This is shameful . . . trusting statists with power

This story out of Ohio is disturbing. I'm trusting that Liberals across the U.S. are decrying these actual (as opposed to imagined--see, "Patriot Act") abuses of gov't power to invade the privacy of citizens:

"A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on 'Joe the Plumber' were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote."

Demand proof of Obama . . .

Here's one of Obama's laugh lines/efforts at distraction on the stump these days:

“He's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next,” Obama said at a rally at the Halifax mall here.

“By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

Forget about getting a look at Obama's actual birth certificate . . . from what I've heard about his charitable giving and stories about his flesh and blood living in slums and shacks, I want to see proof that Obama ever shared his toys.

"Privatize" . . . you mean as opposed to "socialize"?

Yes, it's election year and as sure as bogeyman appear on Halloween, the Democrat candidate for president, Barack Obama is trying to scare people about Republican (and McCain) plans for "privatizing" parts (actually, teeny weeny parts) of Social Security.

But the opposite of "privatiz[e]" is "socialize."

Pushing Obama?

Just looking over some of the polling data, given discussion that Obama might win the popular vote and still lose the election, I looked over one of the seeming outlier polls (The Pew poll reflecting a whopping 15 point lead for Obama) and saw this interesting question:

Q.23 For each statement that has been made about the candidates, please tell me if you agree or disagree with it:
a. Barack Obama would do too much for African Americans
b. John McCain would do too much for wealthy Americans

Sorry, but that sounds like a push poll to me . . . which might explain the results.

Let's not mix religion and politics

Michael DelGiorno is talking this a.m. about an article by Joseph Farah ("Obama: Never a Christian") in which Farah makes the argument that Senator Barack Obama is not a Christian. I'm glad that this issue was raised, not because it might hurt Obama's campaign for president (I'm definitely not a supporter of most Democratic Party policies), but because there are some things more important than politics. You need to read the op/ed to understand the rest of my post . . .

First of all, it is ironic to hear a 20-year parishioner of Jeremiah Wright's church claim to be a, "big believer in separation of church and state." Black Liberation Theology is the FUSION of religion and politics, to the point that the religion has no meaning at all.

But secondly, Farah is absolutely correct in concluding that Obama is not a Christian. Obama's religious beliefs do not square with any credible interpretation of what Jesus said about being a Christian or Follower of Christ. It's not about the good works--Obama has some character qualities that are consistent with Christian character qualities, and only God can judge the heart of a man. Rather, it is about what Obama believes or says he believes. And I think there are only a handful of public policies that are directly contrary to Biblical principles, so this isn't saying that support for a "progressive" income tax, for example, is "unChristian."

Next, it is important to plainly state that the fact that someone is not a Christian (by which I do not mean someone-who-lives-in-an-historically-Christian-culture), does not mean that I cannot or would not cast a vote for him or her. A person not being a Christian also has little to do with how I would treat them--certainly under the law, but even in a relationship.

Lastly, I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim. In fact, I am confident that he is NOT a Muslim; rather, I believe either he is an agnostic--who doesn't really know what he believes, a universalist--who has a definite belief that is broad enough to encompass most religions and subjective enough to mean nothing, or at the worst, a secularist who uses religious talk/verbiage to attract the "clingers".

As a Christian, I would be remiss (and I think that Farah is similarly motivated) if I allowed politics to muddle something as important as a person's beliefs that have eternal consequences.

Busted! Obama the Marxist

Here's a great report and analysis of the Barack Obama interview wherein he fleshes out his views on socialism.

I must point out that some people on talk radio are misinterpreting Obama's statement about "negative rights" inasmuch as they (certain Conservative pundits) don't realize the generally Conservative (jurisprudentially speaking) nature of that term. Indeed, Obama was bemoaning the fact that the Warren Court had not found very many "positive rights" despite all its activism. Of course, the distinction between positive and negative isn't always a clear one . . . but we know what BO meant.

Betting on elections . . .

Lately I've heard several Libs wanting to bet on the Presidential election. It is an interesting Liberal tick--very adolescent, as if politics is a big game or as if a Conservative's unwillingness to enter a bet with a blustery bonehead proves something . . . I guess they think they're calling our bluff (after all, EVERYone knows this election is in_the_bag!) or that they can dispirit us.

Well, not that Libs will care, but while looking over Tennessee election law this evening, I came across this statute which prohibits betting on an election.

§ 2-19-129. Betting; on election

A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if such person makes any bet or wager of money or other valuable thing upon any election.

Obama's economic agenda

There's a great analysis over WSJ about Barack Obama's economic agenda ("How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?" - WSJ.com). Here's one excerpt:

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.

How is he going to pay for it?

Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.

The reality is that any promises by Obama to "cut taxes" (actually, Obama is disingenuously labeling "tax credits" as "tax cuts"--newsflash: Democrat doesn't know the meaning of a tax cut) are swallowed up by the INEVITABLE growing tax burden that will be necessitated by his agenda.

