Wednesday, October 29, 2008

An interesting question. . .

. . .left mostly unanswered.

Tonight on FoxNews, Brit Hume asked his panel if they thought that the main-stream media outlets that have performed almost criminally bad during this election would ever face repraisials from the public?

In the way that the panel goes, the question was slightly modified as it moved from commentor to commentor, so the only one who got to answer that "simple" question was Fred Barnes, who said what I think is the obvious answer: no.

And I agree with that--EXCEPT for one very possible outcome wherein the large media probably would feel the wrath.

IF an Obama administration ends up doing some of the really odd things that they've talked about (civilian security force, ending tax benefits on 401ks) AS WELL AS "spread the wealth" from people who really didn't think they'd ever be in "giving" mode (i.e. raised taxes on people earning under $250K) AND there isn't a fairly noticeable increase in confidence among moderates and the middle class, people might start asking questions.

You know, crazy questions. . .like "why doesn't my company have a 401k anymore? And why am I losing an additional 6% of my paycheck to the federal government? And why are my income taxes higher this year than they were in 2008? And how did I become a union worker?"

Worst-case scenario is that they have to also ask "why is milk almost double what it was in 2008? Why is gas back to $4 a gallon? And didn't there used to be an Israel somewhere on the map? What happened to (insert major American city name here)?"

Those can be some tough questions--but they'll be asked IF the personal burden we all will feel is not matched by some fairly obvious gains in the overall state of the country.

And when those questions come, those of us "in the know" this election can say: "I knew about the 401K thing from FoxNews. . .HotAir was all over that new hike in payments from my salary to the government. . .ya' know, all 3 of the guys at Powerline predicted that Obama's tax plan would eventually mean higher taxes for everybody who isn't on the receiving end of his wealth "spread". . .the LA Times had evidence that Obama was very comfortable hanging out with officials from the PLO--there's no way he was ever going to lift a hand for Israel. . .etc etc"

And as all the moderates who didn't take enough time to learn the right's criticisms of this liberal candidate before they voted for him realize that they'd been played for a fool by the mainstream media folks, they will move their news-gathering activities to FoxNews and to center-right blogs.

Assuming, of course, that such outlets are still in existence.

BEFORE I am accused of hoping for horrible things to happen to the country if Obama wins on Tuesday, please know that I will greet his Presidency with an open mind. And IF Obama's administration proves to be successful in all the things that I look for from my government (protection of the Bill of Rights, good environments for law enforcement and national security agencies to do their jobs, an economic and regulatory policy that allows for the upward mobility of deserving individuals, and appropriate levels of support for allies who have stood with us through difficult times)--then I'm going to have to do some serious soul-searching in the next election. Of course, if Obama is successful on my personal "report card for American Government", then none of the things I wrote about above are going to happen.

But IF they do, I think people will wonder why their President hasn't delivered; why their Agent of Hopenchange isn't "the Obama that I thought I knew". And I think the answer they'll arrive at is going to put a good share of the "blame" on the media outlets they used to get their news this cycle.

And thus there will be repraisal.

AS LONG AS there's still an outlet for counter-mainstream reporting.

Sadly, that is not a guarantee. But it's not like the center-right media hasn't been warning about it!

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

how to attack the coalition

In my last post, I talked about the powerful coalition that Obama has built that may very well bring him victory next Tuesday.

As an aside, I would also add in that this coalition is entirely legitimate; Obama can also count on quite an effort from a "coalition" of illegitimate sources. But that's a post for another day.

But I also wrote that the game is not over yet. This coalition can be attacked.


First, what not to do: don't rely strictly on a "socialism" argument. Don't get me wrong, the economy has GOT to be part of his pitch. But stop using a word that is easily slapped away. You attack this by pointing out the actual history of "sharing the wealth". I'd imagine that one of the attractions of that ideology is that, while "current" wealth--you know, the wealth that the recipients of the spreading aren't part of--feels a pinch, there is still a chance of creating "new" wealth, who learn to thrive under the new rules. Well, the problem is that--historically--there has not been a new class to rise up and thrive. And once that is set as the foundation, then you start talking about how wealth "spreading" ALWAYS ends up putting a damper on innovation and market mobility. But much time should not be spent on this--it's unlikely to pursuade any fence-sitters to McCain's side with this argument. Fortunately, it's also unlikely that Obama's economic plan is going to sway any fence-sitters to his side. So a quick throw to first to keep the runner close, and then we can rock back and bring some good stuff to home plate.

And what to bring to home plate? Easy: show that Obama's promises are just like any other politician's promises: empty.

Do I believe that Obama will attempt income redistribution? Of course--but that doesn't matter. Show these hopeful low-income earners--the ones that Obama has targeted with his "spread the wealth" policy-- that Obama has made promises in the past that he hasn't lived up to, and MAYBE their confidence can be shaken.

Exhibit #1: Englewood Gardens, Chicago.

Exhibit #2: the school in Kenya named after Obama, schooling the children from Obama's ancestral tribe.

Exhibit #3: Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi. Granted, they don't exactly attack his "politician" side--but they do raise questions about Obama's character. Highlighting the fact that he has been a man who will "say, associate with, and do anything" to get to the positions to which he aspires may make some wonder if he ever means anything that he says.

Ugly? Well, no. . .or at least it doesn't have to be. Heck, "attack" words don't even have to be used. Just show the press release (or whatever it was) where Obama talked about his vision of Englewood Gardens. . .and a picture of how it looks.

Then show the letter pledging "support" to the school in Kenya--also with a picture of how it looks today. If there's video of Obama's appearance at the school in 2006, that would be a nice lead-in, too.

The ad with Wright, Ayers, et al, needs not even feature any backdrop--just these men in their own words and actions--coupled with OBAMA'S words about their actions.

The implication would be clear--but how can the left argue about it?

Which doesn't mean they won't--of course they will. But they will be selling some awful thin gruel.

Obama's "coalition of power"--UPDATED

. . .as applied to the economics argument of the 2008 election.

You may recognize the quoted words in the title as being part of a 2001 interview given by Obama (more info here). While that interview is worth reading, it honestly has little to do with this article other than to provide the foundation.

What I found striking about the interview was not his adherence to socialist economic dogma (WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING A SOCIALIST!!!)--but rather how intelligent he was in understanding how he could bring that change about to the country.

Fast forward to 2008. We on the right are so THRILLED when he "lets slip" his true economic beliefs in a random encounter with the now-famous Joe the Plumber.

