Happy Hallow's Eve

No effigies, just a cool punkin carved by a mystery person. And not many kids at the door this year. Maybe they know about the blog. Anyway, here's an early start on Saturday's musical selection...

VideotapeGate

First things first--only the LA Times knows for sure if the tape should be released. Most of us don't know squat about journalism, including yours truly, but viewing from afar it's not too hard to imagine that busting a source's confidentiality could be rather instantly counter-productive.

OK, with that out of the way we can move directly into wild speculation!

Why else would they hold it? Well, other than the obvious reasons: love for Obama and hate for Republicans (or irrational fear of their base) there could be a few other decision points aside from integrity. Yesterday the Times said they were putting their source into potential "jeopardy", today they changed to:

The Times keeps its promises to sources

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure.

So who might fall into jeopardy at the tape's release? Palestinian-Americans, maybe? Nah--if they weren't mass killed or sent to internment camps after that infamous post 9/11 street dancing, they're safe. Khalidi himself? He spouts his stuff all over the world all the time, so no. Ayers and Dohrn? Please. Obama? Well...Obama does have jack-booted Secret Service thugs protecting him (sorry, slipped into liberal vernacular). We must of course assume these guys don't take hit orders for political enemies, which might put the leaker in some serious jeopardy. But that's just silly.

Besides, we're discussing the source, not the target. Presumably releasing the tape would finger the videotaper to members of the dinner party, presuming he/she gave themselves away on the tape, therefore any malice would seemingly originate with the dinner party attendees. If true, isn't it a legitimate concern that Obama attended a party with such potential thuggery? Were mob figures present? Nation of Islam goons? Terrorists (other than Ayers)? Fess up--again--LA Times. Put some sunshine in government.

Or maybe this. Maybe the leaker was a known Clintonite desperately trying to sabotage Obama's lead before it was too late. Why else would anyone trust the LA Times with such a tape knowing it could find its way onto the tubes? Unless they didn't care. Or unless they knew the secret was safe. But just imagine the embarrassment if the leaker turned out to be a Clinton operative with Bill currently out stumping for That One™ during the home stretch. By the way, where is Hillary?

Guess we should get used to it. Unless McCain can pull a gipper the coming Obama revolucion will likely feature many more such examples of high media integrity when the public interest is involved without a whit of irony as to how they handled the Bush era. Just don't question them about it and things will be fine.

Can't Fool All the People

More evidence that Tito the Builder might be the most intelligent pundit on the scene right now:


CNN's Politics main page this evening, 10/30, around 9 pm central. If you don't like clicking here are the top stories, magnified:


Nothing about Joe's records being hacked; nothing about Khalidi; nothing about Tito. And as if that's not enough, on the same page they posted some humor. Yes, that's hilarious, CNN.

Tied up in Knots

For the record, there will be no effigies hanging outside the McCloud household this Halloween. Not even one of bin Laden.

But if we were tempted to do such a thing there would be two of them--one with a likeness of Sarah Palin hanging directly next to another resembling Obama. It might be fun to watch the city police arrive with a court order demanding we unhang the Obama effigy then drive off as the Palin dummy twisted around in the fall breeze.

Verily he Sayeth Unto Us...

That yea though we walk through the valley of the shadow of McBush, Hussein will be with us; and our cup will runneth over from goodies stolen from Joe the Plumber's dreams; and sweetness and light will shineth all over the coming epoch.

Those who wish for sunshine on the past epoch, including parties with terrorists or mysterious university grades, are but mere distractions to teh feelgood perpetrated by GOP devils (that is, if one believes in the whole good bad thing, otherwise use the GOP Bourgeoisie).

And hey, his magic is already working--Fox cut down the World Series pre-game by about 20 minutes!

Iraq and the Obama Associations

Go ahead and trash this article as guilt by association, because it's going to contain a lot of associations, beginning with Rashid Khalidi and ending with Barack Obama.

McCain has joined the fray calling for the LA Times to release their tribute video to Khalidi whereupon:

A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.)

So not only is there a video, but a testimonial book of some sort. But does any of this matter as to the election?

Yes. Think of the reverse scenario, with McCain was being linked to neo-nazis or separatists/secessionists, some of which was on a video that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh was sitting on, then imagine the reaction. But not only from a partisan perspective--the American people have the right to know if they're being pulled the wool from a guy almost nobody knew before 2004. If he likes to hang with Marxists, former radicals and ex-terrorists it's legitimate to ask whether he agrees with their views. His defense so far has been the incredulous stonewalling tactic, but time is quickly running out. So again yes, it does matter.

I'll let the big boys sort out this Times thing, since I'm more interested in whether Ayers' Weather thugs or Rashid Khalidi had any ties with the Palestinian terrorists, such as the group focused on a few days ago, the "May 15 Organization", who had a demonstrable connection to Saddam Hussein. As reported, this organization--evidently with cover from Iraq--set 13 bombs in the early 80s, one which blew up aboard a Pan Am 747 and killed a Japanese teenager. They found and defused the others.

Let's recap what was going on at the time. Reagan was president and America was slowly coming out of a recession. The Air Traffic Controllers were on strike then fired. Overseas, the Iraqis had attacked the Iranians and were fighting a bloody war on their border. One year earlier the Israelis disabled Saddam's nuke facility at Osirak and in 1982 were engaged in the first Lebanon war, a conflict started under a casus belli centered around the assassination attempt of Israel's UK ambassador Schlomo Argov by the Abu Nidal Organization, who were coddled by Saddam at the time.

In 1982 Rashid Khalidi was in Beirut working for the PLO press agency WAFA and had recently edited a section called "The Gulf and Palestine in Soviet Policy" in a book on the region, co-edited by Camille Mansour.

Name sound familiar? Well, Mansour is of no relation to Khalid al-Mansour, reportedly the benefactor who helped Obama gain entrance to Harvard Law in the late 80s. We don't know for sure because he ain't talking, which is like a flu with most of Obama's friends. Tick-tock.

What about Obama in the early 80s? He was attending Columbia and hanging around the library or so he says, at least most of the time. Meanwhile, the Weather Thugs had split up with one group containing Ayers and Dohrn and the other with the radicals, who had pulled off the Brinks robbery in 1981. Although this was the splinter weather group, there was an interesting name involved, one Nathanial Burns, aka Sekou Odinga. That should ring a bell to some, although it's not clear whether there's a connection.

But did they have any contact with radical Palestinian groups at the time? Hard to say. They were definitely part of the international resistance movement and we've learned that the Weather thugs had some contact with Cuba, but it's undeniable that Ayers and Dohrn had a cozy relationship with Khalidi after their wilder days ended, which was later shared by Obama. So it's natural to wonder if Obama shared their views about "justice" for the Palestinians, since he seems to share it for economics.

But what about Iraq? The PLO and Abu Nidal were not friends, at least on the surface. Saddam harbored Nidal, but he also befriended Arafat and later helped the families of suicide bombers in Israel with check payments. ANO was a socialist/Arab nationalist outfit, not Islamic (which would be antithetical to Ayers' since he seems to be irreligious). So even if there are no direct ties between terrorist groups in Iraq and the Weather thugs the leaders of these groups seem to have a common cause in mind--the Palestinians, and Khalidi does not seem to favor co-existing states.

But back to the 2003 party. I've been trying to find the date, but the closest I've come is a mislabeled "February 2005", missing the year. Was the party in Feb 2003? If so, that was only weeks before we invaded Iraq. Might there be some rhetoric on the tape about Saddam or other Arab nationalism? We know Obama was also familiar with Syrian Tony Rezko and Iraqi Auchi Nahdmi.

The LA Times has now said the source was confidential and they stand by their privacy agreement. How principled. Too bad they aren't the New York Times.

MORE 10/30/08

The apparent date of the party was early August 2003. Current events-wise, we were slogging along in Iraq with Saddam still on the lam and the Plame affair was beginning to brew based on David Corn's accusations.

BTW, here's Khalidi's perspectives on Palestine, if you can get through the video. Good luck.

"Whack Job"?

This is simply unbelievable:

***In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling her “a whack job.”

It's absurd to think anybody in the McCain campaign would say such a thing--in context--to a site like Politico with one week left before the election. If true McCain should immediately concede and 1) admit his advisers are incompetent, or 2) he's incompetent. Gotta be something else going on. Or maybe this adviser did poorly on the "test".

Nobama 08 Blogburst

Presidential Character

By Mustang

Some people argue that domestic issues are of far greater importance than any discussion of character. I could not disagree more. All elections are about character. If we cannot trust the honor, patriotism, and fidelity of our elected representatives, then the issues don’t matter because whatever a candidate of low character shall say about political issues cannot matter.

I believe we each must consider the character of the two men who want us to elect them as our next president. Some may argue “What more is there to know about either candidate?” after a campaign that has lasted far too long. Ordinarily, at this point in the campaign, I would say, “nothing more.” Except in this election, “We the People” have found the press (as guardians of American democracy) seriously deficient. Rather than remaining impartial, the media has fallen head-over-heels in love with one of the candidates; we must excuse them from the jury of the court of public opinion. This year, the American people have not witnessed a fair trial.

Samuel Adams once said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men,” but this was long before the Obama Era. Political correctness and liberal bias have led us to outcries of racism for even asking questions not even remotely related to race.. The press castigated our friend “Joe the Plumber” for daring to ask about income redistribution. According to one radio report, the Secret Service visited a woman because she told an Obama Campaign worker that she would vote for Barack Obama, “over her dead body.” This kind of attention applied to citizens for merely expressing an opinion is patently un-American, but it is also reminiscent of the intimidation used to silence dissent in communist countries. Character matters all right, especially if suppression of the right of expression is what we can expect from an Obama presidency.

In order to assess the character of our presidential contenders, we must decide upon an appropriate exemplar. On the democratic side of the aisle, the obvious notables are Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Jefferson may be too far back in time to serve as our role model. Roosevelt was a patent socialist. Truman left office as one of the most unpopular of all our presidents. Lyndon Johnson gave us too many scars. Mr. Carter was a buffoon and Bill Clinton . . . well, I wonder if we aren’t just a little too tired of hearing about him. Kennedy seems to qualify as the best Democratic Party exemplar, even if he was a womanizer; no one is perfect.

In the twentieth Century, notable Republican presidents have included Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Of these, Roosevelt was impetuous, Eisenhower cautious, Nixon resigned in disgrace, and Reagan was the great communicator. I therefore propose Reagan as our Republican Party exemplar.

In 1961, John Kennedy issued this mandate to the American people: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John Kennedy became the darling of the American people; many around the world shared this view. We called his presidency Camelot. He was young, relatively inexperienced, but he excited the people about America’s future. He believed in the rights of man, a strong national defense, and the protection of liberty throughout the world. He believed that nuclear deterrence was insufficient to maintain peaceful coexistence. He believed the United States should be a beacon of hope, and he argued for increased world trade. He sought to achieve working partnerships with other world leaders to achieve dignity, justice, and liberty for all the people of the world. He sought to attain solidarity among the western (Atlantic) nations; he refuted communism as doomed to failure. He set forth an economic policy of unshackled enterprise, industrial leadership, and vibrant capitalism. He sought to lower interest rates in order to increase the flow of money, reduced government spending, and lower taxes. He also vowed to help small businesses through government loans and fair trade policy. Mr. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative.

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.” We assume he spoke about the party of John Kennedy, a platform designed to inspire the American people to greatness. This was also the platform of Ronald Reagan. He repudiated the policy of Jimmy Carter; looking forward, he said, “Democratic politicians are without programs or ideas to reverse economic decline and despair. They are divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility.”

Reagan brought the American people a new pride in their country and themselves, their achievements and future possibilities. He wanted the American people to have liberty and freedom of choice, low taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. He repudiated the so-called Great Society because it created low human productivity. He fought for an expansion of private property ownership, committed himself to improved economic opportunities for black Americans, rights and equality for every minority, and equal opportunities for women. He was committed to the rights of unborn children.


Modern Democrats have turned Kennedy’s ideal upside down; now the cry is “Ask what your country can do for you.” Today’s Democrat pursues the politics of dependency, the essential breaking point between civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. King wanted black Americans to realize the reality of equality, while Jackson’s policies pursue racism, separatism, and demands for greater gifts from the government. King wanted black Americans judged according to their character; Jackson views character as secondary concern because the means justifies the end. King fought for unity, Jackson has dedicated his entire life to reverse-segregation.

Modern Republicans have broken faith with the American people. They broke their Contract with America. Much of what has happened since mid-2005 is the result of this failure. As a Republican, I bemoan a Democratically controlled Congress, but I realize that men such as Duke Cunningham brought it to fruition. But, before anyone starts gloating, we should note that the United States Congress today has achieved the low point of popular opinion; it cannot possibly get worse. Or, can it?

It is time to ask ourselves where Barack Obama and John McCain stand with regard to our exemplars of presidential character. We should assume that “Country First” is a sentiment that every patriotic American deeply subscribes; that all of us want to see positive changes for the future. That said, let us dispense with bumper-sticker ideology, and investigate the actual character of each candidate. Let us consider the deeds of these men rather than their words.

Before announcing his candidacy for the highest office, Barack Obama associated himself with socialist organizations, a peculiar philosophy that supports state or collective ownership of all property and the means of production. Since we achieve personal and national wealth through property and the means of production, Mr. Obama apparently believes than an egalitarian society is only possible when the state controls property and wealth. By extension, the State will distribute wealth according to its own priorities, and the State will achieve this through any number of programs, including taxation. Socialist programs relieve individuals of responsibility, for themselves, and for their families. We see this clearly in Mr. Obama’s platform;

Economic Policy

• An immediate energy rebate to American families

• An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy

• Federal assistance to states and localities in education, health care, and infrastructure

• Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending

• Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges

• Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools

• Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs.

• Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity.

• National health care initiatives


We should perhaps note at this point that governments do not create wealth, people do. Governments may facilitate productivity through sound economic policy, but they cannot interfere in a market economy without significant disruption to capitalist investment and diminishing personal and corporate income and profits. Barack Obama’s socialist platform is anathema to Kennedy’s economic philosophy, and may be unparalleled since the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Simply stated, responsible government cannot spend more than anticipated revenues, and it is contrary to American values to redistribute income in a free-market environment.

John McCain is a moderate conservative approximating John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. He believes that the Constitution of the United States limits the role of the federal government, and he strives to work with the Congress within a constitutional framework to improve government efficiency and reduce waste. Like Kennedy and Reagan, McCain believes that lower taxes improve productivity, and that reduced spending is fiscally responsible and economically necessary. While there are some things the federal government must do, other projects constitutionally fall within the purview of the 50 states. National defense and homeland security is something the federal government must do, but the central government must form partnerships with the states on other important human-services programs. Reflected in Mr. McCain’s platform:

Economic Policy

• Implement immediate transparency to the budgeting process

• Evaluate and reduce spending on wasteful and inefficient programs

• Empower states to improve public services

• Implement meaningful (and trustworthy) oversight of government programs

• Make government more efficient and responsive to citizen’s needs

• Prioritize spending to improve and safeguard America’s infrastructure

• Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Programs

• Restore Social Security to a sound financial basis

• Expand opportunities to promote personal and industrial prosperity


Of these two men, which has the greatest character? Which of these candidates maintains faith with our founding principles of Constitutional Federalism, a steady hand on the tiller of state, while allowing individuals to choose for themselves their best course? John McCain is not a perfect man, nor is he without justifiable criticism of his previous positions; but John McCain is an open book. His service to his country and his associations has been honorable, and trustworthy.

Barack Obama has not been honest and forthright with the American people. He has hidden his past associations or played them down. He has defamed religious teaching through adherence to black separatist theology and racism, consorted with known terrorists, and enjoys the backing of organizations harmful to the interests and the people of the United States. As an advocate of socialist/Marxist ideology, Barack Obama is frankly, in our judgment, un-American. He falls far short of exemplars such as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Character matters because our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts. If we intend to resolve these problems, we must have the steady hand of true statesmanship. We must have in our president wisdom, experience, honesty, fidelity, and valor. Our president must be a man whose character is consistent with our Nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.

Every presidential election brings forth professional pundits who tell us that this election is the most important of our entire lifetime. This time, they could be right. Our selection of the right man will assure our children, and theirs, of a nation dedicated to individual liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. If we choose the wrong man, we may very well witness an end to the United States as created by our forefathers. We are living in perilous times — there is no room for error in our selection of the 44th President of the United States.

On Election Day, one of these candidates will receive a majority of popular votes. In December, the Electoral College will validate the popular vote and confirm the identity of our next president. But this election is more than a referendum on the ability of the American voter to discern between two well-educated men. This election is rather a test of America’s ability to distinguish and reward personal character and to recognize integrity and statesmanship between one man who possesses these qualities and the other who does not.

We urge Americans to vote for John McCain. There simply is no other choice that is good for the American people, or our great country.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" — Ronald Reagan

also see..

Always on Watch / And Rightly So / Big Girl Pants / Confessions of a Closet Republican / Farmer’s Letters / GeeeeeZ / Has Everyone Gone Nuts? / Papa Frank / Paleocon Command Center / Pondering Penguin / Social Sense / The Amboy Times / The Crank Files / The Jungle Hut / The Logic Lifeline / The Merry Widow / Political Yen Yang

Calling all Idiots

They are from Tennessee and Arkansas. They do not represent Tennessee or Arkansas. Or the Mid South. Or Memphis. Or the Red States. Or Bitter Clingers. Or patriotism. Or the Republican Party. Or John McCain. Or Sarah Palin. Or Bill Clinton. Or Conservatives. Or Christians.

They represent all moronic idiots the world over who choose hate over love and can't think for themselves.

This event feels similar to the Fort Dix, Goose Creek, and Denver events, where suspected terrorists were captured on other charges then expressed their evil intent after arrest.

Whether these two had means to pull off the attack is debatable but all such threats have to be taken seriously not only literally, but also as to their societal relevance. A skinhead assassination of Obama might set race relations backwards 50 years overnight and cause chaos throughout the land. It's not out of the question that al Qaeda could recruit skins or other lily whites to target Obama in an effort to cause domestic destabilization ahead of or in conjunction with other attacks.

Will the civil libertarians complain as loudly about this event as they have about Islamic terror cell busts? Probably not. Regardless, it shows the importance of gaining intelligence to thwart events before they occur, something the left has largely groaned over during the Bush years.

Something else to keep in perspective. Once upon a time domestic terrorists plotted against America, the police, and the military. Some even managed to set off explosives, which killed a few people. Some later went to jail while other escaped justice and are currently employed in the Illinois university system.

The Right to Know

Some of the blogospheric buzz today is the lock down on a tape taken of Rashid Khalidi's going away party. Andy McCarthy makes the hard-to-argue point of a double-standard--who doesn't think the Times wouldn't release it if the video showed Palin at a party for young-earth creationists or secessionists? But he's a winger.

Jeralyn Merritt is not. Here's what she said about Khalidi back in April:

But I would like an explanation from Obama on his expressed support for Israel and his past support for Khalidi, which was shared by Ayers. In view of Obama's extensive reachout to Jewish voters, I think that's a reasonable request.

Yes she was a Hillary supporter, but in the same piece she praised Ayers and Dohrn, giving weight to her "reasonable request". After all, since Obama espouses the sunshine in government philosophy when it pertains to Bush it's reasonable to assume his own windows remain open.

But the bigger question is perhaps not whether the Times will release it, but whether anyone in the mainstream press is daring enough to ask Obama about it. For that matter, will they even ask him about the Syrian raid (since it seems to follow the Obama doctrine)? We've seen what happens when the campaign doesn't like the question.

The Biggest Foreign Policy Mistake

Obama and others often like to say Saddam was no real threat to the United States and we could have left him alone in the middle of the Middle East without peril. Matter of fact, Barack has based his campaign on the judgment to stay out of Iraq, calling Bush's invasion after 9/11 the greatest foreign policy mistake ever.

The following article is from the New York Times on August 24, 1996, about a month after TWA flight 800 exploded off Long Island [emphasis added]:

The era of terrorist bomb attacks on airplanes is generally acknowledged to have begun on Aug. 11, 1982, when an explosion went off aboard a Pan Am jet en route to Honolulu from Tokyo. A 16-year-old Japanese boy was blown from his seat and bled to death before the pilots could land the Boeing 747.

Two weeks later, a bomb was discovered inside a small vinyl bag aboard another Pan Am jet. It did not explode and was found after the plane landed in Rio de Janeiro on a flight from Miami.

Comparing the devices, the F.B.I. found that the same plastic explosive, containing PETN -- the same substance found on wreckage from Flight 800 -- was used in both bombs. Federal officers also found that wiring from the unexploded bomb matched a hair-thin sliver retrieved from the body of the young victim, Toru Ozawa. In the following weeks, an informer helped the F.B.I. track down 12 more unexploded bombs aimed at Western interests. Similarities between the explosives and timers led authorities to conclude that the bombs were made by the same person or organization.

Follow this a moment. The bomb that killed the Japanese teenager on a Pan Am 747 in 1982 was linked to 12 other unexploded bombs, all traced to one entity. The Times tells us who:

The bomb that killed the Japanese teen-ager in 1982 had a devilish twist, which came to be regarded as the signature of the May 15 Organization, a Palestinian terrorist group named for the date in 1948 on which Israel was established.

And where was the 15th of May Organization based? Guess:

Location/Area of Operation

Baghdad until 1984. Before disbanding, operated in Middle East, Europe, and East Asia, Abu Ibrahim is reportedly in Iraq.

After serving time in Greece the bomber of TWA 830, Mohammed Rashid, was released then nabbed by the FBI and recently sentenced to an American prison for his role in the murder. The leader of the gang, Abu Ibrahim, explained Iraq's connection in this Time article in 1991:

Awad felt he had no choice. He knew that the Iraqi government paid for May 15 members' rent and gasoline and provided Abu Ibrahim with documents, untraceable license plates and security guards. Now the May 15 chief had shown that with a word from him, the Iraqi military would bring Awad's business to a halt. Awad realized that he could not continue his life in Baghdad if he defied the bombmaker, and he headed for Abu Ibrahim's villa in the wealthy diplomatic quarter of southwest Baghdad. Abu Ibrahim welcomed the reluctant terrorist and personally trained him. At one point, Awad asked what would happen if the Iraqi police found the bomb in his suitcase while he was at the airport. "Don't worry," Abu Ibrahim replied. "The Iraqis know about everything we do."

Wow--decent proof that Saddam conspired with terrorists against the US from way back. But read the rest of it, which provides a rationale as to why Reagan didn't blow Saddam to kingdom come back in the 80s. As you might guess, it had something to do with our efforts to stop the Iranian revolution from expanding across the Sunni Arabian plains. Perhaps that was our biggest foreign policy mistake.

As to Ibrahim, he remains at large along with Rashid's wife Christine Pinter, whom he met through connections with the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

And speaking of Abu's, here's a story more pertinent to the news, featuring an Islamic fighter named Abu Ibrahim and his cross-border journey from Syria in an effort to fight for the Arab cause in Iraq.

Cross Border Syrian Raid

Neither confirmed nor denied. as yet.

As Allahpundit noted a commando raid suggests they were looking for somebody as opposed to just putting a cruise missile down the chimney, although massive explosions tend to attract more attention than a snatch and grab using small arms. Then again, helicopters aren't exactly inconspicuous and the attack took place in broad daylight, so it doesn't appear they were trying to hide themselves. We await further details.

In the meantime some patriots are weighing in over at HuffinPuff:

as expected, W. is delivering the October surprise Mac needed to put economy behind security.

"My friends, Today we are all Syrians."

When will we stop breaching other countries sovereignty? This is insane. We are homogenizing international laws and violating it whenever we please.

I hope Syria takes this matter to the United Nations and doesn't let it slide easily like they did with their aggressive occupying violent psychopathic bullying neighbor to the south.

Let's see, Obama campaigns that he'll chase AQ into nuclear Pakistan (or anywhere) with or without permission of the host country and we hear cheering support. Bush evidently chases AQ into Syria without its blessing (we presume) and it's dangerous warmongering that should be reported to the UN.

Yes, the hate is so deep they'll defend a proven sponsor of terrorism whose leader most likely ordered the murders of both Rafiq Hariri and Pierre Gemayel along with setting up a clandestine nuke site with North Korea's help.

Maybe this is what Biden was referring to in his recent comments about standing with the Obama administration after he's been tested. Everyone assumes he meant otherwise.

Well whatever. Maybe president-elect Obama can just bypass Bush and send one of two capable special envoys to broker a surrender...

On Eligibility

Regards Berg's lawsuit claiming Barack isn't eligible, here's the New York Times coverage:

One of the scurrilous right-wing rumors about Barack Obama is that he is a Kenyan citizen. That’s wrong.

From Kristof's blog. Which doesn't talk about Berg. Oh, here it is--a stock AP rewrite.

And here's the New York Times' coverage of John McCain's eligibility issues:

A lawsuit challenging Mr. McCain’s qualifications is pending in the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H.

And this. And more. All the news that's fit to print.


ht Poli-yy.

MORE 10/25/08

Guess this isn't fit to print, either, but it's a different Times this time.

Side Tracks

Nuff said.

Ayers Finally Located

The ex-dangerous professor was finally located tonight, much to the relief of the vast right wing conspiracy. Apparently he was hiding in an ingenious location--his own neighborhood:



Congrats to Fox and Jessie Watters for staking out this [insert appropriate slam here] scumbag. Normally I don't care much for O'Reilly's badgering tactics but in this case it seemed appropriate since it's doubtful the MSM was ever going to track him down, even if Palin, Joe the Plumber and Arnold Schwarzenegger showed up on his street to campaign.

Speaking of wardrobes, the Red Star shirt was a nice touch. Maybe he'll start a new craze. Otherwise it's hard to expand upon OR's excellent analysis other than to say he didn't call the police, he called the "pigs, man" to protect his "private property", two constructs now dripping with sweet irony.

But the last laugh is that in eleven days this man, Bill, might have an advocate and friend in the White House. As bizarre as this sounds I tend to agree with Joe the Plumber. Hey, wonder what he thinks about investments?

MORE 10/27/08

And again, by dangerous right wing hack Brian Ross. "What is it you're hiding, sir?" Gee Brian--he's been hiding 'it' for a year.

Those Crazy Kids!

Within two days we've seen two stories in the blogs about college-age kids practicing rather juvenile hijinks in an effort to help their favored candidate. One got national press attention and the other got, well, blog attention.

This isn't to diminish the absurd stupidity of the Pennsylvania college Republicans who thought it might be fun to play a little game of race-baiting by concocting a politically and racially motivated phony attack. These idiots were so idiotic they forgot to scratch the "B" on her cheek correctly. Stick with twister, guys.

