Recently in Elections Category

With 86% of the precincts in Massachusetts reporting, WBZ-TV reports that Scott Brown appears to have won the US Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, beating Martha Coakley with 53% of the vote.

UPDATE: Martha Coakley has conceded to Scott Brown.

Now the question begs, what happens now? Will the Democratic machine in Massachusetts work to prevent Brown from being seated in the US Senate in a timely fashion?

The race for the US Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy is heating up. While Democrat Martha Coakley first thought it would be a cakewalk to the Senate, Scott Brown worked hard to disabuse her of that notion. The support he's received via fed up Massachusetts Republicans, independents, and Democrats has been amazing. So has the campaign's fundraising, pulling in about $1 million a day since the blogosphere kicked into high gear on his behalf. While Coakley has had to rely on lobbyist and special interests to raise campaign funds, Brown's funding has been grassroots, with the average donation being approximately $77 per contributor. Small donations have been pouring in from all over the country.

Coakley has shown how out of touch she is, blasting Scott Brown for taking all that "out of state" money...while standing outside the Washington DC fundraiser held for her by out of state lobbyists. The worst thing? She probably doesn't realize just how hypocritical she really was. And this is someone the people of Massachusetts should send to the US Senate?

Coakley knows her campaign is in trouble when even the Massachusetts SEIU locals are supporting Scott Brown, campaigning for him even though they aren't being paid $50 par day to hold one of his signs. Does this mean the Dems will have to bus in out-of-state SEIU members to carry signs for Coakley? Or will they be used to...umm... encourage voters heading into the polls to vote for Coakley, much like the New Black Panthers did during the Presidential elections in 2008?

The Democrats are pulling out all the stops, using every dirty trick in the book in order to get Coakley elected. The problem is that every time they do, Brown's poll numbers go up. I guess that means the folks in the People's Republic of Massachusetts have come to realize the state's Democratic leaders don't really have their best interests at heart, particularly when they keep pushing the worst possible candidate the party could have fielded like she's the second coming of Teddy.

If Brown pulls off an upset, that will give voters in other states some hope. Goodness knows we could use some here in New Hampshire, where the Democrats hold both chambers of the General Court and the Governor's office and have been doing their darnedest to push the state into insolvency with profligate spending and higher taxes at a time when no one can afford them.

I just finished reading Sarah Palin's Going Rogue. All I can say: She's one tough lady.

Many of the episodes Sarah describes that took place during the 2008 Presidential campaign I was already familiar with, though her description of the way she was handled by the McCain campaign staffers filled in a few gaps.

One big reason the McCain-Palin ticket lost the 2008 election: the infighting between the McCain staff and the lack of communications between the McCain campaign 'headquarters' and Sarah Palin's campaign staff. The campaign lost their focus and practically handed the election to Obama. I have a feeling that if John McCain had fired some of the senior staffers and told the rest to "let Sarah be Sarah", we'd be talking about the McCain Administration and Obama would still be "Senator No-where Man".

But that's water under the bridge, something that can't be fixed. However, the animosity towards Sarah Palin by the campaign staff has translated itself into a lack of support of Palin from GOP insiders. I have a feeling it's because she refuses to fit into the mold they see as acceptable. But acceptable to whom?

Frankly, I have a feeling the insiders of both the Democrat and Republican parties choose to ignore what a large portion of Americans want, particularly what Americans want to see in their leaders. The growing momentum of the TEA parties has certainly shown anyone paying any kind of attention that the average Americans are tired of being marginalized and ignored, of being looked down upon by those considering themselves our betters. That Sarah Palin appeals to the great unwashed masses out there in Middle America pisses them off to no end.

A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party's professional class -- and maybe that's just how she wants it.

In a survey of 109 party leaders, political professionals and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the party's '12 WH nomination. Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was the overwhelming choice.

--snip--

And Dems are even less convinced Palin is a serious candidate. Just 3% of Dem insiders said she would be the candidate running against Obama in '12.

Then again, Palin fans can take heart, given just how long candidates have to go until the first nominating contests. In '06, insiders predicted that ex-Sen. George Allen (R-VA) would be the GOP nominee, and that Sec/State Hillary Clinton would easily win the Dem nomination.

