The Mac is Back!

Three Things the Obamedia Will Do to Depress Republican Turnout and Help Obama - From Hillbuz!

I found this very encouraging article from a blog by Hillary supporters, Hillbuz. If you're thinking there's no way McCain/Palin still have a chance to win this coming Tuesday, think again!
Please share this article with your McCain/Palin supporter and independent friends who might have gotten demotivated to cast their votes for McCain/Palin after seeing the poll #s on TV everyday! I honestly think we should just all turn to the QVC channel for the next 3 days until the election! Why? The Main Stream Media (all the local news and cable news channels, including the FoxNews, sadly) has done such a bang up job in making sure that we know that Obama is winning in all the polls - even the non scientific bobble headed dolls one!



The fact that Obama is leading 'comfortably', as one of the famous pollster said (I think it was Zogby) honestly, has scared the beejesus out of me. It has nothing to do with his race or skin color. It has everything to do with his tax and spending proposed policies, his sense of globalism, his sense of communism, his associations with groups or individuals who are either racist or socialist/communist or both and his lack of experience. How someone with all the aforementioned characteristics can be on the brink of becoming the president of this great free country is just beyond me! Hey, perhaps I should run in 2012...at least all's I have is the lack of experience part!

If today were 09.11.01, I betcha (**wink**wink***) that BHO would not stand a chance of winning this general election, even being the presidential nominee coming out of the primary election! But let your hearts NOT be troubled my friends! According to our Anti Obama friends at Hillbuz, the ONLY thing that WILL stand in the way between Obama and the US Presidency is Us! Yep...US...all of US that support McCain/Palin, if we get demoralized easily by the Main Stream Media that has been relentlessly making us sure that we know Obama is 'comfortably' leading in all the polls.

So, here we go: Three things the Obamedia will do to depress Republican turn out and help Obama

(1) Calls for McCain to just give up and quit, because the race is over. This one is a favorite of the trolls who lurk on pro-McCain sites. We get them here, despite all the spraying and fumigating we do, but notice how we ignore these trolls We’ve identified two paid Obama staffers who have been assigned to HillBuzz. We picked them up around the same time people from Ace and LGF started picking up some of our stuff — so our guess is they were assigned to us by whoever was monitoring those sites. They’re different trolls than the ones assigned to us during the primaries (we only had one back then, so evidently we’ve gotten more on the radar now). One of them starts posting “her” concern troll remarks here at 8am. The other one starts “his” remarks around 5pm or so. It appears there are two shifts for the trolls — and from what we can see, they share the same computer and IP address. And it’s an address right here in Chicago. [...]

(2) Wild claims of Obama winning states that shock and surprise you. Since Obama believes there are 57 states (maybe 58 or 59, depending on how he’s counting that day), the Obamedia will report huge wins for Dear Leader in the states of Confusion, Denial, and Undress, with Atlantis, Oz, Hopetopia, and Leningrad all going to Obama early on November 4th — because everyone loves Obama so much, that places that don’t even exist have voted for him (with 100% of the vote of the dead, cartoon characters, and historical figures going to Dear Leader in unprecedented numbers). The best example of the Obamedia making up lies like this was on Super Tuesday, when every Eeyore we knew ran through the streets crying and pants-wetting, gnashing their teeth and yanking their hair as the sky fell around them — BECAUSE OBAMA IS WINNING CALIFORNIA! MASSACHUSETTS! ARKANSAS! TENNESSEE! NEW JERSEY! NEW YORK! WAAAAAAAAH! DOOOOOOOMED! [...]

(3) Repeated insistance that blacks and young people will decide this election, and they are all going to vote in record numbers for Obama. First of all, black voters have always voted Democratic in massive numbers. We don’t think blacks have ever voted for Republicans in any substantial way in any race we can think of. Blacks vote as a race-bloc, and they always vote for the Democrat. Maybe Obama will get blacks who have never voted before to vote for him, or blacks who don’t bother to vote on Election Day to show up and vote, but we doubt that it will be very many people. Black voters were highly motivated to vote in 2004 because they felt George W. Bush stole the 2000 election, and they saw that as a civil rights issue that increased black turnout to one of the highest levels we have ever seen. [...]

After reading this Hillbuz article, read these articles to pump yourself up! More importantly, read all the comments, if you have the time! Trust me, it's totally worth it! It would really make you regain your confidence (if you ever lost it, like me...:) ) that the chance of McCain winning is not just some wishful thinking, it can be made a reality...with our relentless support!
1) A Risky Prediction: McCain Will Win
2) Signs Pointing to A McCain Victory
3) Stunning Results in Early Voting in CA. Smile Redstaters!
4) GOP Internal Polls (NJ, CA, MI, PA) Show Possible Landslide for McCain

So, go out there and:
1) VOTE! Don't get demoralized by the MSM and polls!
2) Make Calls to the battlegound state. Go to johnmccain.com to find out how!
3) Post comments on as many blogs as possible about McCain's chance of winning (quote this Hillbuz article, and other articles I give you) and Obama fake tax cut plan. This should be a priority over Obama's many radical associations as this it seems people don't care if they are lead by someone who "seems" to have socialistic view. But for sure, they SHOULD care about the money in their pockets and their jobs and how if Obama gets elected, they will end up with neither. And this is not a scare tactic my friend, just tell them that higher taxes lead to businesses spending cut which will eventually lead to businesses laying off people. No job, no money. And if they say...but..but Obama said bla bla bla (you know what he said about his tax cut plan) , just laugh, say that's BS and point them to this website: Barack Obama records on tax reform
4) Talk to your friends who are lukewarm in supporting Obama and are indifferent about this election. Do the same thing as the above. Also, use the right analogy to compare Obama's tax cut rhetoric with Obama's tax cut records. Ask them if they would trust a convicted bank robber to make a deposit for you at your bank? Ask them if they would trust a convicted child molester to babysit your children? Then....ask them if they would trust Obama, with his (lack) of tax cut voting records, to really cut their taxes?

Lastly, HAVE FAITH in the greatness of this country and its citizens!

We beat the Nazis and Fascism in the world war, we got through the Great Depression just fine, we beat the USSR and won the cold war, we toppled Saddam Hussein that the world does not have to worry about him breaking the 13th UN resolution anymore!, we give aids (financial + human volunteers) to other countries that were hit by natural catastrophes and malignant diseases like Indonesia, Pakistan and African countries, respectively. If we want to surrender to socialism and communism, we would have done that long time ago and Carter would have been elected twice.

