Archive for October, 2008

The Queen of Vote Fraud

October 31, 2008

This person is a despicable and worthless human being. Jennifer Brunner is the Secretary of Vote Fraud enhancement in Ohio.

Jennifer Brunner cancels cross-checking of Ohio’s new voters

Posted by Reginald Fields/Plain Dealer Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS — It is impossible to cross-check nearly 700,000 new or revised voter registrations filed this year without crashing Ohio’s registration system, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said Thursday. She added that the entire system will have to be rebuilt after next week’s election so that fraud can be more easily detected.

That’s a load of crap. Any relational database can handle a join between two tables on the contents of one field. Search of all registrants whose SSN doesn’t exist in the table of all valid SSN. That’s one pool of failures. Then search for all registrants whose SSN exists, but the name doesn’t match. You can set up the entire database, and do the searches, in less than a day on any “server quality” computer.

Same for the BMV. None of this is rocket science. Hell, it’s not even computer science. It’s basic DBA work.

Brunner said she discovered the system was too fragile to double-check the names, which her staff began trying to do earlier this month after the Ohio Republican Party sued the Democratic secretary to force her to check the registrations. At the time, even as she fought the lawsuit and eventually won at the U.S. Supreme Court, Brunner said she was making an effort to cross-check the registrations against state driver’s license and federal social security records.

“I spoke too soon,” Brunner said during a press briefing on election day procedures for Ohio, again expected to be a closely watched state in the presidential election.

Ah, an excellent defense: “hey, I lied to the court.”

Earlier this month, Brunner told The Plain Dealer that a cursory review by her staff had found about 200,000 discrepancies in the newly filed or revised registrations since Jan. 1. That does not mean each was a case of fraud, but could mean someone incorrectly jotted down a driver’s license or Social Security digit on the applications.

But the Ohio Republican Party suggested that some of those cases could amount to voter fraud and that Brunner, as the state’s top elections officer, was obligated to double-check the information. Brunner argued that federal rules only require the state to have a system in place for double-checking registrations but do not require her to make the checks.

Since she’s claiming her system can’t do that, she’s saying that she’s violated Federal Law.

Take her to court, convict her, and put her in jail.

Does the Ohio GOP have enough Vote Trackers?

October 29, 2008

Yet another invaitation to fraud in Ohio

As a result of concerns about the reliability of touch-screens and long lines at the polls, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner ordered Franklin County and the 52 other counties using the electronic machines to make paper ballots available on Election Day.

But while elections officials say it’s difficult to predict how many voters will opt for a paper ballot, they plan to count them only after all the electronic votes are tallied — meaning final vote totals could be delayed in some counties until early in the day after the election.

“It could be Wednesday morning before (final) results are released,” said Shannon Leininger, director of the Ashland County Board of Elections and president of the Ohio Association of Election Officials.

Lovely. So the woman who fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from having to tell the county polling boards which 200,000 new registrations were potentially invalid, is saying “count all the electronic votes, then figure out how many paper ballots we need to create in order to steal the election for Obama then we’ll count the paper ballots.”

The Republican Party had better have poll watchers there all day keeping people from randomly adding more “provisional ballots”, and more people to track the ballots until they are all counted, to make sure no extra ballots get “discovered”.

In 2000, 500 votes for Gore were “discovered” during the recount, and he “won” the state by 364 votes.  I’m sure Ohio Vote Fraud Procurer in Chief Jennifer Brunner would “hate” for taht to happen in Ohio.

Obama’s Finance Fraud was expensive for the campaign

October 28, 2008

A commenter on Megan’s blog claimed the following:

A while back, I set up a web payment process for a client and they did not want address validation. Why? Because there was a charge for address verification and they deemed it unlikely that someone would want to pay a bill with a stolen credit card.

My response:

How long ago was that? The information I can find says

MasterCard offers AVS at no additional charge to all merchants who accept U.S. – issued cards.

Then there’s this

A Non-Qualified rate fee is the worst rate possible for processing a credit card. A merchant is charged a non-qualified rate for transactions that the merchant account provider (i.e. the bank) feels are high risk.

The non-qualified rate will be substantially higher than the Qualified and Mid-Qualified Rate.

A merchant is charged a non-qualified rate for credit cards that are processed without Address Verification. A merchant may also experience a non-qualified rate for transactions from foreign countries.