Palin had little support from Alaska GOP insiders as well when she ran for governor, but she beat the incumbent Republican governor John Murkowski in the primary, receiving 51% of the vote (in a five way contest), and defeated her Democrat opponent by almost 8 percentage points, receiving over 48% of the votes cast in the six-way general election.

Not bad for someone with little actual support from the GOP insiders.

As one commenter to the post linked above put it:

Governor Palin is exactly right to distance herself from the GOP establishment. These are the same people who thought John McCain was a serious candidate and who hired Michael Steele to run the RNC. If Palin hadn't been running with him, McCain would undoubtedly have lost to Obama by 16 points instead of 6.

Assuming she wants the job, there are very few Republicans out there who can command the type of following among independents she does, and she's positioned herself exactly right if she decides to run.

I think we'll find she'll also garner support from a number of disaffected Democrats as well. Reagan certainly did.

If she decides to run, she'll certainly have my support.

For the longest time the major players in the MSM have either ignored or trivialized the TEA Party movement. But no more.

Tonight, ABC's World News had a report about the 'phenomenon' of the TEA parties, showing the effect they've been having and how the movement is growing. As political analyst Matthew Dowd put it:

"I think Republicans definitely dismiss this at their peril. I also think Democrats, by trying to marginalize it, underestimate the anger out there," political analyst Matthew Dowd said.

There are a lot of angry people out there. I'm but one of them.

I find it interesting that one of the favorite politicians among TEA party supporters is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. But it isn't all that surprising considering she implemented many of the TEA party core beliefs while she was governor, rooting out corruption, cutting profligate state spending, and scaling back the reach of state government until it was performing only the duties expected of it as laid out in the Alaska State Constitution.

The TEA parties aren't aiming their anger at any one party so much as the actions of those in Congress and the various statehouses, showing their anger at being ignored and seen as nothing more than a source of revenue for the tax-and-spenders in both the Democrat and Republican parties.

Maybe ABC started payi8ng attention when TEA party actions started bringing down politicians and party leaders who made the mistake of ignoring their constituents.

The most recent victim of "tea party' activists was Florida Republican Jim Greer, who resigned from as state party chairman this week, in part because of the activists' objections to his alliance with Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, who is running for the U.S. Senate. The activists are vocally supporting Crist's opponent -- a young, outspoken conservative, Marco Rubio -- and some believe the tea party group may bring down Crist, too.

The message is getting out: Politics as usual aren't going to work this time, at local, state, or federal level. You ignore us at your own peril for we have no problem firing you come next November, if not sooner. To quote Howard Beale from the great movie, Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"

It's time those in both parties pay attention because the TEA parties aren't going away.

It appears the New Hampshire First Congressional District Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D) is considering a run for the US Senate to replace retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg.

Second Congressional District Representative Paul Hodes (D) doesn't appear to be drawing the support he'd hoped for, with polls showing him behind the two front-runner GOP candidates.

Personally, I hope Shea-Porter runs.

I have two reasons for this.

First, it means she won't be running for re-election in the First Congressional District and, second, she's likely to lose the Senate race because the Second Congressional District is more conservative than the First, Hodes presently filling that seat in the House notwithstanding (he's far more responsive to all his constituents, unlike Shea-Porter).

Shea-Porter has shown her condescension towards her constituents, particularly her Republican constituents, more than once and quite publicly. She has also shown us she's arrogant, ignoring the wishes of her constituents because "she knows better". She follows every dictate of her fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi, voting against the best interests of the State of New Hampshire far too often. That won't play so well in the Second District.

So, "Run, Carol! Run!"

Three posts of interest came to my attention in regards to the incoming Obama Administration, the smear job on Sarah Palin, and questions about voting irregularities and auditing Obama's campaign for financial misdeeds.

First, there's this by Stephen Green at Pajamas Media, talking about Obama's bad start by picking unnecessary fights with allies and adversaries alike.

One example:

Obama doesn't seem to have a clue on how to treat American allies. During the primary race, he threatened to crack down on major threats like Canada -- a position he probably/maybe/sort of backed off from in backdoor talks with the Canadian government. In Europe, Obama is already to the left of most every major EU leader. Then last week, Obama told Poland one thing about missile defense in private and told Russia quite another thing in public. In other words, he's doing his best to spoil relations with Poland, which will have repercussions throughout Eastern Europe, too. Our allies have got to wonder where Obama stands. I think we all do.