SO...FIGHT! LET'S GO OUT THERE AND WIN THIS ELECTION! Let's make sure that after January 20, 2009, we're not gonna see what's depicted on the video below really happening!

Reasons to vote for McCain; reasons to vote against Obama

My reasons for voting, not just for McCain, but also against Obama, are almost all premised upon two basic belief systems I hold: (1) As a general matter, that federal government is best which governs least; and (2) that country is safest which has a strong military and is willing to use it in its own defense. With those principles in mind, here's my laundry list of reasons for favoring McCain over Obama.

1. National Security. While Obama has run from the subject for a long time now, he had made it clear through his own speeches and those of his surrogates that he wishes to do two things that will turn America into a wounded deer, lying there to be savaged by rapacious scavenger nations. First, he intends to remove America instantly from Iraq, despite the fact that we're finally winning. While we all understand that even the best commanders sometimes have to conduct a strategic retreat ("he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"), it's insane to back out of a fight that one is winning. I don't think it's ever been done at any place in any time. Second, at a time when America is disliked by her friends and loathed by her foes, he wishes to slash the military. He seems to be clueless that, in the real world, you first get people to become your allies, and only then do you lower your defenses.

McCain understands that the best defense is the promise that, should anyone attack you, you can and will go powerfully on the offensive. His fundamentally cheerful personality makes it clear that he's not out there looking for trouble but if trouble looks for him, he's ready.

In that regard, I have to say that I find it amusing that all the good liberals at my martial arts dojo, the ones who are desperate to unilaterally disarm America, are assiduously training themselves to be strong in case of an unexpected personal attack on the street. It baffles me that they can recognize at a personal level that the strength and training they're developing will not turn them into killing machines, but merely keep them safe; but are unable to extend that basic principle to a national standard.

In any event, McCain's entirely successful take on the surge should in itself demonstrate that he understands warfare in the modern era and is the one most likely to be able to protect America from her stated and violent enemies.

2. The economy. Neither Obama nor McCain is an economist. Neither understands the minute ebb and flow of the economy. That's fine. We're not electing an economist in chief. But each does have a view of the government's role in the marketplace, and this view will definitely affect the economy.

Obama wants to push out individuals and make the state the major player in the market place. How? Redistributive taxes. He wants to take more and more money away from people who have earned it, not simply to fund basic government program such as defense and infrastructure, but to give it to people whom he thinks deserve it. He doesn't believe in a fluid, flexible, reactive marketplace that rewards initiative and hard work. He trusts only the government, which doesn't reward action and initiative, but merely distributes pay based on a victim hierarchy.

Fine, you say, but what does this have to do with the economy? Everything.

The government does not make money; it only spends money. When you suck money out of the marketplace, there's less to go around, and you create infinitely smaller incentives for the entrepreneurs who create products and jobs. And aside from the lack of incentive, punitive taxes that benefit people who haven't earned money provide a strong disincentive for workers and entrepreneurs. Why should I think, and risk, and create, and sweat, if it's just going to go to the guy who whined about the fact that life is hard? News flash: Life is hard and life is unfair.

In a large, heterogeneous society, it makes sense for the government to provide a safety net for those who cannot possibly succeed economically (the aged, the ill, the handicapped), just as it does to provide a safety net for productive people who have fallen on hard times. However, it drains the economy dry to suck money out of the productive segment of the economy only to divvy it up amongst those who feel entitled for no other reason than their identity. Even Obama figured this out when he said at the start of the market's problems that he wouldn't put his tax changes into effect (and, mark you, at that time he'd only been admitting to tax "refunds" made on the backs of small businesses) because it would harm the economy. Well, duh!

Fast forward to John McCain. McCain also can't talk economic tech talk, but he understands that people, not government, make money, and make jobs, and have ideas, and show initiative. He understands that, when it comes to the marketplace, the government's job isn't to take over, but to police. It's job is to make sure people don't cheat or abuse their privileges.

In that regard, one of my favorite books in the world, To Serve Them All My Days, tells the story of life in a small public boys school in England between the world wars. I mention it here because the wise old headmaster has a good policy. Rather than myriad rules than simply invite evasion, he operates the school on a single principle: "Few rules but unbreakable." This would be an excellent rule for the marketplace, too. Figure out the big cheating problems, and slam down on them. Then see what else flows from that.

3. The judiciary. Do you like judges to make it up as they go along, depending on their emotional response to the parties before them? Each judge gets to decide if any given party is a good guy or a bad guy, or if the party belongs to a class of good guys or bad guys. Oh, I almost forgot! The judge also gets to define what constitutes "good" and "bad."

If you think that's the appropriate way to run a judiciary that will result in fair rules of law and the reliable application of laws so that individuals and businesses can make future plans, then Obama is the guy for you. Not only is he a member of a political party that believe that judges are uniquely situated to make these kinds of personal decisions, he has also stated that he believes Supreme Court justices should be guided by empathy, not law. And as you all know, we recently learned that he thinks the courts should be used as instruments of economic redistribution of wealth.

If, however, you believe that judges are to apply the law equally to all parties before them, regardless of the judge's personal response to any given party, and if you believe that a judge's role is to interpret law, not to make law, McCain is definitely the guy for you. While not as pure as one would wish, there is no doubt, absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that his judiciary will be more of a strict constructionist and less of an activist judiciary than Obama's.

By the way, one thing about judges: they're all former lawyers. If you think lawyers are scuzzy (and so many Americans do), why in the world would you want to vest all your trust in judges who are, after all, just lawyers? (Incidentally, let me remind that Obama is also a lawyer).

4. Abortion. The abortion issue is actually a subset of the judiciary issue. Despite all the screaming about the fact that Sarah Palin is pro-Life (and she actually walks the walk, rather than just talking the talk), the bottom line is that the president doesn't set abortion policy (nor, of course, does the VP). The only thing a president does that affects abortion is appoint judges.

A strict constructionist judge, one who sees the line between adjudicating and legislating, will honestly admit that Roe v. Wade made up a constitutional right where none exists. A strict constructionist judge will then say that, since there is no constitutional (i.e., federal) right, abortion must be decided either by the states or by constitutional amendment. Most states would continue to keep abortion legal, some states would limit it, and one or two might do away with it altogether.

