Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

California faces a staggering budget deficit and a Democrat in the state Assembly has come up with a novel tax plan to try to close the gap. Representative Charles Calderon wants a special tax of 25 percent on gross receipts of California ’s booming pornography industry. He argues that it’s not just a question of more money for the state, but of purveyors of so-called “adult entertainment” paying off the societal costs of the toxic, addictive product they produce.  

Republicans rightly prefer sweeping cuts in government to avoid all new taxes, but if the state ultimately needs more money, better to aim at marketers of porn rather than hitting mainstream, respectable industries. It makes sense to tax Jack Daniels more than carrot juice, cigarettes more than celery sticks, and lap dances and porno stores more than 7-11’s.

"As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him 'a one-man gaffe machine'."

Let's be honest, when you talk as much as presidential candidates must, some gaffes are unavoidable.  Others occur when a candidate is tired.  But Obama's gaffes seem to be the result of a candidate who is in over his head -- who has gotten by on style points -- not the substance. 

To me, this is the real story -- that Obama's gaffes actually reveal something more dangerous than a candidate who merely "misspeaks."  That his gaffes are the product of someone who is not quite ready for prime time...

Of course, going from the Illinois state senate to being a presidential frontrunner is a lot of ground to cover in just a few years ...

Another interesting thing to consider is whether or not this lack of historical understanding is uniquely due to Obama's inexperience -- or if his lack of knowledge is actually a cultural phenomenon. 

While Obama is a child of the 80s, he seems to have a lot in common with today's generation.  In his new book, The Dumbest Generation, author Mark Bauerlein says this phenomenon is true of most "Millenials."  In short, Bauerlein argues today's young people are great at using the internet to retrieve information, but that they lack knowledge of history.  Might Obama's emphasis of style over substance be a result of the era in which he was raised?  Is it unique to him?  Or is it merely a product of a young man who is still finding himself?  These are all interesting to ponder.

Consider the Reagan vs. Obama contrast.  When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, he had lives through The Great Depression, WWII, Vietnam, The Civil Rights Movement, etc.  He had also achieved success in other areas of life.  For this reason, he did not need the presidency to give his life purpose.  Of course, being compared to Reagan is never a good thing for the person being compared. 

Still, it's fair to say that Obama has been playing "over his head" for quite some time.  He's like a young football team who starts off winning a lot of games.  Deep down, you always suspect it won't last.  

It's also interesting to note that Obama has really won few contests in the last several months.  To over-extend the football metaphor, he's like a football team who "backs into the playoffs".  One wonders if McCain will be facing the Obama of February -- or the Obama who got his clock cleaned in West Virginia. 

There is no doubt he has run a surprisingly smart primary campaign.  But because he and Hillary agreed on most major policy issues -- he was not forced to defend his political philosophy.  That is about to change.  McCain will challenge him, and most likely, this will create "forced errors."

At least, Obama appears to be demonstrating that he is, in fact, human.

Susan Sarandon, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. She adds, "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people."

We'll buy the plane ticket.

Bush: "One of these days he and I are going to be rocking in our chairs in Texas talking 'bout the good old days with his time as the press secretary"

McClellan: "I got a good laugh out of that..."

Q Why do you think he's doing this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made.

On Wednesday's edition of "Today," "NBC Nightly News" reporter David Gregory, who covered the White House while McClellan was spokesman, said, "There was never any indication that Scott McClellan, either publicly or privately, held these kinds of views about what was happening at the time on the war, on Katrina, on the leak case -- which was his most difficult hour in the White House. He never expressed anything like this."

Most recently, Fidel Castro has lauded Barack as a “progressive,” and admires his “great intelligence” and “debating skills” and “work ethic.”  

Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef cherishes the hope that "he [Obama] will win the elections," presumably because he thinks that "Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse.”

Hugo Chavez is rooting against John McCain.

Louis Farrakhan has also had nice things to say about Barack.

Obviously, simply because these people are rooting for him doesn't mean that Obama is rooting for them.  But isn't there something revealing when all America's enemies (or at least those willing to go on the record) are unanimously in favor of one of the candidates?  Doesn't it signal, perhaps, that they believe it will be easier to attain their objectives with that candidate sitting in the Oval Office -- and since those agendas are inimical to ours, shouldn't that be making voters a little uneasy?