Final Comments on the Election...

Sorry for the delay in posting original material to the R.C. Blog. I promise to keep it current and discuss many of the core issues important to Conservatives, especially under Liberal Rule.

It has been five days since Election Day and I needed a few days of R&R from politics and the blog. As a political junkie, I wanted to review the voter breakdown numbers and see the trends, both good and bad.

In a nutshell, why did Obama win? The answer is simple -- principally, the economy, but also I give credit to the Obama team for running a better campaign. It didn't hurt that they were flush with cash and in a position to focus on all battleground and "on the fence" states.

The Obama team was also the victor in the four-month tug-of-war between "is McCain just like Bush or isn't he". The Obama campaign was successful in making the argument stick and the McCain team was unable to adequately defend it. No one who follows politics believes this notion, but Obama was able to sell it to the average American.

I know the elite media was overjoyed in helping Obama get elected and they were quick to throw out terms like "Liberal Mandate in America". However, the facts support that America remains right of center.

Let's look at some of the highlights (and lowlights) from Tuesday:

Marriage Proposals Go in Favor of Traditional Definition -- All four states that included proposals on the ballot this year to "define" marriage went in favor of the traditional definition of a man and a woman. Most notably, the Liberal heartland of California approved an amendment to the state constitution. This comes in a state that voted for Obama by a 55-33 margin.

African Americans and the Youth Vote Disappoint the Dems -- In a year where the Democrats and the media were predicting huge voter turnout in general and record levels for African Americans and the youth, the final results were not even close. The overall vote count was on par with 2004 and not even close to the highest percentage in recent history. In addition, the African American vote was up a whopping 1 percent versus 2004 (13% vs. 12%). The youth vote was the same as 2004 in terms of percentage.

Obama Wins Independent Voters with Conservative Ideas -- As The Heritage Foundation reported on Wednesday, "Obama promised to cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families, expand the Army by 65,000 and the Marines by 27,000, and enact a net spending cut for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government. These are core conservative beliefs. Anyone who claims yesterday’s election was the end of conservatism simply was not paying attention to the campaign."

Predicted Senate and House Dem Gains Fall Short -- Despite predicting a filibuster-proof Senate with 60 seats and a gain of 25 House seats, the Dems fell short in both chambers. They are sitting at 57 with three seats still in play (Alaska, Georgia, and Minnesota) and only gained 20 House seats. The GOP did not fare so bad in the Senate when one considers that two-thirds of the incumbents running were Republican.

Catholic Vote Goes for Obama -- As a practicing Catholic, this was the most shocking and personally disappointing of all the results from Tuesday's election. In 2008, dozens of American bishops issued strong public statements reminding their people of their moral obligation to vote in defense of human life. Those statements varied in candor and in quality, but their overall impact was remarkable. The 2008 campaign produced a seismic change in the attitude of the American hierarchy; the bishops as a group were far more outspoken, far more explicit, than in any previous election. Did it help? Sadly, the answer was a resounding "no". According to the exit polls, 54% of American Catholic voters cast their ballots for Obama, despite the Democratic candidate's enthusiastic support for unrestricted legal abortion. A closer look at the numbers does provide some insight. Among Catholic voters who attend Mass weekly, McCain won majority support: 54-45%. Among those who do not attend weekly Mass, the margin for Obama was an overwhelming 61-37%. Thus Obama drew his support from inactive Catholics. And unfortunately, most American Catholics are inactive.

As we prepare for the Obama presidency, Conservatives around the country are asking, "now what?"

The first thing is to not give up or, even worse, conform to their beliefs. What we saw in 2008 was a re-energized Democratic Party who worked hard to get their party elected. The Republican Party was never energized and there was a split between the Conservatives and the Moderates. The Conservatives need to take back the leadership roles in the House and Senate, albeit in the minority, and push the Conservative Agenda. Whether the Dems want to admit it or not, America is still hungry for Conservative beliefs and policies.

Second, get involved. Find Conservative candidates and go volunteer. If you live in Northern Virginia, get involved with State Senator Ken Cuccinelli as he prepares to run for Attorney General in 2009. He is a strong Conservative, in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who could help reshape Virginia. For more information on Sen. Cuccinelli and his campaign for AG, visit http://www.cuccinelli.com/.

Finally, support key Conservative organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation, National Rifle Association, and the Club for Growth. Heritage is the No. 1 Conservative group in America and have been extremely successful in working with the Congress to both pass Conservative legislation and shutdown Liberal policies. They were at the forefront of nixing the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court and in shutting down the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration bill a few years ago. For more information, visit http://www.heritage.com/.

