After stating that Americans had nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency, John McCain is finding his fighting spirit.
Yesterday, he told his volunteers he was going to whip Obama's "you know what" in Wednesday's third debate. It's the right thing to say. If I had just told voters they had nothing to fear if my opponent were elected what is the point of my volunteers committing their time and energy for me? I just finished watching C-SPAN's coverage of a speech he gave in Virginia Beach. It wasn't anything he said in particular but the tone of the speech is different than what we've normally seen. Remember when McCain got energized at the end of his acceptance speech at the RNC? That was what this speech was like from start to finish.
I just hope McCain can sustain this energy not only in the debate with Obama but in his appearance on Letterman the following night. Letterman has been giving McCain jazz about cancelling an appearance on his show last month. Ironically, McCain announced the launch of his Presidential bid on Letterman in March 2007.
Optimally, McCain needs to knock out Obama. At the very minimum, he must leave Obama bloodied and battered. Or force him to make a mistake. The bottom line is that McCain must raise doubts about Obama's ability to lead and the soundness of his judgment. If Bill Ayers is discussed, McCain should also discuss John Lewis and ask Obama if he thinks he agrees with Lewis' comparison of him and Palin to George Wallace. He's got to keep up the pressure on Obama.
McCain should also put up his dukes with Letterman as well if Letterman gets snarky with him. If McCain does well on Wednesday an appearance on Letterman could reinforce such strength especially if he gives as good as he gets from Letterman.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
NY Times Tells Palin to Puck Off
The New York Times is objecting to Sarah Palin having dropped the puck at last night's Philadelphia Flyers-New York Rangers game. Their hockey writer, Lynn Zinser, writes, "the question has been raised....whether to appearance was appropriate at a sports event like this." (http://slapshort.blogs.nytimes.com/author/zinser/)
Funny, I don't recall the NYT or any others in the liberal media questioning the propriety of John Kerry throwing out the first pitch the week of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Kerry threw out the first pitch at a Red Sox-Yankees game on July 25, 2004. (www.usatoday.com/news/politicalsections/nation/president/2004-07-25-kerry-pitch_x.htm) It was at this game that Kerry said his favorite Red Sox player was "Manny Ortez." Kerry managed to appoxy David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez.
The only objections the NYT has to Sarah Palin dropping the first puck is that she is Sarah Palin and that she is a conservative Republican.
Funny, I don't recall the NYT or any others in the liberal media questioning the propriety of John Kerry throwing out the first pitch the week of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Kerry threw out the first pitch at a Red Sox-Yankees game on July 25, 2004. (www.usatoday.com/news/politicalsections/nation/president/2004-07-25-kerry-pitch_x.htm) It was at this game that Kerry said his favorite Red Sox player was "Manny Ortez." Kerry managed to appoxy David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez.
The only objections the NYT has to Sarah Palin dropping the first puck is that she is Sarah Palin and that she is a conservative Republican.
North Korea Removed From State Dep't Terrorism List
Effective immediately, North Korea has been removed from the U.S. State Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism. In exchange for this removal, North Korea agrees to allow full inspections of their nuclear facilities including Yongbyon. The North Koreans had been reactivating Yongbyon when it accused the U.S. of reneging on a promise to remove it from the terrorism list after an agreement by the six nations involved was reached in June. The U.S. had contended the North Koreans had not taken steps to allow inspectors to verify their claims of disarmament. Now the U.S. has dropped these demands despite the fact we don't know if Kim Jong-Il is still alive.
In twenty years, we have gone from "trust but verify" to "trust at face value."
North Korea is about as likely to allow full inspections of nuclear facilities as its ally Robert Mugabe is to share power in Zimbabwe.
In twenty years, we have gone from "trust but verify" to "trust at face value."
North Korea is about as likely to allow full inspections of nuclear facilities as its ally Robert Mugabe is to share power in Zimbabwe.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Mugabe Rips Up Power Sharing Agreement
The power sharing agreement between Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC appears to be done. This after the Zimbabwean strongman unilaterally appointed ZANU-PF to all government ministries despite an agreement to give most of the ministries to the MDC reflecting their narrow majority in last March's parliamentary elections.
Of course, this development comes as no surprise. Robert Mugabe will honor no agreement that diminishes his power as Zimbabwe's President for Life.
Yes, things are bad in the American economy. But it could be worse. Imagine living in a land where inflation is near a million per cent, there are chronic shortages of food and medicine, AIDS is rampant and life expectancy is 35 years of age. This is Zimbabwe in a nutshell.
Of course, this development comes as no surprise. Robert Mugabe will honor no agreement that diminishes his power as Zimbabwe's President for Life.
Yes, things are bad in the American economy. But it could be worse. Imagine living in a land where inflation is near a million per cent, there are chronic shortages of food and medicine, AIDS is rampant and life expectancy is 35 years of age. This is Zimbabwe in a nutshell.
Lewis Compares McCain-Palin to George Wallace
Georgia Democratic Representative and civil rights icon John Lewis has likened John McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace and segregation. (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/civil-rights-icon-compares-mccain-segregationist/):
Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created a climate and the condition that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.
Good grief. If you read my newest article, "Obama's False Ayers", I ask that if McCain had been assisted in his political campaigns in Arizona by someone involved with bombing churches in Alabama would Obama and his cohorts in the liberal press let it slide. Well, there is no such person in McCain's life and yet John Lewis sees fit to liken McCain and Palin to someone who set bombs. Yet Obama is associated with someone who has set a bomb.
While Obama spokesman Bill Burton was quick to distance themselves from the reference to George Wallace he nonetheless said that Lewis was right to criticize "hateful rhetoric" (though the hateful rhetoric was never specified) and lambasted Palin for saying Obama was "palling around with terrorists" (despite the fact that Obama did, in fact, pal around with Bill Ayers.)
So in other words, the Obama campaign has no problem with Lewis comparing McCain and Palin with a bomber even though only Obama has ever actually associated with one.