The only hope left for conservatives is for these clowns to end up being closet Obama supporters working under deep cover trying to embarrass McCain. A rather thin reed, indeed.

But contrary to the Fox News guy's opinion it's not necessarily going to end McCain's chances unless someone directly ties her to the campaign itself, although the media will be doing their best to leave that impression.

What was the other story? Oh yeah, possible voter fraud in Ohio. That's all.

Unrepentant

This is making the rounds. Mr. Grathwohl was an FBI informant working in the Weather Underground with Ayers in the 70s:

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people. And they were dead serious.

Keep in mind this documentary was made in 1982 while Obama was hiding in the Columbia library and Ayers was down the street attending Banks College.

The video mentions foreign enemies taking over the country after the revolution. Smacks of a drug-induced fantasy but here's something from the New York Times in 1977 mentioning Ayers:

"In February 1970, leading WUO member Bill Ayers told fellow underground WUO member Larry Grathwohl that if communication could not be made through these Canadian numbers, an individual should get in touch with the Cuban Embassy in Canada in order to establish contact with other members of the WUO," the report said.

Just idealistic college kids who thought they could change the world when Obama was eight, right? Now they're idealistic adults who hope for change today, when Obama's 48. Peruse some of Ayers' available You Tube videos and he appears a garden variety liberal freethinking idealist bent to educate capitalism out of America's children, and Obama worked with him on that reform. Now Obama's on the verge of entering the White House during a "once in a generation" crisis of capitalism, one which Ayers and Dohrn must be thrilled about. Caveat emptor, as the professors say.

see LGF and Confederate Yankee.

Obama's Tax Cut

Obama is trying to counter Joe the Plumber with a cheap ripoff of Al Bundy to pimp his tax cut. Meet "Al the Shoe Salesman":



Is he real? Is Obama's tax cut real? Feel free to visit the calculator and do the math yourself (and endure the strange computer music). You'll see cuts, but not in graduated intervals, so it feels more like another stimulus check (which we know can be one and done). The only numbers he's throwing around are 95 percent and 250,000K, but even the 250K is a little deceptive.

Here's a screenshot of an input of 200,000-250,000 salary; married filing jointly; 2 deductions; saving for retirement; and with college expenses:



As can be seen, this person is not likely to get a cut even though making less than 250K. But wait! Listening closely to Obama's plan reveals that comrades making between 200,000 and 250,000 would not see any tax cuts, but wouldn't see any increases. If that feels like a change just remember, Obama is change. This, on the other hand, is a change that was slipped in under the radar.

MORE 10/26/08

One thing lost in the shuffle of Obama's prize winning giveaway plan to the middle class (taken at gunpoint from the rich) are the actual tax rates. They will not go down. The only ones he's pinned down are the highest brackets, which will go up.

But the real deception lies in the current Bush tax cuts. Obama and Biden have lied real hard to make it seem like they were only given to the rich, whereas in real life they were given to EVERYONE who pays taxes. Obama will allow them to expire in 2009, which equals an effective tax increase for more than just the rich. My daddy always warned me to be wary of slick-talking snake oil salesmen selling something that's too good to be true, and this year the Dems have not one, but TWO of them.

Al Qaeda Endorses Obama

By endorsing McCain:

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

It's pretty clear. If Jihadist websites are favoring McCain they obviously prefer Obama. Why would they tell the truth?

Oh sure, the case can be made that bin Laden is trying to "Soviet" us into bankruptcy, a line of propaganda they're finally picking up on by calling our financial mess proof of victory:

In language that was by turns mocking and ominous, the newest posting credited al-Qaeda with having lured Washington into a trap that had "exhausted its resources and bankrupted its economy."

But the alternative is to give up and cede the same territory back to the jihadists. There's no question that when if Obama retreats from Iraq the world will witness a collective swoon from the fanatics, insurgents, extremists and criminals, emboldening any of their future endeavors. The term "paper tiger" came from both Saddam and bin Laden.

So leaving isn't the best option, either. I'm certainly open to other ideas, but as Obama indicated today his strategy is already set:

“The next administration is going to be inheriting a whole host of really big problems and so the president is going to be tested and the question is will the next president meet that test by moving America in a new direction by sending a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer about bluster and unilateralism and ideology but we’re about creating partnerships around the world to solve practical problems.”

That'll strike fear into 'em--we'll open fire on head-chopping child murderers with partnerships to solve the problem of getting rid of Israel, like perhaps via financial help from our busted economy. These guys must be quietly licking their chops thinking the Great Satan is on its last legs.

BTW, did you catch Obama's dig against McCain in the Ellen clip? Yes, yes, surely Barack's a better dancer than an old war cripple. Wait, is that racist?

To the Moon, India

Good grief, we better get back on the stick:

Chandrayaan-1—which means "Moon Craft" in ancient Sanskrit—is scheduled to launch from the Sriharikota space center in southern India at 8:20 p.m. EDT Tuesday in a two-year mission aimed at laying the groundwork for further Indian space expeditions.

Chief among the mission's goals is mapping not only the surface of the moon, but what lies beneath. If the launch is successful, India will join what's shaping up as a 21st century space race with Chinese and Japanese crafts already in orbit around the moon

Nice to know they've put all our outsourcing dollars to good use. Seriously, what an amazing accomplishment. Or maybe they just really want that Google X Prize.

Now, if NASA can just keep them from scanning Tranquility Base and blowing our secret lunar history!

Nobama 08 Blogburst

An Enigma Named Barack

by L. A. Sunset

We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.

Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.

Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):

William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years.

Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.

Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.

Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.

Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.

Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)

Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.

Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.

Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.

Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground
leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”

Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for
six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”


Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.

The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:

The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.

Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).


Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this 1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.


From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.

Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.

Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.

John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.

Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.

Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.

Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.

We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.

We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.

also see..

Always on Watch / And Rightly So / Big Girl Pants / Confessions of a Closet Republican / Farmer’s Letters / GeeeeeZ / Has Everyone Gone Nuts? / Papa Frank / Paleocon Command Center / Pondering Penguin / Social Sense / The Amboy Times / The Crank Files / The Jungle Hut / The Logic Lifeline / The Merry Widow / Political Yen Yang

Miss Run Amok Resurfaces

On Fox, no less. But just one minute--for all who pegged Judy Miller as a neocon, not so fast:

“I was a Hillary supporter who has gone over to the Obama side,” Miller told Politico earlier by phone. “Lots of people think they know what I believe, but don’t.”

I suspect that will be a tough one for many to swallow, figuring she's pulling a Colin Powell rehabilitation maneuver. Oddly, both had parts in the Plame affair.

But I'm not convinced she was ever a neocon. After all, she was a New York Times reporter, and besides, we've been told that guilt by association is wrong, wrong, wrong. And sad. Very sad. Pay no mind to the fact that Joe Lieberman and Christopher Hitchens, both liberal thinkers about everything short of national security, were instantly and virulently branded as neocons for supporting Bush on Iraq (although Hitch has fallen off the wagon--predicted, sort of) and such associations are perfectly legitimate, yet McCain brings up Ayers and he's an evil racist. Ah, just another day in leftyworld.

Wonder if Ms. Miller has a similar narrow agreement with Fox News she had with Patrick Fitzgerald on her grand jury testimony about Scooter? In other words, can someone finally ask her where she got Joe Wilson's name before talking to Libby, and just what the hell the "Aspens" were all about? Or what does she think about that reporter shield law that quietly went down the drain last month?

Maybe it'll be covered in the movie.

Testing the Mettle

Jim Geraghty will soon be slimed for right-wing fearmongering. The charge? Repeating Joe Biden's campaign rhetoric:

I've been asking Obama waverers if they thought Putin and Medvedev would take it easy on the new guy while he learns the ropes. Russia's a good bet, but you have to wonder if Hezbollah and Hamas would feel like they could take some shots at Israel while the new president settles in. Ahmadinejad might enjoy rattling the saber, and seeing if Obama still makes good on his pledge for a summit without preconditions within one year. If Kim Jong Il is still alive and kicking, God knows what he'll try with a new guy.

Follow the link to read Biden's set-up (or apology for Barack's experience, whichever) if you've not already heard it. If Obama wins he'll be entering office not only with one of the most aggressive domestic agendas in recent memory but also with an agenda to 'change the world'. How many foreign leaders will see this as extreme naivete? Lots, perchance.

Hamas is already running interference by saying they'll send Obama a note of congratulations the moment he wins election. No doubt we'll also be treated to images of Arabs dancing in the streets firing their Kalashnikovs. So sure, Biden is already trying to temper the coming blows.

Oddly enough ole four-letter Joe seems to be suggesting, once again, that McCain might be a better choice at this point. Or Hillary. Or perhaps himself.

Of Records and Such

From the WaPo:

"Voters need to know who is most likely to be running the country in 2010 if Senator McCain is elected in 2008," Wendy Epstein, a New York dermatologist and Obama supporter, wrote in an eight-page analysis of the senator's risk circulating on the Internet.

Death-wish 2008. Here's the Times' foray into political fitness:

Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden released recent medical records to the Times showing that they were healthy, though Altman notes that Biden's documents "did not indicate whether he had had a test in recent years to detect any new aneurysm," and Obama's most recent check-up was in January 2007.

That's funny. CBS News is saying otherwise:

Biden, now 67 years old, has yet to release his medical history, of which the aneurysms are one of the few known episodes.

Biden’s spokesman David Wade told Politico that "we intend to make available his medical history before the election.”

But let's not obsess on records of the past, such as original birth certificates, college transcripts or State Senate records and the like. They are but distractions! It's all about the issues, and Mrs. Palin, of course:

Meanwhile, "Nothing is known publicly about Ms. Palin's medical history," Altman reports, "aside from the much-discussed circumstances surrounding the birth of her fifth child last April. Ms. Palin has said that her water broke while she was at a conference in Dallas and that she flew to Anchorage, where she gave birth to her son Trig hours after landing.

Ah yes, the true motive of this sudden medical interest--it's a reminder McCain is still old and formerly cancerous and suggestive that Palin still might not be Trigg's mama. They know Barack is as healthy as a horse (he shoots hoops with the troops) and, sad to say, nobody really cares about Biden, evidenced by his gaffe-a-minute roadshow to nowhere.

The American people deserve no less than a full medical history, governmental history, business history, college (and other schools) history, voting history, and a full vetting of all these candidates' primary friends and associations. So c'mon 60 Minutes and the Chicago Tribune--let's get busy before time runs out.

Wheat From Chaff

This is perhaps a waste of time and effort for what it's worth, but it's the big news story of the day, so here goes.

Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is perhaps the most absurd of the season so far. Much like the Chicago Tribune endorsement Friday, Powell went through a litany of reasons why he's backing Obama, none of which really make sense.

The left is in full celebration of the man they formerly blamed for not speaking enough truth to power. It's a faux cheer of course--they are really cheering the backstab. If Powell were the GOP nominee he would have received the Rice, Thomas treatment from these quacks long ago, regardless of any unity message.

Actually, Powell is bit like Obama as a speaker. He has a syrupy smooth and soothing speaking style that tends to lull the viewer, but beauty is truth. His allegations that the GOP is moving further right are laughable considering their nominee this year. And even if, what kind of conservative eschews his principles for a man who is arguably further left than George McGovern? A man who's looking primarily at race, status, and job opportunities perhaps?

For instance, he didn't talk much about Obama's lack of expertise in military affairs or how he might handle Iraq or fight terrorists, despite Obama's promises. He did fantasize about a future president Obama reaching out to "all towns, not just small towns" in bringing together America, a slap at Palin. Now, whether that includes plumbers or those clinging to church and guns wasn't covered, nor was Obama's wind-swept history of reaching across aisles.

The general then brushed off Obama's dabblings with a confessed traitor much better than Obama ever has, insinuating such past associations are silly and meaningless and perhaps even racist. This despite Obama forgetting to mention that he shared an office with Ayers in Chicago during his Annenberg Challenge period, something That One ™ completely ignored when asked during debates.

Too bad Brokaw didn't ask Powell whether such meaningless associations would disqualify Obama from getting a top secret security clearance if he were applying for a federal job (which also requires college transcripts). But he speaks so well!

As to Barack governing from the middle, it's certainly nice to envision such a thing (and we should all "hope" he does) but reality could be far different. If Barack rides into DC with a mandate and filibuster-proof Senate he'll have no reason to govern from anywhere but the left. And that's really what this "change" is all about.

The anecdote about the Muslim soldier who gave his life was seriously touching and wonderful, but he was using it as a political hammer. Bush was the one who coined the phrase "religion of peace" and McCain has never talked down people's faith like Obama has. McCain didn't deny sitting in a racist church whose pastor blamed guys like Powell for America's roosting chickens. In reality his allegations are a classic strawman -- that unnamed GOP leaders who are racist and xenophobic -- designed to topple over Mac's head at the last minute.

So the final nail has been nailed, the knife of revenge turned. The man who's been angling for it since Armitage dropped Plame's name to Novak has finally spoken, and spoken well. Shall we forget he once endorsed his friend Dick Cheney for VP or have his neocon warmongering ways now been forgiven? Perhaps we'll find out when the cabinet picks are announced.

MORE 10/20/08

It's hard to make this stuff up:

Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said today.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired today, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

Let's see, Colin Powell once believed Saddam was working with AQ. Colin Powell was in favor of taking out Saddam, a move Barack Obama believes was the "worst foreign policy mistake" we've ever made. I wonder, who's going to be advising whom?