There is no doubt but that McCain would appoint judges who wouldn't expand federal abortion rights (since they don't exist in the constitution) and who might in fact limit federal abortion rights (since they don't exist in the constitution). And there is no doubt that Obama, who refused to vote on a law that would allow live-born aborted babies to receive care, would not appoint those judges.

5. Freedom of speech. The evidence of your own eyes should convince you that Obama and his party are not committed to free speech. I'll give you a few examples. You can provide the rest.

First of all, there's the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which demands that radio stations give equal time to alternative political views, and then insists that the government determine what views get this time. Keep in mind, by the way, that the people advocating this doctrine also contend that NPR, the New York Times, The New Yorker, the Washington Post, ABCNBCCNNCBSMSNBC, etc., all have no actual political view -- they are, say the Fairness Doctrine advocates, impartial reporters of the news. It's only such nefarious sources as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Fox, Hugh Hewitt, etc., who purvey "biased" material that cannot be allowed to sully American ears, and that must be reduced by 50% (making it unprofitable, of course, for radio stations to carry them in the first place).

Suffice to say that, if Obama is president and a Democratic Congress passes the Fairness Doctrine into law, he'll sign the bill with pleasure. If McCain is president, and if the bill isn't veto proof, I can guarantee you he'll veto that bill.

That's big stuff. Here's the little stuff: Obama hasn't given a press conference in over a month; Obama's minions went after Joe the Plumber's private information in an effort to destroy him when he made Obama look bad (just by asking a question, mind you); Obama refuses to give future media access to two TV stations that asked Biden hardball questions; Obama has kicked off his plane reporters from media outlets that haven't endorsed him; Obama's minions threatened to investigate all of his major donors; and, lastly, Obama's minions have subverted the democratic process (which is a form of speech) through hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registrations.

6. Immigration. There is no doubt that conservatives think McCain is soft on immigration. But if you think he's bad, please remember that Obama represents a party that wants to do away with immigration limitations altogether. It's a party that wants an open border policy.

Is that what you want? Hey, even if you're Hispanic, even if you're a recent Hispanic immigrant, is that what you want? Keep in mind that an economy and a society can absorb only so many newcomers at a time. America's great virtue, as Tito the Builder appreciates, is that America provides enormous opportunities for those who come here, not simply to take from the government, but to work and to give back to this country. That system falls apart if America is flooded with unlimited numbers of immigrants. It's like overloading the lifeboat, with everyone drowning.

England serves as a great example of a country that is destroying itself through its unlimited immigration policies. Without passing any judgment on Muslim beliefs and values, it is still noteworthy that, in less than 15 years, Britain's elites have managed to create a situation that will see their ancient English culture gone in a few more decades

Think I'm exaggerating? The most popular baby name in Britain right now isn't Charles or Jonathan or Bert, its Mohammed. The biggest religion in England right now isn't the Church of England, it's the Catholic Church (because of the influx of Polish immigrants). I have great respect for the Catholic Church, but its current dominance is an historic irony that would make Bloody Mary happy, but that is, well, weird in the great panoply of British history. And when all those Mohammeds grow up, I can guarantee you a very bloody religious war in that country if the little Polish Lechs and Katerinas don't want to convert to Islam without a fight.

There are less than 72 hours left to the election. The media wants to tell you that this election should be Obama's because he's pretty and speaks well and has a calm temperament and, while we're not supposed to talk about race, he's of a race that will make the whole world happy and let us pat ourselves on our collective backs for being so open-minded. The media, of course, is wrong. This race is about incredibly important issues that will, at the least, affect us for years, and at the most (and worst) change America forever.

Even if you're no huge McCain fan because he's not conservative enough, or you're one of those Ivy League conservatives who thinks that Palin isn't "one of us," none of that should matter right now. In a vote between Obama and McCain, for those who cherish freedom from an intrusive federal government and who believe that the federal government's most vital role is national security, the choice should be clear: VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

Cross-posted at Bookworm Room and at Right Wing News

Why We Must Fight For McCain by Arnold Schwarzenegger

The whole video is interesing, but if you are in a rush, make sure you watch minute 5:20

A Spaniard's Case For McCain and Against Obama

November 4th is approaching and those who are undecided are beginning to make up their minds. I want to present my reasons for supporting John McCain for President and why an Obama Presidency brings to my mind deeply uncomfortable thoughts.

In full disclosure, I must say to all of you that I am not a US citizen yet. My immigration status is known technically as US Lawful Permanent Resident, commonly known as "green card holder". My status in the US is, for most practical purposes, similar to that of a US citizen except that I cannot vote in those elections which require US citizenship, ie the vast majority of elections held in the US. What that means is that in everything else I have most of the same rights and obligations of a US citizen, including my eligibility for the US Army draft. I also plan to apply for US citizenship next year, so my interest in who will be the next US President goes beyond a mere curiosity from a foreigner who lives in the US.

Simply put, I cannot be truthful to my reasons for willing to become a US citizen without passionately supporting John McCain in what has been called the most important election since 1980. This has nothing to do with calling Obama unpatriotic, although the latter's own statements on his reasons for not wearing a US flag pin would raise alarms on any reasonable person, but with the vision of America that captured my imagination as a child and teenager. Is that vision, that I received through American movies and TV, that triggered my desire to work hard so I could come to the US to seek the American Dream.

So what vision am I talking about? I fell in love with the America that gives every individual an opportunity to raise by himself regardless of his economic or family background. An America where individual freedom is the creed upon which its patriotism is based. An America where individual enterprise created the technology breakthroughs that have changed the world in which we live. An America that rewards individual merit while she is generous with the less fortunate of society. An America whose powerful Army has been used mostly as a force for good, unlike the different European armies that have been used mostly to subjugate neighbors and the rest of the world. In summary, an America that promises to those who give the best they have in themselves that success will follow their hard work and dedication. The last eight years haven't been perfect and frankly, George W Bush, mainly through an incompetent administration, has made a lot of damage to that vision of America. Whatever mistakes Bush made however, do not justify giving the highest office in the land to an individual, Barack Obama, whose vision for America is nothing like what grabbed my imagination as a kid but that sounds a lot like the European nightmare that I lived before coming to the US.