John McCain should have told the Obama campaign he would have been perfectly happy to call on his supporters to be respectful of Obama just as soon as Obama and his surrogates were respectful of him and Sarah Palin.
Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created a climate and the condition that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.
Good grief. If you read my newest article, "Obama's False Ayers", I ask that if McCain had been assisted in his political campaigns in Arizona by someone involved with bombing churches in Alabama would Obama and his cohorts in the liberal press let it slide. Well, there is no such person in McCain's life and yet John Lewis sees fit to liken McCain and Palin to someone who set bombs. Yet Obama is associated with someone who has set a bomb.
While Obama spokesman Bill Burton was quick to distance themselves from the reference to George Wallace he nonetheless said that Lewis was right to criticize "hateful rhetoric" (though the hateful rhetoric was never specified) and lambasted Palin for saying Obama was "palling around with terrorists" (despite the fact that Obama did, in fact, pal around with Bill Ayers.)
So in other words, the Obama campaign has no problem with Lewis comparing McCain and Palin with a bomber even though only Obama has ever actually associated with one.
John McCain should have told the Obama campaign he would have been perfectly happy to call on his supporters to be respectful of Obama just as soon as Obama and his surrogates were respectful of him and Sarah Palin.
Did McCain Endorse Obama?
Say it ain't so, John. Say it ain't so.
Did John McCain endorse Barack Obama for President?
When speaking at a rally in Minnesota, McCain called on the audience to be respectful of Obama but was jeered for his trouble.
"I want to be President of the United States and I don't want Obama to be," said McCain, "But I have to tell you...he is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared as President of the United States."
Doesn't it scare McCain that Obama is willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without precondition? Well, it sure as hell scares me and a lot of other people. Doesn't it scare McCain that Obama associates with unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers? Well, it sure as hell scares me and a lot of other people. Doesn't it scare McCain that Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians? Well, it sure as hell scares me and a lot of other people.
If we have nothing to fear from an Obama White House then why run against him at all? He's either fit to be President or he's not fit to be President.
I understand McCain's desire for civility but civility is a two way street. It would be nice if Obama's supporters refrained from comparing him and Sarah Palin to George Wallace. McCain can fight in a respectful manner but that is rather difficult to do so when he is being hit below the belt.
Did John McCain endorse Barack Obama for President?
When speaking at a rally in Minnesota, McCain called on the audience to be respectful of Obama but was jeered for his trouble.
"I want to be President of the United States and I don't want Obama to be," said McCain, "But I have to tell you...he is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared as President of the United States."
Doesn't it scare McCain that Obama is willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without precondition? Well, it sure as hell scares me and a lot of other people. Doesn't it scare McCain that Obama associates with unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers? Well, it sure as hell scares me and a lot of other people. Doesn't it scare McCain that Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians? Well, it sure as hell scares me and a lot of other people.
If we have nothing to fear from an Obama White House then why run against him at all? He's either fit to be President or he's not fit to be President.
I understand McCain's desire for civility but civility is a two way street. It would be nice if Obama's supporters refrained from comparing him and Sarah Palin to George Wallace. McCain can fight in a respectful manner but that is rather difficult to do so when he is being hit below the belt.
Compilation of coverage of the AFP conference
I've tried to compile most of the coverage on the web among the blogs of the AFP conference. Faustus has quite a few posts on the conference, including pictures, a Fox News clip, and coverage of John Fund's specialty on voter fraud and Acorn. The Republic of Dave has a good discussion of what it was like for bloggers at the conference. Pete from Arizona posting on Sonoran Alliance discussed AZ AFP Director's criticism of Governor Napolitano. SWAC Girl posted some pics from the rally at the Capitol. Maggie Thurber of Thurber's Thoughts was awarded the AFP blogger of the year, which was well-deserved considering she's probably posted more about the conference than any of the rest of us bloggers. Independent Political Report has posted a couple s der's look at the bloggers. The Heritage Foundation posted a blog about conservatism's foray into the blog world. Human Events ran a full story on the conference, focusing on the Tribute to Reagan dinner. Conservatives with Attitude/Polipundit.com has been steadily blogging throughout the conference. Here's a link to some pictures from the conference. Here's even more. Aakash of University blog has some of the most humorous posts.
Now this is kinda funny, bloggers taking videos of other bloggers blogging from Fort Hard Knox who is using Web 2.0.
Now this is kinda funny, bloggers taking videos of other bloggers blogging from Fort Hard Knox who is using Web 2.0.
AFP: George Will & Dinesh D'Souza: slamming the bailout
At the AFP Tribute to Ronald Reagan dinner last night, speakers included George Will, Dinesh D'Souza, and Ed Meese. Will gave a damning critique of the bailout. People are treating their homes as ATMs (with their lines of credit and 2nd mortgages). The pain of debt has been separated from buying through credit. The welfare state has bred a state of entitlement to security. This is incompatible with a free market society. Originally, government bailouts were meant only to be utilized in case of systemic threats to society. Then we bailed out the three major automakers. Uh, why? It was "Lemon socialism." Essentially finding the losers and subsidizing them! The saying in Washington goes: "If it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, if it stops, subsidize it." Everyone is lining up like Oliver Twist with their hand out. We need to pass George Will's law - No executive of a company receiving a federal handout can receive more than a civil servant's salary.Healthcare: We can be like Canada where everything is free and nothing is available. We don't have a "healthcare crisis," we have people engaging in risky behavior who have brought things like lung cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes on themselves. Our kids are fat because the trial lawyers have sued to remove the teeter totters and jungle bars out of the playgrounds.
There has been an erosion of the idea of personal responsibility. Barack Obama says he's going to give a tax cut to 95% of the population. Well 38% of the population doesn't pay taxes. So Obama is going to create a new entitlement to give more money to that 38%.
