Friday, October 31, 2008

What is Barack's background?

Like Matt Drudge, I gleefully declare the following "is 80% true!"

What is the significance? It is that Barack was a communist and is a socialist (at least) who believes capitalism doesn't work and government must mandate redistribution of wealth directly from the wealthier to the less wealthy (and especially the racially oppressed less wealthy). You can see this in an unbroken line from Barack's red diapers to Barack's tutelage under Ayers (Ayers: "Capitalism? I hate it.") to Barack's 2001 radio interview ("[It's a shame] the Constitution doesn't say what the government must do for the people") to Barack's "spread the wealth" comments to Joe the Plumber.


Barack rose from Columbia University to the U.S. Senate because of Bill Ayers' early sponsorship and tutelage + because of Bill Ayers' connections to powerful Chicago political operatives.

Ayers sponsored Barack because the two shared sufficient amount of radical political belief. Barack's mother was a communist, his father was a communist, his step-father was a communist, his teen-aged father-figure and mentor Frank L. Davis was a communist, and Barack intentionally sought out radical friends at both Occidental College and Columbia.

Bill Ayers saw in Barack a fellow radical who possessed clean cut good looks, talent, and the added benefit of biracial background (DO NOT doubt that Barack's biracial background was and is a huge benefit to him).

These are the radical traits and personal pluses which prompted talent scout Bill Ayers to coddle Barack through the radical political minor leagues, all the time preparing Barack for The Show.

"Don't think. It can only hurt the team." -Crash Davis.

Just internalize the doctrine. It feels right.


Bill Ayers' father is wealthy and well-connected in Chicago.

I suspect Bill Ayers met Barack when Barack was at Columbia University and the two lived two blocks apart in Manhattan.(1)

Barack was financially sponsored into Columbia University by a Saudi financier. Barack lived in Manhattan with two Pakistani students. Though he lived meagerly in Manhattan, Barack visited Pakistan with his roommates during a summer break. Where did he get the money for such a trip? Saudi financier again? Note: How did Barack originally attract the attention of this Saudi money? It would be fun and enlightening to know. Sweet speculation.

At Columbia, Barack took a class from radical Arab intellectual Edward Said. Said and Barack were photographed sharing a meal together. Said and Bill Ayers were friends. Said blurbed Bill Ayers' book "Fugitive Days".

Also, consider:

Barack's big protest issue at Occidental College was U.S. corporations divesting of South African holdings and business.

While Barack was at Columbia, The Weathermen organized a protest of South African apartheid at LaGuardia Airport: The Springboks Protest, in which someone stepped from the crowd and flung acid into the eyes of a security guard, permanently blinding him. Ayers and Dohrn were national leaders of The Weathermen. Ayers and Dohrn lived in Manhattan, two blocks from student Barack Obama. Zombietime:

I'm not saying that Barack Obama himself was at this protest; he may have been, he may not have been. But it is likely that Obama -- who in his own words hung around with Marxists and socialists and was involved in the anti-Apartheid protest movement in New York in 1981 -- would have been aware of an anti-Apartheid protest by Marxists and socialists which happened in the same city he was in.
On the left: Barack Obama in New York ca. 1982. On the right: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in New York in 1982. Had their lives just overlapped?

They were in the same city as each other, at the same time.
They lived near each other.
The went to school near each other.
They had the same political interests.
Their circles of friends and associates intersected.

Chicago neighborhood,
more pure coincidence?

By sheer coincidence, a decade later in Chicago, they were in the same city as each other, at the same time; they lived near each other; they had the same political interests; their circles of friends and associates intersected.

Or was it not a coincidence at all?

In the real world, what are the odds?

If Barack was not under the sponsorship of Chicago-connected Bill Ayers, isn't it quite a coincidence that Barack decided, out of the blue and while living in Manhattan, to go to Chicago to become a community organizer?

Let's be serious: the odds are good that Bill Ayers convinced Barack to go to Chicago under his sponsorship, then Ayers used his connections to set Barack up as a community organizer who became trained in Saul Alinsky style tactics.

The odds are good that Ayers shepherded Barack into Harvard Law School. Barack was recommended to Harvard by a powerful Manhattan politician and sometime mayoral candidate who had been a lawyer for Malcolm X. Exactly WHERE does little Barack Obama make a connection like that?

Where does little Barack make any of his connections (Saudi financier?), and why? Why do these persons want to help young Barack Obama? The answer is an elephant in the room:

Young Barack was radical; Communist; Pro-Palestinian. He agreed with their politics. He had political ambition. He had the looks and talent and bi-racial juice to become a significant political player. These radical sponsors equated to talent scouts who were impressed with what they saw or heard about Barack. The Saudi financier was paying the equivalent of a signing bonus to a high school baseball player.


Barack did a legal internship at Sidley-Austin in Chicago. Sidley-Austin had done legal work for Ayers' father when the father was the powerful CEO of Con Edison. Sidley-Austin already employed the near unemployable Bernadine Dohrn, because "sometimes we do favors for our friends."

The official Barack story is he never knew Bernadine Dorhn when he interned at Sidley-Austin. They were mere ships passing in the hallways. The official story is Barack never met Bill Ayers until Barack landed on the Board of Directors of Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995.

The official Barack story of massive recurring coincidences could be true. But, in the real world: come on! Barack's official story is very likely to be fiction. It's fiction which anyone can suspect if they look squarely at the record.

Barack has displayed consciousness of guilt about Ayers, i.e. "Just a guy in my neighborhood", followed by later lying about Ayers again "A Professor of English, our kids went to school together(Ayers' children are grown), we served on a board together(they served together in two massive enterprises: CAC and Woods Fund)." Notice Barack's careful and misleading language. Technically, Ayers was not on the CAC Board, and therefore Barack and Ayers did serve on "a" board together at The Woods Fund. Barack is all clever, no substance, no truth. If Barack has nothing to hide about William Ayers: why is he fighting tooth and nail to hide as much as he possibly can? Habit?

In the real world, Barack was likely sponsored by Bill Ayers from age 20 (1981) until the day he was sworn into the U.S. Senate and did not need Ayers anymore. Barack has admitted exchanging email with Ayers into 2005.

In the real world, something significant happened while Barack was at Occidental College and "seeking out true radical friends."(2) This significant thing resulted in Barack's being financially sponsored, by a Saudi, to enroll at Columbia and to live in Manhattan with Pakistani students. I'd like to know what that significant thing was.


Suppose you knew the official Barack biography, and suppose you read Jack Cashill's argument that Bill Ayers wrote parts of "Dreams of My Father". You would say: Cashill makes a quite good argument. But, really, the odds it actually happened are slim.

