Where Did The Issues Go?

Reviewing some of the 2004 election coverage, I am struck by how different 08 is shaping up to be. A few things jumped out at me:

1. There is no longer a debate about the “meaning of patriotism.” Perhaps the Left is ceding that territory.

2. John Kerry’s essential “gravitas” is no longer relevant for the senator from Illinois.

3. There is no discussion at all about “values voters” or “evangelicals”.

4. The patriotism (i.e., war experience) that was so critical for the Kerry campaign in 08 is not relevant at all for the senator from Illinois.

5. I have heard neither candidate actually say the word “Al-Qaeda” in this campaign.

Have these five issues been finally resolved?

I think McCain is simply so focused on the bland, gushy middle – the yeast of America, as it were – that he can’t be bothered to court actual conservatives who (for better or worse) also account for most of the values voters. McCain assists Obama every time he says “Wall Street greed” or promises to reach across the aisle.

This in turn creates a situation in which Obama is not on the defensive. He may finally be feeling some heat for his terrorist ties, but he is simply refusing to engage on the subject because though McCain is mentioning it, he’s doing it as if he respects Obama’s choice to court the terror vote.

Merely four days away from the polls, any effort for John McCain to veer right will be too little too late. However, he can continue to hammer out the truth of Obama’s tax policies. I guess at this point, it’s the only bullet in the chamber.

That being said, I think that McCain has a better chance at the presidency than is being represented by the media. He’s not a great candidate – he brings nothing to the presidency but his stubborn desire to be president. Even so, I think most people in this country understand that even being as neutral and lefty-friendly as McCain is, he is vastly better suited to be president than the socialist, terrorist-connected senator with 300 days in office.

Obama Aunt Found Living In Boston Slum

Another impoverished Obama relative, an aunt, was discovered in a Boston slum. While the article is fascinating, perhaps the most fascinating thing is that it was published on an English website, not in the American media, which has blacked out negative news on the Chosen One.

The hypocrisy of Obama talking about his fate being tied to those of the black community and being “literally my brother’s keeper” and letting his brother live in a Kenya slum hut with an income of $12 a year and allowing his aunt to waste away in Boston is nothing short of breath-taking. Why is he not redistributing his wealth to his own family?

That’s crazy and sad and hypocritical, but it’s not as outright nefarious as this:

She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”


Obama's Blackwater

Lastnight, the One seized the airwaves to brainwash us – and apparently he was successful since no media this morning is mentioning the “Civilian National Security Force” he mentioned.

This domestic force, which would violate posse comitatus, is ostensibly needed because “our military can’t do it all” and he wants to “fully fund” this force to the tune of $500 billion – the current national defense budget – which would give us a one trillion dollar budget for national defense.

What on earth would Obama do with such a force?

Is it ironic to anyone else that the Democrats who so loathe Blackwater are attempting to install its equivalent in our domestic territory?

See ya in the gulags!

(A great discussion about our new overlords can be found at Little Green Footballs)

Record Turnout Breaks No Records

Does this headline and the first two paragraphs make any sense to you?

Record turnout was seen for new voters, young, Hispanics

Analysts have predicted that new voters, young voters and Hispanic voters will turn out in record numbers in this election. But as Nevadans continue to flock to the polls, turnout among those three groups is lagging, at least in the early going.

While turnout statewide was nearly 25 percent through Sunday, it was just 20 percent among Hispanic voters, 14 percent among voters under 30 and 15 percent among those who didn’t vote in the last three elections, according to an analysis of state early voting records through Sunday prepared by America Votes, an organization that works to mobilize voters.

How can it be “record turnout” if it was below average?

In any case, this confirms Gallup’s analysis.

Oh it’s going to be a long six days.

If All Your Friends Were Like The LA Times

The Los Angeles Times is concealing a video showing Barack Obama at a going away party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, attended by radical Palestinian activists and former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.. Both Little Green Footballs and Gateway Pundit are all over the story, asking for readers to demand the LA Times release the video after the writer, Peter Wallsten said he won’t release the video or reveal his sources.

