Election Crunch Time: THE VIDEO

The article below is now a video.

Election Crunch Time: SOCIALISM or NOT SOCIALISM

Forget everything. Forget all the minutia, all the ancillary topics. Your choice for President of the United States comes down to one issue:

SOCIALISM

• If you want socialism - vote for Obama.
• If you THINK you want socialism - vote for Obama.
• If you like what Obama is proposing but refuse to call it socialism, or you don't know what socialism is, or you don't know that socialism is what Obama is proposing and you could care less one way or the other because you just like Obama and that's that - vote for Obama.

If you don't want socialism, AND you still want Obama, then you are ignorant which isn't necessarily your fault, especially if you are under 30 and were educated in the public school system.

If you DON'T want socialism, vote for McCain.

I'm not wild about McCain, but I'm less wild about the US turning to a more socialist agenda. In the worst case McCain will be four more years of the "same ol' same ol'."

And that is still better than socialism.

SOCIALIST = OBAMA

NOT SOCIALIST = MCCAIN

It's that simple.

Obama's Citizenship Issue: Update

Here is an update on this story I published a few days ago.

Judge Barclay Surrick has dismissed Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility for office of President of the United States.

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

I am not a lawyer; thank God for that. However, I have a problem with this not because it got thrown out, but, rather, the way in which it was thrown out.

Lacks standing? Berg, a lawyer and US citizen, has a question. Whether or not he has ulterior motives for filing such a suit is irrelevant. He asks only that Obama produce a valid birth certificate. When a judge shoots down that request on the grounds that Berg lacks standing to basically ask a question, that is just wrong. Berg, you, me - any American citizen has the right to ask for a ruling of clarification on any issue such as this.

The judge in his ruling said, essentially, this issue is no big deal. Nothing to see here...move along...

Jeff Schreiber, a lawyer-blogger, has analysis on the issue of "standing."

Here's something interesting:

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Two things strike me as odd. First, on an issue of legality to hold the highest office in the land, the judge states that only Congress should determine who is worthy of policing the Constitution. Pardon me for being a citizen.

Second, this judge is more than happy to defer to Congress - the LEGISLATURE - on this issue which affects every American. Yet, on special interest issues like civil rights, judges are more than happy to rule from the bench.

Obama's Citizenship Issues: October Surprise or April Fools Joke?

God help me, but this is getting tiresome and, at the very least, tedious. The Obama citizenship issue - here's the basic run-down.

Phillip Berg, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, has filed a lawsuit in a Philadelphia Federal Court, demanding a summary judgment be made regarding Obama's citizenship. Here is the pro-forma document waiting to be signed:



This was filed as a result of Obama, et al failing to respond within 30 days to the original suit filed on August 22 which essentially means that, by default, he has admitted to all the allegations. It is expected that Judge Barclay Surrick will make a ruling in the next day or so. What has been largely overlooked is that Phillip Berg is also a "9/11 Truther" who has filed suit against President Bush for the attack on the WTC on Sept 11, 2001.

Philip J. Berg represented Ellen Mariani and later William Rodriguez in two separate RICO lawsuits, both of which were withdrawn without prejudice. Part of Rodriguez suit was dismissed. Philip J. Berg has not represented William Rodriguez for over two years. Because of personal reasons, Philip J. Berg has not proceeded with any 911 litigation in two years.

While it has no bearing on whether or not the allegations are found to be true, at this point that fact raises questions regarding Berg's credibility, not to mention his ties to Hillary, sour grapes, and the Clinton machine.

Furthermore, Obama has gone to Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother (so he claims), but he is also facing a hearing there, set for Nov 7, on a subpoena for production of his birth certificate. I think he is doing some damage control, making a stop at grandma's house for some milk and cookies along the way. He is facing similar court proceedings in 5 other states, as well.

Obama supporters often cite an analysis of Obama's birth certificate by the folks at FactCheck.org, attesting to its validity, but the credibility of FactCheck also comes into question due to their affiliation with and funding from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania which falls under the wings of the Annenberg Foundation. The connection here lies in the fact that the founder, Walter H. Annenberg, initiated the Annenberg Challenge.

Announced in December 1993 at the White House, Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg's $500 million "Challenge to the Nation" became the largest public/private endeavor in U.S. history dedicated to improving public schools.

Eighteen locally designed Challenge projects operated in 35 states, funding 2,400 public schools that served more than 1.5 million students and 80,000 teachers. Over 1,600 businesses, foundations, colleges, and universities, and individuals contributed $600 million in private matching funds.

Each Challenge project fit unique local conditions and was planned collaboratively by educators, foundation officers, and community, civic, and business leaders.

Grants ranged from $1 million to $53 million.

One such project was in Chicago, and on the board which organized that project were none other than Obama and Bill Ayers, the infamous Weather Underground militant domestic bomber and murderer turned community organizer turned educator (hey, only in America can you get education credentials with a resume like that; just ask Angela Davis). I know it's a stretch, but you know what they say: Follow the money.

So, what does all this mean? First, the mainstream media has been silent on most of it, and when they haven't been silent they have circled the wagons in defense of the Anointed One, dismissing most anything critical or negative about him as right wing folly or conspiracy. Yet let Joe the plumber ask one question, and they're telling the world that Joe is not his first but, rather, his middle name (and so is mine, too)! That is typical and to be expected.

Second, and more important, is Obama's silence on this. FactCheck says they actually held the original birth certificate in their hands. They held the sacred birth certificate - actually held it (and probably fondled it as though it were a surrogate penis, too). I wonder if they got a tingle up their thighs. But I digress. If they could get it and examine it as they say, why is it so hard to have it produced in court? If that had happened, this all goes away. Sometimes people can be their own worst enemies.

Third, and most important, is how did this get so far gone? Let's say for the sake of argument that it is proven to be undeniable, irrefutable, 100% FACT that Obama is not a US citizen and therefore not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Does not that call into question the integrity of the entire system, that it is corrupt beyond anything we could ever have imagined? I mean the fate of the credibility of our system of government could lie in the hands of a lawyer and a judge? (shiver)

Look, I don't want Obama to become president; I am very clear about that. But the timing here just stinks. Cynical, skeptical, mistrusting, curmudgeonly bastard that I am, I still have a hard time fathoming that somebody could get this far in the political system - one heartbeat away from the presidency - and none of this had been vetted well before now.