So, what nightmare I am talking about? Well, a society where the economic and social status where you are born pretty much determine your future. A society that provides universal state funded education and health care but with the catch that the government, not the individual, decides which school you attend and which doctor you go to. A society where asking a powerful politician a simple question can put you and your family in trouble (does the Joe the Plumber story sound familiar?). A society where mediocrity is rewarded and excellence punished (convince yourself by looking at the list of the best world universities and count the number of European universities there). A society where the "old money" still controls businesses, where chronic high unemployment exists because some people find it a better deal to receive government checks than to help themselves by having a job. A society where if you take a look at the largest companies, by almost any measure, 30 years ago you'll discover little change with respect to the largest companies today (in the US companies such as Google didn't exist 30 years ago; others like Microsoft or Apple were garage startups back then). A society where the last time the Europeans had armies comparable to the present US army in size and influence, they brought us World War II (ethnic nationalism is so ingrained in each European country that the only way the different European countries have found to be good neighbors is to have armies so weakened that they don't pose any serious threat to each other). Do I really need to continue?

When I hear the Obama/Biden ticket talking about "spreading the wealth around", "giving government checks to people who don't pay income taxes", "government mandated health care insurance", "negotiating without preconditions with the crappiest dictators of the world", rhetoric that puts the government playing an intrusive role in people's lives, education, free enterprise, science and technology, deciding when an individual is too rich for his own good... I get reminded of what I left behind in Spain. When in addition I see the press lynching a private citizen who dared ask a question to Obama or Biden avoiding the journalists who ask him hard questions, I am fearful that an Obama regime would make incidents such as Valerie Plame's the norm, not the exception.

For all these reasons, I cannot but wholeheartedly support John McCain for President.

It's Official: Coverage of McCain Twice as Negative as Obama

We already knew this, but having it confirmed by the The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism is akin to having it proved. Shame on you, MSM (or should I say Obama's propaganda arm?),

" John McCain received nearly twice as much negative press coverage as did Barack Obama. According to the report, 57% of the stories about John McCain during the period between September 8 and October 16 were "clearly negative in tone," compared to 29% for Obama. Conversely, stories that were "clearly positive in tone" favored Obama over McCain by a factor of more than two to one, 36% for Obama to just 14% for McCain."

Military Men and Women Prefer John McCain Overwhelmingly; Democrats on Iraq

That's right folks,

"Sen. John McCain enjoys overwhelming support from the military’s professional core, a Military Times survey of nearly 4,300 readers, indicates, though career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.
McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.
The results of the Military Times 2008 Election Poll are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The group surveyed is older, more senior in rank and less ethnically diverse than the overall armed services. But as a snapshot of careerists, the results suggest Democrats have gained little ground in their attempts to significantly chip away at a traditionally Republican voting bloc in campaign messages and legislative initiatives, such as the recent expansion of GI Bill benefits, experts said."

Also, I want to remind our viewers the opinion of our dear democrats on the Iraq war, back when their opinion actually mattered,

Job Creators Prefer McCain Four to One Over Obama

The economy seems to be the most important issue leading to November 4th. For all the media fanfare created around Google's CEO endorsement of Obama, it turns out that job creators overwhelmingly support John McCain for President,

For some months during this Presidential election year, Chief Executive has conducted specialized polling of CEOs’ attitudes on issues affecting national policy and the economy. In CE’s most recent poll in September, 751 respondents, more than double the usual number of business leaders, made their voices heard on their Presidential choice. By a four-to-one margin CEOs support Senator John McCain over his rival, Senator Barack Obama. More to the point, a thundering 74 percent majority say they fear the consequences of an Obama presidency, compared to only 19 percent who fear a McCain presidency.

By the nature of the survey, we don't know who is siding with McCain and who is siding with Obama. Yet, if Silicon Valley is any indication, among the CEOs of the top 10 companies in the Valley in terms of revenue, known CEO supporters of John McCain include Cisco's John Chambers, HP's Mark Hurd and Intel's Paul Otellini. Excluding HP's purchase of EDS, the combined revenue of those three companies was more than 180 billion dollars in 2007. Those three companies alone make more than one third of the SV150's 450 billion of dollars in sales in 2007. So! We know how "objective" the mainstream media is reporting these issues :D.

More Political Satire; Really Funny

Obama Will Raise Taxes!

Why does Senator Obama want to raise taxes, even though it will hurt the U.S. Economy? It is hard to understand why Obama spreads myths about the so called benefits of raising taxes.

Here are some of the most common myths about Obama’s tax plan:

1. The middle class will not be taxed – Obama wants to take money from families who have earners at all levels of income; everyone has family members who will pay more taxes, which leads to less money for food, gas, utilities, housing and education for all.

2. Only people earning over $250,000 will be taxed – To pay for Obama’s increased spending, Congress could raise taxes for those earning $100,000 or more. Obama hasn’t explained how he will repeal tax breaks for wealthy lawyers, senators, and politicians, or how he will define earnings... Take home pay? Gross earnings? Net income less expenses? Adjusted Gross Income? What?

3. Rich people sit on gold bars – Obama thinks rich people sit on gold bars, but they actually invest their wealth. After the stock market has lost 40% of its value, during his run for President, investors who help create jobs are struggling. People that own businesses are now trying to cut employees and make remaining employees work harder.

4. Government can create jobs – Obama has never owned a business, so he doesn’t know that government intervention can only help businesses create jobs or prevent businesses from creating jobs. Government entities hire very few people and can’t directly create jobs.

5. Taxation is investment in the future – Obama wants to remove funds from people’s bank accounts, partially by increasing the Capital Gains Tax, which will reduce 401K investment equity used by businesses to create jobs. On what is Obama going to spend your family’s money?

6. Patriotic to pay more taxes? – Obama and Biden think poor people, who can’t afford to pay higher taxes, are less patriotic than rich lawyers, senators, and politicians. Nonsense! Every citizen can be patriotic, even if they aren’t wealthy.

7. Raising taxes helps to spread the wealth around – Obama wants to increase government spending to support more government programs. What? Who? When? There is no timetable for success in these vague government programs.

Obama says he wants to raise taxes. Why would he do that when even the most junior of his advisors knows that it will hurt the economy and the middle class? Obama’s statements on the campaign trail have already helped to send the stock markets plummeting.