The fact that the MSM is withholding possible game-changing material in the days before a presidential election is unconscionable. But enough is known about the video that we can possibly put to rest the fiction that Bill Ayers was “just a guy in Obama’s neighborhood.” He was, and is, a political ally with a radical agenda which incorporates the destruction of the United States as we know it. Whether or not Obama’s supporters actually agree with that agenda should be left up to them to decide – not the LAT.

The question has uncomfortable parallels to the comments by some European socialist in 2002 that it was fine if Swedes or Dutch or whoever vote themselves into Sharia law; that’s what a democracy is all about. Is it fine if Americans vote themselves into socialism?

I think not, since socialism is at odds with the Founding Fathers’ values of rugged individualism. The Constitution doesn’t outline an economic system but it seems logical that free-markets, which give the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity to the greatest number of people, is preferable to socialism in any degree, which gives the power to government. It makes us all supplicants to the state.

If that is our fate, shouldn’t we at least have the ability to know it? Shouldn’t we know what we’re getting with any presidential candidate?

This newest weasel move by a so-called reputable paper got me thinking about what would happen if we all had friends like the Los Angeles Times. I have to admit, it would be pretty awesome to have someone who forgot every time you hung out with unsavory characters, someone who endorsed you no matter what, someone who remembered every bad, embarrassing thing about your enemies – and when there was nothing to remember, just made crap up.

Barack Obama has not made any comment on the tape, and since his buddies at the big coastal dailies are not about to cooperate in any investigation into the matter, it will come down to each individual to try and get the story for himself and every other voter. In that sense, we are all bloggers today.

Let us not elect a terrorist into the White House in 2008. We can do better. And the LA Times should be ashamed.

The LAT is running a story this morning about the video and reports:

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

That’s noble. I keep my promises to sources too, but if one of them was hanging out with an FBI Most Wanted criminal, they’d be in custody faster than you could say “First Amendment.”

Why is this subject a source of so much angst to reporters? Why are they so beholden to sources that they’re willing to compromise their personal and professional integrity to protect them? The argument is that without confidential sources, nobody would come forward to report on corporate malfeasance or political shenanigans. Whistleblowers would be left out in the cold. But the opposite is not true – those who are doing devious things, socializing with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who would blow up the LA Times building and everyone inside if they got a chance to do so are deemed so worthy of our protections and confidence that that the reporters happily turn a blind eye. The bad guys are given infinite protections.

I think the fact that this is a presidential candidate and not, say, some CEO is also relevant. This is the future of our country. We have the right to know who his supporters, friends, allies, and lobbyists are. I wonder, if the tape showed him palling around with Osama bin Laden, would the journalist in question still be as reticent to reveal the tape? My instinct says yes.

It seems to me that just because you put on your reporter hat, you don’t abandon your integrity. But the LA Times has done just that. By keeping a promise to a source, they are betraying everyone else.


Debbie Schlussel spoke to Wallsten, and then he immediately plagiarized her work. Again: Integrity, anyone?


Drudge remembers that the LAT had no problem releasing a controversial Arnold tape. Perhaps the Arnold source didn’t require the promise of confidentiality. That promise, it would seem, is rock solid. It’s the law.

What I Know About Elections

I know that polls are often wrong.

I know this sounds condescending, but I mean it: If America really does elect Obama, I will feel very sad for our country. I will feel like our fundamental values will have been displaced with showmanship. America, unlike France, is about substance over style. I want to keep her that way.

I know that if McCain is elected president, I won’t feel joyful, only relieved. Sarah may bring some excitement to the party but McCain is the Big Show and I just look at him and think of gravel.

I know that if a conservative wins the election, the left will lose their minds again, like they did in 2004 and 2000.

I know that no matter who wins the election, I will continue to do my best to make my life great. Hopefully, so will you.

I know that if Obama wins, I will call my liberal friends and congratulate them on their win.

I know that if McCain wins, Republicans will be humble, as they have been for the past eight years when in fact they should be the boastful blowhards the media is always portraying.

I know that I miss the fizz of Washington DC during election season.

I know that if Obama wins the election, he really will bring a lot of change to America. I don’t think its the good kind, but I do believe that his promise for “change” will have been fulfilled.

I know that if Sarah Palin is the Vice President, she will endure some of the most horrific four years of her life as the Left throws everything at her.