In short, Obama paid more to get AVS turned off.

Update:
Additional research found this:

Address Verification System (AVS): $0 – $0.05 per transaction

The AVS service checks to see that the billing address given by the customer matches the credit card. If you opt not to use AVS, VISA and MasterCard will not support your transactions and will charge you an additional 0.17% to 1.25% on those sales. Most merchant accounts do have an AVS charge, even if it’s bundled with your transaction fee. The AVS service works only with US credit card holders.  Currently, there is no AVS service in place for non-US credit card holders.

Let’s assume Obama got the 0.17% rate increase. His average donation in September was $86. He paid an extra 15 cents on each order, to “save” 5 cents. By disabling AVS, best case is he lost money on every donation > $30.

Big deal? Well, 0.17% of $150 million (his take last month) is $255,000. Having AVS on would have cost, at most, a third of that.

You don’t lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on an “innocent mistake” that you had to work hard to get done.

Comments on Ta-Nehisi Coates Blog

October 27, 2008

Ta-Nehisi Coates has an imbecilic post up where she(?) opines on how Obama’s attack against McCain for the Keating 5 is good, and much more “substantive” than the attacks about Ayers and Wright. The commenters are even more idiotic. I’ve added two comments. Given that comment moderation appears to be turned on, I’m saving these here, too.

Part of me thinks it’s stronger than the Wright/Ayers stuff because it’s a personal attack with substance and policy behind it.

Gosh, the US is involved in a Global War on Terror, and Obama got his political start with the help of an unrepentant anti-American terrorist. Nope, no policy or substance there!

Gee, Obama’s running on his “judgment”, and he spent 20 years in a church run by a delusional (the US Government created AIDS) anti-America (“God damn America”) bigot (Black liberation Theology). Nope, nothing of substance there!

<i>It’s about time Obama dropped the Keating Five on McCain. McCain took bribes. (Some call them “campaign contributions”</i>

You people are so funny. Obama was the #2 recipient of bribes, I mean campaign contributions, from Fannie and Freddie, not 20 years ago, but in the last 4, and you want to be talking about companies bribing Senators to get protection from regulators?

Bring it on!

News intimidation attempt by Obama Lawyer

October 27, 2008

I’m shocked, shocked, to discover that Obama has thugs working for him as lawyers.

The Polestra University newspaper had the bad taste to break news about out of state Obama campaign workers violating the law by voting for Obama in Ohio instead of (or in addition to?) voting for him in their home states, and, even worse, to follow up on the story. What does the Obama Campaign do? They send a lawyer after the student journalists.

From: Rosenberg, Thomas
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Subject: At least in today’s blog you spelled my last name right
To: tiffany

In other words, I am going to read what you write and watch what you say. Hopefully you will be fair and impartial as you told me you would be.

Thomas L. Rosenberg
Roetzel & Andress, LPA

Columbus, OH 43215
trosenberg@ralaw.com

As Jammie Wearing Fool points out, this guy is a jerk, and he needs to be stomped.  An apology isn’t enough.  Fired by the Obama campaign would be a nice start, if such thuggishness weren’t already established as SOP for the campaign.

Hot Air has a nice collection of links to articles about the thuggishness of the Obama Campaign.

The true, proper, punishment for this is for Obama to lose.

Goodbye Dean, I’ll miss you

October 27, 2008

Ah, crap.

Dean Barnett, who was one of my favorite bloggers to read, died today.

I first read him at Hugh Hewitt’s site.  He was always interesting, and made me think. As well as laugh.  I followed him over to The Weekly Standard, in fact I had a link for his “Required Reading” posts that I used when there was too much there to catch up on.

Fare you well, Dean.  I hope there’s an afterlife, and that you’re enjoying it.  My best to your family.  I never met you, or them.  But I valued your commentary, and have, and will, miss you.

Obama Finance Fraud, II

October 27, 2008

Ok, so National Journal has done an article about the way Obama is raising money via the Internet, It’s too bad there’s not contact information for the author, Neil Munro, because he including this howler in the article

Obama campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro said, “We review our contributions to ensure that the information donors provide is complete and verifiable. We would only accept a contribution from a pre-paid credit card if the donor provides complete and verifiable information, consistent with FEC guidelines.”

