The Other Race Speech

The left keeps screaming that "the tape was already released in 2007".  Sure, back when Hillary, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards were also culling headlines.  The fact that the entire contents weren't made public back then seems a hard sell on many of them today, along with an almost unreal denial from a few about the fake black accent.  If Obama was caught trying to speak with a British dialect would that raise their eyebrows?


The deeper thing here is message--what in the world was he trying to say?  Why was he saying that more roads should not be built in the "suburbs"?

Well, other than it being a dog whistle for a certain segment of the population it's not hard to divine a meaning---not building more roads in the 'burbs clearly means not allowing the 'burbs to keep expanding, with a funneling of that money back to the cities.   It's not surprising a Chicago pol would say it, as well as using Katrina and Los Angeles as part of the same theme..  The 'quiet riot' was caused by too much money flowing out of the city to the rich crackers in the bedroom cities.  Not fair!

One person sitting up and taking notice should be Stanley Kurtz...

They amount to an entire gamut of initiatives, some well underway, to redistribute wealth not from the fabled 1% — who really do not have enough to save us from fiscal Armageddon even if the government took 80% of their profits — but from the average, middle-class, hardworking citizens who sought better lives and realized the American dream by moving to the suburbs, where the air is cleaner, the schools are decent, and life is peaceful and integrated.

Read the book--the suburbs comment will make perfect sense. It won't run ya that many dollas. But if you are a new parent just be sure to put your baybuh to bed first.

MORE  10/3/12

CNN is running a current top headline on their website about "conservative media coordinating" on the Obama Hampton tape, which they claim was "widely reported" at the time.  They offered this story from their "Political Ticker" blog as proof.  Nowhere in the story did they comment on "suburbs" or even mention that O had voted against a bill containing elements of his demagoguery just 10 days prior to the speech.  Of course they also ignored his pandering cadence. 

So what was going on in the political world around June 5, 2007?  Looking back, this blog was reporting on the Scooter Libby sentencing.  CNN also claimed that Obama was right up there with Hillary in the polls at the time, although according to Gallup she had double digit leads for most of June and Edwards was polling in double digits behind O.   There was also a GOP debate on that night along with a lot of speculation about Fred Thompson.   The speech may have been widely reported (in some biased fashion, leaving out context and content) but it certainly wasn't big news at the time.  They are only indicting themselves by trying to pretend it was. 

Dreams from my Typewriter

It's quite amazing to watch--a Washington Post reporter explaining all the falsehoods in Obama's literary masterpiece while maintaining his slobbering love affair; the New York Times admitting that hey, Obama probably did manufacture some of his racial chops because even his friends at Harvard were joking about it in 1990; and finally, watching the media try to explain why Obama triggered the dreaded executive privilege statute and why Eric Holder has now been held in contempt.  Watchers of the Today show and evening news must be utterly perplexed.

Jack Cashill has been churning out posts at a frenetic pace in response to Maraniss, pointing out that hey--all those falsehoods had already been pointed out years ago--by him.  So why is a left wing media stalwart now confirming them, or at least some of them?

Damage control.  The Dreams falsehoods were going to come out sooner or later; the sooner the better and better in the hands of a mainstreamer than a surrogate from the Romney campaign.  By releasing them now the left can cry that they are 'old news' and 'thoroughly explained' and 'the president has now been fully vetted' when someone brings this stuff up in the fall (before said person is accused of being a racist).  And of course, since Maraniss' book stopped before getting to the Ayers years (presumably) they can still brand anyone who mentions the washed up terrorist as a kook, nut, or conspiracy theorist (before calling them a racist).

But the bottom line is that after 5 years the truth is finally dribbling out in fits and starts, confirming what some of the "haters" had suggested, painting O as a bit more fanciful with the pen than his life would allow.  Meanwhile Marco Rubio has a biography out--the WaPo is already reacted with one of their own, presumably to tamp down any such early attempts at narrative-building for the possible first Latino Vice President. Sounds reminiscent to the dumpster diving done up in "Wasilly".  But at least the curtain has been pulled back slightly to expose some of the flim-flams.  No wonder there was so much gum-chewing down at Cabo. 

Drones No Longer Creating New Terrorists

Big AQ fish apparently fried, number two they say.   AQ is running out of leaders, but the ones remaining are nothing to sneeze over. 

Say what you will about Obama but he's one shrewd politico.  He knows AQ has no answer to the drones and we're picking them off one by one, winning through attrition.  He knows most of the leg work in discovering the inner-workings of AQ came from the men he once threatened to prosecute for 'torture'.  Soon they will bag Zawahiri and the few remaining bigwigs, Obama will spike the football and AQ will fracture into a loose series of cells to be dealt with by drones and special operations forces.    

Yes, it would be handled differently in the press and lefty commentators before 2009.  No, there will be no jokes or conspiracy theories about taking out another AQ number two or three or how we can't win the WoT, and Obama will not call it a 'bumper sticker' like John Edwards did in 2007.  He won't complain about us 'air-raiding villages and killing civilians'. Few in the press will fulminate about how our drone strikes or Gitmo are creating more terrorists.  And yes, if Romney wins the circle will rotate 180 degrees very quickly.