I know that if John McCain wins 2008, Sarah Palin will automatically win the 2012. (I just don’t see McCain running for president again after this, even if he wins.)

I know that if Sarah Palin runs against an incumbent Obama in 2012, she will win. His presidency will have already created so much chaos that the same people who elected him will be screaming bloody murder to get out of the Oval.

I know that if Obama wins, Joe Biden’s prediction will come true and America will suffer a huge, great crisis. In a very real way, some of us may lose our lives to give the world the first black US president. I sincerely hope the sacrifice of those people – those blown up by terrorists, possibly with nukes – is appreciated by the Left. Somehow I doubt it will be.

I know that conventional wisdom will be trotted out and applied to the candidates on election night and people will speculate about Florida or Virginia or Ohio – whereever the “controversial state” is this year – but really that’s just media blathering to pass the time and sell advertising.

Gallup: +2 Obama

This quick analysis by Gallup Editors Blogis a fascinating read. Every poll has Obama leading, though Gallup’s own poll gives him a skin-of-his-teeth advantage of +2, well within the margin of error. Yet the Editors Blog indicates this is not an unusual election. The two factors that I found most fascinating were Turnout and Pattern of Candidate Support:

Turnout will be a key factor. Obama would benefit from unusual (and unprecedented) enthusiasm among young voters and minority voters. McCain would benefit from a more typical higher turnout among Republicans, highly religious white voters. Results of likely voter modeling through the middle of October suggest that Obama is ahead regardless of turnout assumptions, although his lead over McCain is smaller if typical turnout patterns occur in the election. There is little evidence yet to suggest that young people are extraordinarily more interested in, or more likely to vote than in previous elections. Overall enthusiasm about the election is not unusually high, in part due to the fact that Republicans are significantly low in enthusiasm compared to Democrats.


Pattern of candidate support is similar to 2000 and 2004 elections. Obama’s strengths: non-white race and ethnic groups, including blacks and Hispanics; 18-29; those with postgraduate educations; women; those with very low incomes; those who have no religious identification/for whom religion is not important/do not attend church; those who are unmarried. McCain’s strengths: non-Hispanic whites; 65 and older; those who are married; white Protestants and non-Catholic Christians; whites who attend church frequently/for whom religion is important.

It’s not PC to say so but blacks and Hispanics simply do not have the numbers to make or break an election in the USA – and since old white guys will be voting for McCain, the Maverick is still in the game.

All that being said, however, I really don’t see the point of polls since the election is not decided on the popular vote but the electoral college. So they may or may not show what the voters are thinking (Bradley Effect notwithstanding), but they don’t really indicate who will seize the necessary electoral votes.

Strange Contradictions

- The Left hates Sarah Palin because she drops her g‘s, but they don’t care that James Carville does.

- The Left is angry the RNC paid for Sarah Palin’s clothing, but doesn’t care that Hillary and Michelle Obama get their clothing for free – which violates the campaign rules.

- The Left believes the fact that Obama is black makes him a “historical” candidate, but believes that anyone talking about the fact that he’s black is racist.

- The Left claims to want to redistribute wealth, but the Obama campaign spent $5.3 million for that phony Greek temple in Denver’s Invesco Field, which was used for one night. Why not distribute that wealth? Why not show leadership and start redistributing with his own nearly one billion dollars in the coffers?

- Obama wants to punish Wall Street, but some of the wealthiest hedge fund managers on Wall Street are his supporters. Do you really expect him to stab his supporters and financiers in the back?

- Obama “didn’t know” Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko and he’s forgiven by the MSM. Yet Sarah Palin knew about the trooper who tazed a ten year old and stood up to get rid of the bad apple – and the MSM accuses her of abusing her power.

Election Night(mares)

Right Hand of God has a short, pithy, accurate post on how to read the election coverage on Election Night. I agree with everything he says.

RWN Blogger Poll

John Hawkins at Right Wing News surveyed 76 conservative bloggers on their feelings about the upcoming election. The results were pretty interesting, including the fact that 47% believe Barack Obama will win the election. Check out the whole thing.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,331 other followers

%d bloggers like this: