Lindsay Graham - Are you really John McCain's Friend

Lindsay Graham tried to blame his lack of sleep on his awful performance on McCain's behalf today on FNS.

Against the biggest loser in American history (John Effing Kerry) he was awful and couldn't defend McCain, Palin, or himself. At one point, Chris Wallace nearly had to take on Kerry alone, after he bloviated and lied unchecked by Graham.

I am tired of the Democrats trying to make Barack Obama seem the savior in the financial bailout negotiations. During the "disastrous" White House meeting last week, the Dems allowed Barack Obama to seem the lead negotiator for Democrats, basically by having him parrot a whole bunch of their talking points and positions as previously crafted by Dodd, Frank, et.al.

Meanwhile, McCain rightly realized that House Republicans were the key to these negotiations, and that without them to provide political cover to the Democrats (who, let's face it, could have passed a bailout without any GOP support)nothing was going to happen, since the D's were spineless and unwilling to see a deal that was solely a Dem/Paulson plan go forward, without, apparently, about 100 votes from House Republicans.

So, those House Republicans were/are key to getting a deal. McCain recognized this, and his plan and goal was to get that constituency heard, and enough of their concerns addressed to get them on board.

While John Effing Kerry and the Dems are trying to laud the Chosen One's contribution to this as some great act of statesmanship and leadership (he read the talking points), Graham is ineffectively characterizing McCain's part in this, which was to ensure the House GOP was involved in negotiations, that their principles were considered and crafted into the legislation, and that Dem goodies being passed out to radical, Obama-supported groups like ACORN were removed.

What we need to have our guys say about this is that "Leadership isn't about how much you talk. Obama is a great speaker. He's a great speaker who doesn't actually say anything. Leadership also means listening, and understanding who needs to be part of a solution, and get them on board. This is a classic case of leading by doing less, and John McCain did that, and THAT has led to this deal."

That's my take.

College Football Today

11pm update:
Georgia lost. LSU won. Virginia Tech is beating Nebraska, and NC State lost to USF. Michigan beat Wisconsin. So, 4 of the top 10 lost and 3 of the top 5. Look for Oklahoma to be number 1 tomorrow, LSU 2. Alabama will move up. Will any of those top 5 losers drop out of the top 10? Who will move in?

8pm update:

Wake lost to Navy. Go Navy! But, not good for the ACC.

And, Alabama is ahead of Georgia, 7-0! Roll Tide (they're my second favorite team this weekend).

It's only 5pm, and already, it's been a big college football weekend. Southern Cal has lost, Florida has lost, and in my home conference, UNC beat Miami (not an upset, really), Maryland beat Clemson (the most overrated team every season), and Navy is beating Wake Forest at halftime, 17-0. Tonight NC State plays South Florida and Virginia Tech will face Nebraska. Granted neither of those teams are all that good, but, the conference needs good performances and wins, to restore some of the luster lost by early season losses by Virginia to USC, Virginia Tech to ECU, Miami to Florida, and Clemson to Alabama. If Alabama can pull the upset on Number 1-in-waiting Georgia tonight, that might make that loss look less awful, and Ole Miss's victory over Florida adds some luster to Wakes victory over Ole Miss. And, of course, we restored some of that shine with NC State's victory over ECU (a team headed back to reality, though), Tech's shellacking of Mississippi State, and Maryland's win over then #23 California.

I'm torn whenever Navy plays an ACC team. Conference loyalty requires me to pull for our conference teams, but, I like to see any service academy win, and especially, for obvious reasons, Navy. So, this is kind of a no lose situation.

Anyway, I wonder, with Paul Johnson installing the triple option at Georgia Tech, will we see more ACC teams schedule Navy early in the season, so that they can get game experience against the triple option with a lesser-equipped team? If Wake loses, the answer will probably be no.

Palin needs to improve

Now that we have seen Sarah Palin perform in 3 national interviews (Gibson, Hannity, Couric), I think I can say that I still like her, I still think she is a good thing for the GOP and Conservatism, and she has certainly provided energy to the ticket.

While I don't think Palin is an empty suit (pantsuit?), as I blogged about here, and here, in a recent article by conservative writer Kathleen Parker, at National Review Online, she calls for Palin to step aside. Like this writer, over at Redstate, I agree it is no time to get wobbly on Palin.

But, and you knew this was coming, it is time for Palin to step up her game, or risk becoming the next Dan Quayle. Palin is clearly not used to the kind of media scrutiny and "gotcha-ism" of the national press. But, even in her interview with Hannity, about as friendly as you can get, I found her, while charming, and clearly a person of some conviction, not able to really express those opinions in a way that connects.

To be effective, both in this campaign, and for her future, she needs to work on her answers to these journalists. Take this question from Couric, for example:


While the submariner in me appreciates taking a lookup, the political side of me says "No, No, No!" Submarine training also tells us that, when presented with a casualty you don't know the immediate actions to, change it to one for which you do. The same is true of these questions. Even if she knew a couple of obvious answers (he voted for Sarbanes-Oxley, and he sponsored McCain-Feingold), we wouldn't want to remind anyone in the GOP about those votes.

Regardless of whether she knew those easy answers, what McCain has done is immaterial. This was a golden opportunity to point out that John McCain and Sarah Palin were interested in solutions that worked for the American people, whether they needed new regulations or not, and that, in the current crisis, Obama was sullie by his connections with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. She has got to learn how to turn the tables on these kinds of gotcha interviews. I don't chalk this up to stupidity or vapidity on her part, I chalk it up to inexperience. She has never had to deal with this kind of questioning from the Alaskan press. She has got to get better to be an effective campaigner, and to keep whiners like Kathleen Parker off her back.

She's not John McCain's biographer. There is no requirement that she know every bit of arcana about him. What she does need to know, though, is enough about the opposition to be able to attack them at will.

Let's hope she improves, and soon.

Dick Morris On the Debate; My thoughts on hitting Obama on the economy

Whatever you think of the toe-sucking little cretin, Dick Morris is a pretty astute observer of the political scene and I recommend him to you.

He has his take on the debate in the NY Post this morning. If you saw him on H&C last night, you heard this already, but, I think he's right on.

I think he's right on this, "he sounded just like Obama in calling for a bipartisan approach. He did far too little to differentiate his position from Obama's. He did nothing to hammer home the fact that he's not going to use tax money but rather insurance and loans to finance the rescue package."

And, he's right on the style, "McCain talked to moderator Jim Lehrer while Obama talked into the camera. So we viewers watched McCain debate and Obama speak directly to us. The stylistic difference left us with a sense that Obama is the more focused and compelling candidate."

Morris has some other thoughts and I would like to add my thoughts on Republican candidates and the economy. I think these ideas can be used even more effectively by McCain, since he is viewed as a little outside the Republican mainstream, so he can use them effectively, but, in this year, with the focus on the economy, we have to blunt the Dems natural advantages with voters (please don't mistake a "natural advantage" to mean they are right on the issue - they are demonstrably wrong, and always have been).

So, here are themes that need to be hit home in the remaining days vis a vis the economy:

• Tax increases, especially in this time of economic distress, are an absolute horrible idea and will only server to worsen the economy. We need to hit Obama on his tax increases and the impact they will have to SMALL BUSINESS, and the impact to capital of his suggested increases in capital gains tax rates. Whenever McCain talks about Obama and taxes, he needs to reiterate that he will increase taxes on these two groups, and that this will kill any growth in the economy, which we are going to need to fund the huge bailout we are signing on for.
• Corruption in the mortgage industry - McCain needs to make sure Obama is squarely labeled as the Senator from Fannie Mae. We need to see ads nonstop linking the contributions this senator received from Fannie/Freddie and the fact that he has as advisors two of the former executives from these failed GSE's. McCain needs to pitch his failed efforts in 2005 to reform these GSE's and whenever challenged, his stock answer needs to be, "Everyone agrees that the genesis of the problems we face is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While I was pushing for reform in the mortgage industry, Senator Obama (D-Fannie Mae) was becoming one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from them. You do the math." Rather than attack the greed on Wall Street, attack the corruption that stands before us, personified by Obama. While we're at it, let's weave in the two people less popular than Bush, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
  
• Middle Class Tax Cuts - Obama likes to say how his plan will give more to the Middle Class than John McCains. This is an argument where, on paper, Obama is correct, but all McCain has to point out is that "Every election year, Liberal politicians, to foool you, tell you they are going to give the middle class a tax cut. The one's that have been elected, have soon managed to back off that and tell us they've tried, but they just can't do it. I don't believe Obama is going to give you a tax cut, despite whathe says. He has voted over 90 times to increase taxes, and his actions prove what he is - a tax and spend liberal who just wants government to spend more of your money."
• Spending Cuts - Obama showed in debate number 1 that he is not going to be cutting spending. When asked repeatedly to identify any area he'd cut spending, he couldn't. McCain does have a record on holding the line on spending. He tried, somewhat ineffectively, to drive that point home in debate number 1. He needs to refine his message and stick to it. The campaign needs to give him the 3 or 4 biggest programs that Obama is proposing, and have McCain drive those points home ad nauseum.
• Energy - Obama has no desire to drill for more oil here in the US. This area is full of opportunities for McCain, and he needs to exploit them cogently. He needs to hit Obama on his opposition to offshore drilling. Ask him how close he would allow offshore drilling. Ask him if he would allow the states to decide where to drill. Ask him if he would allow revenue sharing between the feds and the states. Ask him if he would support the building of any nuclear plants. How many? Where? When? What would he do to assist the nuclear industry? If he's serious about the climate, this is the number one thing he can do for it. As him if he believes, like his running mate, that coal is ok for China, but not for us? Ask him if he really believes that wind and solar are a realistic part of removing our dependency on foreign oil in 10 years. If he says yes, he's either a liar or an idiot.

