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!

CNN interview with Sarah Palin

This is the Sarah Palin we love! Just see the anchor concede at the end that the media is giving a pass to Joe Biden with his comments that Obama, if elected, will be tested by America's enemies!

Bashing Governor Palin: Is Keith Olbermann an Idiot?

I’m not sure if MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is an idiot, but I think is it an interesting line of inquiry. Calling someone an idiot is such a classic put down, as long as you aren’t insulting the idiots out there. Still, I’m not calling Keith Olbermann an idiot in those words but just asking a simple question. Normally, I eschew writing what sounds like a personal attack, but I just can’t help myself this time… So let’s get to the business at hand. Is Keith Olbermann an idiot?

Olbermann seems to have a thing for Governor Sarah Palin that defies explanation. He constantly trashes her background and abilities. He is obsessed with putting her down and lampooning her every statement. Just look at his website. Palin this and Palin that, and there is feature entitled, Aunt Sarah’s Moose Stew. Is Olbermann obsessed with Sarah Palin?

Half of Olbermann’s show yesterday on MSNBC was devoted to trashing Senator McCain and Governor Palin. Ironically, Olbermann used to be a sportscaster on ESPN, who got too big for his britches. Now he’s broadcasting pseudo-journalism on MSNBC, which is watched by up to two dozen homes in California and New York. Yes, better add one home: mine. Does it matter what Keith Olbermann broadcasts to over two dozen American homes?

I watch Keith Olbermann’s show when I want to feel like the smartest man in the world. He’s like a uninformed version of Anderson Cooper blended with an unfunny version of Jon Stewart. Does he have any training in journalism, economics, or political science? He graduated from Cornell though… What’s up with that? Let’s make fun of where Keith went to college. High above Cayuga’s waters there’s an awful smell! Ha Ha! Is Cornell University taking full responsibility for Keith Olbermann’s journalistic prowess?

What did Keith Olbermann not know about being a journalist and when did he not know it? Let’s get some answers to these questions about whether Keith Olbermann is ready to serve one heartbeat away from the king of know-it-all journalists on MSNBC, Chris Matthews.

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.

Obama on Experience

Obama visited the Googleplex last November to preach to the choir, and a devoted follower asked him a pretty softball question about how he's going to defend his relative lack of experience compared to others in the Democratic primary pool. I thought his answer was interesting in light of recent criticisms of Palin. He describes what makes a good presidential candidate and Palin more than fits the bill:

"What we're looking for when it comes ot leadership is vision, judgment, and character. and that's what I bring to this race. I have the experience of bringing people together to get things done...I'm good at listening to people and finding common ground. I've also got the ability to stand up for what I believe in, even when it’s unpopular...I know how to choose talent and get smart people around me who are capable and independent and bring together a variety of different points of views [sic]...We’re not looking for a chief operating officer when we're selecting a president. What we're looking for is someone who will chart a course and say here’s where America needs to go...This is all about judgment and character, and also I think a little sense of impatience, because part of the reason I'm running is that I'm impatient with the status quo and what we've seen from Democrats and Republicans is a certin willingness to tolerate what I consider an intolerable status quo."

Are Republicans falling into the hubris trap? Or, pride goeth before a fall

Interestingly, the two concepts in my post title have ancient roots. More than twenty-five hundred years ago, the Greeks concluded that overweening pride and arrogance were sins so great that they were worthy of criminal penalties. It upset the polis to have an individual align himself with the Gods.

The Biblical concept of pride leading to personal destruction is also an ancient one, having its roots in Proverbs 16:18 (a Biblical book reputed to originate with King Solomon, almost 3,000 years ago): "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

In other words, there is absolutely nothing new in the fact that some people, elevated to high position, lose control of their connection to humanity, begin to believe that they are gods or demi-gods and, Icarus-like (to quote another ancient concept), end up plummeting earthward from their artificial heights.