The Krauthammer nails Obama for President

In all candor, I had been out of sorts with Charles Krauthammer because of his--as I perceived it, hyper-critical view of the Palin pick. But this column is excellent. ("McCain for President") Here's an excerpt:

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of 'a world that stands as one'), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as 'the tragedy of 9/11,' a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

Caught on Tape: ACORN and Democrat GOTV efforts

Here's some disturbing video of GOTV efforts by ACORN and the Obama campaign.

Election "fraud" fog in Nashville

Mark at "Dork Nation" (Republicans Allege Vote Fraud in Nashville) is sifting through a report (here) of a report about a recent dust up at a Davidson County early voting site (via A.C. Kleinheider). It should go without saying that the organic, real time, unedited, entertainment-focused medium of talk radio is a messy venue for sorting out the facts in such a situation, but here goes . . .

Actually, the problem (based on my conversations with Election Commission insiders) was that a person (an interpreter) was claiming authority to accompany voters into the polling booth to assist them with voting . . . that's not legal, unless the Officer of Elections concludes the voter is unable to vote without assistance and unless the voter requests that the person accompanying him/her be allowed to assist him/her. And the law only contemplates illiterate or some other physical disability, but I guess illiteracy can reasonably be construed to include persons "illiterate in English." T. C. A. § 2-7-116. That's a debate for another day.

Also, though Mark (and ACK) imply that the statute summarily dispenses with claims that ID is required to cast a ballot, completing an affidavit of identity (in lieu of proper ID) is only one step in the process of determining if the person can vote. The code further requires that the information on the affidavit be compared with the information on file (his/her signature and other info collected when a person registers). If everything is perceived to be on the up and up, they're given a normal ballot; if not, they're allowed to vote with a provisional ballot. T. C. A. § 2-7-112

But something that needs to be pointed out in this whole debate is that one means of undermining ballot integrity is by flooding a polling place with potential voters who require special treatment. Given the histrionics about voter suppression and other forms of "disenfranchisement," poll workers are often motivated to give the demanding party (e.g., the ACORN or La Raza rep. or the friendly ACLU lawyer-on-loan) whatever they demand rather than wait for confirmation from Election Comm. HQ or rather than go through all the steps that are required for determining the person's eligibility to vote. One clever trick I've heard of (I think in PA in 2006) is to swamp a polling place (which invariably has a limited number of provisional ballots) with "ineligible" voters who ultimately are allowed to cast normal, untraceable ballots rather than be turned away because of a shortage of provisional ballots.

Complicated and rife with technicalities, you say? No doubt; but it is difficult to conduct a fair ballot (actually, it is almost impossible, especially if you expect it to be simple and easy) when determined persons have concluded that the end of winning an election justifies even immoral means.

Election fraud(s) in TN!!!

You'd think the computer whizzes brilliant enough to hack computers and thereby steal (Presidential) elections from (only) Democrats would be smart enough to have the software do it without making a big show of the whole scheme. ("The BRAD BLOG : Election Integrity Filmmaker Sees Own Vote Flipped on ESS Touch-Screens in TN"). And how cool is it that someone who tries to make documentaries on this stuff actually has a first-hand experience of it and that this happened in little ol' (navy blue) Nashville!?!?

In Dubya's defense

I heard something yesterday regarding some of the ill-considered policies of George W. Bush, all the Leftish ideas that were intended--at best, as efforts to reach across the aisle, or--at worst, as coalition builders: NCLB, Medicare prescription coverage, absolving more and more Americans from paying taxes. BTW, Dubya gets a lot of credit from the Left for compromising with them on all those issues, huh? Not.

In any event, it's going to be difficult to ever go back on those policies, and their moral consequences are not positive.

That being said, I enjoyed this imaginary resignation speech that someone wrote for Bush.

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' In stead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.< /I>

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

Senators O'Biden dressing as Conservatives for Halloween

Senators Biden and Obama have been working overtime to appear Conservative on a host of issues in the run up to the general election, and a great example of this masquerade is on the issue of homosexual/gay/same-sex "marriage."

A few weeks ago at the Vice Presidential debate Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden had this exchange with the debate moderator.

GOV. SARAH PALIN: ...I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman...I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage...
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that.

But last week Biden told a reporter in Los Angeles that he opposes Proposition 8, California's marriage protection amendment. And yesterday on the "Ellen" show, Biden again stated, "If I lived in California, I'd clearly vote against Prop 8."

Now which is it, O'Biden?

WFB's son is a putz

I'm even less impressed with WFB's son now that he is whining about the flak he's getting for endorsing (if that's the right word: "endorsement" implies significance) Barack Obama. But this quote was rich . . . a guy claiming Republicans don't have a big tent because they're shunning a guy who endorsed a Democrat. From the the Daily Beast piece:

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

Considering voting for Obama . . .

Marxist "fairness"

Here's a friend's insightful analysis of Obama's encounter with everyman "Joe the Plumber":

[Joe] brought out of Obama what years of campaigning and 3 debates could not. One phrase, 'we need to spread the wealth around to give the people below you a fair shake.' Sounds great, unless you actually think about it. Fairness? It's the government's job to make things fair eh?