But here's the problem: I don't think it's a "slip" at all. In fact, the way that Obama's team has pivoted on the remark makes me think that they set this up all along. And, in fact, by making this a key theme of his message for the last few weeks, McCain is absolutely playing into Obama's hands on this topic. Here's how:

If Obama wins the nomination, he will do so on the backs of the 40% of Americans who don't pay Uncle Sam income taxes.

But even a perception-challenged man like me understands that 40% isn't enough ALONE.

Well, they're not alone. He's also going to get an additional 15% of the rest of the country that subscribes to his liberal ideology.

And that, my friends, is a coalition.

Think about it: he will garner greater voter turnout in the lower income brackets than has any other candidate in a long time because THEY are the target of his economic policies to a degree that no other candidate has ever been able to sell. There may well be a degree of racial component there, too--but at this stage of the game it's IMPOSSIBLE to say that race is the ONLY reason ANYBODY is going to vote for Obama. Specifically with this group of low-income earners, Obama has made an appeal to them economically and even through his actions (community organizer and the like). He is literally a man who has walked their streets and who understands--AND WHO IS STRAIGHT-FORWARD ABOUT HIS PLANS TO FIX--their pain. He relates to them as nobody has before. The bottom line is this: this block of voters is going to vote, and they are overwhemlingly going to vote for Obama.

But again, that's not enough votes to get to power. So how to seal the deal? Simple: be an unapologetic lefty. I GUARANTEE that there are enough liberals in the middle-class, upper-middle class and even the upper-class of this country to provide him with the votes necessary to win this election, and they love the fact that he speaks to their ideals without shame and without pause. The only reason these people had NOT to vote for Obama--questions about his economic policies--went out the window with the recent and current troubles in the financial sector. In short, there's NO reason for this group of people not to vote for Obama. And again, it has NOTHING to do with race!

So is this thing done? Of course not. First of all, Obama will likely not win 55% of the popular vote. The above numbers are just loose approximations--my guess is he wins about 51% of the popular vote. But as we know, that does NOT win him the election in and of itself, and the electoral college is a tricky thing. Will there be enough pockets of supporters for him in the right places to swing the White House his direction?

Only time will tell, but I do have hope, for one reason: I don't think Obama's coalition will have "grown" much since the primaries. In other words, while I fully expect a LARGE majority of Clinton backers to vote for Obama because they also hail from Obama's coalition, I think the votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and other battlegrounds fall back on political "moderates". And honestly, I don't know how Obama's message resonates with them, and it is from this block that McCain must attack in the next couple days.

UPDATE: I moved my proposed attack strategy to a whole new post.

Monday, October 27, 2008

I know I shouldn't be surprised by this. . .

. . .not anymore, at least. But I'm telling you, strolling through Obama's website it absolutely confounds me that this man has a chance to be our next President.

My son (5th grade) is doing a project wherein he has to compare the economic plans of the two major party candidates. I like projects like these, because they actually make me smarter, too (of course, reading the Sunday comics does that also). After I got done teaching him some very basic concepts, we started diving into the "economy" page on the two candidates' websites.

I had a short-circuit of logic when I reached Obama's "Support Small Business" section.

Two points highlighted on his website:

Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama and Biden will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.

Okay, I'm no rocket scientist, but does a $500 credit for your employment mean that much to a small business owner? Granted, it's better than nothing--but I don't think that $500 is going to be the difference between a continuing operation and shuttered windows.

And while eliminating capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses is fine and dandy, color me skeptical that this one will see an Obama signature anytime soon. His entire fiscal platform shows him to be a Capital Gains taxer, and I just don't see him drawing a line at small businesses--which, by the way, HE and he alone will define. I'm just sayin'. . .

Next: Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. Obama and Biden will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country.

EVEN IF these incubators succeed in establishing an entrepreneurial environment in disadvantaged communities. . .am I the only one who wonders just how effectively that $250M will be spent? When I think of Obama and "money for disadvantaged communities", I think of Englewood Gardens in Chicago. Wasn't that a $100,000 earmark from Obama (then a representative in the Illinois government) that went to an Obama supporter that did NOT get spent on its intended purpose? I mean, this is one area where Obama DOES have a track record--a record of throwing money at a problem and not getting anything close to the publicly-announced intended results. I guess I should be happy that $250M is just a drop in the bucket of this guy's budget, right?

So on his own website talking about support for small businesses, he only mentions 3 initiatives: no capital gains tax, a $500 tax credit for workers to ease the burden of payroll taxes, and increased spending on business incubators. Or, as my scorecard plays it: a good idea that will likely fall to his (or Congress') tax-and-spend instincts, a small credit that does little to ease the tax burden on small businesses, and an inner-city slush fund that MAY prove to be beneficial. . .but based on Obama's track record, I wouldn't count on it.

Color me underwhelmed!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

words that need to appear on the stump STAT

If only I could write stuff that McCain would actually use!

"Sen. Obama is the Democrats' nominee for President in large part because he made the primaries a referendum on judgement. And that line may have played well with the leftist voters of the country, who were looking to cast aside Senators Clinton, Edwards--and even Joe Biden--for their initial support for the war in Iraq. But a man whose "judgement" appeals to the far left in this country is a man whose judgement will not appeal to the vast majority of this country , and he knows that, which is probably why he's dropped "judgement" as his chief qualification for the Presidency.

But that doesn't mean that his judgement isn't very important. Every day in the Oval Office will be a day where the President's judgement is tested--numerous times at that. So despite the fact that Obama doesn't want you talking about his judgement anymore, I think it's essential that we do such.

. . .

And I think a lot can be told about Obama's judgement by who he selected as his Vice Presidential running mate. Sen. Biden was thrust upon the Democrats and possibly the country by no one other than Sen. Obama, so I think it is essential that we understand that man in order to get a better summary of Obama's judgement. And please keep in mind: Obama wants the country to put Joe Biden one heartbeat away from being President of the United States.

That one hearbeat separates us from a person who doesn't even know that the Vice President has a day-to-day obligation to fulfill in the United States Senate. If you watched Biden at the VP debate, you would've swore that he'd never seen a Vice President in the Senate's chambers until current Vice President Cheney was inaugurated. Let me assure you--nothing is further from the truth, both Constitutionally and in reality. Of course, when Biden's talking, you have to sometimes suspend your understanding of reality in order to get on the same page from which he's reading.