McCain - hit this guy hard on the economy. He's a typical liberal politician on it, and nothing else, and the American people deserve to know it. There's no change here, except the packaging.

Bailouts, Barack, and Babble

Maybe this week was one of those historic weeks in the history of the United States. Maybe this will be one of those times in history that we point to the events that occurred, 30 years later, and say that this week helped define our future.

Maybe. I'll leave that to the historians. As for me, I am a student of History and a current political observer, so, let's get to it!

The Debate:
This tumultuous week ended with the debate at Ole Miss. I admit, I only listened to the first hour, then, kids entered my car, and I had to listen to the same pop music that I hear 24/7.

My initial, live, impression was much the same as my impression of Palin's convention speech, which I also listened to in the car. In neither case did I think McCain or Palin did very well. Last night, listening, I thought Barack was clear and articulate, and came off, listening, as the better debater. On substance, he is full of crap, but, the he was the better debater, better able to articulate his positions. McCain seemed a little stumbling and seemed to me, more obvious about driving home his talking points. Listening, my thought was, he's wiping the floor with McCain.

That was listening.

After I returned home, and got a chance to listen to some commentators, and see some snippets of the debate that I had only heard (and learn that the last 1/2 hour, which focused more squarely on foreign policy, clearly belonged to McCain), did I change my mind. Much as I did with the Palin speech. You really lose something in these things when you lose the visual, and I had lost that in both cases.

Now, be that as it may, Barack OBama in this debate, only had to appear presidential, to give the impression to swing voters that "Yes, I can see that guy as president." I don't know if he did this, but that's actually a pretty low bar, and one of the reasons I do not like the "Not Ready to Lead" mantra of the McCain campaign. Once you pass that low threshold, what do you have?

I have a suggestion for the McCain camp - use "Too liberal for America, Not Ready to Lead," or some such variation. Libs like to rail that Republicans always use that "Liberal" label, and Alan Colmes even claims it's misapplied in Obama's case. Well, it's not, and the GOP uses it, because 1)It's generally true, 2)You can almost always make the case that these candidates are liberals even if they skew moderate, and 3)It works.

CNN has some early data on the debate from debate watchers. I know the link is from CNN, but this actually a pretty interesting article, and I think it's about where this debate will be. As with much from the Liberal media, it is truthful, but you have to read the WHOLE THING to get the whole truth. Bottom line - No knockout blow for McCain, and Obama may have helped move the needle on his "readiness." But, beware, as the CNN article points out, apparently more D's watched the debate, so, it's likely that their results are skewed somewhat. As they also point out, John Kerry did very well in polling following 2004's debates, and he lost ground. So, these debates don't really swing too many people unless they provide "gotcha" moments.

Drudge's readers have it a 2-1 victory for McCain (but they skew right).

Here is what I got from this debate:

• Barack Obama is not going to cut a penny of federal spending. When pressed repeatedly, he continued to provide a laundry list of increased spending priorities.
  
• John McCain doesn't like earmarks. I realize McCain doesn't want to single out a particular federal agency for extinction, because the Libs and the MSM will beat him over the head with it for the next 40 days, and that's politically smart. But, he needs to better articulate why earmarks lead to a culture of corruption, which is what he was trying to say, that the fact that we allow these earmarks spills over into everything else that gets appropriated. He's got something there, but he needs to figure out how to get that message across. I think perhaps we need Mr. McCain to suggest something bold - perhaps point out that the longer one spends in Washington, the bigger a porker you become, and we need to get Congressmen term-limited (and, in the ad supporting term limits, he can congratulate Obama on being such a quick study).
• Both these guys want to see a bailout occur. I don't think either had great moments in this. McCain had the opportunity to say that he felt the House Republicans, who were the only people speaking for the taxpayer in this thing, were being shut out of the negotiations. He should have said he felt strongly that since they were the only group in this who were looking out for the working man, they needed to be heard and their ideas considered. He should have railed that we can't have the people that helped create this mess in Congress, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (and Barack Obama), working with those who made these rotten decisions on Wall Street (embodied by Paulson) to craft the bailout.
• On Iraq, McCain needs to get Obama off his high horse about how he was against it and that was the right decision. The proper reply needs to be, "Senator Obama, regardless of the reasons we went to war in Iraq, a war which was supported by your running mate, in case you don't recall, we are in Iraq, and it had become the central front in the War on Terror, and we must win there, and thanks to the surge strategy, we are winning there. If you want troops to come home sooner, as I do also, you will realize that committing to victory is the safest, fastest way to make that happen." Then he could use his line about Barack thinking we have to lose in Iraq to win in Afghanistan. As a bonus, he could add in, "You didn't even have to vote on the War in Iraq, from the safety of your ultra-liberal Chicago district in the Chicago Statehouse, it was actually a pretty gutless and politically calculating move to oppose the war. So, don't lecture me about tough decisions. You made a politically expedient one, and you haven't shut up about it yet, but that was a speech 6 years ago."
• People still don't know that Barack Obama is the Senator from Fannie Mae. McCain had a perfect opportunity, when Obama was trying to lay the financial mess at the feet of 8 years of no regulations, to point out who the largest recipients of campaign cash from Fannie/Freddie are - Chris Dodd and Obama, and to point out that it was McCain who co-sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill in 2005, that the Democrats managed to torpedo. He didn't and he should have, because the media will not do this for him.
  

Follower Feature

Google has added a new tool for you bloggers, and blog readers. You can use the "Follower" feature, to essentially mark blogs you want to come back to, and to let your favorite bloggers know you're a "regular."

I am going to experiment with it now, so, perhaps I'll have more to report later.

end..

Sunday's Fact Free Cynthia Tucker Column - Talk about the Politics of Fear!

Cynthia Tucker, mouthpiece of the Democrats and Obama Campaign, and part time Op-Ed page Editor at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a column this weekend comparing Sarah Palin to Dick Cheney. This is my response to her, repeated here for you, my readers.

Note, she has never replied to my last complaint about her lying columns, so I don't expect one now.

My reply to her (the op-ed is at the "writing fiction" link):

As usual, your shilling for the Democratic party is humorous, and sickening at the same time. Perhaps because you write on the Op-Ed page, you think you are writing fiction.

After the mainstream media and Democratic operaratives failed to paint Sarah Palin as the right's new bogeyman with lies about the genesis of her children and belittling of her career as a "small-town" mayor and governor, YOU have shifted to now characterizing her as someone who has "mastered the fine art of manipulation and mendacity" just like Dick Cheney (I am not sure what specific examples you have of Cheney doing this, but it seems an accepted fact on the Far Left).

I really wish you Liberals would choose what the story is you want to tell about Palin. Is Sarah Palin a small town rube, dumber even than George W. Bush, or is she the female Machiavelli, "telling lie after lie to conceal her misdeeds from public view?" We used to hear this same storyline about Bush, too dumb to be President, yet somehow clever enough to fool an entire Congress, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. Yes, the crafty, but dumber-than-dirt Bush tricked them all into voting for his personal war on Iraq for his robebr baron oil buddies. Now, only Obama stands in the way of a similar fate with Palin on the McCain ticket. Good thing the omniscient Obama foresaw Palin 19 months ago when he started his run for the Presidency!. (Note: That's what we call "sarcasm.")

Cynthia, I am going to do something that may disturb you and the editors at the circulation-challenged AJC, I am going to inject FACTS into the debate and challenge you to prove some of the allegations you make in the Sept. 21 editorial.