Over the past year, Obama, driven by his internal narcissistic dialogue and buoyed up by apocalyptic levels of worship emanating from the media and the MoveOn.org crowd, became the poster boy for hubris and overweening pride. He started to believe his own press. His speeches become more and more unrelated to pragmatic politics, and suggested that he had the magical powers to lower the oceans, clear the air, and bring everlasting peace to mankind. This kind of message would have been a hard sell to the unconverted in any event, but it was made harder by the fact that his implicit faith in his wonderfulness kept stumbling and crashing into his marked ordinariness: his verbal gaffes; his horrible friends; and his bad decisions (one word: Biden).

Once Obama had blown himself up to Olympian proportions, and had shown himself to be devoid of even a smidgen of humility, he made himself an easy target. The McCain campaign gets huge kudos for being bold enough to aim the pin at that target by creating a couple of wonderful ads that showed that Obama was a mere celebrity, full of sound and fury, but signifying (what else?) nothing.

Obama then let any remaining air out of the balloon by giving the most pedestrian of convention speeches. That Obama's oration didn't rise to rhetorical heights might have been forgivable in someone weary from campaign for almost two years, had it not been for the Britney-inspired Greco-Hollywood backdrop and the 38 million souls who tuned into watch this recycled, embittered, mean-spirited and surprisingly boring speech.

And then McCain, showing true fighter pilot instinct, blasted Obama from on high -- and along came Sarah. Conservatives went flipsy-wacky. People are turning out at Republican political rallies in record numbers, polls show that conservatives and independents think she's wonderful, and the blogosphere has gone stratospheric in its praise: she's a natural, she's a political wunderkind, she's real, she's pragmatic, she's a straight shooter, she's a values laden candidate, she has charm, she's the ultimate candidate for women, she's the ultimate counter to feminism, and on and on.

All of which raises the worry that, with Palin, we're heading down the stretch to the same hubris that pretty much predicted Obama's current tumble. Except I think not. I think that there are several good reasons why Grecian hubris and Biblical pride are not going to dictate Palin's (and McCain's) downfall in the next couple of months.

First of all, the time frame is such that it's unlikely that Palin will be able to match Obama's two year long journey of ego inflation and deflation. Even if her ego does go upwards, it's unlikely (especially given her performance to date) that she can amass sufficient gaffes to start the post-inflation humiliation.

Second, while Republicans are thrilled about Palin, she's not feeling the love from the media. Their venom will probably serve two salutary purposes. To begin with, it will backfire nicely by exposing media bias and lies, and by turning Palin into an underdog, an every-woman, for whom voters can root. To see one lone mother attacked by thousands of reporters world wide isn't a fair fight, and you know that Americans, at least, don't like seeing people bullied. Additionally, it will keep Palin's own ego in check. She can't simply relax and bask in her own wonderfulness. Being on the defensive is a good way not to become too proud.

Third, well, I'll leave the third strand to Charles Krauthammer, who was comparing Obama to Reagan -- but I think you can fill Palin's name for Reagan's with the same results:

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers — the chants, the swoons, the “we are the ones” self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality.

Reagan’s revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama’s movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cultlike tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign’s insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (No. 3), the tropes were tired and flat.

And fourth -- and this may be stretching it -- Palin is a deeply religious person. Hers is manifestly not a lip service religion, but is part of the very fiber of her being. She acknowledges God and knows the vast difference that lies between her, a mere striving mortal, and God.

I can't get into Obama's heart and mind, but his church selection and his words about religion leave me feeling that, for him, religion is a matter of social and political expediency rather than faith. (I may be wrong, but that's how he presents himself and his faith.) I think that's part of why he was comfortable buying into the Messiah identity. He could see himself aligned with the gods, rather than functioning appropriately below them.

Hubris is a real and present danger whenever power, praise and human frailties are allied. I think, though, that Palin has some insulation from the risk -- and certainly enough to carry her through to election day. Poor Obama, did not. And whether he wins the White House or loses it, he's headed for a fall. I can only hope that his fall takes place before November 3, or I fear that, when he does tumble for once and all, he'll take the rest of us with him.