But that's politics in America.  This is war--and we have to keep whacking moles.  These guys spend their waking hours thinking about new ways to kill us.  "Hey Abdul, how about we tap into the heating vent using, hey what's that noise?  BOOM".   That's a good thing.

Preppies for President

A careful reader should always scan a New York Times story for hidden nuggets that may not comport with the headline.  In this morning's edition Mark Lebovich has a piece comparing Romney and Obama with the intent of illustrating how the two are practically twin sons of different mothers.

They are both relatively shy non-traditional political operators who don't shoot from the hip, both love Star Trek, both enjoy baked spicy chicken, and both followed similar educational paths.

Wait, what? Similar educational paths? Yes--

The candidates attended two of the most elite preparatory schools in the country — Punahou in Hawaii for Mr. Obama, Cranbrook in Michigan for Mr. Romney (George Romney spoke at Mitt’s graduation).

Wow, Punahou is one of the most 'elite' in the country? Go figure. That didn't seem a major part of the narrative in 2008. 

For instance, here's a pretty good Times article from February 2008 about Obama's drug dabbling in school, referring correctly to Punahou as a 'preparatory school' (not elite), including some of his deep conversations while there:

Mr. Kakugawa remembered that the two often discussed wealth and class and that their disaffection would surface. He said race would come up in the conversations, usually when talking about white girls they thought about dating. “We were dealing with acceptance and adaptation, and both had to do with the fact that we were not part of the moneyed elite,” Mr. Kakugawa said.

So while they were attending one of the most elite prep schools in the nation they were talking about how rough they had it?  Hmm.

Here's a Politico article from 2008 basically slamming the GOP for trying to make hay about Obama's attendance at an elite school:

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the latest iteration of a subject previously raised by Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Hillary Rodham Clinton backer who attended a public school down the road from Punahou, and who cracked before the state's primary that the private school “was not school for the impoverished.”

Obama had an answer--he attended on 'scholarship'.  Does that mean free?  If so, that means they were discussing how rough they had it for not being in the 'moneyed elite' while attending one of the most elite prep schools in the nation, for free.  If not, that means he attended one of the most elite prep schools in the nation, which means he wasn't exactly poor. 

But he was raised by a single mother on food stamps (despite living with his step-father, an elite in the Indonesian military and his grandmother, a bank VP) and was born poor:

Shenkman said that presidents who grow up in humble circumstances — including modest childhood homes — add to the American dream that anybody can be president. "In fact, very few presidents are born poor," Shenkman said. "Obama happens to fit the bill."

That humble burnished narrative goes back a ways.  An article written in 1990 referred to Obama's attendance in 'public schools' on his way to Harvard yard, despite Punahou being a pricey private prep school.  Why was that fact omitted?  Was it just a simple fact-checking error like his literary bio a few years later that said he was born in Kenya, or perhaps a 'composite' similar to the story about the only other black at Punahou he pushed away to make a point about racial redemption?  Times writer Jackie Calmes explored that person--"Coretta"--after Obama had victory safely secured in January 2009 and was perhaps the first Times writer to use the term "one of the most elite schools in the nation" in reference to Punahou while suggesting it's racist leanings by exposing the real Coretta, Joella Edwards:

“I was ‘the lonely only’ until he came,” she said, adding that she wished she had known then how sympathetic Mr. Obama felt. Five years later Ms. Edwards left Punahou, tired of “the n-word” and taunts of “Aunt Jemima,” she said.

Joella didn't remember being pushed away by Barry but hey, the little red-headed girl from Dreams who wanted to touch Obama's fro doesn't remember doing that either, nor does she remember Joella.  More fact-checking errors, perhaps. 


Bottom line, since Obama 'made it' there's no longer any reason to downplay his less-than-humble background as he vies against Richie Romney for a second term. Just be careful making the claim that his past narrative was massaged to help promote a struggling young community organizer who hated the suburbs and eschewed his business suit job in NYC in favor of being sucked into the Chicago political machine, introduced to politics by a small-c communist and noted unrepentant domestic terrorist.  Such are the ramblings of a racist birther.

It's the Follow-Up, Stupid

CBS sets up their hit piece of Breitbart by couching them as birthers before getting to the money paragraphs:

The birthers made their presence felt once again on Thursday. A conservative reporter tracked down a 1991 promotional booklet from a literary agency in which Mr. Obama was listed as having been "born in Kenya." Conservative news aggregator Matt Drudge gave the report huge play, leading his site with it Thursday evening. He followed up Friday with a series of links tied to the story, including one asking, "How did the mainstream media miss this?"

The literary agent responsible for the listing released a statement in the wake of the story reading in part, "This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me -- an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii."

But that, of course, was not going to placate those eager to seize on the 1991 listing as a smoking gun proving their theory. Interestingly, the website that posted it, Breitbart.com, seemed uncomfortable with putting it into the world - it said in a note above the article that it "has never advocated the narrative of 'Birtherism,'" arguing that the listing is evidence "not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times."

Indeed, Breitbart's reporters were recently blasted by some of the hard-core birthers for not getting on the train.   But in the world of elite media reporters such as Mr. Montopoli everyone on the right is a closet racist/birther, meaning the mere mention of a flyer showing Barack Obama as being born in Kenya qualifies the producer of said story as a crackpot.  And of course once a story can be labeled 'birtherism' there's no need to pursue it any further.

Edward R Murrow must be spinning in his grave.  A true reporter would have seen the Breitbart story, said "that's interesting"; seen the follow-up comment/statement from the literary agent and said "that's interesting, too', then picked up the phone.   They were not afraid of the truth because they kept their own dogs out of the fight. 

In other words, instead of mocking Breitbart's journalism and trying to turn them into birthers the CBS reporter could have called the literary agent--and certainly the White House--and asked some questions.  Here are just a few suggestions from a hack blogger to get things started; surely an elite reporter could think of a few more.  For instance,  to the agent:

"how often did you put out a bio on a writer and not let the writer see it first? Was it common to do your own 'fact checking' rather than just asking the writer?

Where did you do the fact checking and why/how do think you got it wrong?"

Why wasn't the flyer corrected until 2007?

Such a reporter might call the White House press office and say,

"Could you tell us if Obama himself remembers the bio and if so, did he get to approve it before it went to press?" 

It's almost as if some are afraid to ask.  Think of how much more powerful Mr. Montopoli's piece on Breitbart would have been had he been able to pop out a few of those secondary, drill-down questions/answers, ie, "we talked to Ms so-so and she said it was common for new authors to not be involved in their bios, etc".  As it was he appeared to be filing his report from Chicago HQs. 

In other words, it's about the follow-up!   Our modern advocates have lost track of that concept, a simple premise that says you don't immediately believe a press release or take a canned statement as gospel.  You don't blindly believe a politician without checking their story--and checking doesn't mean asking their press officer or Media Matters and declaring, "case closed, you crazy wingers".  They used to know this. 

The reporter even mocked the 'vetting' charge Brietbart made.   So yeah sorry Jack, not to bust your bubble but this kind of crap is exactly what you can expect from the Breitbart story, nothing more.  The only wildcard is whether Breitbart has something else in the can waiting to trickle out.  Their namesake was pretty good at that--he had learned their game.

Return to Able Danger

Captain Ed's recent blurb on the Able Danger thing, including the DoD's subsequent purge of Tony Shaffer's new book for mentioning said subject, brings to mind the strange downfall of Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon, once front and center on trying to bring the case to a national audience:

Mr. Speaker, back in 1999 when I was Chair of the defense research subcommittee, the Army was doing cutting-edge work on a new type of technology to allow us to understand and predict emerging transnational terrorist threats. That technology was being done at several locations, but was being led by our Special Forces Command. The work that they were doing was unprecedented. And because of what I saw there, I supported the development of a national capability of a collaborative center that the CIA would just not accept. In fact, in November 4 of 1999, 2 years before 9/11, in a meeting in my office with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of the CIA, Deputy Director of the FBI, we presented a nine-page proposal to create a national collaborative center. When we finished the brief, the CIA said we did not need that capability, and so before 9/11 we did not have it.

Later in his House speech Weldon dropped the bomb:

What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over 1 year before 9/11 every happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9/11 attack.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over 1 year before 9/11, that Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.

This was a big story in the right blogosphere in 2005. A subsequent Senate investigation found that Able Danger had not identified Atta or any other 9/11 hijackers.

But in a story never really told in the national media, one year after his speech Weldon was hit with an FBI corruption investigation during the latter stages of his 2006 reelection campaign, something that certainly helped political novice and former Vice-Admiral Joe Sestak unseat the 10 term veteran in his conservative district. Oddly enough, Sestak was backed by former Clintonistas such as Sandy Socks Berger and the chief Clintonista himself.

Sure, Admiral Sestak could have ridden the 2006 anti-Bush wave to victory without help from the FBI. And granted, Weldon was at times a little bit out on the edge and is now evidently an 'arms dealer' or something. As of 2008 the investigation was still continuing. Able Danger could have simply been an exercise in hindsight or a small group with a political axe to grind.

But it doesn't help that a guy convicted of pilfering and destroying documents from the National Archives became one of the principle backers of Weldon's challenger after Weldon started speaking out against his former colleagues (and him) by suggesting a program existed that could have thwarted the attacks before Bush took office but was ignored. At last check Hillary was still dispelling rumors about being on the 2012 presidential ticket, wink, wink.

MORE 10/7/10

Additional info here, including a tape of Tony Shaffer. His takeaway--everyone at the 9/11 Commission had an agenda to cover someone's ass, according to one of the commissioners. This is quite unsurprising since the first rule of a bureaucrat or politician is to CYA. And that's likely the bottom line here--nothing nefarious, they just missed it and didn't want it surfacing after the fact.