Side Tracks

Had a southern rock theme in mind this week but just noticed my friend LA over at Poli-yy beat me to it. Check out his lineup of Capricorn artists from the 70s, one of which was the Marshall Tucker Band. Here's a live clip, one I think captures the tightness of this group (whom I saw live several times):



There's also a passing this week. Not everyone knew his name but they knew "The Four Tops". Levi Stubbs, the lead singer, passed away Friday. RIP.

The Chicago Curse

I blame the Cubs:

On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose. The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.

This is somewhat surprising and troubling since the Cubs have actually gone to the World Series sooner than the Tribune last endorsed a Democrat. Is McCain now cursed? Perhaps it's worth a bit of scrutiny.

Start with this, which suggests the endorsement wasn't all that "surprising":

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign.

Prophesy fulfilled. Moving ahead:

...as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

Which part of the 120+ "present" votes constitutes effective? Surely they aren't referring to gun control or babies born alive? And surely they know the exact living room or law firm from which that career began--we await confirmation. But "inspiring" U.S. Senatorial career? That's news to some.

It gets thicker and heavier, though:

Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.

Like bashing plumbers who dare question his dedication to the middle class then not apologizing for his supporters when they dragged him through the mud? Or like "Truth Squads" formed in Missouri containing elected officials threatening to crack down with the force of law on anyone employing politics as usual? Or bashing the sitting president while talking policy with foreign leaders behind his back? Or making irrational pledges to invade nuclear countries unilaterally if they don't acquiesce to our demands? Maybe the Trib needs to occasionally check the actual news wires every once in awhile (or maybe they only subscribe to AP and Reuters).

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008.

No great argument there, but how does it make sense to cure that problem with an even bigger spender?

He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

There they go with "angry". The press was so eager to paint McCain as angry that they've painted him as angry without him ever showing any signs of anger. Count me as one who figured he'd eventually blow his top but it hasn't happened. One can argue his reaction to the bailout bill was a strategic blunder, but I won't--had he returned to DC and screamed "no we can't" Congress would have followed; the bill would not have passed; the stock market would have dropped anyway and with no rescue package the meltdown would have been entirely his fault. He had no choice.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Biden, anyone? But there's a nifty turnaround on Palin. They say McCain made a mistake by removing his "not ready to lead" argument in picking the Sarahcuda, but picking her didn't change the fact Obama isn't ready to lead, it just took some of the luster off it, ie, if he's not, she's certainly not. Yet the Trib is endorsing Obama due to his superior leadership. Go figure.

BTW, perhaps they'd be kind enough to list all the qualified GOP women he passed over so we can discuss--personally I didn't see that made as much sense politically. He is trying to win--that's still OK in AmeriKKKa, right?

We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him.

General Petraeus or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.

Please do tell us more about his thoughts on education reform. Do they match Ayers's views? Does the answer have something to do with Obama being eight?

He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.

Bravo, we need more. But it wasn't a big news story, he didn't go that far out on a limb, and not much got done. If the Trib really wants reform perhaps they need a second look at the ditzy unqualified chick.

We're getting to the end now, where the final howlers lay:

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

And it would be nice if we could pin down all those aspirations before the clock runs out. As to "unprivileged", are they kidding? He attended private elementary schools, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law--at least we think he did based on the sketchy memories of the few who recall him then. Oh well, perhaps he'll release his transcripts soon along with all the instances where he was denied jobs or promotions due to his race. We await.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

Count me as one who was inspired by that speech as well. He's a good speaker (although McCain was funnier at the Alfred dinner last night). But the reality is he's spent a year driving a wedge between rich and poor, Republican and Democrat, black and white, elite and hick. His message of hope and change has withered under the hot lights of win or lose. All indications say he's lying about his past and lying about our future.

But again, maybe we should blame the Cubs. Or Chicago players of some kind.

What's He Up To?

Louis Farrakhan, that is:

Hundreds of religious leaders of different faiths have been invited to the event planned for Sunday, a rededication of the group's historic Mosque Maryam on the city's South Side. Farrakhan is scheduled to speak.

"We have restored Mosque Maryam completely, and we will dedicate it to the universal message of Islam, and the universal aspect of the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad," Farrakhan said in an invitation letter. "It represents for the Nation of Islam, a new beginning."

Obama is still stinging (only mildly, since nothing really stings him) from the Reverend's prophecy moment in February. Everyone knows such quasi-endorsements don't really help that One with the clinging masses, made clear by Reverend Jackson's recent remarks in Europe. Some say these two leaders are angling to maintain their relevance, or worse. Judge for yourself.

Exit note--the article mentioned a bit of past history about Farrakhan but left out the most colorful, for some reason:

Hysteria is in the Eye of the Beholder

Try if you will to make sense of this:

While a few of Alaska's large glaciers are advancing, 99 percent are retreating, the book, "Glaciers in Alaska," states. The book was written by USGS research geologist Bruce Molina.

In combination with this:

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

And finally...this:

Permafrost continues to warm, however the rate of warming in the 2000s is significantly slower than in the 1990s. There is a continued tendency for a decrease in the snow cover of the Northern Hemisphere in the months of April through October. Glaciers are shrinking in most of the world. The amount of river discharge to the Arctic Ocean is increasing.

Is it any wonder Palin said she's not sure global warming is 100 percent mad-made? Mere men can't even fully explain it.

Well, How Nice

The AP has already shown more curiosity about Joe the tax-dodging, McCain lovin', Keating related Plumber than they ever did with William the flag stompin', domestic terrorist America hatin' Ayers. The sun comes up, the sun goes down here on Main Street.

THEY MIGHT AS WELL JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY IT.. 10/16/08

Joe the Plumber is Hitler.

Debate Thread

The McCain death watch is on around cable TV and news outlets. But McCain's been down before. He was written off in Hanoi and written off last summer. So we'll see if a Gipper moment will ensue now that everyone has handed Barack the crown.

Opinions vary as to what he should do. My previous flippant suggestions notwithstanding, it seems his main attack should be to say:

1. He's not Bush
2. He will fight for the public against those who perpetrated the financial mess, including Democrats and Repubs in govt
3. Obama WILL raise taxes no matter what he claims--use the term 'voodoo economics' maybe.
4. Mention that associations do matter by showing what guys like Ayers have in store for education reform today, not when Obama was 8.
5. Point out that Barack has said he'd have "sunshine in government" but won't even release his own personal information.
6. Hammer his own experience level, a commodity sorely needed in a time of crisis, and remind folks he will have Democrats on his cabinet.

We'll see what happens.

LIVE BLOGGIN (for my own amusement)

0804 I'm already annoyed at Schieffer for some reason.

0805 McCain on fairness-- basically uses the Prodigal Son example to explain away any bitterness from those who played by the rules regards his 300 billion buy back. Fairly ineffective.

0808 Obama is getting vewy vewy wonkish, and McCain comes back with the plumber.

0810 Barack is explaining his class envy program of taxing the rich, going right for the evil oil companies to explain socking it to Joe the Plumber--who's apparently too rich now for Barack. McCain comes back with "spread the wealth", right jab. Class warfare, another quick jab. Tax increases, another slap. McCain is breaking through on this ..right now.

0814 Nobody likes taxes..then let's not raise them. McCain now mentions our high corporate tax rates...OUCH. Where was this vigor in the past two meetings? McCain won this first round.

0815 Schieffer brings up the cutback question, which Obama answers by going right after subsidies to evil corporations. Gee, he can't think of any excesses in the Fed Govt except a few corp subsidies? McCain is now dodging the question but Schieffer reels him in and forces him to answer, which is also subsidies to corps!

0820 Obama is once again defending his earmarks after just answering the question about what he'll cut. Apparently earmarks aren't part of his plan. McCain finally parachutes out of the Bush Blimp, saying "you should have run against him 4 years ago". Good.

0825 McCain is hammerin' Mac tonight. The Rope-a-Dope is currently against the ropes. Obama answers by saying he reaches across the aisle on all kinds of insignificant things that don't amount to voting on things, and yes, you are just like Bush, except you don't believe in torture like president Bush does! President Bush sure do love him the smell of some torture in the mornin', don't he?

0830 Schieffer reminds both of them of their former high road and with details, including Ayers (in an attempt to take them off the table for McCain). And he answers by blasting Obama with John Lewis and how he never repudiates any out of bounds remarks from his own folk--good reply. Then smacks him on public financing. Obama= Well look...the TV programs say McCain's ads are 100 percent negative! Then he goes on to call McCain McBush again.

Body language update.. Obama is a little timid being this close to McCain, I think. And he has more gray than a few months ago.

0833 Barack on Lewis--maybe he was right! Now, after using a tit-for-tat explanation, he says people are tired of tit-for-tat. Hey-- McCain almost used the Eric Stratton Animal House line I recommended ("I don't have to stand here while you tear down the USA") and Obama answers with something, not sure what. McCain then launched into ACORN and Ayers, calling him a washed-up terrorist. So here we go:

I was 8. He did something bad. I have condemned. 10 years ago we served on CAC funded practically by Reagan. Ayers has all kinds of GOP friends. He's not in the campaign.

ACORN-- their employees suck and I represented them only with motor voter (illegals?). He didn't mention coaching them.

McCain-- Woods Fund 30K to ACORN! Obama--not true I started my campaign in Ayers' living room. McCain is kicking some serious ass.

0840 Joe Biden one of the finest public servants? No wonder we're in this mess. And Obama just dropped a G, which is what Tina Fey mocks about Palin. Then he hinted the dead president issue, which really only applies to the old man, even though Biden is old, has plugs and uses Botox.

McCain--plugs Sarah's energy and reform prodigy by saying we need a breath of fresh air, which is a slap at Biden. Then Mac goes for the female vote by mentioning special needs and autism. But is she qualified? Barack--let the voters decide (good answer) and reminds Mac research on autism requires funding (another good reply).

Now Mac takes on his old friend Joe by taking out the foreign policy scalpel on his federalism plan and First Gulf War mistake, then goes right back to earmarks, stopped by Schieffer.

0845 Climate Change time. It was announced today the glaciers increased in Alaska this past year, btw. Mac then pastes Obama on NAFTA. But as to Nook plants, aren't we just creating more terrorism targets? I'd rather see more drilling, solar and wind, personally. But McCain said nothing about global warming.

Obama--10 year time frame for reducing foreign dependence. OK, and he wants to expand domestic production, which allows him to bash the oil companies again. He really knows the populist buttons to push, like with NAFTA. McCain then blasts Obama's flowery words by saying drill here, drill now.

0855 McCain reminds us Obama has never been south of the border, so he can't be well versed on Columbia or Mehico (but he's been to Pakistan and Africa!). That's effective. Obama then reminds us that Detroit isn't making fuel efficient cars (he's right). McCain then smacks back by comparing Obama's reluctance to keep NAFTA with his willingness to sit down with Hugo Chavez. Another body blow. I think Obama is somewhat bloodied and on the ropes still.

0900 Health care--Obama can make a big comeback here. His analogy of the federal health program is fine and most people will feel jealous, which is the point. But Fed workers are limited in their plans to about 3 viable programs, and I understand the co-pays and premiums are pretty high. McCain goes back to Joe the Plumber and says Obama will fine him! Obama says no he won't -- he'll fine the EVIL CORPORATIONS! McCain congratulates Joe for being rich (this is good) and says Obama certainly WILL fine him because he's not a small business anymore. I suspect we'll need some fact checking here.

As to McCain's plan, I don't fully understand. He needs to do better getting this across. Then he said "Senator Government". Well, that's more descriptive than "Barack America" I guess.

0910 Abortion. Here we go. McCain--no litmus test, he's a federalist. Good answer. McCain mentions the "Gang of 14" and reminds Barack he did not, but messes up by saying Barack didn't vote for Justice Breyer (oops). Obama--no litmus test, BUT...(typical Obama) and hey, he's not a federalist. McCain--we must change the culture of America then whips right into the born alive deal, which Obama says sounds incredible because it's not true. And hey, Republicans voted with me, and we need Planned Parenthood and sex ed for kindergarteners (OK, I added that last one). McCain, who looks more like the adult here, reminds everyone he has compassion.

0920 Education. Obama--more money and reform. But what kind of reform, Obama? The Annenberg Challenge shunned math and science skills. Will McCain bring this back up? In the meantime, he's talking about Charter Schools and mentions that Barack sends his kids to private schools. He's also talking with more passion than Obama, and has been all night. And looking him squarely in the eye.

Obama is now talking about local control of schools and making some good points about unfunded mandates. But now he's talking about focusing on early childhood education, which is one of Ayers' pet project (small schools?). Scary stuff. Now McCain reminds Obama about Washington, DC voucher program and how Obama's kids are in private schools.

McCain is talking about transparency--too bad he doesn't mention this in context with Barack's refusal to issue his Columbia grades to the public.

Obama finished up by reminding us there are not enough vouchers, and McCain had a kind of awkward ending.

Final Statements- McCain said "my friends" for the first time. Wow. Nice message discipline, such as his hitting of the spending button, about 10 times tonight. He bumbled the speech, though.

Obama- the new great depression is here. McCain is Bush. I have the change we need.
Other than the great depression, our brighter days are ahead. And we have to spend spend spend more more more.

McCain shakes Obama's hand in victory, I believe.

FINAL 10/15/08

Fox News is outright giving Obama the presidency now. Curious. I think they are reading the tea leaves and are angling for future access. The Luntz focus group was ridiculous. "How many of you had a candidate before coming in?" None. "How many changed your vote?" Four. How do you change from nobody?

Oh well. Get ready for the Democrats, I guess. If Fox has given up, it's over.