Final comment on the 2008 results: Don't believe for a minute that Obama and the Congress are going to have a "love affair" starting in January. I have believed all along that Congress, with its record low approval rating, used Obama to gain seats. Members could see that Obama had all the momentum, not them, so they used him and rode his coattails. Come January, Sen. Obama will learn the hard way that Washington politics is a cutthroat game. I don't think that Obama will be able to get many of his Socialist agenda items through Congress without a lot of give and take. The good news is that without 60 votes in the Senate, strong willed Conservatives and Moderate GOPers can keep legislation in limbo for a long time.

Don't let your hearts be troubled. Although disappointing, we will survive this low point in American history as we did during the Carter years. Remember, without Carter we might not have had Reagan.....

Election Day Comments and Predictions

This post will hit the R.C. Blog as I am packing up the car with signs and literature to hand out today at my local voting place. I'll be there until the last vote is cast and counted, serving as a poll witness to ensure the machines are properly shutdown and the votes are properly counted.

I am not going to the polls today to work on behalf of the McCain campaign, but rather as an American who is encouraging the anti-Obama vote. Sadly, I never thought I would find myself voting against someone, especially for President of the United States, but that is what is this year's election has come down to -- hoping to elect a moderate with some liberal tendencies to avoid all-out socialism.

At this point, all we can do is vote and pray. Regardless of the polls, I still hold some hope that the goodness of America and its people will see through the frosted glass the media has put in front of Senator Obama to hide his real past and true beliefs. The biased efforts of the media this year (worse than any previous election cycles I can remember) is nearly criminal.

Over the past week, I have talked with many people engaged in this election from both sides of the ideological spectrum and I continue to remain a proud Conservative not only for what we stand for, but for how we act.

My Lib friends (I do have a few...) don't care about ACORN, or Rev. Wright, or William Ayers, or "wealth redistribution". They only want to win and at any cost and regardless of the candidate. This must be what happens to the human psyche when you lose so many times in the past. They still exhibit anger over the 2000 election. They scoff at the idea that we have recorded evidence of individuals voting six, seven, even eight times in some states during the early voting period.

The same can't be said for Conservatives. I joke with them to "vote early and often" and many immediately respond back that losing the right way is better than winning the wrong way. These Conservatives are also the same people who won't disrespect the office of the presidency should Obama win today.

Over the past eight years, Lib parents have done this country a tremendous disservice by publicly and bitterly disrespecting President Bush. What does this teach America's youth? It's one thing to have an Obama sticker on your car, but it's another to have a minivan full of young kids with a sticker on your car that reads, "My child is an honor student and my president is an idiot!".

Having said all of this, here is what I think will happen:

1. Obama will win both the popular vote (+4%) and the electoral vote (311-227).
2. Dems will add seats to the House (+28-3o seat gain).
3. Dems will also add Senate seats (+7-8), but fall short of the magic "60".
4. Locally, Wolf in the 10th, Connolly in the 11th, Warner in the Senate.
5. Bright spot of the day -- John Murtha loses in Pa.

I hope and pray I'm wrong on Nos. 1-3, but this is my objective look at an election year that has been anything but objective.

Regardless of the outcome, there will be much to write about come Wednesday.

God Bless America.

Sadly, we may need his blessings now more than ever...

On Foreign Policy, It's Ace vs. Amateur

From today's Investor's Business Daily:

Assuming both candidates intend to advance U.S. interests abroad, it bears looking at how McCain and Obama would conduct foreign policy.

McCain is the ace in foreign policy, not the much-applauded Obama. McCain has played pivotal roles in opening Vietnam to trade, passing the North American Free Trade Agreement and encouraging the color revolutions of Eastern Europe. He's visited most countries and knows that foreign policy works by keeping one's word first, not by projecting an ideology or personality. It will work.

Obama, by contrast, shows neither interest nor experience in foreign affairs, and defers to 300 advisers, mostly from left-wing think tanks. In the Senate, he's done nothing. He's recently traveled only to the warhorse trails of foreign policy in Europe and the Middle East, and not the emerging new democracies visited by McCain. It's inadequate and won't work.

Both candidates say they will work with partners. But how will their ideas play out?

For Obama, multilateral cooperation means reliance on the United Nations, even as dictators run U.N. operations for their own ends and the Security Council is deadlocked in the face of real threats. He'll get rolled because the U.N. system is institutionally weak.