Just say NO to Obama!

Say YES to John McCain!

Thoughts about last night's debate

Immediately upon debate's end, I checked my email, since I'm a member of several conservative blogger email groups, and I went wandering into the blogosphere to see what conservatives had to say about the debate. What I learned was that conservatives generally thought McCain was the winner. More surprisingly, I also learned that, in blogs meant for other liberals, as opposed to liberal sites for general public consumption (such as Time or Newsweek), people also thought McCain had done better. They were just grateful that their man was still standing at the end.

As it happens, I also agree that, substantively, McCain did better, but I'm not sure that's good enough. Here's what I thought of how the ordinary person would see it, rather than those who, like us, are extremely involved politically and therefore very knowledgeable about the underlying facts.

The informed (that would be us) could tell that McCain was more accurate and more responsible. However, McCain is sometimes an elliptical speaker, who starts a thought and then forgets to finish it, or who speaks in jargon (such as referring to the Department of Defense as the DOD). Obama, although his answers were ill-informed, involved prevarication or outright lies, and were abusive, was still the smoother speaker, and that was despite the stuttering. He has the lawyer's tactic of keeping the words flowing even when nothing is coming out. Listeners hear subject, verb, object and, unless they are themselves well-informed, don't track that they just heard "The phelmble reamplicated the intializer."

These communication styles -- McCain talking sense but sounding confusing, and Obama talking nonsense but sounding lucid -- mean that those who don't know the issues and don't know the facts (that would be a lot of the undecided voters), probably walked away thinking that Obama was more in command. We, the obsessive political wonks, looked at every smirk and interruption with disdain, but they just heard a smooth flow of words.

Certainly this takeway -- smooth Obama, rough McCain -- is already the message the talking heads in the MSM are beginning to emphasize. (See here, for example.)

McCain wasn't helped by Lehrer's ineptitude, made manifest when he asked how the financial crisis would affect their Presidential governance. Obama embarked on a convoluted, empty description of the way in which he was going to choose between his important programs, some of which we really need and others of which we only have to have. (His words, not mine.) McCain replied that he was going to cut spending everywhere.

Lehrer then came back at them claiming neither had told him how they were going to deal with a post-financial crisis Presidency -- but that, in fact, was precisely what McCain did tell him. Cut, cut, cut spending. If that's not a way to deal with government indebtedness, I don't know what is. But again, by asking that stupid question, Lehrer undercut the intelligence of McCain's answer, and brought it to the same level as Obama's waffling -- a problem made worse by McCain's elliptical speaking style, which prevented him from saying "Jim, I did answer your question. Just as a household would do when the money is tight, I'm going to tighten the belt everywhere, and I'm going to do that through increased efficiency."

If McCain is going to have a hands-down win in the next debate, he is going to have to tighten his speaking style. People need to hear his thoughts from beginning to end. They are the better, more informed thoughts, but if they get lost behind a less than linear speaking style, the public is going to gravitate to the smoother Obama, no matter how meaningless or dishonest his answers.

I'd like to blame my anticipation of public superficialitity on the fact that we live in an MTV/soundbite generation, but that's too easy. This problem has been around since the modern media intersected with elections. Warren G. Harding, although it's hard to believe it know, overwhelmed women (voting in their first election in 1920), because he looked so good in his pictures.

Likewise, back in 1960, America for the first time saw a televised debate, featuring knowledgeable, experienced Nixon, sweating like a pig since he had the flu, and facile, less experienced Kennedy, artifically tanned because of his hidden Addison's disease. Despite the fact that Nixon won on the radio, where people couldn't see faces, Kennedy won hands down on TV, where they could. It was a triumph of style over substance.

By the way, this is not a gloom and doom prophecy. I think McCain has shown himself to be a master of both strategy and tactics. With more sleep, and a wee bit more prep (not so much as to make him wooden), he can tighten his communication and leave Obama staring at his dust.

Will Hillary run (as VP)?

Biden is a never-ending source of delight -- for those who don't like Biden. Whether he's chastising reporters for being out of shape, demanding that the wealthy show their patriotism by transferring their money to the middle class, making bizarre and ill-informed pronouncements regarding Catholic doctrine and abortion, or offending Ohioans en masse, you can really count on the guy to get it done (or, should I say, to get it done wrong). Nothing about this is new; it's just Biden being Biden.

If gravitas means being old, gray, and a Congressional seat warmer, Biden is the ticket. However, if gravitas means being thoughtful, informed and wise, Biden is, and always was, the comedy man in this straight man's role. Although Obama must have known going in what he was getting with Biden, you can't help wondering if he's suffering from buyer's remorse right now. That's especially true given the legions of women who took umbrage at the way he cavalierly insulted Hillary and who, in response, fled to McCain.

The question then, at least in the blogosphere, is whether Obama is going to pressure Biden to withdraw for some sympathetic reason, such as health or a family crisis, enabling Hillary to come in and save the day. While everyone with any sense will know that Biden's withdrawal is manufactured, some women may be so glad to see Hillary back on the ticket that they'll yield to the Democrats' siren song. Frankly, I've been one of those worried about this.

Noemie Emery, however, is much more sanguine. She thinks that, whether Obama wins or loses (and, of course, especially if he loses), she'll come out on top if she sits this one out:

If Obama wins, she gets to see her party in power, if that is her object. The problem is that the party is no longer hers. Or hers and her husband's. If Obama wins, the Clintons become history. They also slip down considerably on the great grid of power: She is eclipsed by a president who defeated her, a first lady who hates her, a loquacious vice president with a large, lively family, and a legion of people who early on threw in their lots with Obama, and have prior claims upon him and his loyalty. She becomes in effect a footnote to history, remembered perhaps for her personal dramas, her historic run in the primaries no longer remarkable, but overshadowed by Sarah Palin's run for vice president. Win or lose, Palin becomes the country's most visible she-politician, culture phenomenon, as well as the best bet to succeed John McCain at the head of her party. Hillary is yesterday's news, and has the rest of her life to brood on the mistakes that caused her to lose--very narrowly--the great prize she wanted and pursued, some will tell you, for the past 30 years.