F the Director

Rick Moran wrote a promissory note to the American right yesterday vowing to support a president Obama even if he disagreed. That's noble and necessary for maintaining our system.

But this, my friends, is compete and utter BS:



Currently showing at Talk Left. It's off the wall outrageous and disrespectful to a sitting president but certainly par for the leftist course over the past eight years. The pathetic mainstream press couldn't care less, yet let somebody make even the slightest disrespectful crack against a certain presidential candidate, and they all pull a hammy trying to beat each other to press with the story about conservative racism. Welcome to change.

Advice for McCain

He can repeat his performance in the last debate and lose by 5 touchdowns and a safety.

Or, he could preface every answer with a jab about every one of the taboo subjects he's so far taken off the table, such as Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Rezko, Mansour, Dohrn, Farrakhan, Jackson, ACORN figures, Auchi, Johnson, Raines, etc. Let's give it a try:

Schieffer: I'll direct this to Senator McCain. What projects or promises would you cut in light of the current economic crisis and bailout?

McCain: Well, my friends, I certainly wouldn't cut aid to Israel like some of Mr. Obama's conspiratorial friends seem to think he will, but I digress. No Bob, my distinguished colleague across the stage has said he'd pay for his massive increase in spending via "windfall profits" taxes on the evil oil companies (which by the way he seems to think are worse than terrorists in Iraq).

So what happens if oil drops to 50 dollars a barrel and there are no windfall profits? No my friends, we need to cut waste in government first, then cut more waste. Sarah and I will cut lots of pork, matter of fact we're going to start a new program. You've heard of casual Fridays, we're going to start calling it "cutting pork Fridays".


Schieffer: Senator McCain, doesn't your health care plan cause a massive tax increase for Americans who get their health care through their employers despite your 5000 dollar tax credit?

McCain: Bob, that's what guys like Khalid al-Mansour, noted anti-semite and lawyer for one of the biggest Saudi princes, and one of Obama's sponsors for his Harvard education would like you to think. One of the main problems with health care is people not taking care of themselves, like doing drugs, something Mr. Obama has said he did around the time he left Occidental and transferred to Columbia University in New York, where nobody seems to remember him except the Pakistani druggies mentioned in his book.

But the short answer is of course not. And it will be a boon for all those folks on Main Street who are paying for their medical costs out of pocket and not subsidized by some greedy corporation or bloated government. But my plan WILL cover human beings born alive after botched abortions, treating them with the same respect my colleague would extend to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Schieffer: How about that, Senator McCain? Didn't your push for deregulation lead America down the prim-rose path to our current financial crisis?

McCain: Well Bob, guys like Tony Rezko don't have to worry about mortgages after getting millions from millionaire power brokers like Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi, who my friend Mr. Obama used to hang out with in Chicago political circles. And not everybody on Main Street has enough connections to get a sweetheart loan from Countrywide like former Obama VP search chairman Jim Johnson did, or get bonuses by cooking the books at Fannie Mae like Franklin Delano Raines, a man who was doing the same thing Enron execs are now serving prison time for and who said the Obama campaign had asked for his advice on financial matters.

But the short answer is no, my friends. I tried in vain to regulate those who were hell-bent on destroying America's financial system through sub-prime loans and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd fought me every step of the way. And contrary to what he'd have you believe, my opponent's solution to stop the bleeding at Fannie/Freddie was to write a letter. Get that? He wrote a letter. I, however, put my nuts on the line and reached across the aisle to co-sponsor legislation--you know, what we're paid to do--with Chuck Hagel

Schieffer--Senator, Chuck Hagel is in your party..

McCain--sorry, I sometimes forget.


Schieffer: Senator, isn't it time to begin pulling our troops out of Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan like Senator Obama is advising?

McCain: My esteemed colleague believed in 2002 that we should have let Saddam and his murdering sons remain in power indefinitely or until swept into the dustbin of history by some magical force, even though a war, repeated bombings and a coup had not previously worked. My esteemed colleague wanted to leave this man, who was funding the families of terrorist suicide bombers in Israel and harboring one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, right in the heart of the Middle Eastern terrorist swamp after the horror of 9/11 and just hope everything worked out. That's not the hope we need. But hey, his close advisers like Reverend Wright, Reverend Pfleger, Reverend Farrakhan and Reverend Jackson were all against taking actions against the dictator as were most of his elite liberal college professor friends in the neighborhood, including a couple who built a few bombs themselves back in the day and still thinks they didn't do enough.

But the answer is no Bob--we are Americans and we don't give up with our tails between our legs and run from freedom and liberty. We don't waste billions so liberal commentators can forever harp on a trillion dollar mistake and wise acre filmmakers can make cheesy unpatriotic films about it while a president is still in office, when those very same people never uttered a peep during the bombing campaign of the previous president of that same country.

No my friends, we will win in Iraq and make it a better place. We will win in Afghanistan or die trying. And we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Liberty! Or Death! Fight! Fight! Fight! (begin humming the Star Spangled Banner, grab his supporters and march off the stage and out of the arena.



Never know, it might work.

Actually, of course it won't. McCain has allowed himself to be boxed into a corner by the press and the Obama campaign to where if he stays respectful the media claims he's trying to stop his angry mob from a lynching and if he goes negative, the reverse. Obama can rope-a-dope tonight's event like the last one and win big by just remaining calm, cool and collected, even if he says absolutely nothing.

McCain could try to reach down and pull out the essence of America and communicate it to the audience tonight but it will probably come across as racist and old-fashioned. He could point out that a full-scale Democrat government does not represent America's traditional values but they will say "anything is better than Bush, and you supported Bush".

That said he simply may have no chioce left but to hammer his pro-life, traditional stance, mentioning the botched abortion infanticide issue and Obama's black radical associations with the hope Obama will come out of his shell and show his rear, if even just a little bit. That would give him leverage to ask whether America needs a young whippersnapper leading the country in a time of war and financial crisis. Sad and desperate perhaps, but it's about the only card McCain has left to play.

MORE 10/15/08

Since Obama constantly plays the class envy card in explaining his tax policies perhaps McCain could bring up the NBA as an example of the evil, unpatriotic rich that Obama wants to punish for exercising their American dream.

Jesse Jackson Defines Change

With friends like these... Jesse Jackson bobbed back to the surface today in an interview with the well-renowned Amir Taheri, saying:

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Ouch. All that work to make himself a friend of Israel down the drain. But shall we believe it? Remember, the last we heard from Jesse:



Friend or foe, do we know? (the rhyming is weak, but I'm just an uncool peep).

The October Pop Gun

HuffPo readers are having a collective sexual experience about Murray Waas' new "October surprise" article about McCain's transition director, William Timmons's past associations with Saddam Hussein.

Er, not actually with Saddam, but with Tongsun Park and Samir Vincent, who were recently convicted of being unregistered agents for the ex big chopper. To this point McCain has only been associated with Timmons and not the other two, but as this illustrates, associations do matter!

Perhaps we should welcome this foray back into Oil For Food three weeks before the election since it provides an opportunity to point out a few things. For instance, had Bush used Obama's superior 2002 judgment about Iraq we'd probably still be in the midst of trying to unravel that failed international mess and Iraqi kids would still be starving. Will this point be made effectively by McCain, or at all? Might as well ask whether pigs will fly, or Republicans will nationalize the banks. Uh, scratch that last one.

Anyway, Claudia Rossett mentioned Timmons and his connections in 2006 and it was also mentioned here, but there was no mention of John McCain anywhere. It appears Timmons gave up this fight in the mid 90s, right around the time Obama was latte-sipping with former domestic terrorists as he kicked off his political career.

One might think the left would be applauding the fact that Timmons was trying to use diplomacy instead of bombs, meaning he's not a neocon, but such perception won't be gleaned here. It's designed to flow the other way.

But of course, now that one degree separations are in play maybe we can all study Tony Rezko's friend Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi and his purported ties to Oil For Food. Can anyone think of any reason for opposing the toppling of Saddam Hussein with all that bribe cash flowing through pipes?

Nobama 08 Blogburst

OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD

The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week we will address that issue; and we’ll do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?
We don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.

With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what we found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.

In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”

Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.

He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.

Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”

Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.

Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.

To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?

To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.

(click chart for larger image)



Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.

None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.

Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.

also see..

Always on Watch / And Rightly So / Big Girl Pants / Confessions of a Closet Republican / Farmer’s Letters / GeeeeeZ / Has Everyone Gone Nuts? / Papa Frank / Paleocon Command Center / Pondering Penguin / Social Sense / The Amboy Times / The Crank Files / The Jungle Hut / The Logic Lifeline / The Merry Widow / Political Yen Yang

Crushing McCain

The story hit last night and the immediate reaction was "oh no". McCain was quoted as proclaiming he was going to "kick Obama's butt" in the last debate. Ack. Dangerous overcockiness in the face of a new 10 point deficit. He's losing it.

But here's the exact quote in context, which came in a meeting of his supporters at McCain campaign HQ Sunday:

"We're going to spend a lot of time and after I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we're going to be going out 24/7," McCain said.

Remember, McCain has been criticized for taking weekends off so this was obviously not a public rally. Still, some outlets decided it was too good to pass:

Fox News: McCain on Obama: I'll Whip His...

ABC News: Obama Gains 10pt Lead; McCain/Palin Tone Down Attack Rhetoric

Obviously, ABC News was making hay of it's own poll with a sidebar about toning down rhetoric, code talk for stirring his supporters into a homicidal frenzy but in reality an absurd canard.

Two other outlets didn't focus on the butt whipping remark but were totally ignoring weekend Gallup, Zogby and Rassmussen polls to headline an older poll...

CBS News: Obama Up Ten Points in New Poll

MSNBC: McCain Losing Grip on West Virginia?

We must give props to both the New York Times and Washington Post for not using the comment in a blatant fashion, although the WaPo had plenty of damage with their poll while the Times was busy rubbing Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize in everyones face.

But once again the worst offender of all was CNN. Here's their front page around 9:30am CDT:


When clicking on the 'Ticker: I'll Crush Obama in the Debate, says McCain' headline the following story appears as seen below. Using Firefox's handy Control-F tool there is no mention of the word "crush" anywhere to be found. That's because McCain never said it:



So there you have it. McCain, like the old soldier he is, tries to rally his troops and project confidence in order to encourage them to fight on despite flagging odds and instead he ends up with an embarrassing headline at the worst possible time.

Yes, he's a terrible politician and should have known better. He really believed the media liked him, and for that he's a fool. But he can still take this around the media and directly to the people and win this thing by reminding everyone America is on the verge of electing a hack Chicago machine politician with socialist leanings and very little experience in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars. Indeed, there's still time left to kick some butt. But he better hurry.

Tuesday's News, Today!

Headline from WaPo for Monday's edition:

Obama Up by 10 Points as McCain Favorability Ratings Fall

Explanation of poll (emphasis added):

..according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll... The poll was conducted after Tuesday night's debate,

Headline on Drudge Report Sunday night:

GALLUP DAILY: Obama-McCain Gap Narrows...ZOGBY MONDAY: OBAMA 48%, MCCAIN 44%... DEVELOPING...RASMUSSEN MONDAY: OBAMA 50%, MCCAIN 45%... DEVELOPING...

Are we to assume a poll taken Tuesday night and advertised as "new" the following Monday is more accurate than fresh polls taken over the weekend? If not, then shall we assume the WaPo headlined this old poll knowing that fresh polls were showing a general tightening in an effort to take the wind out of those sails? Just asking.

Fact Checking McCain on Ayers

FactCheck.org has weighed in on the Ayers thing and many on the right will see it as a big hulking apologia. Like this, for instance:

Even the description of Ayers as a "terrorist" is a matter of interpretation.

Perhaps some in academia may consider Mr. Ayers nothing more than a vandal since he didn't kill anyone personally even though his group did. Gee, maybe we should think of him as a Disney-like character from the Apple Dumpling Gang who rehabilitated himself into Fred MacMurray's Nutty Professor. That seems to be where this is heading next.

The article covered Hillary's similar Ayers rebuke during the Stephanopolous debate but they chose to parse a bit, leaving only this:

Sen. Hillary Clinton then said, "I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation," and predicted that "this is an issue that certainly Republicans will be raising."

She said a bit more:

If I'm not mistaken that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American because they were published on 9/11 and he said, that he was just sorry they didn't do more. And what they did was set bombs, and in some cases people died. So it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about...

Only the crux of her comments, and Fact Check didn't bother to mention them. But OK, they say their point was to bust McCain/Palin for misleading folks about Obama "palling around" with terrorists, and technically they're correct--Ayers is a former terrorist (or perhaps an off-duty terrorist--he's still unrepentant).

What team McCain should have said was "Obama was palling around with a failed terrorist who's still a socialist bent on reforming our schools and who admires the educational reforms done by Hugo Chavez, and who once stomped on an American flag for a magazine article, all of which was never enough to deter Obama from working with him". A little long for a sound bite, but facts are stubborn things.

Trivia side note, is one of the writers, Viveca Novak, the same Viveca Novak involved in the Scooter Libby trial?

Side Tracks

With all this talk about "streets", Main and Wall, I'm reminded of this one:



Nice montage of some great guitarists, too.

Curveball Finale

CNN actually found their way to interview the notorious Curveball in a secret location in Germany. In a nutshell--he's kinda weird, but he claims he didn't tell the BND about WMDs. At the same time, he thinks Saddam was making WMDs. And he thanks the USA for taking out Saddam and would like to return to Iraq one day. Believe or don't.