It is a fact that Palin supported a bridge between Gravina and the airport at Ketchikan when the Federal Government was going to pony up the money for it. But, need I remind you that Senator Obama, when presented with the opportunity in 2005 to shift the "Bridge" money to Katrina repairs, voted for the Bridge, and when presented with the opportunity to shift earmarks from Bicycle Paths to fixing other American bridges, voted for the bikes. I think the final word here can come from watchdog group, "Citizens Against Government Waste, who has spoken on the "Bridge to Nowhere, "The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts."

As Wasilla's mayor, she pursued earmarks, just as any mayor (and usually, governor) pursues federal dollars to be plowed into their disricts, cities, states. Shocking that should happen!

However, it's funny you have to go back to her time as Wasilla's mayor to make this allegation. It's actually not funny, it's misleading (a common theme of this editorial) because during her tenure as Alaska's governor, she has reduced the number of earmarks coming to Alaska. If you knew how to use Google, you could have learned this in five minutes. I have to believe this failure to inform your readers is out of ignorance and not a mendacity of manipulation by witholding important facts - we know Cynthia Tucker and her editors at the AJC would never do that. (Note: more sarcasm.)

From here, you launch into the story of Palin and the librarian she "ran off." This was pretty well debunked by factcheck.org. An easy reference to find, had you cared to look, or, share it with your readers. I don't know what you're using to support your characterization that she "didn't take kindly to the mayor's inquiries" or your assertion that Palin ran her off. If she "ran off:" she did it on her own, after working for Palin for 3 years.

Your next line of attack is the revelation from last week's New York Times (a source as reputable as the AJC, when it comes to hit pieces on Republicans) that she had a city attorney fired after he placed a stop-order on a "home being built by one of her campaign supporters". Interesting how this morphed from a "builder" working on a "housing project" in the NYT article to your characterization. Can you please point me to your source that provides this level of detail, and something that makes the linkage you are making and that backs up your assertions? I'm sure the NYT would appreciate that source, too. Seriously, I looked. (All I could find on Google were repeats of the Times article, which I quote, and you misquote.)

Since we're speaking of homes and favors, I should probably remind AJC readers (what's left of them) that it was Barack Obama who participated in a million dollar sweetheart deal with convicted felon and Obama supporter Tony Rezko to buy Obama's $2M Hyde Park home (isn't that kind of like Country Club of the South, without the former terrorists?). For the record, it is Senator Obama who is the second largest recipient of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac contributions in Congress (doing in three years what no other Senator, bar Chris Dodd, could do in ten. Guess he has accomplished something in the Senate!). Furthermore, to cement the linkage between Obama and the current mess (though the Obama campaign denies he was an "advisor") the former disgraced CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, admitted he took calls from the Obama campaign to provide mortgage and housing industry advice. It's been a laugher watching the Washington Post call it's own reporting disreputable on this one.

Next, you move on to the (I guess) current email bru-ha-ha, where, with ZERO evidence, you allege that Palin used a personal email account to "shield her official communications from public records." I feel quite certain that were that true, we'd have seen those emails all over the Internet by now, instead of the few boring, privacy-invading ones we have seen. It's interesting that five years ago, when the GOP was looking at "confidential" Democrat emails on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Liberals were concerned about the act of reading the emails, not the content of the emails, which showed a clear conspiracy between Dems on the Judiciary committee and Liberal special interest groups to tar GOP nominess.

Then, you move on to the Alaska Commissioner of Public Safety's removal in the trooper issue. I guess we have to say the jury's still out on this one. We do know that Palin's office says he was removed from the Commissioner's job because of insubordination and going behind the governor's back on budgeting issues. (One of those things you can decide as Governor is who serves the public with you). They claim to have the "official" emails to prove it. And, even if he she did ask for the firing of a clearly violent and vindictive man who had tasered his pre-teenage son, threatened his father-in-law, and brandished weapons in public, that would not have been an ethics violation. It would have been a service to the people of Alaska. How hypocritical can you people get on the Left??? Here, we have a republican governor who wants to get a gun-toting nut off the state troopers, and you guys want to defend his right to carry a gun, but you won't defend mine! Wow!

You're way off base Cynthia, and, once again, you lie and obfuscate the facts to suit your argument.

You know, when O'Reilly's guys accosted you, I felt a twinge of pity for you. Not anymore. You actually deserve to have someone call you on your lies and smears.

end..

US Leads Ryder Cup

So, the US is leading 9-7 going in to Sunday's Ryder Cup competition.

What do you want to bet that 0bama is cheering for the Europeans?

Dolphin Officially Turned Over to SD Museum

The USS Dolphin, AGSS-555, was officially turned over this week to the Maritime Museum of San Diego (see if you can spot the error in the article, here's some help!).

Let's keep those submarine memorials coming.

And, if you need a link to all those great naval ship memorials in the US, remember this article.

end

Palin Email, Liberal double-standard

Remember the email glitch that allowed Republican staffers to see Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's emails?

Apparently, no one in the media does, either.

Although there was never anything illegal done, GOP Staffer Manuel Miranda (I don't make this stuff up) was reading the Dems emails, and passing them to right-leaning news outlets (The Washington Times most notably). These emails provided a smoking gun into the Dems tactics on Bush's Judicial nominees, and revealed some rather unflattering tactics the Dems planned to use (and did use). Things like painting nominees as racists, extremists, etc. You know, the usual stuff. All these emails did was prove it was a concerted, organized effort.

Anyway, even Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said of Miranda's actions that they were “improper, unethical, and simply unacceptable.” Miranda resigned, and a criminal investigation of him was initiated. Of course, the criminal investigation went nowhere. Miranda was also the subject of a Senate investigation.

Anyway, the Dems at the time were less concerned about the content of their memos, which showed just how in the tank they were with special interests groups, and much more interested in the "improper" reading and leaking of the emails.

Funny, that now the talking points are all about Palin's use of private email for public business and little care about the hacking, which may very well violate federal law.

end..

Update on New Era energy bill

Since the Gang of 20 has withdrawn their "New Era" energy bill, they are going to try again in the next Congress.

Read Senator Chambliss' release, and realize that a couple of the R names are unlikely to be here next year.

Goodbye to this bad bill. It was a shame to see Republicans putting their names on this and Senator Chambliss may have lucked out in November for my vote.

end..

NATO Needs Rapid Reaction Force. Huh?

Sarah Palin raised some eyebrows when she indicated in the Charlie Gibson interview that she favored extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine, and that an attack on either could lead to a NATO troop commitment to defend either country from a Russian attack under Article 5.

Laying aside the fact that the Liberals excoriated her for correctly pointing out the consequences of NATO membership, while they excoriated her for needing clarification on the gotcha "Bush Doctrine" question, today, the US is suggesting a NATO Rapid Reaction Force be established to handle these contingencies.

You see, the Eastern European countries, who know a thing or two about Russian aggression, are not so certain that NATO is really serious about their military commitment to them. I'd say judging by the woeful performance and downright wussiness of NATO nations in Afghanistan, in response to a real Article 5, these countries should be worried whether NATO would actually come to their defense, or would they only have the two strongest members of NATO as allies, the US and the UK (and, if I were them, I'd be very, very, very worried about the US commitment with Obama at the helm).

But, wait, doesn't NATO already have a NATO Reaction Force, a concept that was first realized in 2002 and completely put into place in 2006.

What's Gates talking about?

end..

Senator From Fannie Mae Keeping Us Waiting

So, the Senator from Fannie Mae (FM) has decided to let the Bush administration and Congress work out the current financial crises, before unveiling his own plan for us.

How magnificent!

Anyway, now that Obama has thrown disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO, Franklin Raines, under the bus as "not an advisor" to his campaign, despite Raines's own assertion that he provided advice to Obama in this Washington Post article, perhaps the delay is really because he is awaiting another advisor to tell him what to do.

You know, if you've ever advised this guy, or been a controversial friend (Ayers) or preacher (J. Wright), you better get prepared to be thrown to the curb if anything controversial or bad ever happens.

End...

Note to McCain:

Hey, McCain campaign, you have ceded the momentum in this race back to Obama. We understand the economy in this campaign is going to be a very tough issue for Republicans, but you need to do these things, and continue on them:

1. Keep hitting Obama (even if it's below the belt - they are at their absolute worst when they are whining about tactics) on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac - on the money he has taken from them and on his advisors. However, your ad must be better than the one you have out there. I'm also not enamored of the "Not ready to lead" theme so clearly stated. Because, once people decide he is ready, you've lost it. You need to hit him on his ideas, as "Bad for America" or "too liberal" or somesuch. Maybe it's the female narrator.
   