I am suspending any judgment on the issue until it has been resolved one way or another. If these allegations are proven false, then this will have been the worst kind of smear campaign, and it will further ruin the reputation of the GOP. It will also embolden and galvanize the Left. If proven true, things will get VERY interesting.

I stand by my prediction (and I'm not the only one) that if McCain wins by a close margin, this election will be held-up in court for months, and there will be violence in our streets.

The Choo-Choo of Change Chugs Along

After a bit of an unannounced and unplanned break, we're back...again! One thing after another cropped-up, and real-life's priorities took precedence over cyber-life. That, and the fact that I was once again burned-out with campaign overload, forced me to take a blogging vacation. I don't know what to say at this point regarding the election; despite the polls it could go either way. It appears there will be no "October surprise" - at least nothing that will have an impact on the election. However, it is important to never say, "Never," as anything can happen.

It appears that nothing can or will deter the Obamaniacs. Not Bill Ayers; not ACORN; not Reverend Wright; not Fanny and Freddie; not the Berg lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship; not Joe the plumber - not any of the other sundry dark clouds that hang over the Anointed One's head seem to be able to derail the Choo-Choo of Change and Hope.

There can be only three reasons why, with so many dubious connections surrounding Obama's past and present, he still has the support he does:

1. They don't know about any of it.
2. If they know, they don't believe it.
3. If they believe it, they don't care.

If they don't care, it means that either the people are ready - knowingly and willingly - for a good dollop of socialism, or they have no idea that this is exactly what they are going to get - but it is "change". And change is good.

I have not given-up on the idea that McCain can win, but it looks grim, boys and girls. The media have their minds made up, and, like it or not, they shape too many people's perceptions. And, like it or not, perception is reality at least when it comes to the unwashed masses.

Unfortunately, the majority has the right to be wrong.

This is Just So...

creepy - and - wrong.

UPDATE: Apparently Youtube pulled the video. I've heard that the edict came from the Obamessiah, and I've also heard that the creator/organizer of the video, Kathy Sawada (the woman "choir director" in the video), pulled it for copyright reasons. Whatever. Given that while it was up at Youtube, comments had been disabled because, like all good, tolerant, little left-wing fascists, they don't like criticism.

Anyway, it is up at LiveLeak.

It's also back at Youtube under a different title.



Could you imagine the media outrage if this was done on behalf of McCain?

I don't care what adults do, but when they engage their children in indoctrination of this kind I don't know whether to get really angry or sad. I guess a bit of both. I don't care what anybody says, children at this age are not educated enough to form their own opinions about politics or socio-political philosophies. And it matters not whether it is right-wing, left-wing or anything else. It's wrong. This creeps me out in the same fashion as when I see kids at protests wearing little signs or shirts.

Leave your kids out of your activism and politics.

This reminds me of another era when children were brainwashed into a "movement".

And I am suspending Godwin's Law here. The similarities are so glaringly parallel.



Hot Air has more on this as well as some more historical "parallels". And the People's Cube has their own whacky take.

Thought for the Day

A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year.

Assuming the next president lives to age 80, Sen McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president.

Sen Obama on the other hand would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension.

Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.

How's that for non-partisan, purely economic thinking?

Hat-tip: Raybo

Come Together

There are less than 3 months until the election, an election that will decide the next President of the United States. The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans. To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice. It's time that we all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike.

If you support John McCain, please drive with your headlights ON during the DAY.

If you support Obama, please drive with your headlights OFF at NIGHT.



Hat-tip: Don

On the US Financial Crisis

Steel lays it out plain and simple.

Okay. Listen up. I am going to keep this as simple as possible because it really is that simple. Back in 1929, banks were letting everybody 'play' the stock market. From the guy who washed dishes at the local diner to the truck driver who transported the food to the wife in Waukegan who wanted to have her own nest egg - everybody could play - often with just pennies.

Back then, banks would take those pennies, nickels and dimes and combine them all into larger amounts and enter into the stock market orders to buy OR sell (short) the stocks chosen by all those 'little people'. Margins - the amount the bank required to make those trades of those 'little people' were very small - typically less than 10%. If the chosen stock moved in the wrong way a bit - the 'little people' would be asked to put up 10% of the total value of their holding in that stock. No big deal - confidence was high, the market was moving progressively upwards and everybody was getting rich.

One day, the market moved a lot in the wrong way. This caused a few banks to realize they did not have the funds on hand to 'cover' the trades made by all those 'little people'. But far worse, those banks didn't even have the money to cover the day-to-day transactions of those 'little people' and they were forced to close their doors. The 'little people' panicked and ran to the bank and demanded their money. Word traveled fast, and soon all the 'little people' were pounding on the doors of their own banks all across the land demanding their money, too.

All of this caused the Great Depression. Banks failed, people lost their entire savings and their mortgages went unpaid. At the time, 50% of all mortgages were in default, as compared to just 2% today. Businesses closed. Banks were shuttered. Brother can you spare a dime time. In their infinite wisdom, Democrats blamed the banks for allowing 'little people' to participate in what was obviously a far too complicated endeavor. So Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

This forbade commercial banks from 'playing' the stock market and allowed for the creation of another kind of bank - the 'investment' bank. A place where smart rich people could risk their money, but whose account minimums and margin requirements were way out of reach of the 'little people'. 'Little people' were encouraged to save their meager funds in commercial banks with federally insured deposits and stay the hell out of the stock market. This was the law of the land until 1999.


Then came the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The pie chart above shows the Senate vote allowing the final passage of GLB - the vote was 90-8 in favor. Only seven Democrats voted against the GLB Act. Bill Clinton signed it into law. This allowed banks to once again offer 'investment' services to 'little people'. Portfolio management. 401Ks. Retirement funds. All vehicles which traded the various markets - primarily the stock market, REITs and equity funds.

But once again, in their infinite wisdom, Congress allowed those commercial banks to seek their own asset protection. This was usually in the form of 'insurance' or trading into 'hedge funds' to alleviate or mitigate the risk involved. All was good. Everyone was getting rich again. They were getting so rich in fact, that they needed to find creative ways of avoiding taxation. The best way to avoid taxes for most people is to have a mortgage.