Let's look at it like this. I work my butt off to get a good grade in one of my several colligiate classes, sacrificing some television, socialization, and entertainment to attain my grade. However some of my classmates 'were busy' playing video games, partying, sleeping, etc. which 'prohibited' them from working as hard on the class. Mid-terms come by, I get an A, my 'busy' (slacker) classmate gets a D. Now, getting a better grade will usually open more doors for opportunity than getting a poor grade. So, to give people below me a 'fair shake' why don't we give some of my points to the other guy and give us both a C+. Wouldn't that be fair?

Screw fairness.

We all started at the same point, I worked harder, I got a better grade.

That's justice.

If I received only the mean grade from any of my classes I would never score higher than a C, why work hard? If a university did this to any of us, we would all be up in arms!

And speaking of Capitalism . . . my friend also has some nice t-shirt designs for sale. I like the "Senator Government" one.

At least he "sounds" Conservative . . .

This op/ed obliterates the disingenuous assertion by Obama that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. (The American Spectator: "Searching for Obama's 95 Percent"). From the article:

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- "We are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans," Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in the spin room here at Hofstra University following the final debate of the 2008 presidential election.

Plouffe was repeating one of the boldest claims made by the Obama campaign. It's a claim that the Wall Street Journal editorial board dubbed 'Obama's 95% Illusion,' noting that more than a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, and that what Obama's plan does do is offer a raft of subsidies and government payments to individuals and families that he redefines as "tax cuts." His proposal looks more like a redistribution scheme than an honest effort to reduce taxes -- as he revealed on Monday when he told a now famous Ohio plumber that his plan aimed to "spread the wealth around."

Biden was only quoting Obama . . .

"Present" but unconvincing

As I watch the Tampa Bay Rays struggle to finish off the Boston Red Sox (after blowing their 7th inning, 7-run lead), I was thinking about the difficulty Senator "Present" is having in finishing off John McCain. Obama Hasn't Closed the Sale - WSJ.com

Ayers is un-American, bombs or not

Yes, Barack Obama was eight years old when Bill Ayers was an active, homeland terrorist, but Obama's affiliations as an adult are un- and anti-American to a disturbing degree. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and Michelle Obama view America differently than the average American.On education, on private property, on race . . . these folks are radical, and Obama is notably comfortable with their views.

Which brings me to this interesting Chicago Tribune article about unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers:

"Ayers' office door is decorated with pictures of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Che Guevara and Malcolm X. It is also home to pictures of children, bills of rights for students and parents, and a rainbow-hued greeting card advising 'How to Be Really Alive.' A place of prominence is given to a New Yorker cartoon of a man interviewing for a job. The interviewer says, 'I'm trying to find a way to balance your strengths against your felonies.'"

Ayers is almost a Lefty cliche . . . people need to know that Obama's mainstream-ish rhetoric while running for President is "just words, just speeches."

Hey! We're in the news!!

There's a Music City angle to the story about married Representative Tim Mahoney's (D-FL) payment of hush money for at least one of his former mistresses. According to the NY Times ("Sex Scandal Shakes Race for Congress in Florida"):

That agreement included a $61,000 severance payment, a $60,000 payment for legal fees and an agreement by Ms. Allen not to join any other campaign for at least a year, the staff members said. They said the agreement also involved a promise to Ms. Allen of a job at Fletcher Rowley Chao Riddle, a Nashville firm that handled Mr. Mahoney’s advertising.

On Monday, the company said that it was severing all ties with Mr. Mahoney’s campaign and that it had no knowledge of the promises to Ms. Allen for employment.

Yikes, what a "culture of corruption"!?!?!?!

Obama lying about ACORN

Obama Campaign Involved in More Cover-Ups in ACORN Scandal | Cleveland Leader:

On Thursday we revealed the connection between Barack Obama and Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), and uncovered a 2004 article that discussed his involvement with the organization which had recently been removed from the web. Today, the cover-ups continue and language on Obama's fightthesmears.com website has been altered in order to make it look like he has been telling the truth about his ACORN associations all along.

Kudos to George McGovern

George McGovern publicly takes a stand against Obama-backed legislation that would "strip[] workers of their right to a government-supervised, private-ballot vote and replaces it with a forced-unionization system . . . ."

Speaking of hysteria

I just received another email from People for the American Way promoting their "McPalin Haiku Hysteria contest."

"Hysteria" is right? But I prefer "unhinged."

Good thing there are no super delegates

With the news of tightening polls, it's a good thing Dems and the Limousine Left have never instituted a super delegate system in general elections.

Palin's abuse of power, well . . .

Okay, I'm not sure what to think about the legislative report out of Alaska concerning allegations that Sarah Palin abused her power to have an ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Trooper's force. I've posted a couple times about how most efforts to impugn Palin have actually been flattering to her. (here, here)

But I just was reading through the official post-investigation report, and a couple of things come to mind.

