Sunday, October 26, 2008

McCain is Winning Here's The Proof

John McCain has the upper hand in the November 4th election. How can I say that when the polls show Obama leading by anywhere from one (IBD, the most accurate pollster the last time out) to 13 from the folks who brought you Dan Rather and the use of forged documents to try and steal the election just four years ago. A brief look at the methodolgy of these polls -- the degree of over-sampling of Democrats corresponding almost to perfection with the degree of Obama's "lead" in them -- shows a tight race, with McCain actually leading by a point or two.

This reality is underscored by events within the campaigns which, when analyzed, show an Obama camp in desperation.

1) The politically savvy Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, is clearly panicking. Rendell has publicly begged the Obama campaign to send their star back to the state for no less than THREE major events to "close the deal" on a state that should have been closed for the leftists month ago.

And it's no wonder the campaign is panicking, an Obama internal poll was accidentally released to the media and it shows The Anointed One in a statistical dead heat with his American hero opponent. And this was BEFORE John Murtha basically parrotted Obama's San Francisco speech in which The Anointed One candidly spoke of his disdain for the people of Pennsylvania. Murtha may not be as eloquent as The One, but the condescension and disrespect that he has for the people who "cling" to their Christianity and constitutional rights is exactly the same.

Murtha's poll numbers are cratering. I can't imagine that Obama, who shares Murtha's convictions, aren't doing the same. If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be runing an ad every ten minutes with nothing but these Democrats own words and the tag line "If this is what they THINK of you, imagine what they plan to do TO you."

2) Obama has "suspended" campaigning -- something he refused to do to help quell the financial crisis that he sees as working in his favor -- in order to visit his ailing grandmother. Since this is the same grandmother he had cynically thrown under a bus in his wonderfully eloquent speech in defense of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright -- a woman he later described as nothing more than "a typical white woman," it is fair to be cynical about his real purpose in suddenly caring so much about her he would actually visit her (when he barely spent a minute with her just a few weeks ago when he vacationed in Hawaii.) I suspect, more than anything, it was a desperate attempt to get his name out of the news for a few days, to let the stink of his campaign go away, after several disastrous stories made their way into the public consciousness.

Over the past few weeks a narrative of Obama's thuggery was more and more coming to the fore. Despite the leftist media's best efforts to protect him, the actions of his minions in the thugocracy of ACORN, his allies' vicious attacks on a plumber who merely asked a policy question and the close ties of Obama to the terrorist who segued from murdering Americans to brainwashing their children more and more reminded Americans that they really don't know this neophyte, first term, junior senator who somehow managed to rise to the top of Chicago's corrupt political landscape by affiliating himself with the worst of the worst of the worst. A quick trip to visit "granny" and suddenly questioning the "grieving" candidate would be seen as below the belt.

Meanwhile, it's obvious that Obama DIDN'T suspend his campaign but instead used his time in Hawaii to put together what his campaign is calling a "major economic policy" speech. Unless grandma is a Harvard MBA, it's highly unlikely he wrote, edited and rehearsed this speech at the bedside of the woman he "cares" so much about.

3) Candidates who are well on their way to a landslide do not make "major speeches" in which they introduce new policy. Candidates who recognize that there is a deep mistrust of their policies do. Again, despite the best efforts of the leftist media, Obama's deeply held Marxist beliefs have made it into the minds of mainstream America and Obama, without any lead in the polls, feels he must explain away the evidence.

4) If you'll recall, the reason the God of Change chose Joseph Robinette Biden -- a guy who has been sitting in the US Senate since he was about the same age as Britney Spears is today -- was because he would quell the rightful fears of an electorate that recognizes Obama's utter lack of executive or foreign policy experience. Now Joe has shown himself to be, well, to be nice about it, wholly unhinged. From ordering cripples to "stand up" to describing Obama's fiscal policy in "three letters...J-O-B-S, to his belief that FDR was president in 1929 and that Americans all sat around their televisions watching him, Biden's mental health needs to be seriously questioned.

These insanities, however, pale in comparison to Biden's promise that, should Obama somehow manage to win (or steal) the election, there will be an iternationla crisis within six months BROUGHT ON BY OBAMA, not to mention Biden's expounding on the point by saying Obama's policies will appear to be the wrong response but trust us -- the wholly unknown Obama at the helm, the mentally unstable Biden his number two.

Just in case you think the recognition of Biden's mental instability is just my own, consider that even those fun-loving, Republican-hating kids at Saturday Night Live couldn't help but spoof Biden's insanity, titling their opening piece this week "Sen. Biden and Rep. Murtha Say Crazy Things..." What followed was an almost word-for-word re-enactment of Biden's actual speech.

Perhaps worst of all for the leftists is that cracks are beginning to appear in the monolithic and utterly corrupt media coverage. SNL's lampooning of Biden is but one example. Another is an interview that took place this week where Biden was actually asked a tough question or two. Biden, of course, failed miserably which, in turn, brought on the usual response from the Obama camp, the thuggish attempt to destroy, not Joe the Plumber but Barbara West, one of the few reporters Biden has met who doesn't work inside the cocoon of the Beltway or have aspirations to the anchor desk in leftist New York City.

Put together the panic in PA, the sudden "suspension" of the Obama campaign, the need for a major speech on "economic policy," the meltdown of the "experienced" one on the ticket, the gathering evidence of Obama's ties to thugs, criminals and terrorists, the over sampling of Democrats in the polls and more, and you get a clue as to where we really are in this campaign. With ten days or so to go, Obama's making moves of desperation.

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, people are starting to ask questions and look a little closer at "He Who Must Not Be Questioned", but I fear it may be too little, too late.

But you are not alone in believing that McCain may still win. Take a look at RattlerGator
's blog for similar sentiments.

Evan Sayet said...

The leftist media is engaging in a corrupt effort to undermine the Republican vote by dispiriting the people. They also recognize that if they can dispirit Republicans we'd be less likely to send in money to the good guys. After all, why send money to a "lost cause."

The truth is that new polls in Michigan have the race tightening, MN's poll shows only a fie point lead in that bigtime leftist state, PA is I would imagine by now in our category (after all Obama's own poll showed it at two and that was BEFORE Murtha spoke Obama's feelings..)

We're doing great and just have to keep plugging away.

latio said...

I think you should continue to send in money.

Send all you have.

ubrosion said...

My shorts are tightening too.

Should I be hopeful?

kkkarl said...

Forty-six new polls over the past two days—nearly one per hour—have widened Barack Obama’s lead in the Electoral College. The Illinois senator now holds 317 electoral votes to McCain’s 157, his largest lead to date, with 64 votes as a toss-up.

http://www.rove.com/election

Anonymous said...

Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama leading Michigan by 14 points
Poll: Gains may help Dems running for Congress as McCain loses ground.
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Barack Obama and other Democrats are poised for significant gains in Michigan, with a large lead in the presidential race and hints of an edge in contests farther down the ballot, the latest Detroit News-WXYZ Action News poll shows.

With less than two weeks until Election Day, Obama leads Republican presidential nominee John McCain by 14 points, 51 to 37 percent, according to the survey of likely Michigan voters by Lansing's EPIC-MRA polling firm. That's up slightly from a 10-point lead a month ago, and is the first time in The News/WXYZ 2008 polls that Obama has cracked 50 percent.

Obama's lead, and McCain's decision to pull out of Michigan to channel his resources elsewhere, may be working to the benefit of other Democrats -- known in political circles as a "coattail" effect -- the tendency for a popular candidate to attract votes for other candidates of the same party in an election.

Advertisement
Voters are more likely, by a 9-point margin, to say they plan to vote for a Democrat for Congress. By smaller margins, voters favor Democrats for state House and local races. Sen. Carl Levin continues to hold a run-away lead in his re-election bid. And state Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, one of Democrats' top targets for months, appears in some danger.

The telephone poll of 400 likely voters, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, has an error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points. It shows dwindling chances for Republicans' hope of a comeback.

Obama holds leads across the Democratic landscape: among both men and women; overwhelmingly among African Americans but also among whites; overwhelmingly in Metro Detroit but in more conservative out-state as well. Only 6 percent of Obama voters said they could still change their minds; McCain would need nearly all those voters, plus the 10 percent who say they remain undecided, to close the gap.

"He lost me when he picked (Sarah) Palin," said Frank Frick, 70, of Marble Lake, a retired Albion College professor who considered McCain before his selection of the Alaska governor as his running mate. Just 47 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of Palin, to 44 percent who view her unfavorably -- the worst rating for any of the four nominees.

Some McCain voters said Obama's connections to controversial figures such as 1960s radical William Ayers were unacceptable.

"It does matter, and it should matter," said Theresa Kennedy, 47, a McCain supporter from Pleasant Lake, north of Jackson. "I don't believe what (Obama) promises."

Voters favor Democrats
Still, Republicans may be threatened up and down the ballot.

Asked how they planned to vote for U.S. House, 42 percent of voters said they will vote Democratic, compared to 33 percent for Republicans. Such "generic ballot" questions, which don't name individual candidates, are an imperfect predictor of individual races. But given that Republicans hold a 9-6 majority in the state's House delegation, and that the parties split the congressional vote in 2006 roughly evenly, the number could signal trouble for GOP incumbents, said EPIC-MRA's Bernie Porn.

"If it's a close race ... Obama's coattails could make a difference," Porn said.

Michigan has two of the nation's hottest congressional races, both featuring endangered GOP incumbents: the 9th District in Oakland County, where Rep. Joe Knollenberg faces former lottery commissioner Gary Peters; and the 7th District, where first-term Rep. Tim Walberg is challenged by state Sen. Mark Schauer for a seat in south-central Michigan seat.

"Large coattails are oft mention but seldom realized in elections," said state Republican Party spokesman William Nowling. "This is the time when voters begin to focus on races lower on the ticket, and many Obama voters will pull back from supporting other Democrats, because giving Democrats a blank check in Washington is too much."

Obama maintains a paid staff of more than 200 in the state -- to just two for McCain -- and more than 60 offices statewide aiding not just the presidential candidate, but other Democrats.

"There is plenty of work to do between now and Election Day to make sure that Barack Obama, and Democrats up and down the ticket, win in Michigan on Nov. 4th," said Brent Colburn, the Obama campaign's Michigan spokesman.

Democrats are seeking to expand a six-seat majority in the state House; 41 percent of voters say they plan to vote for a Democrat, to 36 percent for Republicans. Voters split about evenly on their partisan preference in county and township races, with 34 percent backing Democrats and 32 percent GOP.

Anonymous said...

Despite 'Joe,' Obama still gaining in key states, poll finds
By STEVEN THOMMA
McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID(equal
Sen. Barack Obama is gaining support from voters in battleground states long suspicious if not outright hostile to Democrats, thanks to their trust in him to handle the economy, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.

"As we enter the home stretch, Senator Obama is winning voter groups that no Democrat has carried in more than four decades, and he holds very solid leads in the big swing states," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"If these numbers hold up, he could win the biggest Democratic landslide since Lyndon Johnson in 1964."

In three pivotal states, Sen. John McCain has narrowed the gap in Florida, but continued to lose ground in Ohio and hasn't managed to make significant gains on Obama in Pennsylvania.

The poll showed:

-In Florida, Obama leads by 5 points. He led by 8 at the beginning of the month;

-In Ohio, Obama leads by 14, up from 12;

-In Pennsylvania, Obama leads by 13, down slightly from 14 points.

Obama owes his lead to the economy and the fact it is driving voters to him across the board, the university found.

"Senator Obama is no longer the candidate of the young, the well-educated and minorities. He is now virtually the candidate of the 'all.' He is winning among all age groups in all three states. He wins women by more than 20 points in Ohio and Pennsylvania and is competitive among men in all three states. Whether voters went to college or not, they are voting for him," Brown said.

"Perhaps the most remarkable development is that Obama is doing significantly better among white, born-again evangelicals in Ohio and Pennsylvania than did Democratic nominee John Kerry four years ago. He also is winning Roman Catholics in those states, historically the key swing voter group in the electorate and synonymous here with the blue-collar vote."

ON THE WEB:

Read the Quinnipiac release at:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID(equal sign)1223

Anonymous said...

Bachmann's `Anti-American' Jab Roils Republican Races (Update1)

By Nicholas Johnston

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Michele Bachmann was cruising toward re-election when the Minnesota Republican congresswoman torpedoed her own campaign, and may take other Republicans down with her.

During an Oct. 17 appearance on MSNBC, Bachmann said Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama ``may have anti- American views'' and urged reporters to investigate whether other Democrats may be ``anti-America.''

Since then, Democratic challenger Elwyn Tinklenberg has been flooded with more than $1.3 million of contributions, congressional Democrats promised an additional $1 million worth of advertising, and House Republicans dropped plans for their own ads. A House seat considered safely Republican a week ago is leaning toward the Democrat in a new poll.

``She may have finally cooked herself,'' said Democrat Alan Ciesielczyk, a 62-year-old teacher from Blaine, Minnesota.

While Bachmann, 52, has said she'd like to ``take back'' her comments, aftershocks are shaking up races outside her district, northwest of Minneapolis. Republican nominee John McCain trails Obama in Minnesota polls, and incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman is locked in a tough re-election fight.