He's not even in office and already our allies are questioning his leadership. This is not a good sign.

Then neo-neocon lets us know that now it can be told, that is things about Obama's plans, taxes, voting irregularities, the bank and auto industry bailouts, and hoaxes about Sarah Palin the in-the-tank press failed to fact check and took as gospel, spreading them around the globe.

And last, but not least, Kyle-Anne Shiver explains how Sarah Palin nearly saved John McCain's campaign.

From the beginning of '08, the accepted wisdom was that no matter whom the Democrats nominated, they would deliver to the Republicans an ignominious defeat. But this year's defeat was anything but the complete rout it was supposed to be.

And the person who nearly even saved the day -- and the election -- for Republicans was Sarah Palin.

This is not a minority opinion. When Rasmussen conducted detailed exit polling among Republicans, they found that a full 69% of respondents thought Sarah Palin helped -- not hurt -- McCain. Governor Palin has not garnered the status as America's most highly regarded, most popular governor for nothing.

His failure to get elected wasn't her fault. Rather, he wasn't blown out in a landslide because Sarah Palin fired up many Republicans and got them out to vote. Unfortunately she couldn't carry the load all by herself. McCain's failure was his alone.

As Shiver says:

The woman, in my opinion, is a natural Patton. A fighter to the core. Palin seems to instinctively know that when one is hip-deep in a culture war and a fight for the survival of American exceptionalism, then one must do more than defend, defend, defend.

If one is not willing to attack in defense of one's cause, then he ought to get out of the way at the very least -- or consider joining the other side.

If she decides to run for President in 2012, this is one blogger that will support her.

I've been making the rounds, checking blogs for reactions to Barack Obama's victory over McCain. For the most part the moderate and conservative blogs have been gracious in defeat, with other remaining neutral, taking a wait-and-see stance. Obviously there were others that saw his victory as one more step towards America becoming a socialist state. Others saw it as just another part of the cycle America experiences, with swings between Left and Right over the decades. Surprisingly, the most vicious posts and comments came not from the Right, but from the Left.

A series of examples can be seen in a post by John Hawkins, showing a list of responses by conservative blogs, and more telling, comments by those on the left. One commenter called the more vitriolic responses from the Left what they are: "Sore winners!"

More than one commenter noted the vile nickname the Left has applied to President Bush over the past 8 years - Chimpy McBushHitler, or variations thereof - and wondered if the Right would stoop so low as to come up with some equally vile epithet for the President-Elect. Somehow I doubt they will, other than to borrow a title first uttered by John McCain at the Al Lewis dinner - "That One!" Somehow I doubt we'll see the deranged apoplectic diatribes we've endured during President Bush's administration.

As an aside, I have to wonder why so many on the Left are still obsessing about the 2000 election and Bush's win over Al Gore in Florida. My advice: GET OVER IT! It's ancient effin' history! There's not a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it unless you manage to make repairs to your WAYBAC machine and travel back in time to 'fix' the election (and I don't mean 'fix' as in repair).

For those of you out there lamenting the loss by John McCain and Sarah Palin, let me point you to a rare opinion piece by Steven Den Beste, probably one of the more astute political commentators I've come across on the web (with Bill Whittle being one of the other thoughtful and wise bloggers out there).

As Den Beste says, it's "not the end of the world."

It's easy to let yourself go in despair and start thinking things like "We are well-and-truly f****d" or "This is the worst of all possible outcomes". But it isn't true.

I think this election is going to be a "coming of age" moment for a lot of people. They say, "Be careful what you wish for" and a lot of people got their wish yesterday.

And now they're bound to be disappointed. Not even Jesus could satisfy all the expectations of Obama's most vocal supporters, or fulfill all the promises Obama has made.

I think Obama is going to turn out to be the worst president since Carter, and for the same reason: good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn't respond to benign behavior benignly.

But there's another reason why: Obama has been hiding his light under a basket. A lot of people bought a pig in a poke today, and now they're going to find out what they bought. Obama isn't what most of them think he is. The intoxication of the cult will wear off, leaving a monumental hangover.

And four years from now they'll be older and much wiser.

As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing.