First, to be clear, I have to admit that this report is not good news for Palin. Yet, as I've said elsewhere, "reformers" inherently cross a lot of people in the act of "reforming," so allegations of sharp elbows etc. are likely to abound in the wake of said reformer.

That being said, the next thing I have to note is that Todd and Sarah Palin remind me of A LOT of persons I've encountered in the practice of law (as a prosecutor and in private practice) who are desperate for "justice" (as they perceive it), and I can't help but think how normal/reasonable the Palins' actions/reactions are under these circumstances. Take for instance this odd tidbit from the report (pp. 38-39).

Governor Palin and Todd Palin had repeatedly (over several years) communicated to Walt Monegan (Commissioner of the Dept. of Public Safety) and his predecessor, that they believed their ex-brother-in-law (Michael Wooten) had not only acted illegally, etc. but he was a poor representative of Alaska State Troopers. With that history in mind, nibble on this incident detailed in the report:

Shortly before the annual celebration of Police Memorial Day on May 15, 2008, Commissioner Monegan had dropped off a color photograph at Governor Palin's Anchorage office with a request that she sign and present it at the ceremony. The photograph was of an Alaska State Trooper who was dressed in a formal uniform, saluting. He was standing in front of the police memorial located in front of the crime lab at AST headquarters in Anchorage, partially obscured by a flagpole. The picture to be signed by the Governor was to be used as a poster to be displayed in various Trooper Detachments around the state.

Shortly after he returned to his office from dropping off the photograph, he received a call from Kris Perry, Governor Palin's Director of her Anchorage office who asked [according to Walt Monegan's testimony] "Why did you send a poster over here that has a picture of Mike Wooten on it?"[] Until that moment, Commissioner Monegan never realized it was indeed a photograph of Trooper Wooten. Governor Palin cancelled her appearance and sent Lieutenant Governor Parnell in her place.

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

Oh, and one other thing . . . I trust Libs will remember First Lady Hillary Clinton when tempted to deride the Palins in relation to Todd Palin's level of involvement in the Palin adminstration.

Mrs. Obama, "Elitism" isn't where you shop

Sean Braisted alerts us to a Marie Claire interview in which Michelle Obama demonstrates either some (a) furious spinning or (b) major ignorance on the issue of socio-political "elitism."

MC: Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has advised Barack to head to Wal-Mart to connect with the “Wal-Mart women” who supported Hillary. What do you say to people who think your husband is too slick or elite for working-class voters?

Obama: I find it funny that people have tried to label Barack as an elitist. This is the man who grew up not knowing his father, with a young, single mother who he watched struggle to make ends meet — even going on food stamps at one point. And despite the economic struggles that his family went through, Barack turned down lucrative careers on Wall Street and went to work in communities to help folks in need on the South Side of Chicago, helping families who’d been devastated when the local steel plants shut down.

Ed Morrissey does a pretty good job of defining "elitism" here:.

Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do. That goes far beyond mere matters of state. Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them.

This describes perfectly the policy direction of the Democratic Party, and perhaps even a part of the Republican Party as well. That’s why the charge of elitism sticks so well to Democratic candidates in national elections. Their humble origins are immaterial to the concept of elitism. Candidates who want to grow the federal government in order to increase its nanny-state power are by definition elitists, because they believe individuals cannot make choices for themselves.

As relates to Barack Obama in particular, elitism is reflected more in his reference to hayseed voters clinging to "god or guns or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" than it is reflected in his reference to the price of "arugula".
And am I the only one bothered by Bredesen's image-over-substance suggestion?

African American gentleman explains why he's voting Republican

Here's an entertaining and enlightening video explaining why at least one black voter is not backing Barack Obama.






hat tip: Dan Cleary.

NRA endorses John McCain

You may have heard the report that the NRA ("National Rifle Association") has endorsed John McCain, then again you MAY have only heard the "headline," which interestingly enough has been "The NRA has McCain in their sights" at the 9am news update and "Gunning for John McCain" at the 10am news update (both on FoxNews radio).

I know that FoxNews is supposed to be the media arm of the GOP, but this is a peculiar way to "headline" this story.

the Bradley Effect: shame on who?

A post over at Dan Cleary's blog expresses a concern I've heard expressed by some Republicans/Conservatives that a McCain victory might be diminished if there is evidence of the so-called "Bradley Effect."

I'm not sure that it being a factor would necessarily diminish a McCain victory, unless "being truthful to pollsters" is the moral standard. Though racial prejudice MAY be one motivation for being a "Bradley Effect" voter, it is inarguable that concern about appearing racially prejudiced for not voting for Obama is really the motivation . . . and who's (here, here) to blame for that? Indeed, I think trumpeting this issue is simply another way to influence uncommitted voters toward Obama.

Sorry, but it ain't over . . .