Well, the banks were only happy to oblige. They began offering mortgages to anyone. You may recall how several banks were even offering home loans to illegal aliens with nary a blush. The chairman of the Senate Housing Committee, Barney Frank, demanded that the requirements for home loans be reduced even further - to allow the participation of all races, colors and creeds - even more 'little people'. The banks knew there was an inherent risk in doing this and they balked. So Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created. Basically government entities which guaranteed all those risky loans. Subprime loans. Ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans.

Along comes an Internet bubble burst, a spike in oil, unrest in the Middle East and WHAMMO! Lots of those 'little people' once again were unable to pay their mortgages, many now 'adjustable rate mortgages' - liberally offered as additional enticements to the 'little people'. Nothing down! Pay later! A few banks fail, no thanks in part to Chuck Schumer (who is the second most powerful Senator and who just happens to sit on ALL the committees involved in this mess) and large investors became uneasy. They withdrew their money and put it in safer places. This caused a liquidity problem, more banks failed, equity funds shrank to nothing, investment banks which had been buying all of that risk and the companies which insured all of that risk failed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed.

That brings up to today. Let's review, all of the Democrats who are screaming bloody murder about this crisis now - voted in favor of allowing it to happen - even in the face of historical fact. They repealed Glass-Steagall. They once again allowed banks to service 'little people'. They created government organizations to underwrite the risks. They DID NOT creat any new mechanism of overseeing any of it. In their infinite wisdom, they left that to organizations which were created in the 1930s along with Glass-Steagall. The SEC etc. We were driving Ferraris on dirt roads, all thanks to an accommodating Congress.

Now, you may ask yourself 'why' in THE hell would those idiots do that? Welp, that's easy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became money machines for the Democratic party. Even though they were supposed to be 'quasi-governmental' entities, they were spreading around millions and millions in campaign contributions. And guess who got the lion's share? Yep. Democrats. In fact, Barack Obama, even though he's only been in the Senate for a couple of years was the second largest recipient of those donations in the entire Senate - over half a million dollars in just over three years. Oddly enough, the Democrat who sits at the chair of the Senate Banking Committee was the only guy who received more - Chris Dodd (D-CT).

I won't even mention Charles Rangel, currently under investigation for numerous tax evasion questions, who sits at the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee - the committee which writes all the laws pertaining to taxation and oversight. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Now, just today, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have stated that this mess is 'just too hard' to solve and they are going to adjourn Congress early and let it all fester until after the elections. Both received lots of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and both voted in favor of repealing Glass-Steagall.

None of what is happening comes as any shock to George Bush. A independent bipartisan panel recommended to him that this might happen over five years ago and he asked Congress for some oversight. They did nothing. They continue to do nothing. Because everyone of those bastards has been bought and paid for by the various entities which are going belly up faster'n fish in a drying lake right now. In fact, most of 'em are so dirty with the money, they have given 'filthy lucre' a new definition - 'campaign contribution'.

You want change? Throw every incumbent legislator out of office in November - especially Democrats. Elect John McCain. He turned down private contributions and stuck to his pledge to use public funding for his campaign - unlike Barack Obama, who after pledging to do the same - reneged and is currently raking in millions from the same dirty sources. John McCain has fought 'special interests', like Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and corporate lobbyist pork his entire political career. With a group of new and previously unpurchased politicians, he might be able to get some things done.

Just When You Thought the Campaign Couldn't Sink Any Lower

Hackers break into Sarah Palin's e-mail account.

WASHINGTON - Hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used for official business as Alaska's governor, revealing as evidence a few inconsequential personal messages she has received since John McCain selected her as his running mate.

The Secret Service contacted The Associated Press on Wednesday and asked for copies of the leaked e-mails, which circulated widely on the Internet. The AP did not comply.

Then the Secret Service should seize all assets of the AP and hold them as co-conspirators. I do not believe the actions of the AP in this case are protected by the Shield Law. They are not protecting any sources, and one would think they would want to do the right thing.

I guess they're choosing to do the left thing.

The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business.

Really? So what? Yahoo email is free. Dumbfucks.

The practice was revealed months ago — prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate — after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.

One person whose e-mail to Palin apparently was among those disclosed, Amy B. McCorkell, declined to discuss her correspondence. "I do not know anything about it," McCorkell said. "I'm not giving you any comment." Wired.com said McCorkell later confirmed that she did send the e-mail to Palin.

Another of the e-mails apparently revealed Wednesday was an exchange in July with Alaska Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell discussing a talk show host who had been critical of Parnell. Parnell declined to discuss the matter.

Where's the proof that she profited in any way from these emails? More innuendo and unsubstantiated bullshit.

I know that dirty tricks like this happen on both sides, but it seems to be the left who perpetrate this kind of nonsense more often. Here we are once again focusing on Sarah Palin and not on Obambi, McCain, and the policies of each. It pisses me off, and I start to have very nasty thoughts that would make Janet Reno, Hitler, and Stalin blush.

Now, of course, this could be a Reichstagging by McCain/Palin's own people, so I'll withhold final judgment. Either way it has to reflect poorly on Obambi and his Obamaniac supporters.

The Greatest Movie Line - EVER

This is just beautiful. Beautiful.



Hat-tip: Don

Guest Editorial: One Sentence Says It All

Courtesy of American Daughter where I frequently cross post.

By William Bradford Krones | Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Here, in one single elegant phrase, written two thousand years ago, we have the essence of the modern American conservative movement’s foreign policy ideal.

In the universities these days, we are assured that there is no such thing as absolute truth; yet, here we have it. “If you wish peace, prepare for war.” A timeless concept that was as valid when our ancestors were living in caves and fashioning weapons from sticks and stone as it remains today in our nuclear age. One could take every treatise on diplomacy or military history ever published, reduce it to that one simple idea, and not be far off of the mark with respect to the causation of the failure of diplomacy and resulting hostilities in any era, at any level, or in any geographic setting. The details and personages come and go, but human nature, human perceptions, and the concept of behavioral incentives rooted in risk/reward remain timeless.