For example, if you watched that same VP debate, you saw Biden claim without a moment's hesitation that Hezbollah had been kicked out of Lebanon due to a joint U.S.-French effort. Let me tell you that in this reality, unfortunately such an event never took place. The degree to which Biden speaks of events that never occurred is frightening and very dangerous--especially coming from a man who Senator Obama looks to for foreign policy strength and understanding.

More about that foreign policy understanding: Biden is a man who not just opposed the surge, which despite the Democrat's attempts to downplay has led to a major reversal of fortune in Iraq and brought us within sight of victory (pause for applause here)--Biden is a man who had a counter proposal to the surge: split Iraq into three separate countries based along ethnic lines. That initiative would've led to a real civil war in Iraq at a minimum, and would have practically guaranteed a large-scale regional instability for many years to come. Few ideas presented in the early 2007 timeframe were as dangerous and wrong as the tri-state solution in Iraq, yet that was the "judgement" of Joe Biden.

But that bad judgement--or bad memory--of events doesn't just plague Biden on the foreign policy stage. Joe Biden is as personally responsible for the hyper-partisan tone of Washington DC as is anybody. He--to this day--takes great pride in politicizing and thereby ruining the process of confirming judges nominated to the Federal Bench. Senatorial "advice" of a Presidential nominee to the bench should consist of one question and one question only: is this person a qualified jurist? That is the standard by which the Republican party acted with respect to President Clinton's nominees, both of which I voted to confirm despite deep ideological disagreements. Conversely, Sen. Biden has turned the confirmation hearings of conservative judges into a spectacle, where he happily takes center stage to score cheap political points at the expense of highly qualified public servants. If you're looking for more action and less empty rhetoric from your leadership, you would do well to go back and review his "questioning" of Judge Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Bork. You will not see a pretty picture--and again, these performances on the Senate stage are things that Biden takes great pride in, as he himself said at the VP debate.

Obama's and Biden's judgement are now linked together, and I think that any careful analysis of either man's words or deeds will leave you with one conclusion:

What is it that either of these guys have done that qualifies them to be in the White House?"

Friday, October 24, 2008

Why Biden was wrong

You know, so much has been made of Biden's words on Sunday that I'm kinda surprised I haven't seen anybody just flat-out call him wrong.

And would you believe that I'm the guy to do that?

Well, I am. . .but don't sell me down the river just yet.

Will Obama, if he wins, be tested in the first 6 months of his Presidency? I believe so. . .but I don't think it will be in the manner that Biden describes.

No, Biden depicted a world wherein a major international crisis is mounted against American interests--you know, the kind of crisis that will test the "mettle" of Obama. And while that MAY happen, my guess is that any "generated" international crisis before, say, August 2009 will be relatively minor in scale.

Leaving Obama's "mettle" untested. . .and that's just where the bad guys want him whn they try to spring their trap!

So why won't this major attack happen soonest? First off, Obama will be inheriting a world that was just presided over by George Bush. And that world isn't ready to attack America just yet. They may dearly want to, but they won't be able to--at least not to the degree which they hope.

Secondly, there is one great truth in America today: the next occupant of the Oval Office that presides over a major attack on American interests is going to have to pay the piper. There's no more "we didn't think it could ever happen"--we live in a world where it has happened, and we know that others are trying to make it happen again. There's no valid excuse--and the American people will not tolerate an adminstration that left us vulnerable. Period.

So if I'm Russia, or Iran, or just some non-state entity that wants to see America fall--not hurt, mind you, but FALL--I realize I've got only one round in the magazine. And I'm gonna make it count.

Thirdly, there are dozens of "minor" crises that could be scripted by some international actor that could actually help feed America down the wrong path. American success--however that is defined--in a truly "generated" crisis COULD ultimately make key elements of our national security/foreign policy weaker (the old "win the battle, lose the war" analogy). Trust me, "dozens" may be too generous--as involved on the international stage as we are, there are hundreds of possible events that, while "good" for our standing in the short term, could end up leaving our ability to deal with a major attack lacking.

And that's when the major attack happens.

That moment isn't going to be in the first six months. . .or the first year. . .or necessarily in the first two years (it kinda depends on how the mid-terms are looking in 2010).

But it will be plotted, just as it has been plotted ad nauseum for every day for the last 15 years at least: a massive, foundation-shaking attack that leaves America stunned and weak. Not "weakened"--weak.

The question is this: will the Obama administration have the right policies, assets and judgement in place that help prevent that attack?

The greater the calendar distance from 9/11, the greater the chance that the answer to that question is "no".

And THAT'S why there won't be a major international crisis immediately in an Obama administration. (Unless, of course, he totally blows the smaller crises he's presented with--then all bets are off)

So Sen. Biden, you were wrong.

Feel better, America? No? Well, then I guess you should VOTE MCCAIN!, and avoid all this unnecessary worry.

two things this mid-day

1) Why hasn't John McCain used the following line:

"I may have agreed with George Bush on 90% of the issues that were voted on the Senate floor. But that's a heckuva lot better than voting with Harry Reid 100% of the time"

I was in FL last week, and the most effective TV ad for McCain that I saw was about 25 seconds of highlighting exactly who and what is going to be in charge of Congress for the next 2 years, and then asking: who is going to stop them and their plans? Obama, or John McCain? This is a theme that he needs to hit hard on, ESPECIALLY in Western PA.

Not to mention, he needs to stop berating the last 8 years, and focus specifically on the last 2. Who was asleep at the switch when Fannie and Freddie hit the fan? DEMS! (of course, it would help if he would not use the word "deregulation" and start using the word "oversight" more often) Who had no appropriate response when gas prices hit the fan this summer? DEMS! THAT needs to be his focus--well, not just the inability of the DEMS to do anything good for this country, but also Obama's utter inability to go against the Congression DEM leadership. THAT is a message that may just hit home--and who knows, it might even have coattails?

2) I just saw a story on Fox News telling of how there are already hundreds of absentee ballots in Fairfax County, VA that will likely not be counted by the registrar. Since this is Virginia, this has the makings of a big story. . .but I've gotta tell you, there's nothing to see here.

The issue is with Federeal Write-in Absentee ballots, which is a method for absentee voters to vote if they haven't received state absentee ballots. Let me first state that the FWAB has, in my opinion, a dangerously low threshold of identity authentication in place. And since there are even some states that allow for FWAB registration AND voting on the same ballot, this is an arena through which voter fraud could occur. I am happy to find ANY registrar (or other "vote counter") that takes this business seriously, because otherwise it could be a real mess.