I know my 14-year old son, BeezleBub is far more upset at the outcome of the presidential elections that either Deb or I. It may be because he's a bit more perceptive to the political realities than many other kids his age and understand what might happen if President-Elect Barack Obama carries out all of his promises. He does get quite a bit of crap from some of his classmates at high school for his political beliefs, but as he says they're just parroting what they've been taught at home and in school. The same claim could be made about BeezleBub, but he doesn't take anyone's word about anything anyone tells him, including me and Deb. He actually asks questions if he doesn't understand something and if it still seems stupid to him, he'll say so and why he thinks it's stupid.

Way to go BeezleBub.

But I have also been telling him the it's not the end of the world. I think after he reads Steven's piece he'll come around.

Sean Malstrom has an interesting opinion about the polls we've been seeing in the media: they are absolutely worthless.

Sean contends the 'model is broken', meaning the model and the method used by the various polling agencies and groups has not caught up with reality. He should know, having been involved with polling for quite some time. He says the problem we're seeing now goes back to the 2000 elections, where the polls said one thing but the results said differently.

You will have to wait until Wednesday morning to see whether I agree with him that "Obama is toast."

The letter below was received via e-mail (Thanks, Bev K!)

I do not know if this letter is genuinely from Michael Master as claimed. I checked it out on Snopes and Googled his name. Nothing specific was found. I also checked for a phone listing in McLean, Virginia and found none. That in itself doesn't mean anything because fewer people have wireline phones these days and as far as I know there are no directory listings for cell phones.

In any case I decided to post the e-mail here as it does make a number of valid points and asks questions that as of yet Barack Obama has either refused to answer or has tried to deflect. Obama is an enigma. I don't like the idea of an enigma sitting in the Oval Office.

So far I have been able to verify most of the points laid out in this letter, but not by using other blogs as sources. Verifications have come either from MSM articles/reports, US Government websites, and other non-blog websites. Take it for what you will. Take everything contained in this letter with a grain of salt. A BIG grain of salt. But I think you'll agree there are doubts raised by this letter that should be but have not been addressed by Senator Obama.

********************

To Barack Hussein Obama,
 
The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted.   While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
 
The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted.   In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year.   The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly.  While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
 
Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America.   While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
 
In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions.  While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
 
On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work.   While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.
 
You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim.  While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
 
You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar .. and it failed.  The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate.  You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party.  While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
 
In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan.  You lied in that debate.
 
In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law.  In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.'  You lied last spring.
 
You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.
 
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right ...  corn is too expensive at producing ethanol,  and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food.   You distorted the truth.
 
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden.   You lied to America.
 
You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural.  You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected.   While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
 
You did not take an active role in the rescue plan.  You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today .. and they all made major contributions to your campaign.   While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
 
You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn.  Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions.  Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns.  You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you.  While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.
 
During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.'  'They cling to their guns and religion.'  'They will say that I am black.'  You played the race card.  You tried to label any criticism about you as racist.  You divide America.
 
You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions.   You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn.   Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it.   While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.
 
The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP).  You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities.  Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear.  You are lying to America.
 
Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004.   The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008  spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org).   You are lying to America.
 
Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA.  They eliminated religion from our history.  They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade.  They bring their personal politics into the classrooms.  They disparage conservatives.  They brainwash our children.  They are in it for themselves ..... not America.    Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans?  You are deceiving America.
 
Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else. 
 
Your character looks horrible.  While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric.  You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
 
1.  You lied to America.  You lied many times.  You distorted facts.  You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
 
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
 
3.  You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
 
4.  You divide America about race and about class.
 
Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain:   War hero.  Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.'   Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years.  26 years in the Senate.  Straight talk.  Maverick.  54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats.  Never asked for an earmark.  The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
 
Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means.  You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated.  Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
 
Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character.   It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty. 
 
Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character.  Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches?   Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain?   Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview?  Of course not.  So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest?  Why do they excuse your dishonesty?   Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises  ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932.  The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 k ept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was.   They loved his style.  Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty ... but many of us see you for who you really are   ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day,  forever if it is necessary.
 
Mr. Obama, you are dishonest.  Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
 
Mr.  Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
 
Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves.  We cannot trust you.
 
Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.
 
Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements.  And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character.  The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships.   The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ...  false witness ... perjury ..  your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.
 
Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late.  We need to do the job that the media will not do.  We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
 
Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve.  And God help America if we deserve you.
 