Now, let’s consider what the Chicago Tribune said about Obama’s September 2008 Fundraising

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe did not detail the contributions, beyond saying that the campaign had added 632,000 new donors to its rolls and that the average donation for the month was less than $100.

632,000 new donors, which is to say more than 20,000 new donors a day. How many of those donors do you think the Obama campaign “checked out”?

Let’s assume the average donation was $100 a month (the campaign claims less, but we’ll bump it a bit to make them look better). In that case, 1,500,000 people donated to the campaign last month. So they have 600,000 new donors, and 900,000 repeat donors. How many of those donations, do you think, got checked out?

Then there’s this

Campaign funding experts say that real-world difficulties present a significant barrier to anyone trying to make surreptitious direct donations. For example, National Journal‘s $25 donation would have to be quadrupled to $100, and then repeated 10,000 times, to deliver $1 million to the Obama campaign, which has collected more than $600 million from at least 3.1 million donors.

Well, the Obama campaign is refusing to report any donations less than $200 (following the letter of the law). So, you start by make $150 donations. You make one in the morning, and one at night. That’s $9,000 you’ve donated to the campaign in September, almost 4 times the legal limit, for a comparatively trivial effort.

You want to give more than that? Hire a kid to make donations for you. Or use a computer program to make the donations for you. You know, one that emits random strings of letters for the name. Or, even one that’s more sophisticated, andgrabs random real names and addresses and uses those to donate. Although, in that case, you probably want to make sure the random number generator is good. Otherwise you might end up donating $174,800 in the name of the same person.

Finally, there’s the sub headline for the article

Reports Of Irregularities In Donations Under $200 Raise Questions Of Who Bears The Burden Of Filtering Out Improper Money

Well, if you simply publicly release all the names, WE The People will check it out for you.

But, if you don’t turn off the standard anti-fraud protections, you can let your credit card company do most of the work. In fact, they’re charge you less if you do it that way.

Why Ayers matters

October 24, 2008

I’ve seen various comments of the form “so, what’s so big about Obama’s associaton with Ayers.  It was no big deal in the circles where he traveled.”

That, my friends, is the point.

If Barack Obama wins the election, he will, as President of the United States of America, be appointing a lot of people.  In the circles Obama travels in, being an unrepentant former anti-American terrorist is no big deal.

So, what kind of people will Obama be appointing as ambassadors?  As Cabinet members?  As staff?  As judges?  How many former anti-US terrorists will be in the Obama Executive Branch?  How many people who don’t think the SDS, or the Weathermen, “did enough” during the 60s?  How many flaming lefties will end up in the Education Department, more interested in indoctrinating your children then in actually educating them?

Do you really want to find out?  Personnel is policy.  The personnel in Obama’s life are William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michelle Obama (read her senior thesis), and the like.

If you value self defense, vote for McCain

October 23, 2008

The NRA has an ad out.  It’s about the fact that Obama voted, 4 times, against legal protections for people who used a gun to defend themselves against criminals.

Obama says: Use a gun (to protect your children from a rapist) go to prison.

Yes, McCain sucks in many ways.  Too late.  Obama sucks more.  If you live in a swing state (I’m talking to you, Vodka boy), vote for McCain.  No matter how much it hurts.

Besides, Steve, “Vote McCain and get drunk” should be right up your alley.

Obama’s Campaign Finance Fraud

October 23, 2008

The Obama campaign announced that it raised $150 million in September. But there are some interesting details about that money you may not see highlighted by the MSM

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe did not detail the contributions, beyond saying that the campaign had added 632,000 new donors to its rolls and that the average donation for the month was less than $100.

Wow! Isn’t that great! American’s are getting active in politics like never before. They care!

Or, it’s all a big fraud.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on the FOX show, McCain complained that Obama won’t have to detail the source of the small donations.

“There’s $200 million of those campaign contributions, there’s no record,” McCain said. “They’re not reported. You can report online now … $200 million that we don’t know where the money came from. A lot of strange things [are] going on in this campaign.”

Ace is all over this

Having worked for companies that process credit cards online, it is necessary to go through and manually disable the safeguards that they put in place to verify a person’s address and zip code with the cardholder’s bank. But international banks don’t currently have the same safeguards that banks in the US have, which also works in the One’s favor.

