Winning

Was it worth it?  Yes.  Rolling over is never a strategy.  There was going to be a showdown over debt anyway so an impasse was certain.  But it's hard to fight against the President, Senate, most of the media, Hollywood and international bodies, especially if your own army is divided. 

Handicapping the players, well Dirty Harry Reid acted predictably, figuring he could stonewall the divided GOP caucus and force them to cave, and he played that role brilliantly.  If the president was involved it was hard to tell where, but his non-involvement was a chosen strategy.  Whatever it takes in the craven march to our Euro-socialist future.  Boehner actually showed more resolve than I figured he would but in the end his hands were tied.  He wasn't going to blow everything up to please the likes of Sean Hannity.  Live to fight another day.    

But people like John McCain deserve to be addressed directly:  Sir--just shut the fork up about any financial matters from here forward please.  You screwed it up in 2008 and here you are again blabbing with blinders on.  If you feel the need to jab your fellow Republicans in the back do it to your bathroom mirror.  If you feel the need to talk publicly, stick to talking about terrorists.  Your political enemies do not want to be friends with you, k?  They want to skewer you with hot pokers and leave you naked and cuckolded in the street holding a sign saying 'racist'.  OK, my friend?  Thanks.  

As to the overall fight and what it means, I can't say it any better than the White House Dossier guy...

I realize that sounds quite delusional to many people, particularly here in Washington. But it makes total, absolute sense.

The muttering class Inside the Beltway is very pleased with itself: The doomed Tea Party strategy is foundering on the shoals of idiocy, just like they said it would. The Republican “brand” has been downgraded yet again. America is looks foolish abroad: “The world has reacted mostly with disbelief that a superpower could fall into such dysfunction,” wrote the New York Times today. Reasonable people will soon be back in charge so they can do reasonable things in a reasonable way without all these Tea Party lunatics stirring up trouble.

Let me tell all of you something: THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY IN A STATE OF TOTAL DYSFUNCTION, AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.

A state of dysfunction, mind you, brought to you by the “reasonable” people who have been striking deals for years that have created $17 trillion in debt and a possibly irreversible degree of Socialism that is lobotomizing our tradition of independent thinking and creativity, crippling free enterprise, and carving the soul out of the moral, God-fearing ethic that has made this nation the greatest on earth.

The shaky status-quo moderates who helped get America to this point will not be remembered well in the course of history.

Same Guy...

...could have been president.

John McCain, secret Syrian agent.   The guy to McCain's right is allegedly Mohammed Nour, who kidnapped Shiite pilgrims.  McCain's office said, hey he didn't know, but he knows the good guys from the bad guys.  Does anyone get a warm fuzzy as to what his presidential judgment would have looked like?  

Call it Exhibit A of why it was so hard to pull the lever for this guy in 2008.  The necessity of making that choice is the actual Obama administration, Exhibit B, although at least he's kept America out of the Syrian conflict--for now at least (unless a big distraction is needed should one the scandals spin out of control).  

Syria is not Iraq.  They don't have a long history of targeting Americans or attacking their neighbors.  They're allied with Iran, making things complex.  They actually worked with us in the GWoT (just like Libya) in detaining some pretty bad guys. Case in point, after we stabbed Assad in the back by backing the rebels he released the infamous 'red headed terrorist', the guy who long ago formulated the kind of local jihad we are now seeing across the globe such as in Boston.  Gaddafi's weapons ended up in the hands of jihadists, too.  

Therefore most Americans are wary of US involvement in Syria despite any WMD bluster.  After what happened in Iraq they probably wouldn't be persuaded even if some of Hussein's chemical weapons turn up on the streets of Damascus, crossing the red line.   They also notice that some of the major rebel players are aligned with the same barbarians who ran planes into the Trade Center in 2001.  John McCain apparently sees them as brave freedom fighters in the mold of Patrick Henry, dancing in the streets during the Cedar Revolution.  There were flags being raised in that one, but no black flags of jihad were seen.     