Will Rogers once said the difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets. We need to give the free makrket some time to work. We're not in a "manufacturing crisis." We make as much steel as we did years ago, just with fewer workers. If we have a crisis in manufacturing, then we have one in agriculture as well. We have even fewer workers producing food, yet we still produce as much. When President Lincoln made his only mistake, creating a Bureau of Agriculture, there was 1 bureaucrat for every 220,000 farmers. Today, there is 1 bureaucreat for every 19 farms. There is a joke about an agriculture bureaucrat crying at work, because his farmer just died.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the Republicans value freedom and its risks over equality and security. They are willing to accept greater inequalities in order to prioritize freedom. The good news currently is that neither of the two presidential candidates are advocating rolling back the great advances made under Reagan.
Ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government - this means you reserve a spacious portion of your life for which government isn't responsible. Right now you can put together any combination of letters and it will spell out the acronym for some government agency.
Next Dinesh D'Souza spoke about the differences between Republicans and Democrats. He said he explained to his grandma living in India that there are two political parties in the U.S.: the stupid party and the evil party. The evil party is the Democrats, and the stupid party is the Republicans. Put stupid and evil together and you get bipartisanship.JFK made it noble to go into civil service by joining the peace corps. Reagan changed all that, making the entrepreneur, not the civil servant, the embodiment of the American ideal. Once when Sam Donaldson was interviewing Reagan, he asked, "You blame Congress, the Democrats, and lobbyists for our budget problems. Do you share any of that blame? Reagan responded, "Yes, I used to be a Democrat." D'Souza ended with an old Indian saying about hard work, "After crossing the mountain, more mountains."
Friday, October 10, 2008
Christopher Buckley Will Vote Obama
This is a very bad omen. If the offspring of the father of modern conservatism is going to cast a ballot for Barack Obama well one could argue you might as well take down the masthead and cease to be. (http://thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama)
There's a lot of style to Buckley's arguments. He jokes that if his parents were still alive they'd cut off his allowance. But there's very little substance and even less sense in them.
First, Buckley shares the objections of Kathleen Parker and David Brooks to Sarah Palin. Buckley calls Palin "an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that." Buckley asks of McCain, "What on earth can he have been thinking?" But Buckley never specifies what he dislikes about Palin. How did Palin embarrass Buckley? In what way is Palin dangerous? I'm going to need a lot more than Buckley's say so here.
Second, he laments "John McCain has changed." Why? Because McCain, you see, is no longer authentic. And why isn't McCain sufficiently authentic? Because McCain has, amongst other things, made "unrealistic promises." Buckley admonishes McCain for promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. One could argue it is an unrealistic promise but no more so than Obama's promise of providing a tax cut to 95% of Americans even though nearly half don't pay any federal tax or government funded health care for every American.
But Buckley's main objection is to what he views as McCain's changed disposition. Buckley states McCain's "once first class temperament has become irascible and snarly." O.K., Buckley claims to have known McCain since 1982 and only now he is discovering that McCain has a temper? Gee, could it be that McCain has a temper as a result of being stuck in a box for nearly six years? And that temper might come to the fore when Obama accuses McCain of playing racial politics as he did this past summer.
Third, Buckley conversely likes Obama's temperament, race-baiter notwithstanding. In fact, Buckley argues that Obama has a "first-class temperament." He also praises Obama's "first-class intellect." With a first-class temperament and first-class intellect in tow, Buckley writes Obama has "the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader." So Obama's potential tops McCain's achievements?
Let's go back to the recurring theme in Buckley's argument - class. Buckley has more in common with Obama than he does with McCain and certainly Sarah Palin. You can picture Obama palling around with Buckley on the cocktail circuit or yachting. You can't picture Buckley in hunting boots or commanding a naval squadron. Perhaps he also has his new Hollywood friends to think about as well. So could it be that Buckley simply doesn't like Palin's accent or the way McCain holds his dinner fork? If that is his reason for voting Obama then so be it. But such reasoning demonstrates, to quote Bill Buckley's old and recently departed friend Charlton Heston, that sometimes class skips a generation.
There's a lot of style to Buckley's arguments. He jokes that if his parents were still alive they'd cut off his allowance. But there's very little substance and even less sense in them.
First, Buckley shares the objections of Kathleen Parker and David Brooks to Sarah Palin. Buckley calls Palin "an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that." Buckley asks of McCain, "What on earth can he have been thinking?" But Buckley never specifies what he dislikes about Palin. How did Palin embarrass Buckley? In what way is Palin dangerous? I'm going to need a lot more than Buckley's say so here.
Second, he laments "John McCain has changed." Why? Because McCain, you see, is no longer authentic. And why isn't McCain sufficiently authentic? Because McCain has, amongst other things, made "unrealistic promises." Buckley admonishes McCain for promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. One could argue it is an unrealistic promise but no more so than Obama's promise of providing a tax cut to 95% of Americans even though nearly half don't pay any federal tax or government funded health care for every American.
But Buckley's main objection is to what he views as McCain's changed disposition. Buckley states McCain's "once first class temperament has become irascible and snarly." O.K., Buckley claims to have known McCain since 1982 and only now he is discovering that McCain has a temper? Gee, could it be that McCain has a temper as a result of being stuck in a box for nearly six years? And that temper might come to the fore when Obama accuses McCain of playing racial politics as he did this past summer.
Third, Buckley conversely likes Obama's temperament, race-baiter notwithstanding. In fact, Buckley argues that Obama has a "first-class temperament." He also praises Obama's "first-class intellect." With a first-class temperament and first-class intellect in tow, Buckley writes Obama has "the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader." So Obama's potential tops McCain's achievements?
Let's go back to the recurring theme in Buckley's argument - class. Buckley has more in common with Obama than he does with McCain and certainly Sarah Palin. You can picture Obama palling around with Buckley on the cocktail circuit or yachting. You can't picture Buckley in hunting boots or commanding a naval squadron. Perhaps he also has his new Hollywood friends to think about as well. So could it be that Buckley simply doesn't like Palin's accent or the way McCain holds his dinner fork? If that is his reason for voting Obama then so be it. But such reasoning demonstrates, to quote Bill Buckley's old and recently departed friend Charlton Heston, that sometimes class skips a generation.