Michael Master
McLean, Virginia

From Chris Muir's Day By Day.


Need I say more?

While Jay Tea's latest post has a provocative title - Women In Chains - it covers what we can expect from an Obama administration, particularly when it comes to members of the press asking pesky questions Obama doesn't want to answer: banishment. Like the old Soviet Union, the reporter or their TV station/newspaper are declared to be unpersons and banned from coming near the Obamessiah or asking him questions forever.

Yeah, that'll play well in Peoria.

It's one thing for a candidate or his campaign organization to spin stories, it's another to decide which media organizations are worthy to cover every utterance of the great Democratic Savior and which are not.

Can we expect these same folks will react the same way when ordinary Americans start asking the same questions? Will Obama's elitist attitude finally become obvious to even his most ardent worshippers, showing their hero has all the same weaknesses as ordinary mortals? Or will they allow their devotion to blind them to the fascism of their Führer, excusing actions that would get anyone else skewered by the press or, even worse, the average American?

Obama has shown a propensity to damage or destroy those who would question his past or his motives. Even friends and political mentors are not immune, as some have found out the hard way.

Do we want someone this petty sitting behind the desk at the Oval Office?

Jay likens the treatment of the press by Obama and his campaign staff to that of women being abused by their boyfriends/husbands. Many of the abused make all kinds of excuses and allowances for their abusers, but aren't willing to do anything to stop the abuse even when it is in their power to do so. Is a wider swath of the press waking up to this and starting to turn on the Obamessiah? Even if this is so, is it too late to stop him from taking an office he neither deserves or is qualified to hold?

We'll know in a few days.

As much as the leftist NutRoots have been skewering Joe the Plumber, particularly in the comments to this post in Politico, there's another hard working man out in Northeast Texas the left cannot silenced through intimidation or character assassination. Meet Cory the Well Driller.

Cory is a self-made man, starting his own business on a shoestring 25 years ago and slowly building it up to the success it is today. He took risks, gambling his money and the money of friends and family, and became one of the better known and respected water well drillers his part of Texas. It certainly gives him a better incite about what Barack Obama's plans for taxes and the budget will mean for hom and his fellow East Texans.

Follwing is Cory's letter to Barack Obama in it's entirety.

From: Cory Miller
Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54-year-old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawnshop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self-discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10-year-old, ½-ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night, as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

It appears some of the sheen is wearing off of the presumptive heir to the Oval Office.

First CBS - yes that CBS - ran the numbers and found too many of Obama's promises don't balance.

Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he's made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up.

Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His "army of new teachers": $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion.

Still Obama repeated his claim he can find the money to pay for every proposal.

"I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost," he has said.

The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending. According to a CBS News estimate, he's around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say - even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised - he falls short.

So yet another member of the MSM is willing to admit Obama's promises aren't all they're cracked up to be. Whether this is an 'awakening' of the MSM or a cynical attempt to prove they aren't biased by running a negative story about Obama that isn't likely to hurt his chances is unknown...for now.

Another look at Obama by neo-neocon seeks to remind us of the wisdom of William Shakespeare when Hamlet warned us "...one may smile, and smile, and be a villain."

She certainly sees the public Obama is not the Obama we need to know. Rather it is Obama the Enigma we must know in order to understand his intentions.

This is why so much attention has been paid--at least by the blogosphere; certainly not by the MSM--to Obama's actions and his record or lack thereof. This is why his thinness of achievement in almost every position he's held, as well as his dirty dealings in previous elections, have gotten so much study. This is why his old radio interviews are seen as clues to his true intent, why his reinvention as a centrist is suspect when you look at his liberal past, and why his radical associations are even more important than they would be for someone with a more solid and clear history in the national spotlight. That is why his words to Joe the Plumber have been parsed so finely.

It is the few unguarded glimpses we've seen of him that must make us take pause and ponder what it is he really wants, despite his appearances of having moved towards the political center. If we cannot access his past then we must assume his posturing and promises are an attempt to distract us using the old smoke-and-mirrors bit. He's a great salesman, selling the only product he knows so well: himself.

Sometimes pictures do speak louder than words, and in this case I think this one says it all:

After watching the half-hour Obama infomercial, I have one question:

Where's Ron Popeil when you need him?