Truthiness over Substance

Click over to any mainstream media site this afternoon and type "Christopher Coates" in their search bar and see what you get. A quick survey showed not much... here's CNN (not on main page); ABC had a back page shortie from the AP as did CBS and MSNBC. The WaPo, to their credit, was the only main news outlet giving the story top billing first slot on their web page:

Former voting section chief Christopher Coates, who was transferred to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina in the midst of a controversy over the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, testified Friday morning before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Justice Department officials strongly dispute his allegations against the agency.

The paper of record had nothing on Coates as of 5 pm CDT. But they did have a top page feature on someone who once testified in front of Congress, Valerie Plame. Maybe that was a tweak.

Of course the all had prominent front page coverage of comedian Stephen Colbert 'testifying' before a House subcommittee today. Now, a cynical person might think the Democrats were trying to hijack the headlines to shift focus away from what could be a very embarrassing story about the Holder Justice Department by bringing a clown to Congress. Not sure which one was scheduled first but Zoe Lofgren, the congressgoof who invited Colbert, claims he was invited to bring attention to the cause of illegal immigration.

There's nothing on Lofgren's Congressional page but her Facebook page has a post that 'explains' why she invited him wherein Colbert says he was there to stand up for those who leave their rights at the border and make a mockery of our rule of law by entering America illegally to pick fruit for cash to send back to Mexico (paraphrasing, of course).

So maybe there was no conspiracy but the fact is most of the mainstream papers felt a comedian in Congress other than Al Franken deserved much more coverage than potential fraud at the DOJ. If only Emanuel had fired a few US Attorneys.

Hope Floats

Seriously, some days it just must suck to be the president..

Rashid Khalidi, a friend of President Obama's active in Palestinian causes, has signed an appeal for funds to send to Gaza an aid ship that would be named after the president's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Ouch. Yes, the same Rashid who was the subject of that videotaped going away party that Obama attended along with Ayers and Dohrn that the LA Times refused to release before the election (has anyone checked the J-list archives on that one)? Conventional wisdom said that Khalidi or others might have taken some jabs at Israel, which would have been inconvenient for publication a few weeks before the election. Sort of like a mystery DUI. Indeed..

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. In response to an e-mail asking whether the appeal is embarrassing to the president, Khalidi said that he was not aware the boat would be named after Obama's book when he agreed to add his name to the list of sponsors.

"But if the name is a problem for the administration, it can simply insist publicly that Israel lift the siege: end of problem, end of embarrassment," he wrote, "That of course would require it to respond to the systematic mendacity of those in Congress and elsewhere who support the siege, and indeed whatever else the Israeli government does."

Khalidi added: "I signed because the siege/blockade of Gaza, which is effectively supported by the United States, is a disgrace. I support the idea because it may cause the media to pay attention to the effective imprisonment and collective punishment of 1.5 million people who by the admission of Israeli officials, are being subjected to this ordeal in order to bring down their government. As the Goldstone Report suggested, this may rise to the level of a war crime, in which our country is complicit. That is truly embarrassing."

It will be interesting if they now send him under the bus, assuming this gets much more press. But it's guaranteed to if they get the funding, isn't it? The name ensures it, so long as it remains.

Guilt is in the Eye of the Tax Cheat

This is really all that needs to be said about the Daschle tax revelation, from Melanie Sloan:

"If the guy who is overseeing the IRS can get away with a tax problem, how are you going to hold up the health and human services secretary over taxes?" she asked.

But more can be said. Daschle lobbied for the health care industry, which seems to break Obama's tough new lobbying rule. When asked if he was still supporting the nomination Obama declared, "absolutely". So that's it, no more needs to be said.

But more can be said. When Joe the Plumber's records were rifled after being mentioned by McCain during the last debate it was learned he also had a tax problem. That was used derisively by the paragon of leftist thought, the Kos Masters:

Is it possible? Is this average, model American citizen a tax cheat? If that's the case, Joe doesn't really need to worry about his tax rates at all, does he?

Now nothing more needs to be said.

ALMOST ALL 2/3/09

Daschle did the right thing for America and withdrew his nomination, stating that he didn't want to be a distraction. Funny thing is, Obama didn't seem to mind the distraction. Anyway, here's how the AP described it:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday to be President Barack Obama's Health and Human Services secretary, dealing potential blows to both speedy health care reform and Obama's hopes for a smoother start as president.

"Now we must move forward," Obama said in a written statement accepting "with sadness and regret" Daschle's surprise request to be removed from consideration. A day earlier, Obama had said he "absolutely" stood by Daschle in the face of problems over back taxes and potential conflicts of interest.

"Speedy health care reform"? Not sure that belongs in a news story.

It's interesting how fast things changed. According to the story, the NY Times and Chicago Trib came out in the past 12 hours and called for him to withdraw, which had to weigh heavily on the power brokers eyeballing "speedy health care reform". They probably realized Daschle would forever be know as 'Secretary Tax Cheat', a huge disadvantage when the eventual push to raise taxes to pay for this speedy health care reform occurs (somewhere before 2012).