States vary on their requirements to get an FWAB counted, and therefore there are elements on the ballot that say "if required". The directions for Virginia CLEARLY state that the ballot must be witnessed, signed by the witness, and the witness must provide their address--but since other states (Florida, for example) do NOT require the witness' address, that block on the FWAB says "if required". Apparently there are a lot of these ballots in the Fairfax County registrar's office that do not have the witness' address. I'm sorry, I'd love for these votes to be counted too--but if the ballot doesn't meet the states' requirements, they go in the crapper. Period.

Now what if this registrar isn't treating all ballots with equal scrutiny? Well, THAT would be an issue. But lacking any evidence that such is the case, this is really a non-story.

The good news? If the absentee voters hear this story, they still have time to submit a complete FWAB. We just need to make sure the word gets out.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

takes one to know one

Sen. Obama talked today about his running mate's comments from yesterday--you know, when Biden said, "mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy".

What did the silver-tongued senator have to say about his ticket partner?

"Joe sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes, but I think his core point was that the next administration is going to be tested, regardless of who it is."

Sorry, Senator, I ain't buying it. I'm not that stupid.

First off, it is perfectly clear from Biden's reference to a "brilliant 47-year old" that he was talking specifically of Obama. You can try to spin it some other way, but honestly, someone should tell Obama that trying to say Biden wasn't talking about him is unsightly. Or, more to the point, saying such a blatant lie SHOULD be beneath him. How come nobody is focusing on how crazy this assertion is? I mean, if he'll lie about this, what won't he lie about?

(And yes, I said "lie"--get over it. Clearly there is intent to deceive here, so obvious is the degree of untruth. Obama isn't dumb, we are told, so there's absolutely no way he can look at the actual quote and not realize that Biden was talking about him and him alone.)

I am starting to think that young Obama doesn't learn very well.

He first tried to downplay Rev. Wright's horrible horrible words. . .only to be burned later.

Then he tried to downplay his role in the Illinois legislature's no-vote on the BAIPA-like legislation. . .leaving his campaign to correct the record later.

And someday, and maybe soon, he's going to be brought to task for his "dissembling" on William Ayers. Or so I can hope.

And then there's today.

Listen, what Biden said was one of two things: immensely dumb, or frighteningly true.

Neither one of those count as mere "rhetorical fluorish".

But of course, since neither one of those options would be a politically tenable explanation, then he's gotta go the famous "third way".

Which, of course, is not remotely based in reality.

"New politics," indeed. This guy is soooo much like every other politician we've ever known that it is just amazing that he still has any audience.
Obama this afternoon in Richmond, VA, responding to criticism that he is a socialist:

Was John McCain a socialist back in 2000 when he opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Cause all I’m trying to do is reverse those so that we can give relief to people who really need help. It’s not a very plausible argument that he’s making right now"

Ummm. . .Senator, before you judge "implausible" arguments, you should try to not make some yourself.

First off, it's worth pointing out that if "all he's trying to do" is reverse Bush's tax cuts, then we'd be back in Clinton-era tax policy. Are you, Senator, implying that Clinton was Socialist?

I think not.

If ALL YOU WERE DOING was reversing the Bush tax cuts, that wouldn't mean money from the rich would directly find it's way to the poor. Higher taxes by themselves means that some people pay more TO THE GOVERNMENT, but the government uses that money to fund it's programs--NOT to turn around and hand that money to the poorer of us. That's what "spreading the wealth" means, and that's what you said.

Key distinction. Big, big difference.

You know, I think it's quite instructive how this man can never just admit that he misspoke. He said something pretty darn stupid when asked a question on a beautiful walk through everywhere America a couple weeks ago. If Obama would just say "I didn't explain myself very well," this thing would've been over long ago.

Instead he has doubled-down on it, implying that McCain's initial opposition to Bush's tax cuts make him Socialist, too. That's just not a winning argument EVEN IF it was an argument that could be sold.

Bad policy. Bad politics.

Keep harping on him, McCain.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Watching O'Reilly

I've become a pretty big fan of Bill O'Reilly on Fox. Not the "set the Tivo" kind of fan, but if I happen to be in a room with a TV on during the right hour, I have no problem kicking my feet up and watching the man do his business.

Tonight he hosted Newt Gingrich, who was laboring to make the case that Obama's ties to Ayers means that Obama is a socialist.

THAT IS NOT WHAT AYERS MEANS TO THIS ELECTION! (for more on that, see this post here)

Listen, Obama is a liberal, high-tax guy, there's no question about that. Is he a socialist? Well. . .maybe. But that is an argument that needs to be made on the points, not just on associations.

Encyclopedia Brittanica (online) describes socialism as a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources"

Does "spreading the wealth" equal socialism? I am unconvinced that the answer to that question is "yes". Obviously, you don't have socialism without a more equitable spreading of wealth throughout the population than you would find in, say, capitalism--but that doesn't mean that wealth redistribution on its own equates directly to socialism.

As long as we have private enterprise (or more precisely, a government that allows private enterprise), we do not have socialism.

How many times have we conservatives ourselves said "just because so-and-so says this is the way it is, that doesn't make it true."

Well, Obama's "take from the rich and give to the poor"--as horrible of a recipe as that is for economic growth--is not socialism. Yes, it's a good way towards socialism--but it ain't even close to all the way there.

And I think O'Reilly deflected this back very well on two separate fronts, and in two seperate manners (one with Newt and one with a later guest): first with Newt, O'Reilly opined that it is going to be too tough to make the "socialist" meme stick in the last two weeks of the election, especially with the environment that currently exists thanks to the media. The greatest truth to this logic is that, as I hopefully have done above, it is very easy to dismiss the socialist attack because Obama has yet to talk about property as if it belongs to the government.

(Again, I must stress, socialism MAY BE what Obama hopes to do--but that is an argument that must be made on merits, not by horrible associations with radicals. And I don't think that's been done yet--and I DEFINITELY agree with O'Reilly that even if it can be done, I doubt it will have time to sink in before the election.)