Bill Kristol has a great op/ed demonstrating why non-Obama-fans should take heart ("Can They Catch Up?"). He writes about the kind of "offensive" necessary to prevail on November 4th:

The positive component is pretty straightforward: McCain and Palin are common sense conservatives and proven reformers. The record of reform can be emphasized and contrasted with Obama's and Biden's record of conventional, go-along, get-along liberalism. And implicitly: If McCain and Palin are reformers and outsiders, it's not Bush's third term. More important is the negative message. The McCain campaign has to convince 51 percent of the voters they can't trust Barack Obama to be our next president. This has an ideological component and a character component.

I encourage you to read the rest of the article . . .

And Dan Cleary has a thoughtful post up regarding how Conservatives should interpret the current polling data. I liked the comment from an Obama person earnestly arguing, no, he really should accept that Obama has this thing in the bag. Sorry, Libs, if I am going to choose not to ensure--by throwing in the towel, that Obama wins the race.

Can't spell ACORN without "community organizer"

Actually, the "CO" stands for "Community Organizations," but it is intriguing to see the attention now being directed at ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now) and its ties with former-Community-Organizer-extraordinaire Barack Obama.

Folks, ACORN is radical (here, here, here). And you have to give them credit for how effectively they have been able to move beyond militancy (not that they've forsworn it, mind you) and gone mainstream. Here's an incredibly dense-reading report about ACORN's role in the collapse of the credit market.

There's no question that Senator Barack Obama is up to his saggy nipples (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I must admit he looks sharp in a suit) in ACORNish/Jeremiad Wright/America's-the-problem radicalism. The question is whether McCain has the acorns to call him on it.

Unless being black means being Marxist . . .

Some black Democrats are accusing Sarah Palin of racism because she's saying "Obama is different." ("Black Congressmen Declare Racism In Palin’s Rhetoric" | The New York Observer):

“They are trying to throw out these codes,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York.

“He’s ‘not one of us?’” Mr. Meeks said, referring to a comment Sarah Palin made at a campaign rally on Oct. 6 in Floridahttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.quote.gif. “That’s racial. That’s fear. They know they can’t win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.”
. . . .

[State Rep. Yvette] Clarke [(NY)] also found a racial subtext in Ms. Palin’s repeated appeals to “Joe Six-Pack” and “hockey moms.”

“Who exactly is Joe Six-Pack and who are these hockey moms? That’s what I’d like to know,” she said. “Is that supposed to be terminology that is of common ground to all Americans? I don’t find that. It leaves a lot of people out.”

Since when is it "code" to call someone with a high-Marxism tolerance (as manifested in Obama's church and "community organizing" ties) "not one of us"? And since when is it "code" to point out that the core of Obama's ideology--which is socialism, is "different" than the ideology that made America great. Give me a break. Even CNN acknowledges that Obama is disingenuously claiming there was no significant relationship between Obama and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

Clinton on Election 2008

Terry Frank has embedded (here) two videos of Bill Clinton providing bi-partisan evidence of what's wrong with electing Barack Obama in light of the facts about the collapse of the credit market and the facts about Barack Obama's world view. It is HIGHlarious to watch Clinton struggle to answer the question about Jeremiah Wright.

Sarah Palin's affair . . . or not

I posted previously about the over-the-top sensationalism of reporting on Sarah Palin. And I have been intrigued at the enormous number of google hits I receive on a daily basis for "sarah palin affair."

But I almost laughed out loud when I saw a report today concerning the "source" relied upon by the National Enquirer in claiming that Sarah Palin had an affair in the mid '90s. The "report" is based on what a "family member" of the alleged adulterous man says he heard (aka "hearsay") about the situation, and I have to believe that even Enquirer writers blushed a little when writing about the "relationship" of the source (Jim Burdett) with Palin's alleged affair-mate (Brad Hanson):

[Jim] Burdett is a former brother-in-law of Hanson’s estranged wife Carolyn's brother, Craig Batton, and still speaks with many family members

I know it is difficult to follow, but read it again slowly (heck, you might be better off trying to diagram the relationship).

The fact that Lefties and Democrats have fostered this story is evidence of how UNHINGED they are about Sarah Palin. And to think that if they had just waited for her to do the Couric interview they wouldn't have had to cook up such lame crap to throw at her . . .

There's a difference between winning an election and deserving to win an election.

Aw gee, I hate the white guy, too

A WSJ article from today provides a glimpse of what we Republicans face if we criticize the Obama. "Hate" (in the title) isn't really accurate, I don't hate Obama or Biden, I just think they're wrong. From the article:

Over the weekend Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of "palling around" with terrorists--a reference to his longstanding friendship and professional association with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, husband-and-wife Chicago college professors who are unrepentant about their activities in the Weather Underground gang.

According to an "analysis" by Douglass Daniel of the Associated Press, "[Palin's] attack was unsubstantiated." Palin said she got her information from the New York Times, and we suppose it says something that this isn't good enough for the AP. Odder still is Daniel's claim that Palin's statement "carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret."