Bachmann's ``self-inflicted'' damage may drag down Republicans all over the ballot, University of Minnesota professor Lawrence Jacobs said. ``It will not take much of a dip in turnout to have a cataclysmic effect on the races in Minnesota,'' said Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance.

`New Brand of McCarthyism'

In Washington, former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell mentioned Bachmann's statement as one reason he decided to endorse Obama. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mounted a fundraising appeal seeking donations to combat ``this new brand of McCarthyism.'' The committee has already received ``hundreds of thousands of dollars,'' spokeswoman Carrie James said.

The trouble started when Bachmann, on national television, said she was ``very concerned'' that Obama ``may have anti- American views.'' She went on to suggest that ``the American media'' should ``take a great look at the views of people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?''

Tinklenberg, 58, a former Methodist minister and state transportation commissioner, had about $350,000 in his campaign accounts on Sept. 30, when Bachmann had almost $1.4 million to spend. In the week since Bachmann's MSNBC interview, about 23,000 contributors have sent money to Tinklenberg. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report reclassified the race as a ``toss-up'' from ``likely Republican.''

`Incredible' Momentum

A poll conducted Monday and Tuesday by SurveyUSA showed Tinklenberg leading Bachmann 47 percent to 44 percent, with a plus-or-minus 4 percentage point margin of error.

At a town hall meeting in Blaine on Oct. 21, Tinklenberg said his opponent had sparked an ``incredible sense of momentum'' in his campaign. ``It's changed a lot just in the last -- oh, let's see -- the last three or four days,'' he said.

The following day in Stillwater, Bachmann said her comments about Obama's viewpoints were ``outrageously misinterpreted'' and weren't aimed at the Illinois senator as a person.

``Nowhere in the interview did I question Barack Obama's patriotism, nowhere did I say that Barack Obama is anti- American,'' she said in an interview. ``I don't believe he is.''

Bachmann also said she was challenging the press to better vet lawmakers, not calling for ``Joe McCarthy-like'' investigations of Congress.

Don't Back Down

As Bachmann talked at The Main Café, supporter Andy DuPlessis chimed in: ``Don't ever back down from those guys,'' he said. ``Somebody had to ask those questions.''

``Aren't you marvelous?'' Bachmann replied. ``I'm glad you came in.''

Bachmann's musings about pro- or anti-American Democrats added to increasingly angry rhetoric in the 2008 campaign's closing days. The day before Bachmann's televised comments, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin told North Carolina supporters that she enjoyed being in ``pro-America areas of this great nation.'' Palin apologized, saying she didn't mean that parts of the U.S. are more patriotic than others.

At an Oct. 18 rally in North Carolina, Republican Representative Robin Hayes told a crowd that ``liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.'' Hayes also apologized, saying his statement ``came out completely the wrong way.''

Internet Video

Videos of Bachmann's remarks have been viewed tens of thousands of times on the Web, reminiscent of reaction to Virginia Republican Senator George Allen's stumble in 2006, when he called a rival campaign worker ``macaca'' -- a word Allen said he made up, but which others described as a racial slur. Allen, who had been described as a possible presidential candidate, lost his Senate seat to Democrat Jim Webb.

Bachmann's comments prompted former Minnesota Republican Governor Arne Carlson to announce yesterday that he is supporting Obama.

Carlson criticized Republicans for a mean-spirited campaign that has ``been going down all these side roads'' and said Obama offers the best hope for dealing with the economic crisis, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported.

The flap over Bachmann's remarks lengthens odds that McCain can overtake Obama, and hurts Coleman in a neck-and-neck race. ``Coleman is going to need every living, breathing Republican to turn out and vote, and Michele Bachmann's comment is kind of piling on in a bad year,'' Jacobs said.

Conservative District

Working in Bachmann's favor, her district has supported Republicans. Bachmann beat her Democratic opponent by 8 percentage points in a three-person race two years ago. Republican President George W. Bush carried the district twice while losing the statewide Minnesota vote in 2000 and 2004.

``Certainly, it's a conservative district,'' Tinklenberg said, after the town hall meeting in Blaine.

Democrats say they hope Bachmann is at the end of her political career. ``There are a lot of Republicans who are not going to be voting for her,'' said Jeanne Evenson, a 69-year-old retiree from Blaine.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Blaine, Minnesota, at njohnston3@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: October 24, 2008 11:58 EDT

ytba said...

THANKS, EVEN, I'LL TELL OTHERS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. VERY ENCOURAGING! (and not at all surprising)

ytba said...

I must say, Evan, you certainly attract a LOT of disruptive posters, just posting junk to distract and make it difficult to read sane comments: evidence you are saying what they REALLY don't want to hear.

Anonymous said...

I find it amusing that someone is trying to counter your comment that the MSM is skewing results by mindlessly copying and pasting MSM articles listing those same skewed results.

They should at least have the decency to try to think things out and say it in their own words.

I really don't want Obama to win, but if he does, the children who voted for him will eventually become disillusioned. It may take a little while, but it will happen.

:-D Shea said...

Hey Evan,
Looks like you keep them "cut & pasters" pretty busy. If this were in the bag they would (and could) ignore you. I have one word for your cut and paste "followers": Hyperlinks.

Oops did I mention HYPE? http://www.hypemovie.com/

metallurgist said...

We're just cruel leftists. We like to torment the insane.

I find it amusink, Evan, that they counter your reality evasion by posting realities.

Isn't that not like ironical or copperical?

:-D Shea said...

What's the half-life of Obamainium?

lisa b. said...

I'm confused, Evan. I hope Mc wins but I fail to see your proof as advertised. You seem merely to pick certain polls which you find most comforting and ignore the others. How is that proof. I have a feeling the liberals will have a field day with your post after the election. There are some very nasty ones on here and they have a way with the tongue which you do not find on our side. Aren't you sticking your neck out here?

lisa said...

I mean, these are not MSM articles. They are MSM articles which quote verifiable polls.

That is a big difference. Frankly, I am demoralized and it's not the MSM which is doing it to me. It's all the people on our side who are deserting and all the polls which are pretty consistent if we're honest about it.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, if you don't like the way the race is going, you can just make shit up. I can't imagine why Evan hasn't gotten his book published yet.

Anonymous said...

come on Evan. Sayet with me: President Obama. In your heart, you know it's going to happen. So 'blog' all you want.

scum losing it said...

More violent attacks by the thug party!!

"Last Friday, two staffers for Judy Feder, the Democratic nominee for Virginia’s 10th congressional district, were assaulted by two individuals accompanying Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA). Feder’s staffers were trying to ask Wolf about his support for Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) proposed $5,000 health care tax credit. Wolf stood idly by as the assault took place." 10/28

get ready said...

