Internet Freedom Trail

Five Myths About the Election

2008-11-17T10:07:00.002-07:00

The Washington Post has another interesting article (this time via Ann Althouse) that looks at the five biggest myths about the election.

The Republican Party suffered a death blow.
A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory.
Now that they control the White House and Congress, Democrats will usher in a new progressive era.
A Republican candidate could have won the presidency this year.
McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin.

Go to the actual article to read his reasoning. Ann adds a myth of her own to the list.

Cillizza invites us to supply more myths. Here's one: Obama won because Americans were inspired by a new kind of politician with a message of hope and change. (I think that Obama won because: 1. he got out in front of Hillary in the caucus states, and 2. he was the Democratic Party candidate.)

Eventually I, and the country, will move on from the election. But at the moment a lot of the intellectual interest among the political pundit and junkies remains there.

Obama and Hope versus Japan and Work

2008-11-17T10:05:00.002-07:00

Instapundit links to this Washington Post article on the reaction to Obama in Japan. The following is a long quote by completely worth the read.

Surfing Japanese news Web sites for commentaries on the Obama victory from a key U.S. ally, I was taken aback by the skeptical, even negative, tone that prevailed. "Obama Likely to Stress Importance of China," read one headline in the mass-circulation daily Yomiuri Shimbun, implying that the new administration will relegate Japan to the foreign policy back seat. The economic daily Nihon Keizai Shimbun fretted about the likelihood that the Democratic president and Congress may concoct a massive rescue package for troubled U.S. automakers and about the potential fallout for the Japanese car industry. Everyone seemed to agree that Obama, who has talked about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq to concentrate on Afghanistan, may well put pressure on Japan to send ground troops to the latter country -- something the nation's postwar pacifist leaders don't feel prepared to do.

The most astounding article appeared in Sentaku, a monthly magazine with a reputation for objectivity and solid analysis. Writing in anticipation of an Obama victory, the magazine raised most of the same charges the Republicans had leveled against the Democratic candidate, including Obama's associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former Weather Underground leader William Ayers and "communist and socialist professors." It called him "the most dubious character in history to occupy the White House." Criticizing Obama's foreign policy statements as "abstract" and "strings of empty words such as 'consultation' and 'cooperation,' " the article concluded that under Obama, the United States would lose its position of global leadership and drag the world into "enormous chaos."

The best summary, however, came from from one of Glenn's readers:

Reader Paul Harper, who's living in Japan and sent the link, adds: "Hope? Over here we have a different four-letter word to solve problems: w-o-r-k."

Indeed.

Media Bias: Obama's Free Pass

2008-11-12T09:32:00.002-07:00

Instapundit links to an interesting article about Obama, the Media, and the free pass that he was given.

In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama -- even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama's birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

Personally I'm starting to get annoyed that all these Obama supporters are now suddenly realizing what happened during the election. It was as if their priorities were (1) get Obama elected then and only then worry about fairness and honesty and ethics.

Another issue that I initially dismissed was the flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about Ayers' association with Obama a year ago -- a theme that most of the mainstream media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard of Ayers and couldn't have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue.

Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed. Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term "radical" with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi.

Her concern was very slow in developing. You don't say? I would like to think the experience changed her. But if she is like most, her concerns will fade away and in four years Obama will once again be doing no wrong as he runs for reelection. I suppose blind devotion is comforting, but it has never been a path I have chosen.

Google Recognizes Veterans Day

2008-11-11T11:33:00.004-07:00

In the past, Google has been criticized for not recognizing military holidays. (For a collection of past holiday logos, see here.) For the second year in a row, however, they chose to recognize Veterans Day.

Thank you, Google.

Obama Unlikely to Radically Change Intelligence Policies

2008-11-11T10:11:00.003-07:00

I imagine this is good news for some and horrible news for others. The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama will likely keep the intelligence policies of George Bush intact.

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.

"He's going to take a very centrist approach to these issues," said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble."

It is refreshing to hear that but I will note is coming form a former member of the Clinton and Bush administrations. It would be more comforting to hear it from Obama himself or from one of his many multitudes of advisers. It will be interesting to see how the far left of the Democratic Party reacts to such a policy stance.

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.

Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques -- which some consider torture -- by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies.

Do they have a right to expect a reversal? One could argue yes:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush's counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting "excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency."

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA's interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.

But the indication is that he will not live up to these promises. That is more than a little disconcerting as it brings up questions about what other promises he won't live up to. But for now I will take this speculation from the WSJ as potential good news.

Gorelick as Attorney General Draw Criticism

2008-11-10T14:59:00.002-07:00

The NY Times is suggesting that Jamie Gorelick is potentially Obama's pick as Attorney General. The choice is causing quite a bit of an outcry and drawing substantial criticism. From the NY Times (via Ann Althouse):

Her work at Fannie Mae, which had to be bailed out by the government in September as part of a $200 billion deal. Ms. Gorelick left the company just as it was coming under attack for huge accounting failures. She has also drawn criticism for her role at the Justice Department, in which she allegedly created an intelligence “wall” that hindered counterterrorism agents in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks. Conservatives called for her removal from the Sept. 11 commission, but her fellow members rallied around her and said critics were distorting her record. The criticism grew so heated that the F.B.I. investigated a death threat against her family, and President Bush had to intervene personally to stop the Justice Department from releasing sealed reports involving her. Some conservative bloggers have already begun trying to derail Ms. Gorelick’s possible nomination as attorney general, pointing to her experiences at both Fannie Mae and the Sept. 11 commission.

Ann notes:

Beldar seethes:
Short of appointing an actual member of al Qaeda, I cannot imagine a more offensive symbolic repudiation of the Global War on Terror — nor a more enthusiastic embrace of the chronic mismanagement, cronyism, and graft which led to this fall's credit crisis — than the appointment of Jamie Gorelick as attorney general.
I voted for Obama, as I'm sure my commenters are about to remind me, and I'm hoping for the best. He told me to hope! Please don't crush my hope so early, Mr. Obama.

How is that "I hope Obama is reasonable" idea working out for you Ann? So many people approach the choice of a new President as an emotional decision. When feelings of hope and change are replaced with realization of "he did what?" how are people going to react?

Obama Should Move To the Right

2008-11-10T14:54:00.002-07:00

Or so says a Harvard economics professor, Greg Mankiw. Ann Althouse has the details. Professor Mankiw offers Obama four pieces of advice.

1. "Listen to your economists... They will often give you advice quite different from what you will hear from congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid."

2. "Embrace some Republican ideas." That's what Bill Clinton did.

3. "Pay attention to the government’s budget constraint." You can't give people all those things you promised during the campaign when "the laws of arithmetic are ignored."

4. "Recognize your past mistakes." You were a lefty senator. The time for that is over. Listen to your economic experts who will tell you why.

I find both the original post and the fact that Ann linked to it amusing. More people than I realized went in to the election with the "I don't like McCain or Republicans, so I really, really, really hope Obama isn't a leftist like his background would suggest." This strikes me a wishful thinking at best.

Will he govern from the center or the left? My gut tells me he will keep trying to go far left and then retreat to the middle to ensure he stays in power. Time will tell, of course.

Media Bias in One Picture

2008-11-09T15:01:00.002-07:00

Worth a thousand words...

Media Bias: The Media Begins to Notice...

2008-11-08T09:32:00.003-07:00

One couldn't time this any better if it were scripted. Now that the election is over and Obama is safely elected, the media is starting to notice that--shock!--they were horribly biased during the election.

The [Washington] Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates’ backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4. Numbers don’t tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post’s priorities.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts’ views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

Ed Morrissey's analysis, on Hot Air, is key here:

Ombud Deborah Howell’s column goes on to justify or at least rationalize the imbalance:
Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.
So that must mean they absolutely adored Sarah Palin and gave her the same benefit of the doubt, right? Er, no:
When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.
The hell with Joe Biden. Howell never answers the real issue here — why did the Post, and the rest of the national media, go on the attack with Sarah Palin and not with Barack Obama? The two candidates had a similar amount of time in politics, and Palin had more executive experience than Obama. Obama ran for the top job, while Palin ran for VP. And yet the national media parachuted dozens of reporters into Wasilla and Juneau looking for dirt and scandal, coming up with a tanning bed in the governor’s mansion (which Palin bought herself) and the Troopergate story that turned out to be a nothingburger and was already known prior to her nomination.

Sorry to quote so much but Ed is right on here.

The sad thing here is that I think the people at the Washington Post are trying to come clean about the bias. But even when they try they write it off as a minor problem or one justified as excitement. There's a reason I decline to get a free paper every time I go to the grocery store. I don't trust the media anymore. Until they realize that they will continue to see circulation numbers and profits plummet.

Obama Win Already Motivating Change--Increased Gun Sales

2008-11-07T09:29:00.002-07:00

I think this was totally to be expected. From the NYTimes, "On Concerns Over Gun Control, Gun Sales Are Up". Hat tip Instapundit.

Sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners around the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms.

and

In Colorado, would-be gun buyers set a one-day record last Saturday with the highest number of background check requests in a 24-hour period, according to figures from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

“We’re not really sure who is promoting the concept that a change in federal administrations might affect firearms possession rights,” said an agency spokesman, Lance Clem, “but we do know that it’s increased business considerably.”

I say it is not surprising because even I considered it. I thoroughly enjoyed a pistol class I took during college and have always thought about pistol marksmanship has a hobby. Guns for self-defense or hunting is not my thing, but as a sport it seemed intriguing. It crossed my mind that I might want to buy the handgun now, before it potentially gets too difficult. If the economic situation were different, I might feel I have the disposable income to spend on a new hobby.

It is not all doom and gloom though for gun owners. I think this comment is accurate as well.

Other people, even some shopping for guns, said they thought that some gun enthusiasts’ fears about Mr. Obama were unjustified. James Sykes, a gun collector who was shopping at the GunRoom in Lakewood, Colo., called the rush to buy guns “a lot of hysteria about very little.”

Mr. Sykes, who said he had voted mostly Republican in the past but supported Mr. Obama this year, said that issues like war and the global economic crisis were more pressing for him right now and that he imagined the same was true for Mr. Obama.

“My Second Amendment rights are unquestionably important to me, but so is feeding my family,” he said. “In reality, you won’t be able to afford to buy a gun if your job goes overseas.”

In Obama's long list of promises he made during the election, I think reversing his comments about "not having the votes" to take guns away from people and going after them is low on his list of priorities.

That said actions have consequences. I'm sure the idea that electing Obama is causing a surge in gun ownership doesn't sit well with anti 2nd amendment folks, but markets are tricky things to predict.

Media Bias After the Election

2008-11-06T15:47:00.003-07:00

So will the media be less biased now that they got their candidate elected? Some signs point to yes.

From the AP:
Even after nearly two years in the spotlight, little is understood about the 47-year-old first-term senator's approach to leadership. His resume: community organizer, eight years as state legislator, and less than four as U.S. senator.

As a lawmaker, he has displayed a knack for working with Republicans on a handful of favorite issues. But he has devoted most of his time in the Senate to running for president. Unlike the past seven presidents, he was never a governor or vice president. And unlike John F. Kennedy, the last senator to move directly to the presidency, Obama has not commanded troops in wartime.

Personally, he's a bit of an enigma, too.
You don't say? If only we had some kind of institutional apparatus that could tell us more about these enigmatic political candidates before the election.

The first step is admitting there is a problem. After two years in the spotlight, little is understood... Little is understood because the media never asked any tough questions. Odd that they are admitting it without recognizing it. Of course, in some circles it will be business as usual. Chris Matthews has a new outlook on journalism.

The harmonic vibration in Chris Matthews' leg continues apace:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.
And:
SCARBOROUGH: Your job is to make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

What can you say other than he should quit his job and ask Obama for a cabinet position. What a total mockery of what journalism should be.

Lorie Byrd on Losing Gracefully

2008-11-06T09:19:00.003-07:00

Lorie Byrd at Wizbang was a ardent McCain-Palin supporter. She has a very good post about the right way for one administration to pass the reigns to the next.

Fox News showed a report with Josh Bolton saying the Bush administration has been in touch with both campaigns for several months and that the White House has already approved around 100 names for security clearance so that the Obama team can hit the ground running and the first security briefing will be done this week.

And lest you think that was always the case:

Compare that to the nightmare the Bush administration faced when the Clinton administration would not allow any transition activity to occur until after the recount was completed. One report I saw also reminded me about the poorly planned Clinton transition in 1992 which resulted in many personnel problems and a very rocky start.

She also notes that the reaction on the right has been mostly gracious to Obama.

I am really proud of most of those on the right in their response to the election, too. Even many of those who opposed Obama the most vehemently appear to be genuinely interested in seeing him succeed for the good of the country. I don't see any who show a desire to treat President Obama as those on the left treated President Bush for the past eight years. That says a lot for conservatives. I fully expected more on the right to want to reciprocate in kind. It is possible to disagree, even vigorously, without wishing for assassination as some did of President Bush and VP Cheney, and without calling the President a chimp, or Hitler.

I have to agree. I've been reading a lot of responses on conservative blogs and the worst it gets are long philosophical pieces on why "the wrong man won". No assaults using racial slurs. Nothing over the top. Byrd even keeps herself honest and notes that not every response on the right is rational.

Glad I specified "most" of those on the right. Some already want to impeach Obama? Puh-leeze. The man is not even President yet and he may actually have learned from Clinton that you can't go to the extreme left right off the bat. Rahm Emanuel is not a good indication of bipartisanship, but Obama still has plenty of opportunities to reach across the aisle and I sincerely hope he will.

This impeaching thing really has to stop in this country. The Clinton impeachment by overzealous conservatives started it. The calls for Bush impeachment continue it. Impeachment is very, very serious. It should be saved for the most egregious of abuses of power. No, Bush didn't even come close. Clinton didn't either. Calls for impeachment should be rare, not commonplace.

That last issue aside, I do agree with Lorie. We all, even people who have serious doubts, need to give Obama a chance. Judge him by his actions not on your fears.

Conservative Reactions to Obama's Victory

2008-11-05T08:22:00.003-07:00

The web is filled with reactions to Obama's victory last night. Here are some of the more interesting ones from the conservative side. First, the positive take from Dave, the author over at Hedgehog Report.

Don’t get me wrong, I gladly voted for McCain yesterday and wanted him to win and had no intention of voting for Obama, but it was truly more of a party vote than voting for the individual candidate. One thing I did learn long ago is it really doesn’t matter who the President is as far as my personal life goes. I was better off personally after the eight years of Bill Clinton and I was better off personally after the almost eight years of George W Bush. I am sure I will be even better off after a term (hopefully only one) of Barack Obama. I’ve been part of winning campaigns (1994, 200, 2002, 2004) and part of losing ones (1996, 2006, 2008) and life goes on whether my side won or lost….

I think Dave is correct here, so long as Obama doesn't make the accumulation of wealth an absolute impossibility-and you'd have to be pretty paranoid to think he could achieve that. Over at Wizbang, Jay Tea notes some frightening similarities between Obama and Jimmy Carter.

Economy a bit on the shaky side: Check

Very unpopular Republican president blamed for the loss of his (would-be) successor: Check

Trouble with Iran brewing: Check

Energy crisis: Check

Smiling, cheerful national newcomer Democrat elected as president: Check

Career Washington insider elected as vice-president: Check

Russians/Soviets feeling belligerent and expansionistic: Check

Man, we are so screwed...

That's almost a little too accurate to be funny, as Jay intended. He also has a more serious piece on why Obama won--in his mind it all came down to fundraising and playing the game.

Finally, Instapundit links to a rather confusing piece entitled "Not the end of the world." Despite the title, the piece predicts absolute disaster, down to predicting a nuclear war between Iran and Israel. Make of that what you will...

And That's the Ballgame

2008-11-04T19:42:00.003-07:00

Ohio looks to be called for Obama. Unless exit polls are wrong, that's the election. Parting thoughts for the night.

Given Bush, the economy, the biased media, and $600M of (somewhat illegal) campaign contributions, the deck was certainly stacked in Obama's favor. And it proved too difficult for McCain to overcome.
Some conservatives might take comfort in the fact that during the next four years, everything rests on the shoulders of the Democrats. I'd try to share that sentiment but "New Deal" like programs are very hard to get rid of. I worry how much permanent damage Obama will do.

Out for now.

Minnesota Called for Obama

2008-11-04T19:19:00.002-07:00

So the election seems to be over, but I'm saving this image for historical reference. CNN calls Minnesota for Obama. Again, that was to be expected.

Zero percent reporting eh? Can't get much more scientific than that...

CNN Calls Michigan for Obama

2008-11-04T19:07:00.002-07:00

OK, despite the fact that I am disappointed--things are looking very bad for McCain at the moment--this is just humorous.