While thoughtful, Obama's infomercial reminded me of a scene from Gilligan's Island where a banana republic dictator said, "I promise you dis, dat, an de odder 'ting!" in an effort to pander to everyone.

Sorry, Barack, I ain't buyin' it.

It appears some of Barack Obama's own words are coming back to haunt him. I doubt anyone hasn't heard of or listened to an interview he did on WBEZ radio back in 2001 (Transcript available here). But he leaves no doubt about what he believes when it comes to wealth, the Supreme Court, and his disappointment they didn't get involved with redistribution of wealth.

Somehow he equates social justice with discredited theories of redistributing wealth, in other words, taking money from you to give to people he thinks deserve it more than you. Spoken like a true socialist.

He also tries to make the case that the government isn't prevented from doing what he thinks it must by the US Constitution, regardless that it might unconstitutionally violate a number of individual rights.

Of course the Obama campaign says the release of this interview is nothing but a smear tactic. But how can they make that claim when the entire interview is available, unedited? Which is the real Barack Obama: the slick media creation or the fellow we hear on the interview? While his rhetoric now describes his plans in fancier and less specific language, I doubt very much he has changed his plans. All we need to do is remember his answer to Joe the Plumber. It appears he'll work very hard to turn the US into a socialist nation, one with an economy he helped destroy, all in the name of "fairness".

Obama's promising change. Unfortunately for all of us it will be change none of us can afford.

It's been interesting to watch the polls over the past few weeks, seeing the spread between one polling organization and another. If nothing else it makes me question their polling methods, the number, type, and location of people they poll. All I can say for sure is that too many of the polls are getting it wrong. Some pollsters are biased towards one party or another, while others aren't asking the right people or right number of people or a reasonable cross section of people. This seriously skews the results and makes people like me stop paying attention to the polls.

It's not like I'm alone in this. Many across the blogosphere have noticed this, both on the left and the right. Certainly Glenn Reynolds has linked to numerous reports and blog posts asking the same questions I have.

At the moment the number of polls I've looked at have said it's anywhere from 51-41 Obama (Kos) to 44-43 Obama (AP), to 51-49 McCain (Mason-Dixon).

What it all really comes down to is that the only poll that's worth anything is the one that takes place on November 4th (and I'm not talking about an exit poll).

My questions about Barack Obama, the image he projects, and the real man behind that image have become more important to me, as what we see in the campaign ads and his campaign speeches doesn't match with the reality of who he is. A few cases in point:

1 - Barack Obama points his finger at "greedy Wall Street" and the banks that have failed or are about to fail as the cause of the present financial meltdown. But as he points his finger, three others are pointing back at him. Many of those banks would never have gotten involved in risky mortgages if he and others hadn't sued many of those same banks for lending discrimination, so-called "redlining", and forcing them to lend to those incapable of paying back those loans.

I find that rather hypocritical, don't you?

2 - In the October 2008 issue of Town Hall magazine in an excerpt of an interview by Michael Medved, Obama biographer David Freddoso paints Barack Obama as anything but a reformer, and repudiates his claims that he will 'reach across the aisle' in bipartisanship once he gets into office. His actions over the years speak louder than words, and he has been neither a reformer or bi-partisan. Says Freddoso:

The carefully crafted media image of Senator Obama is a great lie. There is, in fact, nothing in his career to point to him as someone who bridges partisan divides for the sake of positive change. This is quite clear from his record in how he's dealt with the machine politics of Chicago, how he's essentially served as an enabler of some extremely corrupt politicians in that city, how he has championed the same old systemic corrupt arrangements that have existed in Washington, and existed in Springfield, and in Chicago, including the various forms of corporate welfare, the special advantages that certain lobbyists seek. Senator Obama has been right in the center of that for his entire career. There are so many cases of it. The pattern is completely unmistakable.

And it is that pattern that disturbs me, since it is readily recognizable, yet ignored by the millions of Obama supporters. He is also very good at saying much, but meaning little, a way of being able to appear to promise something to the masses, yet never really coming out and saying exactly what. Such an ability does not fill me confidence. Apparently it is likewise with others as well. Freddoso continues:

...[A]nother of his biographers, David Mendell, refers to Obama's "charming lack of specificity." So this is something people in Chicago have noticed for quite a while - that he is able to talk about issues as though he's taking everybody's side. And people want to listen to him.