The GOPigs are counting on a six pt. Bradley effect and a few more pts. from vote theft and suppression to give them the election.

They could be right. This time, however, Obama is waiting with an army of lawyers and volunteers to take the thieves on.

The day after election could be a big day in US history.

gottim!! said...

GOP thugs...too many to count:

BREAKING: STEVENS CONVICTED ON ALL COUNTS
Ted Stevens has been convicted on seven counts of making false statements on his Senate disclosure forms. He faces up to five years in prison for each count

Anonymous said...

The Polls May Be Screwy But Barack Obama's Lead Is Real Because He's Strong Among White Voters

October 24, 2008 05:33 PM

John Aloysius Farrell | Permanent

OK, Rob. About those screwy polls. For those among us who are polling junkies, the fellows at fivethirtyeight.com have put together a couple of primers on the science of public opinion.

Here is an explanation of the many tracking polls, which explains how the various polling organizations get their samples and other tricks of the trade.

And this post goes over some of the same territory but with a persuasive analysis that the polls showing Barack Obama with a sizable lead are real.

Here's my favorite factoid, which is based on the reality that, despite the growing multicultural nature of American society, white folks still elect our presidents.

According to ace political demographer Ruy Teixeira, the Democrats don't have to win the white vote, but they do need to keep their losses, especially among white married people who really like to vote, in single digits.

As you can see from today's New York Times poll, the Democrats are doing that this year. The survey found Obama and John McCain tied 46 to 46 percent among white men, a group that John Kerry lost to George Bush, 38 to 61 percent, four years ago. And Obama is actually leading among white women, 45 to 42. (They went for Bush 55 to 44 in 2004).

Obama is carrying suburbanites (50 to 39) and parents (49 to 38) and white Catholics (53 to 36) and white independent men (49 to 38), and white voters earning less than $50,000 a year (49 to 40)—all groups that Bush carried four years ago.

The Times poll suggests that there is some room for the race to tighten. Obama is scoring relatively well among conservatives (23 percent) and Republicans (11 percent), who may drift back to McCain between now and Election Day. If they are joined by key swing voters like white Catholics or white women, then it could get interesting once more. But right now, Obama is assembling a potent new Democratic majority.

Anonymous said...

Is John McCain Counting on the
Bradley Effect in Pennsylvania?
October 27, 2008 02:49 PM ET |

Robert Schlesinger

Is John McCain's presidential campaign depending on voting booth racism—the so-called Bradley effect—in Pennsylvania? How else to explain the campaign's focus on a state that virtually every poll says should be safely in the Obama column?

Even some conservatives think that McCain's focus on Pennsylvania is "awfully wacky."

Marc Ambinder wrote Saturday that McCain and Sarah Palin would flood Pennsylvania this week, focusing their closing effort on flipping the Keystone State from blue to red:

The scheduling reflects McCain's tough electoral math. With some—though by no means all—advisers all but conceding Colorado, McCain would be forced to win a blue state in order to recoup the electoral votes. New Hampshire wouldn't give him enough, and Pennsylvania, the McCain campaign believes, is the most brittle of the remaining states. Public and private polls give Obama a double digit lead in the state, but McCain advisers believe that Obama is underperforming in the suburbs and exurban counties around Pittsburgh. Tensions between the two campaigns in the state is acute.

Brittle how, exactly? RealClearPolitics averages out the recent polls as figuring that Obama has an 11.2 point lead (as of Sunday evening). Wisconsin is a half-point closer (10.6); Minnesota is virtually the same (11.3). Colorado itself is at 6.5 points; New Mexico is at 8.4; Nevada is at 3.3.

So, what's so special about Pennsylvania? Why focus on a recently Democratic state that all polls paint as entrenched in Obama's column rather than on closer states that voted Republican as recently as four years ago?

The critical difference is that Pennsylvania contains Appalachia, a region that Obama had widely noted problems with during the Democratic primaries. Some Pennsylvania Democrats are keenly aware of race issues, the New York Times reported today. If one takes the "Bradley effect" into account, the McCain campaign's Pennsylvania fixation becomes clearer.

Why is Pennsylvania 'brittle' despite all of the poll numbers? Because people are lying to the polls. They're ashamed to admit it, but they won't vote for the black guy.

We'll see what happens. I think the McCain camp is wasting its resources—more power to 'em. We'll find out in a week.

the clerk said...

MORE GOPthug violence planned!!

Breaking: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it has disrupted a right wing plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and kill 102 black people.

de klerck said...

But then there was that IMAGINARY black guy who took advantage of white womanhood at the ATM the other day...so Sayet has reason to keep whining.

as kkkommie as they kkkome said...

Gee, now Obama's admitted he's a radical Communist who hates the Constitution and favors a redistributionist form of positive liberty.

Next stop on the Obama Express, totalitarianism...

Anonymous said...

*

Should The top management of the Public listed company be responsible for the company performance, eg company nearly get wind up?

http://bailoutmovie.blogspot.com/

Are you a Partisan?

Should they give their view......? Any regulation to prevent similiar thing from happen?

If any party did not give their views, send it to their supporter to question them....

were they members of penguin's gang? said...

Obama's defenders are now claiming that a pair of white skinheads were going to assassinate Obama and kill over a hundred black people... all the while dressed in white tuxedo's w/tophats...

bwaaaahaaahaaahaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ytba said...

AND HE HAD BETTER WIN, TOO!
___________________________________

BRIANAKIRA POINTS OUT THAT...

"Obama [said, and truly believes]:

* The Supreme Court has failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution”
* The Warren court was insufficiently radical
* The courts have failed to enforce redistributive change
* The legislature is the more effective forum for bringing about economic justice and the redistribution of wealth.
* The American Constitution is outdated and flawed
* The courts have failed to enforce politically correct thought processes and economic equalization on the populace, and that therefore the government must do so through legislation.

If that doesn’t bother you, then you are a Communist."


My analysis of the second and IMO the most important tape...

In THIS TAPE Obama also said that the US Constitution was “DEEPLY FLAWED” because the Founding Fathers were “BLIND” and that in order to be able to achieve the “ECONOMIC JUSTICE” [a perenial Communist catch-phrase] he mentions in the other tape, then the “DEEP FLAWS” [which is what he meant when he once said that America was "BROKEN"] would have to be “FIXED.”

UPDATE FROM POWERLINE THAT IS A MUST READ!

Compared to Obama, Jimmy Carter will look like Ronald Reagan.

(I'm posting this in as many different places and as often as they vote)

Anonymous said...

Evan never lets the facts get in the way of whatever piece of bullshit he's cooking up, so why should you?

tom wright said...