Reader, Mr. and Mrs. Ayers are persons of pallor. What could possibly be racist about Palin's criticizing Obama for associating with a couple of despicable characters who are white? This question brings us into the weird world of Douglass Daniel's imagination:

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Daniel does no reporting to back this up. He accuses Palin of racism because in his mind, terrorist implies Muslim, Muslim implies dark-skinned, and dark-skinned implies black.

This exercise in free association scarcely qualifies as analysis. Nonetheless, let us consider it step by step:

Terrorist implies Muslim. It is certainly true that America's terrorist enemies today are Muslims who justify their actions in Islamic terms. The terrorist fringe of the 1960s far left, by contrast, has withered away (or "sold out," in the parlance of the times). But there is nothing distinctively Islamic about tactics like bombing and kidnapping, which were used by outfits like the Weather Underground in their time and are employed by al Qaeda and its ilk today.

Moreover, as we have noted, the AP is sometimes at pains to avoid drawing a connection between terrorism and Islam when reporting stories about Islamic terrorism. Why does Daniel make the connection so casually here, when it is not even relevant?

Muslim implies dark-skinned. In fact, "Muslim" is a religious identifier, not a racial or ethnic one. Muslims are of all races and ethnicities. Daniel must be conflating Muslims with Arabs, the ethnic group to which the Sept. 11 terrorists belonged. Arabs do generally have darker complexions than people of Northern European origin.

Dark-skinned implies black. The racial identity of Arabs was a matter of some legal controversy in the U.S. early in the last century, but the courts generally concluded that they were white and thus eligible for naturalization under the racially discriminatory immigration laws in effect at the time. Arabs also are classified as white under the Census Bureau's racial taxonomy.

So Daniel seems to be saying that it is racist of Palin to note a nonracial commonality between Obama's white pals and the white men who attacked America seven years ago. Can you make any sense at all of this?

Neither can Daniel, so he changes the subject:

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain's purpose so well. As the fallout from [Jeremiah] Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.

Wait, didn't the Jeremiah Wright controversy prompt Obama to give the most magnificently brilliant speech on the subject of race since Martin Luther King, or at least Abraham Lincoln? That's what it said in the papers, anyway.

Getting back to Daniel and Palin, it seems his claim is that her speech was racist because it somehow called attention to Obama's race. To be sure, there are people who are prejudiced against Obama because he is black. Shame on them. People like them used to have a lot more influence on elections than they do now, both because they were more numerous and because in many parts of the country they disfranchised blacks (including through terrorism!).

Yet we'd venture that there are voters who are troubled by Obama's palling around with terrorists irrespective of his, or anyone else's race. Does the public not have a right to know because some part of the public may be racist?

Furthermore, let's assume for the sake of argument that an actual racist has the brainpower to puzzle through the complex twists and turns that led Douglass Daniel from the information that Obama pals around with terrorists to the conclusion that Obama is black.

Isn't it a good bet that he already knew?

Voter Purging and hand wringing

It's election time, and that means Democrats are cuing up crazed accusations of voter disenfranchisement. Well, today I came across this article, Protecting Voter Rights | The American Prospect, profiling the Lefty bogey man of "voter purging." The article defines the term as "the process by which states remove ineligible voters from the rolls." But the phrase "voter purging" connotes voters, people, being treated poorly. Merriam-Webster online defines "purge" as,

to cause evacuation from (as the bowels) b (1): to make free of something unwanted (2): to free (as a boiler) of sediment or relieve (as a steam pipe) of trapped air by bleeding c (1): to rid (as a nation or party) by a purge (2): to get rid of

It would be more accurate (though less powerful as a political club) to use phrases like database purging or election roll purging or ineligible voter purging. Indeed, you will find little resistance from me about most of the Brennan Center's suggestions for purging best-practices. But I have to cry foul when Lefties claim that the Republican Party "stole" the 2000 election, or persists in trying to steal elections, by means of "voter purging."

So, did "voter purging" affect the results of the 2000 election, and is it likely that it will affect future elections? Let's consider those questions.

Did "voter purging" (particularly efforts to remove felons--who are not eligible to vote in Florida, from the voter rolls) affect the 2000 presidential election?

No. This article, in one nice little journalistic package (and from a neutral source--The Palm Beach Post), demonstrates that thousands of felons voted illegally, and thousands of persons on the suspected felon list were allowed to vote illegally in counties that ignored the procedures instituted prior to the election (hmmm, which Florida counties do you think made that unilateral decision?). I do not want to pooh-pooh assertions that some persons may have been unfairly denied the opportunity to vote, but there is no, I repeat no, evidence that the felon purge in Florida2000 determined the election. (Indeed, the subject of the article was a man unfairly denied the opportunity to vote for Bush).

Is "voter purging" something to worry about in the 2008 presidential election?

No. Following the 2000 election fiasco, Congress instituted election polices that include what is termed "provisional voting." In sum, provisional voting or voting with a provisional ballot allows for recording a vote when there is a question about the person's eligibility to vote. After the election, appropriate election officials determine--through review of voting records, state databases and information provided by the voter, whether the ballot should be counted. So, short of recruiting God to work the polls on election day, there is no more efficient and effective means of preventing illegal ballots from being cast while ensuring that qualified voters will have the opportunity to vote.