For but one example, consider World War II. The English, Russians, and Americans did not follow our simple precept. The French tried, but made a hash of it. Thus, global warfare and fifty million dead. Sound too simple? Think about everything that you have ever read or seen about the years leading up to September 1, 1939, and try and name one other factor that predominates or even approaches the failure of the Allied powers to apply our little theorem. Yes, we have left out an analysis of “the bad guy” in Germany, but that is the point. There are always evil-doers who control rogue nation-states, or now, terrorist groups, and they are always prepared to feed off of their weaker neighbors if they calculate that the rewards trump the chances for a negative outcome.

Here in America today, and in Europe, the modern so-called liberals have bypassed this basic truism. The Jimmy Carters of this world believe that “If you wish peace, get rid of your weapons, get down on your knees and convince the other guy of your sincerity.” Not quite the same thing as our original precept, you will note. Obama is in this camp, as is Joe Biden, and much of the Democrat Party (and, sadly, even some of the Republicans). Bill Clinton knew better, but he eviscerated the DOD for cheap political gain so that he could declare a “balanced budget.” Which is the worse, the naive idealist, or the cynical politician who knows better but does it anyway? If you believe that I am all wrong with this, as I know that several of you will, I would enjoy responses.

On a final note, it occurs that Barrack Obama’s take on foreign policy is reminiscent of that of another Democrat politician, Henry Wallace, FDR’s Vice President who was dropped off of the ticket in 1944, for good reason, in favor of Harry Truman.

© William Bradford Krones, all rights reserved

Duuuude, Where's My Email?

That's the tone of Obambi's latest "attack" on John McCain in the soap opera that is Campaign '08.

Obama mocks McCain as computer illiterate

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - John McCain is mocked as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate in a television commercial out Friday from Barack Obama as the Democrat begins his sharpest barrage yet on McCain's long Washington career.
- (snip) -
"Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe says in a campaign strategy memo. "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people."
- (snip) -
"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," it says. It shows video of McCain getting out of a golf cart with former President George H.W. Bush and closes with a photo of him standing with the current President Bush at the White House. "After one president who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same."
- (snip) -
"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

So Camp Obambi thinks that's a "big issue"? Maybe for my kids that might seem like a big deal, but, sorry, I think most Americans could give a rat's nut-sack whether or not McCain knows how to send an email. And the bit about the tax cuts for "corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class" that's an old, tired line the Donks have been using for decades. Make no mistake when the Dem-libs use the term "middle class" they are referring to "the poor" who already get full tax refunds and tax credits, so this is nothing more than promising not tax cuts, but more free gifts from the public treasure. If the big, evil corporations are getting big tax cuts, the real middle class will probably get their taxes cut, too; but just not as much because they (we) aren't paying as much to begin with. Remember that the top ten percent of those who earn money are paying 2/3 of the overall tax burden already.

And of course I'm always looking for the liberal bias, both subtle and obvious, in the reporting, and here's an obvious example:

Still, Obama has been playing defense as McCain has tried to grab the change mantel, created new enthusiasm with his pick of Palin and accused Obama of maligning her when he said putting lipstick on a pig is still a pig. In fact, Obama had not been talking about Palin when he made the statement...(emphasis mine)

Really? Why? Because Obambi said so in a bit of back-tracking after the fact? Oh, how quick this AP asshat is to dismiss the gaffe and take Obambi at his word when I know that had it been McCain, they would not let it go so easily.

Here's a not-so-obvious or easily overlooked example of what I perceive as bias.
At the time I wrote this the webpage had a link to Obambi's website at the bottom of the story. Where's the link to McCain's website, hmmm?

Also some disparaging headlines like this one: "Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview". Tries, implying that she failed to defend her qualifications. Wouldn't a more objective headline have been "Palin defends qualifications in interview" and let the reader decide whether or not she succeeded?
And here's some more below. I suppose it's legitimate, but I just get the feeling seeds are being planted..."What? 'A task from God?'"

• 

  A 'task' from God?

  
  

  Sarah Palin responds to questions about faith and war.

• ABC News' full story on Palin interview
• Palin team stocked with Bush veterans
• Obama accuses McCain of 'phony outrage'

Well, that's it for me on the campaign for today. Frankly, this shit just bores me to tears. Like I have said over and over, it's like a bad soap opera, and the blogosphere is just chock full of folks on both sides of the aisle who are more than happy to cover the day-by-day he said/she said. Feel free to check out the blogroll in the sidebar to get your fix if that's what you're into. Sorry, but that's just not me anymore.

So I'll have some more boobs, music, an essay on the Chilean coup of 1973 (Huh? Where did that come from, Joe?), some news from New Zealand, and a new thing called "engine porn" for the gear-heads out there. But that will have to wait until tomorrow. Right now it's just after 11:00pm, and I've been up since 5:30. Time for some sleep.

I Told You So

As so often happens we write a post that lends itself to an update. Well, last week I wrote the following:

The Obama campaign is driven by being an antidote to the Bush administration which, like it or not and for many different reasons (partly George's own fault, partly through media projection), is a laughing stock not only in NZ, but around the world. Anything but Bush. Mark my words: The Obama camp is going to drive that point hard over the next two months, that McCain will be "four more years of failed Bush policies," and the McCain camp would be wise to do as much as they can to distance themselves from the Bush administration.

OK, so that may not be the most prophetic statement ever made and may be quite obvious to anybody with a pulse who has been paying attention to the campaign with only one eye half-open - but it is nevertheless true. And here is a perfect example of the left doing just as I predicted:

...The point is that Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are simply a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing.

Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain.

Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.

Just look at the problem John McCain faced. George Bush has a disastrous record, and the country knows it. John McCain -- the current one, not the one who vanished eight years ago -- has no major disagreements with George Bush (and I'm sorry, wanting to fire Donald Rumsfeld a bit sooner doesn't qualify) and wants to continue his incredibly unpopular policies for another four years. The solution? Enter Sarah Palin, a Trojan Moose carrying four more years of disaster.

So there it is: Voting for McCain is four more years of Bush according Arianna Huffington, a very popular and influential blogger on the left. It's all on.

But let me point out a few things. Whatever were the reasons that McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, it wasn't them or the GOP who started sounding any horns about it. They put her out there, and the MEDIA created the firestorm - not the GOP. We can sit around and discuss all day long the idea that this is just what McCain and the GOP hoped for, and that is probably a valid topic for discussion. My view is that the media, like most of the rest of the population, has a short attention span. We have collectively short memories, and the media is no different. Nobdy had heard of Sarah Palin until she was announced as McCain's VP running mate, and the media scrambled for stories to report on. Then they became a dog with a bone: They will chew it for all it's worth, and when the bone is pulp and has lost its flavor, the media will be onto the next bone. Just keep that metaphor in mind.

