Archive for the ‘Election 2008’ Category

President Obama’s failure’s during the Gulf Oil spill

June 9, 2010

Monday, Megan McArdle said the following silly thing, doubling down on her previous defenses of President Obama (who she supported during the 2008 campaign): “Let me reiterate that I don’t blame Obama for failing to “do something” about the gulf spill.”

She is wrong to do that:

U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertise:

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Then there’s the guy in Maine who built a bunch of containment boom on spec, because he know it would be needed to protect from the Oil Spill:

John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn, Maine, says he’s got plenty of floating oil containment boom and can make lots more on short notice. There’s just one problem: no one will buy it from him.

The Obama Administration’s response to this problem has been just as incompetent as those of us who opposed him said he would be.  The problem isn’t that there’s nothing that the President can do, the problem is that the President isn’t good at doing anything other than talking, and running for higher office.

Iraq was not a “distraction”

December 1, 2009

Megan McArdle has a post up complaining about Dick Cheney schooling Obama. In it she compares Cheney to former President Jimmy Carter.  This comparison is as mindless as it is wrong-headed.

If President Reagan had gone around whining about the problems he had “inherited” from President Carter, she would have a valid point.  But he didn’t and she doesn’t.  When President Buttercup Obama decides to man up, face the fact the he really is President of the United States of America, and do his job, rather than whining about the problems he “inherited” (he didn’t inherit them, he lied, cheated, and stole in order to become President, and thus get to deal with those problems.  If he didn’t want to deal with the problems, he damn well shouldn’t have run for the office), then it might be reasonable to call for Cheney to stand down.

But so long as Obama is blaming everything on the previous Administration, members of the previous Administration have not just the right, but the duty to point out he’s full of sh!t.

One of her commenters gave the following whine:

Of course if the previous administration had done the job right and not turned their attention to Iraq President Obama would not have to worry about Afghanistan now would he?

My response:

Do you ever think for yourself? Or are you merely capable of spouting leftie talking points that have no actual connection to reality?

The US Military is logistically “heavy”. To put it another way: we like to burn through a lot of material, instead of burning through people.

Afghanistan is a lousy place to try to do that. Iraq was not (nearby seaports are wonderful things for heavy logistics). When we invaded Iraq, the Islamist nutjobs followed, and fought us on turf that was well designed for our style of fighting.  As such, we slaughtered them in droves, and their terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people turned the Iraqis against “global jihad”.

That’s called “win win”.  Or, at least it is if you actually want to see the US win.

Afghanistan was and is a generation long struggle.  If you don’t want to deal with it, don’t run for President of the US.

The “Obama Wins” Post I wish I’d written

November 9, 2008

What can I say?  Iowahawk is a lot funnier than I am

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don’t care whether you are a conservative or a liberal — when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation’s highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let’s not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama’s election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country’s struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we’ve come, and it’s something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.

Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country’s top job — which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn’t mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.

Go read the whole thing.

Onion News Network Takes Down Obama Supporters

November 6, 2008

This is a classic

Is Obama “A Good Man”?

November 6, 2008

I say no.  A good man does not spend 20 years in the pews and Trinity United Church, listening to the hate spewing forth from Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright.  A good man doesn’t start his political career in the home of two unrepentant anti-American terrorists, William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn.  A good man doesn’t associate with groups, like ACORN, that routinely engage in vote fraud.  And a good man doesn’t run a campaign that routinely and blatantly violates the law, doing the equivalent of setting up dumpsters around the world where anyone, from anywhere, could walk by and throw in as much cash as they want to for the Obama Campaign.

Ignoring his politics, ignoring all the lies he told in his campaign, ignoring the bribes he’s taken and arranged, ignoring the way he worked so well with the corrupt Daley machine, ignoring all the press did to help him, just consider the above.  Would you want to associate with such a person?  Would you want to be friends with a man whose spiritual mentor was happy about the 9/11 attacks?

Barack Obama is a bad human being.  He is, at best, amoral and obsessively power hungry.  His one saving grace is that he’s lacked the competence to actually do much of anything other than win elections.

Now he’s President of the US.  Apparently running for President of the World.  The first executive position he held was running the Annenberg Challenge project to improve education in Chicago.  He was an utter failure.

Now we’re going to see if he can do any better with his second executive position.

I Support Operation Leper

November 6, 2008

Various scum-bag McCain aides have been trashing Sarah Palin to try to draw attention from their, and their candidate’s, failures in this campaign.  Over at RedState Operation Leper has begun, to hunt down and out the cowardly jerks.

As someone who donated both time and money during this campaign, I’m promising that I will never support any candidate who hires any of the people identified by Project Leper.  I encourage all other right-wing bloggers to make the same pledge.

Congratulations, President (almost) Elect Obama

November 5, 2008

You’ve run the most corrupt and dishonest campaign in my lifetime, and, with a strong assist from a US Press that abandoned all pretensions of honesty in order to drag you across the finish line, you’ve won the 2008 Presidential election, and are the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win more than 50% of the vote.

What you now face is a big decision: what kind of President do you want to be?

Do you want to be the person you’ve been for the last 20 years, which is to say a hard-core party-line Democrat?

Or do you want to be the person you pretended to be while campaigning to be President?  The reasonable, post-partisan person who will reach across the aisle and work with people not in your party?

And are you really going to raise taxes while the economy is going into a recession?

With all due respect, i think your lack of successful executive experience is going to make your Presidency a disaster, and 2010 a banner year for Republicans.  But I’m not looking forward to what you’re going to do to the country over the next two years, and so hope that you’re not as incompetent an executive as you appear.

Because I think fair is fair, I wish you the same “honeymoon” that your predecessor, President Bush, received in 2001.

Congratulations, Alaska Democrats

November 5, 2008

Sean Parnell, Alaska Lieutenant Governor, was leading in the polls for the Republican Congressional primary in Alaska against Don Young, until the Alaska Democrat Party dropped a bunch of negative ads against him (because they thought they could beat Don Young).

However, with 99% of he vote in, Don Young is leading 52% to 44%.

Losers.

Thanks for sticking us with that crook for another 2 years.

Figuring out the election

November 4, 2008

Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008, is going to be an interesting day. And an even more interesting evening. Hopefully, the election will finally be over. So, the questions are “who is going to win” and “how will I know?” In the hopes of helping sanity everywhere, I offer the following guide to the results:

First of all, ignore the exit polls.

40. Every election, the television networks conduct exit polls of people as they leave their polling places on Election Day. If you were asked to participate, how likely is it you would be willing to spend 10 minutes filling out a questionnaire?
Obama voters who responded very likely/somewhat likely: 77% (46 / 31)
McCain voters who responded very likely/somewhat likely: 64% (35 / 29)

Let’s say that McCain wins Ohio 51 – 49. If 64% of his voters, and 77% of Obama’s, respond to the survey, then the result will be 32.64 – 37.73, or 54% Obama to 46% McCain, an 8 point, outside the “margin of error” Obama victory.
If Obama doesn’t crush McCain in the Exit polls, the Obama supporters are pretty much guaranteed a long night. So assume they’re going to be for Obama, and don’t worry about them

So, how can you tell what’s going on? Look at actual state results. When do state results start coming in?

  1. Indiana and Kentucky go first. Both states are split across the Eastern and Central time zones. The polls close at 6 PM local time, so half the polls will be closed for an hour before all the polls are closed. I expect that the SoS Offices will refrain from giving vote results, and the networks won’t officially give any exit poll results, until all the polls are closed. However, they’ll be counting once the polls close. So by 7 PM EDT / 4 PM PDT, they should have some real numbers to report.