For McCain, cooperation means supporting friends and recognizing enemies. In that realism, he proposes a new league of democracies to give free states a stronger voice. In advocating this, America increases its pool of like-minded allies to work with.

Obama, by contrast, blurs distinctions between friends and enemies. He discards coordination with allies in favor of going it alone with enemies. Example: His suggestion that he would press Iran to end its nuclear program by talking directly to its tyrants, never mind the coordinated effort with Europe now in place.

To allies, that comes across as arrogant, a faith in one's own charisma trumping the coordinated pressure. Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already recognized its amateurism, hitting Obama with preconditions of his own for talks, while French President Nicolas Sarkozy decried Obama as "utterly immature" with "formulations empty of all content," Haaretz reported.

Obama showed the same careless disregard for allies in saying he would break the NAFTA treaty and rewrite it on his own terms, alarming not only Mexico and Canada, but other partners too.

McCain, however, grasps how foreign policy comes of consensus and spans administrations. Getting NAFTA took consensus — not only of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, but their equivalents in Mexico and Canada. He sees it to be built on, not dropped.

On human rights, both candidates say yes, and McCain has a long record to back it up. But Obama has a different point of view. Already he is using it as a weapon against America's allies, pointing the bony finger at Colombia on human rights and denying it free trade. At the same time, he downplays the atrocious human rights record of Cuba and says he will hold talks with its dictators. McCain keeps friends encouraged and enemies on notice — his rapid stance in defense of invaded Georgia last August was typical.

On global poverty, both vow to end it, but Obama's approach is outdated: doubling aid to $50 billion, as if welfare ends poverty instead of institutionalizes it. McCain proposes partnerships and trade treaties so that the poor can rise up through opportunity.

Obama's focus on personality also may affect the sinews of U.S. power — his congressional allies are proposing cutting military spending by 25%. With no military to back his plans, it's naive to think personality will trump a capacity to project power abroad.

McCain believes in the one U.S. policy that history shows has always worked: speaking softly and carrying a big stick. If defense is strong, the need to use force is low.

Only McCain's ideas are likely to enhance America's leverage and prestige abroad. Obama's proposals were last tried during the Jimmy Carter era; they left America at the nadir of its global influence. Obama's inexperience is why he defaults to such old ideas. McCain shows that experience gives you a cutting-edge awareness of what works.

A Letter to Senator Obama...

To Barack Hussein Obama,

The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about "race" contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

In your first debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without "preparations" at lower levels…Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin…while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered "I would" to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without "any" preconditions. While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately…not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.

You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar…and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a "Captain" of a platoon in Afghanistan "the other day" when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a "professor of Constitutional law" when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you "taught a law class" and never mentioned being a "professor of Constitutional law."

You lied last spring. You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn…and he was right…corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn…who all helped cause the financial problems of today...and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator...and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.

During your campaign, you said: "typical white person." "They cling to their guns and religion." "They will say that I am black." You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America.

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.

The drain to America ' s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you "changed" your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves...not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.

Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else. Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
4. You divide America about race and about class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain:

• War hero.
• Annapolis graduate with "Country first."
• Operational leadership experience (like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years).
• 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk.
• Maverick: 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark.

The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth is never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.

Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty?

Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security…and you are preying on their fears with empty promises…and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for "change" like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you…your style has camouflaged your dishonesty…but many of us see you for who you really are…and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.

Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.

Mr. Obama, you are not the "change" that America deserves. We cannot trust you.

Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves…just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon…Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events…false witness…perjury…your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own…but your lies are even worse.

Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.

Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.

Michael Master
McLean, Virginia

Economic Impacts of McCain and Obama Tax Plans

Tough Loss on Saturday; Tougher One May Be On the Way

Had an incredible time in Columbus this weekend for the Penn St. - Ohio St. game and, as you can see, terrific seats. Although the game did not go as Buckeye fans would have hoped, it was as a good, hard-fought game and came down to which team would make a mistake to turn the game.

I have to give it to PSU, which committed zero turnovers and zero penalties in the game. They capitalized on the big turnover and that was the difference. Now it looks like PSU will most likely end the season undefeated and will have to see if the SEC and Big 12 Goliaths knock themselves out in order to get a shot at the national championship. They will definitely need some help...