There were some other points made in Arianna's article that need to be addressed to keep matters in perspective. Huffington continues:

And the plan has worked beautifully. Just look at what's being discussed just 57 days before the election. Is it the highest unemployment rate in five years? The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The suicide bombing yesterday in Iraq that killed six people and wounded 54 -- in the same market where last month a bomb killed 28 people and wounded 72? That the political reconciliation that was supposedly the point of "the surge" is nowhere near happening? That Iraq's Shiite government is now rounding up the American-backed Sunni leaders of the Awakening? That the reason 8,000 soldiers may be leaving Iraq soon is so more can be deployed to Afghanistan where the Taliban is steadily retaking the country?

First she cites the "highest unemployment rate in five years" which is true, but it's only slightly higher than where it had been hovering until now; a rate of umemployment equal to that which existed during the Clinton administration when that was considered OK. A pending recession in the balance, the Fannie/Freddie bailout, and the slumping housing market is not solely germaine to the United States. This is global. Here in New Zealand we're already in recession, and the housing market has declined severely. Property values are low; nobody in their right mind is selling; it's a buyer's market. In a country of only 4.1 million people 39 finance companies have gone belly-up since May 2006, leaving many investors with virtually nothing. The whole world is feeling the pinch.

Regarding the Iraq situation, all I can say is that war and conflict is fluid; the dynamics change every day, sometimes every hour. It's not a scripted one hour TV drama. And whatever happens overseas, the war will ALWAYS be a drum the left can beat like a life insurance policy that guarantees them a certain return on the investement.

The funny thing is that most people who have an interest, I believe, already have their minds made up regarding for whom they will vote. All this back-and-forth slinging of mud by sycophants on both sides is just media fodder. It's nothing more than a really bad bloody soap opera, reminding me of this line from Shakespeare's "Macbeth":

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Or the lyrics to the song, "Limelight", from drummer/lyricist, Neil Peart (a big Ayn Rand fan, btw), of Rush, paraphrasing Shakespeare in the last stanza:

Living on a lighted stage
Approaches the unreal
For those who think and feel
In touch with some reality
Beyond the gilded cage.

Cast in this unlikely role,
Ill-equipped to act
With insufficient tact
One must put up barriers
To keep oneself intact.

Living in the limelight
The universal dream
For those who wish to seem

Those who wish to be
Must put aside the alienation
Get on with the fascination
The real relation
The underlying theme.

Living in a fisheye lens
Caught in the camera eye
I have no heart to lie
I cant pretend a stranger
Is a long-awaited friend.

All the worlds indeed a stage
And we are merely players
Performers and portrayers
Each another's audience
Outside the gilded cage

Hat-tip: Oldcatman for the link to the Huffington Post article.

You Want Proof......

...that liberals are stupid AND insane???

Here it is, but I must warn you: The following displays of ignorance, stupidity, and outright insanity are highly disturbing.

OK, here's how it all began. Yesterday I was reading this story at Vilmar's site. Then I started a Google search trying to find out about something I heard on the radio earlier about the first mayor of Anchorage or Wasilla or somewhere in Alaska (I couldn't remember which) having been from New Zealand. I wasn't able to complete my mission because of what I am about to share with you.

I had Googled "mayor, Wasilla, New Zealand" and the fourth result in the search illustrates just how easily the public can be misled by innuendo and the complicity of the media - and how pathetically FUCKING STUPID a significant portion that public actually is (ie, Obamaniacs). Here are most of the responses. Read the whole thing, though. I mean it - the whole thing.

Resolved Question

Palin was mayor of the little city of wasilla?
I just saw a picture of wasilla's city hall... It looks like a bakery!? This is the notorious mayor experience ive been hearing all the republicans talk about... ?After this I'm supposed to feel honored to ignore all of my issues and vote for her? Why have we been cheated in this election...i don't think either candidate is fit to run our country. Do any politicians really care about america? Also is this the best person mccain could of picked out of all the qualified republican vp picks??
*************************************************************************************
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
I think people on all sides are voting for the "lesser of two evils" this go around. Anyone who thinks that either of these candidates is "perfect" for the job is living in la la land.

Did I miss something? I don't remember the Republicans spouting on about Palin's mayoral experience as qualification for VP.

Now here's a real fucking genius. Read this one, and forget the spelling and grammar errors. How many other things can you find wrong with this sub-illiterate's response, which displays an astoundingly complete failure (not really, I guess, if he/she is a product of public education) to grasp basic math and economics? (clue: lower taxes AND universal health care AND free college!!!!) I'm pulling my hair out as I type this, and my blood is boiling!!! How can people be so fucking stupid?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!

I do agree that mccain is not fit to run the country but obama certantily is........He will lower taxes bring the economy back to where we should be in the top 3 in the country give us as americans universal health care give gay people the same rights as us straights and most importantly pay for our children to go to college. I am a democrate and proud and Obama needs to bring change to this country so maybe you should look at this question before you make suggestions like this about obama.

OBAMA/BIDEN '08
*************************************************************************************
Inexperienced and shows poor judgment.
McCain really shot himself in the foot by choosing Palin.
Palin should never have been chosen.

She is under the scrutiny of an investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that she ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper.
That's call abuse of power!
*************************************************************************************
She has better experience than Barack Hussein Obama, even though she's nominated for vice president.

Experience is important, but a good heart, solid determination and great character are much more important.

This is what the people see about her and recognize. I hope that she and the honorable John McCain drive the scumbag Barack Hussein Obama and Biden from our midst, once and for all.

This woman is the best I've seen.
*************************************************************************************
It is pathetic, I know. On top of that, she was only governor for 18 months... of a state with less people than my city, Detroit. And she wants creationism taught in schools. And she doesn't believe in global warming.

Honestly, I would love Biden/Obama '08. I will vote Obama/Biden, but it would be so much better the other way around. I agree, we were cheated. If McCain picked Romney, our country would stay in the same horrible condition. With Palin, if he wins, our country will get worse.

