Boehner Pushes for the End of Federal Funding for ACORN

It wasn't be happenstance that 4 of my last 6 posts were about ACORN. The voter registration fraud indictments, raids, and allegations keep coming. Today, Representative John Boehner increased the pressure to do something about ACORN which continues to assault the free electoral process and scoff and attempts to stop them.

The latest allegations of voter registration fraud by ACORN are further evidence that this group cannot be trusted with another dollar of the taxpayers’ money.

Election cycle after election cycle, this organization has been at the forefront of breaking the law in order to promote their left-wing agenda. All the while, they have been the recipients of millions of dollars of federal funding through various federal programs and third-party groups. House Republicans took at stand recently to cut off funding to an ACORN slush fund created by their allies in the House Majority, but now more must be done.

All federal funding to ACORN must be stopped. The ACORN slush fund must be disbanded. Sources of federal funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development or any other agency must be stopped. Contracting for services between candidates for federal office and ACORN, as Senator Obama has done, must end. Now that the taxpayers own Fannie Mae, any funding from Fannie Mae’s nonprofit foundation to ACORN must stop.

ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America’s economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections, making American voters question the fairness and accuracy of the exercise of their most fundamental right under the Constitution. Now it is time to cut off ACORN before it grows even more destructive.

There are two big demands here.

1. No more federal funding of ACORN. It is beyond time that has been called for; we'll see how far Boehner is able to get with his push. Remember, it was only a short time ago when the modified bailout plan by the Democrats tried to quietly push 20% of profits to ACORN.
   
   
2. No more campaign contributions from ACORN. Here, remember that Obama received $800,000 in contributions from ACORN and (oops!) forgot to disclose it.

Ed Morrissey comments:

The pattern seems very clear. Wherever ACORN works, they file hundreds and thousands of bogus registrations. These aren’t isolated incidents, but strongly suggest a systemic effort to undermine democracy. Not only should taxpayers not fund such an organization, but the Department of Justice should treat it the same way they treat organized-crime syndicates.

I am not confident a Congress controlled by the likes of Pelosi and Reid will do anything of substance to ACORN. But if Obama wins the Presidency it is clear ACORN will be be handed boatloads of cash and that they will use this money to devalue the electoral process with fraud. Will voters reject that scenario? It remains to be seen. Ones that care about a free and fair voting system in the U.S. certainly should.

Media Bias: How Much Evidence Is Enough?

Suppose you work for a major media outlet. A potential story breaks about a candidate--how much evidence do you need before you run with it? Run too soon and you might end up declaring fiction as fact. Wait too long and you might get scooped by other outlets if the story turns out to be true.

Should the amount of evidence you need depend on the political party of candidate? It shouldn't but it does. John at Powerline makes the following observation:

Just over a month ago, it was falsely claimed that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Independence Party during the 1990s. Media outlets jumped on that false claim and reported it as fact. The New York Times, to take just one example, printed the report and subsequently had to run a correction.

There is now strong evidence that during the 1990s, Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, an arm of the Democratic Socialist Party of America. So far, to my knowledge not a single "mainstream" news outlet has followed up on this report, let alone immediately report it as fact, as they did with Sarah Palin.

Did you need yet one more example of media bias? Did it change your opinion on the issue? Probably not, on both counts. But I refuse to give up and just accept the media's unethical behavior.

ACORN Fraud in Indiana -- Indianapolis Counties Have 105% of the Population Registered

No this is not a repeat of the previous post. ACORN is now involved in voter registration fraud in Indianapolis:

[Election Director]LaSota said Monday representatives of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, a grassroots activist group conducting registration drives, dropped off 2,000 new voter applications last week in Lake County.

"About 1,100 are no good," she said.

LaSota said the flawed forms are incomplete or contain unreadable handwriting -- similar to hundreds of other forms ACORN produced prior to this week. She said some ACORN vote canvassers apparently pulled names and addresses from telephone books and forged signatures.

As expected, ACORN organizers used the same flimsy excuse.

Charles Jackson, communications director for ACORN, said Monday its administrators screened out the 1,100 registration forms in question and warned county officials the documents were suspect. He said ACORN left the final decision to discard the forms to county officials.

He said ACORN has fired and reported to law enforcement any employees suspected of vote fraud.

What you are seeing here, ladies and gentleman, is a national strategy. Individual ACORN offices have all been tasked to boost registration in urban areas of battleground states by any means necessary. When caught, the scripted response is "we are as outraged as you and we fire immediately anyone caught perpetrating such activities." To quote myself from my last post--bullshit. Note what Jackson says above. They knew they had 1,100 fraudulent registrations but they submitted them anyway. Why? Because they hope that some make it by state officials.