AFP: Web 2.0 - where it's now at for us online politicos
Second day of the Americans for Prosperity Conference. I talked to Ralph Benko who just finished the groundbreaking online free book TheWebstersDictionary.com, "How to create communities of thousands, even millions, and channel their energy to effect political, social and cultural transformation." He spent two years studying the success of moveon.org and reveals its secrets to success. Most political bloggers (including myself) are still stuck in Web 1.0 mode, which he describes as 99% "talk" and 1% listening. He said the way to increase your traffic and influence is Web 2.0 mode, which is 99% listening and 1% talk. Instead of putting information out there mainly for people to read, you need to create ways for them to interact and provide their own input easier. Just adding comments after articles no longer cuts it. You need to create online communities, like the free easy-to-use online communities provided by ning.com, sort of like the blogs anyone can create on townhall.com now but even better. Benko has created TheDemocracyProject.ning.com, which is a forum to help get citizens get control of their county political party committees. One new ning.com group that has been very successful is teamsarah.org, for fans of Sarah Palin. At a minimum, join facebook and start some groups. Next step - team Coalition for a Conservative Majority up with Benko's online efforts....
Obama To Appear in Prime Time 30 Minute Infomercial on October 29th
Barack Obama has purchased half an hour of airtime on NBC and CBS on October 29th. He might also appear on FOX and thus possibly preempt coverage of Game 6 of the 2008 World Series (assuming the Fall Classic goes that far).
The half hour infomercial would begin at 8 p.m.
It has been noted by others the infomerical will air on the 79th anniversary of the stock market crash which precipitated The Great Depression. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/10/obamas-primetime-buy-comes-at.html)
But maybe this is a blessing in disguise.
The infomercial will air six days before the vote. The election is Obama's to lose. At this point, there's very little that McCain can do to win. However, there's a lot that Obama can do to lose. If Obama says or does something during the course of the infomercial that turns off voters it might be the break McCain is seeking. As I repeatedly write, "A week in politics is a lifetime."
Now, I don't think Obama will have a choir of singing children or regiment of young men pledging their allegiance to The Anointed One. But if the presentation comes off like a victory lap or if Obama appears either overconfident or arrogant it could cost him dearly. One might argue that Obama is too clever for such a thing. Perhaps. But this is the Obama who saw fit to give a campaign speech in Berlin. This is the Obama who spoke behind his own Presidential seal. This is also the Obama who gave his party's nomination acceptance speech in front of a Roman Coliseum made of styrofoam. Barack Obama is the Dorian Gray of American politics. As such the American voter won't put their trust into someone who is more fond of his own image than the well being of the people he serves.
The half hour infomercial would begin at 8 p.m.
It has been noted by others the infomerical will air on the 79th anniversary of the stock market crash which precipitated The Great Depression. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/10/obamas-primetime-buy-comes-at.html)
But maybe this is a blessing in disguise.
The infomercial will air six days before the vote. The election is Obama's to lose. At this point, there's very little that McCain can do to win. However, there's a lot that Obama can do to lose. If Obama says or does something during the course of the infomercial that turns off voters it might be the break McCain is seeking. As I repeatedly write, "A week in politics is a lifetime."
Now, I don't think Obama will have a choir of singing children or regiment of young men pledging their allegiance to The Anointed One. But if the presentation comes off like a victory lap or if Obama appears either overconfident or arrogant it could cost him dearly. One might argue that Obama is too clever for such a thing. Perhaps. But this is the Obama who saw fit to give a campaign speech in Berlin. This is the Obama who spoke behind his own Presidential seal. This is also the Obama who gave his party's nomination acceptance speech in front of a Roman Coliseum made of styrofoam. Barack Obama is the Dorian Gray of American politics. As such the American voter won't put their trust into someone who is more fond of his own image than the well being of the people he serves.
Obama on Ayers: "I Assumed That He Had Been Rehabilitated."
I just read Jake Tapper's blog on ABC News website. Yesterday, Barack Obama was interviewed by Philadelphia based conservative talk radio host Michael Smerconish, when he learned of Bill Ayers' life as a terrorist with the Weather Underground, Obama said, "I assumed that he had been rehabilitated." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/does-obama-stil.html)
Assumed?
Well, we all know what happens when you assume.
When Ayers tells The New York Times he does not regret setting bombs; it is not a sign of an "rehabilitated" terrorist. One can only be "rehabilitated" if one takes responsibility for one's actions, bears the consequences and makes amends. Bill Ayers is not "rehabilitated" in any way, shape or form. But if that's Obama's idea of "rehabilitated" then G-d help us all.
So when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Mayor of Tehran and then President of Iran I suppose Obama "assumed" he was a rehabilitated hostage taker. Suffice it to say, Obama's assumptions are no substitute for due dilligence.
Somehow I don't think this is the last time I will be writing about Obama's judge of character.
Assumed?
Well, we all know what happens when you assume.
When Ayers tells The New York Times he does not regret setting bombs; it is not a sign of an "rehabilitated" terrorist. One can only be "rehabilitated" if one takes responsibility for one's actions, bears the consequences and makes amends. Bill Ayers is not "rehabilitated" in any way, shape or form. But if that's Obama's idea of "rehabilitated" then G-d help us all.
So when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Mayor of Tehran and then President of Iran I suppose Obama "assumed" he was a rehabilitated hostage taker. Suffice it to say, Obama's assumptions are no substitute for due dilligence.
Somehow I don't think this is the last time I will be writing about Obama's judge of character.
#dontgo, dontgo.us, dontgomovement.com
Pete Leslie and I are sitting in the the second forum at the Americans for Prosperity by Sam Adams Alliance, which is about the newest online technologies for promoting political media, such as youtube, blip, youseeit.tv and twitter. The right is ahead of the left so far in these areas. Twitter was successfully used last summer by the right with the channel #dontgo to stop Nancy Pelosi from sending Congress home without addressing the gas crisis. To look up groups on twitter, go to search.twitter.com. This conference is being covered on #afp08. You can set up Facebook to send your updates to twitter. Another neat thing they told us about is Feedburner, which will automatically send out your posts over email for free.