Crime party at work:

Todd/Palin/McCain racebaiting incites thugs:

Skinhead plot news sweeps suspect's Tenn. hometown. Remember, this is the second skinhead plot to assassinate Obama. The Colorado Republican, Bushevik U.S. Attorney Refused to Prosecute Another One During the Denver Convention. Meanwhile, McCain and Palin Fan the Flames of Racism with Coded Appeals to Openly Racist Crowds.

tom said...

It would be nice if one of these pinheads actually knew what communism was.

Maybe they would be worth debating in that case.

But they prefer to be robbed by the already wealthy and whine about any reasonable regulation to stop the theft as communist...what morons.

obama's duck soup marxism said...

One week ago, the Zogby tracking poll had Barack Obama beating John McCain by almost 10 points among likely voters. Today, it’s a four-point game. Yesterday, IBD reported, “After seesawing between 3.2 and 3.9 points over the weekend, Obama’s lead slipped to 2.8[.]” Gallup’s newest traditional poll has Obama leading by two points. Probing coverage of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe didn’t seem to do what the mainstream media had hoped. With the public losing interest in the crusade against Palin, a fresh news cycle has ushered in a serious challenge for Barack Obama. Americans are scared that the Democratic nominee is a socialist. And it’s not attack ads or robocalls that have created this impression, but Obama’s own words. Up until now, Obama has enjoyed a twenty-six-point lead among self-professed moderates, who make up roughly half the electorate. As there is nothing moderate about collectivism and wealth redistribution, the new charges could bury Obama.

Barack Obama’s greatest advantage over John McCain has been his ability to convince Americans that he will take them someplace, transport them out of the War on Terror paradigm, off of the anti-American planet we currently inhabit and into a future in which America is somehow still the global leader without actually being better than any other nation, where somehow everyone is furnished with healthcare and education without this crippling the economy. Over the past few weeks, this last “somehow” has been defined. And if it points toward where Obama intends to take the U.S., Americans are rightfully fearful.

Obama’s democratic socialist sympathies first came to light when he told Joe Wurzelbacher of his plan to “spread the wealth.” The worrisome sentiment was reinforced by an unearthed 2001 radio interview, during which Obama seemed saddened by the Supreme Court’s inability to redistribute wealth in accordance with need. On Sunday, Obama sounded a further collectivist note, when he told a Colorado crowd, “Now, make no mistake: the change we need won’t come easy or without cost. We will all need to tighten our belts, we will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together.”

Americans don’t take kindly to the government-knows-best school of problem solving. If wealth is to be spread around, it will be spread by those who earn it. Sacrifices may be made, but they will not be dictated. Even today’s PC-damaged Americans suspect that the collective good is most effectively, and ethically, realized in pursuing individual achievement. Less than twenty years after the defeat of the Soviet Union, we’re faced with a potential president who thinks it’s his place to tell us what we must give up and how it will be apportioned to bring about the common good. This won’t fly. Eighty-four percent of Americans oppose the government redistribution of wealth.

Before Joe the Plumber, Obama managed to sell indecision as moderation and detachment as self-possession. Evidence of extreme ideology was skillfully sidestepped as ancient happenstance (as in the case of his association with Bill Ayers), or partisan misinterpretation (as in the case of Obama’s abortion record). But Obama’s sympathies are both recently held and clear-as-day. And that’s a serious problem.

bone digger said...

Why the right wing may go extinct: it’s too dumb to breathe:

You’ve probably seen the absurd — laughable really — “interview” Florida news anchor, Barbara West, conducted of Joe Biden. Not satisfied with merely repeating official GOP talking points, West, instead, jumped the media shark all the way to repeating the talking points of the party’s most extreme nutcases.

Here are some of the money quotes from the “interview” (borrowed from Crooks and Liars):

Interviewer: “You may recognize this famous quote: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” That’s from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?”

Biden: “Are you joking? Is this a joke?”

Interviewer: “No”

Biden: “Is that a real question?”

Interviewer: “That’s a real question”

* * *

Interviewer: “Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done, and America’s days as a world leading power are over?”

Biden: “Umm, no, I’m not at all. I don’t know who’s writing your questions.”

* * *

Interviewer: “What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?”

And here’s a shocker: it turns out West is married to a GOP operative. As Gomer Pyle might have said: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

What I find most fascinating about this isn’t that some unknown local television ”personality” decided to make a pitch for Fox News glory. Hell, a talking head has only one soul to sell: why not sell it to Rupert Murdoch? No, what’s fascinating is the right wing’s response.

I won’t link to any of their sites because, well . . . because doing so might cause my computer to crash in protest: but I did spend some time surfing right wing blogs (just type “Barbara West” into Google blog search), checking out posts on the subject. Suffice it to say, the wingers are in ecstasy over this.

Apparently to the twisted minds of the far right GOP base, West’s questioning of Biden wasn’t an embarrassment: it was Pulitzer Prize quality journalism. They’re laughably wrong, of course, but what’s really striking is their cluelessness about the broader public mood. Despite everything that’s happened, these people still have no idea — not the slightest inkling — of how badly this type of ignorant hate-mongering is damaging the GOP brand.

It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for John McCain. Think of what he’s up against — trying to thread the needle of playing nice with these nitwits in the base, while at the same time trying to appeal to independents. No wonder his campaign appears to be going up in flames.

There’s good reason to hope for more than McCain’s defeat this year’s election, of course — to dream even that it may represent the beginning of the extinction of today’s ultra-radical conservatism. And if so, this time it won’t be an asteroid that takes out the (political) dinosaurs.

Nope, this time it turns out that they were just too dumb to breathe.

Engels said...

Uh...a commie...that's like a rushan guy wid a beerd aintit?

marx said...

Nahhh, it's a black guy named Barack!

franchisio said...

Florida Guv Crist (R) gives Obama an assist
Weird.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, to the shock and dismay of Florida Republicans, just moved to extend early voting hours, a move likely to widen the Democrats' lead under a program on which the Obama campaign has intensely focused.

"He just blew Florida for John McCain," one plugged in Florida Republican just told me.

It's weird that Crist would take an action so clearly detrimental to his party's chances. One could argue that it's Crist's "F.U." to McCain for not picking him for veep, but Crist has taken actions like this in the past. He seems to be genuinely in favor of increased voting access.

What's not weird is the unnamed Republican who admits the only way his party can win is by limiting access to the ballot box. That's pretty much what you'd expect from Republicans.

thugs renounced said...

Here's what happens to assholes who lie about liberals:

Poll finds N. Carolinian who slammed liberals now behind
By Peter St. Onge | Charlotte Observer
North Carolina Congressman Robin Hayes, reeling from recent remarks about "Liberals hating real Americans," has lost his lead in North Carolina's 8th Congressional District race.

