Vocal Minority

Sensible Liberal of the Week: Barack Obama

All right, Dan The Myth®, you can pick yourself up off the floor now.

On Sunday Sen. Barack Obama spoke at a church in Chicago. While much of the speech contained the typical liberal talking points and platitudes that righties like me would expect, his segment about fathers was spot on. Here are the key parts from that Father’s Day Speech [full text here]:

Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.

But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many? [...]

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one. [...]

I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father – knowing that I have made mistakes and will continue to make more; wishing that I could be home for my girls and my wife more than I am right now. I say this knowing all of these things because even as we are imperfect, even as we face difficult circumstances, there are still certain lessons we must strive to live and learn as fathers – whether we are black or white; rich or poor; from the South Side or the wealthiest suburb.

The first is setting an example of excellence for our children – because if we want to set high expectations for them, we’ve got to set high expectations for ourselves. It’s great if you have a job; it’s even better if you have a college degree. It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch “SportsCenter” all weekend long. That’s why so many children are growing up in front of the television. As fathers and parents, we’ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That’s how we build that foundation. [...]

When you’re right, you’re right, even when you’re Barack Obama. But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

But remember when the outspoken Bill Cosby expressed many of these sentiments in the past? He was lambasted by many in the black community for “airing the blacks community’s dirty laundry” or for pointing the finger only at poor blacks for their plight, rather than on society as a whole. In response to Obama’s speech, there are some in the media and blogosphere debating whether he was addressing only black men, or all men. Looking back at his words, I would say he was addressing American men in general, but black men in particular. Black illegitimacy is embarrassingly high at an upwards of 70%. Think about that: 7 out of 10 black children are born out of wedlock; illegitimate children of whites is significantly lower, but still in the double digits.

Of course, if Obama was singling out black men only, the question that arises on the left side is whether his comments were racist. Why would it be? It’s an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless: there’s runaway illegitimacy in the black community. Charging someone (even other blacks like Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Larry Elder) with racism for pointing that out doesn’t help solve the problem, but only distracts from the issue.

Incidentally, Obama went right back to being senseless liberal when he let blowhard extraordinaire Al Gore take the podium Monday in Detroit give him his endorsement. As the late great George Harrison once crooned, all things must pass.

Sensible Liberal of the Week: Rep. John Dingell

It seems the Democrat global warming alarmists in Congress are too afraid to impose the draconian liberty-sapping carbon emission policies that they've been feverishly dreaming of (and all their inevitable failures). So, they've been trying to pass that responsibility on to the EPA. So Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) took on the global warming Chicken Littles in his own party. Today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page recounts and comments on the story:

'A Glorious Mess' April 12, 2008; Page A8

Usually Congressional subcommittee hearings are as routine and tedious as they sound, but John Dingell managed to enliven one on Thursday. The venerable Michigan Democrat had the candor to point out that if climate change is really the transcendent challenge his party says it is, then Congress should bother to pass legislation, not outsource policy to the Environmental Protection Agency.

For months, the little tyrants of the global warming caucus – Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey – have been trying to force the EPA into declaring that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws, which could result in a cap-and-trade program by regulatory decree. Such posturing allows Democrats to display crocodile outrage and take credit for "leadership" on a popular goal, while shifting the blame for the costs of achieving it onto the EPA. In the bargain, it insulates them from political consequences and avoids the grubby business of actually crafting some global warming "solution."

The charade is too much for Mr. Dingell, the Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Diverging from his prepared remarks, he said it was leading to "a glorious mess" and called the liberal bluff: "As a matter of national policy, it seems to me to be insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and complex process of regulatory action."

If the conclusion on CO2 is desperately self-evident for the EPA, Mr. Dingell suggested, then the same should be true for the Democratic majority – even more so. Regulating carbon involves "inherently political decisions that should be made by the Congress. It should not fall to EPA by default."

Mr. Dingell also made a useful point about "the wonderful complexity" that would result assuming his colleagues got their way. If CO2 is regulated like a conventional pollutant under the 1970 Clean Air Act, it would trigger an economy-wide cascade of new rules and mandates. Just about everything that emits carbon would be affected, including cars, factories and power plants, but also farms, schools, hospitals, restaurants, office buildings, etc. Mr. Dingell was perhaps overstating his case when he said it had "the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth," but not by much.

Mr. Dingell sardonically emphasized that he supports regulating greenhouse-gas emissions in a "comprehensive, exhaustive, thoughtful and intelligent way." But if he was only indulging what he views as a political inevitability, he also knows that the costs will fall disproportionately on some constituencies over others, most notably his blue-collar voters. His indiscretion underscored the separation between Democratic blandishments about painless global warming controls and the economic reality.