But suppose you suspected Bill Ayers had shepherded young Barack from Columbia to Chicago organizing to Harvard to Sidley-Austin and then back to Chicago, suppose you then read Cashill's actually quite good argument that the veteran author Ayers wrote parts of "Dreams of My Father" (after Barack was unable to finish the project and Barack's publisher dropped him). Then you would say: Of course! It makes perfect sense. Ayers' kitchen table was already open to local authors who were struggling with books. How did early 1990s Barack ever get a publishing deal anyway?

Of interest, this week, is that Rashid Khalidi was friends with Bill Ayers and in fact credited Ayers with being the force which pushed Khalidi through to the completion of Khalidi's own book. Barack and Khalidi shared meals together. Khalidi "helped me [Barack] see instances of my own prejudice." Barack, on the tape the LAT refuses to make public, toasted and tributed Khalidi at Khalidi's going away party from Chicago. Khalidi had served as Yasser Arafat's advisor during negotiations from 1991 to 1993, and served at various times as a PLO interpreter, liason, and fund-raiser.

If you knew only Barack's official biography, you might believe Bill Ayers had nothing to do with Barack being selected as Chair of the Board of the CAC. If you suspected Ayers had shepherded Barack since 1981, and had authored large swaths of "Dreams of My Father" in 1994-1995, you would say "Of course! The puzzle pieces fit perfectly!" (as do the cold hard facts-link)

How did newbie Illinois State Senate Candidate Obama end up being a member of and being sponsored by the Chicago branch of the socialist New Party in 1997? This also has the aroma of Bill Ayers' guidance and sponsorship.-link


What is the significance? It is that Barack was a communist and is a socialist (at least) who believes capitalism doesn't work and government must mandate redistribution of wealth directly from the wealthier to the less wealthy (and especially the racially oppressed less wealthy). You can see this in an unbroken line from Barack's red diapers to Barack's tutelage under Ayers (Ayers: "Capitalism? I hate it.") to Barack's 2001 radio interview ("[It's a shame] the Constitution doesn't say what the government must do for the people") to Barack's "spread the wealth" comments to Joe the Plumber.



(1) Zombietime:

What's so odd about Obama's near-silence concerning his time in New York is that he said he transferred from Occidental to Columbia for the specific purpose of getting more involved in political consciousness and activism at a larger and more engaged school. This New York Times article, for example, says Obama transferred to Columbia to "test my commitments" to social justice causes "like apartheid and poverty in the third world." And yet we are asked to believe that once Obama arrived in New York, the epicenter of activism, he suddenly stopped being politically active. No. It's much more likely that he continued his activism, but now refuses to discuss what he did there. Why the strange glossing over of what should be the culmination of the activism which got its start at Occidental? Could it be not that he abandoned politics altogether, but rather that he became so radicalized that it would be an embarrassment now that he's trying to present himself as mainstream?

Bonus Coincidence: As Andrew McCarthy pointed out in this article at the National Review Online, entitled "Why Won't Obama Talk About Columbia?":
- Obama took a class at Columbia from Edward Said, the influential Palestinian activist and intellectual.
- Obama was later photographed sitting and chatting with Said at an Arab-American dinner, showing they must have continued their relationship.
- Said wrote the blurb for William Ayers' Weather Underground memoir Fugitive Days.
- Ayers attended Columbia Teachers College in the 1980s and almost certainly at that time knew Said, who was then a professor at Columbia.
(2) from "Dreams of My Father", about Occidental College:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism and patriarchy.

This and that:

Ayers and Obama shared office on the third floor of a small office building from 1995-1998.

Obama blurb/recommended an Ayers book in 1997.

Ayers dedicated his 1974 book "Prairie Fire" to RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan.


McCain: Tortured by Communists

Obama: Tutored by Communists

How low will Barack go in his definition of "rich"?

Paraphrasing Neil Cavuto speaking to a Dem. Congressman yesterday:
When I covered the Obama Campaign last year, they defined the rich on whom they would raise taxes as those earning $1M or more. As the Dem. Primaries went on, they redefined rich as $500K. Then they lowered their definition to $250K, and now they are lowering their definition again to $200K. Why would the American people not be suspicious that they will go even lower?
Karl Rove later showed up, and he and Cavuto did the math re additional FICA taxes, et al, and they determined "the rich" under Obama would be paying out 51% of their income in federal taxes, even before various state taxes were added on.

The RNC has picked up on it this with this ad:

Kinda makes ya go: No Merci Beaucoup...

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Barack hasn't handled his job?

Or, conversely, Barack HAS displayed his cynical SOP. Inauthentic. If Barack had wanted to hear the various testimony, he would've been there to hear it.


Related: 5 seconds to guffaw

Former Ms. Magazine Editor in Chief: "Palin's A Brainiac."

I love blogging: Obama's an empty suit! Palin's a brainiac! Both are true! Take it from Pres. Sarkozy, and Elaine Lafferty:
As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals [of Palin's intelligence] come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
[Palin's is] a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernible pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer”… Yup, Palin is that smart.

Remember, in 1988, how Gov. Dukakis looked out of place in the tank and helmet? Does Gov. Palin look similarly out of place in helmet and fatigue pants? Hardly. Put her on the gun. Drive towards CBS and MSNBC reporters. See what happens.

"I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is."

My point exactly! This is Sarah Palin's strength. She knows what her talents are, and that she has nothing to hide. She understands conservative thinking. She has faith in God. The chick is strong. She's a contendah.


The blue jeans clad Governor dances and sways to Gretchen Wilson's "Redneck Woman". Notice, when it comes time for the crowd to sing(2:00 mark), the younger Moms behind her know the words, and Sarah knows the song also. This song must be striking a chord. Gretchen Wilson did make it into an irresistible video. lyrics

The Governor decides, just barely, yelling "Hell Yeah!" would be indecorous. Get half a beer down her and she would punt decorum. Get two beers down her and she would gleefully kick K. Couric's and C. Matthews' tushes.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"Thursday we enrich uranium - I mean...that's our bowling league."

Barack enables the gullible

Thomas Sowell:
Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe.

Barack Dam is leaking

I wouldn't want to be standing where that guy is standing.

Barack Dam is leaking - exactly as needs to happen if McCain is to win. It's happening 3-4 days later than I expected. This makes me nervous. Yet, the leaking is happening, and Barack has a problem.

Can tonight's infomercial plug the leak long enough for Barack to win? I just don't know. It could.

My best guess is that it will not - just as I do not see that Berlin helped Barack. The persuasive power of TV and of infomercials is waning. Barack on TV is a reminder that Barack broke his promise about public financing. Barack on TV psychologically positions Barack as the favorite and McCain as the plucky underdog. Everyone roots for the plucky underdog. No one roots for angry Michelle Obama.


Rasmussen Poll is suddenly within the margin of error: Barack +3. Rasmussen had basically showed an 8 point Barack lead for over a month. Rasmussen termed this a "stable" lead due to "stable" internals. Rasmussen showed a three point move over Sat/Sun/Mon, and another two point move yesterday. I don't really trust Rasmussen's numbers. However, the movement in McCain's direction has significance.