Secondly, the more and more that Obama's "moment" with Joe Wurzelbacher gets played, the more people will hear "spread the wealth around". Now I happen to believe that this is a poor recipe for economic recovery and growth--especially the latter--but as O'Reilly noted, if YOU are one of the people who is suffering an economic crunch due to the filthy capitalists (read: CEOs) looking out for their own interests rather than the interests of the investors in their company, then you probably don't mind thinking that you're going to be getting a little piece of their ill-gotten pie. Heck, such a promise might be very darn attractive to you.

We need to show that this road, this "spread the wealth around" road is not a road that this country wants to go down.

The only people who "win" (used very loosely) in that situation are those who earn nothing or next-to-nothing on their own. And they likely--very likely--won't be making out like superstars. They'll have more, to be sure, but I doubt they'll be chin-high in arugula and caviar. (Didn't you hear? Those things are only for the CHAMPIONS of the little people, not for the little people themselves. Silly you! Apparently you didn't learn anything from Silky Pony)

And eventually, when the corporate taxes have led to enough job losses and other forms of work-compensation contraction that the rules of the game have been adjusted for the new reality, current "middle class" earners will be targeted to help fund the government's "wealth redistribution" program. The current level of "wealthshare" is (supposedly) $250K from day one. . .what will the magic level be in year 3?

Oh, and even before that happens, those corporate taxes have led to price increases (those horrible corporations won't go quiet into that goodnight, I assure you of that). Your middle-class dollars have less value--and then they become a gift to someone else.

There is no "growth" here. Recovery? Not even close. Transformation?


But not in the kind of way that would lead self-respecting moderates to endorse this man and his plans.

In sum, Obama CAN be attacked for a poor economic plan that has TRACES of socialism at a time when we need to set free market principles loose in order to expand opportunities to folks of all classes.

This entire financial meltdown is a result of government intervention in our finacial sector--why would we look for more of that, and on a more personal level than at any other time in our country's history?

Just leave the "Obama = Ayers = Socialism" stuff on the sidelines. It's too hard to make that case. The best you can do with Ayers along this line of attack is "Obama is comfortable around socialists," and that is some pretty weak gruel.

But if you make the case that "Obama is comfortable around anti-American radicals who used violent means to express their disdain for the government". . .well, then we're talking about a case to be made.

It's just not an economic case.

Don't get your lines of attack confused here--message discipline is critical if we're going to make a run in these late stages.

Monday, October 20, 2008

a line that must be used over and over again

Some variation of "I'd put as much faith in Obama's pledge to (insert random centrist mantra here) as much as I believe that he ever meant to use public financing."

Of course, when he makes remarkably liberal or naive assertions (like "I will meet with all the bad guys in the world with preconditions")--well, we let that stand on its own.

But lowering taxes? Education reform by fighting the teacher's unions? Energy independence without crippling your lifestyle?

The beauty of this line is that it uses Obama's own hypocrisy (on public financing) as the rope to hang all the rest of his moderate positions.

Because we all know that Obama won't deliver "moderate" as President.

AND HE MAY HONESTLY INTEND to be a moderate leader.

But he lacks the courage to actually govern that way.

He didn't stand up to Jeremiah Wright as the "Reverend" was spewing some of the most vile, racist stuff that has seen the light of day in many a year. He won't stand up to the ghost of Bill Ayers ("assuming" instead that the man has reformed) or FOR Joe Wurzelbacher.

What on earth makes you think he'll stand up to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Is this too much?

How about the following ad:

"Joe Wurzelbacher asked a question of Barack Obama--on his own property, and only after Obama initiated the conversation while Wurzelbacher was going about his daily business. (transcript of Obama's words on the screen) Obama answered the question in his own words, candidly, honestly, and without the aid of a teleprompter. In response to this encounter and understanding the danger of the real Obama being seen by voters, the media has viciously attacked Joe the plumber, a hard-working American who engaged in nothing more ominous than asking a question of a candidate. Obama stands silent while the media commits this act of character barbarism in the protection of their preferred candidate.

Obama's campaign has launched Action Alerts, engaging hundreds if not thousands of people to appear at broadcast stations that were about to interview journalists that had been investigating Obama's past, in an attempt to intimidate and silence the journalist before the results of their research could be made public. Obama stands silent in the face of this assault on the First Amendment that is coordinated by his very own campaign.

ACORN has fraudulently filed hundreds of thousands of voter registrations, laying the groundwork for voter fraud on such a scale that the results of your vote may have already been rendered worthless. This important election could be won by Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboy offensive line--that is voting in Nevada. Democrats used to fight disenfrachisement when there was so much of a rumor of it occuring. This democrat, however, stands silent in the face of this rampant virtual disenfranchisement of millions of voters.

Obama. An eloquent speaker. But when honest Americans have their life, their work, and the value of their participation in this democracy attacked. . .his silence is deafening."


Elections--especially general elections--take place over long periods of time. The issue at the forefront of the primary season, for example, is not necessarily the issue that is at the forefront when the general election nears.

The key, then, is to be a candidate uniquely suited to deal with all the issues in an easy manner.

Now it's hard to say what issue Americans are "most" conscientious of as we round into the last couple weeks. But I have my nomination: voter fraud.

Financial problems? Yes, very very important. But personally, I don't think a recession that is already being acted on by the current government is AS important as the UNDERMINING OF OUR WAY OF LIFE!

The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Voter fraud promises to undermine the promise of that beautiful document by putting in place a government that derives its powers unjustly from the efforts of the biggest cheaters. And once those efforts result in one false election. . .who knows in what direction the country will be steered.

In my humble opinion, voter fraud represents the greatest threat to our democracy today.

Not terrorism. Not illegal immigration. Not eeeeevil George Bush and Dick Cheney, or their surrogate Hank Paulson. Voter fraud.

And this is an issue that Barack Obama, by virtue of (in small part) his long-running ties with ACORN and (in much larger part) his unwillingness to call ACORN out for their illicit activities, is on the wrong side of what decent, honest Americans want to see.

Obama has tried to "distance" himself from ACORN--but that doesn't solve the problem. (An Obama specialty!)

If he truly wants to solve the problem--and stand up for DEMOCRACY--he needs to DENOUNCE ACORN, publicly, clearly and without nuance. ACORN's ability to function would be severely hampered if no less of a luminary than Obama publicly called their activities "un-American".

In the meantime, Sen. McCain should author and publicly demand that Obama sponsors a piece of legislation that calls for an immediate verification of all registrations produced by ACORN throughout this country.