AFP conference: Goofy Moveon.org
Am sitting in the Sam Adams Alliance Blogivists Samsphere session, listening to their person formerly known as a "community organizer" discuss the online success of Moveon.org, which now has 3.2 million members. According to the former community organizer, who is really entertaining, Moveon.org's formula is groupthink, and they apparently have total unemployment because they're always online and protesting something. What characterizes them is a weird emotional instability disproportionately affected by political losses. Like Alex Baldwin saying he'd move to Canada if Bush got elected but unfortunately he didn't. They have a collective desire to work for "change," whatever that means. They share a willingness to do seemingly stupid and pointless things with those likeminded friends, in pursuit of "change" and idealistic goals in order to garner media attention.
So....we're supposed to emulate them?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obama's Involvement With the Democratic Socialists of America/New Party
In the past day or so there has been some discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with the Democratic Socialists of America and the New Party and a concerted effort to conceal this information. http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html.
To start with the DSA and the New Party cannot be discussed in the same way as the Weather Underground. These are not terrorist entities. The Democratic Socialists of America have been a tendency within the Democratic Party since the early 1970s during the halycon days of Michael Harrington, author of The Other America. In the late '90s, the DSA helped to establish the New Party. It operated in areas where there were electoral fusion laws. In other words, electors could cast a ballot for the New Party which would count as a vote for the Democratic candidate as they did with Obama when he was first elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996.
This is hardly surprising given many New Party supporters were also members of ACORN. While the New Party faded in the late 1990's it would spawn the Working Families Party (WFP) in its place. Indeed, when I interviewed for a position with ACORN in January 2000 they shared an office building in Brooklyn with the WFP albeit on a different floor. Part of the ACORN interview consisted of attending an organizing meeting of the WFP which was supporting Hillary Clinton's bid for the U.S. Senate.
In fairness, New York's Conservative Party does much the same thing with Republican candidates in city and state elections. Rudy Giuliani got elected as New York City's mayor in 1997 in part because of the support of people who voted for the now defunct Liberal Party of New York.
I don't care that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party or the Democratic Socialists of America. Frankly, I would have been shocked if he wasn't a member. But what does trouble me is that his campaign would go to the trouble to state otherwise contrary to all evidence that has now been put forward. Hey, I'm up front. I tell people I used to be with the NDP and that I once worked for ACORN. People can take it for what it is and let the chips fall where they may.
So what does Obama have to hide? Is he uncomfortable with the word socialist? Is he ashamed of his past affiliations? Or are the DSA/New Party simply organizations he knew of in the neighborhood?
To start with the DSA and the New Party cannot be discussed in the same way as the Weather Underground. These are not terrorist entities. The Democratic Socialists of America have been a tendency within the Democratic Party since the early 1970s during the halycon days of Michael Harrington, author of The Other America. In the late '90s, the DSA helped to establish the New Party. It operated in areas where there were electoral fusion laws. In other words, electors could cast a ballot for the New Party which would count as a vote for the Democratic candidate as they did with Obama when he was first elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996.
This is hardly surprising given many New Party supporters were also members of ACORN. While the New Party faded in the late 1990's it would spawn the Working Families Party (WFP) in its place. Indeed, when I interviewed for a position with ACORN in January 2000 they shared an office building in Brooklyn with the WFP albeit on a different floor. Part of the ACORN interview consisted of attending an organizing meeting of the WFP which was supporting Hillary Clinton's bid for the U.S. Senate.
In fairness, New York's Conservative Party does much the same thing with Republican candidates in city and state elections. Rudy Giuliani got elected as New York City's mayor in 1997 in part because of the support of people who voted for the now defunct Liberal Party of New York.
I don't care that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party or the Democratic Socialists of America. Frankly, I would have been shocked if he wasn't a member. But what does trouble me is that his campaign would go to the trouble to state otherwise contrary to all evidence that has now been put forward. Hey, I'm up front. I tell people I used to be with the NDP and that I once worked for ACORN. People can take it for what it is and let the chips fall where they may.
So what does Obama have to hide? Is he uncomfortable with the word socialist? Is he ashamed of his past affiliations? Or are the DSA/New Party simply organizations he knew of in the neighborhood?
McCain Puts Out Obama-Ayers Ad
John McCain has put out an ad on Barack Obama's relationship with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. The ad can be found at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/09/mccain-goes-jugular-new-obama-ayers-ad/.
Naturally, Obama accuses McCain of trying to score cheap political points. But there's nothing cheap about the company one keeps. The fact that Obama chose to associate with the likes of Wright and Ayers is an indication he shares their values. Why else would Obama take our soldiers in Afghanistan to task for "air raiding villages and killing civilians."?
Of course, will enough voters have second thoughts about Obama to reconsider their vote? It remains to be seen. In a dire economic situation, many Americans might put aside whatever reservations they have about Obama and cast a ballot for him anyway. This however remains to be seen.
But since McCain has now put out an ad on Obama's connection with Ayers this will have to be discussed at McCain-Obama III next Wednesday. Obama, of course, can say Ayers was closer to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and other distinguished persons. An appropriate response for McCain is, "They are not running for President. Senator Obama, I am disappointed in your judgment. You are not the person I knew in 2004." While a knockout punch by McCain would be great even a stumble or wobble in Obama's knees will germinate the seeds of doubt amongst some voters.
The bottom line is that under no circumstances can McCain back down on Ayers now. Otherwise he simply doesn't look credible nor would he appear to want to win the White House. This is not the time to act deferentially to Obama. After all, Obama is someone who has no trouble associating with Ayers, Wright and others who hold this country in utter contempt. That is simply not acceptable in a Commander in Chief.