Gallup's Traditional has steadily shrunk from Barack +7 to the current Barack +3.
WMU/Battleground has Barack +3.
IBD has Barack +4.
Zogby has Barack +5 and "holding steady for now".

Ed Morrissey:
We talked quite a bit about polling at last night’s Talk the Vote event. All three hosts reminded people that Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan with eight days left in the race in 1980 outside the margin of error. Furthermore, the rising number of refusals — those who refuse to participate in telephone polling — make the predictive value of electoral polling more questionable than ever before. Michael Medved said that some pollsters report refusal levels as high as 80%.
Reagan decisively won the single Presidential Debate only 7 days before Election Day. His dramatic move was partly attributable to that. Still, big things happen in the final few days. In 2000, Gore made a gigantic move in the final few days.


Connected Dem Speechwriter publicly announces:
The Democratic Party has left me; I'm voting Republican.
Has written speeches for Hillary, wrote Edwards' concession speech, wrote Michelle Obama speech after the Dem Primary, wrote Barack speeches and worked for him this spring/summer in D.C. Senate Office. Lists several reasons. Dem condescension towards Joe the Plumber was final straw. Incensed about gender bias of fake controversy over Palin's wardrobe.


HillBuzz is humming with confidence that Obama is losing Pennsylvania. Hillbuzz detests the Socialist lefties trying to take over the Dem Party; predicts an unprecedented number of Dems are voting for McCain:
Tonight we spoke with a friend from Hillary Clinton’s campaign who is now working for McCain/Palin — and is specifically working with Democrats for McCain in Pennsylvania. We worked with her in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for Hillary and have spent many LONG hours with her in the trenches in all of those states. She’s smart, doesn’t BS, and never lies.

She says the same thing we do: John McCain will win Pennsylvania.

On November 4th, the news networks are going to be spinning and sputtering and playing catchup, but everything we see on the ground in PA is what we saw during the primaries: Obama has no shot of winning the Keystone State.

Here is specifically what we talked about tonight: never in any of our careers have any of us ever seen members of one party switching sides and voting for the other party as we see in this election with Democrats for McCain. There has never been anything like it. Not even the “Reagan Democrats” who voted for Reagan over Carter....
it’s telling that everyone from Team Hillary that we know now works for McCain. ALL OF US. Whether they are open about it, like we are, or are working quietly behind the scenes, we can’t think of a single person we worked with on a daily basis for Hillary who is now working on behalf of Obama.

We all truly believe that John McCain will work more closely with Hillary Clinton in the Senate and make it a priority to team up with her on legislation than Obama never would. We also believe Obama winning this election means his supporters would actively seek to eliminate all Clinton loyalists from the Democratic Party, to consolidate his power base and purge anyone who is not 100% loyal to him. For obvious reasons, those of us loyal to the Clintons will not let that happen without a fight.
Union members repeatedly tell all of us that they are lying to pollsters because the unions have been polling these people — and the unions will threaten people’s jobs if they don’t tow the union line. So, the people lie when asked whom they are supporting. But, the unions can’t control who they vote for on Election Day. And that’s when things are going to get interesting.
What's happening here that’s not being reported is that “Reagan Democrats” who vote Republican whenever they feel that Democrats are out of touch, socialist, or too liberal are voting for McCain…and these people are being joined by PUMAs, DeMcCrats for McCain, Hillocrats, whatever you want to call them, who don’t like or trust Obama and who believe McCain/Palin would address the wants and needs of centrist Democrats much better than Obama ever would.

We personally believe this here at HillBuzz. That’s why we are doing this. We do not believe Obama will put the best interests of Americans first — instead, Obama will do what is best for Obama, the way he has always done. We do not trust this man or his socialist Kool-Aid and want no part of him.

In Pennsylvania, we are not alone.

The same people who ran the board for us in the primary — who assured us daily that the polls the media was pushing were wrong in claiming Obama would beat Clinton in PA — tell us on a daily basis that McCain is going to win Pennsylvania. There’s a damn good chance this won’t even be close, if what people are seeing on the ground right now holds, and is indicative of the whole state.

DEMOCRATS are staffing McCain offices across the state. DEMOCRATS are phone banking and canvassing for McCain. DEMOCRATS are raising large sums to fund this last week of campaigning.


This has NEVER happened before — and the media is ignoring it.
There are two things Hillary Clinton and John McCain have in common that we’re thinking about right now: (1) both love America more than anything and truly want what’s best for the country, and not themselves and (2) Clinton has a framed photo of McCain in her office, while McCain has a similar photo of Clinton in his.

Clinton and McCain are friends for a reason — and we know they will work well together these next four years. We’re going to face some tough challenges in McCain’s administration, and we sincerely do pledge to all Republicans reading this that the bipartisan spirit we’ve fostered during this campaign working together with Republicans to elect McCain will continue in these next 4 years, because America needs us working together.

We are all Americans right now — working together to stop a socialist from becoming president and taking all of us down a very dangerous path.
Is HillBuzz leading with it's heart? Yes. Could HillBuzz nevertheless be right? Yes. The Barack Dam is leaking. It's a problem.


Parting paranoia: could George Soros negatively manipulate the Dow in the final days?

Naah. Right?


"Nah" is the correct answer, right?!
I'm trying to move away from Ayers. Barack has revealed his own extremism, and therefore Ayers is no longer as important. But, like Al Pacino, "They keep pulling me back IN."

Am I the only person who finds Obama videos creepy? 90% of the persons in this video would be atheists if not for their belief in The One.

France's Sarkozy: Obama an empty suit on foreign policy



Paul at Powerline: Who is Arrogant?
As Emanuele Ottolenghi notes, Sarkozy's use of the term "arrogant" is interesting because Obama's (utterly immature) critique of U.S. foreign policy relies heavily on the notion that we have been "arrogant" in our dealings with the rest of the world. In fact, the reason Obama has advanced for engaging in talks with a series of anti-American dictatorships, not just Iran, is the need to overcome the perception that we are "arrogant."

"Arrogance" may be a useful concept for teenagers when they are explaining why they don't like certain classmates. The real lesson of Sarkozy's reported comments is how foolish it is to permit this concept to play a serious role in making foreign policy decisions.

McCain has a decent chance; internal polls look good

Edited after publication

This election is uniquely influenced by 1) unprecedented voter interest and 2) unpredictable day to day financial events. Over the next five business days, stock market stability or instability may determine the outcome. A stable stock market could easily result in McCain victory. A McCain win ought not shock those who are paying attention.

Whether he wins or not, McCain should thank Sarah Palin for keeping him close. It's a joke that the intelligentsia are saying Sarah is a drag on the ticket. She has saved McCain's booty.

A.J. Strata: McCain's Internal Polls looking VERY Good

Anonymous pollster "absolutely laughs" at polls.