Hayes trails Democrat Larry Kissell 51-46 in a poll released Tuesday by Raleigh's Public Policy Polling. In its last NC-8 poll in August, PPP had the incumbent Hayes leading by five points.

Hayes, in a warmup to John McCain's speech Oct. 18 in Concord, told the crowd: "Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God."

The Hayes campaign initially said the congressman denied making the remark, but after being confronted with tapes of the remarks, the campaign released a statement acknowledging the remark.

At a debate hosted by the Independent Tribune of Kannapolis last week, Hayes pivoted again, saying he was denying only the context of how the remarks were presented to him.

U.S. News and World Report later cited an internal House GOP document saying Hayes re-election bid was among those considered "likely gone." In response, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman told the Observer's Lisa Zagaroli that the party had not written off Hayes.

PPP's Tom Jensen, who conducts polls for Democratic candidates and other organizations, reports that Kissell had gained signficant ground since August with voters in his party, moving from 62-19 to 78-20. He's also improved with independents, turning a 43-27 deficit into a tie, 45-45.

cotinese said...

Obama is clearly panicking.

risky girl said...

Yes, all signs point to their panic.

trogs thrive in the dark said...

How These Gibbering Numbskulls Came to Dominate Washington
The degradation of intelligence and learning in American politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies
by George Monbiot

How was it allowed to happen? How did politics in the US come to be dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity that has permitted mankind's closest living relative to spend two terms as president? How did Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering numbskulls get to where they are? How could Republican rallies in 2008 be drowned out by screaming ignoramuses insisting that Barack Obama was a Muslim and a terrorist?

Like most people on my side of the Atlantic, I have for many years been mystified by American politics. The US has the world's best universities and attracts the world's finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine. Its wealth and power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely among the developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning is a grave political disadvantage.

There have been exceptions over the past century - Franklin Roosevelt, JF Kennedy and Bill Clinton tempered their intellectualism with the common touch and survived - but Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore and John Kerry were successfully tarred by their opponents as members of a cerebral elite (as if this were not a qualification for the presidency). Perhaps the defining moment in the collapse of intelligent politics was Ronald Reagan's response to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debate. Carter - stumbling a little, using long words - carefully enumerated the benefits of national health insurance. Reagan smiled and said: "There you go again." His own health programme would have appalled most Americans, had he explained it as carefully as Carter had done, but he had found a formula for avoiding tough political issues and making his opponents look like wonks.

It wasn't always like this. The founding fathers of the republic - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and others - were among the greatest thinkers of their age. They felt no need to make a secret of it. How did the project they launched degenerate into George W Bush and Sarah Palin?

On one level, this is easy to answer. Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD. But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence?

panic in the reich said...

Obama up FIFTEEN in the Pew poll.

Landrieu, who they were going to knock off, up twenty in Loozyanny!!

the only poll that matters 11/4 said...

Rassmussen has Obama +3. Gallup has Obama +2. The Bradly effect has Obama -5.

LOL! Damn, McCain will be able to claim a MANDATE!

HEYOK said...

Too cotinese & risky girl... it seems the only signs pointing to Obama etc panicking are the ones you’re holding and skewed blogs like this one by Evan.

While I read Evans blog from time to time for a different perspective I’ve mostly refrained from commenting. I learned some time ago that any dialogue with Evan goes like this. I learned this from personal dialogue with Evan on a variety of issues.
1) Evan says whatever he wants.
2) I/others provide multiple facts to show how his statements are misdirected, blatantly false, bizarre...
3) Evan disappears...that's what I learned on my blog. On Evans blog folks then fight over what he said and whether it’s true.

Evan once told me he knew a video of him speaking on youtube was right because it had “x” number of hits. As if everyone who ever watched it absolutely agreed with him and the number of hits proved his point. I was reminded of that discourse based on the slant of this blog post. Skewing statistics & questionable sampling indeed!

Evan likes to stir the pot. Even if he has to write/type something which is obviously inflaming as "house nigg-r". That’s from your blog Evan the quotes included by you (Evan). Who exactly is this quote attributed too? Do you dare say who even if it’s you?

Evan: Keep stirring the pot and making up cute & nasty names to denigrate whomever you disagree with. The facts remain and IMO you’ll fade away, as you have before, when reality hits.

Someone asked about your book... I’m wondering too? Where is it?
Blessings, David

Anonymous said...

The aftermath of Ashley Todd’s story
By Jay Bookman | Friday, October 24, 2008, 04:50 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

McCain volunteer Ashley Todd has now confessed that she made up the story about being attacked by a large black man who carved the letter “B” into her cheek.

The young lady has issues, and I hope she gets the help she needs. End of story.

But let’s talk in a little more depth about the eagerness and even glee with which some in the right-wing blogosphere jumped on that story and immediately claimed it as proof of their worst nightmares coming true. So much of that story was unbelievable from the very beginning, yet certain people wanted to believe it so badly that they ignored all the warning signs and launched into full battle cry.

Andy McCarthy at the National Review’s Corner responded with a post so embarrassing he has now taken it down so nobody can see it.

Dan Riehl at riehlworldview.com posted under the headline “Thugs for change,” claiming that “Obama’s run his campaign just like a street thug out of Chicago. Now we get to see what some of his worst supporters are like.”

Noel Sheppard at newsbusters.org chastized AP for daring to be skeptical of the initial report. Most of all, he wanted to know why the AP didn’t report that the alleged perp was black. How dare they exclude a detail that had no bearing whatsoever on the alleged crime!!

Josh Painter at redstate.com blamed the attack on Barack Obama, suggesting an “Obama thugocracy” was coming: When Obama “urged his supporters to get in their face, did it not occur to him that some of his more deranged followers might take him literally?” Painter asked.

He was echoed by fellow redstater Erick Erickson, who wrote: “Hey! The dude was just doing what The One asked him to. Full pardon on January 21st.”

At Atlas Shugs, they posted the woman’s photo and called it “the new face of the Republican Party.”

“Shame on those that doubted this poor girl,” the post read. “Always ready to jump on the side of the leftists and thugs. ugh. Americans, I implore you to get off your asses and save this country from the radical left coup on the White House, Senate and House.

kabile said...

Heyok, there is panic, I tell you, panic,

Mats said...

Sayet, from your lips to God's Heart. May John win this election

Kirk said...

Obama Speechwriter Switches to McCain; Ignored by MSM
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
October 29, 2008 - 10:56 ET

Imagine if a speechwriter for John McCain had switched sides and announced she was going to vote for Barack Obama. Would she not be featured bigtime in the mainstream media complete with new thrills running up Chris Matthews leg? Well, this did happen except that it was an Obama speechwriter, Wendy Button, who became disillusioned with The One and switched to supporting McCain. Here are the highlights of Wendy Button's explanation of why she made the switch:

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional."