Anatomy of a Non-Story

Remember what the MSM were saying right after John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate? That his “vetting process” was somehow deficient because the media hardly knew anything about her. Judging by what we see so far, McCain vetted her just fine. But the media will keep trying to prove him wrong and throw her off her game by finding some embarrassing detail that he might have missed.

So swarms of investigative reporters, lawyers and opposition researchers have descended on Alaska to do what McCain probably did months ago. That is, check her out. Of course, their agenda is different from his. They have gone North in the hope, if not the expectation, of digging up some dirt. But they don’t have much time to be thorough and fair. So, instead of real dirt (which requires serious and sustained digging) you can expect to find innuendo, speculation, gossip and the passing along of unsubstantiated charges from political enemies. Non-stories, in other words.

I’ve been in the newspaper business and I know how these things work. News organizations don’t deploy well-paid reporters on weeks-long assignments without expecting something for all that time and money. Put your crack team of investigative journalists on the hunt and they will have to produce something, even if it is flimsier than a wet shopping bag. Witness the New York Times “Did he have an affair with a lobbyist”? piece.

Now we have an article in The Washington Post that describes – in many, many words – how Palin followed the rules on reimbursed travel and has spent much less in this area than her predecessor.

Only that’s not the lede. What the Post wants you do know, right off the bat, is that “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a ‘per diem’ allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.”

This is made to sound bad, especially for a self-styled fiscal conservative. But it shocks only those who don’t understand Alaska or its geography. Juneau, the capital, is an 800-mile round trip from Palin’s home in Wasilla. It is far from most Alaskans’ homes, and at least once it has come very close to losing its place as the capital to a more convenient spot. Long commutes for state officeholders are nothing new. And in a state as big as Alaska, lots of air travel on state business is the norm. The Post does note, about two thirds of the way down, that Palin spent $93,000 on airfare in 2007, rather less than the $463,000 spent in 2006 by former Gov. Frank Murkowski. And a check of Alaska’s rules for reimbursement shows that she did not break them.

Here’s another story The Washington Post should pursue, if it wants balance. The Website OpenSecrets details Joe Biden’s expense reimbursements for official travel in 2007. A sizable amount of this (covering about seven pages) is for Amtrak fare to and from his Delaware home. Maybe it’s not travel on an Alaskan scale, but the object is the same and so is the case for billing it to the taxpayers.

Sarah Palin: Change in Which We Can Believe

Sarah Palin: Change in Which We Can Believe

Of course, today’s title is a play on Senator Obama campaign’s slogan, “Change we can believe in.” Has it annoyed you that the slogan is grammatically incorrect? It bugs me when I read student papers with sentences that end with a preposition. So with today’s entry I co-opt Obama’s slogan to make my point about the best presidential ticket to effect change in Washington, DC.

I believe the McCain / Palin ticket will go all the way this election year and that was my gut instinct from the beginning. Yesterday, my Dad played back the answering machine message that I left for them on the day of Governor Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) selection for Vice President, August 29. In the message, I screamed, “Wooooohooooo! Great choice! The Democrats are gone. They’re dead. They’ve already lost…”

My Dad got such a kick out of that message, he has been playing it back for everybody who will listen. Is it premature to call the presidential race for the Republicans? Well, I hope that my initial evaluation of Governor Palin proves correct. I am calling the election now. The McCain / Palin ticket will win the White House in November 2008. Is that too bold? Perhaps.

Yes, that’s bold, but rarely do we see a speaker interrupted by several minutes of applause so intense that she is unable to begin speaking. That was the case with Governor Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention (RNC). Her selection by Senator McCain has energized the Republican base and totally changed the game. Money is flowing. Volunteers are signing up. Democrats are worried that they have once again found a way to lose. As I listened to Governor Palin’s acceptance speech, I actually felt a little sorry for the Obama / Biden presidential ticket; frankly, I do not believe they know what has hit them. Their strong allergic reaction to her candidacy might indicate that they are deeply concerned. Category 5 Hurricane Sarah has come ashore and slammed into the side of Democratic Presidential ticket.