He should have picked Olympia Snowe.
*************************************************************************************
LOL.... I think I read it was a town of 7,000. She is a real talent. Any PTA mom is now qualified to be VP...

Don't get me wrong, that experience is important, but not enough. National experience or real statewide experience is important for our leaders.

*************************************************************************************
And Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, which had 80 members at the time. You're right. That's real executive experience.

When did liberals decide that experience doesn't matter for the President, but it does for the vice president? Oh, that's right; Friday morning.
*************************************************************************************
And she was governor of the largest state in the country. Both Wasilla and Alaska are doing very well economically. Why are you so elitist against the state? Why is your state better?
*************************************************************************************
I think you need to do a little bit of homework on Sarah Palin. She wasn't ONLY mayor. She has accomplished a lot more than Obama has accomplished. Please, do your homework.
*************************************************************************************
yes and now her teenage daughter is pregnant

and if something were to happen to mccain, she would be president
*************************************************************************************
I like the bill. McCain/Palin has my vote. She's not the rich Republican. She's the average American who happens to be a Republican.
*************************************************************************************
Let's talk about the national issues so we can find out what they think about the issues.

And here is the long-winded liberal who thinks he is the educated one when he's just the one with all the Lib/Dem talking points, followed by somebody with the GOP talking points which happen to be correct:

In an age where the two most important issues facing the county are the economy, security/foreign affairs, and the threat that China could overtake the U.S. as the world's superpower, McCain picks someone who has only traveled outside the U.S. once and has ZERO foreign policy experience and has very limited executive experience. I'm sorry, but being the mayor of Wasilla for 6 years means nothing. If you equate running the country to running a business, the U.S. would be Wal-Mart and Wasilla would be a local donut shop. Alaska would a mid-size company of maybe a few thousand employees. She wouldn't be ready to run Wal-Mart and she is not ready to lead this country if something happens to a 72 year-old President with a history of cancer.

While Barack doesn't have executive experience, he was in the Senate of the 5th largest state (by population) for 8 years and in the U.S. Senate for 4. That is the equivalent of being in Sr. Management for a 70,000 employee corporation, and then being an executive at Wal-Mart, certainly preparing him for the role of President. He has managed his campaign, which has a much larger staff and budget than Wasilla, brillianty and defeated arguably the most powerful political dynasty in the democratic party. 18 million people made Obama their choice to be president after 18 months of vetting him and listening to him beat Clinton and a field of experienced candidates in the debates so you can't even compare Obama's and Palin's experience. If Palin had run for President, do you think she would have ever made it past Iowa? NO!

Palin was solely chosen to appease the right wing Republican base because of her extreme social ideology and because she is a woman. The fact that McCain thinks women who supported Clinton will now support McCain because Palin is on the ticket is ridiculous. Palin views are completely counter to Clinton's on every major issue: universal health care, abortion, taxes, and the war in Iraq, etc. This choice is actually insulting to women who supported Clinton. John McCain has been running his campaign under the slogan "country first" but his VP choice does everythign but put county first, it puts the social conservatives first. If he wanted to put a social conservative on the ticket, he could have selected Huckabee. At least he has 12 years of governing experience. Palin is basically Huckabee in a dress, but with much less experience and even more conservative.

Finally, at what point did this country stop using intelligence as a primary criteria for selecting his president. The fact that Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review proves that he is head and shoulders above McCain who was in the bottom 5 of his class at the Naval Academy. The office of the Presidency is the most difficult and complex job in the history of the world. I could care less if the President is someone who I could have a beer with or who is a hockey mom. I want the President to be the smartest person in the room. Haven't we learned what happens when we elect someone who is intellectually challenged as President. Wake up America. Don't make the same mistake!
*************************************************************************************
OKAY, show me the picture of the hamlet/town/city/state Barry was the EXECUTIVE of...


Does she have big foreign policy chops? Other than some foreign trade experience, no. But neither does Obama. It's amazing to me how you can complain about Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency, when Obama would be ZERO heartbeats away from the presidency.

Finally---the media is pissing me off. They continually paint Palin as this giant "surprise pick" and a "political unknown." This is complete nonsense. Sarah Palin has been mentioned as one of McCain's possibilities for VP for MONTHS. They ALL knew about her. Yes, she was seen as more of a darkhorse, but there was a list of about 10 people, and she was on it every time. The media is just annoyed McCain didn't tip his hand enough.

EDIT: Soooo according to Run-On-Sentence below being a SENATOR now makes you the EXECUTIVE??? (wonder how all of the other "EXECUTIVES" in the Senate would feel about Barry AND them being called EXECUTIVES)...

Fortunately, not everybody was a moonbat, but most were, especially the one who posed the initial question. I realize that the Yahoo community forum isn't a completely representative cross-section of America, but it does represent a good portion of it; and that scares me.

I only hope that these fucking zombies don't vote...or breed.





Now, more than ever, it is imperative that you

The Baby and the Bath Water

OK. McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant. She is going to have the baby and marry the baby's father. Good for them. To me this is not news nor is it newsworthy, but the media is all over it like a bad case of diaper rash. Obama has said families are off limits, but the loons at the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and other left-wing blogs are going after this with a vengeance, to the point where they're making shit up (they're sycophants and lefties, so that should come as no surprise). Why?

I'll tell you why. This may piss some people off, but I call it as I see it. The reason they're going after this is because the GOP has, for the last 30 years or so, been touting themselves as, among other things, the party of "family values." Ever since they were (for lack of a better term) hijacked by the religious right and the "moral majority" under the Reagan administration in the 80's (prior to that the Republicans were more libertarian in their platform, and folks like Sen. Barry Goldwater just about spat the dummy when the platform changed), the Republicans have assumed the role as the morality police with their positions on abortion, abstinence, homosexuality, etc., in direct opposition, it could be argued, to the liberal "if it feels good, do it" ethos of anything goes.

Well, now we have an issue of family values, and, right or wrong, the liberal opposition smells hypocrisy. Granted, Palin's daughter is going to have the baby - not an abortion - so you may still be asking yourself, again, where's the hypocrisy? It's the fact that the girl is a minor, still in school, and she not only had sex out of wedlock, she had unprotected sex and is now pregnant. How's that abstinence thing going?