Young lady, only when the switch is made from Republican to Democrat will it be mentioned in the MSM. They search the country for "lifelong Republicans" who are going to vote for Obama but when an Obama speechwriter switches over to the "Dark Side," all you will hear from the MSM is the sound of crickets chirping.

When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.

...The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

...Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?

...Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

...I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.


Wow! Pretty strong stuff. However, Wendy, don't expect any accolades from the MSM for making your political switch in the "wrong direction." Oh, and I highly doubt you will ever again be permitted to post to your Huffington Post blog.

they are scared said...

The poles are tightening. and the leftis is pancicking

scrooged said...

LOL... they got ONE. That makes it about 50 to 1, now...including a Nixon, an Eisenhower, a Buckley AND a Reagan!!

The Wall Street Journal today rounds up the horde of prominent Republicans jumping ship to Barack Obama. Now one of John McCain's actual advisers has switched sides:

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

John said...

Yup. And the rabidly frenetic commentary here is more proof that Mac is surging.

John said...

(I was responding to "they are scared").

skinny said...

October 24, 2008, 11:49 am
Obamacans: Prominent Republicans Line Up Behind Obama
Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.

Since Colin Powell crossed party lines to endorse Barack Obama last Sunday, a steady stream of prominent Republicans have endorsed the Illinois senator over rival John McCain.

Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld is endorsing Obama today at a press conference in Salem, N.H. Weld was a public supporter of Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries. In a statement, Weld called Obama a “once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America’s standing in the world.”

On Thursday, former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Obama at the state capitol. “I think we have in Barack Obama the clear possibility of a truly great president,” he said. “I would contend that it’s the most important election of my lifetime.”

Scott McClellan, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, also endorsed Obama Thursday. USA Today reported that McClellan told CNN in a taping to be aired this weekend that Obama has “the best chance of changing the way Washington works.”

Ken Adelman, a prominent conservative on foreign policy matters announced his support for Obama on Tuesday, telling the New Yorker that his decision was based on temperament and judgment.

Adelman called McCain “impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird” in his handling of the U.S. economic crisis. He also was unsettled by McCain’s choice of running mate. “Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency,” Adelman wrote.

UPDATE: Add Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor and former Solicitor General in the Reagan administration, to the list of Republicans supporting Obama. Fried’s vote for the Democratic ticket is particularly harsh, as he was associated with the McCain campaign. Fried voted absentee for Obama this week, and informed McCain campaign general counsel Trevor Potter of his decision in a letter where he stated he could not support McCain in large part because of his selection of Palin as his running mate.

*To find out which newspapers are backing the presidential rivals, check out WSJ’s “Who Endorsed McCain?” and “Who Endorsed Obama?” pages.

One page is VEEEERY short...haha.

grisolou said...

lol...the only "frenetic" posts I see are yours.

g. said...

(I was making fun of a monkey.)

slummer said...

Hahahahaha...O knows how...

Obama fighting back with humor on "socialist" attacks: "Lately he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll-back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

John said...

"Sen. Barack Obama is gaining support from voters in battleground states long suspicious if not outright hostile to Democrats, thanks to their trust in him to handle the economy..."

You might want to take a second look at those numbers, peabrain.

"If these numbers hold up, he could win the biggest Democratic landslide since Lyndon Johnson in 1964."

They're not.

hahahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

I'm hoping you're right...a few months of McCain and a year or two of Palin...that would be a circus for the ages.

slammer said...

Tom Delay Destroyed on Hardball!!! (UPDATE W/Video)
by DWKING
Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM PDT
Debbie Wasserman Schultz delivered a beat down of Tom Delay on Hardball that is worth the price of admission!

Tom Delay came on and told Chris Matthews that Obama was dangerous, a socialists, a Marxist, etc. Delay threw every scary label in his hatefilled repertoire at Senator Obama and then Chris Matthews called on Debbie Wasserman Schultz to deliver the rebuttal.

And she destroyed Delay by saying that with "all due respect" consider the source. She went on to point out that Delay was tossed out of Congress "in disgrace" and that he had presided over the "most corrupt" Congress in recent history!



But do not miss the clear, concise way she went on to totally neuter---not just neutralize--the scum-sucking bottom feeder that is Tom Delay. I only wish he had stayed on the air long enough to get a reaction shot of it. But I am sure his head exploded!

Three cheers for Debbie Wasserman Schultz for not mincing words and proving once again that she is one of the best Obama surrogates on air!!

Allan Erickson said...

Bless ya Evan. More fuel for the fire!

BEST ELECTION VIDEO HANDS DOWN
http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036
13 minutes

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/great-merciful-zeus-pumas-are-winning-florida-for-john-mccain/

John said...

These trolls here have been "hahahaha"-ing with schaudenfreud and this is obviously very personal for them.

The level of vindictive vitriol, interestingly, is very much the same as this al Qaeda leader's:

"DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be 'humiliated,' without endorsing any party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to a video posted on the Internet.

'O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him,' Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet."

John said...

More proof:

That "The Keating Five" scandal is being thrown out there this late in the game with hopes that it will stick just long enough to make a difference is certainly a sign of welling panic.

Another member of the Keating Five was Right Stuff astronaut John Glenn, so it ain't easy trying to tar McCain as a villain by association with him (who, with the other three, btw, were Democrats--which should have taught Mac a lesson).

The only mileage it can get to make McCain/GOP look bad by invoking his involvement in the ancient scandal is a reliance on general ignorance of the case (e.g. 4 out 5 being Democrats, with McCain pulled in as the token Republican) and the verdict (which absolved McCain of any criminal wrongdoing), so there's a kitchen sink quality to it which is more proof that the Obama campaign does not feel as guaranteed of victory as the sneering tools here like to crow.

Anonymous said...

ARIZONA: TPM reports that McCain is running robo-calls against Obama in his home state. “The call signals genuine worry about McCain's home state at a time when several polls show the race to be much closer than expected there.”

suze said...

that liberalcommiemarxistanti-semitic publication, the economist has, of course, endorsed Obama:

The presidential election

It's time

Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition


America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

AP






Get article background

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.



Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.



If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.



He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

suze said...

i am just soooooooooo thrilled that jammaccain chose palin as his running mate. she has been responsible for more republican defections that one could ever have otherwise hoped for.

suze said...

george will hitting on mac, palin, bush, cheney--delish

Call Him John the Careless

By George F. Will
Thursday, October 30, 2008; A23

From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days.

Some polls show that Palin has become an even heavier weight in John McCain's saddle than his association with George W. Bush. Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin's never having attended a "Georgetown cocktail party" is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency, lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents "are in charge of the United States Senate"?