2. Do as Dick Morris says and point out that his policies will harm an economy that needs an injection of capital. His capital gains tax increases will stifle investment and while the Feds are taking money out of the economy to shore up failing banks, and banks are tightening their lending policies, that's disastrous. It won't be hard to find economists and reasonable quotes on that one.
3. Hit him as a tax and spender. Yes, this is always tried and true with Liberal Democrats, but it also happens to be true. He's going to raise taxes on the investor class, and small businesses, and that is also going to hurt the economy. Pound these themes home. Use the fact that you've been using on the campaign trail, that he has never opposed a tax increase, and pound it home. I think mixing ina clip of Bill Clinton saying he's tried but he just can't give the middle class a tax cut might be effective, to show that Dems will always tell us they're going to cut taxes, but when it comes to actually doing it, that's just business as usual
4. Hit him on not being a reformer on economic issues. When presented with opportunities to reform Fannie/Freddie, he didn't act. Tie him to Reid/Pelosi on this, two people less popular than Bush.
5. For yourself, you need to do as National Review and other conservative thinkers have suggested, and modify your own tax plan to increase significantly the child tax credit. This credit disproportionately favors the lower middle class, and you need those charts that show who gives more back to people in the 35-75k range, to be you. And, it's good policy.
   

Most importantly, STAY ON THE OFFENSIVE. Economic issues are winners for Republicans if we don't ceded the high ground. We're right on the issues, as even Bill Clinton will attest, since he largely followed Republican economic policies as President (thanks to Newt).

Some advice to McCain/Palin in the foreign policy question

I watched tonight a little of the McCain/Palin town hall in Michigan.

I personally have little problem with Palin's experience in foreign affairs. Many other governors have entered the presidency with similar or less experience, and Obama barely has more than her (you have to count his senate trips overseas and his "life experience" as a child overseas). For me, I feel confident that her view of the world and our place in it is going to be much closer to mine than Barack Obama's (or any democrat outside of Joe Lieberman) will be.

But, I am a little disappointed that, by now, Palin and McCain can't come up with better answers to the question about foreign policy experience than they do.

Commander of the Alaska National Guard, sending a son off to war, and being an expert on energy policy are not what people are looking for when they ask this question. And, it's certainly NOT what Republicans are looking for.

Because Gov. Palin is going to get asked this by every stupid network reporter, and even Sean Hannity, here is what I want to hear her say again and again:

"You know, it is true I have not spent the last 35 years in the United States Senate becoming a self-styled expert [and gasbag] on foreign affairs, but, I want to remind people that Governors have traditionally made some of the best presidents in this nation's history. What Governors know how to do, to succeed, is to lead. We have to make hard decisions, and we have to get them executed, and we have to listen to our staffs, but ultimately, we have to take responsibility for our decisions, not just give speeches about it and pontificate on Sunday news shows. Ronald Reagan used to be made fun of by the media because they all thought he was a rube. Well, you know, like President Reagan, John McCain and I know what our core beliefs are and we know how and are not afraid to make decisions.

"I'm proud to be standing by a man who risked his presidential aspirations on making the right decision in supporting the surge strategy, even though it was unpopular in bothparties and deemed a failure by Senator Obama and Reid and Speaker Pelosi even before it was tried. John McCain understood what General Petreus was planning, and it is that kind of principled, tested leadership we will bring to Washington, not a speech he gave in 2002. I'm proud to be a part of that."

So, this hits the obnoxious Biden, weaves in Reagan, shows McCain as maverick, speaks to the strengths of governors, reminds people who's in charge in DC (the very unpopular Reid/Pelosi junta), and uses a Hillary line about 0's inexperience.

McCain campaign, feel free to use, and if you contact me, I'll give you the replies to the follow-ups, too.

Start using this daily ad nauseum and make it the only answer.

Ok, McCainiacs, I'll give you a variation on the first sentence, modify it occasionally to say,

"You know, I haven't been in the senate since I was 29 years old becoming a self-annointed expert on foreign affairs, without ever actually doing anything. I was a little busy raising a family, cutting people's taxes, and taking on the establishment in my home state." Then take off from the governor's part...

And, when she's debating Biden, she needs to remind people over and over that this guy has been in the senate since he had hair. The guy's a dinosaur, and incapable of change, and that his plans for Iraq would have been a disaster....but, that's another line of attack...

Georgia Senators Sell Out GOP and Us on Energy

Note: oil=oil and natural gas

Both my Senators, one of whom, Saxby Chambliss, is running for re-election, are behind the bad policy, bad politics "New Energy Reform Act" of 2008 in the gang of (now) 20. Needless to say, I let Sen. Chambliss know in my reply that should he continue his support of this rottenness, I would not be pulling the lever for him this year. I'll just sit out the GA senate race, I guess.

Marlo Lewis blogs over on NRO's Planet Gore why this is a rotten compromise, and I will add it is rotten politics, and saving the Democrats from themselves. The bill will be vetoed by President Bush, in effect getting NOTHING accomplished, but allowing Pelosi and the Dems to claim they did "something" and in a bi-partisan manner, to boot.

Of course, my senators don't seem to really care that this is a bad idea. Senator Chambliss had the courtesy, at least, to send me the talking points on why this is a good thing. If I were interested in a bi-partisan compromise that might actually get signed into law, and if this bill would bring quick relief, I might favor it as a first step to breaking down some other barriers. But, as Lewis points out, the bill will be vetoed, thus point 1 is no good, and the bill will not being quick relief, because the only areas it makes accessible are >50 miles off-shore. In his reply to me, Sen. Chambliss points out that we can set rigs at 50 and drill inward, but that takes time and will provide no immediate relief, even if it were to happen.

The bill, according to the Institute for Energy Research, most likely will add areas within 50 miles of Alaska's shoreline to the banned list (they are not today) and, it does not provide for revenue sharing with the Feds for those states that would be allowed to drill in the 50-100 mile range (NC, SC, VA, GA). So, little incentive for those states to support drilling offshore. The IER report concludes that this bill will open between 2-4B BBL of oil to exploration, but not the most easily accessible areas, and, makes the comparison that just opening 2000 acres of ANWR would yield 10B BBL of oil nearly immediately. When all is said and done, it looks like after this bill is done, more of the OCS areas will be banned than today.

Senator Isakson, I guess not being up for re-election, saw no need to provide a detailed reply.

Out of respect of the space on this blog, I am not posting Senator Chambliss's reply, nor my reply to him and Sen. Isakson. You'll have to settle for this as a summary.If you want to see those, comment me and I'll put in the comments.

Breitbart defends the 1st Amendment

Hollywood dimwit Matt Damon has inspired Internet news-aggregator Andrew Breitbart to say something about censorship in America, and how it's the Left that wants to censor movies and TV shows they don't like.

They can't wait to censor political opinions they don't like either.

It wasn't that long ago that John McCain (yes, that John McCain) was assisting the left by teaming with them (and President Bush) to pass the Incumbent Protection Act (oops, I mean the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill). Next, if they get the White House, look for them to shut down talk radio by re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine. Some have even stated a desire to apply the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.

Sarah Palin represents no threat to your first amendment rights, but these people do.

Internet Extra! If you can stand Michael Savage, here is a rant from him about Damon and Palin (caution, if controversy disturbs you, don't listen):

Barack and Gianna

I can't imagine that anyone on the right has not seen this commercial, but if not, you should see it and understand that Barack Obama isn't interested in any reasonable restrictions on abortion (something we might reasonably expect from a doctrinaire liberal who wants to bring "change" to Washington), and never has been, and likely never will be, and this will flow into his litmus tests on judicial appointees.

The commercial from the group bornalivetruth.org, is posted below:


I heard Gianna on Hannity yesterday and on H&C last night. She's obviously a committed Christian and despite having CP, she is making her life an example of Godliness for all to see.

While Colmes didn't really know how to handle her (inwardly, probably as an object of his scorn, as a failure of Liberal policies), he failed to get her to say that 0bama is for infanticide.

Like many of 0bama's decisions (see post below), despite what may be his best intentions to satisfy his followers (in this case the abortion lobby), this one is another example of failure to see what the consequences of decisions he supports will be, and how heinous they can be.

Whether it's not understanding your support of Senate Bill 99 would allow the teaching of sex education to kindergartners, or whether failure to pass a BIAPA in Illinois means the deaths of abortion survivors, with the approval of the state, I just don't think we can allow this kind of "judgement" in the White House, regardless of how correct he was in opposing the Iraq War from the beginning.

As they say in Georgia, even a blind rat finds the cheese sometimes.

Sex Ed to Kindergartners. Obama says...

The latest McCain attack ad that has the 0 crowd all fired up is about 0bama's 2003 Illinois Senate views on sex education, particularly with respect to Kindergartners and Senate Bill 99.

Byron York in National Review today weighs in that McCain is mostly right on this one, that the practical application of the bill is in teaching sex ed to kindergartners, not just to teach them about inappropriate touching. The list of people who won't speak to York on this issue is telling. What do these people have to fear from the truth? If the truth is as 0bama "remembers."

