Posts Tagged ‘Election 2008’

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%.


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.

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.

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.

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.

Barack Obama’s Intellectual Curiosity

October 19, 2008

Ann Althouse is quoting Colin Powell as saying he’s supporting Senator Obama for President because they share the same skin color because “Obama displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge….”

“Intellectual curiosity”. Yeah, right.

Senator Obama was at the University of Chicago for 12 years. How many Republican or libertarian Economics Professors did he discuss politics or economics with? How often did he go to those who disagreed with him, and say “This is what I think. Why do you disagree?” 0?

I hit close to this in my first blog post. The New York Times did an article on Obama, and the thing that I think jumps off the page is that Obama never intellectually engages with those who disagree with him. Talks with them, associates with them, but never engages with them. Never challenges their thinking, and never opens himself up to the possibility that someone might, in any way, know something that could convince him he’s wrong, about anything.

Obama has written two books. The topic? Himself. Nothing else is (apparently) interesting enough to him.

How many law review articles has Professor Obama written? He was a professor / senior professor / lecturer for 12 years, and nothing was interesting enough for him to write an article on it?

As an undergraduate, Obama wrote a senior thesis. Has anyone read it? He’s been trapped into admitting that he wrote one law review article while he worked for the law review. Has anyone read it?

Is there existing even a single example of academic writing by Barack Obama that displays any special level of intellectual curiosity, academic competence, or intellectual rigor? Anything?

Or is this all just more Bidenesque “clean and articulate” babbling? Perhaps mixed in with a bit of “oh, he’s a Democrat, so he must be smart” (you know, like Joe Biden)?


October 17, 2008

Over on Volokh, there’s an argument about judges and “fairness.”  I used to think that judges should be bound by the law.  But hey, I’m convinced.  All that matters is fairness.

You know, i don’t think it’s fair that John McCain, who’s served in the Senate for years, and spent five years being tortured as a POW, should lose the Presidential election to a first term Senator who’s never accomplished anything in his life other than winning elections.  So I think that, if the vote comes out wrong, the US Supreme Court, out of a concern for fairness, should overturn that result and give the election to McCain.

Anything else would be unfair.

And we know that fairness is far more important than the rule of law, or democracy, or any othre such pedestrian concerns.

Obama Youth

September 30, 2008

This video has been making the rounds. Children singing for their “Dear Leader” Obama, recorded with the help of Jeffery Zucker (Head of NBC?)

Like many people, I think it sounded better in the original German

Obama’s Sex Ed Adventure

September 12, 2008

This started out life as a comment over at Megan’s place, after she whined about McCain’s “Obama Sex Education” ad. (I note with amusement that rather than being posted, “Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.” Given that there’s no real logging in, my guess is it’s a size issue.)

If you haven’t read Jim Geraghty’s two defenses of the McCain Ad, as well as Byron York’s you should.  Both provide solid background that the MSM has left out.  Commenter “glasnost” attempts to strike back here, mainly by quoting ABC. Too bad ABC’s full of crap.

My comment to “glasnost”:

You know, I just figured out why this is such a winning issue for McCain, and why it so completely torques you “Coastal Elite” types.”

The Obama defense is “look, you’re being unreasonable. Of course we’re not going to take advantage of ambiguous language in order to do insane things (like teach about sex to Kindergarteners) in the classroom.” And the response from the McCain camp, and from the sane part of America, is “the Hell you aren’t. You have in the past, you will in the future, so we’re not going to let you screw up our kids education now.” The fact that most Americans just don’t trust you really pisses you off. “Who do those hicks think they are, not trusting me?” Answer: they’re “What’s Wrong with Kansas.” They’re the people whose votes decide elections. And they don’t trust you because people like you have been coarsening our culture for the last 40 years, and they think that makes the country worse off.

I ran across this article School sex club run by small boys, says Brisbane dad, and thought “I wonder what the teachers at that school would claim is ‘age appropriate sex education’? Would I really want to give them a blank check like that, and find out what they’ll do with it?”

No, I wouldn’t. And neither would most other people.

But Barack Obama voted to do just that, on a “straight party line vote.”
So, glasnost, excellent try, but you fail.

What I quoted from Geraghty:

it’s clear that one of its key purposes was to change existing law that said “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS” to “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
[Bold mine]

From the large pile of drivel that [glasnost] pasted in:
The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV” — in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.
[Bold mine]

False. If they were just going to leave it at the pre-existing classes, they wouldn’t have needed to change the law.

And, in fact, once they started to catch grief over the law, “one of the bill’s original sponsors, State Sen. Carol Ronen, apparently rethought the age issue and introduced an amendment to shift it back to grade 6.”

So yes, it was an issue, and a legitimate one.

So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?

“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says.

Ah, so Obama was trying to bring “Heather Has Two Mommies” to IL Kindergarteners? If you think that’s a defense, go right ahead.

“No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse,” McDowell says. “I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”

If you’re teaching about AIDS and HIV prevention to K – 12, you’re as a minimum opening the door to be teaching about sex K – 12. If that’s not what you want to do, then write the law so it doesn’t do that.

This kind of thing is why Democrats lose elections, and why you deserve to lose them. This bill was about the Left attacking the rest of society in the Culture War. “We know the proper way to think, and we’re going to force it on you hicks.” Which is why it also changed (emphasis mine in both)

All public elementary, junior high, and senior high 20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual –intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)


All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.

This bill was boilerplate Leftist Culture War material. Obama voted for it on a straight party line vote. Why?

Because Obama is a Democrat Party hack. He’s not thoughtful, he’s not nuanced, he’s just another left-wing drone, this one with a pretty face and the ability to give a good speech (so long as it’s fed to him from the Teleprompter).

And he’s going to lose. He’s going to lose because the American people aren’t stupid, and are figuring him out, he’s going to lose because McCain is just a better campaigner than Obama, and he’s going to lose because McCain’s VP choice was a thousand times better than Obama’s.

Fineman Swings, Whiffs

September 11, 2008

Newsweek / MSNBC pundit Howard Fineman attempts to provide some cover for Senator Obama in his latest news analysis, but pretty much fails.  But it’s a valiant effort, so I’ll mock it. 🙂

No, Barack Obama was not making fun of Sarah Palin when he talked about some Republican putting “lipstick on a pig.”  He was trying to be colloquial

Yep, that’s why he stopped and waited for the laughs after saying “put lipstick on a pig”, instead of completing the entire phrase (“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”) and then waiting for the laughs.  (This was obvious even before Obama went on Letterman and claimed that he was thinking of Palin as the lipstick, and McCain as the pig.  Must burn to toss away your credibility, and then get tossed under the bus by Obama anyway.)

Here’s a hint, Howard, when you trash your credibility in the first paragraph, it’s not going to be a good article.

Declining to take federal financing for the general election
This mistake is two-pronged. Obama stands accused of flip-flopping on the matter, saying in 2007 that he’d accept those funds and the cash limits that come along with it.

Um, no.  He doesn’t “stand accused of flip-flopping on the matter”, he is outright, 100.00% guilty of “flip-flopping on the matter”.

Declining McCain’s offer to hold ten town hall debates
When Obama was leading the race in leaps and bounds, he blew off this GOP proposal. Too bad. Had Obama locked in that deal, he would now be able to confront McCain face-to-face about some of the Republicans’ more aggressive – if not to say cynically manipulative – recent television advertising claims.

Obama declined those debates because he knows that he’s an empty suit, and the debates would have showed up that fact.

If he offered McCain the debates right now, McCain would probably take him up on it, and then proceed to take Obama apart.  Which is why Obama won’t make the offer.

Failing to go all the way with the Clintons
Yes, I know, Bill and Hillary got prime speaking roles in Denver. And yes, I know, the Clintons are difficult to deal with and probably hope Obama fails. Still, it’s Obama’s task to latch on to them, even against their will. But he was too proud.

This is where I have the most sympathy for Obama, but also where I think he screwed up the most.

He was entirely right not to want a Clinton VP.  OTOH, he could have gone to her (and Bill) a week after she conceded, and said “look, I’m not going to have you as my VP.  You would make a lousy second banana, and I’m not going to screw up my Administration by picking someone as VP would wouldn’t be a good Vice-President.  But I would like your advice on who I should pick as VP, and I’d like to work with you on some things that are important to you.”

IOW, feed their egos, stroke them, get them on board in ways that wouldn’t hurt him.

But his ego wouldn’t let him do that.  He was going to win, with or without their help, and therefore they and their supporters needed to cultivate him, not the other way around.


The 22-state strategy

The Obama ego strikes again.  He is The One, he can get anyone to vote for him.

Oh, and when you’ve got a ton of Other People’s Money, there’s not need to be “conservative” about spending it.

Failing to state a sweeping, but concrete, policy idea
It is not enough to be for change – everybody is, or is trying to be. To make it stick, Obama needed, and needs, to put forth an easy-to-grasp grand proposal, one that would encapsulate what his central message. [sic]

Obama’s “central message” is “love me, vote for me, because I am The One.”  He doesn’t have any real policy proposals, because a: he’s an empty suit, and hasn’t bothered to think about what he’d actually do to make America better (his mere election is sufficient for that), and b: He’s a hard-core leftie.  The American people won’t like his actual policies, so he must do everything he can to keep them hidden until the suckers elect him.

Remaining trapped in professor-observer speak
When you listen to Obama, it sometimes feels like you’re hearing a smart but distant analysis of the political scene. He sounds like a writer or teacher, but not the leader of a political crusade. Obama has been far too “meta” – a detached commentator on his own situation and his own country. Voters want an action plan, not an exegesis.

Um, you’re now complaining about the “core” of Obama.  He has no “action plan”, and never has.  He just is.

Failing to attack McCain early
Obama was wary of attacking a man who had suffered so much during the Vietnam War – an understandable emotion. But that wariness, combined with Obama’s natural inclination to be seen as the nice guy (one who lets others do the knifing) lead to an unfortunate result. It gave two free months for McCain to build up a head of steam as a war hero, as opposed to what Obama needed to paint him as publically: a man beholden to corporate interests and a likely clone of George W. Bush.

Ah, yes, that perennial compalint “gosh darn, we’re just too nice to win.”  Tell it to Bristol Palin.

The problem isn’t that he hasn’t been attacking McCain.  The problem is that the attacks haven’t worked.  This is because the American people aren’t as dumb as you think they are.

The #3 recipient of Fannie Mae lobbying money doesn’t get to attack others for being “beholden to corporate interests.”  You can’t honestly paint the leader of the Gang of 14 as “a likely clone of George W. Bush.”

Wrong again.

So, what’s it like being so far in the tank (for Obama) that you’ve grown Gills?

Sarah Palin, PTA Mom

September 11, 2008

In this Presidential campaign, we have the team that cares about the poor and middle class, and then we have the candidate who supports the powerful in their fight against the powerless.

First: the decent human beings:

John McCain supports vouchers so that poor people can send their children to decent schools, rather than the crappy inner city public schools.

Sarah Palin is a “PTA Mom“, and sends her kids to public schools that she’s fought to make better.

Now, the scum of the Earth:

Barack Obama opposes vouchers for poor and middle class families, while sending his children to private schools with tuitions in the $20,000 / year range (although, if you consider this a “defense”, he may only be paying 1/2 that).  You see, public schools are “good enough” for the losers he wants to “take care of” as President, but they’re not good enough for his children.

I suppose that, like Jim Lindgren, you could be happy that he loves his children enough to want to get them a good education.

I, other the other hand, am not impressed.  He’s not running for “World’s Best Dad” (and if he is, he’s failed for other reasons), he’s running for President of the United States.  If he gave a damn about the people of America, he would favor all of them, not just the rich, getting good educations.  But favoring that would put him in conflict with the Teacher’s Unions.

And when choosing between helping all Americans, or helping the Special Interests, Obama choose the Special Interests.

Because Obama, and the Democrats, only believe in “choice” when it involves avoiding taking responsibility for your actions.

Visual Aids for Senator Obama

September 10, 2008

Today Senator Obama demonstrated his ignorance by saying about Senator McCain and Governor Palin

You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.

So I thought I’d help poor Senator Obama, who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it come to animals

Image of a pig on a farm

A pig on a farm. Owners probably cling to their guns and religion

A pitbull

A pitbull

A pitbull with lipstick on

A pitbull with lipstick on

A pig with lipstick on

A pig with lipstick on

Now do you see the difference between a pig and a pitbull, Senator Obama?