To me it's not an issue; it comes with being human and making mistakes. But for the party that has made it their business to get involved in the private affairs of other people and define for them what is right or wrong, they have opened the door - certainly not for personal, baseless attacks - but for discussion. So now it's time for them to front up and define themselves. What goes around comes around.

I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

Remember, it's all about image and perception.

US Presidential Elections: A View From Kiwiland

**A note to first-time readers: I am not a Republican. I am a registered Independent, and if I must wear a label it will be that of a conservative libertarian who values individual freedom over collective equality. I am not so much for McCain as I am absolutely 100% against Obama.**

Now that Barack Hussein Obama has gotten the official nomination as candidate for the Democrat Party (I will not call it the Democratic Party unless I also call the opposition the Republicanist Party; that's just too much extra typing) and John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the election season is in full swing. One of the ironies about the Sarah Palin nomination is the immediate media focus on her apparent "lack of foreign policy experience" as a would-be VP being only "one heart-beat away" from the presidency should anything happen to McCain. I find this to be a bit of a double standard because the same thing could be said of Obama, but there has been little mention of that - maybe on Fox News and in the conservative side of the blogosphere, but not in the mainstream media (MSM). And Obama is running for president; "no heart-beat away" should he be elected.

Experience? We Don't Need No Steenking Experience!
There have been many rumours floating around about Obama's past - the birth certificate issue, his mom, his dad, where he went to primary school, how he paid for a first class college education at a top Ivy League university, whether or not he's a muslim, who his associates are (William Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and let's not forget Reverend Wright) - but all that aside, one thing is for sure: Obama came from virtually nowhere. He was elected to the US Senate in 2004, so he's only a first term junior senator with no single piece of legislation that was authored with his pen. In his four years as a junior senator, Obama has spent a total of around 145 days actually on the job in the senate; the rest of the time he has been campaigning and has taken a few trips overseas. I guess that counts for his foreign policy (or any other) experience.

So, once again, I have to look askance with a glazed eye at the mainstream media. I mean, after all, they made no issue that I can recall (granted, I was in the Marines preparing for deployment to Somalia during the 1992 campaign season, so I was a bit pre-occupied) about former President Clinton's lack of experience given that he was "only" a state governor; a governor of a pretty insignificant state at that (no offense to Arkansans, but let's face it: Arkansas is not California or New York). Also, wasn't part of Obama's "selling points" during the lead-up to the primaries earlier this year the fact that he isn't part of the DC establishment? That his being a newcomer and relative outsider made him the perfect candidate for "hope" and "change" because he hasn't been tainted or tarnished by being part of the "good ol' boys" DC political machine? That his lack of experience offered the US voter a fresh perspective and gave him the ability to think and presumably act "outside the box?" The point is that what's good for the gander is good for the goose. The media has a lot to answer for in their apparent lack of consistency of emphasis on these matters of experience or lack thereof - it's either important or it is not; and not just for one candidate on one side of the aisle.

Unfortunately, most people are not that tuned into what's going on below the surface of what the major media choose to report, and one must always remember that editorial choice regarding what does and does not get reported can be as much a form of bias as telling outright lies or half-truths. As much as major newspapers like the NY and LA Times in the States might be losing readership, most people still get their news from the big three: ABC, CBS, and NBC, and it's very hard to throw off those old, established institutions, no matter how hard the blogosphere tries to say otherwise. Furthermore, for many people, if they don't hear something on "the news" - but hear it from "alternative news sources" - it seems reactionary, often to the point of being taken as invalid: "Surely, if ___________ were true I would have heard it on the ("real") news." How many times have you heard that? So when World Net Daily, NewsMax, or even (especially?) Fox report on something not mentioned in the mainstream media (MSM) (which is still accepted by many as neutral, centrist, or unbiased) or contradictory to what was reported in the MSM, people take it as either outright lies, right-wing propaganda, or over-exaggerated truth, blown out of proportion, and taken out of context. That is where we're at in the current political climate which makes real, honest debate very difficult, resulting in bomb-throwing from sycophants on all sides.

Turn That Heartbeat Over Again
Here in New Zealand a significant portion of the media are liberal and, thus, in the tank for Obama, and as a consequence of that, so are a lot of Kiwis. All they know, just like most Americans back in the US, is what they hear on the news, and very often US news reports and reporters are cited on matters pertaining to the US. For example, I listen to a lot of NZ talk radio, and the other day on the afternoon drive show, the radio host had on a phone interview free-lance White House correspondent, USA Radio Network's Connie Lawn, who has revealed previously that she campaigned for Bobby Kennedy in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972 prior to becoming a news reporter. Ms. Lawn is one of the reporters RadioLive uses as a source for news in the US, and she is on at least once a week. The host, Bill Ralston, asked her about Sarah Palin. Lawn went on to say that Palin was a remarkable woman - hunts moose, returned to work as governor only three days after having her fifth child, etc. - but Lawn raised the issue of whether or not that makes Palin qualified to be VP, given her age and supposed lack of experience in foreign policy matters. Lawn used the same phrase - "one heartbeat away from the presidency" - that was used in various reports over the weekend following Palin's nomination as McCain's running mate, yet made no attempt to mention that the same concerns are applicable to Obama for the reasons mentioned above. The other topic of discussion was Hurricane Gustav and how Bush was handling this much differently than he did Katrina. Lawn said that it seemed Bush was trying to redeem himself for the blunders and mistakes made in handling Katrina, but not one mention was made about the blunders of New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin, or Louisiana state Governor, Kathleen Blanco, both of whom were much more responsible for what happened (or didn't happen) than was President Bush. Lawn should know better.

Kiwis lap that up, though, mainly because most are as ignorant about US government (about as ignorant as most Americans are about parliamentary government) regarding the separation of powers between local, state, and federal authorities that exists in the US but does not exist here, and it fits the world view of many Kiwis. With no opposition point of view to challenge those points made by Connie Lawn, Kiwis are getting only one side of the story. Let me make clear that I do not dislike Connie Lawn, nor do I think she should not be heard. I believe that everybody who has something to say should be heard, and I can make up my own mind on who I choose to listen to or believe.

But I digress.

Here is another example of an "expert" commentator giving incorrect or at least misleading information. Rob Salmond, political science professor at the University of Michigan, was on the morning drive program with host, Marcus Lush, to also discuss Sarah Palin. I didn't have a problem overall with Salmond's analysis except in the middle where he states that being a senator was actually better training for the role of president than was being governor in terms of "experience". Take a few moments to listen.

