aberman's blog

It's very simple:  Sarah Palin knows how to exploit voter dissatisfaction with the powers-that-be, even if the powers-that-be are in her own party.  Specifically, she directly took on the cozy relationship between oil companies and the Alaskan government, reforming the government and getting a much better deal for Alaskans, as well as negotiating a pipeline. John McCain has been arguing for reform of corrupt institutions such as Fannie and Freddie for years as well as decrying the cozy relationship between them and government.  Meanwhile, Obama took more money from Fannie Mae than anyone except Chris Dodd the head of the banking committee, even though his only relationship to the banking committee was lying about being on it to a crowd in Israel a few months ago. Oh, and Joe Biden is Mr. Credit-Card Debt.

The ads and speeches practically write themselves, don't they?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/obama-defends-natural-disaster-experience/

"My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

Does anyone think Obama is doing David Axelrod's job for him?

As a recovering Liberal myself, I think I can safely say what the line is going to be within a couple of weeks:

  "Sarah Palin could only achieve her successes due to the work of feminists.  Furthermore, she chose to have her Down's Syndrome baby.  For her to not give credit to us is ungracious of her and typical of hypocritical conservatives who take advantage of the freedoms we leftists have provided them."

I've already heard someone say that Palin chose to have her baby.  It's an interesting argument that someone who is pro-life is choosing to be pro-life and thus must credit pro-choice people.  It's also false.  Someone who is pro-life believes that abortion is morally wrong.  Thus the decision to not abort is a moral decision.  Moral decisions are not generally thought of as choices, other in the most abstract sense of the word.  For example, although I choose not to steal, I wouldn't credit a government that legalizes theft as giving me that choice.

The first part may have some truth to it, but the first female governor was Nellie Ross who was elected in 1925.

In any case, the wonder and promise of Sarah Palin as a nationally known alternative to the hard left model of feminism will stand. They will never forgive her for that.

Simply put, Sarah Palin represents a form of feminism that is not based on hatred or fear of men. This is not a woman who spent her time talking about inequality in sports, equal pay, cultures of oppression, 'hidden' sexism, etc.. Those of us with daughters can point to her as a role model and counter those who would point to Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.  This has long-term culture changing potential and I am grateful for it.

Isn't that what this all comes down to?  Yes, we on the Right are rightly scared of his policies and prescriptions, but what would be the most effective message to the more centrist Americans who don't look at policies that closely?  A message that can be shared between the Right and the Center and that the Left can't defend against?

Very simple:  Obama is not credible.  The whole trip to Europe, the whole focus on speeches and scenery, everything the Left is doing has one purpose:  To construct an image of credibility.  That implies that underneath, Obama is not credible.

Going to help the economy?  Show me what he's done.  Obama is not credible on the economy.

Going to lower gasoline prices?  Obama won't do the reasonable thing: drill.  Obama is not credible on gasoline prices.

Going to do the smart thing in the Middle East? Obama still won't support the surge even after it turned the tide in Iraq.  Obama is not credible on th Middl East.

Going to transcend political divides?  Obama has never crossed party lines on anything.  Obama is not credible on transcending political divides.

Going to end racial divisions?  Look what Obama did to Hillary supporters.  Obama is not credible on transcending racial divisions.

Obama is not credible.

Obama is not credible.

Try saying it.  Try saying it to someone on the fence.  Try saying it to a diehard Obama supporter and see what they come up with.

Obama is not credible.

Links to new McCain videos.  They've figured out that writing and linking to McCain videos about Barack Obama increases their popularity.  Recent articles talk about the videos, but don't link to them.

Promoted. Ever since it was announced we were going offshore, the price at the pump has declined from $4.10 to $3.80. I blame Bush. -Patrick

Yet again, I got my blood pressure up by reading an article where someone breezily stated that since drilling wouldn't produce oil for years, it wouldn't affect the present price of oil.  Here, in 90 seconds, is why they are wrong:

Suppose you had a hundred 1998 quarters.  Now suppose you found out that on ebay, 1998 quarters were selling for $20 each.  Would you sell them? You'd probably sell at least a few.

Now suppose that you knew that--one year from today---these same quarters would be selling for $100 each.  Would you sell them today for $20, or wait a year for $100?  Of course it's worth waiting one year to quintuple your earnings from $2000 to $10,000.

Now suppose that the price on ebay for 1998 quarters rose to $99 dollars. Now, it's not so simple.  It's probably worth selling the quarters today for $9900 rather than wait a year for the extra $100.

In other words, the future price of 1998 quarters changed your estimation of the present value of the 1998 quarters.

But we could go further.  If you knew that one year from now, 1998 quarters would sell for $100, and you saw them on ebay for $20, you'd probably buy them.  As a matter of fact, you'd buy them at $20, $30, $40, $50, $60, $70 up to some number which reflected your confidence in the future price and your cash on hand.  By purchasing these quarters, you'd be raising the current price of 1998 quarters in anticipation of selling them later.

Well, that's what they call speculation.

Now suppose that someone said that a year from now, he was going to release a million 1998 quarters onto eBay.  Do you think the $100 price a year from now would go down?  Of course! How much?  Say you calculate that it would go down from $100 to $10.  Now, what's the maximum price you'd pay for 1998 quarters today?

To sum up-- increasing the future supply of a scarce good will lower the current price.

Of course, there are other variables involved.  It costs money to hold and store some things (such as oil).  There is inflation. And in the real world, we have no guarantee on future prices, only educated guesses.  But the essence is not changed-- future supply affects current price.

 Which Overhyped Underachievers Are We Allowed To Associate with Obama?

Every Democrat who calls the Celebrity ad racist should be asked that question.

I will agree with one thing, though-- putting Britney Spears in there was unfair.  Despite her recent troubles, she has a strong record of real achievements in the music industry.  It was unfair to smear her like that by putting her in an ad with Paris Hilton and Barack Obama.

Donald Rumsfeld had a great aphorism: A's hire A's, B'c hire C's.  In other words, the best are not afraid of hiring the best, while the second best hire mediocraties to make themselves look better.

There is no way that Obama will pick any top-caliber Democrat as Vice President.  Fundamentally, he's way too insecure and fearful of being shown up by someone with either a record of achievement or the ability to go against him.

Take a look at the following list:

• Abortion:  "Life begins at conception," vs. "Women should have the right to control their bodies."
• Affirmative Action: "It's just reverse racism," vs. "It makes up for past and present discrimination."
• Gun Control: "The 2nd Amendment clearly gives us the right to own guns," vs. "Guns are killing Americans in huge numbers."

Note how each side of the debate has a defense of their position expressible in under 15 words.  These summations may not capture all the details, but they are enough to allow someone to defend their point of view in a casual conversation.  Furthermore, as slogans, they are great for less-engaged people to hold in their heads.  They memorize them and use these short slogans to defend their point of view to themselves. 

Now, here's my question.  Take Same Sex Marriage. I oppose it, but when I try to write down why I oppose it, I usually wind up writing something like this:

  Throughout history, Marriage has been used by societies to bind men and women together.  This is essential for the maintenance of society.  Linking these bindings to homosexual relationships will damage...

and on and on I go.  Meanwhile, the other side says:

 Marriage is a civil right and should be open to all.

Of course I can poke giant holes in this one, but the fact is, at this point, I'm playing defense in a framework set by the other side.  You can imagine how the conversation sounds to a listener who's trying to decide what's right.  What I really want is a simple phrase that supports traditional marriage.

So-- can anyone give a nice clean statement supporting traditional marriage laws in 15 words or less?