In Indianapolis, it seems that plan is working to perfection. Voter registration counts in Indianapolis and Marion Counties is now 105% of the population of those counties.

According to STATSIndiana, In 2007, Indianapolis/Marion County had an estimated population of 876,804. Of that number 232,607 were below 18 years of age, for a total of 644,197 people in Marion County/Indianapolis 18 or over and thus eligible to vote. (Indiana allows felons to vote as long as they are not incarcerated).

So we have 644,197 people eligible to be registered in Marion County/Indianapolis, and 677,401 people registered. Congratulations go to Indianapolis for having 105% of its residents registered!

Are you mad yet? You should be.

More ACORN Fraud--This Time in Missouri

Once again the community organizer group ACORN has been caught behind a number of bogus voter registrations. This time it happened in Kansas City, Missouri. Via Yahoo! News/AP:

Officials in Missouri, a hard-fought jewel in the presidential race, are sifting through possibly hundreds of questionable or duplicate voter-registration forms submitted by an advocacy group that has been accused of election fraud in other states.

Charlene Davis, co-director of the election board in Jackson County, where Kansas City is, said the fraudulent registration forms came from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. She said they were bogging down work Wednesday, the final day Missourians could register to vote.

"I don't even know the entire scope of it because registrations are coming in so heavy," Davis said. "We have identified about 100 duplicates, and probably 280 addresses that don't exist, people who have driver's license numbers that won't verify or Social Security numbers that won't verify. Some have no address at all."

When is enough enough? ACORN continues to get caught faking voter registrations. They always occur in urban areas of battleground states. Every time, they ACORN organizers cry foul and say "we are honorable!" Bullshit.

It's clear to anyone reading this blog that I want John McCain to win in November. If he does, I'll be pleased. If he doesn't have enough legitimate votes to win, I'll be disappointed. But I've never for a second considered trying to work some voter fraud in the rural areas here in Colorado, to ensure that this state stays red. Presidents come and go. Some make you proud, others make you cringe. But the system is above all of them. It needs to stay fair and honest lest democracy becomes a joke.

Further discussion at: Gateway Pundit and Instapundit.

New McCain Ad: Ayers

A new McCain ad has been released on the internet that has the right-side of the blogosphere buzzing. It is entitled Ayers.

As I said, many blogs are discussing it. I'll quote the transcript from Ed Morrissey.

Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They’ve worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it. Why?

Obama launched his political career in Ayers’ living room. Ayers and Obama ran a radical “education” foundation, together. They wrote the foundation’s by-laws, together. Obama was the foundation’s first chairman. Reports say they, “distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in education.”

When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” That’s it?

We know Bill Ayers ran the “violent left wing activist group” called Weather Underground. We know Ayers’ wife was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list. We know they bombed the Capitol. The Pentagon. A judge’s home. We know Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. …. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

But Obama’s friendship with terrorist Ayers isn’t the issue. The issue is Barack Obama’s judgment and candor. When Obama just says, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Americans say, “Where’s the truth, Barack?”

Barack Obama. Too risky for America.

If nothing else, the commercial puts to rest any doubts that McCain will push Obama hard on the Ayers issue. A 90-second ad is usually only released on the internet--it is very expensive to run an ad of that length on broadcast television. But this one ends with the standard disclaimer of "I'm John McCain and I approve of this message." So it is likely to run in battleground states.

I disagree with Morrissey's conclusions though. He writes:

This also puts pressure on McCain to “say it to his face” in the next debate, as Obama will certainly challenge him to do after this ad airs. Bob Schieffer, the next debate moderator, may already be writing the question for it now.

I'm not convinced that Obama will challenge him on this issue in a live debate. He may--but he may also just scoff at the accusations as he has done for over a year now and trust the media will cover him. To think a Bob Schieffer may already be preparing a direct question about it is wishful thinking.

Obama: An Acorn Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree

In an appearance in Indiana today, Barack Obama used an odd twist on a familiar expression. (Hat tip Ed Morrissey.)

I want to say thank you to Senator Evan Bayh, one of the best United States Senators that we have. And since you know that, uh, an acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree, you know that part of the reason he’s such a great Senator is because he came, uh, from a great political family, and Senator Birch Bayh is here, the legendary Senator who is back in Indiana…

An acorn? Not an apple?