REACTION 2/3/09

HuffPo has a Drudge-like headline about the withdrawal, as if the Titanic had just resurfaced and sunk again. Poor guys, though, as yet another embarrassment befalls Mr. Sunshine (who didn't seem to care). So what's a liberal rag to do?

Report something about Rummy, of course! And have you ever seen a more ridiculous "news" article in your life?

Polling Terror

Tom Maguire has a new post up about polls and global warming, comparing a Washington Post poll with a Pew Research version to suggest a lukewarm public concern for the carbon problem. He points out how the polls have remained relatively consistent for several years.

That tripped a light bulb (incandescent). Before the election I suggested that Bush must have won the GWoT because polls showed it ranked in the single digits in public importance. That of course is absurd--Bush did not win the GWoT--but the point was to illustrate how either 1) the media downplayed the terrorism question to favor Obama or 2) the public has become spoiled due to Bush's success and therefore has forgotten about terrorism, which means we haven't been attacked.

Rummaging back to the post in question and perusing through the numbers it would seem that Gallup, Pew and other more independent polling groups had terrorism ranking similar to what Maguire's post showed at that time, while the Networks and NY Times put terrorism's importance much lower, many times in the single digits. The public voted accordingly.

Proving the numbers were cooked to favor Democrats is beyond my pay grade (stats were never my favorite subject anyway) but maybe one day somebody with knowledge of stats and polling will explain this.

Change Dot Gov

Obama-elect already has an official government web portal, where one can learn all kinds of fun facts about the new guy. This is from his page:

THE EARLY YEARS Barack's father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University in 1983.

Guess his step-father wasn't very memorable, relegating him to "a few years in Indonesia". Oh well, let's look forward to the college years:

..but Barack had come to realize that in order to truly improve the lives of people in that community and other communities, it would take not just a change at the local level, but a change in our laws and in our politics.

Now we're getting to the crux of change--politics leading to a change in "laws". The mystery is unfolding but let's back up a minute. At the top of the page there is a short synopsis, which says:

He took out loans to put himself through school. After college, he worked for Christian churches in Chicago,

In other words, Harvard Law wasn't one of the colleges he took out loans to attend? The narrative might not be complete, but it appears that after leaving Columbia in 1983 and working as a community organizer for peanuts in the mid 80s he moved on to Harvard without loans. OK then, moving on to his Senate career:

His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.

Yet only John McCain allowed people to go online and see who was giving money to his campaign--Obama didn't even realize illegal alien family members were contributing to his. Next, corruption:

He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.

Or maybe Tony Rezko-style corruption? William Jefferson--watch out! Now, on to some issues. Here's one:

Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

In other words, he still will not admit the tide has turned. No wonder most Iraqis wanted McCain. As to Afghanistan:

The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks.

When the buildup to Iraq began, in mid 2002, the Afghanistan war was essentially over. The Taliban had been routed into the mountains; bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Omar were in hiding somewhere; most AQ foot soldiers were either dead or in GTMO. All indications were that the AQ hierarchy were in Pakistan. Yet somehow taking out Saddam in the cradle of terrorism diverted resources from what, attacking Pakistan? Puzzling.

Here's something called the "Katrina" section (what, no section for "Greensburg Tornado"?):

He and Joe Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.

Considering the catastrophic failures were partly because the emergency response plan was never adequately carried out, even though a Cat III hurricane was a well-predicted eventuality for a city under sea level, Mayor Ray Nagin better watch out.

There are some miscellaneous tidbits:

Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.

Declassifying all the Bush documents and leaving the Iraq documents sealed, perhaps? Maybe Sandy Berger can apply for this job, there is a application page.

But one area is not quite fleshed out yet:



From all appearances this site is a continuation of his campaign site but appears to be a taxpayer funded site. Should a dot gov site be bashing the current acting president and his policies? Paid for by us?

MORE 11/06/08

Maybe this is the "content needed"?

MORE 11/08/08

Change.gov is so far living up to its name quite nicely. Via Gateway Pundit comes a good observation from the site Reboot Congress:

Kudos to the Obama team for making this slight policy adjustment! I'd recommend that you guys port the change.gov site to a wiki. That will allow everyone to see the sausage being made—the historical edits to each page. Open government is a very good thing and it will prevent the new administration from being painted as Orwellian.

Whether the airbrush was simply an oversight by the webmaster as they transfer content from Obama.com to Obama.gov isn't known but it certainly in no way represents an auspicious beginning to the most honest and open government in history.

Here at Fore Left we've got a policy of never changing content once posted, although some grammatical errors are so humorously or embarrassingly egregious they demand immediate edits. It's a vanity thing. Obama's site is changing content without announcing the edit, which is a creepy government thing and certainly not sunshiny. Perhaps we could announce a new slogan here--"Fore Left--more ethical than the government". Hmm. Maybe not.