CNN just called Michigan for Obama. Certainly seems like an unsurprising call, right? Here's the data so far:

McCain is up 8% yet they call it for Obama. Now we all know that Obama is going to win Michigan. But if you are going to off "what you expect" and exit polls why report results at all? They could have reported this results weeks ago...

Networks Calling States Based on Exit Polls

2008-11-04T18:32:00.002-07:00

Hmmm. I may have to stop the blogging here in a bit. All the major networks (including FoxNews) are calling states based on exit polls.

Now the exit polls may be right, they may also be wrong. I don't understand how a network can call a (battleground) state with 0% of the precincts reporting.

Furthermore, if they do, then there isn't much to post about. They aren't posting exit poll numbers. They just say "PA for Obama, 0% reporting". I don't have a lot of commentary on that.

Back later.

More State Results Roll In

2008-11-04T18:09:00.003-07:00

A bunch of more obvious states were called.

Obama has won a slew of East Coast states, including Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Vermont and the District of Columbia. He also won all four electoral votes in Maine and scored a victory in his home state of Illinois.

McCain has won South Carolina, as well as Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky.

On a bizarre note, NBC called PA for Obama six minutes after the polls closed there. I'm not sure how that is possible.

The official tally is now Obama 77, McCain 39.

Judge Orders Virginia to Count Late Military Ballots

2008-11-04T18:00:00.003-07:00

This decision could end up being important, if VA is as close as people are saying.

A federal judge has ordered election officials in Virginia to preserve late-arriving absentee ballots that Republican John McCain's campaign claims should be counted.

The McCain campaign says in a lawsuit that absentee ballots weren't mailed on time to many military members serving overseas. The complaint asks the court to order the state to count absentee ballots from overseas troops postmarked by Tuesday and received by Nov. 14.

The deadline for ballots to be received is 7 p.m. on Election Day.

U.S. District Judge Richard Williams said Tuesday that he will hear the lawsuit on Nov. 10. He ordered election officials to keep the late-arriving ballots until then.

The McCain campaign praised William's decision.

"This will help to ensure that local election officials do not destroy or dispose of these ballots before the court has had an opportunity to rule on our complaint," spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in a written statement.

"The McCain-Palin campaign strongly believes that no military ballot should be discarded as a result of a failure on the part of several counties and independent cities to mail ballots to service members in a timely manner," Gitcho continued.

"We believe without exception that the servicemen and women on the front lines protecting our freedoms deserve every opportunity to make sure their vote counts," she added.

How fitting would it be if Obama lost VA based on his parties attitude towards the military?

South Carolina for McCain

2008-11-04T17:53:00.002-07:00

So far none of the states called have been at all surprises. South Carolina for McCain, so the total is now M 21, O 3. And all completely meaningless since none of the battleground states have been decided.

The latest from the McCain camp:

Here is the latest from inside Team McCain: Florida looks good. Ohio, Penn., Virginia and NC are too close to call.

Me: As superguru Mike Barone puts it, wait for real votes to be counted. But at the very least, this hardly looks like an Obama blowout. Still maybe a McCain win. TCTC. Stay tuned. (You can check me out on CNBC tonight at 10 PM.)

Regardless of who wins, a fascinating night to be a political junkie.

West Virginia Called for McCain

2008-11-04T17:40:00.002-07:00

FoxNews reports, you decide.

Totals now McCain 13, Obama 3.

Result Tracking Tonight...Don't Panic

2008-11-04T17:27:00.002-07:00

OK, from reading around all the conservative blogs I know, I have this to say.

Calm down.

After days and days of people saying don't trust exit polls and don't trust early numbers, people are panicking to a degree I wouldn't have those possible. Like 4% of Indiana has reported and people are already talking about a 400 point Obama win.

If you are surfing the web looking for data (as I am), come back here often. I may not have national contacts within the major parties, but I promise you I'm not going to run around like chicken little.

First Results In

2008-11-04T17:19:00.002-07:00

Updates will be short and frequent tonight. The first states have been called.

Vermont (3) - Obama
Kentucky (8) - McCain

Neither of these is a surprise.

NBC is showing a huge lead among whites (+18) for McCain in Virginia--which I am reading is surprising.

I'll try to give sources when I can tonight, but I'm also just to trying to aggregate information.

Check back often, if you are interested.

Minnesota Closer Than Expected According to...Obama?

2008-11-04T15:30:00.002-07:00

Other than a few voter fraud stories, today has been much more calmer than I expected. No leaked exit polls at this point, which is shocking. Of course all that changes in thirty minutes when Indiana polls close.

Instapundit linked to this anecdote which is...encouraging. Note the source is The Atlantic. From their past history, we can safely assume that they aren't repeating conservative talking points.

I'm a student at Carleton College who has contributed (financially and with my time) to the Obama campaign. I just got an automated call from Jeff Blodgett, the chair of the MN campaign. The text of the call was:

"Hello, this is Jeff Blodgett from the Minnesota for Obama campaign. Our initial data shows this election is significantly closer than the polls predicted. We are putting out an urgent call for volunteers... We are organized groups to knock on doors at five P.M., or earlier if you can, for our final GOTV operation."

This was followed by different numbers to call based on your residence.

If Minnesota is really close, is it a Franken effect? Or more general? What does that say about Wisconsin?

Personally, I'll believe Minnesota is in play only after ABCCNNMSNBC grudgingly calls it for McCain. But until then, that automated call transcript certainly is interesting.

Repeat: Don't Trust the Exit Polls

2008-11-04T14:45:00.002-07:00

You can find many, many people online warning people not to trust the exit polls. The following anecdote is getting a lot of press and is of course impossible to verify.

I noticed this account of an exit pollster in Stafford, Virginia:
08:32 – AP doing exit polling in Stafford. Talking 4 to 1 to minorities over whites at a Republican precinct (Falmouth). Expect it to be skewed. Don’t trust the exit polls as they start to trickle out.
Only an anecdote, but not promising. Are the exit pollsters aiming for egg on their faces two presidential races in a row?

One story does not an epidemic make. But last election the exit polling was horribly inaccurate. If you were wondering how, this story is illustrative.

McCain Camp Optimistic

2008-11-04T11:14:00.002-07:00

Well, at least the right people are optimistic.

I just talked to one of my best Team McCain sources who told me that heading into today all the key battleground polls were moving hard and fast in their direction. The source, hardly a perma-optimist, thinks it will be a long night, but that McCain is going to win. So add this with the new Battleground poll (Obama +1.9 only) and the rising stock market...

I wasn't going to mention the battleground poll specifically, but since it was referenced, here it is.

Obama 50.2%
McCain 48.3%

Given Bradley effects, biased samples, and margin of error, that is a very encouraging result for McCain. We'll know in hours now, not days.

Voter Fraud: Pennsylvania Edition

2008-11-04T10:29:00.003-07:00

Unverified from other sources at this time, but Redstate.com is reporting voter fraud in Pennsylvania. (Link is here but they are having site issues at the moment. Text was visible from the generic front page at the time of this posting.)

RS has received a tip that an unknown number of voters in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania are receiving phone calls informing them -- falsely -- that their voting stations have been relocated. At least 3 of the voters who received such calls determined that the information was false, and informed officials of this illegal attempt to prevent them from casting their ballots. The three specific cases that have come to our attention involve different precincts in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania -- which may be the most important one in the nation for John McCain's presidential bid.

In at least one case, the voter captured the phone number from which the call originated and later called back. The male who answered confirmed that he had placed the call. According to reversemobilephones.org, the number is assigned to a resident of Philadelphia.

This activity is a violation of the Pennsylvania Election Code, and the Lancaster County Board of Elections has been asked to investigate this activity -- which may be more widespread -- and refer the findings for possible prosecution.

I expect to have audio on this matter, and will update this story later with more.

I'll update here if I see verification from other sources.

Voter Fraud in New Hampshire

2008-11-04T08:18:00.003-07:00

A (I hope) humorous way for you to start out your election day. The village of Dixville Notch in New Hampshire is "famous" for revealing the results of early. Since there are only a handful of people that live there, this isn't a big deal. They announced their results already today and some are trying to make big news of the fact that Obama got signficantly more votes than McCain in Dixville Notch.

Mark Steyn at the Corner perhaps notes the more interesting fact.

Re Dixville Notch, several readers point out that the town has 19 registered voters.

Yet 15 voted for Obama and 6 for McCain. Which adds up to...

You gotta admit that Acorn operation's pretty thorough.

Based on this, I'm sure Philadelphia and Cleveland will go just fine.

Quick Thoughts Right Before Election Day

2008-11-03T21:50:00.003-07:00

Not much more to say today, before the flood of activity tomorrow. I'll keep it simple.

Exit polling that is leaked tomorrow will be laughably favorable towards Obama. Ignore it.
McCain is not favored to win tomorrow, but it is much, much closer than biased polls and in-the-tank media pundits would have you believe.
I'm am still very hopeful for a McCain win tomorrow. A perfect storm of bad moves has put PA in play. Despite the wishes and hopes of Hollywood stars, states like Virginia are still quite conservative. Polling is biased and the Bradley effect looms--which means Obama is not really that far ahead.

In a moment of weakness, I give you this report from the campaign trail from the, um, very unbiased FoxNews.

And Senator McCain's enthusiasm is higher than I've seen it in 14 years of covering him.

Hopefully that quote gives you some comfort.

I'll be blogging election results until I can't stand it tomorrow. Hopefully I will be happy but I'll be here either way. And blogging will continue either way the election goes.

It's been a wild ride since returning to cover this election. Tomorrow the real fun starts.

Media Bias: Palin vs Biden

2008-11-03T20:53:00.002-07:00

One more time before the election I get to revisit the subject of media bias with respect to Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Earlier in the day I noticed this CNN report--from its own internal polling agencies of course--that Palin was costing McCain the election. Ridiculous.

McCain may indeed end up losing tomorrow but one thing is clear--without Palin he would lose horribly. Moronic slogans such as McSame aside, McCain's biggest weakness was a huge lack of support from the Republican party. Many were prepared to hand the reigns to Obama, hope that he failed spectacularly and build from there. (How sad, but that is the subject of another post.) Sarah Palin changed all that. Yes, if you interview people in a Berkeley coffee and herbal remedies shop, you will get the impression that Palin hurts the ticket. But outside of that bubble, an dispassionate observer can see the excitement and energy Palin has brought out in the conservative base.

That's the problem with today's biased media. They can't see beyond their own opinions. They think Palin is a vapid whore so they assume that everyone does. They can't imagine anyone getting motivated by her presence on a ticket, so they assume no one else can either.

Gateway Pundit has photos from Palin's appearance in Missouri today. 18,000 people showed up.

Also appearing in Missouri, Joe Biden was met by a huge crowd--of 400?

Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden urged supporters in Lee's Summit Monday to work hard in the closing hours to elect Barack Obama to the White House. "Thirty-seven hours!" he told some 400 supporters in the gym at Longview Community College.

Now this one crowd size comparison doesn't mean McCain is going to win the election--or even that he is going to carry Missouri. But evidence like this is ignored by CNN. Instead they continue to churn out biased, meaningless drivel based on their own flawed internal sources.

McCain may win tomorrow. Obama may win tomorrow. Whatever happens, I hope that American wakes up and the mainstream media loses.

Remember: Exit Polls Even More Innacurate and Biased Than Opinion Polls

2008-11-03T16:16:00.002-07:00

Tomorrow is election day. With a election day comes a special variety of polls--exit polls. Remember and let your friends know loud and clear. When it comes to bias and inaccuracies exit polls are far worse than opinion polling. Given the horrific state of opinion polling, that is a strong statement.

Drudge Report is publishing a McCain camp memo on the historical problems with exit polls.

Here are the key points to keep in mind when the exit poll data starts being leaked:

1. Historically, exit polls have tended to overstate the Democratic vote.

2. The exit polls are likely to overstate the Obama vote because Obama voters are more likely to participate in the exit poll.

3. The exit polls have tended to skew most Democratic in years where there is high turnout and high vote interest like in 1992 and 2004.

4. It is not just the national exit poll that skews Democratic, but each of the state exit polls also suffers from the same Democratic leanings.

5. The results of the exit polls are also influenced by the demographics of the voters who conduct the exit polls.

This is all spot on. You can rest assured that come 9:30am EST tomorrow, some exit polling data will be leaked despite the fact that it violates campaign laws. The exit polling will almost assuredly suggest that Obama is up by 20 points, the EVERY battleground state is going to Obama and that landslide is in full effect. Don't believe it. Don't let your friends believe it. Don't let misinformation deprive you of your one vote.

The memo also notes:

After the 2004 election, the National Election Pool completed a study investigating why the exit polls that year showed John Kerry over performing 5.5 net points better than the actual results showed him to have done. Their conclusion was that the primary reason the exit polls was that Kerry voters and Democrats were more likely to participate in the exit polls.

“Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. There has been partisan overstatements in previous elections, more often overstating the Democrat, but occasionally overstating the Republican.

Finally Steve Schippert at Wizbang adds one more point to the memo:

6. Exit Polls are not taken at every polling location, and tend to center around large cities, which are already more heavily Democrat than Republican.

This is a very important point. At least with opinion polling, agencies can call people in different regions of the state with different socioeconomic conditions. It is impossible for them to station exit pollsters at every polling location. (For example, my brother lives in rural Ohio and his polling location is a building the state stores salt and snow plows in. It is unlikely that CNN is going to have Cooper stationed there.) It is much more likely for them to be asking questions outside urban locations. But we all know what sort of bias this produces.

The point above still stands and is the major takeaway point. Vote. Ignore leaked exit polls and vote.

Obama's Family in Kenya to Slaughter a Bull in Celebration

2008-11-03T14:58:00.002-07:00

The election hasn't been decided yet, but Obama's family in Kenya is ready.

Senator Barrack Obama’s relatives have congregated at Nyangoma Kogelo village and will remain together until after Tuesday’s US presidential elections.

They have set aside a bull to slaughter in celebration should the Illinois senator whose father was Kenyan win, according to family spokesperson Mr Malik Abongo.

(Hat tip: Kim Priestap.)

I wonder if PETA approves? Moose hunting is the real problem of course. Animal lives are secondary to getting the One elected. I'm sure PETA will remain mute on this story.

Electoral College Predictions

2008-11-03T10:36:00.003-07:00

Ed Morrissey published his electoral college predictions. They are remarkably similar to mine so I thought I'd just link them here.

About the only real state I argue with is Virginia. It has voted Republican for 44 years and is filled with retired and current military personnel. I just don't see that demographic or that state supporting the party of Murtha and Obama.

As Morrissey says, he is "guardedly optimistic". More on that line of thought later. For now I'll just say this. I wouldn't be shocked if Obama ends up winning tomorrow; as I've said many times the political landscape is tilted in his favor. But there are many reasons he should and still might lose. That is the source of my own guarded optimism.

Obama Channels Chairman Mao in Final Virginia Appearance

2008-11-03T10:21:00.002-07:00

Normally I don't put much stock in the revelations that one of Obama's campaign buttons or posters looks really similar to communist posters in the past. Sometimes the similarities are obvious, but they are rarely officially produced by the Obama campaign.

But in his comments today in Virginia, Obama should have chosen the motivation for his speech more carefully. I suppose he feels it is too late for it to have any impact on his campaign. Again, the arrogance he shows is astonishing. Covered by Gateway Pundit, here's the quote from Obama.

I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here, but we’re going to have to work. We’re going to have to struggle. We’re going to have to fight.

Here is a quote from the writing of Chairman Mao.

The ill wind of opportunism is falling, the righteous wind of socialism is on the rise.

By the end of this year the victory of socialism will be greatly assured. Naturally there will be many struggles ahead and we must struggle hard.

What this reveals is just where Obama got his motivation in early life. I'm sure (or at least I hope) that he didn't quote Mao on purpose. Phrases like "righteous wind" just are part of his thought processes when he thinks of how to influence people--does he even remember where he heard them first?

Again, the timing of this is such I'm not sure anyone will really hear about it until after the election. Certainly the media won't make the connection for the common man. We'll see if McCain or Palin mention it in their final push.

Impact of Coalgate

2008-11-03T09:56:00.002-07:00

The Wall Street Journal MarketWatch site publishes comments from Mark Carey, the President of the Ohio Coal Association on the impact of Obama's "I will bankrupt coal comments".

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

Whether or not you agree with Obama or not, the fact remains is that this is how the people invested in coal are reacting. Carrying Ohio and Pennsylvania would be key in many scenarios that give McCain an electoral college victory tomorrow. For McCain, the surfacing of Obama's comments couldn't have come at a better time. Carey doesn't pull any punches.