The late Christopher Hitchens' brother has a piece today about western blowback, accusing Britain of helping to ignite the region so they can help save it, something the west has been doing a long time by choosing sides between tinpots and terrorists.  But perhaps there's a much higher nuance.

Perhaps, as Saddam Hussein himself suggested, the grand strategy is really to keep the Arabs, Persians and South Asians fighting amongst themselves. It certainly was the US strategy during the Iran-Iraq war.  A weakened and divided Arabia/Persia can't organize into a coalition and truly wipe Israel off the map or put a stranglehold on worldwide oil currency.

Or maybe it's less than that.  Maybe our current fearless leaders think that by helping jihadists in Libya, Egypt, and Syria they will repay them with positive blowback in the future despite what happened after we helped defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan or after our Balkans intervention.

It seems people here in the states understand the reality of a very complex region where the enemies are often undefined.  McCain doesn't appear to be one of them.

SPEAKING OF IDIOCY   6/3/13

Are these guys trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?  You don't go on TV and call Jay Carney a 'paid liar', fer chrissakes.  Yes, pretty much EVERYBODY in DC is a paid liar, going all the way to the top, but it's not something you say when they are on the ropes, giving them a lifeline to change the subject.   Cripes.

Hagel on the Hot Seat

Didn't see the entire thing, only the snippets, but it certainly seemed like Chuck Hagel was either a deer in the headlights or playing the shrewd game to keep from making news.  He did anyway.  

And the Repubs certainly tried to goad him into popping off.  But this effort looks just a wee bit personal:



Rachel Maddow led off her show tonight highlighting this, pointing out how McCain had been best buds with Hagel back when we were going into Iraq only to split company after Hagel saw the bright light of the reality-based community and decided to follow the path taken by former GOPers like Colin Powell and Lawrence Wilkerson, jabbing the GOP at every available opportunity.   There's definitely bad blood. 

Speaking of the general, O'Reilly interviewed Powell this week and asked what no mainstreamer would--did old hard feelings arise after he was sent out to the UN to make the case for Iraq?  In other words, is this just score-settling now?  The general was officially shocked, shocked at such an insinuation and indicated he was fully onboard with the intel and he wasn't going to give traction to any such silliness, etc., which forced O'Reilly to back down.    Maybe a designed play to leave the impression there were no ulterior motives in his supporting one of the most liberal Democrats the country has ever seen rise to the presidency.

But the question OR should have asked was, "does it have anything to do with you knowing who the Plame leaker was--your deputy Richard Armitage--very early on and not going to the president to inform him, letting the entire special prosecutor Libby thing go down?"   He may have had a pat answer, but there is evidence Powell and his crew at State thought they'd been hosed by Cheney, Rove and the neocons and perhaps they've never gotten over it.  

And that's probably part of what changed Chuck Hagel--Iraq.  It split him from McCain and left the old loyal POW out there twisting in the wind with his decision.  Maybe today was payback.  

By the by, Maddow said repeatedly that "can we all finally agree the Iraq war was a mistake", the correct answer being the one Hagel used with McCain ("leaving the judgment to history").  It would be fun to ask people like her the question, "how would things have looked with Saddam still around this past decade?"  Would the Arab Spring have occurred?  Would Israel have given back Gaza?   Or would our no-fly zones still be in operation?  Maybe for 100 years? Few in the reality-based community care for such hypotheticals.

Outrage?

Now that Susan Rice has withdrawn her name as future Secretary of State leaving John Kerry as the nominee it will be interesting to see if McCain, his BFF in the Senate, shows up on the Sunday shows with outrage over Benghazi.    After all, Hillary apparently fell and suffered a hip pointer and can't make it to testify this coming week--apparently not even in a wheelchair--so it would certainly seem that deals have been made in DC even if the fiscal cliff still looms.

What kind of deal?  Maybe none, but maybe one where the GOP agree not to pursue Benghazi (and whatever clandestine operation was blown there resulting in four deaths) in return for Obama picking Kerry for SoS so Massachusetts will have to hold another special election for his seat, which Scott Brown might win again. Or at least that's what Lawrence O'Donnell has been saying.

Conspiracy or no, the whole thing certainly doesn't exactly pass the smell test--Rice withdraws on the same day Foreign Policy reported that the State investigation into Benghazi might not be released to the public, then Hillary come down with a flu-related injury and can't testify just as Kerry gets the nod, all in the span of three days. 

Do they think the public is that dumb or tuned out?  Yes, of course.

Now, perhaps the tell of whether this is actually a conspiracy/deal per O'Donnell is McCain.  Will he show up on the Sunday shows today outraged over this development?  Will he question Hillary's health issue and demand she put the nation first and hobble in for the good of the country?  Or will he demur and become all statesman-like?  Or be a complete no-show?   We'll see.

EARLY PREVIEWS.. 

Wall to wall coverage on the shooting.  That's logical and expected, but at the same time fortuitous for Hillary, McCain and Graham.   

Biden's Biden

Joe Biden talked to Larry King and seems to be laying down some new ground..



We must assume Joe is privy to some inside knowledge as to the size of the next attack lest he set the administration (or maybe just him) up for failure. But it's an interesting statement. Perhaps Joe has been sent out to help put terrorism back into the nuisance box so as not to lose focus on the the more important domestic agenda. Downplaying the threat also helps get the KSM show trial to Manhattan, a plan mostly likely designed to allow surrogates to take free shots at Bush-Cheney and tie them to current Repubs in front of the mid-terms. Oh and to uphold our values.

Or maybe it was just Joe being Joe. After all, he offhandedly praised Bush on fighting terror and said he "likes" Sarah Palin despite some of her ideas (countdown to a Palin Facebook reply).

But the suggestion, even if clumsily made, that his administration might get credit for a successful Iraq was just plain 'out there'. Or wait, again, maybe it was just Joe being Joe, since he was once a true believer. It's hard to tell! Is this kinder, gentler Joe representative of some kind of new way forward in the post Scott Brown/Abdulmuttalob era at least until the health summit, or just a political burp? Well, whatever the case let's hope Obama doesn't go all Gangsta on him for talking out of turn. Joe's a likable guy.

Passport-gate Update

Remember the night Keith Olbermann thought he had another Watergate? In a fit of hilarity, before he could get his special 'special comment' written about the worstest worst person in the world, which was likely a toss-up between Condi Rice, Bush, Rove or Bill O'Reilly (he's always in play) the story dynamically transformed into contractors accessing all three major candidates' passport records in the State Dept, spluttering the balloon in deflated circles around his neck.

The initial snoopers involved worked for two State contractors--John O. Brennan's Analysis Corp and Phil Nolan's Stanley Associates. Brennan was a big Obama supporter who later became a leading candidate for CIA Director until the nutroots viciously took him out, leaving him a mere intelligence czar, and Phil Nolan was a big Hillary supporter. Sounds like at least a "friendly" rivalry there.

Anyway, the DoJ has been slowly busting employees who gained unauthorized access and today comes news of the fifth employee's takedown. Here's the DOJ release naming names.

Of course this story has overlapped into the birth cert conspiracy, with the general gist being the snoopers were trying to sanitize, or as Ken Timmerman put it, 'cauterize' the records to keep anyone from seeing copies of original birth certs or other stuff possibly in the files. Publicity hounds like Orly Taitz have also made hay with the Lt. Harris murder twist, which does give the whole thing a kind of Robert Ludlum feel, although on deeper inspection, not so much.

The deeper story might be the fraud ring Harris was connected with featuring moles in the State Department selling access. This was all made more stark by today's news of the swiping of information from millions of credit cards. From the Wash Times on Harris:

Mr. Harris also said the fraud ring submitted credit-card applications using the names and “identifying information” of the persons listed on the passport applications, and that a postal service employee then would intercept the cards before they were delivered to the appropriate residences.