So most likely they’ve disabled the necessary safeguards for US cards which their merchant bank would be angry about if they found out since it exposes them to risk, as well as international cards which is an even greater risk because there’s no way to verify the information electronically for most countries, so they could just say they’re in the US with phony info and the card will still process online. The One could then just claim that they said they were from America.

Senator Clinton’s website worked with a reputable company that had the same safeguards in place for her online donations, seems like someone just doesn’t like to play by the rules that credit card companies have put in place.

Then there’s the outright theft

Steve and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their statement this month — a $2300 donation to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

And the fraud so poorly done that even the Obama campaign had to notice

Not long ago, the Obama campaign called [Mary Biskup of Manchester, Missouri] to ask why she donated $174,800, which was just $172,500 above the legal limit.

“That’s an error,” she said.

Biskup told the Post that someone must have use her name but other people’s credit cards to donate the money since no charges ever showed up on her bill.

Does this have consequences? Yes, it Does! Ben Smith of Politico reports Obama “refunded $1.7 million in contributions” in September. How many of those fraudulent donations aren’t being returned, because the people making them are trying to get around the campaign donation limits?

Has George Soros hired someone, given him a credit card, and said “make $180 dollar donations to the Obama campaign all day long”? For that matter, does he just have a computer program doing it?

Who were the people who made $174,800 in donations to the Obama campaign using Mary Biskup’s name? The credit card donations went through, that means they have the numbers. Given the numbers, they can find out who really owns those credit cards.

What police agency is responsible for funting down this kind of fraud? The US Justice Department?

Every person who “donated” to the Obama campaign using Mary Biskup’s name is a criminal. Will they be investigated? Will the Obama Justice Department investigate campaign finance fraud? Or will it be too busy investigating anyone who thinks the First Amendment means they have a right to criticize The One?

The election is in 13 days. Will you vote for fraud? Will you not vote at all? Or will you, if necessary, plug your nose, get drunk, get stoned, or just take a really long shower after voting for McCain / Palin?

Remember, it’s not just campaign finance fraud. It’s also vote fraud. Do you want you vote to matter, ever again?

(Hat tip to Jim Geraghty)

VP Duties, Biden v. Palin

October 22, 2008

This is a comment I made at Volokh. I’m saving it here, just in case Orin Kerr decides I’ve been too mean to poor old “nicestrategy”
nicestrategy (BTW, with tactics like yours you really should be using the name “badstrategy”)

About the VP question in the VP debate, neither candidate made much sense, but Biden’s answer was still way better than Palin’s:

Well, let’s consider what Biden said:

Vice President Cheney has probably been the most dangerous Vice President we’ve had in American history. He has the idea…he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice President of the United States. That’s the executive. He works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

Article 1, in fact, defines the Legislative Branch. Since, as he said, it also defines essentially all the duties of the VP, Biden was entirely wrong in his attack on Cheney. Fail 1 for you.

As Jack M. has pointed out over at Ace’s place, the power of Presiding over the Senate can be quite useful. Fail 2 for you.

The tiebreaking vote isn’t considered a major power. No VP since the Reconstruction era has cast more than 10 votes in the Senate. (Senate.gov)

Which is to say, individual VPs have changed as many as 10 votes because of their vote in the Senate. How many Senators have cast more “deciding votes”?

The Senate President pro tempore provision clearly anticipates the absence of the VP from daily deliberations in the Senate chamber.

Which doesn’t mean that Palin couldn’t be over there, screwing with Reid on a regular basis. Fail 3.

Palin says:

“No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.”

No, you are not expected to take that position very seriously also. You might be expected to lobby and/or campaign for the McCain agenda, but the 55-58 Democrats in the Senate would reject a Democratic VP trying to read the Constitution to “allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate,”

Do you read this stuff before you write it? As you said, the VP does not often go over and Preside over the Senate. As she said, she can do that, regardless of what people have done in the past. Fail 4

Below you demonstrate the dishonesty so characteristic of Democrats:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

No, Article I is the legislative branch. He probably meant to say Article II. That makes more sense, but it could be construed as if Biden didn’t realize the Vice President was mentioned in both Articles. (The Senate is mentioned in Article II’s “advice and consent” clause on Presidential appointments, but that doesn’t mean the Senate is also “in” the executive branch.)