It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

This theme of different messages to different audiences keeps reoccurring. To Obama supporters, it isn't an issue. They either write it off as "something all politicians do" or welcome it as a much needed snow job on those ignorant red necks from some of those states in the middle. But the reaction in middle America is quite different. Saving your anti-coal comments for interviews in San Francisco doesn't play well with blue collar workers in western Pennsylvania.

Tomorrow, those workers get to respond at the ballot box.

More Polling Data and Analysis, Right Before the Election

2008-11-02T22:33:00.002-07:00

Gateway Pundit talks about Mason-Dixon's last set of state polls.

The final round of Mason-Dixon polls has Obama enjoying small leads in the red states that would deliver him the presidency, but he's below 50 percent in each and there are enough white undecided voters to leave some too close to call.

Colorado: Obama 49, McCain 44, Undecided 4
Florida: Obama 47, McCain 45, Undecided 7
Nevada: Obama 47, McCain 43, Undecided 8
Pennsylvania: 47, McCain 43, Undecided 9
Virginia: Obama 47, McCain 44, Undecided 9
Ohio: McCain 47, Obama 45, Undecided 6
Missouri: McCain 47, Obama 46, Undecided 5
North Carolina: McCain 49, Obama 46, Undecided 5

As Brad Coker, who runs the Mason-Dixon poll, notes, the vast majority of the undecided voters in these states are whites.

Ed Morrissey and Hugh Hewitt both link the same quote from the latest IBD/TIPP poll.

The race tightened again Sunday as independents who’d been leaning to Obama shifted to McCain to leave that key group a toss-up. McCain also pulled even in the Midwest, moved back into the lead with men, padded his gains among Protestants and Catholics, and is favored for the first time by high school graduates.

Morrissey adds:

The internals are interesting, but the topline results show two potentially disturbing trends for Obama. First, Obama has never gotten to 50% in the TIPP poll, and now has dropped below 47%. A Democrat hasn’t won 50% of the vote in decades, and Obama may have the same problem John Kerry had in 2004. Related to that is the high level of undecideds. Almost 9% still have not made up their minds about the election, and as I wrote earlier today, that bodes ill for Obama. If he hasn’t made the sale with this group by now, it’s likely that most of them will wind up in McCain’s column on Tuesday.

How do we know this? Independents have begun to break for McCain. McCain now leads 45-43. A week ago, Obama led 43-38 with 19% undecided. The entire 7% that has come out of the undecided column in that period have gone to McCain, and 12% of them still have to make up their minds. Interestingly, slightly more Democrats than Republicans are undecided — not good news for Obama.

Gateway Pundit has a long piece on what McCain needs to do to win (a state breakdown discussion and more).

Scott Adams / Dilbert on Hope and Change

2008-11-02T09:37:00.002-07:00

Sometimes, Scott Adams is more in tune with American than I think even he realizes. Note the date on the following Dilbert cartoon--January 23, 2005. How did he know?

(Click on the image to see it in full size.)

McCain Polling Analysis in Florida and Pennsylvania

2008-11-02T09:12:00.002-07:00

Over at Hedgehog Report, they have an interesting analysis of polling in both Florida and Pennsylvania. It is in the usual terse style over there by posters and commenters but the analysis is interesting nonetheless.

ARG put out polls for these two states and had Obama ahead in Florida:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2008/FL08.html

Well this poll had Democrats +8 (should be even), then the poll had Obama ahead in Indies by 4 (that might be close), but then had Obama winning democrats 85-10 while McCain won the Republicans 89-7. Well in 2004 Kerry was 85-14 among democrats and I look for obama to crack 20% lose of D’s in Florida. So McCain is ahead in FL in my opinion.

I think this analysis is pretty astute. The Democrats have never enjoyed an eight point advantage in Florida. Yes, if you believe in the One and Hope and Change, you might think the demographics of FL have changed drastically in the last 2 years, but that is a pretty suspect assumption. The argument about the PUMA effect is the same as the national one but there is no reason that that wouldn't be seen in FL as well.

Now as to PA here is the ARG poll

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2008/PA08.html

ARG has Obama at 51 McCain 46. So why be happy. 1st Party Ratio is 53D 41R 6I. Well it should be about 43D-38R-18I or about a +3 D move. Then ARG has it +19 among Indies for Obama. I think there is a real stretch with Puma and Bradley effects. Finally Obama is 83-14 among democrats. RAS at Obama at 75% and frankly I might split the difference at 78% or 79% when the dust settles. Kerry did 85-15 without the primary from heck with Clinton plus bradley effect.

I encourage you to go back and read about the primary between Clinton & Obama in PA. Plus look at the map of Philly from the 2004 general election and the 2008 Dem. primaries. The white areas of South Philly and North Philly went heavily for Kerry and Clinton. Obama will probably be behind the Kerry vote in Philly. No it will not be the wine and cheese suburbs where Obama loses, but those in Delaware county where those working class catholics and older whites won’t pull the lever for Barack Hussein Obama II

The big thing to note here is again the party affiliation. They are using 53D 41R 6I? Only 6% of PA residents are independents? That is beyond hard to believe. The comparison to Kerry is also very interesting. The poll assumes that Obama's support in PA among Democrats will be identical to the support Kerry saw. But we know that Obama struggled in PA against Clinton. Take into account the following factors.

Obama's infamous rural people "are bitter and just cling to their religion and guns" comment. The NRA has hit this point hard, especially in Pennsylvania.
Murtha's infamous "people in western Pennsylvania are racist" comment. Realizing that was a unwise thing to say about his own constituents, he followed up with the "it is not that they are really racists, they are just stupid and uneducated" apology.
Revelations today that Obama will "tax the coal industry in to bankruptcy." Blue collar Democrats who need the coal industry to survive and support their families just might look elsewhere on election day.
Actual racism.

Given these factors (and number four is despicable but can't be discounted in a demographic analysis) it is very unlikely that Obama will see the same support among Democrats as Kerry.

Analysis like this is always half mathematical, half supposition. But things are certainly close enough that people should not give up hope. Get out and vote. Get a friend to vote. This is not the year to be tired of politics and let others decide for you.

Obama: I Will Bankrupt Any New Coal Plants

2008-11-02T08:26:00.003-07:00

How are videos like this only surfacing now? The following video of Obama talking about coal and global warming to the San Francisco Chronicle is appearing all over the web.

The key part of the exchange is provided at Hot Air:

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

This needs to be played in a continuous loop in Pennsylvania. Note the part I emphasized, above. He specifically says no to clean coal and yes to no more coal at all. This is a direct contradiction to what it says on the official Obama-Biden web site. It is no wonder Biden was confused on his own ticket's stance on this issue.

Kim Priestap links to this picture of which states have a vested interest in coal technology.

This audio/video needs to be played in those states NOW. Actually the timing of this discovery could work to McCain's advantage. If an ad came out with this information two weeks ago, the Obama camp would have had plenty of time to counter with a "that's not the clean coal story I knew" speech. If this story gains press this weekend, it will be hard for Obama to do damage control in time.

Ed Morrissey notes that the transcript is suspiciously missing from the web site of the San Francisco Chronicle.

I’d still like to get a transcript of the entire interview. I believe that the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed Obama in January of this year, but they have no transcript on their site. That seems very odd for a newspaper interview, especially one in which they’ve posted video.

It is almost as if they don't want to hurt the Obama campaign in any way...

Gateway Pundit also posts the video and makes a connection to nuclear power.

On nuclear power, Sen. Obama says he's open to expanding nuclear energy, which now provides 20% of the nation's electricity, as part of an effort to increase power sources that emit little or no carbon dioxide. But he also has said there is no future for expanded nuclear energy until the U.S. comes up with a safe, long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste. He opposes the Bush administration's plan for storing waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The sad thing is this is "consistent" for Obama. When he is in San Francisco and similar places, then his stance is that he will tax global warming villains into the ground. When he is in Pennsylvania, his stance is that we can work together on technologies like clean coal to everyone working.

It is as if Obama feels the media will cover for him and work to ensure that each audience doesn't hear about the comments to the other.

Follow Up to Zogby Poll, One Point McCain Lead

2008-11-01T10:13:00.001-06:00

Yesterday I posted about the Zogby one-day poll that showed a one-point McCain lead, 48-47. This really shouldn't have been big news because:

It's Zogby, one of the historically most inaccurate polling agencies in a year where all polling seems woefully biased.
A one-point lead is statistically meaningless. Obama by 2 with MOE of 3 says the same thing, for the most part.

I'm posting about it again be apparently it is big news. Traffic to this blog was low yesterday. That is to be expected; Fridays are traditionally slow days and it being Halloween on top of it just means that people have better things to do than read obscure blogs on the internet. Then I posted about Zogby. My traffic tripled in a matter of hours. Almost every search that brought people here involved the words "Zobgy" and "McCain lead".

Those last two words I think are the important ones. While Obama +2 or McCain +1 statistically are the same, emotionally the term "McCain lead" gets people interested. From the search terms, most people were just interested in verification. But you could see some people looking for evidence not to believe the poll--searches such as "Zogby poll innaccurate don't trust".

Hugh Hewitt suggests:

The shocker of a one-point lead for McCain in the Zogby national tracking poll for Friday will energize the GOP 96 hour effort everywhere.

In an environment where media, polling agencies, and $600 million of Obama's own advertising have painted a picture of inevitablilty of President Obama, it is remarkable how much interest one random sample generates. All because--as statistically meaningless as it is--people can say with no deception the phase "McCain lead" going in to the final weekend before the election.

One Day Zogby Poll Shows McCain Lead, Four Days Before the Election

2008-10-31T20:26:00.003-06:00

Normally I wouldn't even consider a Zogby poll. During the last Presidential election they were so inaccurate that many poll aggregation sites dropped them for obvious bias. Perhaps trying to grab headlines again, Zobgy announced the results of one day poll, showing a 48-47 statistical tie.

If they were going for attention it worked. Zogby's site is giving "Service Unavailable" at the moment. Whether they were shut down by heavy traffic or angry Obamacons is impossible to say. The Drudge Report goes the subtle route with a nice headline in 36 pt font. Since you can't link to a specific Drudge headline, here's a screen capture.

Everyone is buzzing about the result but I don't think you should read to much into it. The biased polling says Obama has this locked up. Adjusted polls show and candidate behavior show it to be a very close race. On Tuesday we will know.

Personally, I believe new like this is better for McCain than some random poll result.

U.S. stocks rose, capping the biggest weekly gain since 1974, after JPMorgan Chase & Co. took steps to end the housing crisis, bank lending rates declined and earnings from companies outside the financial industry expanded four times faster than the previous quarter.

JPMorgan added 9.7 percent after saying it will modify terms on $110 billion of mortgages and delay foreclosures. Morgan Stanley climbed 8.6 percent after the cost of borrowing dollars for three months fell. Wynn Resorts Ltd., the biggest U.S. casino company, soared 30 percent after increased gambling in Macau boosted profit.

And I don't just say that because I happen to own some JPMorgan stock...

Boehner Slams Obama Hard In Oxford, Ohio

2008-10-31T20:14:00.002-06:00

Sometimes a story is just too tempting for me to pass up. You see, I grew up in Oxford, Ohio and I went to undergrad there at Miami University. So when a quote from a stump speech there makes Hot Air's quote of the day, I couldn't help but notice. I even get to quote my old college newspaper, The Miami Student.

Following a three-week tour around the country campaigning for House Republicans, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stumped for presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at Brick Street Bar and Grill.

The few of you reading this have no idea how odd it is to be pasting in that quote. Oxford only really has one main shopping street--the town population has hovered at 10,000 locals and 15,000 students for over thirty years now. I wash I had been there to see it.

"Now, listen, I've voted 'present' two or three times in my entire 25-year political career, where there might have been a conflict of interest and I didn't feel like I should vote," Boehner said. "In Congress, we have a red button, a green button and a yellow button, alright. Green means 'yes,' red means 'no,' and yellow means you're a chicken shit. And the last thing we need in the White House, in the oval office, behind that big desk, is some chicken who wants to push this yellow button."

I should point out that as college campuses go, Miami University is way on the conservative side. All of southwestern Ohio (even urban Cincinnati) is very red. That had its frustrating aspects growing up but it doesn't surprise me to hear a politican using that kind of language in Oxford.

Fantastic Response to Hollywood Political Endorsements

2008-10-31T14:11:00.002-06:00

Any time someone mails you a link to some preachy do-this-because-the-world-depends-on-it political endorsements from a Hollywood celebrity, send them this back in return.

I'm still laughing...

Obama: Not Paying Higher Taxes is Selfish

2008-10-31T11:48:00.002-06:00

I don't think it is possible for me to disagree with a candidate more on tax issues. I can't think of a more clear way of putting it. In a Florida stump speech, Obama had the following to say:

The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.

The government is about the most inefficient way to do anything. This goes double for redistributing money. Ed Morrissey says it brilliantly with:

This reveals the basic underlying philosophy of the Left - that one cannot possibly be charitable unless they use the government to redirect their funds. Obama assumes that people who don’t want to pay higher taxes are somehow “selfish”, but that’s only true if one assumes that the so-called rich won’t do anything else with their money except sit around like Scrooge McDuck, counting it constantly. Most people today invest it, which creates jobs, or spend it, which creates even more jobs, or donate it to charity — which works much more effectively and with much less overhead than filtering it through government bureaucracy.

My goal of being fair-minded and rational is quickly slipping away as the election fast approaches. Do not let people who think like this into power. Please. Get motivated. Go vote for John McCain.

Obama and Promises

2008-10-31T09:52:00.002-06:00

Busy morning, but I have time to link to this interesting article by Jake Tapper at ABC entitled "Obama Claus". Tapper comments on the number of promises Obama makes during his campaign speeches. The following list is from one speech in Florida:

"give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week";
"eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000";
"give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks";
not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax";
"end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas";
"give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States";
"eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country";
"create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country";
"invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade";
"reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines";
build "a new electricity grid";
"build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow";
"eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years";
"lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance;
"if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves";
"end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most";
"invest in early childhood education";
"recruit an army of new teachers";
"pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability";
"make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts";
"stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus";
"end this war in Iraq";
"finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden";
"increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world";
"invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home";
"No more homeless veterans"; and
"no more fighting for disability payments."

With such a long list, it is impossible that anyone would believe he is going to hold true to them all, right? Wrong. This video is popping up everywhere:

I never thought this day would happen. I won't have to work on puttin' gas in my car. I won't have to work at payin' my mortgage. You know. If I help him [Obama], he's gonna help me.

I can only hope this young lady is disappointed come Wednesday morning...

CBS Also Negative on the Obama Infomercial

2008-10-30T13:51:00.003-06:00

CBS has published an evaluation of the Obama's 30-minute infomercial and it is not positive. Wyatt Anderews at CBSNews does the math and concludes there is no way that Obama can pay for everything he promised:

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

Here's a specific example:

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?

I specifically like this point (emphasis mine):

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing.

Ah yes. Over-promising and making different promises to different audiences. That's true change from your stereotypical politician.

Obama's 30-Minute Infomercial--The Reviews Are In

2008-10-30T10:05:00.003-06:00

Last night Obama aired his 30-minute infomercial on three of the four major broadcast networks. The reviews are in and, not surprisingly, people were not impressed. That's just way too much time at a point where one more 30-second ad is enough to cause most viewers to grab the remote and change the channel.

Shockingly, though, the Associated Press was in the lead in criticizing the broadcast. AP writer calls Obama less than upfront and suggests he was misleading about budget realities. Here is one example.

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

Instapundit notes that infomercial "experts" thought it was poor performance. The link to the review of "All Sham, No Wow" was particularly entertaining. Though I'm not sure that last comparison is fair. I've actually owned a Shamwow purchased at a local home and garden show and it actually works! The same cannot be said for Obama's planned policies...

Bill Dyer comments that McCain and Palin have been to "charitable" in their discussion of where the money for the infomercial came from.

The McCain-Palin campaign correctly points out that Sen. Barack Obama's "30-minute prime-time address [tonight will be] a 'gauzy, feel-good commercial' that was 'paid for with broken promises.'" But for Obama's undisputed and indisputable violation of his solemn oath to accept public campaign financing, there's no way he could have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, including this hugely expensive cross-network TV buy.

But "paid for with broken promises" is the most charitable characterization. The Obama-Biden campaign deliberately has solicited and received hundreds of thousands of credit card transactions of $250 or less, whose details the campaign won't make available for outside review even though in the aggregate they amount to hundreds of millions of dollars — via a fraud-friendly credit card system (a) which accepts transfers from untraceable pre-paid credit cards, and (b) whose basic anti-fraud measures have been deliberately crippled. The Obama-Biden campaign might just as well have set up dumpsters all over the world into which illegal donors could dump shopping bags full of cash donations made in unmarked small bills.

