McCain is a man of good character but no brains
"I believe there needs to be a thorough and complete investigation of speculators to find out whether speculation has been going on and, if so, how much it has affected the price of a barrel of oil. There's a lot of things out there that need a lot more transparency and, consequently, oversight." Those are the words of presidential candidate John McCain. This man is the Republican?
There's more: "I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. They're making huge profits and that happens, but not to say, 'We're in this so we can over time eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil,' I think is an abrogation of their responsibilities as citizens."
Let me get this straight. A potential president of a putatively free country scolds companies for "obscene profits," failure to invest in competing products, and therefore irresponsible citizenship. Why? Is McCain running for national economic commissar?
This is not the first time McCain has displayed what I would call an anti-capitalist mentality. In an early presidential debate he countered former businessman Mitt Romney's claim to superior executive experience by saying, "I led the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy, not for profit but for patriotism". Why the put down of profit? It's clear McCain does not understand how markets work or why they are good. He certainly doesn't understand the role of speculators and other middlemen. He's not alone. Speculators are among the most reviled people in history. When they were members of ethnic minorities, they have been easy targets for economically illiterate people who were jealous of their success.
McCain wonders "whether speculation has been going on." He needn't wonder. Speculation always goes on. Speculation means to take a risk on what the future holds in hopes of making a profit. The world's stock and commodities markets are based on this principle. Sen. McCain must have meant it when he said, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues".
Whoa!... AP Backs McCain's Plans For Iraq Over Obama's Hasty Retreat : "You may want to sit down for this one... In a stunning piece of journalism the Associated Press reported that the United States was now winning the War in Iraq yesterday. Noticably missing from their article was any mention of the "Bush" or "Bush surge." Even the AP has its standards. But, here's the real stunner... The AP released a video to go with their weekend story where they agreed with the McCain, Bush and Petraeus plans on succeeding in Iraq and withdrawing troops cautiously over Barack Obama's hasty retreat plans" [Note however that many papers (guess one!) did not carry the AP story]
Long term study of the New York Times reveals a bias against Israel: "The last HonestReporting long-term analysis of the New York Times was released in November of 2007. At the time, we found that there were several disturbing patterns in how the Times reported events in the Middle East. Our conclusion was that the treatment of Israeli and Palestinian actions was so different, that there could be no question that the reporting was favoring the Palestinians rather than remaining impartial. We highlighted specific cases where headlines dealing with Israeli or Palestinian actions were written in different styles. We also noted that the vast majority of images used by the Times appears reflectively sympathetic to the Palestinians while virtually ignoring the greater context surrounding the conflict. We have now concluded a broader survey of the Times. Specifically, we looked at 205 articles between July of 2007 and June of 2008. Using this much larger time frame, we found that our original thesis has only been strengthened. Specifically, when reviewing headlines and photographs, it is clear that there is an inherent bias in New York Times reporting about the conflict that favors the Palestinians".
Carter relic says McCain Would Start World War IV : "Former US President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski criticized US officials in Senator McCain's camp for pushing the presumptive Republican nominee toward a radical foreign policy on issues such as Iran. Brzezinski described McCain's presidency as an 'appalling concept' as it would lead to the World War IV, arguing that from the viewpoint of figures surrounding the Arizona senator the Cold War counted as World War III. "Well, if McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is [Rudolph] Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV that they have been both favoring and predicting,"
Is Journalism Giving One Candidate Twice the Coverage?: "On Sunday, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz continued his mission of exposing the absurd amount of coverage the media are giving to Barack Obama as compared to John McCain. On CNN's "Reliable Sources," Kurtz amazingly asked his guests, "Where does journalism get off saying it's OK to give one candidate twice as much coverage -- this week, I would say four times as much coverage -- as the other candidate running for president?" This followed last Sunday's warning by Kurtz that "there could be a big backlash against news organizations if this trend continues":
NYT writes about terror bombing in India. Guess what's missing?: "After highlighting the most egregious evasive verbiage in a Times account of a bus bombing in India that claimed 45 lives, Gilbert summarizes: To review, for two days dozens of bombs have gone off in a region where Muslims have attacked Hindus countless times over the years. (What the New York Times merely describes as "attempts to provoke violence between Hindus and Musliims." You see, the bombings were not violence in themselves. And of course no group was actually behind them. They just happened.) Furthermore, an Islamic terrorist group has even claimed responsibility for the bombings. A group that was responsible for similar bombings just two months ago. Still, the New York Times only sees fit to mention with any specificity "Hindu-on-Muslim violence," which was done in reprisal for "a train fire" that obviously broke out spontaneously."
Senator John Thune Skewers Far Left Hee-Haw McCaskill : "Ugh... Claire McCaskill (D-MO) won her senate seat in 2006 by bashing Bush for "killing black people on rooftops" and pushing for surrender in Iraq. It made sense then that she would hook up with Senator Barack Obama, the most liberal US senator, and campaign for him this past year. Today, Claire McCaskill proved that she is nothing more than a walking-talking Far Left nut. McCaskill tried to pass out her loony Far Left talking points in a grown up discussion on FOX News Sunday... It was embarrassing. You almost felt sorry for her if she wasn't such a Far Left war loser who voted against the Bush Surge. Senator John Thune (R-SD) was brilliant. Every time McCaskill shot off her Far Left talking points, Thune meticulously batted them down with the facts on the ground."
For more postings from me, see OBAMA WATCH, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here
The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)