Mr. Obama acknowledged voting against the bill but said he would have voted "yes" if the bill had contained language similar to a federal bill's language making clear that the intention wasn't to diminish overall abortion rights. But, as recently revealed, the Illinois bill had indeed included such language and Mr. Obama still voted against it.

"Senator Obama got caught in the twisting of the truth," says Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. "His campaign was later forced to put out a clarifying statement that it was the Senator himself who was actually wrong on the facts. He did indeed vote against a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was identical to the federal legislation that sought to protect babies who survive abortions."

Mr. Obama's stand on the issue is significant. The federal "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" sailed through the Senate in 2001 on a vote of 98 to 0. The bill was supported by Senator Barbara Boxer, the body's leading pro-choice spokeswoman, and was not opposed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. By getting his facts wrong, Mr. Obama is now in the difficult position of trying to explain why he voted against a bill that the legislative record shows addressed infanticide rather than abortion. . . .
John Fund on Obama's explanation for his poor showing on Saturday

John Fund on Obama's explanation for his poor showing on Saturday

John Fund in today's WSJ's Political Diary:

Sore Loser

The Barack Obama campaign apparently went outside the normal spin guardrails yesterday in trying to explain how John McCain did so well in Saturday's Saddleback Forum with Pastor Rick Warren. As NBC's Andrea Mitchell noted on Sunday's "Meet the Press," what the Obama campaign is "putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. . . . He seemed so well prepared."

But Pastor Rick Warren assured CNN that Mr. McCain didn't hear any of the questions in advance, even if the candidate was stuck in traffic and was a bit late arriving to the pre-arranged quiet room or "cone of silence." Charlie Black, a McCain adviser who was with him at the time, confirmed that Mr. McCain was in a motorcade and "then a holding room in another building with no TV." . . .

For its part, the Obama campaign officially says it now assumes both candidates were equally unaware of the questions and isn't interested in pursuing the matter. . . .


Byron York reports this:

In addition, according to Ross, Obama knew a third specific question that Warren would ask — the one about a "president's emergency plan for adoption." "[Warren] felt that since that was basically asking for a commitment, he felt that it was fair to tell them in advance that he was going to ask them that," Ross told me. So Warren told Obama, and planned to tell McCain when McCain arrived at Saddleback, but wasn't able to because of other distractions. So according to what Ross told me, Obama actually knew one more question in advance than did McCain. . . .
What are the consequences of Obama's Campaign letting Clinton's name be put in for the nomination?

What are the consequences of Obama's Campaign letting Clinton's name be put in for the nomination?

John Fund has this discussion today at the WSJ's Political Diary:

The Obama campaign was in full spin mode yesterday touting its decision to allow Hillary Clinton to have a roll call vote at the convention so her delegates can register their support of her.

"It's an olive branch that we think will pay dividends in party unity," one Democratic congressman told me. I'm not so sure. Many Clinton supporters will be appreciative of the symbolic gesture, but others such as those who unofficially call themselves Pumas (Party Unity My Ass) may see it as an opportunity to make more trouble for Mr. Obama both on and off the convention floor.

"The one thing that Obama should never have agreed to is a roll-call vote with Hillary Clinton," says Jeff Birnbaum, a Washington Post columnist. Mr. Birnbaum nonetheless admits to being "so grateful that we are going to have a story, which is Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly to take over the Obama victory, and that [story] will go through virtually every day of the convention" given how frequently Bill and Hillary Clinton are scheduled to appear before delegates.

Indeed, the Clinton people I spoke with appear emboldened by the Obama concessions. . . .
Obama campaign switches rules on raffle for those who want to attend his acceptance speech

Obama campaign switches rules on raffle for those who want to attend his acceptance speech

Over at the WSJ's Political Diary, John Fund writes on Obama's demands that people who want to attend his acceptance speech volunteer time to Obama's campaign:

Now we may know why Barack Obama's campaign decided to move his acceptance speech to Denver's 75,000-seat Invesco Field -- the better to extort hours of volunteer campaign labor out of thousands of people clamoring for tickets to the big event.