The great Abraham Lincoln once described ours as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," and implored Americans to persevere through the Civil war in order to ensure that such a government does not perish from the earth.

Well, that form of government is once again under attack. Will Americans realize how serious this issue is while there's still hope to act?

Friday, October 17, 2008

why I don't believe the polls

So today, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that OH SecState Brunner didn't have to do a darn thing about the 200k+ suspicious registrations she's received.

Could the door to voter fraud be any more open?

And THAT'S why I don't believe the polls. If there was an honest, one-vote-for-one-person standard in this upcoming election--like there are in the polls--then it would undoubtedly be pretty close, maybe even closer than some of the polls.

But I have every reason to believe that there is going to be rampant voter fraud this year, and in places where it will be so very devastating to McCain's chances.

How can the polls take the voter fraud into account? Well, they can't.

Hey, Joe (as in Biden, not the plumber): tell me what's honest about ACORN's massive voter registration fraud? Since you think we should all believe that everybody's intentions are always good, tell me what is good about UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY?

Because that's what they're doing. Every fraudulent vote is one more honest person being disenfranchised. It's just that simple. I thought you Dems were staunchly opposed to disenfranchisement?

And the fact that Obama and Biden can't bring themselves to condemn these things is positively nauseating.

I'm sick.

Another missed opportunity--UPDATED

And I don't think he's going to get many more softballs like these.

Tonight on David Letterman, McCain was put through a pretty decent grilling. And I don't find it the least bit objectionable, because they were remarkably straight-forward questions. They just happened to be good, probing questions--the kinds of things that we'd LOVE someone to do to Obama. (Although so generous were the questions that Obama would have passed a similar exam with flying colors.) What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

So how did McCain do? Well, somewhere between awful and really really bad, at least in my opinion.

The most puzzling aspect of the evening to me was when Letterman asked straight-up about William Ayers. There it was, a gift from above, and something that McCain will NEVER be given again. After I got over the shock that Letterman would ask such an easy question, I started salivating, just waiting for the red meat to be swallowed whole. . .

And that is NOT what I got.

First, a generality: Team McCain, please understand that William Ayers is a big deal because he's a big deal to himself and to the extremist movement in this country. Here is a man who sought violent means to rebel against the U.S. Government and who has NEVER APOLOGIZED for it.

And it's that lack of contrition--still very current today-- that combines with the extremity of his actions from yesteryear that make him a perfect example of the kind of guy that should not be "normalized" by our leaders.

And by "normalized", I mean the kind of guy that can be described as "a guy from down the street", or "a college professor in the University of Illinois system"--or any of the other wonderful gloss-bys that Obama has used this campaign season.

Now I don't care how close Ayers and Obama are, were or will ever be. I really don't. Proximity is not the reason that I think Ayers is a troublesome figure in Obama's life.

I care that the leaders of my government can look at someone who responded violently against the government's interests and realize that the "actor" should be shunned until he makes a genuine effort to rejoin civil society.

All it takes is an apology.

Has Ayers ever apologized for what he did? NO! Has he, in fact, continued in his rebellious ways, celebrating the very freedom our great government provided for him (due to its incompetence, to be sure--but in how many other countries would this guy have been this free for this long with the record of things that he did?) by urging the youth to violently overthrow the authoritative structure of this country?

The issue to me is not WHEN Ayers laid the bombs. The issue is that he EVER laid the bombs or participated in other such activities. . .and he STILL has not sought absolution for those activities. Therefore, he has no place being defended by any leader of this country as anything other than a problem child. Period.

Now, to specifics: Letterman framed his question about Ayers using the traditional "excuse" provided by Obama, saying that the violent actions he did were a long time ago. Why is it an issue today?

Seriously, a softball of that size and comfortable speed may have never existed in the history of Presidential campaign politics.

Is it too hard for McCain to say that acts of violence against the United States make you a pariah, plain and simple. Ayers commited unthinkable acts against innocent Americans, and he has still not apologized for them. Is it too much to ask that leaders in this country treat him as the pariah that he should be?

If Ayers wants to join normal, civil society, he has recourse: he can APOLOGIZE! But he hasn't. And I don't think it's the job of individual candidates to give this guy the time of day--much less legitimize his current status in life!--until such time that Ayers seeks to make peace with America for his actions, regardless of when they occured. People who did what Ayers did should not find a champion of any stature--much less a presidential candidate--until they show some serious reconsideration of their actions. Is that too much to ask?

Obama tries to make him sound like just some plain old college professor. Ayers is anything but that: he's a symbol of the weakness of the American state in protecting its own interests against extremist activity.

And Obama provides this man, his crimes and his ideology unjust legitimacy by "assuming" he's reformed when in fact he has never taken the first step towards changing his ways.

And it's such a simple step.

Shouldn't we all, as a civil society, agree to treat him as a bad guy until he shows that he actually wants to be a part of the America that all the rest of us live in?

McCain didn't even come close to hitting this pitch for a base hit. It was so frustrating. His campaign WANTS to make a big deal out of Ayers, but when given the unbelievable chance to swing for the fences, he was caught with the bat on his shoulder.

It was disgusting.

It's going to be a long 3 weeks!

UPDATE: For the record, IF another McCain surrogate is ever given a chance to answer questions about Ayers between now and the election, here's the 45-second version of why it matters:

"You know, this started out as an issue about Obama's judgement. Months ago--before it received enough attention for it to be taken down--Obama's website called Ayers "mainstream". Now in the America that I think we all love, someone who builds bombs to plant at social events for our uniformed soldiers, someone who attacks public buildings of import such as the Pentagon and the Capitol, and someone who leads an organization that killed policemen is far on the other side of the line from "mainstream". That person, in fact, has to do an awful lot of repayment to society to even cross the line back into "civil", much less to earn the title "mainstream". Where is Ayers' contrition? When did he apologize? What actions has he taken to right the wrongs of his past? What leads Obama to categorize this unrepetant terrorist as "mainstream"? SO right there, there is reason to question Obama's judgement.

And it also brought about other questions, and, I hate to say it, but Obama has not been truthful in answering those questions. And that's what the problem has become: Obama's lack of disclosure to the American people. It's one thing to have made bad judgements in the past; it's a whole other thing to be less than truthful with the American people TODAY. We don't expect our leaders to be perfect--but we do expect them to exercise good judgement, to stand up for the interests of the American government, and to be honest. And in every instance of answering questions about Bill Ayers, Obama has failed those simple tests, and THAT'S what makes Ayers an issue today."