On the political front, if signage, bumper stickers, and commercials are any indication, McCain is not playing too well in the Columbus metropolitan area. The city has become more cosmopolitan in recent years so it has attracted a larger population of younger professionals, including techies, so that demo plays right into the Obama message. It also doesn't hurt to have 60K students at a university with Lib faculty. Once you get outside of Columbus into rural Eastern Ohio, it was definitely "McCain Country", as was Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Western Maryland.

With eight days to go, the McCain campaign continues to look more and more than Bob Dole's failed attempt at the White House in 1996. There is simply no "there" there -- no new ideas, no "energize the troops" speeches, etc.

Sadly, I continue to hear stories of independent and GOP Bush supporters in 2000 and 2004 who are just tired of Bush and the Republicans and tie McCain to that group. Those people are looking at Bob Barr or, in some cases, voting for The Messiah. Go figure....

For all of McCain's faults, it is simply a misinterpretation to lump him as a Republican who walked in step with Bush and the GOP-controlled Senate over the past eight years.

As Conservatives, in seems like only yesterday that we were all bashing McCain for "splitting" from the party when he sided with Sen. Kennedy on immigration. At the time, some pundits, however farcical, even called for him to switch parties. Yet now, Obama and his media machine continue to pound away in speeches, advertisements, and literature the Bush/McCain connection. So far they have been successful. Sadly, McCain and his camp waited too long to publicly distance themselves from Bush. They are only now working at a fevered pitch to make that separation. With just over a week to go, it may be too little, too late.

Which Candidate is the Liberal?

Throughout modern political history, typically a single event or statement by one of the candidates can be attributed as the point in the campaign when "its over". For example, Nixon looking nervous and pale during the '60 debate, Reagan's joke during the second '84 debate about Modale's youth and inexperience, Dukakis in the tank in '88, Kerry's "voting for it before he voted against it". These events are replayed time and again in our memories and in the media.

For Conservatives, we may have witnessed "That Moment" in the 2008 campaign. Here's the quote from Tuesday night's debate:

"You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As President of the United States, I would order the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."

Of course, we would have expected such a statement from Sen. Obama, but sadly it was said by Sen. McCain. The water cooler chat the next day had supporters and Conservatives scratching their heads and asking, "What is McCain doing?" I understand in reading some of the post-debate reviews that the program he is proposing was not explained properly and it came across more socialist that it really is but the damage has been done.

Based on what they heard on Tuesday night, independents who were still undecided now feel as though there is not much difference between the two candidates when it comes to the voters' No. 1 issue -- the economy. If those independent voters perceive that both candidates are looking to get the government even involved in the economic mess, Sen. Obama stands to gain an overwhelming majority of their support based on the intangibles -- likability, presence, communication skills, etc. It also doesn't hurt that Sen. Obama is portrayed by the press as the greatest thing since George Washington...

Sen. McCain failed miserably on Tuesday night in explaining, in simple terms, how he will make America better. He does win, with ease, on foreign relations and national defense issues, but with the stock market dropping several hundred points each day, he needs to propose a solution that not only makes sense but separates him from Sen. Obama and Pres. Bush. His first attempt was a dud...

Initial Review to McCain/Obama Debate No. 1

Debate No. 1 in Mississippi is over and now all the talking heads on the networks are breaking down just about every word spoken.

Here is my initial review:

(1) Nothing took place during this debate that will end up being that significant "moment" when one of the campaigns pulls away.

(2) McCain was ineffective in going after Obama and the Democrats in the first 30 minutes when the questions related to the financial industry mess. Obama did MUCH better in "selling" himself to America on the economic issues. I personally do not believe most of what he said, but from an "impact" perspective, Obama came across as more effective on the economy.

(3) In the second half of the debate, McCain made Obama look like a high school debater in the second half of the debate when the questions dealt with foreign affairs and security.

(4) Related to the "intangibles", Obama seemed to have difficulties at certain times, especially on the foreign affairs questions, putting his thoughts together. His smirking at several of McCain responses also seemed immature for someone running for president.

(5) I will definitely be interested to see how Henry Kissinger responds to how his opinion on presidential negotiations with foreign leaders without preconditions was argued by the two candidates. This issue could be one to blow up in the next few days...

(6) McCain (fortunately) did not let Obama get him riled up. He also would have been better served to point out why Obama is inexperienced as opposed to just saying that he is.

All in all, I would score it 10-8 for McCain, but I was hoping for a larger McCain victory with the topics covered. We'll sit back and see how the polls shake out in the next few days.