The interview took three hours but CNN's reporter didn't answer any of these questions, so there's still some mystery. But there was a proverbial historical boilerplate Bush-bashing section:

No biological weapons, no germ labs, no weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq after the invasion.

Except those 500-odd Sarin and Mustard shells. As we all know, they don't officially count. Interestingly, Curveball claims he alone wasn't responsible for the intelligence (says there were others besides himself), which seems askew to this account from former weapons inspector David Kay, who is still blaming the Germans.

Oh well, this will surely be cleared up once and for all in Oliver Stone's delightful new biography of sitting president W Bush. Or maybe on the Daily Show.

Global Poverty Airbrush?

Dan Reihl commented earlier that a website linking Obama to ACORN removed a key link on their page:

Absolutely incredible. Of all the items at this site - the hyper-links to the one below no longer exist. And in that article is proof that Obama is lying on his Fight the Smears website as of today.

Maybe coincidental or maybe just a glitch, but a PDF file linked here in an earlier post detailing Obama's "global poverty" plan now displays the following message:



No redirect so it would appear either the server is unavailable or they air brushed it into the bit bucket. Hmm. Wonder if it has anything to do with Obama's pending Senate Bill:

A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

This was flagged by Tennessee blogger Bear Creek Ledger earlier this year (notice the reference to Joe Biden). An interesting cross-cut, if nothing else. Perhaps with global markets in panic the idea of a massive redistribution of cash to the 3rd World was a potatoe of untouchable temperature right now.

Voting Rights, Democrat Style

Houston, we have a problem:

"As far back as I can remember, they've always voted in the election," Guidry said of her parents.

The March 2008 Primary was no exception. Voting records show Alexis' mom, Gloria Guidry, cast her ballot in person near her South Houston home. "It was just very shocking, a little unsettling," said Alexis Guidry. It's unsettling because Gloria Guidry died of cancer 10 months before the March Primary.

That's real world. Here's an example of what the Democrat Party Platform says about voting:



From page 56 in the voting rights section. To wit:

"we oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote, which create discriminatory barriers to vote and disenfranchise eligible voters; and we oppose tactics which purge eligible voters from the voter rolls".

Just think about the fraud potential. Felons, illegal aliens, foreigners (oops, repeating there), dead people. Barack needs to be grilled about this soon. He's the captain of their team.

HT Disgruntled Republican

Obama Dons the Teflon

Michelle says:

"I don't know anyone in Chicago who is heavily involved in education policy who doesn't know Bill Ayers,"

Meanwhile, hubby was talking to conservative radio host Michael Smercomish, reminding people he was probably watching Quick Draw McGraw on TV (if they had it in Indonesia) when Billy Ayers was rampaging:

"Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated," Obama said.

Back to the three choices--Obama has chosen "idiot". Probably the best choice, since it'll likely be impossible to prove whether he or Michelle knew about Ayers' Weather Underground background before 1995 even though Ayers and Dohrn were probably legendary in liberal education circles for their past heroics. Otherwise, who would ever talk to them?

We're fast approaching a point of diminishing returns. Even if someone comes out of the woodwork to confirm his knowledge or previous connections to Ayers in the 80s it's anecdotal and easily smearable. Neither Smercomish nor Gibson bothered to ask Barack why he continued to work closely with such a person after having finally learned about his past, but no need--he was rehabilitated! And the Chicago Magazine cover of Ayers stomping the flag? He probably missed that issue, along with church that week.

Face it conservatives--it's over. The big media has now weighed in and they are taking Obama's lie word for it. They'll soon hammer McCain for cruelly piling on if he continues to mention it. After all, associations don't say anything about a man...unless they're with George W. Bush.

MORE 10/09/08

The AP is seemingly trying to explain why McCain is off his rocker for caring about Obama's harmless relationship with a rehabilitated domestic terrorist who set bombs 40 years ago:

Obama has denounced Ayers and his violent actions and views. He dismisses McCain's criticism as an effort to "score cheap political points."

McCain needs to understand that while he may legitimately question Obama's candor on this matter Barack's powerful media friends have no problem distorting the issue or even outright lying to protect him. Obama has never fully "denounced Ayers", he has denounced what Ayers did when he was eight.

He has also never denounced Ayers' "views", ie, his views on education reform NOW (not when he was eight), which is at the heart of the matter. Ayers (and Dohrn) saw something in Obama--enough to give him the Annenberg chairman slot with no previous experience in education, and enough to bless his political career from their living room. Most people know the old saying "birds of a feather, flock together". Until proven otherwise, it seems to fly here.

Challenges

Democrats are starting to count their chickens while Rome burns. Here's Paul Maslin, a Democrat strategist, in the Politico:

“Barring a terrorist attack,” said Maslin, “in the face of what’s happened to the United States economy, the world economy, in the last two weeks, how does this trend reverse itself?”

Aside from the obvious insinuation that Barack isn't strong on terrorism, why would a terrorist attack matter now? The economy would thoroughly crater leaving more Americans desirous of a savior leader who could stop the bleeding, especially if al Qaeda chose the right targets and worded their responsibility statement towards forcing us out of the Middle East.

The tourniquet would be a withdrawal on all fronts. The splint would be an across the board sacrifice for the cause of freedom without surrender. Based on our recent willingness to let the government apply a tourniquet to the financial markets, which is more likely? Do we collectively have the will and guts to stop barbaric 7th century head-choppers from claiming world-wide victory over free democratic institutions?

Neither McCain nor Obama can stop this financial runaway train but either could certainly turn a pending derailment into a general pile-up. The reality of today's stock market drop is that we are we are in this together. The final debate should be a showcase of leadership as to who's best equipped to lead us through this approaching dark valley, with an ear to the Almighty. It's about that simple.

Acorn on Obama's Plane?

According to John McCain all this voter fraud stuff

"doesn't pass the smell test".

According to CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds Obama's plane

smells terrible.

They better do a nut check.

Speaking of silly, while we await the inevitable charges of racism against Mr. Reynolds (and by extension, John McCain again), the local paper just reported that voter registration is way up here in left Tennessee--to levels not seen since Mayor Willie Herenton ran against Dick Hackett in 1992. Said a registration volunteer:

"We are looking at the map and trying to target parts of the city that are Obama-friendly and they happen to coincide with areas where voter registrations are not high," said Hayes, who works as a fundraiser for Soulsville. "I work near the intersection of McLemore and Bellevue and that is hugely productive. I could just about have someone out 24/7 and get voters registered."

What about ACORN here locally? Not much going on according to the news section of their website, which is weird considering we're a month away from election. They do have a national website that helps to explain their role in the recent credit meltdown. And this was found in the cache from an old newsletter circa 2005 regards utility shutoffs:

After a series of community meetings with Memphis Lights, Gas & Water, Memphis ACORN is moving closer to an agreement with the CEO to extend moratoriums on shut-offs.

It's not clear whether that had anything to do with the ouster of the CEO, Joseph Lee, several years later for favoritism in a shutoff plan. But that, my friends, (channeling McCain) is the problem with some of these noble community activist projects that promote extending leniency to folks who can't play by the rules. When coupled with human greed and politicians the outcome is quite often widespread fraud, with the tab being picked up by those who do play by the rules. It always comes down to money--who has it, who wants it, who gets it.

At least all this recent talk about "fairness" has made the presidential choices clearer than before. America is on the verge of essentially electing the president of ACORN as the POTUS, figuratively speaking, and he will be the final arbiter of what's fair. And that's fine as long as voters understand it going into the booth, even if we end up with a quasi-socialist president. Do they?

Not Just Ayers

Steve Diamond is now the expert source on the web for all things Ayers and Annenberg, but one of his earlier posts mentions a man named Carl Davidson. Who is he?

Well, he's the man who allegedly arranged the anti-war rally that Obama made his famous 2002 anti-war speech that propelled him to victory over Hillary, and might propel him to the White House.

Since that speech is the crux of Obama's "superior judgment" argument I'd like to diverge on some points therein for context, back when he wasn't on the national stage:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

Populist class envy 101. He sets up the strawman--Karl Rove--to be responsible for corporate scandals and host of other ills, which is designed to divide people amongst the rich and poor, not bring people together.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

This is the section that looks the best in hindsight, as long as one considers it factual that Saddam was indeed no threat to anyone, including his neighbors. That has not been determined and will not until all the available documents and information are analyzed, for instance, the extent of Saddam's exact relationship with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups not officially labeled "al Qaeda", who represent the only terrorists we have the moral authority to chase--a dangerous myopia illustrating a lack of judgment as to the nature of world threats.

You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

So it's OK for Saddam to do all that but not OK for the Saudi Royals or Mubarak, neither of whom had expressed public ill-intent for America, attacked their neighbors, funded families of suicide bombers or tried to murder a former president?

But aside from sounding like one of bin Laden's screeds his comments suggest a tendency towards seeing true evil in the struggles between rich and poor championed by socialists rather than an understanding that Mohammed Atta and several of his hijacker friends came from well-to-do families. Such a view totally ignores the philosophy of radical jihadism or the fact Saddam was exploiting that for his own purposes.

Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

As he made clear in the debate, his energy policy is more focused on stopping the use of energy than getting more energy. In other words, 'our fault'. Again, look who he demonized--American oil companies. He spares no venom for corporations yet seems willing to give our enemies the benefit of the doubt, leaving a person to wonder whom he thinks is the true enemy.

As to Davidson, he had an opinion about how America should proceed forward on Iraq in 2006, expressed on his own blog:

But how can an unjust war be ended?

Apart from what happens in Iraq and the stubbornness of the White House, it requires three things:

-- First the antiwar insurgency has to expand, with majority support, until the streets are ungovernable.

-- Second, the antiwar views among soldiers and their families have to intensify to the point that young people refuse to join and soldiers refuse to fight.

-- Third, the antiwar bloc in Congress, which will grow in response to the growth of the first two, has to become a majority that will vote to cut off funds for the war, impeach the president, or both.

Until the "streets are ungovernable", ie, civil unrest. Seems in line with his history but is it in line with Obama? On opposing the surge, most definitely.

Backers like Davidson and Ayers and others, including Bernadine Dohrn, arguably even more radical than her husband and someone Obama probably first met when he began work at Sidley Austin in the late 80s, continue to maintain their independence.

That leaves open the possibility that Obama is simply a climber--someone who'll give lip service to the people he needs to impress at the moment only to later change his mind. Maybe. Or maybe they are running interference in hopes the clock will run out before they're fully exposed. They would call it wing nut paranoia, surely.

But this is the presidency we're discussing. The only reason to investigate his associations is to gauge what's really important to the man. Assuming he's not a sociopath--and I don't think he is--without an extensive public record we have no other way to judge him other than the company he's kept. Barack should approve, after all he recently said "sunshine is the best disinfectant" when it comes to government. Shouldn't that also the person running the government? Why hide things from the people?

McCain Home Loan

His plan shocked everyone tonight but Carly Fiorina was on Greta and said he'd mentioned it before at Carnegie Mellon University, and she was right:



This was April 15, 2008, so let it be said McCain was thinking about this issue before tonight, although it's not clear here how he would pull it off. Hopefully we'll see a detailed plan soon.

One point of hypocrisy--McCain bashed Obama for having a government solution to every problem, yet he seems to have a government solution to every problem, too. The difference is McCain has a record to no earmarks and voting against most wasteful spending and Obama does not.

MORE 10/08/08

More on McCain Home Loan:



That's the problem with such stuff.

MORE 10/08/08

Here's the plan, called the "American Homeownership Resurgence Plan" (McCain Resurgence Plan).

The new mortgage would be an FHA-guaranteed fixed-rate mortgage at terms manageable for the homeowner. The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of “negative equity” in some homes. Funds provided by Congress in recent financial market stabilization bill can be used for this purpose; indeed by stabilizing mortgages it will likely be possible to avoid some purposes previously assumed needed in that bill.

The plan could be implemented quickly as a result of the authorities provided in the stabilization bill, the recent housing bill, and the U.S. government's conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit.

Sounds like an avalanche of bureaucratic red tape and a mountain of potential fraud not to mention an inequality generator, but it'll play a little better to the Main Street crowd than a bailout of Wall Street fat cats. I give it as much chance of occurring as Obama's tax cut. Both are probably designed for the same purpose.

Snooze and Lose

McCain lost.

Not on points, or positions, or plans. He lost by the fact that Town Halls are Mac's forte and he didn't hit a home run. He stumbled over his words, got too close to the audience, and kept saying the same buzz words. And he proposed nationalizing mortgage loans, or that's the way it came off.

It's sad, because Obama clearly does not shine in this format compared to a more rigid speech-focused format. He had several strange replies and was once again hammered on his record, and his willingness to lose Iraq, all cloaked in his typical wonkish law speak. He was rattled a few times as well. Didn't matter.

Calling Dr. Daniels, Doctor Jack Daniels.

Getting to the Point with Ayers

We'll see how effective McCain's negativity towards Ayers and Rezko works tonight. One might say it didn't do too much for Hillary, but she won a lot of races in the final stretch, so the jury is out. Naturally the Obama campaign is still defending itself using the "Obama was only 8 when Ayers was doing his stuff" routine, purposely missing the point but deemed by conservatives as a closed case until today, when a major media figure attempted to challenge it. Mark Halperin's exchange followed a report on CNN this morning.

They really had no choice. McCain is set to go on national TV and let the Ayers cat out of bag, leaving little ignorance in the electorate about the story but leaving the mainstreamers buck naked as to their past coverage.