Without a doubt, Governor Palin is a woman of generous looks before the camera and dynamic speech before the microphone, but her appeal is truly multi-dimensional. The family. The experience. The package. The more we learn about Sarah Palin and her family, the more she appeals to working class Republicans and Democrats. It seems implausible that a more perfect running mate for Senator John McCain could be found. Moreover, her political background includes a record of reforming that uncannily resembles McCain’s own background.

If we want to talk about real change, or change in which we can believe, we need a different team in Washington. Senator Obama has been whining about the need for change in Washington, but the Democratic party has been in control of the House of Representatives and Senate for two years. Where is the change that was promised two years ago? What did Obama and Biden change as U.S. Senators? Let’s face it. We need something new and two Ivy League-trained attorneys will not make the needed difference.

We’ve tried dad after dad in Washington. Let’s try a mom for once. To effect real change in the White House, we need a woman’s perspective on domestic and foreign affairs. I say this as a son, father, and husband. There are some jobs that require dad and others that require mom. There are some tasks that I do best and others are best handled by my wife. Women should be in high political office.

I sure hope that Governor Palin brings the baby to the debate. That should silence jabbering Joe Biden (as Dad calls him because of his penchant for saying too much) for at least a few seconds…

The Palin pick scares Democrats; Gustav's impact on RNC

One of our fellow bloggers already predicted that the Palin pick was a wacky but brilliant decision. Now that we have the weekend behind us, and with the RNC just started, we can further confirm the genius behind John McCain's decision,

• The news during the weekend was without question the Palin pick. When was the last time the mainstream media got excited with a Republican issue? Only Arnold's bid for the governorship of our wonderful state of California seems to have come close in recent memory. And even that... During the primary season the Clinton-Obama fight might have eclipsed the Republicans but I would gladly sign for having between now and November 4th the media as excited with the McCain-Palin ticket as they have been during the last weekend.
• Obama's acceptance speech, despite being the most watched acceptance speech of a presidential candidate in US history, was either ignored or not given enough attention by the media.
• The Republican base got so excited by the pick that the McCain campaign raised 4 million dollars over the Internet in one day and a half. John McCain said in an interview to Fox News last Sunday, "I wish I had have taken her a month ago".
• And what is probably the best evidence that the Palin pick has effectively neutralized Obama, polls from Gallup and CNN show a very modest (in CNN's case not even statistically significant) bounce for Obama after the DNC. Going into the DNC, I am sure the Democrats had higher expectations than that ;D.
  

Democrats are sure panicking. Given how game changing the Palin pick has been, that reaction is understandable. In fact, Joe Trippi warns their fellow Democrats that they shouldn't underestimate Palin. But that's one thing and quite another to react, as the most recalcitrant of liberals have, with fallacious, unsubstantiated nonsense smear attacks against Sarah. If what we saw during the last 2 days is any indication, it might be a very nasty campaign by the other side. But if that's the best they can do against the McCain-Palin ticket, it's tantamount to an implicit acknowledgement that our liberal friends are scared to death about what seems right now the very real possibility that John McCain will be the next President of the United States, a very different scenario than what they imagined just one month ago when Obama was enjoying his status as American celebrity with the Germans.

As I am finishing this post, a scaled down RNC has just started; as I watch my fellow Republicans in Saint Paul greeting Ms McCain and Ms Bush, it's evident that they continue to be electrified with Palin. My thoughts are with the Americans who have been affected by the Gustav hurricane. A prompt action by the federal and state governments together with a weakened storm makes me believe that Gustav's impact will be less severe on the human front than Katrina was three years ago. Let's hope it's the case.

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."