Media Double Standards Become Even More Obvious

Just finished reading the following article in National Journal from Stuart Taylor, Jr., who typically leans left of center. The blatancy of the liberal bias from the mainstream media during this presidential election is becoming even too obnoxious for people like him...

=====================================

Campaign Lies, Media Double Standards

The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis.

by Stuart Taylor
Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008

Some who have been admirers of John McCain think that the war hero has debased himself by using gross distortions to trash Barack Obama and his record. Others see the media fury over McCain's campaign ads as more evidence of a double standard driven by liberal bias at most major news organizations.

Both are right. Although each candidate is responsible for many distortions -- hardly a novelty -- McCain has lately been leading the race to the bottom. (Since the print version of this column went to press, Obama may have pulled even with McCain in the race to the bottom, or even ahead of him, by launching a scurrilously dishonest new Spanish-language TV ad. It misleadingly portrays McCain "and his Republican friends" as anti-immigrant bigots who say "lies just to get our vote." It also associates McCain with deceptively out-of-context quotes by Rush Limbaugh -- no friend of McCain's -- about "stupid and unskilled Mexicans." Jake Tapper of ABC News provides details.)

At the same time, many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.
We still have many great journalists, but I no longer trust the major newspapers or television networks to provide consistently accurate and fair reporting and analysis of all the charges and countercharges. This in an era when the noise produced by highly partisan TV hosts and blogs creates a crying need for at least one newspaper that we can count on to play it straight.
Indeed, one reason that candidates get away with dishonest campaign ads and speeches may be that it is so hard for undecided voters like me to discern which charges are true, which are exaggerated, and which are false. Most people can't spend hours every day cross-checking diverse sources of information to verify the accuracy of slanted stories and broadcasts such as these:

* In Sarah Palin's first big media interview, on September 11, Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked: "You said recently, in your old church, 'Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.' Are we fighting a holy war?" Palin responded: "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote." Gibson pressed: "Exact words."

Viewers had no way of knowing that, in fact, Gibson was distorting Palin's meaning by leaving out critical context and thus making an unremarkable exhortation to prayer sound like a declaration of holy war. Palin had not said that the war was a task from God. She had urged her listeners to "pray" that it was a task from God. A September 3 Associated Press report by Gene Johnson distorted Palin's meaning in exactly the same way.

* A front-page story in the September 12 Washington Post, by Anne Kornblut, was headlined: "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska." This was misleading, as were the first two paragraphs. They implied that Palin had advanced the long-discredited "idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." In fact, Palin's reasonably clear meaning was not that Saddam had a role in the 9/11 attacks but that (as the article backhandedly acknowledged) the troops would be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is related to the group that launched the 9/11 attacks.

* The New York Times did a huge (3,120-word) front-page story on February 21 implying that McCain had had a sexual affair with a female lobbyist while doing her political favors. But the article lacked strong evidence either that there had been a sexual affair or that McCain had crossed legal or ethical lines to do favors. Would The Times have printed the same story had the senator been Barack Obama or John Kerry? I doubt it.

* The Times also rushed to assert, in a front-page story on September 2 questioning how carefully McCain vetted Palin's background, that she "was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede." This turned out to be erroneous. (Her husband had previously been a member.)

This is not to deny that McCain deserves much of the criticism he has received for his distortions about Obama. But not all of it. Take the ad on which the most-bitter media complaints -- "blizzard of lies" and the like -- have focused. It asserts that Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

But the bill was not Obama's (he was not a sponsor), was not an accomplishment (it never passed), and would not have been his "only" accomplishment even if it had passed. More important, it called for extending only "age appropriate" sex ed from sixth grade down to kindergarten. There is no reason to doubt Obama's explanation that he wanted kindergartners to be taught only the dangers of inappropriate touching.

But a Times editorial overstated the case in saying that "the kindergarten ad flat-out lies" and that "at most, kindergartners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." In fact, whatever Obama's intention, the bill itself was designed "to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children below sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten," as Byron York demonstrates in a detailed National Review Online article.

McCain has also lowered himself by claiming repeatedly, and incorrectly, that Obama's proposals would raise taxes on the middle class. (In fact, Obama would cut middle-class taxes more than McCain would.) And his campaign has descended into fatuousness by implausibly claiming that Obama was trying to demean Sarah Palin when he used the "lipstick on a pig" analogy to criticize McCain's economic proposals.