0bama's support of the bill may have been that he wanted these youngsters warned about the dangers of this touching, but, York, having read the bill, and spoken to at least one of it's sponsors, is clear that the bill was intended to do more than teach about inappropriate touching, and, in fact, that touching was way down on the list of priorities for this bill.

Sen. Iris Martinez, one of the bill's sponsors, was asked by York, "You didn’t see it[the bill] specifically as being about inappropriate touching?" She responded, "Absolutely not."

We are left to conclude one of the following about 0bama:

1. He didn't read the bill and didn't know what it actually said
2. He is an ignoramus
3. He is lying

You take your pick, but I don't like any of these qualities in my presidential choice.

end...

In battle of pork, Obamessiah is the "Big" Winner

Citizens Against Government Waste has spoken on the "Bridge to Nowhere." CCGAW President Tom Schatz said, “The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.”

In my words, Dems, "Shut up," because you're out to lunch on this, and you do not want to get into an earmarks battle with John McCain.

If you just check the 2008 CGAW "Pig" database, you will find the Obama and Biden combo sponsored over $200M in pork (0=$90M, Hairplugs=$120M), while McCain sponsored $0.

In actual earmarks, Obama has requested over $300M of them in 2008, according to his own Senate site.

This is a debate they do not want to have.

Nothing represents business as usual in Washington like being a big spender. The only change in Obama is in how quickly he has learned this.

end...

Carolina upholds ACC's honor

I'm going to digress from politics for one post, and give a big shout out to the University of North Carolina football team, who upheld the tainted honor of the ACC by beating the crap out of Rutgers last night.

With only Wake Forest beating a BCS conference school til last night (Ole Miss), the ACC was teetering on being laughable if they couldn't beat a Big East also ran. Of course, we have seen why those NC schools don't want to schedule East Carolina.

When Georgia Tech (my alma mater) with a new coach, and new offensive scheme, is being discussed as a favorite for the Coastal Division championship, that should tell you how bad the ACC is in football this year. We'll know a lot more about that tomorrow, when Tech faces Virginia Tech on the road.

So, kudos Tar Heels and prepare to lose November 8th.

end...

Dems are starting to worry

With today's Gallup poll showing the generic Congressional ballot narrowing to a 48%-45% lead for Dems, you can bet a lot of Democrats are worrying that 0bama is going to be a drag on the ticket. Among likely voters, the generic vote has the Republican candidate leading 50% to 45%. That should be a warning for the 18% approved Congress.

Since I'm in Virginia this weekend, I happened to just see a Jim Gilmore for Senate ad that is actually tying his opponent, Mark Warner, to Barack Obama. Now, this might be a bit of a long-shot for Gilmore, who trails Warner badly in the polls and in money (the NRSC is not giving him money, because he says they're broke, more likely because he's a lost cause), but, it indicates that Gilmore, at least, thinks 0bama is likely a liability for Warner in Virginia.

How come in Virginia, with all the military population, we can't get better candidates than Gilmore? Or, is Warner just a phenomenon of the modern Democrat party -- rich guy who buys his way to power, and the easiest way to power these days is via the Democratic party?

end..

McCain is computer illiterate? Shocking![updated]

Updated: New text in red bold italic

Apparently, the 0bama campaign is writing off the over 65 vote. Today, they released this video, which slams McCain for being computer-illiterate.



Well, so what, so here's a 72 year old guy and he's computer illiterate? So what? Did Barack Obama ever land a fighter on the deck of a pitching aircraft carrier? I didn't think so, that takes something Barack doesn't have.

I have news for you, 0, I work in the I/T industry, and there are plenty of people under 65, and 55, and 45, and 35, who are computer loons. Believe me, I work with these people everyday. They're intelligent (mostly), sales reps (mostly), executives (nearly universally, unless they're in the tech industry), and they actually have better things to do than learn computers - like make money and decisions mostly.

Sure, the 2-25 crowd is perfectly familiar with computers. So what? How many 14 year olds are you going to get to vote for you? McCain doesn't need to learn anything about a PC. He has staffers for that.

Anyway, here's my idea for a rebuttal to the 0 ad, which starts "A lot has changed since 1982..."

"A lot has changed since 1973...the year Joe Biden was sworn in for his first of six terms in the Senate (show picture of Biden and his hairplugs).

"John McCain was released after 6 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, tortured so badly he can't lift his hands above his head to this day (video of McCain's release)...

"A lot has changed since 1988, the year Barack Obama first sat down in this man's church (show picture of J. Wright saying 'God damn America')...

"John McCain was establishing his conservative credentials pushing for fiscal responsibility in Congress (show some newspaper article of McCain supporting Gramm-Rudman).

"A lot has changed since 1995, when Barack Obama was first meeting with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (show great picture of Ayers and Dohrn in their hippie days)...

"While John McCain was earning the 'maverick' level by supporting legislation that was unpopular in his own party (not sure we need to remind republicans that McCain-Feingold was going on here, LOL).

"A lot has changed since 2005, when Barack Obama was getting a sweetheart land deal from indicted Chicago developer, Tony Rezko (insert sinister mugshot of Rezko here)

"And John McCain was working to get Samuel Alito and John Roberts confirmed as Supreme Court justices.

"A lot has changed in our world in the last 35 years. What hasn't changed is that John McCain will put this country first as he has done his entire life."

Obama is Jesus?

Wow! The Democrats are completely off their rockers!

In a chorus of talking points, the last couple of days they have seized upon the idea of 0bama as "community organizer" just the same as Jesus.

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) put it best, when he said, "Madam Speaker, I know Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ is a personal friend of mine. Sen. Obama is no Jesus Christ." Here's another good analysis.

I don't know what religion these guys are following, but to compare the Son of God, and Savior of Mankind to a "community organizer" should be something that Christians of all colors, genders, and sexual orientations should find insulting to their intelligence and faith.

To complete their analogy, they liken Pontius Pilate to Governor Sarah Palin, with the talking point that Pilate was also a governor.

Now, I don't know what Democrats suddenly have against governors, but I'd like to ask my democrat friends, how can democrat governors absolve themselves of their sins of governance? Is it enough for someone, as Evan Bayh, former governor of Indiana, has done, to be elected to the legislative branch? Is Senator Bayh now immune from future charges that he is Pilate? Or, does the governor tag stay with him his entire career, and now makes him ineligible for national office (at least for the VP or President's job).

If the democrats really believe this, then I call on ALL democrat governors to immediately resign, so as to protect themselves from becoming Pontius Pilate's. Turn these jobs over to Republicans immediately, since we all know that republicans are evil, nasty people, who want to order the murder of our Lord.

Could this be the hidden reason why 0bama passed over Tim Kaine, the aforementioned Evan Bayh, and Kathleen Sebelius?

end...

Biden. Brain dead?

You have to wonder, reading this, is Joe Biden suffering from Alzheimer's or some other age-related affliction?

My "Neighborly" Tax Plan

0bama speaking to O'Reilly really hit the skids talking about socialism and "neighborliness" and telling the rich they need to give more to waitresses (I didn't realize the rich were such poor tippers!). See the video




I have been pondering this tax idea for a while, but, since 0bama thinks we should be more "neighborly" I want to propose this modification to our tax tables to make them more "neighborly:"

Whatever the tax bracket you're in, take the last 1/3 of the taxes you pay, and, instead of paying them to the Federal Government to redistribute, let the taxpayers themselves decide how to distribute them to charities of their choice.

I suggest the United Way administer this program. That way, in our neighborliness, we could target the final 1/3 of our taxes to organizations that want to receive them, can receive them, and would put them to good use, frequently even in our own "neighborhoods." And, they would get more of the money to people who could use it than the redistributionists in Congress, and we might feel better about sending in our money to be redistributed, if we had some say in it.

And, for those liberals, who feel that the Feds are the best positioned to apportion their money, they can choose the government, instead of the charity(ies) of their choice.

The rich might not feel so bad giving all that extra money that way, since they do it anyway.

Come on, 0bama, don't you think that is pretty darn neighborly?

I even have a name for my bill: "The Mr. Rogers Tax Reform of 2009"

More on pigs and fish

Ok, by now, you've all probably seen the internet ad, "Lipstick" that the McCain/Palin campaign put out in response to Barack 0's Pigs/Lipstick comments on Tuesday.

The media are abuzz over whether Barack intended this as a slam on Palin, and Barack was even crying "Enough" over the uproar. When I first heard this, I thought it wasn't intended as a poke at Palin, and, I don't think he thought it would be perceived that way. However, there were two comparisons made, and only the Pig/Lipstick one is getting the outrage, but the second one was,

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

These were prepared remarks, Obama didn't just pick these idioms out of thin air (he's not really capable of that in a speech).

