HT Mint endorses Obama; Why am I not surprised?

I can understand the kid, green behind the ears, endorsing Obama. After all that's what youth's supposed to be about, lotsa energy, not much sense. But then when a Business Newspaper like HT Mint endorses Obama by stating, 'Eight years of Bush have altered the world for the worse. The time to repair this is now. The Democratic Party candidate is the man for the job'; I gotta guffaw and maybe take back what I said about the 'young'. Age ain't a criterion, 'blindness' afflicts the young and the old.

Let me now get to HT Mint's Obama endorsement. I quote;

'Today’s America is one whose health is weak and, more importantly, whose morale is low. For good reason. Under eight years of post-Bill Clinton Republican rule in America, some five million citizens of that wealthy nation have fallen into poverty while seven million more citizens are now without health insurance.'

In response let me quote from Ben Stein; 'But the advocates for poor and black people had immense political clout. Under President Bill Clinton, they passed legislation that called on banks to be required to lend to non credit worthy borrowers. The laws, including the Community Reinvestment Act, the CRA, required two large government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to buy those lower quality mortgages from the banks, guarantee them, and sell them to the public. These were bundled into immense pools of subprime mortgages as they were called, and sold all over the world.'

So you see, who's REALLY responsible?

I quote again; 'McCain keeps saying he is not Bush and he wasn’t, to begin with. But he has relentlessly pandered to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, initially abandoning fundamental immigration reform that America really needs, and has embraced unlimited drilling for oil and gas rather than seek green energy'.

Let me now quote VĂ¡clav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic in response to this 'green energy' scenario; 'The whole process is already in the hands of those who are not interested in rational ideas and arguments. It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also - as a consequence of political decisions - in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality. It is in the hands of rent-seeking businesspeople who are - given the existing policies - interested in the amount of subsidies they are receiving and look for all possible ways to escape the for them often merciless, but for the rest of us very positive, general welfare enhancing functioning of free markets. An entire industry has developed around the funds the firms are getting from the government.'

I could go on and on about how 'flawed' Obama is on almost everything. The HT Mint endorsement is based on perceptions rather than realities of an Obama presidency. In fact I am shocked at how ignorant the paper is on what Obama's policies really are. Again, I have to lament the way Thomas Sowell does, when he asks, 'Do Facts matter?';

I quote; 'The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis. It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?....

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported. The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose. But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.'

Obama may very well win the presidency. If it does happen it would be a victory for the marketer. A win that would comprehensively demonstrate that 'spin' can win over 'substance'. It would show that its really about 'perceptions', never about 'realities'.

Marketer, Rejoice, for thy day is coming!

Comments

Shawn said…
I'm not sure Thomas Sowell makes a good reference for anything.

Obama's policies are sound. Economists, including Paul Krugman, have endorsed his plan heartily; in the case of Krugman, with reservations, but still over anything any other candidate, small party or large, has offered.

McCain's policies, of course, are Bush redux. Sad.

Best--
Ray Titus said…
Sorry, gotta disagree.Sowell's sound!
Krugman tops the list for partisanship.

Final Rankings for Partisanship:

2002: #1 Paul Krugman

2003: #1 Ann Coulter, #2 Paul Krugman

2004: #1 Ann Coulter, #2 Paul Krugman

2005: #1 Paul Krugman

2007: #1 Ann Coluter, #2 Paul Krugman (tied with Joe Conason)

2008: #1 Paul Krugman

Ref: CD Blog

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/10/paul-krugman-1-most-partisan-columnist.html
Sir, a brilliant post.

Has a full review about all steps taken by both the candidates.
Walker said…
Looks like it is a sure thing for Obama.

I'll give you my (possibly paranoid and definitely suspicious) guess at why the GOP did not point fingers at the Democrats and the Com Reinvest Act, when it was CLEARLY to blame. Answer: They made a deal in the white house when the collapse of the mortgage securities market was imminent. Dems agreed to not say the Republicans did it. The Republicans agreed not to tell the truth. There was a deal. Just can't figure really why the GOP caved. They had a story to tell but they did not do it.

Popular Posts