In fact, when you look at Obama's legislative record, he's really not ideologically open-minded. He tends to take a position that is far left and sticks to it, even when the members of his own party, even when other liberals aren't willing to follow him there.

However, there has been one area where he's been quite clear, leaving little ambiguity as to his intentions.

3 - By now everyone has heard of Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher from Ohio and the question he asked Obama during a swing through his neighborhood. The question was nothing Joe had planned and, despite claims from many Obama supporters, he wasn't put up to it by the McCain campaign. (It's unlikely they could have even if they wanted to unless they had some means of forcing Obama to walk past Joe's yard.) Obama's answer to Joe's question about taxes on small businesses shows his socialist beliefs unfiltered. It was a crack in the image Obama has worked so hard to craft, and one that should give anyone a reason to question the rest of Obama's claims and campaign promises.

Pam Meister interviewed Joe the Plumber, one of her first questions being about what Joe asked Senator Obama.

Initially, I started off asking him if he believed in the American Dream and he said yes, he does - and then I proceeded to ask him then why he's penalizing me for trying to fulfill it. He asked, "what do you mean," and I explained to him that I'm planning on purchasing this company - it's not something I'm gonna purchase outright, it's something I'm going to have to make payments on for years - but essentially I'm going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could possibly put me in that tax bracket he's talking about and that bothers me. It's not like I would be rich; I would still just be a working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, it's not their discretion to do it - it's mine.

And as most of you out there know, Obama stated outright that he intended to "share the wealth", meaning a plan to redistribute the hard earned money of working people and give to those he believes are worthy of the fruits of someone else's labor. It will be the return of LBJ's horrific welfare program, the so-called War on Poverty, the one that trapped far too many people in poverty for over two generations. Unfortunately, poverty won that battle. It wasn't until President Clinton ended "welfare as we know it" and got people off the public dole and into jobs that the Great Society madness ended. Now Obama wants to undo all of that and return us to the days of generational dependence on welfare. How is that progress?

NOTE: I had originally planned this as one very lengthy post. Instead I decided to break it up into a number of smaller posts, each one covering two or three topics. Part 2 will be posted on Monday.

Every so often I have to be reminded of the biggest difference between the Left and everyone else when it comes to day to day life. It can all be boiled down to two concepts: opportunity and results. I was reminded of that lately when Barack Obama told Joe The Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama replied. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too."

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

It's one thing when it's done voluntarily, and an entirely different thing when you're given no choice. Obama wants to make sure you have no choice whatsoever. That's the "change" he wants to bring about.

As I wrote at the beginning of this post, there is something that I needed to be reminded of when it comes to the Left, and it's this: The left is always trying to achieve equality of results, while everyone else is trying to make sure everyone has an equality of opportunity.

The biggest difference between the two is that quality of results always panders to the lowest common denominator, pulling everyone down to the same level. The equality of opportunity tends to pull everyone up towards a higher level of achievement. Not everyone will will gain the full benefits of equality of opportunity, but they'll still be better off than the alternative.

We've seen the results of the first again and again throughout history, and they have never been good, ever. At its worst, the equality of results Obama is seeking could end up with all of us living in the dystopian hell that was described in Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.

Here it is, the last debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's less than three weeks until thye election. This is the last time for either one of them to shine, the last chance for John McCain to make up for lost ground, the last chance for Barack Obama to secure his lead in the polls.

There's been plenty of speculation by the MSM whether the subject of Obama's relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, founder and bomb designer for the 60's radical group, the Weather Underground, will be brought up during this last debate. Many feel it's unavoidable, and McCain's approach to the subject may make or break his chances in November.

This debate is Obama's to lose. Many see him as starting to coast, figuring he's got the election sewn up. That perception would be a mistake.

Let's see how it unfolds.

********************

One thing I will be doing differently during this debate as compared to the previous is giving my impressions about the candidates responses to the questions asked by the moderator, Bob Schieffer, rather than the specific questions and answers themselves.

Let me make something clear right up front: I am not impartial when it comes to this presidential race. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone reading my posts over the years. The more I've learned about Obama, both from posts on conservative, moderate, and liberal blogs and my own research (www.house.gov and www.senate.gov are great resources for learning about candidates voting records, or lack thereof, as well as floor speeches they've made...or haven't made), the more I'm convinced he would be a disaster as President of the United States. I am still working on my post about Senator Obama and why I believe he is unsuited to be the President. But that will wait until later this week.