Could tonight's national infomercial push Barack over the top to victory? Why not? Barack will be reading a script, will be well-rehearsed, and will be unchallenged in his version of policies and facts. Accordingly: he will be fantastic. Tonight is another unique variable tossed in the mix.

Jim Geraghty's Obi Wan Kenobi source is the Deep Throat of the right blogosphere. It is odd that Obi Wan's phrasing sounds exactly like evil genius Karl Rove's phrasing. Obi Wan says the stock market will be the difference. If it goes unsteady, like at the end of last week: Obama wins. If it stays steady, McCain can win. Obi Wan:

The uncommitted vote is large and they want to vote for McCain.
But probably the least emotional pollster around [...] said, “They aren’t voting for Obama. They are angry about what has happened to their 401(k) and are voting against Bush. They actually favor McCain.”

That’s the question what will happen on Election Day—which uncommitted voter will show up?
[W]e have never seen a situation like this before. No one really understands it. It is just irresponsible for pollsters and networks to do their electoral maps without mentioning how McCain has already surprised them twice and that they are polling in an unprecedented atmosphere.
That’s why key Obama people are nervous. People like Ed Rendell ought to feel good about Pennsylvania. He doesn’t. He knows it can slip away. And don’t forget Obama lost primaries where he had an eight point lead.

What is justified is hope. A stable week economically and a little bit of a finish by McCain and it is doable.
Read it all. Obi Karl is shrewd, forthright, and knows something about campaigns catching fire in the very final days.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008


Cavuto, Megyn vs. Obama's Burton

Vote for McCain. Avoid 4 years of Obama spokespersons such as "National Press Secretary" Bill Burton.

Burton's consistent strategy is to pretend he is being mistreated by whichever FoxNews host he is speaking with, and that Obama is being mistreated by FoxNews overall.

Video of Burton refusing to answer Neil Cavuto's questions.

My shrunken text rendition:

Cavuto: Why would investors not get out of the stock market before Obama raises Capital Gains taxes from 15% to 20%?

Burton: What you are saying is a disgrace and doesn't make any sense. Also, Barack will be better for the economy, so they will want to stay in the market.

Cavuto: Your candidate's spending plans cannot be paid for by just hiking taxes on the upper income, right? They've already crunched those numbers and it doesn't add up. I've done the spreadsheet on this. It doesn't add up.

Burton: Go to our website and work the spreadsheet.

Cavuto: I have gone to your website. Your spreadsheet doesn't add up - I've gone through it line by line. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on your numbers, such as saving $10B a month via pulling out of Iraq. I've given you the benefit of the doubt on extracting oil, and it's not adding up Bill. I'm telling you, it doesn't add up.

Burton: Well, I encourage viewers to go the spreadsheet at

Cavuto: I'm telling you, I just did! It doesn't add up!

Burton: Well, you apparently don't believe the way we do the math.

(Aha! Burton is falling back on The End Zone's all time favorite assertion of higher truth:
"We don't believe the white man's math.")

Cavuto: I defy anyone to go to that site and make Obama's numbers add up.

Burton: People can go to the website and make get-out-the-vote phone calls for Obama.

Cavuto: You're incorrigible, Bill.

Burton: You are. I'm rubber, you're glue....

(I might've made up that bit about rubber and glue.)


Understanding Megyn's attempted interview: she is referencing a just discovered 2001 radio interview in which Barack supported legislative branch action to redistribute wealth. Barack spoke circular Baracky-speak, but these were his points:
  1. We should use community organizers such as ACORN to pressure legislators to change laws in order to redistribute wealth.
  2. It's a shame there is likely no judicial branch method of redistributing wealth.
  3. It's a shame the Constitution says only what the government may not do, yet does not also say what government must do for the people, such as redistribute wealth.

Burton blaming FoxNews and Megyn Kelly for playing audio of 2001 Barack radio comments about wealth redistribution..

My text version:

Megyn: Why are you blaming FoxNews for playing tape of Barack's own words?

Burton: This morning, you all said McCain was going to attack Obama, but McCain held a campaign event and did not attack Obama. FoxNews lied, as they have this entire election.

Megyn: Then, later today, McCain attacked Obama as we said he would. This is not a fake issue. Many Americans care very much about the question of whether Sen. Obama has Socialist policies.

Burton: This was indeed an issue that has been driven by FoxNews channel. The audio of Obama's interview points out that what McCain was saying about it was, by any fair reading, inaccurate.

Megyn: When I have you on, you avoid issues and blame FoxNews for reporting on the issues. You should know that, in Rasmussen Polling this month, a majority of Americans said FoxNews was the least biased network on air. Further, according to the latest Pew Poll, 70% of Americans believe Obama is being helped by favorable media coverage. And yet you have the nerve to complain when Fox confronts your candidate with his own words.

Burton: What my complaint is, and what any fair viewing of your channel would be, is that the Obama Campaign spends a lot of time talking about the issues, and about our key differences with John McCain, and John McCain gets free advertisement every day from FoxNews channel as you continually trump up these fake controversies and have folks on to talk about things that don't have anything to do with the issues.

Megyn: Center for Media and Public Affairs found that, since the conventions, Barack has received 65% positive media coverage, McCain has received 35% positive coverage.

More than a million people are watching you right now. Answer the substantive question. A lot of viewers have concerns about whether Barack Obama's past and present comments about "economic justice" should give them pause, should give them cause for concern about the redistribution of wealth.

Burton: Okay Megyn, I appreciate the political speech that you're making here that is obviously to help Fox News Channel...

Megyn: You attack, I'll defend!

Burton: ...and to help John McCain. The bottom line is that the American people know Barack Obama has been crystal clear about his economic plans for this country. The American people do not agree that giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans is socialist. And so this notion(Burton wrinkles his nose in disgust) that somehow FoxNews has been fair on these points does not hold up to the reality of the kind of coverage it has been giving this morning. The reason I put out this morning's campaign statement criticizing FoxNews is that it is rarely so crystal clear when FoxNews is driving it's own specific agenda helping John McCain frankly more than John McCain often helps himself.

Megyn: I'm sorry, Bill, but both your candidate and John McCain seem to think your candidate's exchange with Joe the Plumber was both relevant and newsworthy, and that was about spreading the wealth around. These comments from 2001 (Kelly and Burton begin talk/shouting over each other at this point, after the 4:45 mark.) also raise the issue of redistribution of wealth, and that is why ...
Burton: Right and that's a misreading of that...
Burton: ...I was making a point there...
Burton: ...and promote this myth that John McCain, WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING IS TRYING TO TALK OVER ME...
Burton: ...about the fact that we have very specific economic policies...
Burton: ...You've made your political speeches. Make another one, go to town.