It is of course impossible to measure the impact of the infomercial. But by all indications, it was at best a wash for Obama.

Early Democratic Voters in Florida...Are Voting for McCain?

2008-10-29T23:01:00.005-06:00

Kim Preistap at Wizbang links to this local Florida paper article about early voting. Something is fishy with the results and I haven't yet been able to determine what the root cause is. But it is interesting enough to quote here.

Democrats are beaming that their party is outperforming the Republicans in early voting, releasing numbers Wednesday that show registrants of their party ahead 54 percent to 30 percent among the 1.4 million voters who have gone to the polls early.

"We're thrilled at the record turnout so far," said Democratic Party of Florida spokesman Eric Jotkoff. "It's a clear indication that Democrats want to elect Barack Obama and Democrats up and down the ballot so that we can start creating good jobs, rebuilding our economy and getting our nation back on track."

But party breakdowns for turnout aren't the same as final tallies, and at least one poll offered a different view for the campaign of Republican John McCain.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave McCain a 49-45 lead over Democrat Barack Obama among Floridians who have already voted.

And Republicans continued to show a traditional strength, leading 50 percent to the Democrats' 30 percent in the 1.2 million absentee ballots already returned.

If you followed that, Democrats lead in early voting 54-30 yet Mcain leads 49-45 among these voters. Noting that these are exit polls and not actual tallies (and therefore are subject to inaccuracies just like opinion polling), this would have to mean that the following two things are true:

Independents in FL are breaking hard for McCain.
Obama is bleeding far more votes to McCain among Demcrats than McCain is losing to Obama among Republicans.

And this doesn't even consider the final data point of the quote that absentee ballots heavily favor Republicans. Given many absentee ballots are oversea military ballots (a group that breaks heavily for McCain) this is just fuel to the fire at this point.

At the same time, conventional polling shows FL handily in the Obama column? The pollsters might want to rethink their models.

For those curious, I took a stab at guessing the internals for this poll, if the numbers above are correct. Here is my best guess:

First I assumed each group gave 2% of the total to third party candidate--the 49-45 results has 6% missing. After that, even if I give McCain 100% of Republicans and Independents remaining, Obama still has to give McCain 13% of remaining Democrats (7% of 54% is 13%) to make the numbers work out. I just can't believe what the math suggests so something in the data quoted in the article must be amiss. If not, it is very good news for McCain in Florida.

The Obama-Khalidi Cover-up

2008-10-29T13:56:00.002-06:00

When I first read about this story, I didn't think there was much to it. Not that the story itself wasn't important I just doubted the impact it would have on voters. The more Obama's supporters try to squash it though, the more I am beginning to suspect there is something quite damaging here.

The background. The LA Times reportedly has a video of Obama toasting Rashid Khalidi at a party back in 2003. Khalidi is a former PLO operative and known to support the destruction of Israel. The LA Times is refusing to release the video until after the election, on the ground that their source requested they wait.

As could be expected, the refusal to release the video has turned it into a much larger story. McCain is bringing up the issue in stump speeches now. (Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.)

"Apparently this is a tape with a dinner that Mr. Ayers ... was at, and also ... one of the leading spokespersons for the PLO. Now, why that should not be made public is beyond me," McCain told La Kalle radio.

"I guarantee you, if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi or one of those, you think that that tape wouldn't be made public? Of course, Americans need to know, particularly about Ayers, and also about the PLO. So hopefully there will be enough pressure on the L.A. Times that it'll come out, but its really unfortunate that we have to go through this," McCain continued.

McCain is spot on here. Using my previous analogy, if there was a McCain and neo-Nazi video, CNN would launch a new cable channel just so they could play it in a continuous loop.

Gateway Pundit also reports that Newt Gingrich is offering $50,000 and that Dune Capital Holdings is offering $150,000 for the original source to come forward and provide the video. Furthermore, the cover-up continues, as the Wikipedia entry on Khalidi has been conveniently closed until after the election.

Hot Air also comments on the story:

I was skeptical at first that anything useful would come from it even if it was released, but now that Maverick’s made an issue of it to build suspense, a clip showing The One demonstrating that first-class temperament of his by sitting there placidly while some tool recites a poem “accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians” would be fun viewing during the run-up to Tuesday.

I shared that skepticism. But the more people try to cover this up, the more clear it becomes that there is really something there they don't want people to see.

Summary of Obama's Responses to Criticisms

2008-10-29T13:45:00.003-06:00

Political cartoonist Michael Ramirez sums up Obama's attitude towards criticism perfectly in a very simple and elegant way. (Hat tip: Powerline.)

Indeed.

Presidential Poll Analysis: Weekly Trends

2008-10-29T11:15:00.005-06:00

I was surprised today to see two different sources independently reach a conclusion I thought was common knowledge. I thought it was a well known fact that Democratic candidates poll better during the weekend and Republican candidates poll better during the work week. Apparently this fact wasn't as well known as I thought.
Bob Krum performs an analysis of Gallup results looking for this trend. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

Pollsters have long known that the demographic makeup of a random telephone sample changes from night to night. Those with families are less likely be available at home during weekend polling. Since that demographic tends to vote more Republican, weekend polling often understate support for the GOP. Polling companies use weighting to attempt to balance unbalanced weekend samples. But the Gallup traditional daily tracking poll doesn’t seem to have balanced the disparity enough.

So is Gallup not accounting for this known effect on purpose? Hard to tell of course but it is suspicious. Steve Schippert reaches similar conclusions at Wizbang.

Notice the trend that appears in the Gallup image: McCain gains consistently once the vast majority of those polled actually have to go to work - and it tightens most midweek. The dates marked in the image are Sundays, consistently right in the middle of Obama's biggest trended edges.

...

Take from it what you will, but I would suggest that when people are actually at work, doing what they do, earning what they earn, these working people trend toward McCain most. Would also suggest the saavy marketing/media practice of Friday releases to own a three day cycle has been successfully captured by the Obama campaign. Friday's news stews during his biggest margins.

The commenters over at Hedgehog report have discussed this effect for years. They know that a 3-day tracking poll released on Monday is going to favor the Democratic candidate--it always has. Still I'm glad to see this phenomenon is being understood and explain to more people.

Rasmussen Has the Race Within Margin of Error

2008-10-29T10:33:00.002-06:00

Yesterday, Gallup had the race within two points. Today, Rasmussen also has the race within the margin of error--three points.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 47%. This is the first time McCain has been within three points of Obama in more than a month and the first time his support has topped 46% since September 24 (see trends). One percent (1%) of voters prefer a third-party option and 2% are undecided.

Ed Morrissey notes:

We talked quite a bit about polling at last night’s Talk the Vote event. All three hosts reminded people that Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan with eight days left in the race in 1980 outside the margin of error. Furthermore, the rising number of refusals — those who refuse to participate in telephone polling — make the predictive value of electoral polling more questionable than ever before. Michael Medved said that some pollsters report refusal levels as high as 80%.

The Carter-Reagan data point I've discussed before. The 80% refusal level is new data for me and is astoundingly high. Think about that for a minute.

Four of five people that are asked to give input on a poll refuse to do so. That means you are selecting out a very specific minority of the population--the 20% that actual want to answer a poll. What other characteristics do these people share? Are they motivated to do so because they hate George Bush? If so, have you selected the people that actually think of McCain and McSame? Do the bulk of the other 4/5ths of the population not share those views?

I think the biggest takeaway is that you should take any statement that reads as "polling numbers show this election is going to be like no other election in history--the fundamental nature of the country has changed and changed drastically in the last two years" as non-scientific and likely bogus. This could be the year that every college student who says they are going to vote actually votes--but it probably won't be. This could be the year that states that have voted Republican for the last 44 years suddenly flip to the Democrats by huge margins--but it probably won't be.

All of the major polling results (regardless of how biased or skewed they are) are showing a trend towards McCain this week. Part of this is them adjusting their numbers so they don't appear like idiots on election day. But part of this is that recent events have been favorable to McCain and the election is now indeed close.

One thing is for certain...next Tuesday will be very interesting.

Media Bias: Only Report the Bad News

2008-10-28T13:34:00.003-06:00

The choices CNN makes for the front page picture of CNN.com continue to fascinate me. If I had funding from some wasteful government agency, I'd spend it just cataloging those pictures and doing analyses.

During the recent stock market woes, CNN has often run with photos of Wall Street investors with their heads buried in their hands. It certainly is an effective way to capture the mood and in the case of those stories is entirely appropriate. The following image isn't from CNN but it is similar to the images they showed during the crash.

Today, the DOW index is currently up +675.73, which is an increase of 8.27%. That's pretty big news, right? So what story is CNN leading with? A story about the woes of mental patients in Iraq. This is just astounding. First, here is the picture they are running currently:

Please note the following.

The markets being down is well-known to help Obama and are front page news. The markets are up and it only mentioned in the business section.
Military news out of Iraq is good. StrategyPage declares the war is over and that we won. But good news cannot come out of Iraq. That would look bad for Obama, who opposed the surge. So instead we do a sad human interest story about Iraq and make that the news.

It seems that right now, if CNN can't show someone with their hands buried in their heads, they don't run the story. Remember the message is that things right now are horrible--you need hope and change. Vote Obama.

The bias is disgusting. Don't let it affect you.

Polls One Week Before the Election

2008-10-28T13:08:00.002-06:00

With one week to go before the election I thought I'd look at some of the polls. As has been discussed many times here, polling this elections season has been more biased and scientifically flawed than normal. But as it is the only source of data we have, it is still interesting to examine, so long as one is careful about the internals and the details.

First up, Gallup has McCain within 2% among likely voters. There are other measurements, using a new "expanded likely voters" which basically says people are going to vote for Obama like no candidate in history--this is the year, in fact, that all historical election models are wrong. If you believe that, Obama is up by 7%.

Hugh Hewitt notes:

With a full week left for voters to consider Obama's plans to hike their taxes and redistribute their wealth....

At Hedgehog, they have two more recent results:

GWU /Battleground: Obama 49%, McCain 46%
Reuters: Obama 49%, McCain 45%

Both of these are within margin of error.

Finally, the IBD-TIPP poll has the following results, via Gateway Pundit:

Obama's lead over McCain-Palin shrank over the weekend. The One slid from a 3.9 point lead down to a 2.8 point lead on Monday. IBD-TIPP, the most accurate pollster of the 2004 campaign season, has Obama's lead now down to within the margin of error.

What's the summary point here? This race is actually close. Polls are never 100% accurate and picking out the most accurate pollster is only something that is ever done in hindsight. Recent new has focused heavily on statements Obama has made about redistribution of wealth for the past ten years. This just fuels the Joe the Plumber fires.

Does Obama still have the advantage with a week to go? Very likely. Should conservatives give up and not vote? Absolutely not! Get out there, be positive, vote, don't give up. It may seem like it near the end of a long campaign, but this election is far from over. Marathons are sometimes won with a sprint at the end just so long as you are close enough when the final push starts. John McCain and Sarah Palin are indeed close enough.

Do Not Question Obama-Biden Holds For .. The Media?

2008-10-27T10:54:00.002-06:00

This is a story I thought wouldn't really get much press but because the Obama-Biden camp won't let it die, it lives on. Hot Air has been covering the story the most, but it is interesting enough (and humorous) that I'll walk you through it here.

A local news reporter of WFTV in Florida was interviewing Joe Biden. Instead of the typical line of questioning such as "Can you believe it is only a couple of weeks until Obama wins?" and "Isn't that Sarah Palin chick useless?", the reporter decided to ask real questions on topics like the redistribution of wealth and ACORN voter fraud. The result, as described by Hot Air, is comedy gold:

And it should have ended there. It would have just gone down as one more performance by Biden that would have been ignored and forgotten. But it didn't end there. Obama-Biden was so upset that the reporter dared to ask real questions that the news station has been blackballed from further interviews. They called her combative and unprofessional, yet Michele Malkin notes:

She was completely professional and gracious.

But remember: Anything less than total sycophancy from the Obamedia is considered “combative.”

Biden continues to keep this story in the news by mentioning it in stump speeches. Here's one where it is 'ugly' to question Obama's economic leanings.

All this has gotten a few people to sit up and take notice. Bernard Goldberg discusses the media and how it is behaving and being treated by the Obama campaign.

Ed Morrissey comments:

Maybe they saw what happened to Joe the Plumber and have been intimidated into silence. Nah, that can’t be it. After all, they participated in that character assassination. Maybe they just love Obama more than free speech and an independent media.

That last sentence is sadly probably the most accurate.

Obama Supporters and the Police State Mentality

2008-10-27T09:42:00.003-06:00

I've written in the past on the questionable and frightening tactics rabid Obama supports use against anyone who dares question him. On Friday, Megan McCardle visited the same subject.

Here is the back story. A reporter, Neil Munro, ran a test of the donation systems for both Obama and McCain. He purchased two $25 gift cards from American Express and used them to makes donations to the campaigns of Obama and McCain.

As required by law, the campaigns' Web sites asked for, and National Journal provided, the donor's correct name, location and employment. The cards were purchased with cash at a Washington, D.C., drugstore, and the campaigns' Web sites were accessed through a public computer at a library in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Obama campaign's Web site accepted the $25 donation, but the McCain campaign's Web site rejected it.

You can go read his entire report for the details, but the high-level summary is that McCain system actually checked and verified the address as is required by law while the Obama system happily ignored the law and accepted the donation.

That is a story in and of itself, but McCardle writes about what happened after the story was published. It seems some Obama supporters are upset that this reporter had the audacity to actually do some investigative reporting and they wonder if maybe Munro could be arrested for committing voter fraud.

It also seems like the only way to expose much wrongdoing or error. The Obama campaign screwed up massively; it should not be possible to charge something to a credit card without matching the name to the name on the credit card. Most responsible web processors also require that you provide a fair amount of other information, to ensure that people aren't using stolen cards. And beyond that, last time I looked it was mandatory to get correct names to ensure that people aren't violating the campaign finance laws. I don't support those laws, to be sure. But as long as they are the law, all the campaigns have to abide by them.

Wondering if we can't prosecute the person who exposed the campaign's error smacks of police state tactics. Yes, I still support Obama, and I have no reason to think that the error was deliberate. But that doesn't mean that I think the Obama team has a right to have its errors protected from public exposure.

I'm sure if Munro had been spending his time dumpster diving in Alaska to dig up some dirt on Palin, he would be labeled a journalistic hero by Obama supporters. Note also two details that indicate just how far this "Obama will not be questioned" mantra goes.

Munro didn't specifically target the Obama campaign. He ran a test that treated both campaigned equally. And he published his results as they happened with no doctoring. Yet somehow these actions are taken as punative towards Obama and his angry mob is demanding retribution.
Megan McCardle writes about this attitude but can't help but remind people that she still supports Obama and doesn't support the laws he is violating. It is probably standard policy at a publication such as The Atlantic--all writings must be pro-Obama or they will not be published.

People are weary of this campaign--many just want it to be over. They assume that once it is, they can't put much of this behind them. How wrong they might be. If candidate Obama is not to be questioned and those that due are threatened with legal action, how might President Obama demand to be treated?

Helen McCaffrey: Palin Deserves Our Respect.

2008-10-26T22:03:00.002-06:00

Instapundit points to an interesting editorial in the Phildelphia Enquirer about Sarah Palin, respect, and sexism.

I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.

I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Sarah Palin is a C-." He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing.

I took the time to advise him of the "error of his ways" and informed him of the consequences if he wore it to my class.

I live near Boulder and the bumper stickers don't just say "Obama-Biden" they say "Fuck Bush!". The environment here is such that common decency is happily brushed aside in the name of unity against the common enemy. And be very clear about it, the common enemy is not Islamic terrorism or African despots. It's not dictators in Iran or North Korea. It isn't Putin and his Czarist activities in Russia. The enemy of the left are conservative Americans--all their energy is spent in fighting, humiliating, and hating them. McCaffrey continues:

I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock.

The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.

Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.

The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."

"Stone her"? How biblical.

How sad.

Obama's Tough Interview...on EXTRA

2008-10-26T21:58:00.002-06:00

The whole world watched as Sarah Palin was grilled by Charlie Gibson. Who gets to interview Obama? Mario Lopez of EXTRA. For those that aren't familiar with Lopez's deep experience in the political arena, he played Slater on the junior high drama "Saved By The Bell".

On Oct. 24, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that as president he would hold regular press conferences and "not just call on my four favorite reporters."

But the Democratic presidential nominee hasn't held a full press conference -- submitting himself to more than a handful of questions from his whole press corps -- in more than a month, since Sept. 24, 2008, in Clearwater, Fla.