********************

The topic of tonight's debate is the economy and related issues.

Both have new plans to deal with the economic downturn.

McCain said both long and short term fixes are needed. One short term fix is to help keep people in their homes, to buy up the bad mortgages and refinance them to allow people to stay in their homes.

Obama says not enough is being done to help the middle class. He then went on to restate many of his campaign promises. Sounds great, but nothing new from either candidate.

McCain brought up the plumber who asked Obama about the tax increases he's proposed for businesses, saying the tax increase would make it difficult for him to buy and expand the business where he presently works. How is it helping the economy if he can't afford to expand his business, to hire new employees, to but new equipment.

Obama denied he would do that, but it's matter of record, available on YouTube.

Obama mentioned cutting taxes to 95% of working families. But a large percentage of working families don't pay any taxes. How does he cut taxes on someone not paying them? That's something he hasn't answered yet.

********************

Both candidates addressed the budget deficit, predicted to be up to $1 trillion next year. Both their plans have major holes, may add to the deficit.

Obama brought up health care, energy, and a number of other issues, saying we have to spend now to save later. It's an argument that's been used for years, but has never saved a dime.

McCain wants to freeze spending, using both a hatchet and a scalpel. Cut the subsidies on ethanol, allow Brazilian ethanol, cut wasteful Pentagon spending, cut programs that don't work, get rid of earmarks.

Obama says it won't work, says Bush caused our problems and that McCain will do the same.

McCain shot back that he's not George Bush and that if Obama wanted to run against Bush he should have run against him in 2004, and how Obama voted for budgets he opposed because they were too fat.

Obama says he has a record of reaching across the aisle (but I haven't found any incidents where that's been the case). McCain called him on that, saying it isn't so.

********************

The question of negative campaigning came up. McCain brought up Obama's lack of repudiating vile attacks by Obama supporters while he has repudiated every vile attack made upon Obama. Obama is spending incredible amounts of money of negative ads. Obama is spending three times as much as McCain on ads.

Congressman Lewis equated McCain and Palin to George Wallace, mis-stating the facts. Obama did the usual distancing himself, trying to spin it.

********************

Bill Ayers and ACORN was brought up by both. Obama tried to explain his way out of his associations, sidestepping his involvement with Ayers and others of questionable repute.

********************

The question of why their running mates would make good a good president was asked.

Obama went through Biden's qualifications, saying he's a regular guy, and expert on foreign policy, and so on. (That's not been my take on Biden.)

McCain said everyone now knows Palin, knows she's a reformer, fought corruption in state government going after people in both parties, understands special needs families, and unites people of both parties. He claimed she's more qualified to be president than Obama or Biden.

Obama say Palin would probably be a good president, and McCain said likewise about Biden.

********************

Reducing dependence on foreign oil.

McCain would like to see the US import no oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. Canadian oil is OK...unless Obama repudiates NAFTA. We should use every approach - oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal.

Obama says oil companies should drill on the leases they already own. (The only problem is that there's no oil there.) Blames Bush for NAFTA problems (NAFTA was negotiated and implemented by Bill Clinton, not Bush).

********************

Oh, great! Health care. This is one of the third rails of politics. I hate to say it, but neither candidate has the right solution to the problem of health care and the costs of health insurance and neither is likely to be willing to implement the changes truly needed. Their plans sound 'great', but they won't work, haven't worked in other places, so why do it?

Obama wants to force larger businesses to provide health insurance or fine them. (Just what we need, yet another unfunded federal government mandate that forces businesses to do things they shouldn't have to do. Yeah, that'll work. NOT.)

********************

Again, I've been falling behind and I'm not even going to try to catch up.

My impression is that Obama sounded sure of himself and his programs. He made them sound quite reasonable. But thinking back, I realized he said quite a lot but was far too general and non-specific in quite a few responses. But that's what he does and what he's always done.

McCain was feisty, but it appeared Obama frustrated him on more than one occasion, not so much because he gave a better answer, but because he wasn't really answering the questions.

My impression: Obama took this one, but it wasn't a slam-dunk.