Ready to Define Change

Congrats to president-elect Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. but if you're looking for magnanimous tootings perhaps this isn't the best place right now. I'd very much like to say I wish Mr. Obama well--but wishing him well suggests wishing his changes are successful and those are still a tad amorphous in my mind right now. Perhaps I should say I wish America well under Mr. Obama.

His humble acceptance speech in front of a tiny park full of core supporters echoed the slogan used to achieve victory--"change we need". "Yes we can". What exactly does any of that mean? Does he think America sucks that bad?

Many conservatives tried to pin down the definition for months without success. Mostly we saw that change meant his positions kept changing. Since it's highly doubtful he meant the change we need was him changing his mind it's something deeper, obviously. Did Joe the Plumber actually flesh it out near the end--in other words, spreading wealth? Was money the main reason people voted for Obama--ie, he promised the better chicken in their pot? Wouldn't be the first time.

But that can't be all. The way he discussed change it was as if everyone knew America needed to fundamentally change from the bottom up. Change into something else; something that would "change the world". ? Michelle said she was proud for the first time when hubby came forward, which suggests perhaps the change is simply electing a black or mixed race president. That it? Can't be.

Obama's website and rhetoric suggested America under Bush was practically responsible for the terrorism around the world, except for the attacks we didn't face here after 9/11, due to an arrogant unilateralist tone towards the "world", a world that includes terrorists and tinpots and communists. More specifically, our liberation of Iraq was the worst foreign policy ever. Actually I'm glad Saddam and his sons, Arafat, and numerous AQ leaders are dead with Qudaffy's nuke program sitting in Oak Ridge as we go forward towards this wonderful change. But that's just me.

So as we go forward I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole change thing. I'll support the new president, and will support his proposals and actions when they are in our best national interest. I'll try hard not to be disrespectful like so many on the left have been with Bush and their old (and now new again) friend John McCain. The historical sifnificance of this election is apparent and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to being proud that America has done something none of those wonderful European socialist beacons of perfection have ever done.

But one of the reasons I didn't think Sarah Palin was the best VP choice was her lack of experience. That was the initial disqualifying reason for Barack, a sentiment echoed by the likes of Andrew Young and Joe Biden. Obama will now have the phone at 3AM so country first--here's hoping his performance changes my mind.

Bush Defeated!

By Obama. And the Democrats. And the mainstream media. Word is Dubya will be conceding soon followed by a ceremonial Rove frogmarch. And coming soon, scattered AK-47 fire over the Middle East (not from Palin).


MORE

Congrats to Obama, president elect and first black president of the world, er, USA. And to his running mate, whose name I've temporarily forgotten. Juan Williams is crying now on Fox. And I'm on the verge. Perhaps Jesse and Al are, too, eh? They all make promises and Obama did, too, but he'll no doubt come through on the image promise. Here's a prayer for his success, for the Republicans in Congress, and for very few 3AM phone calls.

No Joke..

What's the Yiddish word? Chutzpah?

Democrat Barack Obama made a rare foray to the press section of his campaign plane early Tuesday -- election day -- to thank reporters for accompanying him on his grueling 21-month ride.

"It's been a good long ride with all of you," the Illinois senator said. "Whatever happens tomorrow (Tuesday) it's going to be extraordinary and you guys have shared this process with us."

Apparently the reporters from the Dallas Morning News, Washington Times and New York Post weren't around to report on that touching moment after Obama canceled their grueling rides a few days prematurely.

CNN Harrasses Joe the Plumber

As we wait for the inevitable this is a must-see:



A fitting final end to the year mainstream journalism died. Sanchez must have mistaken Joe as a candidate with all those pointed questions, including background history. Or maybe it's more descriptive to say that average Joes now get treated more like candidates than the candidates. Joe even mentioned this early on, which was perhaps some of the source of some of his grief. Thou shalt not question the ethics of the press or That One™!

He managed to get the word "principle" out several times but didn't effectively rebut Sanchez's ridiculous turnaround examples, such as the notion Joe didn't want to pay any taxes at all. Nonsense of course but a common tactic used by liberals on message boards because it paints their opposition as greedy and selfish while giving the arguer absolute moral authority as an advocate for the oppressed.

Ironic though, since Biblical teachings about selfishness and greed are usually rebuked as immoral in SOCAS debates and certainly not fit to be taught in public schools. But again, nobody is saying the rich shouldn't pay taxes, only that they shouldn't pay them all. Both agreed on a fair tax, which is not real progressive.

Bottom line, there's nothing more un-American than the concept of punishing success or having high-nosed bureaucrats spreading somebody else's wealth. We are a nation founded on individualism, although somebody needs to tell this Moran who could benefit from a re-read of elementary level teachings about America.

Oh by the way, if it comes out later than someone wrote in the name "Joe the Plumber" for the District 9 Congressional seat here in Tennessee, don't look at me.

Final Thoughts

Well, hopefully not final in the sense of final, but final for this election. And not a moment too soon.