Naturally, Obama accuses McCain of trying to score cheap political points. But there's nothing cheap about the company one keeps. The fact that Obama chose to associate with the likes of Wright and Ayers is an indication he shares their values. Why else would Obama take our soldiers in Afghanistan to task for "air raiding villages and killing civilians."?
Of course, will enough voters have second thoughts about Obama to reconsider their vote? It remains to be seen. In a dire economic situation, many Americans might put aside whatever reservations they have about Obama and cast a ballot for him anyway. This however remains to be seen.
But since McCain has now put out an ad on Obama's connection with Ayers this will have to be discussed at McCain-Obama III next Wednesday. Obama, of course, can say Ayers was closer to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and other distinguished persons. An appropriate response for McCain is, "They are not running for President. Senator Obama, I am disappointed in your judgment. You are not the person I knew in 2004." While a knockout punch by McCain would be great even a stumble or wobble in Obama's knees will germinate the seeds of doubt amongst some voters.
The bottom line is that under no circumstances can McCain back down on Ayers now. Otherwise he simply doesn't look credible nor would he appear to want to win the White House. This is not the time to act deferentially to Obama. After all, Obama is someone who has no trouble associating with Ayers, Wright and others who hold this country in utter contempt. That is simply not acceptable in a Commander in Chief.
In Defense of AIG
Both Congress and the White House have been giving AIG a lot of flak about having an "executive retreat" after receiving an $85 bridge loan from the federal government. Commentators like Bill O'Reilly have left people with the impression that AIG took the money and threw a party for itself. Yesterday, AIG CEO Edward Liddy wrote Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to clarify incorrect public perception.
Before I go any further I will remind people that I am an employee of an AIG subsidiary. So people are free to accept, reject or ignore what I have to say from here on out.
With that in mind, people ought to realize that companies (not just AIG) plan these events for their employees and outside contractors fairly regularly. But it is not the sort of thing one can organize in a week. The logistics involved take months (i.e. inviting and confirmation of guests, booking the hotel, coordination of catering and entertainment, etc.)
Now could make the case that it might have been prudent to cancel this event to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But why punish independent insurance agents who have done nothing other than do business with AIG? Taken to its logical extreme AIG would then have to cancel its Christmas parties which are attended by everyone from executives to file clerks (yep, that's me.)
There's no question Wall Street bears enormous responsibility for the economic downturn in which we now find ourselves. But AIG ought not be accused of improper use of federal money without those pointing fingers providing specific evidence to support such an assertion. To do otherwise is grossly unfair and unhelpful to the situation at hand.
Before I go any further I will remind people that I am an employee of an AIG subsidiary. So people are free to accept, reject or ignore what I have to say from here on out.
With that in mind, people ought to realize that companies (not just AIG) plan these events for their employees and outside contractors fairly regularly. But it is not the sort of thing one can organize in a week. The logistics involved take months (i.e. inviting and confirmation of guests, booking the hotel, coordination of catering and entertainment, etc.)
Now could make the case that it might have been prudent to cancel this event to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But why punish independent insurance agents who have done nothing other than do business with AIG? Taken to its logical extreme AIG would then have to cancel its Christmas parties which are attended by everyone from executives to file clerks (yep, that's me.)
There's no question Wall Street bears enormous responsibility for the economic downturn in which we now find ourselves. But AIG ought not be accused of improper use of federal money without those pointing fingers providing specific evidence to support such an assertion. To do otherwise is grossly unfair and unhelpful to the situation at hand.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Hannity Interview of McCain-Palin
I am currently watching Sean Hannity interview John McCain and Sarah Palin on Hannity & Colmes. Hannity taped the interview earlier today.
McCain made a couple of interesting points in the interview which no doubt some will wonder why he didn't raise last night. First, McCain takes Obama to task for stating soldiers in Afghanistan "are just air raiding villages and killing civilians." Second, McCain also said it was impossible to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when less than half of all Americans pay federal income tax.
The point here is not to chide McCain for not bringing forth this points last night. The point here is that McCain will have a chance to raise these issues one week from tonight. Timing is short. But it's not too late.
McCain made a couple of interesting points in the interview which no doubt some will wonder why he didn't raise last night. First, McCain takes Obama to task for stating soldiers in Afghanistan "are just air raiding villages and killing civilians." Second, McCain also said it was impossible to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when less than half of all Americans pay federal income tax.
The point here is not to chide McCain for not bringing forth this points last night. The point here is that McCain will have a chance to raise these issues one week from tonight. Timing is short. But it's not too late.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
McCain-Obama II
Never let Tom Brokaw moderate a Town Hall Debate again. He was like a referee who wanted to put on gloves and throw punches. There were supposed to be 20 questions from the audience and the internet but then Brokaw decided to take over the proceedings halfway through and was rather anal retentive about time management. Where's Jim Lehrer when you need him?
The combatants, John McCain and Barack Obama, fought to a draw. But McCain needed a knockout or at the very minimum a decisive unanimous decision. So Obama won without winning.
For instance, Barack Obama said his spending cuts exceeded his spending increases. Where? I'd like to know. But McCain didn't ask. On top of that, McCain didn't ask Obama how he would pay for all his promises.
One question that was interesting toward the end of the debate was asked by a soldier about what the candidates would do if Israel were attacked by Iran. After McCain thanked the soldier for his service and shook his hand, he reminded the audience Obama wants to talk to Ahmadinejad "without preconditions." This is something Obama disputed in the first debate and Biden further denied last week. Except that on Obama's website it states an Obama Administration would negotiate with Iran and other rogue regimes "without preconditions." Guess what? This time Obama didn't challenge McCain's"without preconditions" assertion. Obama also viewed the escalation of Iran's nuclear programme as the fault of President Bush rather than a byproduct of their evil assertions that seeks the elimination of another country from the face of the earth. Good grief.
But most people have the economy on their minds and since the economic downturn the tide in the ocean has been rising for Obama and McCain, despite his best efforts, could not calm the waters.
McCain has one more bite at the apple on October 15th at Hofstra University. McCain can only hope there are people who haven't made up their minds or people who are still amenable to changing their minds.