The Politics of Personality
A few days before that on another talk-back radio show I heard a caller say:

"If I were an American I would vote for Obama because not since Kennedy has any candidate offered so much hope."

I thought to myself how can people be so stupid? "Hope?" "Change?" Do these people actually stop and think about what that means; if there is any meaning in that whatsoever? I can only conclude that they don't think. They feel. It's what I call the politics of personality. This concept has been around throughout history, and a most notable example of an actual blueprint for how a leader should act or project him/herself, among other things, is "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. Politics has always been about image and perception more so than actual policies or facts. In other words, it's not so much what one says (although that is important), but how one says it. It's more about being "liked" because once one is liked, it becomes very hard for facts to get in the way and makes criticism that much more difficult to mount. The "true believer" or sycophant will reject anything that conflicts with the perceived image that a person has developed for his or her leader because of the image projected by that leader. Here's a perfect example: When a leader takes "compassionate" positions like families being "off-limits" -

Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.

"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits."
- (snip) -
"We don't go after people's families; we don't get them involved in the politics. It's not appropriate, and it's not relevant," he added. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I ever thought that there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."

Whether he means it or not is irrelevant; Obama projects honor and integrity - and compassion. The fact that he said it in an almost pre-emptive way was a brilliant maneuver. Further criticism from the McCain opposition will now be met with even more staunch resistance from Obama supporters and will be taken as lies or outright bully tactics.

Pass the Kool-Aid




Early in the campaign season Obama's support base took on a cult-like status, and I believe that Obama has cemented that with the clever use of three simple words: Hope, Change, and Believe. How else can one justify ads like these that say virtually...nothing, yet must have some demonstrable effect on a certain segment of the electorate given the vast number of "true believers"?

The Obama campaign is driven by being an antidote to the Bush administration which, like it or not and for many different reasons (partly George's own fault, partly through media projection), is a laughing stock not only in NZ, but around the world. Anything but Bush. Mark my words: The Obama camp is going to drive that point hard over the next two months, that McCain will be "four more years of failed Bush policies," and the McCain camp would be wise to do as much as they can to distance themselves from the Bush administration. It looks like they already have, and Hurricane Gustav has been beneficial in that regard.

President Bush, Dick Cheney not missed at convention

By McClatchy News Service
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
- (snip) -
“I don’t know a single person who is upset about the fact that they won’t be appearing,” said one veteran Republican strategist at the convention, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“The only bit of good news at all brought by Gustav is that it caused the cancellation of both Bush and Cheney speeches. Every Republican was rather dreading these speeches to begin with.”

Come Super Tuesday remember to

How I Feel About This Year's Presidential Election

The choice between Obama and McCain is like choosing between a punch in the guts...


...or a kick in the nuts...


Both are gonna hurt, but guess which one will hurt more.


Hat-tip: Rachy for the wonderful analogy! (the images were my choice, though!)

It's a Joke....so Laugh!

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam going into downtown Chicago. Nothing is moving north or south. Suddenly a man knocks on his window.

The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened? What's the hold Up?"

"Terrorists have kidnapped Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Rosie O'Donnell, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.

They're asking for a $10 Million ransom. Otherwise, they're going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We're going from car to car, taking up a collection."

The driver asks, "On average, how much is everyone giving?"

"About a gallon."


Hat-tip: Stephanie

Much Ado About Nothing?

I think so. After being spotted by the cops for driving "erratically," a guy gets pulled over and

...arrested near Denver with two rifles, a bulletproof vest, ammunition, walkie-talkies and suspected drugs. Federal officials say two other men and a woman were apprehended a few hours later.
- (snip) -
The action started around 1:30 a.m. Sunday when police in Aurora stopped a truck that was swerving erratically near East Hampden Avenue and South Parker Road. The driver, Tharin Gartrell, 28, had a suspended driver's license, and the truck was rented in the name of another person, said Aurora police Detective Marcus Dudley.

The address on his license listed a home in Centennial, Colo., but that is not his current address and police still do not know where he lives, Dudley said.

In the truck, officers found two rifles, including one with a scope; a bulletproof vest; boxes of ammunition; walkie-talkies; and suspected narcotics. On edge because of heightened security surrounding the Democratic convention in Denver, Aurora police alerted federal authorities. At least one of the rifles was stolen out of Kansas, he said.

Later Sunday, federal agents arrested Johnson, 32, at a hotel in Denver. He was held on drug charges. A half-hour later, 33-year-old Shawn Robert Adolf jumped from a sixth-story window when authorities tried to arrest him at a hotel in Glendale, police said.

I know appearances can be deceiving and assassination attempts have been carried-out by "less than professional" would-be assassins, but, really, take a look at these three clowns...

...and tell me that the first thing that comes to your mind is NOT "tweakers/crack-heads/meth-heads." And, apparently, at least one of them is.

...Gartrell was being investigated for methamphetamine and firearms violations.

The story starts-off this way:

U.S. Attorney: Racist Rantings Does Not Mean Assassination Plot
Police: Suspect Found With Rental Car, Rifles, Bulletproof Vest

DENVER -- Three men who authorities initially feared were plotting to assassinate Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention are facing only gun charges, after the U.S. Attorney's Office deemed that there was insufficient evidence to charge them with conspiracy, making threatening statements, or other national security-related crimes.

That's the story and photos from ABC Denver, channel 7.

The story made it down here in little old New Zealand, too, and here's the headline in the NZ Herald:

Arrests made after police fear of plot to kill Obama

The stories are essentially the same (off the AP wire), but notice the difference in the headlines. One is a bit more sensational, at least to me. I stated early on in this campaign that the worst thing that could happen for the GOP would be if somebody attempted an assassination on Obambi, or, worse yet, actually succeeded. The Dems would get as much PR out of it as they could by blaming it on the GOP. I will go so far as to state right now that if something happened to Obambi, I believe that the Donks would be behind it - a "Reichstagging". In other words, I wouldn't put it past them to engineer something that they could spin by blaming the GOP and generate sympathy for Obama and further disdain for the already tarnished image of the GOP. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but, hey, stranger things have happened - the Reichstag Incident ,was real.

Hat-tip: Oldcatman