Megyn: As you know, I don't appreciate the sarcasm...
Burton: (derisively) I know you hate it.
Megyn: ... you can save that for your friends on the other channels. We don't put up with that here. What I'm saying is that your candidate has made several comments about redistributing the wealth. I get the emails, Bill, from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, who are concerned about that notion, who understand that right now in this country the top 25% already pay 67% of income taxes, and who are worried about shifting that balance even more.

Burton: We have tried these policies for the last 8 years - giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans - it's not working. That wealth is not trickling down. What we need to do is help the middle class: get tax cuts to the hard working men and women of this country so that they can deal with higher energy prices, higher health care costs. People are worried about losing their homes in this mortgage mess. That's what Barack Obama is focused on. And (Laughing derisively) I don't think that John McCain's similar comments in 2001 - that he couldn't stomach George Bush's tax cuts - nobody was accusing McCain of being Socialist then because he said there was an unfair amount of wealth being given to the wealthy. No one said he was Socialist - I don't hear you talking about that. But Barack Obama in an interview 7 years ago when he was making a point that has nothing to do with the point you're making, I think all of a sudden becomes banner news on FoxNews channel, and you know what, I understand: you've got an agenda here... (talking over each other now begins anew)
Burton: ...We just think the American people oughta know...
Megyn: ...YOU MAY HAVE THE REST OF THE MEDIA IN THE TANK, BUT FOXNEWS REPORTS IT STRAIGHT. Fair and balanced, as always. Bill Burton, thanks for being here.

Burton: Alright Megyn.

Flaming Christina Hendricks

Searching for a flaming goal posts photo to properly call attention to this story, was struck by the flaming beauty of Christina Hendricks of Knoxville, Idaho, Virginia, and now Hollywood.

Christina plays the best character currently on television: Joan Holloway of Mad Men. Christina gets to play unwise, then wise; bitchy, then sensitive; cold, then vulnerable; and more. The writing is fabulous; the actress fabulous-er. 1, 2, 3, 4

Monday, October 27, 2008

Dean Barnett, 1967-2008

Photo: Dean Barnett on right

Dean lived a full and exuberant life. He died of complications from cystic fibrosis.

Dean Barnett was my favorite person to listen to who had a Boston accent - and Dean looked like a person with a Boston accent should look! I'll have to find a new favorite now. He was a golfer, and a hale fellow well met. Happy fairways, Dean.

John Podhoretz:
Dean Barnett, 1967-2008

10.27.2008 - 4:17 PM

It is heartbreaking to report that Dean Barnett, one of the early stars of the conservative blogosphere, died this afternoon at the age of 41 of complications from cystic fibrosis. Dean was a Massachusetts businessman who began writing a delightful blog about the Red Sox but soon found himself irrepressibly drawn to the politics of the present moment. Both in his own blog, then as a contributor to Hugh Hewitt’s blog, and finally as a staff writer at the Weekly Standard’s blog, Dean was a sterling example of the democratizing power of the Internet to bring forward voices that, in previous generations, might never have found the proper vehicle for meaningful self-expression.

He was a natural, a fluent and fluid prose stylist of uncommon good humor. The fact that he found such good cheer in such difficult times surely had something to do with the remarkably good-natured, matter-of-fact, and quietly brave way he lived with his cystic fibrosis, about which he wrote as lucidly as he wrote almost everything else. I never met Dean, but had literally hundreds of e-mail exchanges with him, and they were highlights of every day on which I was lucky to participate in them. This is yet another remarkable quality of the blogosphere and the Internet — that they create new kinds of friendships based on very old epistolary models.
He was one of nature’s noblemen. Zikhrono Liv’rackha — may his memory be for a blessing.

Hot Air
Hugh Hewitt

McCain hasn't given Americans a clear reason to vote for him

edited after publication

Largely because he has not, I am shifting this blog's prediction from "McCain will win" to "McCain has a decent chance to win". "McCain will win" survived for 10 days in which McCain failed to refine and focus his message. His failure highlights a shocking lack of political skill on the parts of both Sen. McCain and his advisors.


The problem with Senator McCain has always been his failure to intellectually understand conservative doctrine. A primer on what John McCain does not fully understand:

-> Freedom is the best antidote to human misery yet invented.
Less government = more opportunity = less misery.

-> Multiple buyers and sellers regulate markets better than one smart person in a government.
More efficient markets = more wealth = less human misery.

-> The Laffer Curve works.
We remain in a Laffer plot position in which less taxes = more tax revenue for the U.S. Government.

The market is more efficient than the government. Therefore, the market can spend money and juice the economy more effectively than the government. The market can recover from down cycles more efficiently than the government. Think of the vast marketplace of Americans as representing the tiniest, fastest, most adaptable plethora of OODA Loops in existence. Think of the government as representing the largest, slowest, least adaptable OODA Loop in existence. Market vs. Government is no contest. Consider The Parable of the Stairs - including the additional tax revenue the stairs created for the U.S. Government.


If John McCain would read the above primer: he would understand conservatives better than before; he could articulate conservatism better than before; he might turn the tide and win on Nov. 4. McCain's problem is he cannot articulate, in an inspirational fashion, what he doesn't fully understand and logically connect from A to B to C. Joe the Plumber knows how to make the logical connections - which is why Joe the Plumber is good on TV. If Joe the Plumber were the Repub candidate, we would have an inspiring reason to vote for him:

Joe believes in less government, more opportunity, the efficiencies of markets, the Laffer Curve, and The American Dream. Huzzah! Vote for Joe!
What has McCain given us? I am not Barack. That's it. The rest of Sen. McCain's message is scattered all over creation.

It is argued that Sen. McCain simply cannot not win in this economic and political environment, and that in fact no Repub could. I disagree. Barack is such a flawed candidate that McCain should win.

If McCain loses, it will be b/c he did not emphasize reasons to vote for him beyond: I am not Barack. Here is the reason to vote which McCain should have been articulating for 6 months:
Freedom is the best antidote to human misery yet invented! Huzzah!
McCain could follow up by speaking enthusiastically about life, liberty, happiness, the reduction of human misery, less government, more opportunity, the efficiencies of markets, the Laffer Curve, and The American Dream.

Barack does not believe freedom and opportunity and markets are the answers. Belief in expanded freedom and opportunity delineates the clearest difference between Barack and McCain. Belief in expanded freedom and opportunity could have been a bright and clear inspirational reason for Americans to vote for McCain.


Arthur Laffer: The End of Prosperity

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Cowboys Go Undefeated!

Win Final Game 40-14
Improve Season Record To 7-0

Bro64 is coach on left, Youngest Nephew in headband

With 1:20 minute remaining in the first half, and the Cowboys ahead 8-0, my nephew made his second interception of the game, returning it for a TD. The boys call this a "Pick Six". Double click for details.

Update: Nephew provides his own diagram - more accurate than mine. His run begins at top and ends at bottom. If you really focus on this run, you can see it is spectacular. He made three specific cut/jukes, and was hotly pursued all the way.