Obama seems to prefer a more civil discourse. But he, too, has sometimes lowered himself, without provoking anything like the media outcry against McCain. Obama falsely claimed in February that McCain "is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq." In fact, McCain had made it clear that just as "we've been in Japan for 60 years," he could see a 100-year presence in Iraq -- but only "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

More recently, Obama has run misleading ads claiming that McCain has voted to cut education funding and would give "$200 billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools"; implying that his aides are still lobbying for special interests; and more.
McCain also deserves criticism for the ugly culture-warring epitomized at the Republican convention by Rudy Giuliani's keynote speech and sneers about Obama's stint as a community organizer. But who started the culture-warring? Democratic talking heads and pols -- although not Obama -- heaped disdain on Palin's social class, religion, and anti-abortion values from the moment that McCain plucked her from obscurity.

I was deeply dismayed by the 72-year-old McCain's reckless choice of the inexperienced and untested Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. But I am also deeply skeptical when I see front-page headlines like "As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood" (Washington Post, September 14), or "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes" (New York Times, same day). Such loaded language is a badge not of a newsroom committed to impartial investigation but of an ideological echo chamber.

Many media commentators also exude a conviction that Republicans have long played dirtier and more dishonest political hardball than do Democrats. Maybe, but I'm not so sure. We are often reminded of Republican sins ranging from the (accurate) Willie Horton ads of 1988 to the (over-the-top) "Swiftboating" of 2004. We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck.

Ironically, there is some evidence that media venting about McCain's ads may be helping McCain. The venting, especially on TV gabfests, draws much more attention than the ads themselves, while distracting attention from the issues on which Obama wants to focus. Indeed, reportedly the McCain campaign often buys little or no TV time to air the ads, preferring to get them on the air free, denunciations and all.

Consider also a fascinating Washington Post piece by Shankar Vedantam on September 15. He cites studies showing not only that "misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds [even] after it has been debunked" -- especially among those predisposed to believe it -- but also that refutations sometimes backfire by increasing the number of people who believe the original misinformation.

The studies found this refutation "backfire effect" among conservatives but not liberals. Part of the explanation may be that conservatives have more-rigid views than liberals, as political scientists quoted by Vedantam suggest. And part of it may be that conservatives have more reason to distrust the usual refuters.

Correction: My September 13 column erred in saying that in 2003, as an Illinois legislator, Barack Obama "unsuccessfully" opposed a bill nearly identical to the federal "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." In fact, he helped kill the bill.

McCain's Bold Move

It's been 24 hours since McCain's public announcement that he would suspend his campaign on Thursday and bypass the first presidential debate with "The Messiah" (a.k.a. Barrack Hussein Obama) on Friday night in order to ensure his full and active participation as a U.S. Senator on the financial bailout legislation currently under consideration in the Congress.

I must admit that my first reaction was "What the heck is he doing now?!" It was an extremely bold move, especially when considering he has lost all of his post-convention bump and is back to trailing by a few points nationally in most polls. McCain has been making some serious mistakes in his campaign over the past few weeks (see tomorrow's R.C. Blog post...).

As you have probably already read in the mainstream newspapers this morning, they are profiling McCain as "scared", "overreacting", or "running away from the debate". Regarding the debate, nothing could be further from the truth. Without a teleprompter, Obama is going to have trouble speaking, let alone articulating, his positions on issues. Regardless of his actual performance, the press will tearfully praise him and compare him to Martin Luther King.

After sleeping on it, I feel a little bit better (only a little...) about the move to suspend the campaign. Only time will tell if this move was successful or a disaster in the eyes of voters, especially the estimated 18 percent in our country who have not yet made a decision on their candidate. It could be the "tipping point" of the entire campaign. For those opposed to Marxism invading our country starting January 20, 2009, I hope and pray that voters look at the move as bold and presidential.

Liberals Out of Touch with Americans

Column in today's Financial Times on the problems facing the American liberal establishment...

Democrats must learn some respect
September 7, 2008
Financial Times
by Clive Crook

This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.

Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.

Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.

Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.

The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.

The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.

The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.

The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.

It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.

Republicans’ Enthusiasm Jumps After Convention

Here's the latest from Gallup...

PRINCETON, NJ -- As the remarkable two-week stretch of back-to-back presidential nomination conventions ends, a weekend USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket has more than matched the Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket's convention bounce of last week with a "rebound" bounce, and in the immediate aftermath of the GOP convention McCain and Palin now have a slight edge over their opponents.