The combatants, John McCain and Barack Obama, fought to a draw. But McCain needed a knockout or at the very minimum a decisive unanimous decision. So Obama won without winning.
For instance, Barack Obama said his spending cuts exceeded his spending increases. Where? I'd like to know. But McCain didn't ask. On top of that, McCain didn't ask Obama how he would pay for all his promises.
One question that was interesting toward the end of the debate was asked by a soldier about what the candidates would do if Israel were attacked by Iran. After McCain thanked the soldier for his service and shook his hand, he reminded the audience Obama wants to talk to Ahmadinejad "without preconditions." This is something Obama disputed in the first debate and Biden further denied last week. Except that on Obama's website it states an Obama Administration would negotiate with Iran and other rogue regimes "without preconditions." Guess what? This time Obama didn't challenge McCain's"without preconditions" assertion. Obama also viewed the escalation of Iran's nuclear programme as the fault of President Bush rather than a byproduct of their evil assertions that seeks the elimination of another country from the face of the earth. Good grief.
But most people have the economy on their minds and since the economic downturn the tide in the ocean has been rising for Obama and McCain, despite his best efforts, could not calm the waters.
McCain has one more bite at the apple on October 15th at Hofstra University. McCain can only hope there are people who haven't made up their minds or people who are still amenable to changing their minds.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Rays & Red Sox Advance to ALCS
The Tampa Bay Rays and the Boston Red Sox both clinched their ALDS match ups against the Chicago White Sox and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, respectively.
After losing yesterday, the Rays beat the Chisox 6-2 in Game 4 of the ALDS this afternoon. B.J. Upton hit two home runs to pace the Rays. Ken Griffey, Jr struck out to end the game in what might be his final at bat in his storied two decade major league career. "The Kid" hit 611 home runs, won multiple Gold Gloves, a perennial All Star and won the American League MVP in 1997. But he will most likely never play in a World Series.
The one up side of not having either Chicago team get a chance not to play in the World Series is that we won't be seeing Barack Obama throwing out the first pitch at either Wrigley or U.S. Cellular Field. That would have been unbearably annoying. Of course, if he's truly a South Sider he would not be seen fratenizing with the Cubs.
The Rays will host the Boston Red Sox beginning Friday for the American League Championship Series. After losing a 12 inning marathon last night, the Sox rebounded and won Game 4 of the ALDS in dramatic fashion. Jon Lester pitched seven innings of solid shutout ball. The Sox carried a 2-0 lead into the 8th inning. But the bullpen would stumble. After retiring the first two hitters, Hideki Okajima walked Mark Teixeira. Terry Francona brought in Justin Masterson to face Vladimir Guerrero. Despite getting two quick strikes on Vlady, Masterson walked the free swinging Guerrero. Masterson then uncorked a wild pitch before giving up a two run single to Torii Hunter to tie the game.
The Angels had G-d on their side going into the 9th. Or did they? The Sox received some divine intervention. With pinch runner Reggie Willits on third, Erick Aybar was attempting a squeeze play but Willits ran too far down the line and Sox catcher Jason Varitek chased Willits back to the third base bag and tagged him out. Angels manager Mike Scioscia was incensed because Varitek dropped the ball after he had tagged Willits. But the umpire was not heaven sent for the Halos.
With one out in the bottom of the 9th, Jason Bay hit a ball that went past Willits in right field but it bounced up in the stands which made it a ground rule double. Mark Kotsay hit a wicked line drive down the first base line which would have won the game had Teixeira not made an amazing catch. But Red Sox rookie shortstop Jed Lowrie singled in Bay who made a mad dash for home and a date with the Rays in St. Pete. For the third time in five years the Sox eliminated the Angels in the ALDS. The Sox will also play their fourth ALCS in the last six seasons.
While I thought the Rays would dispatch with the Chisox I also thought (as did many in Red Sox Nation) the Red Sox would not get past the Angels. However, I do not think the Sox will get past the Rays. Now one can attribute this to the power of negative thinking and New England pessimism that comes with falling leaves. But I see the Rays as a hungrier team. Not that much hungrier but just enough. The Red Sox will be competitive but the Tampa Bay Rays are to baseball what the New York Giants were to the NFL last season. They are a team of destiny and they will not be denied. The Rays in six.
Thus I foresee a Rays-Dodgers World Series. Even though Manny Ramirez is intimately familar with Tampa pitching they are also familiar with him. The Rays in five.
After losing yesterday, the Rays beat the Chisox 6-2 in Game 4 of the ALDS this afternoon. B.J. Upton hit two home runs to pace the Rays. Ken Griffey, Jr struck out to end the game in what might be his final at bat in his storied two decade major league career. "The Kid" hit 611 home runs, won multiple Gold Gloves, a perennial All Star and won the American League MVP in 1997. But he will most likely never play in a World Series.
The one up side of not having either Chicago team get a chance not to play in the World Series is that we won't be seeing Barack Obama throwing out the first pitch at either Wrigley or U.S. Cellular Field. That would have been unbearably annoying. Of course, if he's truly a South Sider he would not be seen fratenizing with the Cubs.
The Rays will host the Boston Red Sox beginning Friday for the American League Championship Series. After losing a 12 inning marathon last night, the Sox rebounded and won Game 4 of the ALDS in dramatic fashion. Jon Lester pitched seven innings of solid shutout ball. The Sox carried a 2-0 lead into the 8th inning. But the bullpen would stumble. After retiring the first two hitters, Hideki Okajima walked Mark Teixeira. Terry Francona brought in Justin Masterson to face Vladimir Guerrero. Despite getting two quick strikes on Vlady, Masterson walked the free swinging Guerrero. Masterson then uncorked a wild pitch before giving up a two run single to Torii Hunter to tie the game.
The Angels had G-d on their side going into the 9th. Or did they? The Sox received some divine intervention. With pinch runner Reggie Willits on third, Erick Aybar was attempting a squeeze play but Willits ran too far down the line and Sox catcher Jason Varitek chased Willits back to the third base bag and tagged him out. Angels manager Mike Scioscia was incensed because Varitek dropped the ball after he had tagged Willits. But the umpire was not heaven sent for the Halos.