He meant the lipstick pig remark to apply to Palin, and he meant the "old fish" remark to apply to John McCain.

So, Obamaniacs, let's be honest here with each other, 0bama has decided to get nasty, by taking gratuitous swipes at the female VP candidate and the Presidential candidate by calling him an "old" guy.

This 0bama is really all about the politics of change, isn't he?

My rebuttal to a rebuttal on energy plans

From my co-worker who says he's a "moderate" in response to my energy policy comparison:

"The good news is at least this topic is getting some serious attention. Our lack of a robust energy policy is not only short sighted it is a huge national security issue.

"Some rebuttals:

"Gov. Palin calls oil company “windfall profits” tax a “clear and equitable share” tax. Last year she gave Alaskans an extra $1200 due to increased oil revenues. I guess McCain will put a stop to this?"

My reply:
Actually, the extra $1200 was to offset higher oil prices. Alaskans have received money from the state’s oil royalties since oil was discovered in 1976 on the North Slope. McCain can’t put a stop to this, since it’s a state decision, not a federal one (and sharing mineral revenue with the population is in the Alaskan Constitution). I’m okay if Obama wants to give me $1000. I’m not sending it back, but I think this move on the federal level is pandering for votes. At least in Alaska, where it’s cold and home heating oil is expensive, they can make a rational argument for giving the people more, in a one-time payment. Plus, what Palin did really isn’t the same as what Obama is proposing, as the source of the money is not a “windfall profits tax.” My understanding of ACES is that the money is coming in anyway, due to a restructuring of the tax, and this $1200 is just going to the people of Alaska, vice the state treasury. My reading of the facts could be wrong, but I think this article gives some explanation. Also, you can look at the actual description of the "Alaska Clear and Equitable Share" tax program on the State of Alaska’s web site.

He goes on:
"Higher MPG standards will improve our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and will reduce emissions"

My reply:
I think I agreed with that statement. I also posited that an unintended consequence of higher fuel mileage standards might be to cause the prices of smaller vehicles to increase and lead people to hold on to their less efficient cars longer. McCain says he wants to more effectively penalize automakers for failing to comply with existing CAFÉ standards. Sort of like immigration, what’s the point of new laws if we don’t enforce the existing ones?

He continues:
"McCain’s $300m prize is just a gimmick since many companies are already working on better batteries and they will make a bunch of money on a market hungry for this technology. But hey, go for it dude."

My reply:
And an extra incentive might not be enough to spur development by some new entrepreneur? This has worked in the past in the aviation industry, why not try it with battery technology? Sure, it’s a gimmick, but $300M is small gimmick.

He says:
"The issue with oil company land leases is why do you want more when you aren’t using the ones you have?"

I say:
Oil companies pay for these leases, if they can’t get oil out economically, or they find that the reserves on the leased land are not worth the effort, they don’t drill. Plus, the bigger problem is that much of the known oil reserves are not on those leased lands, and many of the leases are in deep water areas, while the oil companies would prefer to drill in shallower-water areas that are not available to them now (these are parts of the acreage being held back by Congress). 97% of offshore areas are not leased, and 94% of onshore areas. How much oil do those contain, and when can we tap it? The clock won’t start at all if the Feds don’t move on leases.

Congress is welcome to say “Hey, Big Oil, you have leases that may be potentially valuable, but they will cost you more money than drilling in the other areas we’re holding back, but, hey, at $135/bbl, you can make it profitable, so go do it, pretend these other areas don’t exist.”

Congress can say that, and they’re welcome to, but I don’t think it’s a politically sound judgement for them. But, hey, they’re democrats, they can do what they want.

He says:
"The whole “drill here, drill now” thing is another gimmick since: 1) It will be years before any new oil sources hit the market,"

I say:
The clock ticks with every passing day….but, if you believe that oil speculators have anything to do with the run-up in prices, then signaling an intent to drill , without even taking one bbl of oil out of the ground, would have an impact on speculators(and, indeed, it has). The fact that something takes time used as a reason NOT to act? Is this conversation at your house, Mama: “Honey, I want to have a baby.” Daddy: “Oh, honey, I’m sorry, but it takes 9 months, when they have the technology to deliver that baby tomorrow, then we’ll do it.”

He says:
"2) All the best estimates are the US has only a small fraction of the reserves compared to our demand"
I reply:
We don’t have to satisfy all our oil needs to have a measurable impact on the market. Granted, we have to add to the world market a significant amount of oil to move the price meter, but we don’t have to be self-sufficient, though it would be nice to be able to theoretically say we could supply all of our energy needs, which is what we’re shooting for anyway Why not get the oil that is recoverable out as soon as possible, while we pursue other avenues – cellulosic ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel? What’s the harm in that? Those technologies will not be widely exploited overnight, either.

He says:
"3) New US oil supplies will go on the open market to the highest bidder so US oil will not necessarily go into US cars."

I say:
The highest bid will be less with more supply. But, I agree (I think) with your point, the thought that we’re going to close the walls and be self-sufficient and charge $0.25/gal is idiocy. But, we can affect the price of oil by adding to the supply.

Speaking of earmarks...and pigs...and lipstick...

It didn't get much airplay, but the watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, issued their report on top earmarkers a couple weeks ago. The results:

• Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) 2007 rating was 10 percent, making his lifetime score 18 percent. The 2008 Congressional Pig Book contained 53 earmarks worth $97.4 million for Sen. Obama, including $1,648,850 for the Shedd Aquarium.
  
• Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) received the worst possible rating in 2007 with 0 percent, while his lifetime rating is 22 percent. According to the Pig Book, Sen. Biden had 70 earmarks for a total of $119.7 million in fiscal year 2008, including $246,100 for the Grand Opera House in Wilmington.
  
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) received a score of 100 percent and has a lifetime rating of 88, has never requested nor received a single earmark, and has pledged to veto any spending bill that contains any earmarks. (Sen. McCain was only present for 11 of the 35 Senate votes that CCAGW tallied. Therefore, he was not eligible for the Taxpayer Super Hero Award)

And, in case you missed it, 0bama got $3.4M in earmarks for Joe Biden's lobbyist son's clients.

In this December 2007 article (so, before anyone could accuse her of posturing to be VP), the Seattle Times reports that the Alaska governor's office (that'd be Sarah Palin) was asking for far fewer earmarks to restore Alaska's image. Clearly, Sarah Palin was out ahead on this issue, despite the protestations of the pork-meisters in the Congressional delegation (all Republicans, by the way).

You know, 0bama is right, no matter how much you put lipstick on it, it really is still a pig!

Why the Left needs to fear the unscripted Palin

By special request, I eased my derision of J-school graduates in this version.

This weekend started the inevitable cry on the Left about when would Sarah Palin face the scrutiny of the MSM on their Sunday shows or their dumb press availabilities.

The (all-knowing) Left thinks that because Sarah is a former small town mayor, and governor of a red, small, gun-loving, outdoorsperson-friendly state like Alaska, that she's an uneducated rube who won't be able to hold her own against the intellgentsia as embodied in the MSM's chattering class.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am not a fan of the people who choose journalism as their careers. J-schools are made up of underachievers (with a few exceptions) and a few idealists who think they're going to change the world by joining the noble call of the 4th estate. They're indoctrinated by liberal professors into the the club and pretty soon they're all aglow with the righteous indignation they usually scoff at when presented by the religious (or the pious, as Cynthia Tucker might call them). At the national talking head level, we mix these folks who have come up through the ranks with refugees from politics (the Russerts, Snuffs, Kristols, Matthews, et.al.) and we have a bunch of egotistical blowhards who think they are smarter than any small-town mayor or little state governor.

The reality is some of those blowhards are actually smart (and they'll tell you so, just like Joe Biden), but, most of those toiling a layer below these guys (the Cynthia Tucker's of the world), are not as smart as they want to believe.

Anyway, they misunderestimate Sarah and the reason is the same one that led them to not get Ronald Reagan. People see in Palin that she stands for something, that she has honed her core beliefs, and she actually holds them dear to her.

For her, answering questions from the MSM is not going to pose a problem. She will answer truthfully and her answers won't need scripting. She will answer from her core beliefs and she'll mean what she says. She won't have to stammer around wondering how it's going to sound, or what the "correct" answer is, because she already has the confidence that people know what her views are, largely share them, and she can just be herself, which is what we ask, just as we asked Reagan to just be himself.

See, we knew who Reagan was. We knew his core, because we shared his core, and, when he spoke, he spoke from that core, and it was usually good to hear.

I think Americans, and the conservative movement, sense that same core in Sarah Palin, and we're excited that she's one of us, and she will, I pray, and ask you to also, speak from her core and not fear the ramifications.