This changes, however, if McCain wins. At once, she becomes the most important Democrat, the shipwreck survivor, the frontrunner for her party's 2012 nomination; the road not taken; the one that, if followed, would have led to the outcome for which her party has struggled so long. For four long years, she will be saying "I told you so"--to the super-delegates who didn't flock to her even when she won all those big primaries; to Obama, now back in the Senate, who didn't name her when he had his big chance. A deflated Messiah, a wünderkind who couldn't quite hack it, Obama would join Al Gore and John Kerry in the weary line of pitiful losers who tried and failed to match Bill Clinton's success. Bill Clinton himself becomes the Big Dog again, the one shining light in the overall darkness, the only Democrat to be elected twice since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the most successful Democrat since the mid-1960s, when Lyndon Johnson's luck, along with his party's good fortune, ran out. (Granted, this is a fairly low bar to get over. But still.) If you were Hillary Clinton, which prospect would you find more appealing? Let's guess.

That sounds like a reasonable Clinton-esque calculation to me, and one that is given more heft by the fact that Hillary's emissary (that would be Bill) has managed to trample all over Obama by heaping lavish praise on both McCain and Palin. The current Clinton tribe plan, therefore, seems to be to support generic Democratic issues, while building up the opposition. It's a long range plan, but certainly one that may benefit McCain/Palin in the short term, and one that seems antithetical to a Hillary October surprise.

Out of Touch With Your Running Mate, Barack?

Obama once again strayed away from the "audacity of hope" and made another cheap shot against McCain in his video "Still," which makes fun of the fact that McCain joined the Senate like, totally 20 years before Obama did. So uncool. And that he said he doesn't know how to use email or computers very well. 

Ok, fine. I've been trying to get my parents to use Gmail for 2 years. They won't budge from their beloved Microsoft Outlook. And it's not because they're not smart. Kids I babysat for in high school probably have fancier cell phones than I do and know how to program their DVDs and Tivos, and I still don't have the patience to do that. Who cares?

I'm not even gonna get into the fact that McCain can't type because of the injuries he endured at the Hanoi Hilton. But let's look at a few things McCain does know how to do that Obama doesn't:

Fly a plane.

Fire a gun. (Palin can do that too.)

Run a committee dedicated to national commerce, science, and technology.

And McCain did decently when interviewed during the primaries by CNET in their "Technology Voter's Guide" to the election. Check out his responses - he shows a solid understanding of the internet's role in fighting terrorism, takes positions in favor of competition and free trade as they apply to tech, and says he's against internet taxes. And in this Tech Crunch inteview from last year, he sounds pretty confident (there's also a podcast) and cracks some good jokes, too.

How did Obama's running mate fare in this survey? Well, Biden refused to answer it, perhaps because he didn't want to discuss his pro RIAA record, crackdown on copyright law in online music downloading, and skepticism of net neutrality - all positions that don't sit well with the techie-happy Obama. Or perhaps it's because he received a 37.5% score from the CNET folks in the 2006 Voter's Guide.

Looks like Obama should consider his running mate's positions on technology issues, not just whether he can click 'send,' before he throws the first stone.

The Global Climate Change Presidency

The Global Climate Change Presidency

The next U.S. President could have significant impact on global climate change, yet Senator Obama’s policy is more about energy. Senator McCain’s policy addresses the larger scope of global climate change.

My personal research is relevant to the presidential candidates’ energy and climate change policies, because the two candidates seem to have vastly different understandings of climate change and potential underlying causes of change. (The research is on beliefs about climate change and I am looking for always looking for additional participants: http://www.geocities.com/dawagnersjca/short.html .) Advertising not withstanding, I’ve been thinking a great deal about global warming.

Some voters are not convinced that global warming is occurring. Others believe strongly that global warming is occurring. Those who believe strongly in global warming are not in agreement about the cause. Some attribute the warming to human activity (i.e., anthropogenic). Still others who believe in global warming are split among a variety natural causes, such as solar radiation due to sunspots, etc.

The Obama campaign has no clearly stated policy on global warming; There is no discernable action plan relative to what the Obama / Biden ticket will do to tackle this extremely important issue. Instead, Obama’s energy plan makes vague reference to reducing greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, the McCain campaign has published a clear statement on climate change policy, albeit brief. Like the Obama plan, the McCain plan presupposes that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Unlike Obama, McCain provides extensive detail about how a market-based cap and trade policy will encourage an overall lowering of greenhouse gases.

Double-fault: Obama. Obama’s energy policy provides easy-to-understand bullet points that are absent necessary detail, implying that the candidate and his advisors have not really done considerable thinking about how to address global climate change. Moreover, the lack of detail combined with the prominence of the term green house gas emissions (as the only cause of global warming) in the energy policy seems to indicate that no further scientific inquiry will drive the Obama plan.

Advantage: McCain. McCain’s climate policy is much more detailed and seeks scientific answers for setting acceptable levels of greenhouse gases. Presumably, a science-based approach would include a development of an extensive understanding of the degree to which greenhouse gases have played and will continue to play a role in global climate change.

Both candidates’ websites offer press releases with praises of their respective policies relative to climate change, but only Senator McCain has articulated a point of departure for building a comprehensive solution to the problem of global climate change.

References:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/1F8B2869-689E-4E79-BFB4-C20CF1A47297.htm

Closing the Convention

Now that the last streamers and balloons have fallen from the Xcel Center--and I think I'm still trying to get the confetti out of my hair--I want to reflect a little bit on what I experienced.

This was my first convention, so I really can't compare it to other conventions, but my bottom-line reaction to the convention is that it was a lot of fun. It was similar to attending the Super Bowl three days in a row, but it is even better than that because your favorite team wins every night and everybody else is cheering for the same team.

Most of my California friends support Obama, so it is also encouraging to be around with so many McCain supporters. I also met several other McCain supporters living in the Bay Area. Yes, there are Republicans in the California Bay Area. The convention has really infused me with even more excitement for a McCain adminstration, and I'm looking forward to getting back to California and working hard over the next 60 days to get him and Sarah Palin elected.

McCain's speech was in a word, presidential. He did not give a rah-rah speech like Palin did the previous night, but he looked to inspire Americans and quietly but forcefully explain why he should be president and what he will do when elected.

Before the speech, many television pundits said that McCain needed to talk about his domestic policy. On Thursday night, McCain did just that. He will cut wasteful spending, keep taxes low, work on retraining people to take advantage of opportunities in this new economy, give people a choice in education, make it easier for Americans to find good health care health care insurance, and achieve energy independence.