Whew. O'Reilly was talking about McCain as if he'd already lost, this after whining about how Mac blew him off on the Factor. Meanwhile the other Foxers were lamenting on how horrible his campaign was--as if they'd already been tipped on the winner by the Illuminati. Access is important, I guess.

Anyway, permit me some thoughts and predictions..

AYERS and WRIGHT
The right was wrong about harping more on Wright. All likely voters saw the videos (or continuous loops on Fox as Obama called them) and heard about the terrorist connections. That dog was not gonna hunt or even shoot moose from a Cessna. If Obama wins William Ayers will probably sport a cocky condescending tone when he meets the mainstream media Wednesday to gloat about the victory. Heck, maybe he'll even reference his hope for change talking points from the Khalidi party video, who knows.

RACE RIOTS

If Obama loses by a hair people will be outraged, probably spurred on by vein-popping rhetoric by peace-loving reverends like Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan. And Wright. And Pfleger. But I'm thinking there won't be any meta riots. The inner cities will flare up but many blacks are better off than when Rodney King was zapped in 1994 and people tend to get more conservative when they gain ground in an effort to protect their advancements. If trouble breaks out my guess is that Obama himself will step in and call for calm in an effort to set himself up for 2012. He'll only be 52 then.

HOW the ONE WOULD GOVERN

He'll govern toward the left. Maybe the far left. Similar to Clinton in 1993, the Dems will probably figure they'll need to move fast while the irons are hot. I've been on the fence as to whether he'd trend moderate to protect his Congress in 2010 but the chickens will be coming home to roost--he'll have no choice but to spread the feed around. One sure way to judge might be to watch whether Pelosi and/or Reid are dethroned from their leadership positions or fitted for togas.

THE FUTURE OF THE GOP

The future is Sarah Palin or people like her. Under that veneer of media-spread bullshiite there is a Bible-believing common sense moderate conservative family woman who thinks more about 'right vs wrong' rather than 'left vs right'. Based on the Dem/media tarring of the GOP as a bunch of crooks this simply MUST be the future of the party for it to survive a massive loss.

PROMISES

Obama, if he wins, will not be remembered in history books as a tax cutter (unless he succeeds in controlling the writing of history). He WILL go after global warming via caps and trades and stuff--he'll have no choice as Gore will be breathing down his neck no matter how cold it gets. Obama is as close to a socialist as Bernie Sanders but he'll be restricted from going too far here in center-right AmeriKKKa so he'll have to be careful lest the peasants rebel, but nothing will stop him from placing liberal justices in every slot imaginable, probably to include Judge Judy.

On the war front he will not invade Pakistan, Syria, Iran, or anywhere else in search of al Qaeda but will likely engage in some skirmishes ala Biden, just like Clinton's bombing of Saddam's Baghdad Mukhabarat after the World Trade Center was attacked, er, I mean after Bush 41 was attacked. Or almost attacked. Or rumored to have been targeted. Gotta show some toughness off the bat.

ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

!Viva la revolucion! Bienviedo los Estados Unidos, and here's the website to sign up for health care (something that rich, selfish, unpatriotic achievers will be providing). And that's just McCain.

GAYS AND GUNS

If you must be told which way Obama and/or McCain will break on these issues you must be dumb.

THE FINAL VERDICT

If my above scribblings haven't given it away that's a good thing. Although conventional mainstream media wisdom is that Obama has already won actual wisdom usually waits for events to occur (unless one is a weatherman or financial planner). I have no clue as to the winner. I'll go vote, grab the popcorn and watch like everyone else. But one thing is sure--if Obama wins the world will not end, at least not this week. If Obama wins and the Dems also get a filibuster-proof cushion in the Senate I reserve the right to amend that comment. And if McCain wins I reserve the right to pass out.

UPDATE 11/04/08

I was wrong about Ayers' appearance in front of the media on Wednesday...it has already occurred, and it's just as achingly pathetic as his dustup with the Fox reporter:

Ayers said he blames what he called liberal media outlets for failing to dismiss Obama's acquaintance with him as a case of guilt by association, likening it to the way the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth created a narrative that helped doom Sen. John F. Kerry four years ago.

"The dishonest narrative is that guilt by association has some validity," Ayers said, saying the performance of the media was "kind of shameful."

Shameful? He was hiding from the media; they were hiding from him; and the Obama campaign was all over the map trying to distance themselves. But hey, as Ayers once said to some students, "history is a motherf**ckr". One has to wonder if he'll now make the morning show TV rounds.

No Longer Too Young

Andrew Young, December 2007:

“I want Barack Obama to be president,” Young said, pausing for effect, “in 2016.”

“It’s not a matter of being inexperienced. It’s a matter of being young,” said Young, who is 75. “There’s a certain level of maturity ... you’ve got to learn to take a certain amount of (expletive).”

Andrew Young, November 2008 "I never said that..". Dude.