Better not let Obama hear about such postal employees when making future comparisons to government health care. As to Harris' death there seem to be three possibilities: 1) he committed suicide, 2) he was rubbed out by former thug pals or by some thug passing by, or 3) some political black ops red team eliminated him. Those who believe Timmerman and his anonymous insiders will undoubtedly believe number 3. Others, including me, will need more proof.

FURTHERMORE 8/18/09

This is the stupidest thing you'll see all day. Or all week. Or all month.

Sore Winners

Two columnists for the New York Times this morning are advocating Bush's removal from office before his time is up. The first, Thomas Friedman, suggests we amend the Constitution to move up the inauguration to Thanksgiving. The other, Gail Collins, opines that Bush and Cheney simply should resign and hand power to Pelosi until Barack takes the oath Jan 20.

It's hard to top Dan Reihl's reaction:

Fact: If Iraq is successful in holding on to its fragile, fledgling democracy and it begins to spread more broadly through the Middle-east, History will judge George Bush as a pivotal American President instrumental in turning around a particularly backward and malignant part of the world at a time when said world needed it most.

Fact: History will not remember Gail Collins at all. And the way they are going, that may one day prove true for the New York Times as well.

To be fair, Freidman understands the chances of an amendment passing are slim to none and slim left on last night's Greyhound, so instead he's advocating an immediate appointment of Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner.

Aside from the fact it's a stupid argument to suggest constitutionally moving the inauguration to Thanksgiving based on what the country experienced in 2000, appointing Geithner would require going to confirmation with the Senate we have, not the Senate we elected. Say he finally gets confirmed by Christmas then desires to do something totally antithetical to the will of team Bush? Are we then to have a coup?

As to Ms. Collins, either the article is a joke or she has outed herself as a moonbat on par with Cindy Sheehan. The people didn't elect Nancy Pelosi and besides, Obama cannot effectively do much to stop the financial crisis just by moving his ash trash onto the Oval Office desk. His public works stimulus plan would stand a much better chance of passage with all the new Dems and especially if the Senate has a filibuster buster margin.

Not only that, but having Pelosi at the top seems a massive conflict of interest considering she'd return to her position as Speaker right after the inauguration, perhaps sheparding her own bills through Congress. Quite ridiculous and unhinged, especially coming from an organization that fought the fight against Bush's massage of the Constitution.

But stepping back from this it's quite a marvel to see all the calls for immediate action from the Times. Not saying we might not need it, but when McCain suspended his campaign to fly to DC it was alluded to as grandstanding by some.

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.

"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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Times Finally Does Expose on Ayers

Just kidding. Their ongoing fantasy that Mr. Obama's hazy relationship with the unrepentant, Marxist-loving domestic terrorist, which he misled a debate audience about, is still not fit to print.

The same gray lady looks upon Mr. McCain and sees no ethical problem dropping unfounded allegations, such as today's investigation of his reputation as a gambler:

A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table.

It's prudent to begin reading such articles in the middle, working towards the end (where all the meat lies), then returning to the top for context. In this case the middle starts about here:

Mr. McCain’s spokesman, Tucker Bounds, would not discuss the senator’s night of gambling at Foxwoods, saying: “Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists — and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has.”

The jist--Mr. McCain sided with the Indians sometimes; other times he didn't; and various times he's correctly stated that the Indian gaming industry is a potential black hole of exploitation and graft, as we saw with Mr. Abramoff. The real jist was to get the words McCain, lobbyist and gambler together in the same story, and they succeeded.

Missing from the article was Mr. Harry Reid's affiliation with Indian tribes and Mr. Abramoff. Sure, Mr. Reid's not running for president but he is running the very chamber where Mr. McCain performs his gambling, er, gaming reform.

But for some reason the Times seems to think its readers deserve more in-depth reportage about a man who entered the public eye around the time Mr. Obama became legal to drink than about a man who won't even release his college transcript from Columbia. Heck, any Mr. Average Joe on the street who attended college and is seeking a government job must provide a transcript or they'll lose points. Shouldn't an applicant for the presidency be held to the same standards? Perhaps the Times is diligently working on this important story right now.