So did Biden misspeak or did he really not know the text of the Constitution? Here’s where Biden’s resume makes him bulletproof in a way Palin’s doesn’t. Of course he misspoke.

As I said above: wrong. Because all of the VPs duties are defined in Article 1.

We have here yet another example of “credentials” vs. “reality.” The reality is that Biden is an idiot and a buffoon, and the only reason he’s getting a pass here is because he’s a Democrat. Biden’s argument is fundamentally incoherent. Your ignoring that is fundamentally dishonest.

Palin wins, Biden loses.

Sarah Palin, reader

October 22, 2008

Sarah Palin’s reading habits (From “Sarah”, pages 21 – 22 in the paperback, hardback published April 2008)

Sarah had two childhood traits that her family says played pivotal roles in her life. From the time she was in elementary school, she consumed newspapers with a passion. “She read the paper from the very top left-hand corner to the bottom right corner to the very last page,” said Molly. “She didn’t want to miss a word. She didn’t just read it – she knew every word she had read and analyzed it.”
Sarah preferred nonfiction to the Nancy Drew books that her classmates were reading. In junior high school, Heather – a year older in school – often enlisted Sarah’s help with book reports. “She was such a bookworm. Whenever I was assigned to read a book, she’d already read it,” Heather said.

So, all you “Sarah’s an ignoramus” snobs. You might want to try displaying a little bit of intellectual curiosity yourself once in a while.

Snarky line of the week

October 22, 2008

From Jeff Goldstein

Weisberg’s understanding of libertarianism seems to track directly with his understanding of most things. Which is to say, a mile wide and an inch deep — leading poor Jacob to believe that his barefoot tramping through intellectual puddles is akin to his being able to walk on water.

Love it.

Listening to Hate Filled Sermons

October 21, 2008

Over at Volokh, Orin Kerr deleted a comment I made, because I insulted (the non-existent intelligence of) commenter jukeboxgrad. Here’s roughly what I said

jukeboxgrad writes:

Anyway, maybe you can tell us what you think the proper behavior is when you hear someone talk about “the wealth of the wicked,” and about “the Israelites, that’s how they work. And that’s how they are, even today.” Let me guess: show your approval by happily accepting a blessing from them

No, I think you should make that person your spiritual mentor for 20 years, get married by him, raise your children to his hate filled sermons, then toss him under the bus when the rest of America finds out about him.

Do you really want to play this game? Because I’ll be happy to trade Rev. Wright quotes with you all day.

But then, no one ever said you were intelligent.

Oh, the horror.

And, to be clear, showing basic politeness for the space of one sermon is, IMHO, entirely different from coming back for more.  Sarah Palin simply showed class (Andrew Sullivan and “jukeboxgrad” are entirely lacking in it, so don’t recognize it in others).  Barack Obama, OTOH, showed an utter lack of class, taste, and judgment when he spent 20 years with the Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, and his hate-filled, Black Liberation Theology spewing rants sermons.

I’m so glad we’ve established that we can judge you based on what a preacher says while you’re in the pews.

Obama’s Competence

October 21, 2008

Orin Kerr just gave me one of the nicest compliments I’ve ever gotten

This may be the best blog comment ever at the VC:

For that matter, what’s the evidence that Obama is actually intelligent? He was a “law professor” for 12 years at the University of Chicago.

Talk about a question that answers itself, to the extent magna from HLS doesn’t.

Sorry, no. We know that Obama got into Harvard via affirmative action.  We have no reason to believe that his grades weren’t given via affirmative action, too.  For that matter, How many black African-American lawyers who graduated “magna” from Harvard Law and lived in Chicago wouldn’t be offered “lectureships” (not a tenure track position) at the University of Chicago law school?

And we know that Obama is good at schmoozing people.  Once he got there, I’m sure everybody loved him.

But, once he got there, he did nothing to demonstrate intellectual ability.  No scholarship.  He certainly didn’t engage in political discussions with any of the (many) people there who disagreed with him, and who could have helped him flesh out his beliefs by pointing out weak spots in his arguments.

Sorry, but in this modern “affirmative action” age, no credential held by a member of a favored class has any real meaning or value.  What does have value is actual accomplishments that outside observers can evaluate.  If he were an architect, we’d look at the buildings he’d created.  An engineer, we’d look at teh things he’d designed or built.