It was very exciting at the end of the speech when McCain was saying he would fight for us and encouraging us to stand up and get involved. The crowd was going absolutely wild. We were cheering and clapping so loudly that I really could not hear a word of what he was saying at the end. How cool is that!

During McCain's speech, a question kept running through my mind. Why have I supported McCain as president since the primaries? The basic reason, which was reinforced by seeing McCain give his speech, is that I trust McCain to do what is best for America. I believe that trust is justified by McCain's long public career. I may not agree with McCain on every single issue, but I trust McCain's judgement. I just cannot say the same thing about Obama.

When the speech ended, the balloons and confetti started falling, the music started playing (check out the "Raising McCain" song by John Rich), and people started dancing. The McCain and Palin families came out on stage, and the Xcel center seemed to get even louder. Palin and McCain both walked out to the crowd and shook hands. About 10 high school students made their way to the center of the hall right in front of the podium and held up a couple of big signs saying "Students For McCain." Balloons started popping making the convention sound like a big popcorn machine.

Eventually, we began to exit the Xcel Center energized to stand up, fight, and win the election for John McCain.

The wacky brilliance behind the Palin pick

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that selecting Palin was a brilliant idea. She is completely immune from personal attack, which means the only real debate in the upcoming election can be about policy.

Criticize her sex, and you lose the women's vote.

Criticize her foreign policy experience (or lack thereof), and you invite painful comparisons to Obama, who wants to be President, not just VP.

Criticize her executive experience, and you invite even more painful comparisons to Obama, the wannabe President.

Criticize her youth, and you again have a problem with Obama, since he, with only three more birthdays than Palin under his belt, is aiming for the executive office.

Criticize her U of Idaho degree and you (a) invite painful comparisons to Biden, no Ivy Leaguer himself; and (b) invite charges of elitism.

Criticize her kind of goofy Alaska accent and lack of European sophistication, and you further alienate the embittered gun owners and religious nuts the elite Obama denigrated a few months ago. (By the way, I'm sarcastically quoting Obama when I refer to those embittered gun owners and religious nuts. His view of them, not mine.)

Criticize her small town roots, same thing: alienate embittered gun owners and religious nuts who make up the heartland.

Try to raise Alaskan political corruption, and you run smack into the fact that she attacked corruption head-on. You also open yourself up to invidious comparisons with Obama (Annenberg and Rezko) and Biden (repeat plagiarism)

Add to this that she's a good speaker, who will make Biden look overbearing and bombastic during debates, and you're just looking at a brilliant choice. She's bullet proof.

I should add, though, that her appeal is to the undecideds among us. I live in liberal land, and was able to hear lots of gleefully negative opinions about Palin today. The personal ones involved smears (and it's amazing how quickly they got around) that probably don't have a lot of truth to them. The first smear was that she abused her office to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. Patrick Casey neatly rebuts that one.

The next smear is that she's a rabid creationist. There is no doubt that she is a creationist, a view that I consider to be in the realm of faith, and unrelated to the science of evolution. As for me, I'm an evolutionist and, if anything, hew to John McCain's view on the subject: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." "The hand of God" -- a rather lovely and poetic phrase for the mysteries that even science cannot answer.

So, she's a creationist, which is a little unnerving to those of us who believe that science and faith don't intermingle well, but is she rabid? Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs, who is himself a rabid evolutionist, and who tangles repeatedly with conservatives on the issue, has examined her position and is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The actual fact of the matter is that Palin has said that, while she would not push for creationism to end up on the science curriculum, she believes that, if the subject arises in class, it can be discussed, rather than shut down. I agree with that too. Discussion acknowledges the existence of a heartfelt belief amongst many Americans, and allows students to understand that science can only deal with the physical record and the conclusions that can be drawn therefrom, and that it's smarter to leave to God knowledge of his role in that record.

What this means is that the two biggest substantive attacks against her are either false or exaggerated. Giving the full story, of course, won't change the liberal diehards, but should be interesting to for the undecideds among us -- especially since we know that it is they who will determine the outcome of this election.

Another thing I heard from the chattering libs was that "she's not one of us," meaning that Palin lives a lifestyle that is the opposite of that embraced in blue regions: she's pro-Life, she hunts, she actively believes in a traditional God, she doesn't support gay marriage, etc. The beauty of these charges against her, of course, is that they are all substantive. Her presence on the ballot allows a debate on the issues, without getting derailed by personal attacks. When it comes to Palin, no one can say, "Well, you may talk the talk on being pro-Life, Gov. Palin, but what would you do if that test showed your baby was defective?" Her life is an example of the depth of her belief systems.

Finally, when a few people nattered on about her inexperience, I politely pointed out that McCain might have been savvy by putting her on the ballot, because Obama doesn't have any more experience than she does and, quite possibly, less (which earned a nasty remark about small towns and Alaska) -- and that Obama is seeking on-the-job training in the President's spot, not the Vice President's.

The response to that one was "But McCain's an old man," the implication being she Palin's is more likely than not to be the kind of VP who ascends to office via the President's death, rather than a full elecction. "Yes," I agreed, "but he's still unlikely to die within minutes of taking office."

Silence. "

Well, that's why Joe Biden is on the ticket. He has great foreign policy experience." I forebore to point out that he's had the experience, but seems to have learned little from it, since his understanding is limited and his choices are rather consistently bad. I'd rather have a smart neophyte, than a dumb old hand.

Back to my opening point, then: With every passing second, I'm more impressed by the choice, and that's not even covering how impressed I was by the timing of the announcement, which sucked all the air out of that generic, unexciting, vicious Obama speech.

Dream Ticket McCain-Palin! Plus, Thanks God MLK was no Obama

My friends :D,

I put below what was supposed to be the beginning of my posting today... That is, until I learned that Sarah Palin has been chosen to be the VP nominee of the Republican Party.
I must confess that up until the announcement I was convinced that Mitt Romney was going to be picked, since he was almost unanimously perceived as "the safe choice". Yet, in another demonstration that John McCain is the true maverick and the independent mind in this race, he picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin! You have all about her in that wikipedia link, including her fight against politics as usual. Now for those who were looking for a new era of politics, you don't have an excuse! The McCain-Palin ticket offers the experience of a war hero who has worked in the US Senate for more than two decades with both parties to successfully bring in legislation that benefits Americans together with the youthful, energetic, and inspiring Sarah Palin. She'll be ready to be our first woman to reach the US Presidency if required. To paraphrase our Fox friends, "Governor Palin, the Republican VP candidate, has more executive experience than Senator Obama, the Democratic Pres. candidate.". The choice for Americans couldn't be more obvious.