The presidential race was dead even at 45% to 45% among registered voters in Gallup tracking conducted prior to the Democratic convention. Then, by the USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted in the first few days after the Democratic convention (and also after McCain had made his announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate), Obama had moved ahead by a 47% to 43% margin. (In Gallup Poll Daily tracking extending into the beginning of last week, Obama reached a point where he had 50% of the vote and an eight percentage point lead.) Obama's lead has now disappeared totally, and McCain sits on a 4-point advantage among registered voters in the Friday through Sunday poll. That's the largest advantage for McCain in either USA Today/Gallup Polls or Gallup Poll Daily tracking since May.

The convention and/or McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate not only had the effect of moving the horserace needle in McCain's direction, but also increased several measures of enthusiasm for the GOP.

There has been a very substantial jump in the percentage of Republicans saying they are more enthusiastic about voting in this election, from 42% a week ago (after the Democratic convention, but before the Republican convention) to 60% today. Democrats still retain a slight lead on this measure, having increased their enthusiasm slightly this last week as well. But the enthusiasm gap, which has been so much a part of the story of the presidential election so far this year, has dwindled from 19 points in the Democrats' favor a week ago to only seven points today.

To read the entire article, click here

Recap of the 2008 RNC Convention

From my perspective, the RNC Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul was much more successful than anticipated , especially following the "drama" in Denver. Kudos to Convention President and CEO Maria Cino and her staff who have been working in Minnesota for 18 months to prepare for this week.

My Top 5 highlights of the week:

No. 5 -- The Stage: Loved the simplicity of the stage, especially after seeing all the "fluff" in Denver the week prior. No gothic pillars, no fanfare, no loud colors -- just a simple stage and a BIG HD screen. A textbook example of K.I.S.S.

No. 4 -- Going on the Offensive Against the Media: It was nice to see speaker after speaker during the prime time speeches not beat around the bush when it comes to pointing out the obvious -- that the mass media are biased and liberal. It seemed to catch Anderson Cooper, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and Tom Brokaw off guard.

No. 3 -- Mike Huckabee's Speech: Showed why he was such a force during the primary season. Extremely articulate, convincing and likable.

No. 2 -- Fred Thompson's Speech: Really did a fantastic job helping paint a picture of the character of Sen. McCain with a combination of humor and sincerity.

No. 1 -- The Speech: Still can't say enough about Wednesday night's speech. Only 1 million less viewers tuned in than the Obama speech in Denver (38M vs. 37M). It has been the talk of the carpool line, school pickup, neighbors, Irish Dance moms and dads, family members, et al. Even Michael Reagan wrote that he sees his dad in her.

You'll note that I did not include Sen. McCain's speech in my top five. He had a tough act to follow after Gov. Palin's night on Wednesday. McCain's speech seemed choppy in many places and the green background on the screen at the start of his speech made him look older than he already is, but he did put it together between 10:45 and 11:05 and ended nicely. He needed to get a C+/B-, which he accomplished -- not a "knock-your-socks-off" speech but also not a dud.

Now it's off on the campaign trail for both tickets, with the first debate set for September 26. Also looking forward to the VP debate -- Palin vs. "Plugs" -- on October 2.

Fred Thompson Hits a Home Run with RNC Convention Speech

At last night's RNC Convention "primetime" proceedings, former Tennessee Senator and GOP presidential hopeful (and Hollywood actor) Fred Thompson spoke to the Convention delegates and attendees, and America watching at home, about the character, leadership, and quality of Senator John McCain. He masterfully incorporated humor and sincerity into his 27-minute speech and left the audiences blown away (including me...).

Liberal Hypocrisy (Again...)

Hypocrisy from the Libs, once again...

This time it comes from the National Organization of Women (NOW), which consistently criticizes Conservatives and the GOP for "keeping women down" and not being inclusive of women at the highest levels of the party. So when Sen. McCain named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin yesterday at his VP nominee, NOW must have come out with strong praise for McCain and the GOP for nominating a woman to such a position, right? WRONG!

August 29, 2008

Statement of NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy on the Selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice Presidential Pick

Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.

Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women’s rights, just like John McCain.

The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.

In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would “choose life” — meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.

Palin also had to withdraw her appointment of a top public safety commissioner who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment, although Palin had been warned about his background through letters by the sexual harassment complainant.

What McCain does not understand is that women supported Hillary Clinton not just because she was a woman, but because she was a champion on their issues. They will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.

Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.