The candidate often bemoans the media asking silly and superficial questions. The media isn't focused on the important issues facing the nation, he complains.

Outright arrogance on his part--assuming the election is in the bag. Recently polls have show the race tightening. It would serve him right, just on attitude alone, for McCain to upset him and his "can I be President already?" attitude.

Illegal Use of Government Resources to Attack Joe the Plumber?

2008-10-25T10:49:00.002-06:00

Yesterday Ace, and now Drudge and print media, reported on the potential misuse of government resources to dig up information on Joe the Plumber.

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

The takeaway point here is not that some conspiracy theory that Obama ordered illegal tactics to get Joe the Plumber at all costs. I'm confident Obama had no idea about the event. The point is this is the kind of things people do when they feel there candidate HAS TO win at all costs.

Obama slips up and knocks on Joe the Plumber's door? Use government resources illegally to get dirt on the slimy bastard.

Need the public to see Democratic registration is way up? Have ACORN register Tony Romo and Mickey Mouse.

Military votes are heavily for McCain? Use questionable legal decisions to have these votes thrown out in Virginia.

Have a VP candidate that is prone to gaffes? Focus instead on how much the other VP candidate spends on clothes.

Need money to run long 30-min ads before the election? Change your mind on public financing, hide donations less than $100 and raise millions illegally from foreign sources.

Of all those things, only the last one is there any real chance that Obama had knowledge of or involvement in. But people don't just hope that Obama is elected. They feel he NEEDS to be elected. And ideas such as ethics and fair play go out the window when people let themselves get ruled by emotions in such a manner.

More On Biden in the Bubble

2008-10-24T15:27:00.002-06:00

The LA Times has an editorial by Andrew Malcolm about just how inaccessible Joe Biden has been over the last two months.

Is it possible we've been living in a bubble for the last several weeks, not noticing a complete role reversal between the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, and his Republican counterpart, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska?

It has been noticeable--the media just hasn't bothered to report it. Malcolm notes how Palin has become much more accessible but then turns his attention to Biden.

But Biden is something else entirely. We've got Joe the Plumber and Joe Six-Pack. But Joe Delaware-by-way-of-Scranton has gone missing.

Obama officials will deny it. But he's clearly been muzzled by the Democratic campaign that's for real change.

...

[ABC Blogger] Tapper points out, amazingly, that Biden has not taken questions from his crowds of supporters since Sept. 10. That's before some of us learned Tampa Bay has a baseball team.

Malcolm also writes about the truly amazing part of this story. Despite being sequestered, Biden has still managed to suggest Hilary Clinton would have been a better choice for VP than him. He has said that the world would challenge Obama as soon as he took office and that Obama's response would appear to be wrong. Lets not forget that he stated unequivocally that Obama-Biden was against clean coal when in fact supporting clean coal was prominently mentioned on the official campaign website. Do you remember the time he thought FDR was on the radio, talking about the depression--apparently having mastered time travel? What about when a historically anti-gun biden suddenly started clinging to his guns?

[quoting Tapper again]"in terms of general availability to their traveling press corps, Biden's and Palin's roles are switching."

Does anybody seriously think that if the trend was going the other way, we would not have heard by now endless accounts of her hiding?

Malcolm seems shocked to learn the media is biased. I guess he really has been living in a bubble. But it is nice to see him break out of it and take notice.

Media Bias: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents All See It

2008-10-24T10:03:00.002-06:00

If there is one assured victory this campaign it is that the media has been revealed as a wholly unethical entity. The majority of the mainstream media is so in the tank for Obama that even though they see it and other people are recognizing it as fact, they are refusing to relent until after the election.

A new Pew poll shows that people of both parties and independents recognize that the media is trying to get Obama elected.

Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don't favor either candidate, and 13% say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.

Think about that. 70% of all Americans realize the media is biased for Obama. You can't get 70% of Americans to agree on any of the major political issues--the economy, terrorism, gay marriage, gun control, appropriate tax levels, illegal immigration. You name it and the country is pretty much split 50-50 on it. But a vast majority can see what the media is doing.

Will there be consequences? There already are.

The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.

The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from 13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a year ago.

And more and more print papers are dropping the Associated Press.

Tribune, which owns nine daily papers including the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, joins a growing list of newspapers that have sought to end AP contracts, or given notice of that, following plans to introduce a new controversial rate structure in 2009. The notice was given earlier this week.

In recent months, other non-Tribune papers have also given the required two-year's notice to drop AP. Those include: The Star Tribune of Minneapolis, The Bakersfield Californian, The Post Register of Idaho Falls, and The Yakima Herald-Republic and Wenatchee World, both of Washington.

Yes, these decisions are partly do to the AP's new rate structure. But if your readers are leaving because of biased stories from the AP and your profits are plummeting because of it, you are far less inclined to pay for the AP service, regardless of the new rate structure.

I'm not optimistic that there will be significant change in the media after the election. I am happy, at least, that most can see the bias.

Sarah Palin Guarantees Win in Pennsylvania

2008-10-23T21:09:00.002-06:00

Speaking in Beaver Creek, PA today Sarah Palin guaranteed a win in Pennsylvania by McCain. (Hat tip: Instapundit.) I find it odd that she actually used the word guarantee.

“And I hope Joe won’t mind if I paraphrase him some in this state, his home state, Pennsylvania, with your help, we’re going to win this state. I guarantee it,” Palin said to wild applause.

This is a pretty direct approach. Invoking the image of Joe Namath and quoting him near his home town is a little different than just the usual rhetoric of "we are going to fight for you".

Just how well is McCain polling according to internal polls? First I noted McCain-Palin spending time and money in PA. Now we have this statement by Palin. Interesting times with less than two weeks left in the election.

Perhaps this goes hand in hand with data from polls such as Battleground, which continues to show a statistical dead heat.

Obama: Use Love As a Weapon Against Your Grandparents

2008-10-23T21:02:00.003-06:00

When I first read this, my initial reaction was disbelief. It was attributed to the official Barack Obama web site but it couldn't be true, could it? So the page in question was urging people to talk to their grandparents and get them to vote for Barack Obama. But here's the language they used. (Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.)

The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world - so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.

That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, "Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in. It's about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!"

Are these people for real? Is it a Presidential campaign or a cult? I'm quite literally disgusted at the moment.

I ask you to share this with anyone else that you feel would also be disgusted by it. What, asking isn't enough? How about this? If you love me you'd do it? What's the matter? Grandma, don't you love me?

Biased Polls: Party Affiliation (Part II)

2008-10-23T14:31:00.005-06:00

DJ Drummond has another post on biased state polls. This one revisits an issue I have written about in the past--party affiliation.

Just to be clear, party affiliation isn't something that changes frequently during a persons life. One switch is unlikely. Two is very rare. Just think about your own personal party affiliation. Did you register with one party for one election, the other the next, independent for a third, and back to the original party for a fourth? I'm confident that the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

And I am not talking about voting for a candidate from the other party; that happens much more frequently. One can imagine a bitter Clinton supporter voting for McCain in protest of how Obama treated her during the primary. But this person is still a Democrat and will remain a Democrat in all likelihood.

With that in mind, look at some of the shifts in party affiliation Survey USA polling is using this year.

Pennsylvania: D+5 in 2006, SUSA using D+19, 15 point variance
Indiana: R+14 in 2006, SUSA using R+1, 13 point variance
Nevada: R+7 in 2006, SUSA using D+6, 13 point variance
Colorado: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Iowa: R+2 in 2006, SUSA using D+10, 12 point variance
Virginia: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance
Ohio: D+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+13, 10 point variance
Missouri: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+7, 8 point variance
North Carolina: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+5, 6 point variance

In every case, the variance is in one direction--towards the Democratic Party. And just look at some of the differences. Indiana was +14 Republican in 2006 and now suddenly it is only +1? Pennsylvania is +19 Democratic now? That stat is always a balance between the urban left of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and the rural right of every other county. Ohio as +13 Democrat in what has always been a swing state. None of these are justifiable. Drummond comments:

I've looked at the publicly available records on historical election participation, 2008 new voter registrations, and the Census information on these states, but I can find no valid reason for such large and arbitrary changes in political affiliation weightings. I would therefore submit that the models being used for many of the state polls have design flaws, which threaten the credibility of their published results.

For the fifth time or so in the last few days, let me make this clear. Don't trust the polls. Dave at Hedgehog is panicking about an Ohio poll that shows Obama up by 14% in Ohio. Ludicrous. And when you look at the internals, now you know why.

Media Bias: Coverage of Joe Biden vs Sarah Palin

2008-10-23T11:37:00.002-06:00

This isn't shocking news to anyone that has been reading this blog for a while, but it has come up again and I feel compelled to post about it. This New York Post editorial notes how easy the media has been on Biden and the gaffes he regularly makes. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate prompted a small wave of warnings about Biden's propensity for gaffes. But no one imagined even in a worse-case scenario such a spectacular bomb as telling donors Sunday to "gird your loins" because a young president Obama will be tested by an international crisis just like young President John Kennedy was.

Scary? You betcha! But somehow, not front-page news.

Again the media showed their incredible bias by giving scattered coverage of Biden's statements.

There were a few exceptions. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," co-host Mika Brzezinski flipped incredulously through the papers, expressing shock at the lack of coverage of Biden's remarks. Guest Dan Rather admitted that if Palin had said it, the media would be going nuts.

So what gives?

The stock answer is: "It's just Biden being Biden." We all know how smart he is about foreign policy, so it's not the same as when Sarah Palin says something that seems off.

The article has many more examples and you should go read the whole thing. The point of the article is spot on. We don't hear about Biden's comments, no matter how egregiously bad they are. Instead we get to hear about how much Palin spends on a suit. Consider, for example, if Sarah Palin said the following in a stump speech.

Ladies and gentleman, because he is old the world is going to test John McCain as soon as he gets into office. Within six months we will have a crisis. And because of his time spent as a POW and his anger and his temper, his initial reaction will seem to be the wrong one. We will look to you, as community leaders, to convince people not to panic, even though it will seem like there is good reason to do so.

Can you just imagine the reaction from the press?

If such blatant bias upsets you, there's something you can do about. Get motivated. Go vote for John McCain. Show the media that they can't influence you with their unfair and unethical meddling in the election. Tell your friends to do the same.

New AP Poll Shows Race Tied

2008-10-22T13:42:00.003-06:00

This AP poll is getting a lot of press around the right side of the blogosphere.

An Associated Press-GfK poll shows the presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000. Two weeks before the election, McCain and Barack Obama are essentially running even among likely voters.

The poll put Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent among those voters who are considered likely to vote on Nov. 4. The survey supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race has narrowed as Republicans drift home to their party. McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy also seemed to strike a chord.

It is very important to note that this poll is among likely voters, not registered voters. Likely voter polling is traditionally more accurate (and favors conservative candidates). The pollsters have been hanging on to registered voter polling methodologies for much longer than usual this year. You can see the result, above, when they switch--now you know why they were hesitant to change.

Bill Dyer comments:

Folks, it's an election, not a coronation. We may be in the final act, but the fat lady hasn't even started warming up offstage yet. All those who think they know for sure how this is going to shake out are fooling themselves. Don't let them fool you.

Ed Morrisey notes:

There’s still plenty of time left in this election. McCain has now obviously found a winning message that negates Obama’s economic populism. These respondents hadn’t yet heard Joe Biden’s warning about Obama’s election provoking an international crisis to test his mettle, another message that will regenerate doubts about voting for a man with no executive or military experience in the middle of a war.

Morrissey also links to this Mary Katherine Ham analysis:

An interesting note about the poll's methodology:
A significant number of the interviews were conducted by dialing a randomly selected sample of cell phone numbers, and thus this poll had a chance to reach voters who were excluded from some other polls.
Cell-phone users are supposed to be left-leaning demographic historically missed by pollsters (though the vast unpolled cellular herd has never been vast enough to change the game on Election Day). Why would McCain be gaining in a poll with cell-phone users included, and if he is, isn't it exceedingly promising for the Republican candidate that the numbers are this close? Perhaps they're polling a disproportionate number of "push-to-talk" Nextel users (read: Joe the Plumber and Tito the Construction Worker) and undersampling Sidekick users.

Gateway Pundit credits Sarah Palin and McCain's unflinching support of her. Meanwhile Instapundit discusses the accuracy of polls, in general. Finally the commenters at the Hedgehog Report discuss this results like they do all other poll results--1/3 analysis, 1/3 cheerleading, and 1/3 fighting idiotic trolls. Of note in the comments though is this tidbit:

Rumor is CBS has a new poll showing a tied race?

Now that would be big news. The latest CBS poll had Obama up by 14...

If there wass any doubt that the race is still in reach for McCain, it should be gone now. Nothing is pre-written. Nothing is final. Don't let the media and polling bias influence your actions. Vote. Stay positive. Influence those around you.

Biased Polling: Who Is Being Polled?

2008-10-22T11:12:00.003-06:00

In heated elections periods (and sadly now just in general) it is common for a state to be labeled simply blue or red. But of course that is not the case; there are often red and blue areas in a state. For example, California is of course left-leaning, but only in the urban areas; the rural areas of CA are conservative. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are really, really blue but the rest of Pennsylvania is quite red. While these divisions usual follow urban/rural lines it is not always the case. Vermont is pretty uniformly blue, rural or otherwise.

This is an important realization to make when you consider polls and potential biases. When a pollster says that independents are skewed towards one candidate or the other, which independents are being polled? If one were to poll independents in Detroit, for example, you'd see a markedly different result than if you poll independents in the rest of lower state Michigan.

Of course, a reputable polling agency would take this distinction into account, but are they? It's tough to know because not every polling agency releases the county by county numbers. Here is one example, though.

In Virginia, Mason-Dixon released a poll giving Obama a 49-38 lead among independents. This seems odd in VA, considering how many ex-military personnel live in VA along with evidence that this group supports McCain heavily. A commenter at Hedgehog Report notes the following oddity in the county breakdown in the internals.

Northern Virginia: 170 interviews
Shenandoah/Piedmont: 95 interviews
Richmond Metro: 80 interviews
Hampton Roads: 140 interviews
Lynchburg/Southside: 70 interviews
Roanoke/Southwestern Virginia: 70 interviews

Last I checked, there are more people in Hampton Roads than in NOVA. Yet they have NOVA more interviews.

Northern Virginia is of course the most liberal area and overpolling here will skew your results.

My other data points are anecdotal. We'll start with what a commenter from PA noted, below.

I live in Bucks County Pa and there is nothing but McCain/Palin signs, which is why I'm always shocked to hear that BO is "so far ahead" in the polls. In Montgomery County, I see mostly McCain signs also.

This mirrors what I am hearing from family members in rural southern Ohio. It is a "sea of McCain-Palin signs". So much so that it is hard to find even a single Obama sign in the rural areas.

Where you live and the people that surround you can't help but influence you. I live and work outside of Boulder, CO. The Obama-Biden signs are overwhelming here. (I saw a car the other day that had an Obama bumper sticker proudly displayed next to a John Kerry one. Now that's dedication to a cause!) A friend in Austin, TX reports the same thing--it is all Obama, all the time. If you live in such an environment and you hear that Obama is way ahead in polling, it is easy to be forced to agree.

But if you live in an area like southern Ohio or western Pennsylvania, where the situation is opposite, it is hard to understand the national and state polling. If the pollsters are under sampling these areas, they are generating highly erroneous results.

And in some ways, this isn't just anecdotal evidence. You are influenced by the environment around you. DJ Drummond notes the locations of the major polling agencies.

ABC News: 77 W 66th St, #13, New York City, New York
CBS News: 524 W 57th St, New York City, New York
FOX News: 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York City, New York
Gallup: 901 F St NW, Washington DC
Hotline: 88 Pine St, 32nd floor, New York City, New York
IBD: 12655 Beatrice St. Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times: 202 W 1st St, Los Angeles California
Marist Institute: 3399 North Rd, Poughkeepsie, New Jersey York
Mason-Dixon: 1250 Connecticut Ave #200, Washington DC
Newsweek: 251 W 57th St, New York City, New York
The New York Times: 1 City Hall, New York City, New York
Pew Research Center: 1615 L St NW, #700, Washington DC
Quinnipiac: 275 Mount Carmel Ave., Hamden Connecticut
Rasmussen: 625 Cookman, #2, Asbury Park, New Jersey
Reuters: 3 Times Square, New York City, New York
Survey: USA 15 Bloomfield Ave., Verona New Jersey
TIPP: 690 Kinderkamack Rd, Oradell, New Jersey
Washington Post: 1150 15th St NW, Washington DC
Zogby: 901 Broad St, Utica, New York

Think about the people making the decision on who to poll and how to word questions. They are all living in an environment where calling someone a "conservative" is a dirty insult. How does that effect their day to day decisions about polling?