McCain - Palin '08!



After all the hype surrounding Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC, I am deeply disappointed. As the old saying goes, much ado about nothing. This is the night we were supposed to know about Obama's concrete plans; about how, if elected President, he would bring about "change", that "change we could believe in". I am still as clueless about how he plans to do that that. But I am even more clueless about what "change" actually means if in fact it meant anything at some point.

During the primaries I was convinced that "change" meant that he planned to put Washington upside down; you know, get rid off the old guard, inject new blood, etc. Do things in a non Washington way. A new beginning we were told! It was a gullible idea back then but it seemed to inspire a lot of people, specially young people unfamiliar with the working of American politics. Apparently, once he realized that it was too naive of a proposition, so naive and impractical that he was forced to bring into his ticket the most hawkish and Washington-like among all the Democrats serving in the Senate, he said to himself "to heck with change". So much for the new beginning.

Tonight's speech didn't have any substance plus the guy wasn't at his best in the oratory department. His whole message message was: "I am clueless about the Presidency but believe me the other guy, that guy who has more than two decades of experience in the Senate, who has served honorably in the American military, who has worked with both parties to pass legislation important for the American people, who has disagreed with Bush in matters of importance such as the conduct of the war in Iraq by suggesting a winning strategy... he is no better". Unfortunately for you dear Barack I know better. Because I know better I say that I passionately support John McCain to be the next President of the United States over you a thousand times if necessary.

And BTW, Americans of all walks of life should feel fortunate that MLK was no Obama. No, this is not a mistake by a foreigner lacking proficiency with the English language. It is a self evident truth that Obama is no MLK. My point is that had MLK been an individual as empty as Obama is, the American South might still be segregated to this day. True agents of change, true American heros, such as MLK, work diligently to bring about change instead of spending the their time bragging about how to bring about change to end up doing nothing, as it has been your case, Mr Obama. After 8 years as a state senator in Illinois and 4 years as a US Senator, even the most faithful amongst your supporters is unable to mention a single significant legislative achievement of yours. And you have the guts to lecture us about John McCain? Give me a break! To quote NY Times' columnist David Brooks: "It’s about the future, and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are."

The tide is turning

It's always fun to flirt with the edge of a cliff. We dance up to it, proud of our courage in getting so close to the that knife's edge between security and oblivion. But when we actually look into the abyss, well, that's when sensible people start getting nervous. Right now, sensible people are backing off of the abyss that is the Democratic party.

The Washington Post has just reported that McCain had his top fundraising month to date, although he's still not achieving financial parity with Obama:

Republican Sen. John McCain posted the best fundraising month of his presidential campaign in July, bringing in $27 million, but his supporters are bracing for the near-certainty that he will be operating at a severe financial disadvantage in the two-month stretch between the end of the party political conventions and Election Day.

Even the bad news in that paragraph -- that Obama is way ahead in the money game -- isn't quite as bad as it looks. To begin with, while the media has carefully looked the other way whenever someone tries to flag its attention about Obama's fund-raising irregularities, it's becoming apparent that at least some of Obama's money is actually funny money -- very funny. Thus, after spending countless hours pouring through Obama's public information, Pamela Geller discovered that all is not as it seems:

Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".

Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,

How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.

A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj

City: Jkbjnj

Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)

Occupation: Balanon Jalalan

Amount: $1,077.23

or the donor Doodad,

The # of transactions = 1,044

The $ contributed = $10,780.00

This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG

The more questions we answered the more questions we discovered.

This means that Obama may not have quite as much spending money as he's been boasting about. More to the point, despite having had for some months enough money to make Midas jealous, Obama simply isn't moving up in the polls the way he should. The media is in love with him, the activists are wildly excited about him, and he's spending money like water, but he just can't seem to get that bump he needs to lock onto the White House.

Obama is also facing the ever present Hillary threat. Jonah Goldberg sums up that problem rather nicely:

For months now people have been saying to me, “Do you really think they’re gone?” “Is it finally over?” “Is the coast clear?”

The questions have been in response to Barack Obama’s supposedly yeoman service in putting an end to the Clintons in public life.

My response to those who believe our long national nightmare is over has always been: “Have you seen no monster movies?”

I suspect that there's going to be a fair amount of buyer's remorse at the Democratic Convention, and that gives Hillary the chance to pop back into her "rightful" place as the Democratic nominee. When I first realized this was a possibility, I got quite nervous. After having painted Obama as the worst of both the old and the new Left, Hillary was actually starting to look pretty good. I could see conservative Democrats who had gotten fearful of Obama, and who were eying the possibility of voting for McCain, heave a sigh of relief as a palatable Democrat took over the ballot.

The problem, of course, is the same old Hillary problem: While she may be better than Obama, vast numbers of American voters deeply dislike her, and they find unsavory the thought of her husband getting a second chance at those poor White House interns. In addition, the Democrats as a whole will have a problem with disaffected black voters who will be offend that the party, having first embraced Obama, then summarily rejected him when the going got a little tough. Just as hard core Hillary voters became hostile when the party dumped her for Obama (see this blogger, for example), the African-American community is not going to appreciate seeing that same little dance played out in reverse.

In other words, the Democratic party is caught between a rock and a hard place, both of its own making. Obama's money hasn't helped his candidacy as much as it should have and the fact that McCain is starting to see real money flow in is a sign that Obama's popularity is waning as McCain's rises. Even if McCain doesn't see any more substantial sums flow in, he's already well-positioned -- not by virtue of his own policies and campaign spending, but because of the myriad failures coming from the Democratic party. It was true, then, that this election was one for the Democrats to lose.

Believe me, I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch. I know that there is still a very real chance that Obama will win and we'll see the Carter Presidency redux. Nevertheless, while a few months ago I was experiencing flat despair at the thought of the Obama juggernaut, I now feel a cautious optimism that the tide is turning and that sanity will prevail amongst the American voters.