This is something the average Liberal politician can't understand, nor can their sycophants in the MSM. It drove them nuts about Reagan, and it will drive them nuts about Palin. They'll say, "How can she say all these outrageous things against Liberal heterodoxy and get away with it?" and they'll be dumbfounded. Those that share her views will love her absolutely, and those that don't share all her views and aren't died-in-the-wool Kossacks, will respect a leader who speaks honestly and from the heart, and they'll decide, that despite the fact that they don't agree 100%, they want someone who speaks honestly to them, and brings their heart to the game.

Libs, be very careful what you ask for.

Important Political Message

Watch this commercial, I command you! Pass it along to your friends.

Too bad he didn't vote "Present"

You know, Barack 0bama should think before he speaks.

The latest DNC and 0 campaign talking point is that Sarah Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it.

As has been detailed, Palin cancelled the "Bridge" project after Congress released the money to be spent as the state saw fit, vice as "earmarked" (get it?) for the bridge. She did this over the objections of the AK Congressional delegation and it is for that she's lauded - taking on Ted Stevens and the AK pork crew.

Of course, when you're a Senator, as the other three candidates are, you have a record, and in this case, both 0bama and his running mate, Mr. Biden, voted FOR the bridge, twice. They voted for a bunch of other earmarks, as well.

McCain, on the other hand, was voting against the bridge.

So, on one hand, we have a Washington neophyte, schooled in the patronage ways of the Chicago political machine, passing some goodies to his Senate buddies; a lifetime Senator with hairplugs, doing the same, and on the other, we have McCain, opposing it, and Palin, taking her state's money, and spending it, instead of on the bridge, on more meaningful projects.

You tell me who's for change in this picture.

O'Reilly vs. Tucker, redux

Dear Ms.Cynthia Tucker,

Will you retract these statements about Sarah Palin in your 9/7/08 editorial in light of their clear falsity as spelled out at factcheck.org?

You wrote these two proven falsehoods:
“…she urged an Alaska librarian to ban books; she believes “creationism” should be taught in public schools;”
Those statements are false, as debunked in this factcheck.org article.

You wrote these statements which are either distortions or phrased to place her in the worst light (for your followers):

“She opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest…”

She has made it very public that her personal opinion is that abortion is only acceptable to her, in the case of the mother’s life being in jeopardy, even if it was her own daughter. As this Alaska Daily News article points out, she has not pushed that agenda as governor. It should be noted that under Alaska law, a 17 year old girl can get an abortion without her parent’s consent, though that is a law that Palin is trying to change.

You wrote, “she asked ministry students at her former church to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it ‘God’s will.’” Only, that’s not exactly what she said. What she said was, “I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.” I know it’s a small distinction, but she’s asking these students to pray that God’s Will be done. If Palin was certain that God’s will was that the pipeline be built, why the need for prayer? Anyway, it’s certainly not outside the realm of Christian doctrine for people to pray for all manner of things and ask God to reveal His will. I realize attacking evangelical Christians is sport for Liberal Columnists, but, do so at your peril.

On a different tack, it’s interesting that you rail at Bill O’Reilly for his double-standard in the Palin/Spears cases. It’s not hypocrisy as you suggested in his driveway “interview” with you. Double standard, sure, hypocrisy, no. While you’re at it, can you supply a definition for “Christianist?”

Finally, you have no problem repeating proven falshehoods in your column and distorting other statements to serve your political views, which is par for the course for the AJC editorial page and why I no longer pay for this newspaper. I’d also suggest that if you want a little more truth and better context, instead of pulling your information from The Daily Kos, you use a search engine and look for some local Alaskan news sources, you’ll get more complete coverage there.

While O’Reilly practices a journalistic double standard, you outright lie.

I’m not surprised.

end

O'Reilly and his double standard (update)

Updated 9/9/08: Found the "Christianist" reference!!

Whether you like Bill O'Reilly or not, you have to agree he's an in-your-face and sometimes obnoxious commentator.

Here in the Atlanta area, he created a bit of a row, because he is in a tiff with our local newsrag, the Atlanta Journal Constitution's editorial page editor, Cynthia Tucker. Let's stipulate that the AJC is a leftist rag and that Tucker is a reliable liberal, who will spout the party line on cue from her daily talking notes.

Tucker recently took O'Reilly to task for his comments regarding the Palin's eldest daughter and Jamie Lynn Spears. I agree that O'Reilly needs a beat down, and was practicing a double-standard, but, you can see the hatred for social conservatives in Tucker's column, where she uses the adjective "pious" in a pejorative sense to describe Christians, accuses the Palin's of providing little instruction to her daughter about contraception (as though she has some inside information), and essentially accuses social conservatives of not caring about the mothers or the babies of less well off teenage girls. She has previously referred to those supporting Palin as "Christianists." I tried finding this word in dictionary.com, but couldn't. I also tried finding the column with this word in it, but couldn't so I am going on the quote from her O'Reilly used in his story tonight. Clearly, Tucker has a problem with some Christians.

Furthermore, Cynthia, in your driveway interview with the O'Reilly producer, you accuse O'Reilly of "hypocrisy." Well, a double-standard, maybe, hypocrisy, no. That would be true if he himself had a teenage daughter who was pregnant. Maybe you can get the definition of that when you find Christianist.

It is nice to see that Tucker cares so much about the mothers and babies that get born, but, I know if she had her way, there'd be much fewer of these.

Cynthia, and Jay Bookman, if you're reading this - there's a reason why the AJC is not read by anyone, and why I haven't subscribed to it for 10 years, and it's largely your editorial page. I'm sure, judging by Cynthia's BMW, she's saved enough to survive the unemployment line sure to come, hopefully the rest of the staff has been so lucky.

end..

Debunking Palin Myths

I previously took factcheck.org to task for what i considered was a poorly done rebuttal of some McCain attack ads against the 0.

Today, they do take on some of the attacks against Palin, many of them uttered by members of the MSM, who should have known better. Kudos to factcheck.

end...

Who's doing the "reinventing" here?

0bama is lashing out at Sarah Palin, saying "You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself," with respect to her change in focus on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."

Let's look at the Big 0's weekend:

On "This Week," 0bama was telling George Snuffalufagus that he "considered" joining the military after high school, saying "You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school." However, he didn't sign up with the selective service in 1979, when he graduated from high school in 1979, he did it in 1980, since it wasn't required from 1975 til summer 1980, having been rescinded by President Ford following Vietnam. So, it's interesting how this memory of "considering" the military corresponds with another bad memory regarding the timing of when he would have had to register with the SSS. In other words, it couldn't have been the SSS registration that triggered pangs of desire for the military life in 0Bama after high school, since it was during his freshman year in college when it was required again, and when he, to his credit, signed the required paperwork.

In the same interview, 0 told Snuffy that he would consider keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest in place, if the economy were in recession.

Finally, on Snuff's show, he admitted his answer to life's beginning at Saddleback was a rotten one. Just enjoy the dissembling in his answer.

end...

More 0 vs. the Muslim Issue and some random posts

Continuing on the 0bama/Muslim meme, California Yankee (who I have added to my political blogroll to the right!) has a great post on this, and how 0 should address the issue head-on.

I agree with him.

In a related post, Ann Coulter discusses Sarah Palin.

Michelle Malkin mocks Barack's community organizing days.

Sarah Palin rocks, continued

Charles Martin has a blog post where he is keeping track of Sarah Palin rumours (most spread by the MSM) and debunking them (h/t The Corner on NRO). Check it out, many of them are quite good, and you can use it with your Liberal friends in debunking their lies and distortions.

On a related topic, on FNS today, Chris Wallace tried to pin McCain's campaign manager down on when Palin would have a press conference (when was the last time a VP candidate held a press conference during a campaign?). He was pretty adamant that it would happen on the campaign's schedule, but, I think an even better approach would be to tell these people,

"Sarah Palin is campaigning across America and taking the message of reform that this campaign represents directly to the people, taking questions from the good citizens of this country and sharing her experiences as one of them. As the unprecendented attempts to smear her by the mainstream media highlight this past week, I think the voters are much better served by hearing from Sarah directly, rather than through the distorted prism of liberal media Washington elites. Thank you for asking, though."

end...

Wear that lapel pin, Obama!

So, the 0 (my new moniker for them) campaign is all in a twitter that GOP operatives "rescued" several thousand flags from the Obamevent at Invesco Field, and used them at a McCain rally in Colorado Springs.