Don't Trust the Polls Part II -- Follow the Candidates

2008-10-22T09:04:00.002-06:00

As has been said many times, if you want to really understand how a political race is going, follow the candidates. The polls this year are questionable at best, outright rigged at worst. But if you follow the actions of the candidates, you see an entirely different story.

McCain made another appearance in Pennsylvania. Why? For two reasons, as it turns out. A Daily Kos diary reports that internal Obama polling was accidentally released and it showed that Obama was only ahead by 2 points. Given the Bradley effect, that may well mean he is behind. Note that the attitude on the far-left leaning Kos site reinforces two points that I have been making for a while now. One, the voter advantage to Democrats this year is all hype and little fact:

This is important because, if it is true, it undermines the argument that we have a substantial partyId advantage this year.

They want to believe that people are flocking to the Democratic Party this year despite the fact that historically people never flock to one party or the other. An unbiased statistical analysis has shown party affiliation barely changes year-to-year, election-to-election. Yet the left and the media (sorry for repeating myself) have been pushing this idea very hard for over a year now.

Two, the diarist has a goal in mind with all this spin:

We need to get on this story as soon as possible before it spreads any further. I don't want them to have any hope left, Let's crush their spirits!

After all, this isn't an important election during troubled economic and world times, right? This real enemy are "those conservatives like Sarah Palin" and they shouldn't just lose, they should be crushed! Pathetic and disgraceful.

So that is one reason that McCain is trying hard in Pennsylvania but there is another one, detailed here. Suppose McCain loses Colorado and Virginia (unlikely but that is what the biased polling is trying to tell us) but wins Pennsylvania. That makes the electoral map look like this:

Is there any doubt, now, that McCain is making a smart move?

Also note that McCain and Palin are headed back to Iowa this weekend. (Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.)

The weekend schedule would be McCain's fourth visit to the state since mid-September, and Palin's second trip to Iowa in that time.

The common talking point was that Obama's support of corn subsidies (and McCain's opposition) had flipped Iowa blue and it was a done deal. Averages at RealClearPolitics supported that argument. But internal numbers must be saying something different, if McCain and Palin are spending the time and energy of six visits to Iowa as the election closes.

The overall point here is that don't trust the polls, don't be influenced by lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Do Not Trust the Polls

2008-10-22T08:45:00.003-06:00

The polls this year are, as I have written about many times, highly suspect. The reasons are numerous. There is one more point that should be made about highly biased polls--this is nothing new.

CNN reminds us that in 1980 Carter led Reagan by 8 points in the polls in mid-October.

In the 1980 presidential election, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan trailed President Jimmy Carter by 8 points in a late October Gallup poll. A mere 10 days after that survey was conducted, Reagan defeated the incumbent president by nearly 3 percentage points, sealing one of the biggest turnarounds in the history of American presidential politics.

Of course, the bias of the media is present even in this article, as they go on to say that this year is entirely different and that Obama is really like Reagan and the same thing won't happen.

This is the same mistake the pollsters are making in states like Virginia. Even in bad years for Republicans, Virginia showed a 3-point advantage in voter turn out to conservatives. Many of the polls this year show a 6 to 9 point advantage to Democrats. The argument is, I guess, that this year is totally different and who wouldn't be excited about Obama becasue he is so great and I, the pollster, am excited about him so surely everyone is going to show up in huge numbers this year to vote for him *breath* and they can't be voting for that vapid redneck whore Sarah Palin. If that last sentence seemed frantic that is because the pollsters are.

Gateway Pundit has further evidence of this phenomenon. In the beginning of October in 2000, CNN had Al Gore beating George Bush by 11 percentage points and we all know how that one turned out.

Hmmm, the Democratic candidate up by 10+ points in the beginning of October (according to CNN)? Does this sound familiar?

And note that right now Obama isn't ahead in these questionable polls by 10 points or more--it is half that margin. Consider also the fabled Bradley effect which has always affected Obama. He was up big in New Hampshire in the primary polls over Hilary Clinton and Clinton won that primary handily.

The point is (if you are a McCain supporter) don't be discouraged by the polls. Go vote. Make sure your friends that think as you do go vote. Don't let the media/polling bias affect you as they so desperately want it to.

Go Read: The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama

2008-10-21T20:00:00.003-06:00

My normal style is to try to quote the relevant parts of a story and add some commentary. In this case, though, the post is long and just excellent.

Guy Benson and Mary Katherine Ham have written an article (edited by Ed Morrissey) that collects all of the arguments against Obama as President--and the list is long, well-written, and filled with videos.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

Forward this link to everyone you know that might be on the fence. This is the best case I've seen made and people need to hear it in between 30-min ads by Obama and specials by Oprah.

Battleground Poll Shows Race Tied

2008-10-21T19:55:00.002-06:00

Yes, it is probably an outlier. But if you are looking for some good news (and you don't bow down to the altar of Hope and Change), the Battleground poll has the race at a statistical dead heat.

Wizbang reminds people that the intent of biased polls is to get conservatives to give up and stay home:

It's over when everyone has voted, not when everyone has reacted to the day's targeted message.

You listening Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada?

UPDATE: Are you listening, Pennsylvania? I'm talking to you, too. Jack "Marines are Murderers" Murtha has been talking to you, racists and rednecks that you apparently are. So maybe you have been listening if Obama's internal polling shows him up only by 2% while the rest of the media has him preordained. (Thanks to Wizbang readers and commenters.)

Remember, the Battleground poll is run by one Democrat and one Republican, so it tends to be one of the most fair and balanced polls out there.

Reactions to Biden's "Electing Obama Would Be Dangerous" Comments

2008-10-21T09:17:00.002-06:00

I post these reactions not because I think they will matter in the election. While there are some interesting points to think about, Biden's comments will, for the most part, be ignored. And that is the reason for the post. Joe Biden can say anything and people will just smile and laugh.

Hugh Hewitt writes:

What's significant is not that Biden was being astute or especially intuitive in these comments, but rather that these remarks amounted to an unintentionally candid assessment from the number two guy on the Democratic ticket. When even Slow Joe Biden can predict with absolute confidence that our enemies will rush to test Barack Obama by "contriving" foreign policy crises, can anyone doubt that our enemies themselves will see how doing exactly that might serve their national interests and harm America's own?

Bill Kristol's editorial:

So Biden expects a test of the kind Kennedy faced after his disastrous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June, 1961, less than five months into Kennedy’s presidency. Biden’s presumably thinking of the Soviet-backed construction of the Berlin Wall a couple of months later. Kennedy did nothing, and was criticized for his weakness back home.

So--leaving aside the merits of what Kennedy did or didn’t do in 1961--Biden is forecasting that Obama will have what seems to be a weak response to a provocation from, say, Iran or Russia, and he’s urging the liberals of Seattle and elsewhere to stand with Obama against the expected domestic criticism.

In other words, Biden is forecasting inaction by Obama in the face of testing by a dictator. I suspect he’s right in this forecast. McCain might want to clarify this point. It’s not just that Obama’s own running mate expects an international crisis early in his presidency. It’s not just that Obama has a weak foreign policy record. It’s that Biden himself expects what will appear to be a weak response from Obama to testing by a dictator.

Gateway Pundit links to Rudy Guiliani's reaction:

All of these points should be part of the national debate this election. But thankfully for Obama, the media will assure that none of them are.

Sarah Palin: The Most Accessible Candidate

2008-10-20T13:08:00.002-06:00

After her selection as McCain's Vice Presidential, the running meme Sarah Palin was that she was being shielded by the media. This played well with the left's opinion of her that she is a vapid, red-necked whore would would just serve to embarrass the McCain campaign whenever she opened her mouth.

How times have changed. I've seen this story linked from several places now. CBSNews reports that Palin is now the most accessible of the candidates.

In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop.

By contrast, Biden hasn’t held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn’t taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain—who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability—hasn’t done one since Sept. 23.

Furthermore, she is doing this by choice:

After her plane in Colorado Springs, Palin answered no less than 14 questions from the media. It took traveling press secretary Tracey Schmitt three attempts finally to get the governor to move along.

There really is something to the Sarah Palin phenomenon. I've been asked by a more than a few friends if Palin will be a force to be reckoned with in 2012, assuming an Obama victory this year. My first inclination was that she would be too damaged by the circus of hate she has been subjected to this election. I'm beginning to rethink that. She continues to draw huge crowds at her stump speeches. Her cameo appearance on SNL this past weekend was the most watched moment in over 14 years for the show. She has that ability to talk to a TV camera but appear to be talking to you--few politicians have that ability.

Will she still be active in 2012? I hope so. Of course, it would be even better if she were active as the sitting Vice President of the United States.

Biden: Electing Obama Will Be Dangerous

2008-10-20T10:53:00.003-06:00

What Joe Biden will say is unbelievable. What is more unbelievable is that the media just watches and smiles. Here's what Biden had to say about electing Obama and the effect it would have on world events:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

So let me get this straight.

Because Obama is so untested and has so little experience that despots, dictators, and terrorists will feel compelled to test him by attacking the United States and its interests worldwide.
Obama's initial reaction to these tests will seem clueless and wrong.

If Sarah Palin said similar things about McCain, CNN would debut a new channel just so they could repeat the statements in a loop.

Ed Morrissey comments:

I agree with Biden. Obama is exactly like Kennedy in this regard, and our enemies will test us by threatening our interests around the globe if we elect Obama. I’d rather avoid the problem altogether and elect a man who puts enough fear into the minds of our enemies to keep them from testing us at all.

And at Powerline:

Biden's statement is a prediction of the future and thus is subject to some uncertainty. Only time will tell, but surely Biden's is on solid ground with his prediction. Biden's prediction is thus what Michael Kinsley defines as a gaffe. According to Kinsley, a gaffe occurs "when a politician tells the truth." Kinsley has subsequently explained that "A gaffe is what happens when the spin breaks down."

Thankfully the media is there to make sure no one notices.

Obama's Talk of Protectionism Already Driving Canada Away

2008-10-20T09:19:00.002-06:00

Is it possible for a President to have made a bad policy decision before he takes office? The Wall Street Journal has a editorial that suggest that the answer to that question is indeed yes--and Obama has already done it.

Barack Obama's promise to unilaterally rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico won't go along with his ideas on labor and the environment has not gone unnoticed in Ottawa. If Canadians are going to have a tougher time selling their goods and services south of the border, who can blame them for looking east -- across the Atlantic to Europe.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed an agreement Friday to begin negotiations for a free trade pact between Canada and the European Union. A Canada-EU study released last week outlines the joint economic benefits of such a partnership, with two-way trade estimated to increase 22.9% by 2014.

The proposed partnership goes a lot further than Nafta. In addition to allowing free trade in goods and services, it would harmonize regulations, open up the air-travel market, and boost opportunities in government-procurement. Most important, it would free the labor market so that skilled workers could move easily back and forth across the Atlantic.

The free-labor point is key. As recently as half a century ago, Canadians and Americans were pretty much free to work in either country without the visa restrictions that apply today. Under the proposed Canada-EU agreement, a computer geek from, say, the University of Waterloo -- one of whose alumni developed the BlackBerry -- would be able to take a job in Hamburg or Dublin if he wished; forget about Silicon Valley.

That last paragraph is indeed the important one. I've worked in the tech industry for a number of years. A large (and to people outside the area, surprising) number of programmers and the like are Canadians. They come to the U.S. to find a high-paying tech job, to complain about the lack of hockey coverage on TV, and--though this is the topic of another post--to get health care coverage that is more responsive than the nationalized health care in Canada. Making it hard for this group of people to come to American and find jobs would be a real hit to the productivity of tech industry in this country. I suppose that Obama thinks that it would mean more jobs for Americans but protectionist policies in the past just lead to escalation between countries and that is good for no one.

John at Powerline warns just how long-term the effects of such policies can be:

Under an Obama administration, the United States will be more protectionist than Europe. That's a recipe for economic decline. As with so many of Obama's policies, however, the full extent of the damage will not be evident until long after he leaves office.

Though Obama's plans perhaps do mesh with his other policies. In a NYTimes editorial, John Tierney questions Obama's plan to have the government pay to train 100,000 more engineers and scientists.

If the United States really has a critical shortage of scientists and engineers, why didn’t this year’s graduates get showered with lucrative job offers and signing bonuses?

...

The only “shortage” is of American-born scientists and engineers. But with so many talented foreigners competing for positions here in schools and laboratories, it’s entirely rational for American students to head into fields where their skills are in more demand — and harder to replace with foreign labor.

Perhaps the thought is that if you make it harder for foreign labor to come to the U.S. you'll create job opportunities for Americans that you have artificially forced into the market.

This combination of policies shows a shocking lack of understanding about how free markets work. Most large tech companies (and non-tech companies, for that matter) are highly international entities. If protectionist policies make it difficult to operate in the U.S. they will simply shift operations to other countries. Unless of course Obama enacts more laws that make it hard for multinational companies to operate in the U.S. Just how far down the rabbit hole are we going to go?

Two weeks left in the election. It's not too late, America.

McCain Interview With Chris Wallace

2008-10-19T23:16:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the light blogging, I had a busy weekend. I'll be getting back to a more regular schedule tomorrow, but I wanted to point you to this Hugh Hewitt post. You can watch the video here, but Hewitt quotes the most relevant section.

John McCain: I'm very pleased with what happened at the debate, because it helped define the issues with the American people. And Joe the Plumber is the average citizen, and Joe the Plumber is now speaking for millions of small business people all over America, and they're becoming aware that 'we need to spread the wealth around' is not what small business people want. And before we go into this business of, well, they wouldn't be taxed, etc., 50% of small business income would be taxed under Senator Obama's plan. That's 16 million small business jobs in America, and that's what Joe the Plumber's figure d out. Finally, could I just say, where are we in America where a candidate for president comes to a person's driveway, he asks him a question, doesn't like the answer, and all of a sudden he's savaged by the candidate's people? Savaged by them. Here's a guy who's a private citizen. What's that all about?..."

John McCain: "I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth. He said himself, we need to spread the wealth around. Now..."

Fox News' Chris Wallace: "Is that socialism?"

John McCain: "That's one of the tenets of socialism, but it's more the liberal left, which he's always been in. He's always been in the left lane of American politics. That's why he voted 94 times against any tax cuts or for tax increases. That's why he voted for the Democratic budget resolution that would raise taxes on some individuals who make $42,000 a year. That's why he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate."

You should go read Hewitt's analysis, but the main point is that this exactly what McCain needs to be saying. The point is not about Joe the Plumber the person; the point is what Obama said and what it reveals of his economic ideology. Most polls, pundits and focus groups give McCain no chance of winning this election; if he is eeks out a victory, it will be because of press like this. Debates where candidates exchange talking points influence very few people. Straight-talk about socialism and tax policies has a better chance to accomplish that.

Hewitt ends optimistically as he always does--he plays the role of cheerleader very well.

Whether you want your wealth spread around is the question of the next 15 days. It isn't the question Obama-Biden wanted at the top of the list heading into the home stretch.

Sure, that's the rosy way to look at the final two weeks--but right now, I thought I'd focus on something positive.

ACORN Voter Fraud Continues

2008-10-18T09:40:00.003-06:00

Voter registration fraud stories continue and I continue to believe that nothing will come of it until after the election. Greg Gordon writes:

The furor over ACORN's national voter registration drive exploded with new controversies Friday, including a call by Barack Obama for an independent prosecutor, a Supreme Court ruling over voter access and the disclosure of a death threat against an ACORN worker.

What remains unclear is whether the campaigns of Obama and John McCain will reach a truce over voter access to the polls by Election Day or whether their legal and rhetorical battles will persist to the finish line — or beyond.

A promising start to the article. But then it turns into media bias as per the usual. Read through the rest of it, if you have the stomach for it, to read about how ACORN is misunderstood and to hear many quotes from ACORN organizers about racists death threats they have received ever since that evil McCain guy lied about ACORN and voter fraud. Please.

In other "good news", the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Jennifer Brunner, saying that is OK for her not to check the validity of 200,000 questionable voter registrations in Ohio. Actually what the court said was that the Republican party didn't have the legal right to sue in this case. Read between the lines carefully. The registrations are still likely fraudulent, but that case was thrown out on a technicality. Yay for justice?

Sarah Palin: Proud to Be an American

2008-10-17T11:42:00.003-06:00

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has some video of a Palin speech from Dover, New Hampshire yesterday. In terms of mood and spirit differences between the two parties, the video serves as a perfect example.