Thursday, October 16, 2008

must-see TV

. . .and must-hear radio and must-read periodical fodder.

Team McCain MUST make an ad to bring the following fiscal truth to the mind of every single voter between now and Nov. 4th:

A federal government that increases expenses by nearly a trillion dollars a year will drain the personal finances of its citizens.


Increasing taxes on just 5% of the population isn't going to cover the price of the new government, no matter what Obama so desperately wants you to believe. At some point, his "plan" is going to hit your pocket. Period.

Things in the economic world don't get done in a bubble. Let's look at one of the few genuine "accomplishments" of the current Congress, shall we? They were proud as peacocks to increase the minimum wage to it's current standard.

What's happened to unemployement since then? It's increased something like 20%, right?

How much of the unemployment increase is due to the minimum wage? I have no idea--but if it's .1%, it's too much. And I'm pretty sure that at least SOME of the unemployment woes we face today are due to the minimum wage hike. Businesses looked at the increased cost of hiring a new worker, and decided to just do without.

The federal government makes policies. The business sector responds. That's how it works.

So Obama is going to start off soaking businesses with taxes (if he isn't after yours--YET--he's gotta get the money from somewhere!). And businesses will respond.

Businesses NEED a certain income in order to pay their employees and invest in the future. And whether it be through increased prices for goods and services (which makes your dollar mean less and less), or whether it be through decreased employee costs (also kown as INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT or decreased wages!!!), YOU, Joe and Jackie Consumer, will indirectly pay for Obama's tax policy on businesses--from day one.

And if enough businesses respond by decreasing their worker rolls. . .well, then that hurts the government's bottom line, right? Then Obama's going to need to find more money somewhere. . .and that's when he comes after your income directly.

It's simple folks: a government that spends more needs more money (just ask BOTH Bill Clinton and George Bush). And since Obama is opposed to any new income sources (HELLO oil!) and he rails against the federal deficit, he's obviously going to just keep soaking the federal government's current income sources to make up the cost of his policies.

And the impetus for all this spending is going to be passed on to you. Period.

Your dollar meaning less. Employers looking for ways to cut costs. Your financial future becoming more and more dependent on the whims of the Federal government.

That's Obama 101. And it needs to be driven home ad nauseum until Nov. 4th.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

a done deal. . .maybe

I was able to tolerate about the last hour of tonight's Presidential debate. From what I'm reading at other sites, apparently I missed McCain's most impressive part of the debate.

Which does not surprise me, because the part that I saw was pretty lame.

Yes, he did get in some decent counters. But more often than not, somewhere along the path of his answer I became lost. Either he was wandering from a good thrust onto something that I thought should have had no bearing on his answer, or he just started off in an "unusual" direction and never really got the helm back on course.

In my humble opinion, of course.

So, I'll call it "uninspiring" by my candidate of choice.

But all is not lost.

As I said, I didn't catch all of the debate. But even in the parts that I did watch, I heard a few whoppers from Obama. Things that are easily repudiated, all around the themes of "not being straight with the American voters."

Will McCain make those ads? Well, he hasn't yet.

But I can hold my breath, right?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

more about that letter

In two separate debates now, Sen. Obama has mentioned a letter he wrote to Paulson and Bernanke about the need to "reign in" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's practices that have now proven to have been too risky.

Really? A letter?

A man who is ONE OF 100 PEOPLE in the country who get to say "I'm a U.S. Senator", a man who already had established himself as telegenic and rather eloquent, and a man who, due to his history as a community organizer, offered a unique perspective on how the drive to subprime loans held a danger to our entire financial sector, realized that things were starting down a slippery slope. . .and he wrote a letter.

Can you say "pathetic"?

Seriously, IF he happens to mention it again, I hope McCain points out the sheer wimpiness of this response.

The American people PAY Senators to lead and to legislate, not to write letters. At the very least, Obama should have gone in front of cameras and foretold of the potential downfall that was being played with by FM/FM. But it's more realistic to say that he should have supported the legislation that was already written that sought to reign in Fannie and Freddie, which, of course, is legislation that McCain supported. Where was Obama?

And if that piece of legislation wasn't enough, then, yes, he should have written. . .another piece of legislation.

Not a letter.

Secretary Paulson didn't need a pen pal. He needed people with foresight to help him avoid this situation.

Obama MAY have had the foresight (I, personally, still doubt it. I'd love to see the contents of the letter). But that doesn't do any good when he lacks the fortitude to act in the interests of this country.

On that score, he failed massively. MASSIVELY.

And I hope McCain isn't shy in pointing that out.

the great truth--applied

If there is one great truth to this election cycle, I believe it is this:

If McCain doesn't talk about it himself, it isn't "discovered" by the major media that is covering this election.

Should Stanley Kurtz be the only person covering Obama's early years as a politician in Chicago? Probably not--but he is.

Should William Ayers have been a relative unknown until the last couple weeks? Absolutely not--but he was. That is, he was until McCain decided to talk about him, and now Ayers gets his very own polls on call-in shows.

So, Sen. McCain has one more direct appeal to the American people tomorrow night. No filters, no editing: just him, the cameras, and somewhere around 35 million households watching.

Early and often, McCain needs to hit on the Democrat's accomplishments for the last two years.

I'm not kidding when I tell you that there are probably a LOT of people who will assume that the GOP has been in charge this entire time. McCain cannot assume that the electorate knows better. He just can't!

But what he CAN do is talk about what's happened the last two years.

And tie it all back in to the Democrats. It's not that hard to do, if he'd just put an effort into doing it.

And then in his closing remarks, he needs to go for the jugular:

"My friends, I have worked across party lines for my entire career to do what I think is best for this country. But I have to tell you, that has become increasingly hard to do recently--especially since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

The Democrats are NOT acting in your interests, but rather in their own. They would rather substitute your judgement for theirs, taking critical decisions out of your hands and making you nothing other than a money machine that funds their pet projects. . .

My friends, whatever your discontent is with Washington, I assure you that an Obama administration combined with a Nancy Pelosi-led house and a Harry Reid-led Senate is NOT going to solve any problems for you.

This election is about choice. I want to give you some; he wants to take them away.

Under an Obama administration, the money that you earn will not be yours to choose what to do with, but will rather be fodder for "redistribution" by the government. Senator Obama himself said such this weekend, in a video that absolutely must be viewed by all people before they go to the polls.