The Seminal Reverend Wright

The left is outraged with the return of Reverend Wright, charging team McCain with a desperation play (through a 527). I agree--the ad was a mistake. Who hasn't seen these lunatic rants by now, and more than once? What people haven't seen very much is Wright's explanation of why Obama stuffed him up under the bus after 20 faithful years:



"He does what politicians do". Translation: Wright thinks the disavowal was pure politics, which suggests he believes Obama's still down with the message but had to lie to the white folks to win. In a sane world that might shine light on Obama's other disassociations but in this one it comes off as racism.

Obama's Aunt Z

So Aunt Z is an illegal. Surprise, surprise. And she lives in publicly-funded housing. Surprise again. And she illegally donated money to his campaign. Yawn.

Let's face it, both candidates successfully buried the illegal immigration issue this year. Like whack-a-mole, whenever it came up it quickly beaten back into its hole. Fittingly, the Aunt Z story popped with only 3 days left before election--not enough time for an adequate public debate on a complex issue.

Should Obama speak on this? Yes. Should McCain? Yes. If the Reverend Wright issue required a national dialogue on race certainly this qualifies. It will get nothing. It's simply too late and nobody has any answers that don't involve following money trails and entrenched political quid pro quos.

Oh, there are some rule of law zealots who'll be watching to see if Obama returns the money--he says he will--but his cartoonish supporters will no doubt brand these dissenters as racist-xenophobes.

Meanwhile the facts are laid bare--Obama is clearly tied to an illegal campaign contribution from a non-US citizen living off American taxpayers. Such a thing should immediately trigger a widespread investigation of his campaign donor list or in the least, a general debate on selfishness and redistribution.

But it won't be pushed by McCain, who stands to gain nothing from opening the immigration can of worms this close to election. He knows his tepid supporters have long since given it up for dead and Palin can't go against her running mate without being called a rogue. So Obama will skate again.

Ironically, Politico today released a list of Obama cabinet rumors and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano was listed under a possible Attorney General slot. Last minute poo thrown in McCain or a serious rumor? Not sure, but based on her past support of granting drivers licenses to illegals it might signal some good news for Aunt Z. After all, Gov Janet would be in charge of enforcing federal law, so just hang in there Auntie. Change is comin'.

MORE 11/01/08

The donation was returned, but will Aunt Z? Here's the Obama camp:

Aides said Obama had not been in touch with his late father's sister, Zeituni Onyango, 56, for at least four years, and questioned reporting about her residency status so close to Tuesday's election against Republican John McCain.

Last contact four years ago, eh? That just happens to be around the same time her asylum petition was turned down and she was ordered deported. Meaning he's trying to establish he didn't know she hadn't left as requested. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't but the timing has become the story now, not the actual story.

MORE 11/01/08

Came across this picture from 2004, suddenly realizing that Cheney is ALSO related to Obama. Maybe McCain could have taken that somewhere had Darth not endorsed him today. Notice though that Dick seems to be presiding over matters. Running the show. Ahem.

The Public Interest

That's Jeri Zimmerman, aka Jeri Lynn Ryan, aka Seven of Nine Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One a Borg character on Star Trek Voyager in the 90s. She divorced husband Jack Ryan, a 2004 Illinois Senate candidate, in 1999.

Here's the conservative Chicago paper that endorsed Obama discussing the matter:

Ryan is facing Democrat Barack Obama in the November general election to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Illinois). Obama said it would not be "appropriate" for him to comment on the revelations. "Obviously Mr. Ryan and his supporters will be discussing this and I don't think that's my role," Obama said.

The rest is history. The GOP ridiculously recruited Alan Keyes to become humiliated against the One and his campaign for presidency officially began, even if he wasn't ready yet.

Notice in that instance the Trib was all in favor of unsealing Ryan's divorce records for the public interest. Here's CNN:

Several Chicago media organizations had sued for release of documents relating to the Ryans' divorce, saying the public interest outweighed their concerns about privacy and the possible effect on their now 9-year-old son.

Gee, one might think releasing the the tape of Obama and Rashid Khalidi at a party would pale in comparison.

MORE 11/01/08

One might think the Chicago Trib, who as we see above pushed for the release of Ryan's divorce smut when it was in the public interest of Illinoisans (and Obama) would be consistent in regards to the Khalidi tape. One would be wrong:

Perhaps the source realized how easy it would be to cut the video to obscure or even hide altogether the end of that sentence, "Obama, in his comments, called for finding common ground."

Perhaps the source knew that the mendacious peddlers of smear and fear who've been attacking Obama care nothing for context and look to maximize the innuendo content in any incident or scrap of information they can find.

Perhaps the source didn't want to feed the anti-Arab bigotry so visible just beneath the surface of the GOP campaign.

Perhaps the source just wanted the Times to help write an accurate story and didn't want to abet the inevitable character assassination of Obama (and Khalidi) that would follow the release of his video.

But even if the source hadn't put any conditions on the use of his video, I'd like to think that...

the Los Angeles Times would have declined on principle to turn over its source material to ill-motivated political hacks.

Ethics, indeed.