For various reasons, the Obama campaign has been making a big push in Indiana. Bush won the state by 16% and 343,856 votes in 2000, and 21% and 512,362 votes in 2004. The RCP Average for Indiana is currently 1.4%.  If Obama is winning the State in early returns, look for it to be a long night for McCain.  If McCain is winning by 10%, look for it to be a long night for Obama.

Neither campaign has made a big push in Kentucky. Bush won the state by 15% and 233,594 votes in 2000, and 20% and 355,878 votes in 2004. The RCP Average for Kentucky is 13.5%.  This state’s results could be quite interesting.  Since neither campaign has paid much attention to it, it should serve as a good barometer for actual public interest in the election.  If McCain beats 20% there, kiss Obama goodbye.  If he beats 15%, you can almost assuredly kiss Obama goodbye.

If he doesn’t beat 15%, but his final margin looks like it’s going to beat his 2004 margin, Obama’s still probably in trouble.  Why?  Because if both sides increase their turnout by the same number of people, then while the winning percentage will drop, that doesn’t do the Democrats any good.  They ahve to turn out more new votes than the Republicans.  If they just get the same, they’re screwed.

Sticking to the narative, no matter what

November 4, 2008

Go to love the blindness displayed by this “reporter”

Turnout records fall even in GOP-friendly states

By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Even in reliably red states where Barack Obama has little chance of winning on Tuesday, unprecedented numbers of registrations and early votes have been tallied, and elections officials are predicting a record turnout in places where neither candidate even bothered to campaign.

Gosh, imagine that. “Even in reliably red states” more people are going to the pools. I wonder, could these be Republican voters?

An aggressive and well-financed get-out-the-vote campaign helped Obama’s campaign mobilize unprecedented numbers of African-American and new voters who could help decide the presidential election by swinging states like North Carolina and Virginia to the Democrat.

But even in states like Alabama, Utah, Nebraska and Oklahoma, Republican strongholds where John McCain could post double-digit wins, Obama’s candidacy helped boost registration numbers, particularly in urban areas. Republicans countered by mobilizing their own base, a process aided by McCain’s vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, who’s popular among conservatives.

Ah, so Republicans could be voting in record numbers, too.

“It may not shift Alabama from red to blue, or shift Tennessee from red to blue,” Ferrel Guillory, an expert in Southern politics at the University of North Carolina, said of the turnout projections. “But it could have an effect over the long term.”

No, says the “expert”, it’s all about the Democrats.

But even as Obama managed to inspire Democrats in decidedly red states, Republicans had a secret weapon of their own in rallying conservative voters.

Wow! What is this “secret weapon”? Is it vote suppression? Is it super KKK?

McCain’s selection of Palin was critical to building enthusiasm among the party’s traditional base, said Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta.

Oh! It’s the Vice Presidential Candidate! That’s a “secret”?

“She is giving a voice to a lot of conservative voters — particularly evangelicals — in a way McCain never could do on his own,” he said. “She’s a heroine in the religious community.”

Early voting in Oklahoma set an all-time high, and a record turnout on Election Day appeared likely, according to Mike Clingman, election board secretary. Polls there have shown Obama getting about a third of the vote, about the same as John Kerry four years ago.

In other words, for every one new Obama voter, there are two new McCain voters.

State Democratic Party Chairman Ivan Holmes is expecting a strong Obama turnout in urban areas, but he anticipates a backlash in some conservative areas where the candidate’s race may be a factor — “especially among older voters.”

Ah, that’s it! It’s racism! That’s what’s getting the Republican voters out.

Texas saw its voter registration hit a record 13.5 million this year. But neither presidential candidate spent much time in a state that has gone Republican in every election since 1980.

Randall Dillard, spokesman for the secretary of state, said both sides were driving the registration boom.

“History can be made,” he said, “no matter how this race goes.”

So, in the second to last sentence of the article, we finally get the useful information: both sides were driving the registration boom.

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.

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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.