Simultaneously, the 0 himself said, “what they’re really saying is ‘we’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that you know, ‘Maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’”

Well, Barack, I will take those on:

1. That you have Muslim connections - no, you don't have any known current Muslim connections, but I don't think you need to deny that your father was a Muslim. Though you are a Christian, you ought to speak about what brought you to your faith. I think it would be good for all to hear it. I find it ironic that you and your acolytes embrace your father's skin color, but, not his religion.
2. Hangs out with radicals - I think the Bill Ayers/Bernardine Dohrn questions need to be answered directly by you, as well as questions about some of the groups (ACORN,The Gamaliel Foundation, etc) that you ran with as a "community organizer." Will anyone in the MSM ask you those questions, or are they too busy finding out about Sarah Palin's pregnancies?
3. Not patriotic - I'll let the voters decide that one. Leftists like to say that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" and give credit (wrongly) to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine. Regardless of who you give credit for the statement, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. I'm pretty sure none of these guys were practicing dissent, and I think they showed the highest form of patriotism.

Palinfacts.com

I have to point my readers to this site, palinfacts.com (H/T Blunoz). You'll like it, whether you like Palin or not.

Taxes and junk email

I was recently forwarded this internet email virus, with the questions at the end of this post added to it in a variant and I have now edited them (9/6, 2pm) to reflect more reality than the original email.

Here's my reply:

I realize that it is popular to “tax the rich” and, if Obama follows through on his plans as snopes describes them, our family stands to do slightly better than under McCain, but, I ask, at what point should we stop taxing the rich? Would any of you support a tax of 100% on any income above $250k? Above $1M? At what point do “the rich” have enough and we should take every penny of their money? At what point will “the rich” decide they have had enough and take their money, their investments, and their businesses elsewhere? Let’s face it, “the rich” are the most mobile members of our society, and while I know most of them love this country, it’s an increasingly global world. I realize it scores some cheap political points to vilify them, but I have yet to hear of a poor man giving anyone a job.

As for the questions at the top of the list, they are all a matter of your personal political views.I will make a point for Obama here – that some of our most successful presidents have had no military service at all (Lincoln, FDR) while some of the worst were in the military (Grant, Andrew Johnson, Carter),and there were successful military men (Washington, JFK, TR). It certainly is not a prerequisite for the presidency – but it does say something about character, particularly in McCain’s case.

REST OF EMAIL (updated 2pm, 9/6/08):

Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes - McCain - supports plans to open off more off-shore sites for drilling immediately
No - Obama - doesn't generally support offshore drilling, but has indicated a recent wilingness to speed the exploitation of currently allowed drilling spots, as part of a "comprehensive" energy plan and with restrictions (the cynical can still interpret this is a No).

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes - McCain - supports judges who will interpret our Consitution, who recongnize that the legislative branch legislates, and not the bench
No - Obama - pretty much standard Liberal fare expected here. Not able to get what you want through your elected officials? Your friendly non-elected judiciary will do it for you.

Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes - McCain - though certainly not a prerequisite
No - Obama - but has great experience as a "Community Organizer"

Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS - McCain - not sure this is a good thing
173 DAYS - Obama - likewise

Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No - McCain - Will support increased use of health savings accounts and tax credits for those unable to get insurance through their employer. Supports making health care more portable, and allowing residents of states to get insurance from out-of-state insurers. Will NOT put government in the position of being a health care insurer.
Yes - Obama - While his plan ostensibly won't lead immediately to a single payer, socialized system, its long-term effect, by placing the government in competition with private health care plans, and requiring coverage, will eventually force more and more employers to drop their health care plans and push people into the public system, essentially creating a government run system.

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No - McCain - supports restrictions on abortion and the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would place this issue in the hands of the states to decide at the state level. A return to Federalism, how novel.
Yes - Obama - has never voted to restrict abortion, when he wasn't voting "present". While an Illinois state senator, refused to support legislation to protect infants who survived abortions.

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No - McCain - pushed the "surge" strategy and the recommendations of General Petreus, which has put us on the verge of victory in Iraq, and is enabling us to significantly reduce our troop strength in Iraq, has allowed the Iraqi government to push reforms, and take control of their government, and will leave a functioning Islamic democracy, friendly to the US, in the Middle East.
Not really - Obama - Well, we now know what he said to Moveon.org and the General "Betrayus" crowd wasn't true, he really didn't mean an immediate pullout. Refuses to admit the surge worked and has demonstrated an unwillingness to respect the capabilities of American military power.

Supports gun ownership rights
Yes - McCain - record speaks for itself
No - Obama - typical Liberal position on gun control. This "Constitutional Law Professor" supported the unconsitutional DC gun ban before he was against it.

Supports homosexual marriage
No - McCain - but does support civil unions and the right of states to allow civil unions. Has not favored a federal marriage amendment, preferring the states to decide for themselves.
Yes - Obama - favors it if states decide to permit it. Would not be an advocate in his administration against this. His judicial appointees would likely be inclined to overturn laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Proposed programs will mean a huge budget deficit or tax increase - read the link - neither candidate has a real plan to reduce the budget deficit, though McCain's probably isn't as unfriendly to it as Obama's.
Probably - McCain - has stated he will eliminate earmarks and veto any bill that comes to his desk with earmarks in them. Has been a pretty consistent opponent of government waste in his time in the Senate. Pledges to push legislation requiring a supermajority vote to raise taxes.
Probably - Obama - either huge tax increases, or massive deficits. Take your pick.

Voted against making English the official language
No - McCain - though his position on immigration has, to be generous, "evolved."
Yes - Obama - told us we need to learn Spanish. For the record, Obama knows no foreign languages himself, not that it's important.

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
Mixed - McCain - McCain has actually voted for this but now is against it. We know McCain's stance on illegal immigration, and while his 2007 conversion may be sincere, he has a long record of being for amnesty.
Yes - Obama - The Democrats see illegals as an important voting bloc, and are beholden to agriculture interests in some "leaner" farm states (Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri) and California, so it's no surprise that they're for amnesty. If you think we need to control the borders, in this election McCain is an imperfect choice, but Obama is obviously rotten.

Barack says...

That the GOP convention ignored the middle class and focused on McCain's biography.

Could it be that Barack is envious that McCain has a biography?

Fact Check.org,is it always right?

Even this site needs to be read with some discernment.

Ok, I had a heated discussion with a co-worker today who describes himself as a moderate (i.e. Liberal, but scared to admit it). He suggested that Obama's energy plan is better than McCain's, when it was obvious from his description of McCain's plan that he had never actually read it, which is really what set me off. As you can tell from scrolling down, I have previously posted a pretty detailed look at these two plans. If you're against new sources of American fossil fuels and nuclear power, Gobama. If you think we ought to get some of our own darn oil and use nuclear power, Nobama, choose McPalin.

In this discussion, he stated that he uses factcheck.org as a resource to sort the wheat from the chaff in candidates advertising. Well, I have perused the factcheck site, and it's not awful. Interesting that most of the items today above the fold are all about McCain ads,in fact of 12 front page articles, 8 are about McCain ads,4 concern Obama misdeeds. 2/3, 1/3 - I'd say it qualifies as balanced as far as MSM sites go!

Just to prove that even an even-handed site like this can be misleading, I am going to take it to task for one of it's rebuttals - the McCain ad about Obama and Iran. Known as "tiny" in McCain parlance.

In their "fact check"on McCain's ad, which correctly states and shows clips of Obama saying Iran and Venezuela are"tiny" countries who don't "pose a serious threat," factcheck.org does correctly show the context that Obama was comparing them to Russia, both in size and in nature of the threat, or at least of the threat we once associated with Russia (all out nuclear war).

Of course, you could re-do this ad today, post Georgia invasion, and we could show Obama's naivete' about Russia, but, that's not the point. The "Tiny" ad goes on to question that "destroying Israel isn't a serious threat?"

In their factcheck, they attempt to use a June 4th Obama speech to refute that McCain is misleading on his Israel comments. The problem is, as anyone who was paying attention after May 18th, when Obama uttered the initial statements, they will recall that the June 4th speech, in which he spoke of the threat of Iran to Israel, was accomplished precisely to counter these statements he had made previously, as a sort of salve to put on what was then a festering wound.

So, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the June 4th comments that Factcheck uses to "refute" the "Tiny" ad actually refute it. Put into the proper context themselves, they were made to put Obama back in the good graces of the pro-Israel lobby and to correct the mistake he made 2 weeks prior.

The "fact" remains that when Obama spoke on May 18th, he may have been speaking in the larger context of comparison to the former Soviet Union. But, words do have meaning, and as a President, he has to know every clause he speaks will be parsed and judged,and in his May 18th speech, he slipped, and it showed an inexperience that a more seasoned foreign policy expert would not have made. That's not to say that he wouldn't learn from his mistake, but, I still think the criticism from the McCain camp is a fair one, though I think they ought to show his June 4th attempt to clean up the mess, because that is a pattern of the Obama campaign, that, if elected, I hope we don't see repeated over and over again.