Anyway, the central question has nothing to do with Obama's 8th birthday but rather why he didn't say "heck no" to working with the former terrorist back when they first met, whenever that occurred (and we don't know for sure). There seem to be three possibilities, none of them good for Obama. One, he agreed with Ayers and shared his visions of reform. Two, he didn't know Ayers was one of the Weathermen (a dodge attempted yesterday by Axelrod) but had no problem working with him anyway once he did know. Or three, he shamelessly used Ayers to get where he is now.

Ayers' Curriculum Vitae is online. He appears to be a garden variety liberal college professor except for that little unrepentant background thing. From his CV one can search around and find some of his writings. Here's a sample taken from Rethinking Schools.org. He begins with an analogy about the value of facts in the classroom using Charles Dickens, then launches into personal theory, such as this anecdote:

There's much in the school, of course, that you can't immediately get right — although you can get together with colleagues, kids, and parents to figure out effective ways to work for some hopeful change. There's also much that you can resist, and always much more that you can control if you pay close enough attention. One of my happiest acts of resistance occurred when I was teaching in New York City: The intercom had interrupted my class countless times on that first morning, and so when the kids were at lunch, I cut the wires, and then dutifully reported to the office a non-working PA. It took them five years to get around to repairing it.

Once a revolutionary, always a revolutionary. He ends with some advice:

Humanistic teachers need to develop an entirely different rhythm, sometimes in the cracks and crevices of the classrooms we are given. We begin with a many-eyed approach: an eye on your students and an eye on yourself, an eye on the environment for learning and an eye on the contexts within which your work is embedded. You need an eye on reality and another on possibility.

The word humanistic stands out for obvious reasons, but more importantly Ayers seems to be espousing the potential for societal reform through the classroom as opposed to just stuffing our kids' heads with "facts". It's quite subtle and many might agree, but it entirely depends on the content being passed. For instance, stuff like the 10 Commandments or various manifestos. We need to be assured by Obama that while school reform can be positive he's not pushing Ayers' version of school reform as part of the change we need.

Seriously Nobama08 Blogburst

We cannot oppose Barack Obama without also opposing the party he represents, along with Republicans who enable socialist engineering. Barack Obama is not the only socialist who seeks elective office in November.

Why do we oppose Barack Obama? As comedian Jackie Mason recently reminded us, Barack Obama is popular because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the way he presents himself – but remember that’s his field of expertise. His primary accomplishments include looking good, lying with a straight face, and associating himself with powerful radical activists. When you think about it, he is exactly who un-American liberals want living in the White House.Last week, we argued that Barack Obama is an empty suit. This week, we should admit the suit isn’t completely empty … there are dangerous, anti-American forces at work within the Obama election infrastructure.

It is difficult to fathom the arrogance of someone who, after only 143 days in the U. S. Senate, announces he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency. And what is it exactly that causes this egotism? It may be that Barack Obama has cleverly orchestrated a sophisticated behind-the-scenes mechanism designed to create conditions favorable to his election. It is a cooperative of followers of (anarchist) Saul Alinsky, busily implementing the so-called “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.” According to The Nation magazine (1966), “The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."

American Thinker illustrates the workings of this scheme in the following graph; one that demonstrates a well-funded program centered around George Soros’ Open Society Institute, managed by former SDS member Aryeh Neler, and facilitated by the now infamous Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) (Note: Associations … plural). With 28 days to the National Elections, we do seem suddenly plagued with one financial catastrophe after another. Government bureaucracy is definitely overloaded, and society is being pushed into a sense of crisis. Fact, or fiction … the reader can decide for him or her self. But if it is only partially true, the implications present us with unsettling possibilities.



We are used to political organizations, such as the Democratic and Republican Party; but no one outside the radical left can be comfortable with an organization such as this. And if Barack Obama’s ego causes him to believe that he is brighter than most, and that he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency … he could be correct – no one so far has been smart enough to figure out what is happening behind the scenes. Few mainstream journalists have seriously evaluated Obama’s connection to the anti-American, radical left; not the so-called conservative press, not the Republican Party, and none of the self-styled America-first organizations.

Barack Obama is dangerous for other reasons, too. On the one hand, it is possible to dismiss the junior senator as one of those people with advance degrees, lacking common sense. We can say that he is able to quote Marxist and anarchist rhetoric, but lacks a concomitant real world understanding of the implications of such radical ideas. But there is yet another possibility: Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He knows precisely where he wants to take this country. And no one who understands this man’s motivations can feel comfortable with that perspective.

Barack Obama’s radicalism, thinly disguised by his subtle move to the political center-left, clearly repudiates everything America stands for. Conservative Americans may find themselves baffled by a man who professes love for the United States, but who then seeks to institute radical Marxist changes in government, in our courts, and within society … but not if we are watching and listening carefully to the Obama rhetoric. If we have not already dismissed common sense concern for his radicalism, if we have not already accepted Obama’s mild protestations of innocence, then we can recall the words of Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit (“g-damn America”) and we can say, “There is the real Barack Obama.” If we can focus on the obvious, we can draw a direct line between Jeremiah Wright’s church and the Black Racist ideology of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan – both of whom engage in the radicalization of the black community, then we know the real man behind the deceptively “empty suit.” The underlying, important question is, “Are Americans Paying Attention?”

By pursuing his radical, anti-American agenda, Barack Obama repudiates everything America stands for … and his rejection of our traditional values extends well beyond the sophomoric debate between capitalists and socialists, even if not altogether irrelevant. The United States is a great nation today because of our traditional values. Our forefathers rejected big government, and they were able to raise their families without having to rely on the mistaken notion that “Only a village can raise a child.” They avoided personal indebtedness, preferring to live within their means, and they denounced the idea that government is entitled to their hard-earned income. In the past, we celebrated entrepreneurial spirit; today we demean it. Today, encouraged by the poison of materialism and socialist entitlement programs, America is a nation of debtors; ever the opportunist, Barack Obama and his radical left organization is taking full advantage of our social and individual indolence.

Let us not forget that government largess feeds upon itself. Marxists use government to redistribute wealth; it is the great equalizer ensuring everyone is equally miserable. Obama is using Alinsky’s “community activism” to achieve that power, and socialist ideology to maintain it. We stand in opposition to Barack Obama and his machine politics because we reject Marxist/socialist government. It strips people of their individualism, their dignity, and their will to resist subjugation, but this is the goal of an Obama administration, gift wrapped with empty promises. In our view, Barack Obama is willing to do anything to achieve his objectives, legal or not. We categorically reject him as a new-age messiah, and we stand united against his anti-American programs and policies.

Our question to Obama supporters remains unanswered: “How is it possible to love America, and support Barack Obama?” The horror of radical left/Marxist ideology is Obama’s consistent and unfettered promise for America. It is why we oppose him. It is why we urge our readers to vote NO to Obama and NO to socialists in Congress.


also see..

Always on Watch / And Rightly So / Big Girl Pants / Confessions of a Closet Republican / Farmer’s Letters / GeeeeeZ / Has Everyone Gone Nuts? / Papa Frank / Paleocon Command Center / Pondering Penguin / Social Sense / The Amboy Times / The Crank Files / The Jungle Hut / The Logic Lifeline / The Merry Widow / Political Yen Yang

Fairnessmongering

Hearings! Let there be hearings! Bring those greedy Wall Street scoundrels to account! That's just what Henry Waxman and some other Congressional millionaires are doing, and just in time for the election:

Members of the committee, several of whom mispronounced Mr. Fuld’s name as “Fold” or “Food,” also hammered the Lehman chief executive for making what they described as rosy public statements about the bank’s health that did not reflect a scramble for cash behind the scenes.

That's fine, but within those walls the feigned outrage comes off a tad hypocritical, such as this from Elijah Cummings:

“The people in my block in Baltimore, if they perform poorly, they get fired,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland. “They certainly don’t get a bonus.”

Indeed. He was in attendance when Fannie interim CEO Daniel Mudd (son of Roger) addressed the Congressional Black Caucus by calling them "family":



Mudd then made Barry O's campaign number two on the all-time Fannie largesse list, right behind Dodd. Keep in mind Mudd was appointed after Franklin Raines was busted by a regulator for book-cooking even though he was steadfastly supported by the CBC at the time. All this should be a recap by now.

But surely Waxman has 'all this' on his docket during the next three weeks. While discussing fairness in salary, perhaps he can even haul in Carlos Zambrano to explain his role in dashing the hopes and dreams of Cubs fans all over the world, and whether he thinks his salary is still "fair" under the circumstances.

MORE 10/07/08

From Reuters:

After the hearing, top Republicans on the panel asked Waxman to hold a hearing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role in the financial crisis. Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican, also said he asked committee staff to explore the possibility of a special counsel investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Waxman will surely agree--it would be way too obvious otherwise--but such a hearing doesn't necessarily have to be scheduled before the election.

Shuffling the Deck in Afghanistan?

A very interesting development, perhaps:

The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can't win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.

The involvement of the Saudis is also seen as an expression of fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.

Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul.

Evidently Iran's growing influence doesn't just bother NATO. The fact the Taliban feels they cannot defeat us militarily (and have probably heard Obama say we need more troops there) could explain why they felt the time was right to sue for peace. Wonder what role the US was playing in this? Any?

It's worth noting that the Afghanis, Talibani, and Saudi Arabians are all Sunni Muslims, as are the Pakistanis and al Qaeda. Recently AQ launched a verbal attack on Pakistan via an American traitor.

Here's more insight from Cap'n Ed, and here's something ironic from the Jawas.

Hillary Clinton, Racist

The AP says Palin might be racist for suggesting Obama was wrong to hang with terrorists. Well..



CNN's crack fight the smears team is also working overtime this weekend, helping the campaign paint Palin as a swift boater (and smearing decorated Vietnam veterans who were exercising their free speech) for speaking out against Obama's long relationship with a guy who still hasn't repented from his previous life, including statements like "kill all the rich people".

Again, it's not about Obama supporting terrorist bombings in the late 60s when he was 8. It's about Obama's judgment...how he views rich versus poor...how he views the role of government and whether it mirrors Ayers' view in any way...and how he views America when dealing with world leaders. That's all.

The Obama Wave

According to our local paper the financial crisis is helping Obama:

The turmoil on Wall Street and the weakening economy are changing the presidential campaign map, giving new force to Barack Obama's strategy to make incursions into Republican territory, and forcing John McCain to scale back his efforts to capture Democratic states.

Indeed, Barack is out in the hinterlands touting his revolutionary reform plan for the federal government, the markets, teh health care, and just about anything else imaginable. Terrorism is merely a distant memory unless it's mentioned in context of bashing Bush for not beefing up NATO in Afghanistan so we can be accused of air-raiding more villages and killing more civilians.

In this recent Green Bay speech he blasts McCain for his ties to lobbyists and vows to toss 'em out on their ears. But for some reason the following tender moment ended up on their cutting room floor:



Aliens calling? A.J. Strata has a more domestic explanation--an earpiece. We won't go there. It's well-established that every so often Barack gets lost in his own words, as if he's outside his body listening to what he's saying.

Whatever the case, watching the truncated full video should give all McCain fans a case of the jitters. This guy has a waxed surfboard and a wave is coming.

Sure, it's a wave he shouldn't be riding, being one of the biggest recipients of bribe, er, campaign donations from Fannie Mae. But as we know, perception is reality. Main street is out for revenge and he's a good enough orator and politician to actually convince people he's not part of the pay to play game even though he tasked former Fannie and Lehman bigshot Jim Johnson to find him a VP.

Besides, his populist class warfare segues so nicely with his quasi-socialist platform. His speeches are generally harsher on American corporations than on al Qaeda, but hey--it's working! Age-old political axiom--people vote their pocketbooks.

The media help won't hurt. After running interference on William Ayers Saturday the New York Times attempted to explain Fannie Mae's demise in their Sunday edition using a cadre of anonymous sources, who managed to leave out any reasons why Dodd and Obama were numbers one and two on the Fannie largesse list. So their job is done.

Meanwhile, Obama will continue to get away with blaming the entire mess on McBush while taking credit for saving the financial planet himself, all the while calling the opposition low-lifes for pointing out his extensive relationships he had with disreputable Chicago characters. Even an old salty dog like McCain or a bold new Sarahcudda might not be able to break that wave, but here's to hope for change.

MORE 10/5/08

Nailed it, unfortunately. I'd add that McCain once said he'd rather lose an election than lose a war. It might end up being both.

Side Tracks

Here's some retro with XTC talkin' military:





Actually, my favorite Pretenders song is this one. By now I think everyone knows their song "My City was Gone" is the theme music for the Rush Limbaugh show, something that produced a standoff between him and Chrissie Hynde in the late 90s, a battle she won (although her parents are evidently big fans).

Not Dead

Azzam the American is still alive and has blamed our current financial crisis on our "crusades" in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan along with our violation of the Islamic prohibition of using credit. His long methodical diatribe also blames it on greed, which sadly to say he's correct about.

There was some audio from bin Laden included but it didn't mention current events, suggestive that his death remains possible. Clearly, by saying the Muslims are on the verge of a great victory he's suggesting we'll soon be pulling up stakes in the GWoT.

Interestingly, Gadahn mentioned our propensity to air raid villages and kill civilians, something previously mentioned by Obama and something that Palin stressed in the debate as proof that Obama was not fit to serve. Will Obama respond to this strange nexus, or will McCain use it in Tuesday's debate? One has to wonder, especially since Obama's on record of wanting to air raid villages and kill civilians in Pakistan.