In the second half, playing QB, Nephew threw a TD pass on a play called "Brady to Moss Stop and Go". Later, playing RB, he faked a reverse hand off and scored on the diagrammed rushing play. He was the orange RB. Click for detail.

Nephew made other plays in this game which contributed to his team's victory. Nice job!

The really neat thing about my nephew is that he also achieves some "Pick Six" results on school tests. He is a threat to "Pick Six" in Math, Reading, Spelling, Social Studies, and Geography. He is a Quintuple threat. Kudos.

Cowboys Win!
Chicks, Dragons, and Tulips
Football: Chicks vs. Komodo Dragons

Palin fights back against her McCain Campaign handlers

This is a good sign. Palin is stepping out and making her own judgments. She is fighting back against poor judgments being foisted upon her. This is a sign of political shrewdness: she understands her own appeal better than her handlers do. This is a sign that the gutsy girl who kicked derriere in Alaska was genuine and actual, and was not merely a public relations creation. Politico:
Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her....
Anger among Republicans who see Palin as a star and as a potential future leader has boiled over because, they say, they see other senior McCain aides preparing to blame her in the event he is defeated.

"These people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves," a McCain insider said.... Palin's partisans blame Wallace, in particular, for Palin's avoiding of the media for days and then giving a high-stakes interview to CBS News' Katie Couric....
Palin's "instincts," on display in recent days, have had her opening up to the media, including a round of interviews on talk radio, cable and broadcast outlets, as well as chats with her traveling press and local reporters.

Reporters really began to notice the change last Sunday, when Palin strolled over to a local television crew in Colorado Springs.

"Get Tracey," a staffer called out, according to The New York Times, summoning spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, who reportedly "tried several times to cut it off with a terse 'Thank you!' in between questions, to no avail." The moment may have caused ulcers in some precincts of the McCain campaign, but it was an account Palin's admirers in Washington cheered.

Palin had also sought to give meatier policy speeches, in particular on energy policy and on policy for children with disabilities; she finally gave the latter speech Friday, but had wanted to deliver it much earlier.

She's also begun to make her own ad hoc calls about the campaign's direction and the ticket's policy. McCain, for instance, has remained silent on Democrats' calls for a stimulus package of new spending, a move many conservatives oppose but that could be broadly popular. But in an interview with the conservative radio host Glenn Beck earlier this week, Palin went "off the reservation" to make the campaign policy, one aide said.

"I say, you know, when is enough enough of taxpayer dollars being thrown into this bill out there?" she asked. "This next one of the Democrats being proposed should be very, very concerning to all Americans because to me it sends a message that $700 billion bailout, maybe that was just the tip of the iceberg. No, you know, we were told when we've got to be believing if we have enough elected officials who are going to be standing strong on fiscal conservative principles and free enterprise and we have to believe that there are enough of those elected officials to say, 'No, OK, that's enough.'"
And the final straw for Palin and her allies was the news that the campaign had reported spending $150,000 on her clothes, turning her, again, into the butt of late-night humor.

"She never even set foot in these stores," the senior Republican said, noting Palin hadn't realized the cost when the clothes were brought to her in her Minnesota hotel room.

"It's completely out-of-control operatives," said the close ally outside the campaign. "She has no responsibility for that. It's incredibly frustrating for us and for her."

Between Palin's internal detractors and her allies, there's a middle ground: Some aides say that she's a flawed candidate whose handling exaggerated her weak spots.

"She was completely mishandled in the beginning. No one took the time to look at what her personal strengths and weaknesses are and developed a plan that made sense based on who she is as a candidate," the aide said. "Any concerns she or those close to her have about that are totally valid."

But the aide said that Palin's inexperience led her to her own mistakes:

"How she was handled allowed her weaknesses to hang out in full display."
Reading this, I notice how much Sarah Palin's conversational speaking relies on voice inflection and rhythm, and how that style of speaking does not transfer smoothly to print. When reading her conversational quotes, you almost have to intuit what she is saying in order to understand what she is saying (this sentence makes perfect sense to me!). You have to pre-understand what she believes in order to understand what she is getting at. Conversely, if you can listen to her, if you can hear both her inflection and her nuances of rhythm: her meaning is easier to understand.

What do I think about how Palin was initially handled by the Bushies in McCain's campaign? I think Palin's closest handlers were a bunch of snobs who have never handled a true political genius and absolutely would've mishandled, for instance: Ronald Reagan. Reagan's own people mishandled him, and his greatest decisions ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall") were his own decisions and were made in the face of fierce opposition from his advisors. A prophet is never appreciated in his own hometown. Sarah Palin's handlers did not and still do not understand how or why she connects with voters:

1) She is Elvis. She is one of the talented people who work hard and get things done in regular life. Now she's making it big, and the talented people who work hard and get things done in regular life love her for it. They live vicariously through her.

2) She is a quick study who has nothing to hide - and therefore she never had anything to hide about her experience and understanding. From Day One, she should have handled areas of inexperience like this:

I don't know the answer, but I guarantee I will learn it soon. I am a quick study, I know how to adapt and to get things done, and that's how I rose from the PTA to Governor of Alaska while simultaneously raising a family - which is a pretty amazing accomplishment if you think about it.

Palin's critics denigrated her for being "only" the Governor of Alaska. Palin and the McCain Campaign did not effectively make the case for what that accomplishment says about Palin's talent and ability. Instead, Palin and her handlers tried to hide a lack of knowledge which everyone knew existed, thus robbing Palin of one of her greatest strengths: SARAH PALIN HAS NOTHING TO HIDE. SHE IS AN OPEN BOOK. Palin and her handlers turned her into something she was not: a shifty, evasive politician. Palin's handlers did not understand her positives, and Palin herself was too green and too caught up in the whirlwind to see what was happening and to overrule them. She is seeing things more clearly now.

3) From the first, Palin did understand: small government, low taxes, strong national defense, originalist judiciary, and energy. She calls herself a "voracious" reader. Whether that is hype or not, she was reading National Review up there in Juneau, and she does understand core conservative values at least as well as McCain understands them. When confronted with areas of ignorance, she should've pivoted into core conservative areas in which she had expertise. She does this now, though it's true she does now have fewer areas of ignorance.


Palin's McCain-recommended advisors understood neither her appeal nor her strengths. They let their fear of her inexperience poison her positive strengths of frankness, authenticity, having nothing to hide, and understanding conservative values. Palin was too green to overrule them, yet MCCAIN SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. She is no longer too green to overrule them, and it's to her credit that she is aggressively taking control of her own political career.

Ultimately, McCain is to blame for not getting a wise veteran (who had nothing to lose) to handle Palin. McCain's recommended handlers were too green and too worried about protecting their own futures in politics. They choked, they damaged both McCain and Palin, and, ultimately: it's McCain's fault. He has no one to blame but himself. He squandered some of the positives which Palin could have brought him, and in so doing hurt his own election chances. He was bold enough to pick her, yet not bold enough to fully follow through on the risky yet huge positives she could've brought him. You can't go half way on a risky pick like Palin. When you pick her, you have to go all in. McCain blew it.