With one out in the bottom of the 9th, Jason Bay hit a ball that went past Willits in right field but it bounced up in the stands which made it a ground rule double. Mark Kotsay hit a wicked line drive down the first base line which would have won the game had Teixeira not made an amazing catch. But Red Sox rookie shortstop Jed Lowrie singled in Bay who made a mad dash for home and a date with the Rays in St. Pete. For the third time in five years the Sox eliminated the Angels in the ALDS. The Sox will also play their fourth ALCS in the last six seasons.
While I thought the Rays would dispatch with the Chisox I also thought (as did many in Red Sox Nation) the Red Sox would not get past the Angels. However, I do not think the Sox will get past the Rays. Now one can attribute this to the power of negative thinking and New England pessimism that comes with falling leaves. But I see the Rays as a hungrier team. Not that much hungrier but just enough. The Red Sox will be competitive but the Tampa Bay Rays are to baseball what the New York Giants were to the NFL last season. They are a team of destiny and they will not be denied. The Rays in six.
Thus I foresee a Rays-Dodgers World Series. Even though Manny Ramirez is intimately familar with Tampa pitching they are also familiar with him. The Rays in five.
Barney Frank Says Criticism of Fannie & Freddie By Conservatives Is Racially Motivated
Speaking at a seminar on mortgage foreclosures today in Boston, Barney Frank claimed conservative criticisms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is racially motivated. (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2008_10_06_Barney_Frank_Conservatives_trying_to_blame_economic_woes_on_blacks/):
The bizarre notion that the Community Reinvestment Act ...somehow is the cause of the whole problem (conservatives) don't mind that. They're aware that the affordable housing goals of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac & the Community Reinvestment Act (aim to help) poor people. And let's be honest, the fact that some poor people are black doesn't hurt either from their standpoint.
Methinks Barney Frank needs another lashing from Bill O'Reilly.
When a liberal is in doubt they call conservatives racist. Frank is trying to obfuscate his incompetence as House Financial Service Committee Chairman. Fannie & Freddie were poorly managed and overextended credit to people who were not in a position to make good on their promises to pay. Needless to say, there was very little oversight from Congress. That means you, Mr. Frank. Poor management of Fannie and Freddie aren't the only trouble with the economy but they cannot be held blameless either.
I have no problem with an ownership society. People have a greater stake in something they own. But it has to be done under the proper conditions where individual success can be maximized. Otherwise it is yet another trip to hell on the primrose path of good intentions.
Unless Frank can point to a specific statement by a Republican politician, the Republican National Committee or a conservative commentator he succeeds only in diminishing his reputation and trivializing the serious matter that racism is.
The bizarre notion that the Community Reinvestment Act ...somehow is the cause of the whole problem (conservatives) don't mind that. They're aware that the affordable housing goals of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac & the Community Reinvestment Act (aim to help) poor people. And let's be honest, the fact that some poor people are black doesn't hurt either from their standpoint.
Methinks Barney Frank needs another lashing from Bill O'Reilly.
When a liberal is in doubt they call conservatives racist. Frank is trying to obfuscate his incompetence as House Financial Service Committee Chairman. Fannie & Freddie were poorly managed and overextended credit to people who were not in a position to make good on their promises to pay. Needless to say, there was very little oversight from Congress. That means you, Mr. Frank. Poor management of Fannie and Freddie aren't the only trouble with the economy but they cannot be held blameless either.
I have no problem with an ownership society. People have a greater stake in something they own. But it has to be done under the proper conditions where individual success can be maximized. Otherwise it is yet another trip to hell on the primrose path of good intentions.
Unless Frank can point to a specific statement by a Republican politician, the Republican National Committee or a conservative commentator he succeeds only in diminishing his reputation and trivializing the serious matter that racism is.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
AP Accuses Palin of Racism
In response to Sarah Palin accusing Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists", Associated Press writer Douglass K. Daniel has resorted to the first refuge of scroundels and has injected the race card into the matter. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/PALINS_WORDS_ANALYSIS?SITE=KYB6G&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE)
Specifically, Daniel claims Palin's statement have a "racially tinged subtext." Gee, the last time I checked Bill Ayers is white. But this does not matter to Daniel:
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
In a post-September 11th America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago.
First, this isn't a false image. Ayers hosted Obama's very first fundraiser. They palled around. Second, liberal Democratic black politicians are above a whisper of criticism in the world of Daniel and the liberal media. Third, Americans still remember Timothy McVeigh as a terrorist and he was as white as rice. Fourth, if McCain was alleged to have had an association with McVeigh or any other terrorist even if it weren't true, Daniel and the liberal media would report it as fact because they have a vested interest in an Obama victory. Fifth, by accusing Palin of racism they cheapen the meaning of racism and therefore cheapen themselves. Sixth, as usual, Daniel and the liberal media sell the American public short. Finally, as Palin herself said the AP is just wrong. This is about's Obama judgment not his race. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Specifically, Daniel claims Palin's statement have a "racially tinged subtext." Gee, the last time I checked Bill Ayers is white. But this does not matter to Daniel:
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
In a post-September 11th America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago.
First, this isn't a false image. Ayers hosted Obama's very first fundraiser. They palled around. Second, liberal Democratic black politicians are above a whisper of criticism in the world of Daniel and the liberal media. Third, Americans still remember Timothy McVeigh as a terrorist and he was as white as rice. Fourth, if McCain was alleged to have had an association with McVeigh or any other terrorist even if it weren't true, Daniel and the liberal media would report it as fact because they have a vested interest in an Obama victory. Fifth, by accusing Palin of racism they cheapen the meaning of racism and therefore cheapen themselves. Sixth, as usual, Daniel and the liberal media sell the American public short. Finally, as Palin herself said the AP is just wrong. This is about's Obama judgment not his race. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