We believe, too, in the promise of this country, in the opportunities that we wish for ourselves and for each other, for our sons and for our daughters. We believe America is not the problem. We don’t have to apologize for being Americans!

Morrissey likens the optimism to Ronald Reagan.

I do think the quote captures what is different about the two candidates at the moment. McCain wants minor changes to prevent another banking crisis but for the most part trusts in the American economy; Obama wants to enact the New Deal II. McCain wants to be cautious about using military force but respects and honors those that serve in the military; Obama says hawkish things like "we will get Osama Bid Laden at any cost" but has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for people who choose a military career. McCain is proud to serve his country; Obama (and Michele) think we are setting a horrible example and want to reshape us in the model of Europe.

The political landscape may make it impossible for McCain to prevail in this election. But the most disappointing thing is that the press will take even a 50.1% to 49.9% Obama victory as a mandate to trash America as it is now. And many of us just don't agree with that.

Joe the Plumber and Obama -- The Point Is Not About Joe

2008-10-16T19:35:00.002-06:00

By now I'm sure you heard about Joe the Plumber. While stumping in Ohio, Obama was asked by a Cleveland resident about his new tax plan. As the story goes, Joe was planning on expanding his plumbing business and was going to go over the mystical $250,000 mark. He asked Obama why he wanted to raise his taxes, to which Obama replied, "It is time to spread the wealth around."

Since then the news has been dominated by Joe the Plumber. He was mentioned prominently by Joe McCain during the debate and even got to give his own post-debate analysis.

And he featured in a new ad by McCain.

Today, Sarah Palin mentioned him while campaigning. Joe Biden mentioned him while campaigning.

The reason for all the press is that the event--not Joe--struck a chord with a lot of people. People who don't support Obama for his economic policies worry about how far to the left he is, even in his own party. They don't like the idea of redistribution of wealth. They don't like the idea a welfare state. Which is why normally Obama is much more crafty than this. He doesn't call it welfare, he calls it tax cuts--when in fact they aren't cuts at all, but handouts.

James Pethokoukis at US News and World Report writes in an article entitled "Did Barack 'Spread the Wealth' Obama Just Blow the Election?":

No. Really. You're kidding me. Barack Obama actually told that Joe the Plumber guy that he wants to "spread the wealth around." What, did Obama just get done reading the Wikipedia entry on Huey "Share the Wealth" Long or something? Was he somehow channeling that left-wing populist from the Depression? Talk about playing into the most extreme stereotype of your party, that it is infested with socialists.

Pethokoukis notes this finding from a Gallup poll this summer:

When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly—by 84% to 13%—prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

So what are the Democrats trying to do in response? They are trying to destroy Joe the Plumber. Toledo is investigating his (lack of) a proper plumbing license. He is being attacked from all sides. DailyKos published his home address so people could harass him.

The Anchoress understands why the left is so upset over Joe the Plumber:

Those words are what matters. It does not matter whether Obama said them to Joe the Plumber or Booby McBoobadoob. Don’t allow yourself to become distracted by the media swarm/feed. Stay focused on Obama’s words. THOSE are what matters.

This is why attacking the actual Joe doesn't matter. In a monumental slip, Obama showed his far left economic underpinnings. That doesn't mesh with the views of many, many Americans.

And he isn't learning. Today he, too, was talking about Joe the Plumber.

“He’s trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he’s fighting for,” Obama said. “How many plumbers you know that are making a quarter-million dollars a year?”

For God's sake, that is the point, Mr. Obama. America is a place where you start out as a simple plumber--or electrician or carpenter. Maybe one day you start your own business. The next you hire a few more employees. The thought that when you have a few more employees and have continued success that the government would swoop in an "share the wealth" with others is abhorrent. And frightening. It's not like a company making $250,000 a year now pays no taxes--it pays a fair share.

It is the simple thought that "sharing the wealth" is a good or just idea that I, and hopefully a majority of Americans, reject utterly.

Oil Drops to Below $70 a Barrel--Chavez and Ahmadinejad Caught Crying Into Fistfuls of Cash

2008-10-16T15:30:00.002-06:00

Just a few months ago, people were warning of $400 a barrel for oil. (I recall that CNN had a fear-inducing headline one day on this topic, but I'm unable to find the reference.) Earlier, people also quoted the same number and declared that the world was out of oil and that the price would never go down.

Today oil fell to $69.85 a barrel.

Crude oil fell below $70 a barrel to the lowest since June 2007 and gasoline tumbled after a U.S. government report showed stockpiles increased more than twice as much as forecast.

Supplies rose 5.6 million barrels to 308.2 million barrels last week, the Department of Energy said in a weekly report. Oil also fell on doubts that the bank rescue plan will bolster global economic growth and fuel use. OPEC brought forward its planned meeting from next month to Oct. 24 after the oil price drop.

I posted previously on how Venezuela and Iran would suffer economic consequences if oil dropped below $75 a barrel. One can only hope.

How low will oil go? Not much lower, if OPEC can help it.

OPEC will likely cut oil output by 1 million barrels a day at next week's meeting to check the drop in prices, Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said.

"It will be one million, or more," he told Qatar's al- Jazeera television channel. "Prices have fallen a lot and we need to take measures."

It will be interesting to see how much pressure OPEC is willing to risk on a delicate world economy. On one hand, they want to milk the rest of the world for as much money as possible for the oil they have left. On the other hand, driving prices north of $100 has two consequences. One, It hurts economic productivity, which lowers the demand for oil. Two, it drives nations to develop alternative energy sources with a high priority--something OPEC desperately doesn't want to see happen.

FBI Conducts National Investigation Into ACORN Voter Registrations Fraud

2008-10-16T15:09:00.003-06:00

It's about time. Yahoo! News reports that the FBI is investigating ACORN in relation to voter registration fraud.

The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.

A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press on Thursday. A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.

The important thing to note here is that the investigation is 'national'. Conducted by the FBI, it can't be railroaded to the side as would be done by Democratic Secretary of State of Ohio Jennifer Brunner.

I doubt anything will come of this investigation before the election. Would a President Obama act on findings of illegal activities or would he protect ACORN as he is done in the past?

Roundup of Debate Reactions

2008-10-16T09:30:00.002-06:00

From reading the (right-leaning) side of the blog-o-sphere, is would seem the third debate could be summed up as follows:

McCain did well, much better than in the first two debates, and "won" it if you think such things are possible.
There are doubts as to whether it is enough to change the outcome of the election.

Neither of these two results is that surprising. If you want to read more about the debate, check the following links.

Check Instapundit here and here.

New member of Wizband Steve Schippert discusses taxes and size of government.

Ann Althouse live-blogged the final debate, and welcomes Obama as our next President.

Hugh Hewitt did his matrix of questions again and had post-debate thoughts which were, as expected, very pro-McCain.

Ed Morrissey weighs in with his analysis.

Gateway Pundit live-blogged the debate as well.

I think the bigger story coming out of the debate is Joe the Plumber. That story has the possibility to resonate with the working class in America. More thoughts on that later...

Note on Polls Before the Debate

2008-10-15T14:16:00.002-06:00

I haven't been posting much on polls lately. Why? Because I don't understand polling this election cycle. Here are two examples.

In the past, on polls far before the election, polling agencies used registered voters (RV) as a way to weight their samples. This was standard practice as it was hard to determine what socioeconomic and political groups would be more motivated by election time. Also, traditionally, polling agencies would switch to likely voters (LV) closer to an election. This correction helps to make more accurate predictions near the end of a campaign.

This year, the polling agencies are not switching to LV. Gallup continues to call the race a done deal for Obama, but they are still reporting RV numbers. Hugh Hewitt has the latest results from Gallup.

Notice the RV spread is 7% but the LV spread is 3%--within typical margin of error. They've even refused to drop their bias and come up with a different LV number. They are basically saying, history tells us one thing but we know in our heart of hearts that this year will be different. That isn't professional behavior from a polling agency.

And remember--it's the 7% number that will make the front page of CNN and MSNBC. The message is clear. The election is over, McCain can't win, don't even bother to vote conservatives.

As a second example, the leading CNN article is currently about how McCain is going to lose five traditional red states to Obama. Specifically in Virginia, they note:

A new CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation survey in Virginia released Wednesday indicates that Sen. Barack Obama holds a 10-point lead over McCain -- 53 percent to 43 percent among likely voters.

This one is even likely voters. But what about the internals of such polls. DJ Drummond has an interesting post at Wizbang. He is discussing SUSA polls, not Gallup, but notice the data on Virginia:

Virginia
2004 DRI split was 35%/39%/26%,
2006 DRI split was 36%/39%/26%
SUSA in 2008 is using 39%/30%/25%

You are reading that correctly. In 2004 and 2006 (a horrible year for Rebublicans), 39% of voters in Virginia were Republicans. SUSA is assuming that this year, only 30% of voters will be Republicans. They have no statistical evidence for this--they are just saying it is so.

If I were to walk into a Berkeley cafe and ask about political preferences I would get a different result than if I walked into an NRA meeting in West Virginia. The pollsters are effectively doing the former and publishing the results as if it were a national opinion.

I'm still doubtful of a McCain victory in three weeks. But how much of this doubt stems from a constant, sustained effort by media and pollsters to make me believe that the race is over and I should just give up already?

CNN: Blacks are Enthusiastic, Whites are Racists

2008-10-15T14:03:00.002-06:00

The following article is not surprising coming from CNN--that doesn't make it any less infuriating. We've been told by months by CNN that the only reason a white person wouldn't support Obama is due to racism. If Obama looses the election, it is because those rednecks are all racists.

So now we learn that African-Americans are enthusiastic for Obama, which could make the difference in the election.

"I know he is going to win," James said after services at Leonard Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis. "See, God answers prayers, and I am a praying man, and I know he is going to win."

I'm glad that has been spelled out for me. If a white person supports a white candidate over a black one, they are racists. If a black person supports a black candidate over a white one, they are enthusiastic.

I feel better having be educated in this regard. Thank you, CNN.

Final Debate Tonight: What Obama and McCain Need to Do

2008-10-15T11:46:00.002-06:00

I was going to make a long and detailed post on what McCain and Obama need to do tonight during the third and final presidential debate. While doing a little background research, I see that Ed Morrissey has already written my post for me. The short summary is as follows.

McCain needs to:

Be aggressive
Attack Obama on ideas of government interference in the economy
Find a way to talk about gun control and abortion
Bring up foreign policy

Obama needs to:

Maintain poise
Don't stutter
Stick to domestic policy
Talk in general themes

Gee, I wonder which one will prevail? Is it easier to fight the debate moderate and bring up topics the moderator refuses to bring up or to stand there and act presidential?

In an odd twist, Obama seems to have accidentally released his debate talking points to the press. A real mistake or a planned leak? You decide.

This is a good time to announce that I won't be watching the third debate. I'm going to post, after the fact, just based on reactions I read. The reason for this approach is that my opinion is of little consequence. I've already made up my mind, I'm voting for McCain, and my biased reaction to the debate wouldn't tell you much, if anything. But it is imperative that McCain make some impact tonight and that is what I'll be looking for in post-debate reactions.

Do People Want an Honest President?

2008-10-15T11:34:00.002-06:00

Ann Althouse has recently thrown aside her vow of cruel neutrality and stated, with 89% probability, that she is voting for Obama. Althouse has always been accomplished at stirring things up (it is one of the reasons I check her blog regularly) and this case is no exception.

But she wrote something recently I flat out disagree with and had to make a note of it. She quote the following from a Wall Street Journal article about Obama and ACORN.

The Obama campaign is now distancing itself from Acorn, claiming Mr. Obama never organized with it and has nothing to do with illegal voter registration. Yet it's disingenuous to channel cash into an operation with a history of fraud and then claim you're shocked to discover reports of fraud. As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Mr. Obama was happy to associate with Acorn when it suited his purposes. But now that he's on the brink of the Presidency, he wants to disavow his ties.

And she had this to say in response:

So Obama uses things/people to the extent that they are useful. Don't you want a pragmatist President?

Pragmatic? Try at best disingenuous and at worst manipulative and deceitful. Yes Obama uses people to the extent they are useful. One such group of people might be middle-class voters. Use them for their votes and then, once elected, disregard their well-being and enact policies that he favors for ideological reasons.

Ann tempers her response with:

I mean... if he's duly elected. Election fraud should be ferreted out. Is there time to do that? If Obama wins, but not by a wide margin, and the accusations of fraud are big enough to put the outcome in question, it will tear us apart.

While her acknowledgment that election fraud is bad is a sign of sanity, it makes me think of a more general question.

Do you want an honest President? Or do you want an effective politician whose words have no more permanency than the political climate of the moment?

I know my answer. In three weeks, it appears that a majority of Americans are going to disagree with me.

Federal Court of Appeals: Invalid Voter Registrations in Ohio Must be Found and Removed

2008-10-15T09:58:00.003-06:00

The AP reports that a federal court of appeals has ruled that the state of Ohio must verify the eligibility of voters. This is in direct contrast to the wishes of Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

A federal appeals court ordered Ohio's top elections official to set up a system by Friday to verify the eligibility of newly registered voters and make the information available to the state's 88 county election boards.

The full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner must use other government records to check thousands of new voters for registration fraud.

A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had disagreed last week. The full court's ruling, in which nine of 16 judges concurred, overturns that decision.

This is good news after some bad. The circuit court panel having sided with Brunner was worrisome. Thankfully it seems the correct decision was made in the end. The blunt analysis at the Hedgehog Report:

Here’s a thumbnail view of the law, what happened and what will happen. The federal law is that while voter registration laws are eased and people have all sorts of places to register and the federal government will provide loads of money for registration efforts and equipment for voting there is one proviso. States must verify new registrations against either a National data base or state data bases to verify someone exists. Ohio, under the democrat secretary of state, took a simple approach and that was “we are too incompetent to do this”. (the quotes are mine and for that matter so is the quote, but that’s the qist of what she said). Frankly she choose not to do it and then claimed she did not have time to do this close to the election.

Well the Court of appeals ruled otherwise and now before registration cards or mailed out or voters are allowed to vote new voters must be matched against the state or federal data base. Frankly not carrying out a law is like an impeachable offense in my opinion.

While I'm happy this is the outcome, consider that we, as a nation, are even having this discussion. In what reality is purposely allowing thousands of fraudulent votes decide the next President fair and equitable?

CNN on Obama and ACORN

2008-10-15T09:28:00.004-06:00

I promise to get to topics today that aren't related to ACORN, but it is an important issue and one that fuels my desire to blog and give an alternative view than that of the mainstream media. CNN covers the Obama-ACORN relationship here. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

The point here is not so much what CNN said in the report. It's just the simple fact that they are covering the story. Why are they covering it? My personal thought is they feel that the election is locked up for Obama and they can afford a few reports like this to make themselves appear more balanced. If people scream about media bias after Obama is elected, they can point to stories like this and say "See? We were critical." A total farce of course considering how long they have done nothing but be an arm of his campaign.

That said, it was on CNN so maybe it influenced a few people.

Update: Another CNN piece on ACORN. This time concerning thousands of fraudulent registrations in Philadelphia.

Note the following exchange:

CHETRY: Yeah, and in its defense, ACORN has said it is actually identifying these problematic registrations in advance and trying to notify authorities. In Philadelphia, ACORN said it flagged, I guess, 5,000 applications before the officials found them. Is that true?

GRIFFIN: Not according to the city officials, not true. They say that ACORN came in with a bundle of 1,100 that they thought were suspect. Actually, it turned out a couple of hundred of them were actually good voter registration cards that they processed and sent voter cards out to. So, there are a lot of disparities between the number that ACORN is getting and what city officials checking the actual records are getting, and that number, Kiran, is only going to grow as they continue to process more of these for this election.

I'm happy to see this story continue to gain momentum. Enough to make a difference in the election? I'm not sure but every little bit helps.

ACORN Fraud Stories Continue

2008-10-14T13:57:00.003-06:00

Sorry for the lack of posts. I've been tied up at work and was without running water at my house for about a day or so.

This post is just a quick note to keep you up-to-date on the latest ACORN news.

ACORN was found trying to register Mickey Mouse in Florida.

Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote in Florida this summer.

Orange County elections officials rejected his application, which was stamped with the logo of the nonprofit group ACORN.

They claim it wasn't one of their applications, despite the presence of an ACORN stamp. Jennifer Ruben wonders why Obama hasn't been grilled on his ACORN connections:

It is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama should not have been grilled on this –either by his opponent or the media. (The latter is just beginning to cover the story.) Obama’s ties are deep and extensive with an organization that embraces goals and tactics well outside the political mainstream and that has engaged in a pattern of illegal activity usually seen only in RICO indictments. ACORN’s present involvement in coast-to-coast fraud is jaw-dropping and should raise the issue as to whether an Obama Justice Department would vigorously investigate and, if warranted, prosecute this entity and all involved.(A helpful compilation of ACORN’s suspect activities is here.) Put simply, Obama worked for and helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to a fraud-infested, corrupt organization and has yet to explain himself, let alone apologize for the same.