Oddly, b/c Barack is such a flawed candidate, McCain still has a chance to win. We'll have a better idea how much of a chance when we see the polls on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. A couple of weeks ago, I said McCain needs to be approx. 3 points down with a week to go. I still guesstimate that is correct.

How would we know if McCain were 3 points down? The polls are all over the place. I suspect A.J. Strata is correct that the race is currently either Obama +4 or Obama +10, depending on whether you believe 1) traditional models of turnout and party ID, or 2) expanded models (which amount to educated guesses by pollsters who are paid very well to make educated guesses).

These pollsters must not be sleeping very well right now. Their tushes are on the line, their predictions are all over the place, and they are making big money to predict an unpredictable race. Their consolation is: no matter how wrong they have been in the past, they nevertheless have gotten themselves rehired. Amazing, really.

I want to go to the Minnesota State Fair

Saw it on the Travel Channel. Always hear about it from the Powerline bloggers and from Ed Morrissey.

The fair has 50 different food on a stick options. I want a wild rice corn dog. I want a "Big Game Brat" (Elk, some other game, and pork, all blended into a brat, described as "incomparable") served on a hot dog bun w/mustard and grilled onion.


Public service announcement concerning winter holidays in Minnesota:

DO NOT EAT LUTEFISK! For the love of God, do not go near it!

That is all.

Scariest 30 second political commercial


Jackie and Dunlap: is Colin Powell a great American hero, or a treasonous four eyed chubby cheeks?

Ted Nugent wrestles the concept of American Original to it's knees. If he didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. Luckily, he's already invented himself.

Sweet Schadenfreude

NY Times = Junk

October 23, 2008
Posted by John at 11:39 PM

The New York Times continues its downward spiral to oblivion:
The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.

The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from 13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a year ago. ...

Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times's credit rating to "BB-," or junk status, while Moody's Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade.

Moody's changed the rating outlook for the company to negative from stable in July. A further downgrade would reduce it to junk status.
It's been said that the entire value of the New York Times Company is represented by its building in Manhattan--that the twenty or so papers the company owns, including the New York Times and the Boston Globe, have zero value. I'm not sure whether that's right, but if it is, Power Line is worth more than the New York Times--financially, as well as intellectually. We don't make much money, but we're in the black.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Krauthammer endorses McCain


McCain for President
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008; A19

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

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

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

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

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
As important as foreign policy is: domestic policy and Supreme Court nominations are equally important.

Like Hoover, Barack proposes raising taxes and restricting free trade during a likely recession.

Re SCOTUS, Barack opposed John Roberts b/c (my paraphrase): part of a Supreme Court Justice's decisions must be based on heart and feeling. If it's heart and feeling about long term implications on the constitutional foundation of the greatest nation on Earth, then I agree. But that's not it. Barack's statement of opposition to Roberts was dishonest and incoherent pap.

Barack is a fraud - from the tip of his blank-slateness to the top of his pretentions to morality, i.e. I'm breaking my promise about Campaign Finance b/c it's the moral thing to do. How much dishonesty and outright lying are we willing to put up with?

Barack has the wisdom of a sheep - but a crafty sheep who hides his own cluelessness from the flock. Every issue is above his paygrade. Contrast with Sarah Palin's earned wisdom: put her in the Oval, advise her on whatever issue, and do you doubt she will make the wisest decision? I don't.

Conversely: do you have confidence in Barack in the same situations? I don't.

Barack neither understands nor believes in the individual freedoms which make America exceptional amongst the history of nations. Barack thinks America got here by the luck of 1) stealing natural resources from indians, and 2) oppressing both slaves and modern day citizen-victims. Because he doesn't understand what makes America exceptional, Barack's plan for America amounts to leading the flock down, down into a canyon surrounded by wolves. He will raise taxes; cut checks to nontaxpayers; restrict trade; attempt to reinstitute the broadcast "Fairness Doctrine"; commit the United States into the care of a World Governmentapalooza; attempt to raise Kyoto from the dead; and spread carrots, carrots, everywhere, with not a stick in sight. As was said of Jimmy Carter: His opinion of what U.S. Foreign Policy should be is the same as our enemies' opinions. If America could remember Jimmy Carter's gas lines, Misery Index, and Iran Hostage Crisis: Barack would have no chance.

A wiser nation would consider Barack a fraud and a laughingstock.

Palin better than she was even a week ago; remains crazy good in front of cameras

Her colloquial grammar drives the intelligentsia crazy. Such is always a good thing.

Palin gets better every single day. You could blog about her every day, and you would be blogging about a different politician. Remember the slash and burn Couric interview? Remember Repub intelligentsia calling for McCain to replace her before the debate? Three weeks ago was a lifetime ago. Now Palin is going to the back of her campaign plane and taking media questions. She is marching up to media on tarmacs and outside of ice cream shops. Over the last 8 days she was the only candidate to take questions from media gaggles. Obama, McCain, and Biden were hiding from gaggles and limiting their exposure to questioning. Palin's campaign manager was having to pull her away from gaggles after a dozen or so questions. Gov. Palin also sat for interviews with CNN (Drew Griffin) and NBC (Brian Williams).

In the CNN video which follows: notice how Palin is alone in the ring, without protection, and seemingly relishes it. She is punching her way through - becoming more effective with every interview - and almost with every question. She knows who she is, what her talents are, and that she has nothing to hide. This gives her strength. Barack and Biden look wimpy in comparison. McCain looks aged and famfloozled. Palin is now so accessible that I expect a preplanned gotcha will soon enough lead to a gaffe - and it won't matter. Nothing damages Caribou Barbie. She is now like an improving rookie who is suddenly more effective than the veteran player. She is David Price to McCain's Dan Wheeler, and she is throwing 97 MPH heat.

At this point, Palin understands both conservative doctrine and Barack's vulnerabilities better than McCain does. McCain isn't fully conversant with Barack's past, and with why that past reveals extremism. Palin is conversant. She's a quick study, and she's studying every day.

In the video, watch how easily Gov. Palin swats away the gathering media meme that she scorned big city America. She was exposed there, yet she handles the problem easily. She gives a "non-apology apology" so well that - given that I am already smitten with her - I give her a pass on an apology I would normally dismiss.

Here's a little bitty teeny tiny item, yet, throw it in to be considered with the pile of everything else: Palin makes memorable impression on SNL's Lorne Michaels
What do you think Palin gained from her appearance?
Michaels: I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she's powerful. Her politics aren't my politics. But you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her.

She's a ratings magnet, too — do you think she can land a development deal if this VP thing doesn't work out?
Michaels: She could pretty much do better than development. I think she could have her own show, yeah.
Gov. Palin's appearance drew the highest SNL ratings in 14 years.