He couldn't possible be thinking about ACORN for some reason, could he? Or for some other reason?

ACORN Offices in Nevada Raided on Suspicions of Voter Fraud

Add another state to the list. ACORN offices in Las Vegas, Nevada were raided by state officials.

Nevada state authorities seized records and computers Tuesday from the Las Vegas office of an organization that tries to get low-income people registered to vote, after fielding complaints of voter fraud.

Bob Walsh, spokesman for the Nevada secretary of state's office, told FOXNews.com the raid was prompted by ongoing complaints about "erroneous" registration information being submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also called ACORN.

Not up to their usual clever standards, some of the illegal registrations used the names of Dallas Cowboy players.

"Some of them used nonexistent names, some of them used false addresses and some of them were duplicates of previously filed applications," Walsh said, describing the complaints, which largely came from the registrar in Clark County, Nev.

Secretary of State Ross Miller said the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

"Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada, and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4," Miller said.

ACORN organizers gave a weak excuse, calling the raids a stunt by state officials. The claim is that ACORN would never be involved in fraudulent registrations. Right. Go ahead and keep on saying that.

Joe Biden Introduced at His Own Rally...as John McCain

News has been a little depressing as of late and people can take a presidential election so seriously. I thought a post with a lighter mood might be appropriate and welcome.

In Tampa, FL, Joe Biden was introduced at a rally with the following:

No matter what your party, gender, or race, or religion, please help me today in welcoming the next Vice President of the Unites States--John McCain!

I wish the video was longer so we could see Biden's reaction. (Hat tip: Lorie Byrd at Wizbang.)

SNL Bailout Skit That Was Removed Is Back, But Is Edited To Protect Democrats

You knew this would happen. So NBC pulled a SNL skit about the bailout that wasn't complimentary to Democrats. People cried foul. After some time, NBC released the reason that the skit was pulled. It lampooned two real people (that is, used their real names) and then captioned them with "People who should be shot."

Clearly that is over the line. NBC promised to edit that caption out and return the video to the website. Well the video is back--but other things have been edited out. From the Corner, which quotes an LA Times article on the matter:

So now the sketch is back up, without any mention of the Sandlers. But as the L.A. Times notes, what's really curious is that the re-edited sketch removed any satirical references to Barney Frank's involvement in creating the economic crisis:

In the original skit Sandler addresses Frank, saying, "And thank you Congressman Frank as well as many Republicans for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt activities."

To which Frank replies enthusiastically, "Not at all!"

That's all gone. I'd love to hear an explanation for that.

The link to the LA Times article is malformed--I'll update it here if I can track it down.

It is almost as if NBC is daring people to do anything about their bias. The economic disaster has to be painted as a Bush-disaster despite the fact that there is plenty of blame to go around--starting with Frank. But all this has to be whitewashed.

The original video is still available on the web. (YouTube has been wiped clean, but there are other sources.) Watch that one and laugh at NBC's attempt to rewrite history.

David Kernell Indicted and Arrested for Hacking Palin Email Account

This news should come as no surprise to people who have been following the story. Today, David Kernell has been indicted and arrested for hacking into one of Sarah Palin's personal email accounts.

A University of Tennessee student who is the son of a Memphis legislator has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of hacking Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal e-mail.

David C. Kernell, 20, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Knoxville for intentionally accessing without authorization the e-mail account of Palin, the governor of Alaska and Sen. John McCain's running mate, according to U.S. Attorney James R. Dedrick.

Dedrick said Kernell, the son of state Rep. Mike Kernell, D-Memphis, turned himself in to federal authorities today for arrest.

Kernell covered his tracks so poorly the only real question was why the arrest took so long.

As far as the election goes, I think this is a non-issue. While David Kernell is the son of state Representative Mike Kernell, who is Democrat, I doubt the affair will negatively affect Obama. The AP reports the story, and doesn't even mention David's father. (The AP doesn't even mention his name at first; they just report that a "man" was indicted.)

A federal grand jury in Tennessee has indicted a man in connection with the hacking of the e-mail account of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Just a "man", just "in connection", nothing to see here.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.

Update: For those interested in the legal details, Instapundit has a link to a electronic copy of the indictment.

Live-Blogging the McCain-Obama Townhall Debate

A few comments from me as the night progresses.

1st Question: What to do to stabilize the economy? Obama mentions tax cuts and building bridges and roads projects. Ewww. New Deal II. McCain misses a huge opportunity in not asking him how he will fund increases in government spending along with tax cuts.