Lastly, accusations of "voter purging"--like most Democrat accusations of electoral shenanigans, have little credibility in light of Democratic Party electoral policy. As long as Democrats push their agenda of laissez-faire election policy, there will be plenty of honest, legal (and Republican) voters being "disenfranchised," because every illegal ballot cast negates a legal ballot cast for the opposing candidate. So, I might lose some sleep of "voter purging" and its cousin "voter caging" when the Left starts taking ballot integrity seriously.

The best summation of the VP debate I've read

Mark Steyn's humorous and accurate assessment of the VP debate. From the article:

The problem was that [Biden's performance] sounded drearily senatorial. Mention any global crisis — civil war in Bosnia, genocide in Darfur, Russian aggression in Georgia, the lack of five-star restaurants in Wales — and Biden has been there, usually within the last two weeks, and always at public expense. What the American taxpayer gets for the Emir of Delaware’s frequent-flyer miles is harder to discern. Biden was doing his best to turn in a decent karaoke version of Lloyd Bentsen, but, unfortunately, Governor Palin declined to play Dan Quayle. That left Joe sounding like an ancient pol being generically vice-presidential. Sarah, at her best, sounded like the citizen-politician this country’s Founders intended. She hasn’t voted 397 times against this or that in the U.S. Senate, because she’s been running a state, and a town, and a commercial fishing operation. She’s a doer, not a talker, which is why so many of my fellow professional talkers disdain her.

The Geeks Shall Inherit the Turf

Congrats Vandy. Amazingly, Vanderbilt is #1 in the SEC East and Tennessee is in last place. Ouch. Though I'm a Tennessee alum, Bobby Johnson is a class act, and you have to appreciate Vanderbilt's commitment to student-athlete-ism.

Have you stopped supporting Violence Against Women, yet?

If you watched the VP debate last night, there's a good chance you heard Joe Biden mention his signature legislative feat a couple times . . . it's VAWA or the Violence Against Women Act. Sounds like something you should support, right?

Biden also mentioned VAWA in his recent, stellar(!!) interview with Katie Couric. VAWA was the law at issue in Biden's response to Couric's question about "any decisions of the Supreme Court with which he disagreed."

Well, Sarah Palin referenced Federalism in her response to Couric's question, and if you know anything about the SCOTUS' VAWA decision, you can immediately appreciate a major difference between Palin and Biden. Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the Left generally, are eager to ever-expand the authority and scope and "jurisdiction" of the Federal government. I think Biden said more than once something along the lines of, "John McCain twice voted against the Violence Against Women Act." I pretty much concluded at the end of the VP debate that the curtain of Biden's impressive debate performance would be pulled back in due time to reveal a disingenuous political shyster. Change? Hope? I don't think so.

Here's a great analysis of VAWA and Federalism (co-written by InstaPundit).

Can't we just disagree?

Jonah Goldberg had some interesting observations about the Tolerant Party's treatment of Sarah Palin: ("Feminist Army Aims Its Canons at Palin"):

It’s funny. The left has been whining about having their patriotism questioned for so long it feels like they started griping in the Mesozoic era. Feminists have argued for decades that womanhood is an existential and metaphysical state of enlightenment. But they have no problem questioning whether women they hate are really women at all.

Since we know from basic science that Palin is a woman — she’s had five kids, for starters — it’s clear that these ideological thugs aren’t talking about actual, you know, facts. They’re doing what people of totalitarian mind-sets always do: bully heretics, demonize enemies, whip the troops into line.

Biden's foreign policy "experience" . . . impressive!!!

Palin's supposed to be gaffe prone? inexperienced on foreign policy? Ol' Biden had this whopper during the VP debate.

Here's another, regarding spending on Iraq v. spending on Afghanistan.

Who you callin' a reckless deregulator?

Biden's distortions . . . at least one of them

I felt all during the VP debate that Joe Biden was very vulnerable on the assertions he made. For whatever reason (uh, probably that debating is very difficult, especially on the defensive) Sarah Palin didn't blast away at Biden's blatherous assertions. This article denudes one particular assertion--that John McCain wants to do for healthcare what he did (?) for the broken banking industry"; from the op/ed: ("An Unhealthy Debate" by Yuval Levin on National Review Online)

Biden offered several criticisms of John McCain’s health-care plan which tracked precisely with the line of attack the Obama campaign has taken up against the plan in recent days, and which are flatly untrue and deceptive.

The Deregulation Canard
The approach involved two basic elements. First, after (somehow) implicitly attributing the current financial crisis to deregulation, Biden argued that McCain wants to do the same thing to the health care sector and so presumably send it into a similar crisis. “As a matter of fact,” Biden said, “John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health-care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry.” The same argument is advanced in a new Obama campaign commercial. Over images of Fannie and Freddie logos, the ad asserts that McCain wants to do to health care what “Bush/McCain policies have done to our economy,” by which they mean deregulation. The ad says:

McCain just published an article praising Wall Street deregulation; said he'd reduce oversight of the health insurance industry too, "just as we have done over the last decade in banking.”