Sarah Palin is Political Elvis.


Irresistible, partly because the inane “rhetorical flourish” spin richly deserves to be mocked but partly too because of how she pauses and savors those laugh lines. There’s no other politician in America I can think of, McCain included, who’s not only willing to hit The One but to savor it.

"And they were dead serious"

If you can't remember the 1960s and 1970s, or haven't studied them, you might doubt that the Weathermen were dead serious about mass murder. Don't.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Obama Campaign Donation Fraud

What else is new?

We've already seen massive evidence that Barack is a fraud on multiple levels. 1, 2, 3 We already have much experience watching Dems openly discard ethics in favor of winning. We've already read stories of Barack illegally accepting foreign contributions, and of Barack supporters paying for their friends to make contributions on the friends' debit cards. We've read stories, this week, of Obama Campaign workers coming to Ohio from FL and NY, flopping on dorm room floors, voting early for Obama, then going back to FL and NY after approx. 1-2 weeks worth of campaign work and voting for Obama. link Who says these persons only voted in their own names? There are enough fraudulent voter registrations in Ohio to blanket the entire state in confetti. ACORN is attempting to steal Ohio in plain sight - as well as Florida, Pennsylvania, and other states.

Over the last decade, U.S. Government has subsidized ACORN to the tune of $31M. Inside the $800 Billion financial bailout a couple of weeks ago, Dems attempted to additionally subsidize ACORN to the tune of $200M. ACORN exists to elect Dems via voter fraud.

But this isn't about ACORN. This is about the Obama Campaign committing fraud in a business as usual fashion. Just win, baby. Don't bother about law, or about right and wrong.

Allahpundit: Fraud!
Powerline: Fraud!
Ace: Fraud!
Geraghty: Fraud!
Mark Steyn: Fraud!
Patrick Ruffini - head of internet activity for Bush 2004: Fraud!

Lone Tree on Colorado Prairie

Courtesy of Bob's Blog. Double click the pic.

As Suspected

"Socialist" Joins "Arrogant" As Code Word for "Black"

All these code words just happen to track precisely with Obama's negatives.

Funny how that keeps workin' out for them.

Posted by Ace at 03:40 PM

Followup to yesterday's Risk post

SEATTLE -- Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden promised a group of supporters Sunday that running mate Barack Obama "will absolutely 100% trigger a nuclear Armageddon kinda thing" within the first 20 minutes of his presidency, but added that
"Barack Obama is looking forward to this apocalyptic opportunity to test his mettle, because he totally aced his LSATs."
I can't help recalling January 20, 1981, the date a new president who was very unlike Barack Obama was being inaugurated. Literally within hours of his becoming Commander in Chief, a 444-day American humiliation at the hands of the Iranian mullahs ended with the return of 52 U.S. hostages who'd been seized from the American embassy in Tehran. The Iranians had pushed around, taunted, ignored, and ridiculed an idealistic and untested young American president whom Barack Obama much resembles. But Ronald Reagan's inauguration put a swift end to our enemies' boldness. Confronted with an American leader whose spine and resolve they did not dare challenge, the bullying terrorists backed down.

Foreign intelligence agencies pay lots of attention to American elections. In Moscow and Tehran, among other places, decision-makers are well aware that John McCain won't hesitate in standing up for America's interests without regard for its potential impact on his own political future.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Playing Risk; Women; Foreign Relations

Played Risk last week. Four players. 1980 American version, similar to the 1980 Italian version shown above.

Though the early rounds, we all four remained spread over the world. I had armies lightly bunched in Africa and Asia - as innocuously as possible - deployed away from everyone's line of attack. My "Survivor" strategy: allow opponents to attack each other. Two opponents were close to consolidating continents; I was not.

However, my friend always keeps an eye on my strategy. He foiled my "Survivor" strategy via attacking my lightly bunched armies in Central Africa. We both were damaged in battles which represented a metaphor for modern day armed disruptions in oil rich central African nations.

I could've then licked my wounds and continued to consolidate in Ural and Mongolia. Instead, in attacks representing strategies which have surely crossed both Putin's and China's minds: I turned in my only three cards, gained a few additional armies, and swept down out of Asia and attacked into my friend's African nations. Another opponent - my friend's girlfriend "Cat" - asked "What are you doing?!" Cat's reaction represents the international left's reaction when Russia invaded Georgia. My friend laughed: "He is teaching me a lesson."

Exactly so. My attack left us both severely damaged. I was killed off and eliminated before my next turn. If only that could happen to the Chinese Government.

My attack will help my chances in future games. It communicated this:
  1. fear my unpredictability and seeming irrationality
  2. attacking me has consequences: I won't be punked.

As I explained my rational irrationality tactic to Cat, I realized this is the exact tactic some wives use against their husbands. Such wives use unpredictability, vindictiveness, and seeming irrationality as tactics to help them gain power inside marital relationships. They are not irrational; they merely want their husbands to think they are. Given their objective of gaining power, their seeming irrationality is a rational tactic.

I shared this with Cat. At first, she acted insulted on behalf of her gender. None of we three men bought it. However, she soon enough copped to personal usage of irrationality and vindictiveness as tactics.

Caveat: I'm not alleging all women do this. Some women are fully irrational:

I was reminded of predictability vs. unpredictability when Sen. Biden yesterday made his guarantee: foreign nations will intentionally test Barack with a foreign policy crisis during his first months in office. Senator Biden implied:
  1. Barack will do nothing
  2. It will look like weakness
  3. It will actually be Gandhi-wisdom (Greg's note: Gandhi-wisdom is my characterization. This is Gandhi-wisdom in a POTUS: what destroys America and her interests only makes America stronger. Gandhi recommended nonviolent reaction to Hitler. It didn't work out for the Jews.)
  4. The Hollywood/Hyde Park/Manhattan Left must have Barack's back when he deploys his Gandhi-wisdom.
Bill Kristol:
It's not just that Obama's own running mate expects an international crisis early in his presidency. It's not just that Obama has a weak foreign policy record. It's that Biden himself expects what will appear to be a weak response from Obama to testing by a dictator.
If you are Russia or Iran: Barack is predictable. You are certain of your footing. In the face of provocation, Barack is going to dither and do nothing.

If you are Russia or Iran: McCain is unpredictable. He might support Campaign Finance Reform. He might oppose drilling in ANWAR. He might organize a Senatorial Gang of 14 to derail Republican judicial nominees while safeguarding the Senate filibuster. He might oppose torture. He might favor a surge of troops when he, Lieberman, and GWB are the only politicians who believe it will work. He might select a Jewish Democrat or a female Alaska governor to be his VP. If you are Russia or Iran or China: you don't quite know what the bastard McCain is going to do. You are off balance.

Advantage: United States.


Scott Johnson: Kristol Translates Biden
Scott Johnson: The Kennedy-Khrushchev Conference for Dummies