Update 2: Obama continues to hammer on the Bush is at fault meme. (On a number of questions.) Is it going play with Bush not actually running?

McCain makes a pretty strong statement of bi-partisan support and anti-earmark behavior. He asks people to examine the records of both candidates.

Update 3: Prioritize energy reform, health care, and entitlements (social security, and medicare).

McCain cops out and says you can do all three at once. The rest of his answer is OK, but the beginning is weak.

Obama gets a lead in from Brokaw in "there are some questions that you must prioritize". His answer is better--he makes a choice. Energy, then health care. He does end with a weak mention of comparing records and his is for that.

Update 4: What sacrifices will you ask of Americans?

McCain: Some government programs will be cut. Then he goes back to you can do energy and health care at the same time. I don't want to tell the person who needs health care that they have to weight.

Obama: Starts with the horrendous: Some of you remember the tragedy of 9/11. Some of us? He ends with a comment on double the peace corps which makes annoys people like me.

Update: The discussion period hits to the core issues of the campaign.

Obama's answers is very much reads like "tax the rich, feed the poor until there are rich no more." McCain (finally) hits Obama on his tax plan. Obama doesn't like the answer, but Brokaw doesn't let him rebut as he is (shockingly) following the rules.

Update: Will you fix Social Security and Medicare in two years?

Obama was still so mad about the previous tax answer is that he basically ignores the question and pitches his tax plan. The way he pitches it makes him sound like a Republican (almost). He says most small businesses make less than $250,000 a year and therefore won't get tax increases. I'm going to have to check those numbers but to me less than <$250,000 is a very small business.

McCain starts with "I will actually answer the question". The answer on Social Security and Medicare is less interesting than the fact that McCain's answer actually hits Obama on his tax record. He campaigned for Senator of Illinois and claimed he would cut taxes for the middle class. But he never brought any legislation that would actually enact tax cuts.

Update: A global warming question. Ewww. I blocked out this question.

Update: A long question and answer period about health care. Quite honestly I'm sort of tired of the question. As a small comment, Obama pushes government solutions to health care (though not nationalized health care). McCain does hit him on this.

Update: What are the economic constraints on military power? (Interesting question.)

McCain: My record is clear. I have the experience to make the right decisions on national defense. America is the greatest force of good in the world in history. Obama was wrong on the surge in Iraq, he was wrong on Russia.

Obama: McCain was wrong on Iraq. He says he agrees, "That America is the greatest force of good in the world." The question is will people believe it? I don't but I am admittedly biased.

Update: What are the Obama and McCain doctrines?

To be honest, I don't like either answer. Obama's is a non-answer. McCain is similarly non-descript--I will make good choices.

Update: What are you going to do about Bin Laden in Pakistan?

Obama: Promote democracy in Pakistan and work with them to crush the Taliban. If they don't agree, invade and find Bin Laden. This is oddly militaristic for a Democrat. We'll see how people take it...

McCain: You can't declare an intention to invade a country and become friends with them. You have to gain the support of people like we did in Iraq. Quotes Teddy Roosevelt and "Talk softly and carry a big stick."

Obama: (forcing a rebuttal over Brokaw): You have to go after Bin Laden. That's what I would do. Hits McCain over talking softly and then brings up comments McCain made about Iran and North Korea.

McCain: You can't telegraph your punches. I know what it means to send troops into harms way, Obama does not.

Update: Quick question on how to succeed in Afghanistan. McCain wins the only punch here, saying that Obama still won't admit the surge worked in Iraq and he was wrong about it--therefore he wouldn't have the fortitude to win in Afghanistan.

Update: Missed most of a question on Russia. Came back in time to hear Obama saying the McCain is mostly right...not that again.

Brokaw asks a Yes or No question: Ala Reagan, is Russia an evil empire again?

Obama: They are doing evil things. Energy independence is important.

McCain: Gives a good answer, explaining why you can't say Yes (it would reignite the cold war) or No (it would excuse Putin's behavior).

Update: A veteran asks if Iran were to invade Israel would you defend immediately or wait for UN approval?

McCain: Thanks him for his service and says, "Everything I learned about leadership I learned from a chief petty officer." Of course we would defend Israel.

Obama: Fails to answer the question, talking about generalities of negotiation and energy independence.

Update: A (poor) question: What do you don't know and how will you learn about it?

Obama: Starts well with "ask my wife, she has a long list of what I don't know". He then jets in to a canned speech on Bush was bad, I am change. Clearly prepared and not answering the question.