She links, above, to the GayPatriot's list of current ACORN-related investigations. You can find a similar list at Gateway Pundit. They also have an interesting post on how ACORN is specifically canvasing for Obama.

But remember, ACORN swears it is a nonpartisan organization.

Do you have any hope this will negatively impact Obama. I think it will--after he is elected President. Until then, even bringing up the idea that ACORN is corrupt and that Obama gives his consent will be decried as racist.

More ACORN Voter Registration Fraud in Indiana

2008-10-13T19:04:00.002-06:00

CNN Reports on more ACORN voter registration fraud in Indiana. How bad is it? Check this quote:

So get this. They turn in 5000 new voter registration forms in Indiana, election officials start checking them and give up after the first 2100 were found to be fraudulent.

Props to CNN for actually reporting this.

I really think Obama is vulnerable on this. For ACORN to continue just shows a level of arrogance that is astounding. Will McCain take the opportunity or not, that is the question.

(Hat tip: JammieWearingFool.)

The Truth Behind Obama and Giving Tax Cuts to 95% of Americans

2008-10-13T11:03:00.002-06:00

Every time Obama has declared that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, it has made me wonder. This seems so unlike Obama. His voting record certainly suggests he is not a fan of cutting taxes. So what's the real story? The Wall Street Journal digs a little deeper.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

The article then goes on to list a number of "tax credits" that Obama plans to give to people. So what's the catch?

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The main point here is that Obama is politician--and a good one. He says one thing but plans something entirely different. That just leave the question that concludes the WSJ article:

One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

I, for one, would like him to at least raise the point in the remaining weeks of the campaign.

Politics and Hate, Anger

2008-10-13T10:40:00.002-06:00

As I've noted recently, the current meme in the media is that McCain supporters are angry. I suppose this is to make you think that McCain is somehow unfit to be President because of this. Ironic, isn't it, that one of the negatives on McCain earlier was that he couldn't control his temper. Now his supporters think he is being to nice to Obama. How times change...

This post is really to get you thinking about politics and how hate and anger play a role. Consider the following two very long, very thought-provoking posts.

The first starts with an email from a reader to Instapundit. This reader is angry about the unfairness of the election process and is going to take it out on Obama. To quote him:

This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I'll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a "Not My President" t-shirt. I'm sure that the mainstream bookstores won't carry them, but I'll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama's watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.

Glenn finds this attitude troubling. He says:

I understand where he's coming from, but . . . . Well, it makes me sad to think that this is where we are. Personally, if Obama's elected I intend to give him a chance and weigh him on his actions, not his party. But I agree that he's not likely to get much of a honeymoon -- except from the press, which has been giving him one for about a year already.

I find this discussion fascinating. For eight years, the left has push the image of Bush as the intellectual equivalent of a lemur monkey. They have been disrespectful beyond description. You can almost see the hate boiling inside them when they talk about George Bush.

How then should the right respond to an Obama presidency? My first reaction--and hopefully yours--is to take the high road. Respect the office if you can't respect the person holding it. Judge Obama on his actions, as Glenn suggest, not on your fears.

That said I can already see I will find it difficult to do so. I don't like Obama's past. I don't like that someone with his background gets to be President of the United States. I have to force myself to be calm about it and to realize I don't approve of every past President either. This will just be one more.

What makes it so difficult is the level of hate and anger that brews on the left--this is the subject of the second post I will link. Michelle Malkin has catalogued some of the more outrageous examples of hate against McCain and Palin. As an example, here's artwork calling Palin a MILP--a Mother I'd like to Punch.

Or this:

And this:

What level of self-restraint does it take for people that support McCain and Palin not to mock and attack Obama in the same way? Would you blame someone if they used the same tactics?

In the end I agree with Glenn at Instapundit. How sad we have sunk to this level of national "discourse". But read both of the posts I linked here and come to your own conclusions.

Truth Behind the Banking Collapse

2008-10-12T11:27:00.004-06:00

When Ed Morrissey use to author his own blog (the Captain's Quarters) I was an avid reader. I'm a little disappointed he moved to Hot Air. While Hot Air can be a source of useful information, it also can be a little shrill.

But he has a post today that is a must read. He has a video from 1998 of Andrew Cuomo, Housing and Urban Development Secretary under Clinton.

Here's the transcript:

CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.

Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?

CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.

Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?

CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.

CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio...

Morrissey adds:

Here, in fact, is the genesis of the problem, the ideology that created the monster. Cuomo, the Clinton administration, and Congress believed they had the right and the power to determine acceptable risk for the lenders, rather than lenders determining it for themselves in a free market.

Now, if you bring this argument up to an Obama supporter, they will argue that these mortgages make up a small fraction of the total mortgages. So while they did contribute to the problem, they can't be blamed for the entire collapse. This is true. Morrissey covers that topic as well:

That was the political arrogance at the heart of the collapse. However, the CRA was more a sideshow than the actual problem. When Congress decided that enforcement alone wouldn’t generate enough mortgages to boost their political fortunes, they had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminate the risk entirely for lenders through the purchase of the subprime loans. Without that risk and with almost-guaranteed short-term profits of subprime loans, lenders went wild while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.

And there in lies the real problem. Everybody--OK, most people--want to own a house; not everyone can afford one. When you make it possible for people that ordinarily wouldn't qualify for a loan to be able to do so, two things happen:

You take on a greater risk for these loans, which is exactly what happened.
You increase the competition for houses. People who would qualify without this government meddling suddenly find themselves competing with offers from people that needed the questionable loans to participate. This drives house prices up and as we all know economic bubbles are destined to burst.

Morrissey concludes:

The Democrats decided, as Michelle says, that mortgages were a civil right, and wouldn’t cost the American taxpayers a dime. How well is that working out, America? And now, the question you have to ask yourselves is this: Do you want the nation’s economic policies run by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank for the next two years?

Unfortunately it looks like we are going to have them at the helm, regardless of how much we want or don't want it.

Biased Polls: Follow the Candidates

2008-10-11T23:08:00.002-06:00

I've given this advice an number of times now. But this is such an interesting example it seemed appropriate to mention it again.

One of the biggest ways to detect biased polling is to watch the actions of the candidates. If polls suggest a state is definitely going one way or the other, yet both candidates continue to dump resources in to the state, you can be sure that their internal numbers say the state is close. Remember, most polling companies are paid to do their polling and as such, they bend their results to make the person footing the bill happy. The internal polling that a campaign pays for is specifically directed to be more accurate and less biased. We never see those numbers publicly as both sides are trying to influence your behavior and enthusiasm with biased polling.

Today McCain appeared in Iowa and is opening up more offices there. This is somewhat surprising. Check that, this is very surprising as national polling suggests that Iowa is going to go heavily towards Obama. The Real Clear Politics spread has Obama +11.8 in Iowa.

The explanation as to why the traditionally red Iowa is blue this year is simple--corn subsidies. Obama supports corn subsidies, McCain does not. Given how much corn Iowa produces this is enough to push Iowa in his favor. Or so the common wisdom says.

But if that is true, why is McCain in Iowa? Why is his campaign opening offices there? They must have internal numbers that suggest something far different than the public polls.

Just how far off is public opinion polling this year?

More Bad News: Oil Prices Contine to Drop

2008-10-11T22:53:00.002-06:00

The title is of course sarcastic. Glenn linked to a blogger post on this topic a while back but I resisted the urge to comment on it. Now that CNN/Time has entered the foray, I feel compelled to post.

Yes gas prices are indeed falling. Oil dropped to below $83 a barrel and gas prices are down significantly across the country. You might think this is a ray of good news in a blinding darkness of economic horror stories. Some would disagree this is good news.

First up, Instapundit's links to this blog post at "gas 2.0" blog.

As of this writing, Gasoline in Denmark is about $9.00 a gallon, compared to $3.65 in the United States. (Up from $2.50 a year ago and down from $4.50 two months ago.) It seems like $9.00 a gallon gas in Denmark would decimate it’s economy right? Since 1981, there economy has grown 70 percent while energy consumption has been flat. In 1973, Denmark got 99 percent of it’s energy from the Middle East. Today, it gets zero.

We’ve become spoiled in the United States. We have grown up thinking that the oil that runs everything from our cars to our industrial complex, is cheap, inexhaustible and politically neutral. But we have come to an age where we realize that oil is in short supply, expensive, environmentally damaging and a political nightmare.

So oil is expensive now. But the author is complaining that it is NOT expensive. He suggests we tax gas heavily:

I say it’s time to raise the price of Gasoline in this country. It’s time to drive this economy toward a sustainable energy program that will benefit our economy, our lives and our environment.

Yes, that is what we need. Financial markets are in a meltdown and we need to raise taxes on things people can't afford to live without. That's a fantastic idea.

I didn't think much of these ramblings until today, when CNN linked to this Time article that has the same sentiment.

For oil-rich countries the slump has come at a bad time. As the oil price began rising during the past few years, governments and big oil companies plowed billions into exploring and developing new fields in Russia, Angola, Mexico, Brazil and Saudi Arabia — projects whose costs have more than doubled in the past few years, in part because soaring steel prices drove up drilling equipment costs and oil-rig rentals. Just as global demand has begun to slow, millions more barrels of oil a day from new fields have hit the world market.

I feed deeply sorry for the oil-rich countries. They certainly haven't made a economic killing milking their resource for all it is worth. To think Saudi Arabian princes might only be able to buy a Rolls Royce a month instead of a week. The horror!

It gets worse:

For some countries there is a fear far greater than an economic recession: political turmoil. Iran, which earns 80% of its revenues from oil exports, set this year's budget on the assumption that oil would trade at $90 a barrel — a figure which seemed conservatively low until recently, but which is now above the world price. "If the price stays there a while Iran would cut spending," Priddy says. That might include cutting heavy gas subsidies for Iranian drivers, who have rioted in the past when the government tried to ration gas or raise the price at the pump. Hugo Chavez could face similar problems in Venezuela if oil prices drop below $75 a barrel — the rate at which the country calculated this year's budget. The problems lower prices could cause in those countries could be more visceral than those posed so far by the current financial upheaval.

Iran might have to cut spending? Chavez's "master plan" might unravel? Isn't this the best news you've heard all day? Chavez cheered as Wall Street crashed--proof in his warped mind that capitalism had failed. I happily await the chaos in his own country that he deserves.

Media Bias: Which Side is Angry?

2008-10-11T10:47:00.002-06:00

The new meme from the media is how McCain supports are getting angry. The front page story on CNN with the provocative title of "Rage rising on the McCain campaign trail" says this:

With recent polls showing Sen. Barack Obama's lead increasing nationwide and in several GOP-leaning states, some Republicans attending John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign rallies are showing a new emotion: rage.

Oh dear. Those Republicans are sore losers aren't they? I mean it is clear they've already lost.

Please. Note the following difference in news coverage (hat tip Gateway Pundit).

Jodie Evans is one of the top Obama Bundlers and has raised nearly $100,000 for her candidate. She last met with Obama in June.

Code Pink co-founders Jodie Evans (left) and Medea Benjamin try to storm the stage on Governor Sarah Palin at the RNC in St. Paul. (S&L)

So... How did the liberal media report this news that a top Obama and Democratic financier was crashing the stage during Sarah Palin's much anticipated speech?

NOT ONE WORD. There was not a peep from the media that the radical storming the stage was one of Barack Obama's top supporters.

Versus the following:

In contrast... This week when a rare McCain-Palin "supporter" screamed something foul at a rally against Barack Obama the media has been all over it.

The "angry Republican" story has made headlines all week.

Rick Moran defined this as the "Angry Mob" meme.

Gateway Pundit goes on to suggest that some of the "angry mob" showing up at Republican rallies are in fact people far on the left being planted to make the mob appear angry.

I don't know if such allegations are true, but their analysis of media behavior is spot on.

On the Effects of Troopergate/Tasegate

2008-10-11T10:40:00.003-06:00

The big news last night was the release of the Troopergate/Tasergate reports. The basic summary of the finding is the Sarah Palin "abused power" but did nothing illegal. My opinion, this is started as a way to damage McCain-Palin and it ended that way. Remember what the lead investigator French promised:

Coghill wrote in the letter that French was quoted in media reports that the results of the probe were going to be an "October surprise" that is "likely to be damaging to the administration." The comments lead Coghill to believe the investigation is lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process, he wrote.

Gateway Pundit notes:

French is one of the 20%'ers in Alaska who does not approve of Governor Sarah Palin.
He also is a staunch Obama supporter:

...

Hollis French (fifth from left) and fellow Troopergate hack Kim Elton (on left with beard), who has donated to the Obama Campaign, sit on the panel investigating popular governor Sarah Palin.

But what will the repercussions be? Sadly I think Powerline gets it right:

In the end, it seems to me that Gov. Palin did not exercise particularly good judgment in this matter. But the case that she abused her power by violating the ethics statute and/or that she fired the public safety commissioner because he wouldn't act against Wooten has not been made.

Nonetheless, the weakly reasoned "Troopergate" report may well represent another nail in the McCain-Palin coffin.

Given the fairness of the playing field this election, that analysis is spot on.

Politics and Emotion, Part II

2008-10-11T10:18:00.002-06:00

Previously I wrote about politics and emotion and made this observation:

Now people don't just want their candidate to win. They feel HE HAS TO WIN. He has to win or the country--no the world will be destroyed. This type of thinking and fervor has never held any weight with me.

As the election looms closer, this phenomenon isn't going away; if anything it is getting strong.

As a case in point, consider Johan Goldberg's appearance on Larry King Live. Now I didn't watch the interview but I understand that during it, Goldberg called out ACORN for its fraudulent voter registration tactics. Goldberg posted that he received "some nice notes" about his appearance but he also got some hate mail. Here's an example:

Subject: u r a f****n JEW hick

Saw you on Larry King calling the director of ACORN a liar! you f****n hick!!, who the HELL are you? don't be mad because you and the other "NEOCONS" are gonna LOSE this election, stick a sock in it! u bastard!! you might as well face it
A CHANGE IS COMING!! and his name is BARACK OBAMA!!
U BETTER NOT GET IT TWISTED!

If you can get past the travesty of the English language this email represents, look at the hate. Look at the emotion. The writer is both sure that Obama is going to win and at the same time cannot take any criticism of anything related to him. He has gone far beyond rational thought and into a scary realm of hatred fueled by emotion. Do you suppose the person who wrote the article would be willing to drive around at night a rip down McCain signs? Or help fake voter registrations in his area? A rational person wouldn't agree to do those things--but an emotional person might.

I'm worried about how often I am seeing this mindset. Recently I was talking with politics (I know a dangerous decision) with a few people. The exchange went something like this:

PERSON #1: So what's the basic point behind proposition #xyz?

PERSON #2: It is basically a tax on oil and heating companies and [automotive] gas companies.

PERSON #1: Wait, so it is a tax on big oil companies?

PERSON #2: There are some details we are skipping but yes.

PERSON #1: Well why wouldn't you want to tax big oil companies? Fuck them!

ME: The argument, I think, is that if you tax them heavily they will raise gas prices at the pump and things like your heating bill will go up.

PERSON #1: [I didn't quite follow what said but it was along the lines of:] They wouldn't do that...

They wouldn't do that? Of course they would. When you tax a big corporation they will pass on the costs to their customers. They only way to stop it, really, is to nationalize them so they don't make decisions bast on capitalism.

This person is simply thinking emotionally, not rationally. They are tired of paying huge amounts for gas and they want to stick it to the oil companies. They are mad and they aren't going to take it anymore. They aren't thinking about the consequences.

One or two people thinking this way can be dismissed. But what if a majority think this way? That is a scary, scary thought.

Obama Character References

2008-10-10T14:10:00.004-06:00

Deferring to the "a picture is worth 1000 words" wisdom, I'll just link this, give credit to Gateway Pundit as the source, and say no more.

Stocks, DOW Have a Crazy, Crazy Day

2008-10-10T13:52:00.004-06:00

Are you confused about the stock market? I know I am. I am no expert in macro economics which is why I haven't been posting specifically about the stock market over the past few weeks.

But if today is any indication it is OK if you are confused--so is everyone else. Within 30-minutes of the opening bell, the DOW was off 500 points. Then it was up 900 from that low, then back down 700 from that high, then up 800 again. In one day.

During the time I wrote this post and looked for a good intraday graph of the DOW, the index went from -20 to +80 back to -40.

If you are looking for an example of "economic uncertainty" look no further.