Finally, as the chair of NOW’s Political Action Committee, I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic ‘No.’ We recognize the importance of having women’s rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women’s rights.

Obviously the NOW harridans only approve of women who get ahead on the coat tails of their husbands, like Hillary Clinton. Isn't it ironic that Conservative women and African Americans are not the "right" kind of women and African Americans? And they say that we are the party of prejudice...

Gov. Palin Selected as McCain's VP Nominee in Dayton, Ohio

On the day following the media's "Annointing" of The Messiah in Denver, GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain made the best decision of his presidential campaign to date with the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee.

The announcement, made in the GREAT Midwest city of Dayton, Ohio (sorry for the media bias...), was a step forward in attracting hard-line Conservatives as well as indepedent voters and those women and women groups who left Denver today still upset and feeling betrayed by their party with the final outcome.

Gov. Palin is a strong Pro-Life mother of five children, including her latest son who has down's syndrome, is a "hockey mom", served on the local PTA and worked her way up the ranks of local and state politics. She has a strong reputation for leading bipartisan efforts to get things done in Alaska. In addition, she is a strong gun rights advocate and has fought fraud, waste, and abuse in her native state of Alaska.

Kudos to Sen. McCain for the smart pick!

Obama and Race a.k.a. "Liberal Scare Tactics"

See the fantastic column by Peter Kirsanow from National Review regarding Sen. Obama's recent comments related to race. I have also attached a link to the video clips of Sen. Obama's scare tactics...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Presumed Racist" by Peter Kirsanow, National Review

Obama's statement yesterday about Republican scare tactics is merely the latest in a string of statements in which he suggests that certain Americans are intrinsically racist, and those Americans aren't just confined to political opponents. His declaration that his grandmother was a "typical white person," was, at the time, derided primarily because it was seen as Obama "throwing her under the bus" for political expediency. But the statement's premise — that the "typical" white person is a reflexive racist — is at least as offensive.

Similarly, the commentary surrounding Obama's statement to San Francisco elites about bitter, working class voters focused largely on the condescension in his claim that such folks "cling to guns or religion." Somewhat ignored was the clause "...or antipathy to people who aren't like them..." Again, Obama is branding a huge swath of the American populace in unsavory terms.

During the primaries his campaign lept upon any statement that was even remotely related to color as evidence of racist intent. This is, to say the least, peculiar for someone whose campaign was based in part on racial transcendence. Even more so for someone who doesn't seem to have encountered any pernicious racism or racial barriers in his personal life. His profligate insinuations of racism now are far beyond unseemly. As the possible next President of the United States, he needs to be called on it.

The Obama Quotes:

Barack Obama In Springfield, Missouri - July 30, 2008
“So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky…That’s essentially the argument they’re making.”

Barack Obama In Rolla, Missouri - July 30, 2008
“That’s not the debate we’re getting out of John McCain right now. He’s spending an awful lot of time talking about me. You notice that? I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s gonna do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things. They know that you’re not real happy with them. And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency. He’s got a funny name.’ I mean, that’s basically the argument – he’s too risky.”

Barack Obama In Union, Missouri - July 30, 2008
“So they know they’ve got no new ideas, they know they’re dredging up all the stale, old stuff they’ve been peddling for the last eight, ten years. But since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name, and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills,’ and they’re going to send out nasty e-mails. And the latest one they got me in an ad with Paris Hilton. You know, never met the woman. But, you know, what they’re going to try to argue is that somehow I’m too risky. You know, basically what they’re saying to you is we know we didn’t do a real good job, but he’s too risky.”

Click here to watch all three videos!

Barack Milhouse Obama

The message and clip below were sent to me by a colleague. While I might not agree with all of the conclusions presented in the video about Senator Obama, it does merit viewing and raises some serious questions. Watch and draw your own conclusions...

"I encourage each of you to view this short video on Barack Hussein Obama. It encapsulates and reveals Mr. Obama's history and the underlying potential dangers of him becoming the President of the United States. I agree that a Black American, a woman or any person should be able to win the office of President of the United States, but not this candidate. I am deeply offended that this is the best that the National Democratic Party can offer the American people at such as crucial time in our history. It is inconceivable that a candidate for the Office of the President, wouldn't salute the American Flag. You be the judge. Please consider the importance of any decision to support Mr. Obama, since our future and our children’s and grandchildren’s and other people's children's future will be forever impacted and leave them at the mercy of such a decision. Thanks, Steve"