Denver media outlets were full of complaints yesterday from people who had entered a lottery for tickets to the Obama speech but were told reservations for the event would come with a catch -- they must contribute six hours of volunteer labor for the campaign no later than this coming Friday in order to secure a coveted seat.

"I got a call that if I want the tickets, I have to volunteer two shifts of three hours apiece -- for one ticket. If I want two tickets, then it's four shifts of two hours apiece," Berenice Christensen told Denver's ABC-TV affiliate. Ms. Christensen says she still wants the tickets, but feels victimized by the bait-and-switch. "I mean, they made it seem like any Coloradoan could go, and now you have to work for your ticket."

The Obama campaign says it's all a big misunderstanding and nobody has to work in order to get a ticket. People who were asked to volunteer were only those who had checked a box on a Web site saying they were willing to work on the campaign thus becoming eligible for "All Star" tickets closer to the stage, says Stephanie Mueller, a campaign spokeswoman.

But several people who've been asked to volunteer insist they made no such pledge.

"Absolutely not," Heather Kreider of Centennial told the Rocky Mountain News, denying she had offered to volunteer when seeking a ticket. Another man, who declined to give his name, said he received a message informing him that he had to perform 12 hours of phone calling or precinct work for two tickets. He called the campaign's tactics "blackmail." . . .
John Fund on corruption in congress

John Fund on corruption in congress

John Fund has this interesting piece of information at today's WSJ's Political Diary:

A glaring loophole in Congressional disclosure rules has been revealed in the wake of news that both Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd received preferential treatment that saved them thousands of dollars on their mortgages from Countrywide Financial Corp.

It turns out that nothing, literally nothing, about the mortgages or homes of Members of Congress is required on the disclosure forms that everyone in Congress fills out every year. The only exception is if the property generates rental income. Otherwise, the rates paid on mortgages, the size of any home loans and the companies that handle the mortgages are exempt from reporting requirements. . . .

The loophole certainly facilitated Countrywide's "Friends of Angelo" program that allowed CEO Angelo Mozilo to shower Washington potentates with "VIP service" that he told his loan officers "should knock their socks off." Senator Dodd acknowledged yesterday that he was told in 2003 that he was a beneficiary of the VIP program, but assumed it was due to his status as a longtime Countrywide customer. Mr. Dodd said there "was no red flag" that he'd gotten special treatment.
Other Dems got special loans from Countrywide Financial

Other Dems got special loans from Countrywide Financial

John Fund points out that the problem with Countrywide Financial extends beyond Jim Johnson.

. . . The kind of sweetheart mortgage deals that forced Washington fixer Jim Johnson to resign as Barack Obama's vice presidential vetter are now haunting other leading Washington figures.

Both Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget committee, also got special below-market mortgages from Countrywide Financial, all arranged by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Other recipients of a "Friends of Angelo" program that waived points, lender fees and company borrowing rules were former Bush HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and former Clinton cabinet officers Donna Shalala and Richard Holbrooke.

Conde Nast Portfolio says Senator Dodd received two loans through the program in 2003, saving him about $70,000 in fees. His wife told Portfolio that two other lenders had also offered comparable interest rates. Senator Conrad borrowed money to refinance his vacation home and saved at least $10,000. He told Portfolio: "I never asked for, expected or was aware of any special treatment." . . .
CBS News anchor Katie Couric on Media Bias

CBS News anchor Katie Couric on Media Bias

John Fund at the WSJ's Political Diary points to this by Katie Couric:

"However, you feel about her politics, I feel that Senator Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen," she commented. And she wasn't finished. She said latent sexism helped stop Mrs. Clinton's candidacy and she singled out one "prominent member of the commentariat" who said he "found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama." Ms. Couric made short shrift of that argument. "That's your job," she remembered thinking upon hearing that confession. She said she felt like suggesting the speaker "find another line of work."
Some Democrat Congressmen Refusing to Endorse Obama

Some Democrat Congressmen Refusing to Endorse Obama

John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary:

David Boren, the only Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, told reporters yesterday he's not ready to endorse Mr. Obama. "Unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion," he told reporters. Mr. Obama's designation by the non-partisan National Journal magazine as the Senate's most liberal member may be catching up with him.