McCain: I don't know what we all don't know--what is going to happen here and across the world? He then goes into a canned speech of his own, but this one (with my bias) hits home with me. I have served this country my whole life, I believe in it, and I would be honored to serve again.

Final Update: I'm incapable of calling a winner objectively. I just don't like Obama's "I'm a politican and I give the best answer that makes people happy". Clearly there was no horrible misstep by either candidate. Was it enough for McCain? We'll see...

------------------------

This post will be updated as I find more sources live-blogging the debate tonight.

So far, I've only found Ann Althouse has set up her live-blogging post.

More to come, for sure...

Update: Other live-bloggers:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air

Instapundit notes: Bendan Loy and Jules Crittenden are also live blogging.

Michelle Malkin warns about plants in the townhall that will ask leading questions for the (Obama) campaign.

NBC to Restore the SNL Bailout Video

Update: Video is indeed back, but as the commenter below suggested might happen, it has been edited beyond what NBC has claimed was inappropriate. Details here.

Earlier I posted about how a SNL video mysteriously disappeared from NBC's web site and how many people seemed interested in the issue.

National Review Online reports that NBC will repost the video soon.

NBC spokesman Marc Liepis tells National Review only this (annoying ALL CAPS in original):

"UPON REVIEW, WE CAUGHT CERTAIN ELEMENTS IN THE SKETCH THAT DIDN'T MEET OUR STANDARDS. WE TOOK IT DOWN AND MADE SOME MINOR CHANGES AND IT WILL BE BACK ONLINE SOON."

And they add this update:

NBC sources say the objection has to do with the caption underneath the two mortgage-backed securities investors who made off with billions, which reads: "People who should be shot." The same sources say the video will be edited to remove that language and returned to the website.

It seems many many people will be watching to see what else, if anything, gets changed in the video.

Certainly suggesting that two people in the video (who's real names were used) be shot was inappopriate so it is understandable that NBC made the decision to remove the video. But why the secrecy? It certainly looks as if they just wanted to whitewash the whole thing and are only reposting the video because removing it caused such a frenzy on the internet.

Media Bias: LA Times Actively Campaigning for Obama

I'm not sure how many media bias stories I've begun with "it can't get more blatant than this." Apparently it can and it just did. So take the following facts into account.

1. McCain and Palin have been hitting Obama on his relationship with Ayers.
2. Obama has countered by accusing McCain of attempting to turn the focus of the campaign away from the economy.
3. In a New Mexico appearance, McCain focused on the economy.

So here is your quiz. If you are a biased media outlet--say the LA Times--how do you write a story on this that is favorable to Obama? I'm sure you could get creative too, but here is how the LA Times did it.

They completely cut out any economic comments when covering McCain's speech and then they quote Obama saying that McCain is scared to talk about the economy.

No, I'm not kidding. Read a scathing review of the LA Times behavior at Patterico's blog. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

This is just sad. As has been said many times now, it isn't media bias. It is flat out media campaigning for Obama. The Clinton's were shocked by it. Now McCain and Palin are seeing it. If there is any justice, all the unethical behavior will not be enough to push Obama into office. I remain hopeful, but worried.

Media Bias Backlash: NY Times to Consoidate Sections

If like me you are frustrated that there seems to be no consequences for blatant media bias, then this story will be some welcome good news. Under the pressure of reduced revenue and circulation, the Times is scheduled to announce today that they are consolidating sections to reduce costs.

According to newsroom sources, the Metro Section is moving into the A-section and the Sports section will move into the Business section for some portion of the week.

The move is being made to save money on printing. According to one newsroom source, neither metro editor Joe Sexton nor sports editor Tom Jolly was "thrilled with the decision, but they understood."

The NY Times has remained arrogant in its bias. As I noted earlier, even CNN is acknowledging legitimate stories like the Ayers-Obama connection. The NYT covered it with a puff piece about how the two "just crossed paths". That lack of reporting might appeal to a portion of their audience but clearly some readers have been turned off and are canceling subscriptions.

Now that I think about it, if they removed the "opinions" section I might actually think about subscribing.

SNL Bailout Skit Removal is a Hot Topic

Last night, after a few other posts, I ended with a post about how NBC has removed a Saturday Night Live skit lampooning the Congressional bailout from their website. I didn't think much of it as a story. Sure it was silly of NBC to think they could stop people from watching the video after it aired on national television, but how many people would care, really?