Guilt by Radical Association

In the new movie "An American Carol" there's a scene shot in front of a mythical "Che Guevara Hospital", intending to spoof the Michael Moore propaganda health care trip to Cuba. It's kinda funny in the context of the film but does it actually hit a bit too close to home for some on the left, especially in regards to Obama?

Up to now the mainstream media has largely depended on Obama's own fight the smears website to debunk the charges of radical associations, which stands in sharp contrast to their investigative blitzkrieg towards newcomer Sarah Palin.

Before proceeding it's fair to note that Obama has been in the public eye for 2 years and Palin 2 months, and he's been asked a lot more questions and been through several debates. The point is, they're taking his word for everything. Sean Hannity may be a right wing tool but he's dead on accurate when he says 2008 was the year journalism died.

All of this is about to change, or be rearranged. The WaPo just printed an article Friday about team Maverick's newest strategy, which is to hit Obama with his radical associations. The column mentions William Ayers, but spells his name "Ayres", not including it as a hyperlink as with most other names on the page. Rather fitting, eh?

Speaking of Hannity, he'll be doing a show on the associations this weekend. He'll probably feature the various Che Guevara posters spotted on the walls of several Obama supporters during TV interviews without mainstream follow-up investigative reports, perhaps comparing them to hypothetical discoveries of Eric Rudolph, David Duke or Jerry Falwell posters on the walls of Palin supporters (which would have relegated her to a footnote of history by now). All of this will force a response.

Meanwhile, a former Democratic official in Pennsylvania has had a pending lawsuit over Obama's birth certificate for months to almost no fanfare. Actually, players on both sides have written the guy off as either a nutbar or disgruntled Hillary hack, but now the DNC is trying to legally quash the suit. That's only fit to print at World Net Daily for some reason. Can anyone define the real Truth Squad?

As to Ayers, Just One Minute has been channeling another Democrat, Chicago web reporter Steve Diamond, in trying to expose Obama's association with the socialist and former terrorist. After a year of pretending Ayers doesn't exist the Gray Lady finally sent reporter Scott Shane out on the case. The result is, as Maguire describes it, an apologia:

Mr. Hayden, 68, said he has known Mr. Ayers for 45 years and was on the other side of the split in the radical antiwar movement that led Mr. Ayers and others to form the Weathermen. But Mr. Hayden said he saw attempts to link Mr. Obama with bombings and radicalism as “typical campaign shenanigans.”

Once again they've misplaced the outrage--nobody is attempting to link Obama with actual bombings--they are linking him to a person who did the bombings and remains unrepentant. Is that too nuanced for Shane?

In other words, if Obama has no problem working on education projects with a psuedo-Marxist unrepentant domestic terrorist who only avoided jail time through a technicality associated with domestic eavesdropping by the FBI and a politically well-connected father, what are his real feelings towards A'jad and Chavez? It's clear he wasn't interested in removing Saddam and later wanted to throw up a white flag on our mission in Iraq despite the potential for devastating after-effects. And it's clear he's been down with allowing himself to be used in PR photo-ops with various dictators, ala Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi with Bashar Assad.

Shane mentions that Ayers received a doctorate from Columbia University in 1987 without mentioning the Obama campaign's refusal to release Obama's Columbia transcripts or whether they knew each other when. One of the favorite euphemisms of the Obama campaign of late has been the folks on Main Street, yet those folks must provide copies of their college transcripts when applying for federal jobs to stand any chance of success. Apparently that doesn't apply to the presidency.

One final note. It's ironic that a reporter like Shane, who has been on the leading edge of plumbing the deep depths of a domestic terrorist attack using anthrax, sees absolutely no hidden smoking guns when it comes to an actual domestic terrorist and his association with a possible president.

MORE 10/04/08

Talk about apologists:

While it is known that Obama and Ayers live in the same Chicago neighborhood, served on a charity board together and had a fleeting political connection, it's a stretch of any reading of the public record to say the pair ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.

Again, nobody is insinuating Obama was chummy with Ayers during his Weatherman days, and it's in the public record that Obama deplores the actions of the former domestic terrorist. Problem is, the former domestic terrorist does not.

This screed was disguised as a news story from the AP. Jaw-dropping, but typical of what McCain/Palin will face by going down this road--mainstream media reporters acting as fight the smears teammembers. It's another desperation play by the fighter jockey, who is clearly trying to make an end-run around the media and go right to the people like Reagan did. Tuesday's debate might be very entertaining.

It's Official--Palin Won

The true test of the debate last night was going to be today's media coverage. After a long day it's clear Palin won the debate by not losing and summarily handing McCain a Little Big Horn moment. As bloggers have been pointing out all day long, the media has collectively yawned, focusing on the bailout.

Speaking of which, Pelosi was at least wise enough this time to not smear the GOP until after the voting occurred. That is, unless the previous episode was intentional. Here's her much anticipated remarks (sort of like her book):

"Mr. Frank will be holding hearings on where we go from here, because we are about the future. Mr. Waxman's hearings will be instructed as to how we got here -- that we know how to avoid this in the future. It will be about accountability, it will be about regulation, regulatory reform, which is essential. It will be about building an economy with a focus on the middle class, where many more Americans will participate in the economic security of our country.

"And the high flyers on Wall Street will no longer be able to jeopardize that personal economic security of Americans, again, because of the bright light of scrutiny and accountability and the attention given under regulatory reform.

What bald-faced gall this woman has, to applaud Barney Frank--of all morons--who was just on TV in July saying the outlook was solid for Fannie and Freddie. And who was among several of her colleague cashing checks from Frank Raines and Jim Johnson. This, friends, is what Sarah Palin is running against. She may not be seasoned enough for the CIC role but her heart's in the right place and her change would be real and immediate and positive, unlike the hopey change from the other side.

But we should all look forward to Frank's kangaroo hearings, for their entertainment value alone. Message to Fox News--better put O'Reilly on some meds now!

One more thing. MSM stories are heralding the number of Repubs who turned their votes (26) out of a total of 60 Reps who flipped. You can do the math.

Let's look at some of the flippy Dems and a story about each one:

Emmanuel Cleaver
Elijah Cummings
Jesse L. Jackson Jr.
Sheila Jackson Lee
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Solomon Ortiz
Bobby L. Rush
Diane E. Watson
Lynn Woolsey
Al Green

Many of the above are members of the CBC. Amazing what a little sugar and some sweet talk from Barack accomplished (along with a shifting of perceptions). But some were stalwart, like the man of cold hard cash, Rep William Jefferson. He held firm with his no vote. But never mind, now that Obama has saved the union we can move on.

Sarah Biden Debate Thread

Consider this a pre-debate tailgate party without the brewskies and bbq. By now everyone should have read Victor Davis Hansen's clever description of the differences in media coverage between the Veep candidates. So true. Funny how half the population shrugs their shoulders at Biden's past incompetence, as if because it's a known trait it's perfectly OK.

But Palin is still an unknown. Therefore she should receive a lion's share of the scrutiny right now, which McCain had to have known before picking her. Like others, I'm not 100 percent sold on Sarah yet. That's my bad if she wipes the floor with Biden tonight, and hopefully she will, but we ARE talking about a possible president here. Country first.

Points I'll be watching for--resilience under fire, character and vision, and the ability to think on the fly. If she can do all that with her natural charm the focus will switch to the naked guy on the other side of the stage. Or tomorrow's House vote, either or.

MORE 10/02/08

Not specific to the debate but just watched O'Reilly come unglued interviewing Barney Frank. Good Lord. Only O'Reilly could take a softball interview like that and foul it off into the stands, maiming an ice cream vendor. Frank came off looking more rational of the two, which acted to dissolve his complicity in the situation--even with a clear video showing him distorting the crisis. One channel over Dave Ramsey was calmly explaining the guilty parties in this mess, without one popped vein.

DEBATE 10/02/08

She really just kicked his arse all over the floor with her Iraq and Afghanistan comments. A loud sigh was heard when she mentioned general McClellan Mckiernan and Joe's flip floppiness on his Iraq war vote. Joe's comparing McCain to Cheney, but let's not forget Cheney:

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.

The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

All in all, she's doing better than they expected. Maybe not winning, but better than Tina Fey. As Rove says, never underestimate the power of being underestimated.

SUMMARY 10/02/08

Biden won, but Palin won. She defeated Tina Fey, the MSM, and she cleaned his clock on foreign policy, which he's supposed to be the expert on.

Biden was more cogent on responding to the questions, he was relaxed, and he didn't say anything overly gaffish (except about NATO forces in Lebanon). But overall, his performance wasn't much different than his primary debates. There were no deer in the headlights moments, but there was a lot of dodging and repetition on her part. And nookular? Are you kidding me?!! But she came through.

MORE 10/02/08

The post-debate response has been interesting. Luntz had his focus group on Fox and I've never seen them so animated for any candidate. They really seemed to connect with her on a human level. Team McCain has to be thrilled. Now, anyone care to predict what will the top story be tomorrow?

MORE

I think she messed up the commanding general in Afghanistan's name, so notch one down on the arse kicking scale. But she still won that segment. It's corrected.

Decision Time for Dems

So the Senate took an existing House bill, tacked on the bailout, er rescue, added millions of packs of Equal, patted themselves on the back for leadership, and have now excused themselves to go watch the playoffs or get massages or whatever they do on their 30 day weekends.

The House now finds themselves with a different bill AND a rescue measure, one which can now be spun as "NOT a Wall Street bailout", or in some districts perhaps "not a bailout for old rich white guys in New York while ending affordable housing as we know it", ie for many in the Congressional Black Caucus, who voted no Monday, even in so-called safe districts.

Meanwhile, Obama has been out cheerleading Congress, asking them to put country first and vote yes. Presumably that also extends to the CBC members. We puzzle over the outcome and who'll get the blame if it fails again, especially with that little wildcard called a VP debate in the way on Thursday night.

If Palin flames out that will definitely dominate the Friday morning news, a scenario under which House members planning to vote nay could hide behind the news coverage (or even join the pile on) while Obama goes into low earth orbit blaming McCain's judgment for picking Palin. If the bill then fails Obama can add that to the list while continuing to blame McCain for just about anything else he chooses, such as world hunger or warts. If the bill passes he can take full and total credit and the MSM will give it to him gladly.

But if Palin flames Biden (or even holds her own) it's a weaker news story, which turns the tide to McCain. The mainstreamers will immediately turn all eyes to the rescue vote trying to take attention away from a Palin victory. Nice for Barack but that also exposes any Dems who vote nay on the rescue, forcing explanations of why they bucked Hope and Change and main street. To avoid Obama getting a double shot of humbling defeat within the same 24 hours the only alternative left will be to redeem the savior by ensuring passage, which they can then assign to Obama and gain back the headlines. Which seems to guarantee passage either way. I think.

No Big Deal?

Think of the score Sarah Palin could rack up (is that moose lingo?) if she can manage to come across as competent and smart against Joe "Cliff Clavin" Biden Thursday night. As it stands now she's being framed as at best an incompetent dingbat, and at worst, much worse.

Adding more sauce to the goose, today it was revealed that the debate moderator, PBS's Gwen Ifill, just happens to have a a book coming out next year with Obama's name in the title. The stage is literally set.

As to Ifill, she's never seemed overly partisan, although one would have to be a regular PBS watcher to really know for sure. As a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, I'm not. Will she favor Biden to the benefit of Barack America?

It would have to be tempting, since if Palin can be shown on the national tube as a real-life version of the character being portrayed by Tina Fey her season might be over, along with McCain's. A few well-placed questions, like some policy position about a bill Biden sponsored when Palin was 8 years old, might just do the trick because as we all know, the left and their friends on the left are eagerly anticipating a deer in the headlights moment. The first left being the mainstream media, of course.

But if could backfire. There's a small chance she might be overly sensitive to the perception of unfairness and actually end up being fair. Or even ask Biden to explain his emphatic support for taking out Saddam; calling the surge a failure; and saying Iraq was in a civil war, and how all that qualifies him as a foreign policy expert when Obama himself uses his opposition to the war in 2002 as an example of necessary judgment to be presidential. One can hope.

As to the bias:

Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.

"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."

First of all, Cannon didn't moderate any national debates (to my knowledge). Second, blacks have already lined up behind Obama in a disproportionate fashion according to both polls and primary results, and she's writing a book about the process. That suggests that yes, race does have something to do with it.

Strange Happenings in the GWoT

First a story pops up about UBL's son Saad bin Laden "escaping" house arrest in Iran and fleeing to Pakistan. Then today a story surfaced claiming the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, has died. Or has he?

It's tempting to write this off as propaganda. Mullah Omar just offered safe passage out of Afghanistan for NATO forces if they leave, which seems tied to Karzai's plea to get the Saudis involved in peace talks. The same "safe passage" vows occasionally crop up in AQ messages and are usually followed by empty threats.

But the fact is tensions along the Paki border have been rising for awhile as Bush tries hard to get the AQ leadership before the presidential transition occurs. Secretary Gates claims this is now the front lines in the GWoT, and others have said we're running out of time there if we don't fix the problem soon. Just last week a US drone UAV was evidently shot down, this shortly after a cross-border foray by US ground troops. The Marriott hotel blast was clearly a message, as was the murder of Afghanistan's top female police officer (after the Bhutto assassination Mehsud said they don't target women).

We also saw the US delay an AQ tape calling for more spectacular attacks in the US. It was supposed to have been delivered on 9/11 and included the will of hijacker Saeed al Ghamdi. Add the recent conviction of Taliban sympathizer Bashir Noorsai for drug trafficking and there are dots. Lots of dots.