Then there is Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says he will remain an uncommitted superdelegate and may not even attend the party's convention. Asked how he felt about running with Mr. Obama as his party's nominee, he told the Palm Beach Post: "I'm a Democrat, but am I going to have a pep rally or something like that? No I'm not going to do that."

Another potential dissident is Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia. He has refused to tell reporters if he thinks Barack Obama would make a better president than John McCain. Finally, Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee has been outed by his state's governor, Phil Bredesen, who told the Philadelphia Inquirer that a Democratic congressman from this state, who could only be Rep. Davis, had told him both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were "poison" politically to him. . . .
John Fund on Perceived Media Bias by Voters

John Fund on Perceived Media Bias by Voters

John Fund has this today at the WSJ's Political Diary:

. . . . If objectivity and balance are the goals, not well at all. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 68% of Americans "believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win." Not surprisingly, a majority of voters also thought that Barack Obama received the most favorable coverage during the primary season.

The belief that news reporters are often news twisters isn't confined to cranky ideologues. It cuts across all racial, gender and income groups. A full 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats and 69% of independents believe reporters try to give an assist to the candidate they prefer. Only 17% of all voters believe most reporters actually attempt to deliver unbiased coverage.

Barack Obama is likely to be the beneficiary of this favoritism come the fall campaign. During the primaries 54% of those surveyed by Rasmussen thought he received the most favorable coverage vs. 22% for John McCain and only 14% for Hillary Clinton.

This fall, a full 44% of voters think the media will try to make Senator Obama look good while only 13% think most reporters will tilt in Senator McCain's direction. Even Democrats believe that the news media will be part of the Obama cheering section -- 27% believe reporters will shape coverage in Mr. Obama's favor, 16% think they will want Mr. McCain to win, while 34% think reporters will be largely unbiased. . . .
Obama again pretends to be pro-gun ownership

Obama again pretends to be pro-gun ownership

John Fund has this at today's WSJ's Political Diary:

ABC News reported that the Obama campaign sent out an automated phone call message yesterday featuring a gun owner claiming that the Illinois Senator "respects our traditions" while "Senator Clinton voted to allow guns to be confiscated." The call refers to the fact that Mrs. Clinton was one of 16 senators to vote against an amendment barring police from confiscating guns from homeowners during an emergency, as was done with abandon in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Hillary Clinton quickly responded with her own "robocall" that attempted to tar Mr. Obama as an elitist, anti-gun liberal. The call featured a narrator deploring the fact that as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama "supported a ban on all handguns, and he even personally filled out a questionnaire saying he supported the ban. Now instead of telling you the truth about that, he's trying to cover it up, saying he never saw the questionnaire -- even though his handwriting was on it." . . .

It's well known that Democrats decided to soft-pedal the gun issue after being hurt in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. But this year the gun question has come back with a vengeance, with the unusual twist that both major Democratic candidates now are competing to see just how pro-gun each can portray themselves as being.
Land mines that Obama Faces this Fall

Land mines that Obama Faces this Fall

John Fund has this at the WSJ:

His statements that he wants to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, combined with his lack of foreign policy experience, could hurt him. And his aides are hard pressed to come up with any deviations in a voting record the nonpartisan National Journal calls the most liberal of any U.S. Senator.

As a state legislator he was even more off-center. In 1996, he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and President Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999, he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders.

Mr. Obama also backed a total ban on handguns, a move his campaign now says was the result of a rogue aide filling out a questionnaire. But Mr. Obama's own handwritten notes were found on the questionnaire, calling into question the campaign's version of what happened. . . .

Then there is trade, where his insincerity is at least as clumsy as Mrs. Clinton's. During the San Francisco episode, Mr. Obama had a throwaway line about how working-class voters fixate on "anti-trade sentiment" in order to vent their frustrations. But isn't it Barack Obama who has been spending months stirring up "anti-trade sentiment?" He has threatened to yank the U.S. out of the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Canada and Mexico renegotiate it. Last week, he denounced the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

According to Canadian diplomats, top Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee admitted to them that they could dismiss his man's anti-Nafta rhetoric. All of this makes Democrats wonder if Mr. Obama is ready for prime time. . . .