This isn't the first time that Mr. Dingell has had some fun with the politics of global warming and drawn the wrath of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the green lobby. Last year he proposed a carbon tax to force his fellow Democrats to be more truthful about their environmental artifices. He may be one of Congress's last honest liberals.

Sensible Liberal of the Week: Geraldine Ferraro

Former Democrat VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro is taking heat from the Obama campaign and news outlets for saying that Obama is where he is because he's black.

Where to begin ...

First, I love it when liberals/Democrats lambaste their own. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it is extremely enlightening about what makes them tick.

Second, what Ferraro said is exactly right. If it weren't for his race, Obama would be just another typical run-of-the-mill Democrat Marxist-socialist.

Likewise, if Hillary weren't a woman, she'd just be another typical run-of-the-mill Democrat Marxist-socialist.

Period.

Even Ferraro herself admitted last week that being a woman helped her land Mondale's VP spot in the '84 presidential race.

Third, I watched her this morning on Good Morning America (which, incidentally, did not include party affiliation in their Spitzer story). Not only did she adamantly defend her words, but she expressed how hurt she was that members of her party were attacking her for this, given she has no history of racist comments or attitudes.

I posted a comment on the GMA comment board -- along with 400+ others (as of this writing). Fortunately, there are some thinking Americans who take the same position as me: Good for her for speaking the truth and not cowering to the PC gestapo. Unfortunately, there are more comments by people who are letting their PC-powered emotions drive their unthought-through words, such as: "She'd be more comfortable with the KKK" (founded by Democrats, BTW) and "She should be fired or censored!"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The Democrats keep trying to convince Americans that they can protect us from the most brutal death-loving tyrannical forces on the planet. Yet every time someone says something that the liberal PC crowd deems offensive, they have to get censored or fired? Look at that campaigner Obama fired last week for calling Hillary a "monster." And he's going to "sit down" with the leader of Iran, who outwardly expresses he wants Americans and all Jews dead?

No matter who ends up with the nomination, if you are planning on voting Democrat in November, please don't leave the house that day. The fate of me and my family depends on it!

Geraldine Ferraro: You go, girl!

Sensible Liberal of the Week: George McGovern

Did an eclipse just happen or some other celestial phenomenon? Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial by the liberal former presidential candidate. When McGovern makes more sense than Hillary or Obama, it's time to take the children and pets into the basement and lock the door until 2013. [h/t Common Sense and Wonder]

Freedom Means Responsibility

By GEORGE MCGOVERN
March 7, 2008; Page A15

Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.

With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.

There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.

The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.

Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending."

With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.

Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.

P.S. DanTheMyth®'s been waiting quite a while for another of these! It took that long for there to be another sensible liberal! :)

Sensible Liberal of the Week: Bill Clinton

Oh G~d, I must be going out of my mind! But why not make Clinton the Sensible Liberal the same week W is the Schmuck Republican of the week? Seems fitting, doesn't it?

It was October 24, a week before the launching of this blog, when Bill Clinton, stumping for his wife on the campaign trail, responded to a 9/11 "Truther". What is a "Truther," you ask? One of those conspiracy theorists who think Bush and Co. planned the 9/11 attacks, with explosives set up inside the WTC and everything. Clinton answered the questioner with a stern "How dare you! How dare you!" Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Of course, the smacking down of a "Truther" by Bill Clinton got relatively little coverage by the mainstream news media. And why would that be? Could it be because the folks running the supposedly objective media also believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

Well, let's ask that famous metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell. After all, she claimed on "The View" that the Bushies had to have brought down WTC building 7 deliberately because, according to her, fire doesn't melt steel. Popular Mechanics begs to differ.

How is it that a detestable loudmouth know-nothing like Rosie O'Donnell can spew her ignorant hate and lies on a national TV show and doesn't get fired until months later, after tons and tons of people complain? Now she's possibly getting her own talk show on MSNBC. What a cruel intolerant country that Rosie has to deal with.

Sensible Liberal of the Week: Joe Lieberman

Well, whaddaya know? This week's Sensible Liberal honor goes to the other senator from Connecticut.

The good senator who's now an independent after the Democrats threw him under the bus because—G~d forbid!—he supports the war in Iraq, tears his old party a new one in this editorial from today's New York Post [Hat tip: Lion's Roar].

Highlights:

There is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyperpartisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party has strayed ...

That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign-policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party - but they exist in me today independent of the Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.

I understand, Joe. You do what you gotta do.