She may have been tailoring her narrative to her audience of third-graders, who do not know that vice presidents have no constitutional function in the Senate other than to cast tie-breaking votes. But does she know that when Lyndon Johnson, transformed by the 1960 election from Senate majority leader into vice president, ventured to the Capitol to attend the Democratic senators' weekly policy luncheon, the new majority leader, Montana's Mike Mansfield, supported by his caucus, barred him because his presence would be a derogation of the Senate's autonomy?

Perhaps Palin's confusion about the office for which she is auditioning comes from listening to its current occupant. Dick Cheney, the foremost practitioner of this administration's constitutional carelessness in aggrandizing executive power, regularly attends the Senate Republicans' Tuesday luncheons. He has said jocularly that he is "a product" of the Senate, which pays his salary, and that he has no "official duties" in the executive branch. His situational constitutionalism has, however, led him to assert, when claiming exemption from a particular executive order, that he is a member of the legislative branch and, when seeking to shield certain of his deliberations from legislative inquiry, to say that he is a member of the executive branch.

Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: "So, who is the villain?"

McCain revived a familiar villain -- "huge amounts" of political money -- when Barack Obama announced that he had received contributions of $150 million in September. "The dam is broken," said McCain, whose constitutional carelessness involves wanting to multiply impediments to people who want to participate in politics by contributing to candidates -- people such as the 632,000 first-time givers to Obama in September.

Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.

One excellent result of this election cycle is that public financing of presidential campaigns now seems sillier than ever. The public has always disliked it: Voluntary and cost-free participation, using the check-off on the income tax form, peaked at 28.7 percent in 1980 and has sagged to 9.2 percent. The Post, which is melancholy about the system's parlous condition, says there were three reasons for creating public financing: to free candidates from the demands of fundraising, to level the playing field and "to limit the amount of money pouring into presidential campaigns." The first reason is decreasingly persuasive because fundraising is increasingly easy because of new technologies such as the Internet. The second reason is, the Supreme Court says, constitutionally impermissible. Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support. As for the third reason -- "huge amounts" (McCain) of money "pouring into" (The Post) presidential politics -- well:

The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that, by Election Day, $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began in January 2007, and an additional $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests. This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips.

the gift that said...

you got for christmas but want to return for something you like better

McCain camp trying to scapegoat Palin
By: Roger Simon
October 30, 2008 02:44 PM EST

John McCain's campaign is looking for a scapegoat. It is looking for someone to blame if McCain loses on Tuesday.

And it has decided on Sarah Palin.

In recent days, a McCain “adviser” told Dana Bash of CNN: “She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.”

Imagine not taking advice from the geniuses at the McCain campaign. What could Palin be thinking?

Also, a “top McCain adviser” told Mike Allen of Politico that Palin is “a whack job.”

Maybe she is. But who chose to put this “whack job” on the ticket? Wasn’t it John McCain? And wasn’t it his first presidential-level decision?

And if you are a 72-year-old presidential candidate, wouldn’t you expect that your running mate’s fitness for high office would come under a little extra scrutiny? And, therefore, wouldn’t you make your selection with care? (To say nothing about caring about the future of the nation?)

McCain didn’t seem to care that much. McCain admitted recently on national TV that he “didn’t know her well at all” before he chose Palin.

But why not? Why didn’t he get to know her better before he made his choice?

It’s not like he was rushed. McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination in early March. He didn’t announce his choice for a running mate until late August.

Wasn’t that enough time for McCain to get to know Palin? Wasn’t that enough time for his crackerjack “vetters” to investigate Palin’s strengths and weaknesses, check through records and published accounts, talk to a few people, and learn that she was not only a diva but a whack job diva?

But McCain picked her anyway. He wanted to close the “enthusiasm gap” between himself and Barack Obama. He wanted to inject a little adrenaline into the Republican National Convention. He wanted to goose up the Republican base.

And so he chose Palin. Is she really a diva and a whack job? Could be. There are quite a few in politics. (And a few in journalism, too, though in journalism they are called “columnists.”)

As proof that she is, McCain aides now say Palin is “going rogue” and straying from their script. Wow. What a condemnation. McCain sticks to the script. How well is he doing?

In truth, Palin’s real problem is not her personality or whether she takes orders well. Her real problem is that neither she nor McCain can make a credible case that Palin is ready to assume the presidency should she need to.

And that undercuts McCain’s entire campaign.

This was the deal McCain made with the devil. In exchange for energizing his base by picking Palin, he surrendered his chief selling point: that he was better prepared to run the nation in time of crisis, whether it be economic, an attack by terrorists or, as he has been talking about in recent days, fending off a nuclear war.

“The next president won’t have time to get used to the office,” McCain told a crowd in Miami on Wednesday. “I’ve been tested, my friends, I’ve been tested.”

But has Sarah Palin?

I don’t believe running mates win or lose elections, though some believe they can be a drag on the ticket. Lee Atwater, who was George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager in 1988, told me that Dan Quayle cost the ticket 2 to 3 percentage points. But Bush won the election by 7.8 percentage points.

So, in Atwater’s opinion, Bush survived his bad choice by winning the election on his own.

McCain could do the same thing. But his campaign’s bad decisions have not stopped with Sarah Palin. It has made a series of questionable calls, including making Joe the Plumber the embodiment of the campaign.

Are voters really expected to warmly embrace an (unlicensed) plumber who owes back taxes and complains about the possibility of making a quarter million dollars a year?

And did McCain’s aides really believe so little in John McCain’s own likability that they thought Joe the Plumber would be more likable?

Apparently so. Which is sad.

We in the press make too much of running mates and staff and talking points and all the rest of the hubbub that accompanies a campaign.

In the end, it comes down to two candidates slugging it out.

Either McCain pulls off a victory in the last round or he doesn’t.

And if he doesn’t, he has nobody to blame but himself.

sarah neiman-marxist said...

from the new yorker:
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

karin said...

Devastating article by Will, Suze...at least there are a few wingbats who can still think.

Of course, the others hate them for it.

the duke said...

This is a hilarious post by the blogger. Make sure to save it somewhere so we can repost it after the election.

The Witty Patriot said...

I heard a lady on the radio call in today to say that she voted early, but she wished she hadn't of. Luckily she lives in Kansas, which is going to go to McCain anyway, but the point is-voting early is never good. Unless you are going to be out of town or in the hospital you should wait till the last minute because anything can change.

But really the point is...if she had it to do over she would have voted for McCain. Let's hope many people are also feeling that sentiment when they hit the polls Tuesday. A lot has changed in a few weeks. let's hope America is listening....

ramoaner said...

O up by 20 in early voting...65% to 33% amongst My SPace's 77 million!!! Even more for the younger.