He’s a “professor”, and a politician.  For the former we’d look at his published scholarship, but there is none.  For the latter, we’d look at the programs he’s pushed, the laws he’s passed, the things he’s done.

And there, we find pap, and unmitigated failure.

He’s won elections in places where only Democrat votes have mattered.  That’s it.  That’s the sum total of the “accomplishments” of Barack Obama that can be judged by the voters.

Competence, thy name is not “Barack Obama”

What Obama wants to bring to the US

October 21, 2008

Ezra Levant has been fighting with the Canadian “Human Rights” Commissions for a while. Given that Senator Obama wants his political opponents investigated for “hate speech ” for campaigning against him, (“Today’s outrageous letter to Attorney General Mukasey and Special Prosecutor Dannehy at the Justice Department asking for a special prosecutor to investigate Senator McCain and Governor Palin’s public statements about ACORN’s record of fraudulent voter registrations (including in this week’s Presidential debate) is absurd”) you can be pretty sure that he’s like to bring such monstrosities to the US. So it’s a good idea to keep track of what they’re doing.

The latest with Ezra is that they edited his legal defense before sending it to the Court.

But here’s where Dagenais becomes a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the CHRC and its censorship fetish: she blacked out portions of my defence before passing it on to the commissioners. Seriously — she censored what I wrote in my own defence, before she passed it along to the people who will sit in judgment of me. She’s only allowing me to say things in my defence that she approves in advance. Look at the version of my letter she’s passing on: several of my arguments are blacked out. You can read the full, uncensored version here (.pdf version here).

So, you can fight that later, or you can vote against Obama now. Your choice.

Yes, Senator McCain Feingold sucks on free speech, too. But not as bad as Obama.

Manifesto of the “Won’t be Silenced” Majority

October 21, 2008

An excellent collection of links about Obama.

Everynone should watch this

October 21, 2008

The video that explains why Ayers matters.

Obama Youth Mashup

October 21, 2008

Well, I got together the tools, and made this

It’s the “Obama Youth” video, with (mostly) the “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” audio. I’d love to get people’s feedback on whether or not it works. I go back and forth between thinking it’s lame, and thinking it’s cool.

Obama’s lack of intellectual qualifications

October 21, 2008

A response to Orin Kerr,

I realize you’re not a lawyer, so you don’t know what counts as an impressive credential in the law or what counts as a sign of intelligence or not.

I know lots of people with impressive credentials. Many of them are impressive people, some are not.

When all is said and done, the simple fact remains that Obama has, all his life, “kept his light under a bushel.”

What did he do as an undergrad? We don’t know. He’s refused to release any information about it.

He went to Harvard Law School. While he was there, he did his best to hide himself from all those around him, to the point that everyone appeared to think that he agreed with them. He wrote one thing that was published in the law review, and did his best to hide that during the campaign. Happily, it came to light. Unhappily, it’s a pedestrian piece of writing that shows no sign of legal brilliance, great understanding, etc.

He was some sort of “law professor” at U of C for 12 years, and did not produce a single piece of legal scholarship in that time.

He took part in an education reform effort in Chicago. It was a failure. (Go read Tom Maguire for the details.)

He was first elected to office in 1996. He’s been in elective office since then. In that 12 years, he has not accomplished a single thing worth bragging about. In his 4 years in the US Senate, the most significant thing he’s accomplished was getting a database of (some) earmarks. He hasn’t had a single bill that he pushed and fought for (i.e. that was interesting and / or controversial enough that there was actually a fight over its passage).

He’s been running for President for 2 years. In that time he’s yet to come up with a single issue / reason to vote for him. He’s for “Hope” and “Change”. We’re two weeks out from the election, and he’s still a blank slate.

What is Barack Obama’s mandate? If he’s elected President, why is it that the American People will have elected him?

There’s two possible reasons for why you can’t answer that question. The first is that he’s a second rate thinker who offers us nothing because that’s what he is, and what he has to offer: nothing.

The second is that he believes that if he were honest with the American people about what he wanted to do as President, he wouldn’t get elected.

Can you offer another reason why this 47 year old brilliant thinker / great legal mind would still be such a blank slate? Esp. considering the signal lack of accomplishments (other than winning elections) in his life?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.