Speaking of money, we've all come under a financial crunch in these last few months, as the financial sector has taken hit after hit. Most people trace this back to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the catastrophic result of poor oversight--oversight that was hampered not just by the Democrat-led Congress these last two years, but also by Democrats as far back as 2001. There were warning signs of this pending collapse, indeed--even Sen. Obama supposedly saw them. But he lacked the fortitude to make things happen, and now we all must pay for the judgement, as conflicted as it was, of Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd. Here are two people the Dems put in charge of the committees overseeing Fannie and Freddie, and they both have a vested personal interest in keeping oversight to a minimum. Well, now we are ALL paying for the lack of oversight. It isn't regulation or de-regulation, my friends--it's oversight. And it is ALL because of Democrat obstructionism to greater oversight, as embodied by Rep. Frank, and lack of fortitude in correcting the problem, as embodied by Sen. Obama and Sen. Dodd.

In an Obama administration, we'd even see an attack on our First amendment rights, as a Democrat administration will likely re-enact the fairness doctrine, which will end talk radio and likely result in the elimination of many blogs and other-than-mainstream media outlets. Sen. Obama himself holds this out as a possibility, merely saying that currently he "doesn't have the votes" to get it done. That's not the right answer, my friends: the right answer is "my administration will not impede on the first amendment in any way, shape, or form", and that is a promise you have from me, but will likely not get from him. If you don't believe me, learn about the "truth squads" in Missouri, organizations of public servants that are acting to squelch any negative public talk of Sen. Obama, working in direct coordination with Obama's campaign. Is that the action of a true first-amendment defender?

Your vote will mean less, because Obama would never call for a proper investigation of the tactics applied by ACORN. Let's be clear: the voter fraud activities that are being linked back to ACORN right now represent a clear and enormous threat to our democracy, and they need to be investigated thoroughly. Do you think Sen. Obama, a man who has given an enormous sum of money to ACORN and who has close ties to this organization all the way back to his days as a community organizer in Chicago, will call for that investigation? I pledge to you, my friends, that under my administration any organization or individual that engages in attempts to subvert
our democracy will find a man in the White House that they will not be able to work with.

Also, in an Obama administration the choices that you make at the ballot box will not matter, because an Obama administration will both protect the anti-democracy activities of ACORN and will appoint, and a Democrat-led Senate will approve, judges that will substitute their judgement for the judgement of the people of a jurisdiction. It has happened time and again, most recently in Connecticut, where same-sex marriage is now legal despite the defeat of such an initiative at the ballot box in the very recent past. Voter input was overruled by liberal judges--the same kinds of judges that Obama has repeatedly said he will nominate the courts.

And if you expect accountability from this Democrat-led Congress, ask yourself this: what does Nancy Pelosi know about Tim Mahoney, and when did she know it? Do you know who Tim Mahoney, Democrat from Florida, is? I'd suggest you read about him, and then demand the accountability that the Dems promised you'd get when they were swept into office in 2006. I think you'll find them sorely lacking in living up to their rhetoric.

My friends, the Democrats are about one thing and one thing only: using your money to put their agenda in place. They don't want you to have choices, they want you to pay for theirs. They don't want you to question their policies or their performance or even their history--they want you to assume that everybody has honorable intentions, as Sen. Biden put it in the Vice Presidential debate.

Well, I'm sorry Joe, but that is naive. It's like you've been living in a bubble for the last 36 years or so, where the reality of the world doesn't keep you from spouting off talking points or even making things up on national television. I hate to tell you this, but not everybody in the business of representing the American people has honest intentions. And not everybody even has truly American, Democratic intentions.

If the America you love respects the choices of the people made at the ballot box, then let's ensure that there aren't the wrong kind of judges put into places where the people's choice will be vetoed.

If the America you love demands accountability of it's leaders, then let's hold them accountable and let's keep open the airwaves to criticism of leaders when it is warranted.

My friends, this is a serious time, and we need serious leadership. The Democrats have shown you some of that leadership in the last two years, and I think you'll agree with me that the results are not pretty. So ask yourself this: can you risk putting a relative newcomer, a man with a history of poor personal and professional associations and of zero leadership against the party line, in charge of the government that has to fix the problems created by this Democrat-led Congress in the last two years?

If the America you love is a land where you are granted choices, where you have the ability to succeed based on those choices, and where accountability is more than just a buzzword to those who represent you in the nation's capitol, then I am the right man to be your President. I will fight for you, not for special interests; I will ensure that the judges who fill the numerous vacancies on our courts do not overturn the work done at the ballot box, and I will work hand-in-hand with responsible members of both parties to ensure that we keep forging ahead in the American dream. My friends, now is not the time for an untested and uninvolved face, now is the time for a warrior. I am that warrior, and I promise you that I will make America stronger and that I will protect your liberties, both here and abroad."

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Debate analysis--day late and all that

As a matter of full disclosure: I didn't watch all of the debate. Again, I watched enough to get my blood boiling over the several openings that Palin left unexplored, but also enough to know that she was everything I hoped she'd be: real, honest, and capable.

So who won? Well, that depends ENTIRELY on the McCain camp now.

The best theme, I believe, for them to win on is "the Dem ticket is dangerous--to the economy, to our national defense--to the world". Or something like that.

Biden provided the opportunity, thanks to his many gaffes in the debate. (My personal favorite is how he adamantly denies that Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, when that has been the feature of TWO debates now, one of which while he had a front row seat).

Now McCain needs to hammer it home.

Ads pointing out what Biden said. . .followed by the truth. Or in some cases, just question marks--as if to say "what the heck was this guy talking about" (ahem--the French and us driving hezbollah from Lebanon--ahem).

And then McCain makes the big point of his debates and stumps: Obama has no experience and questionable judgement; Biden's experiences are apparently made up.

No executive experience. No real world experience.

NEVER has there been such an unqualified ticket put to the people for possible election to the White House.

So, in short, the results of the VP debate depend entirely on what McCain does with what he was given. Biden displayed idiocy unlike anything I've witnessed first-hand before. He may have kept his termperament under control, but he definitely didn't speak about a world that is remotely based on the reality of this one.

Normally this wouldn't be a big drag. But THIS GUY represents the foreign policy, military and judicial "expertise" on this ticket, so such lapses in knowledge ARE a big deal.

If they're brought to light.

The proverbial ball is in McCain's camp now.