The line they quote comes from an article by John McCain (i.e by his campaign) about the McCain health plan in the latest issue of Contingencies magazine. In a passage arguing for more competition to lower the cost of health insurance, McCain writes:

I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field.

The Obama ad of course doesn’t quote all of that, but merely suggests McCain is endorsing some supposed deregulation of Wall Street. In fact, McCain is very plainly talking about the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act, passed in 1994, which permitted banks to establish branches nationwide by eliminating the requirement for separate subsidiaries in each state and the prohibition against banks accepting deposits from customers out of their home states. This very sensible reform updated a 1956 law to modernize American banking, and there is simply no question it has been successful and useful. It passed the Senate 94 to 4, and Sen. Biden voted for it.

That important act of deregulation had exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the economic crisis we now face, and on the contrary has contributed to American prosperity and competitiveness. The Obama campaign could raise questions about how close an analogy there might be to that law in allowing health insurers, like banks, to work across state lines. But the tack they have actually taken — accepting the analogy and asserting it reflects poorly on McCain’s plan — is either dishonest or ignorant. Either way, it makes no sense.

Aw heck, you ought to read the whole thing. It is the BEST articulation of McCain's healthcare proposal that I've seen.

The Couric interviews

It's interesting to watch these dueling clips from the Couric VP interviews. I indeed cringe when watching Palin's answers about Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions. Biden did a good job of describing the white-washed, Liberal view of Roe v. Wade--the truth is that the application of the Liberal view equates to abortion on demand. But it is intriguing to note that Joe Biden--who has been marinating in Federal issues for 35 years, serving (forever it seems) on the Senate judiciary committee, could only think of a SCOTUS opinion relating to a law he wrote . . . then he filibustered. The question nicely isolated a perceived weakness of Palin; It would be really impressive if a 44 year old, non-lawyer who has never served in, nor run for, Federal office was articulate on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, under the circumstances, her answer(s)--as they bear on her ability to lead effectively, were not significantly less impressive than the answers given by Biden.

Joe Lunchpail (Biden) . . . not exactly

Here's some great reporting from the New York Times about Joe Biden's "everyman" image.

It is an interesting read, and it demonstrates how Joe Biden is rather like every other Senator or Congressman in enjoying perks not available to the little people. ("An Everyman on the Trail, With Perks at Home" - NYTimes.com).

Obama and Biden folks will certainly have a reverse spin on this report, and there is typically a legitimate "other" side to the story. But it is ironic that in 1996 Biden sold--through "word of mouth," his "manor" at a premium ($1.2 million to a politically connected and interested buyer) and then purchased four acres of lakefront property at a "wholesale price" because "the real estate market was soft." Sure.

Obama voted "present" . . . Dems voted "no"

How did we come to this credit market crisis? McCain pushed for accountability, Obama voted "present," Dems voted "no."

Biden's "experience" . . . impressive!!

In response some pre-VP-debate trash talk from Sean Braisted, I was reminded of a splendid analysis (here) of Joe Biden's much-ballyhooed (by the Left) foreign policy "experience." The conclusion any objective observer would reach after reading Andy McCarthy's extensive report, is summed up in this sentence:

For all Biden’s twaddle about doctrines and concepts, there is a simple technique for divining this foreign-policy solon’s bobs and weaves: Consult the polls and the calendar.

We'll have to wait and see if any "foreign policy" questions during the debate go beyond, "how many years have you been sitting in on foreign policy discussions?"

As Thomas Sowell asserts in a recent op/ed"experience":

[Biden] has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Senator Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results.

The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental.

You ought to read the whole article. And feel free to attempt a rebuttal.

Ifill's obligation

Initially I was conflicted a bit about the whole Gwen Ifill as "moderator" story. Revelations that Ifill is publishing a seemingly fawning book about Barack Obama might compel Ifill to strive for evenhandedness, I thought.

Well, Michelle Malkin article on the subject has changed my opinion. For example, learning that Ifill has responded to questions about her objectivity by bringing up race raises concerns. Ifill stated last week, “[N]o one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”

Malkin's response to this statement? "It’s not the color of your skin, sweetie. It’s the color of your politics." I'd say the "political color" of this particular media personality/journalist are unexceptional. I'm more concerned about the color of money--the financial interest that Ifill has in Obama's political fortunes.

Ifill made the decision to publish a book that fairly raises questions about her objectivity in covering politics and in covering this campaign in particular. I'd like to trust Ifill to play it fair in this high-stakes debate, but once the horse is out of the barn, it'll be too late. I think the professional thing to do would be to step down from moderating a debate this time around. Of course, that's easy for me to say, but I believe that as a journalist, the least that Ifill should do is begin this debate with an "in the interest of full disclosure" statement.