The National Whig

Serving to make the United States better by arguing for Liberty and its best ingredient Limited Government.

Location: Any Towne, Any State, United States

Editor and Publisher of The National Whig.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Barak Obama: The Democrats' Great Moderate Hope

A couple of years ago my wife and I were having dinner with some friends and one of our friends began raving about how smart she thinks Illinios Senator Barak Obama is. She commented on how he is not like other Democrats, he was a "moderate." To this I replied she needs to get away from getting her news only from NPR and inform herself of his true nature. Sen. Obama has been labeled the anti-Hilliary, a centrist and, most importantly, very intelligent. To the last description, I cannot say. After all, it does take some brains to win a Senate election--even if you are running in a state known to be heavily Democrat against an opponent who is considerably weaker. But "anti-Hilliary" and "centrist" are not two adjectives that I would attach to the junior Senator from Illinios. Barak Obama is a soft spoken, well packaged Liberal who may not sound like some one who blogs over at the Daily Kos, but he deffinitely votes that way.

Yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, Obama fielded several questions from host Tim Russert in which his answers were very well stated. He was asked about his vote against confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts to which he said that he was not in favor of a fillibuster. He was asked about his views on Iraq where a year before he was pretty much in line with the President and now he is ready to get out. One of Russert's questions prompted Obama to say that people are no longer fighting the big-government/smaller-government debate. The people want "smarter government." I am hard pressed to ask Obama, when it comes down to it, when does big-government loose out to "smarter government?" Obama is a media created political star who is no different than the other Liberals in the Senate.

Let's first take a look at a New York Sun article from today, shall we? Reporting on Sen. Obama's attempted campaign visit to Massachussettes Seth Gitell writes, "If it wasn't a presidential campaign in anticipation of the 2008 contest in name, Mr. Obama did almost everything that he needed to prepare for one." Obama was creating Presidential buz at a gubenatorial campaign rally. Many of the supporters at this campaign rally were ecstatic to get a chance to be upclose and personal with Obama. One of them commented this way, "'I am not a Hillary supporter,' Marty Ray said, adding that he would consider volunteering for Mr. Obama in 2008. 'We need someone with a bigger vision, a vision for the future with new ideas.'" And the Massachussettes Democrat Party Chairman said that Obama represents something young and fresh where a Clinton or Kerry are more of the old-guard. Obama, the new new Democrat (and that was not a typo).

Obama represents a means to get votes from Evangelical Christians, a traditionally solid Republican voting block. But Obama's voting record should serve to disenchant the Evangelicals away from him. In March of 2005 Obama voted in the affirmative for an amendment brought forth by Hilliary Clinton that funded prevention for unintended pregnancy. The description of this amendment noted that one of the goals was to reduce the number of aboritons, however; it increased funding for family planning centers. Now, when you read "family planning center" think Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is not interested in reducing the number of aboritions. Obama voted no on the flag protection amendment, an amendment aimed at preventing flag burning. Obama is in favor of pay-as-you-go spending in Washington, which means that the Federal Government cannot spend on anything unless the revenue is there helping to curb deficit spending. This sounds good right? Well, it means that there will never be taxcuts so long as this is in effect in Washington. Legislators do not need a pay-go bill to prevent them from deficit spending; they need discipline and discretion when it comes to what they spend money on. Obama voted no on allowing oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, which would serve to make us more independent when it comes to our energy. Go here to get all of his voting record:

Looking through his voting record as a whole, and it is hard to come to any other conclusion about Obama being a "centrist." Obama is not; he is a full-fledged Liberal. He is no different than Clinton, Kerry or Harry Reid. He is just nicely packaged with a big bow tied around his head.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

The Economy Is Booming, But Don't Tell Washington

The economy of the United States is humming along with great strength. Looking at GDP and wages show a private sector that is vibrant and growing. With this being an election year you would think that at least one of the two major Parties would be trumpeting this, but there is not a sound of excitement. Republicans should be the ones out front with this, but with the debate focusing on the War on Terror, their eyes are squarely placed on foriegn policy. The Democrats would be in a great position to fill the void of the Republican silence, but they have stood in the way of all the initiatives that have served to help the economy.

The Heritage Foundation has a great piece detailing the strenghts of the economy, as well as the problems that it faces. The piece is by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., and Michelle L. Muccio and it can be found here: In their study, they site the GDP, disposable income, employment and investment, among a couple of other indicators. With GDP they note that, after the stock market bubble burst and the attacks of 9/11, there was very little growth. But since the tax cuts of 2003, there have been great gains made in GDP continuing through to this day. Disposable income, contrary to recent media reports, has increased as well. From 2001 to 2006, disposable income has increased from $25,697 to $27,766. Unemployment is virtually non-existant at 4.7%, and in fact, is so low that many in Congress have taken to the idea that illegal immigrants are needed to fill jobs that employers cannot fill with citizens. Investment, according to the Heritage study, is said to be an indicator as to the future of the economy. According to this study investment has increased by 17 percent for gross investment and 13 percent for net investment. The cut in the capital gains tax is the number one reason for this.

So why no mention of the economy in this year's election? Well, I am sure that in their districts Congressmen are touting the economy, especially Republican Congressmen. And Democrats seem to have one thing to say about the economy: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Well this attitude may not be the case, especially if you mean there to be a racial divide between rich and poor. Try this from the New York Times:

"In Queens, the median income among black households, nearing $52,000 a year, has surpassed that of whites in 2005, an analysis of new census data shows. No other county in the country with a population over 65,000 can make that claim. " That's right, blacks in Queens are earning more than whites and take a look at what they are earning. But listen to what the Democrat Representative from Queens says about the economy. " In a Bloomberg news interview, Rangel said he 'cannot think of one' of Bush’s tax cuts that merit renewal." ( And there is also this: "Rangel, in an interview Wednesday with Dow Jones Newswires, said he would prefer to bring greater fairness to the tax code instead of providing tax breaks for the wealthy. " ( Rangel basically says that the tax cuts passed in 2003 have only served to benefit the rich in America while doing nothing to help the middle class. Rangel may be blinded by partisan sentiments, but he should give a good, hard look at the facts of the economy.

So why no mention of the economy? The answer to this question lies in how well the economy is doing. If you are expecting Democrats to be out in front bashing the economy, then you may end up waiting a long while. How can they say that the economy is bad, particularly when gas prices have started to make a dramatic downturn? The media, being a propaganda arm for the Democrats, are now relegated to saying nothing about the economy because of how well it is doing, and when they do report on the economy, they always put some sort of bad spin to it. The puzzling aspect to the great story that is the economy is the Republican silence. President Bush has made some mention of it in late summer, but with things turning to the War on Terror, there has been not one statement about it since August. Understandably, given that national security is the number one issue of the day, but let's see some diversity on the issues. Tout all of the things that have gone right for Republicans and do it often. Had this been done earlier in the year, the mid-terms may not look so bleak.