Apparently...a lot. I checked my site traffic this morning and it is running about ten times higher than it normally is. And 90% of this traffic are Google searches such as "SNL removed bailout video" and "watch SNL banned video".

So if you are here because you made such a search, I thank you. Censorship disgusts me. Ugly ideas will be rejected by a healthy society. To censor just because you disagree with an idea is uglier still. (And coming up with fake banned book lists, such as was done to Sarah Palin, is equally as reprehensible. Fake accusations of censorship do much to hurt the fight against the real thing.)

Go to my post from last night to learn a little more about the details of what people think is happening in this case. Or if you are just here for the video, here it is again:

As was said in Serenity: You can't stop the signal, Mal. And for that we should all be grateful.

CNN Reports: Obama Lying About Relationship With Ayers

I can't believe I'm able to link this video. You really need to watch the whole thing (running time is 6 minutes 41 seconds). Anderson Cooper introduces an investigation piece on Obama and Bill Ayers. There are three astounding points made during this video by CNN:

1. Bill Ayers was a dangerous terrorist and radical. They don't praise him as do the Chicago elite. They lay out what he did, they mention the Weather Underground, they look at 60's terrorism through the lens of a post-9/11 reality, and the tone of the review of Ayers is highly negative.
   
   
2. They quote several responses by Obama and his advisers that downplay the relationship and then hammer them with evidence to the contrary. They don't suggest that Obama is lying about his relationship with Ayers--they prove it. Real, honest-to-goodness investigative reporting.
   
   
3. Near the end of the video, the investigative reporter for CNN mentioned several times that the questions that McCain is raising about Obama because of Ayers are the same questions that Hilary Clinton raised during the primaries. This makes the attack bi-partisan.

Keep these three points in mind as you watch the video:

(Video discovered via Ed Morrissey.)

These three points aren't astounding because they are new revelations. This investigative report by CNN is simply saying what the blogosphere has said in detail for months and months. What is amazing is that it appeared front-and-center on CNN. Yes, the score is still negative Obama coverage--one or two, positive Obama coverage--everything else. But people who still get their news sitting in their living rooms saw this information, presented by the familiar face of Anderson Cooper.

Morrissey concludes:

Expect John McCain to raise this point tonight in the debate.

I think that was a foregone conclusion. But with liberally-biased sources such as CNN backing up McCain it will be interesting to see if Obama is skilled enough to dance and deflect the charges in a different way from "our paths just crossed". That excuse has worn thin, even for the Obama cheerleaders at CNN.

NBC Censors ... Itself? Saturday Night Live Skit Removed From Website

Update: The video is back on NBC but has been edited. Details here.)

I'm always hesitant to post on stories such as this. I get weird vibes of the the X-Files and the Lone Gunmen and tin foil hats. But in this case, I have a point to make at the end, so here we go.

With Tina Fey returning to Saturday Night Live to mock Sarah Palin, the show has seen a resurgence in popularity--at least when it comes to the internet and people linking videos. NBC has no problems with this. Many of the SNL skits are available from the official show website.

While most of the skits have hammered the Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular hard, there was one skit about Congress' reaction to the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle and the bailout that hit the Democrats pretty hard. You can watch the video on NBC's site right here...

...or maybe you can't. It seems the video has been removed. Michelle Malking suspects it is because the video referred to a real-life couple who happens to be powerful and well-connected. Perhaps a threatened lawsuit has scared NBC? Another blog has noted the skit is gone from Hulu and questions about it on NBC message boards are being quietly erased.

My comment is this: How naive are these people? SNL skewers everybody. Do they misrepresent? Of course. So does South Park. That's the whole point of these shows. There might have been a slight prayer of stopping this skit before it got aired. It's too late now; the genie is out of the bottle. Do these "offended people" really think they can stop the video now?

Here it is on YouTube (link working as of midnight 10/07/2008):

And if that gets taken down, here it is on YouTube again.

If they apply pressure on YouTube, here it is hosted in .wmv format:

http://msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv

And I've saved it locally. How many other bloggers do you think have also saved it? Again the thought that comes to mind is naivety. The attitude reminds me of ultra-conservative parents that suggest "If we don't talk about sex, the teenagers won't figure it out on their own." The more you try to ban something like this, the more people are going to watch it.

Update: NBC has announced it will repost the video with some minor edits. Read about the details of that development here.

Obama: More Bogus Contributions Surface

Earlier today I posted about Obama and campaign finance fraud. It didn't take long for more evidence to surface. From CBS News:

CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their contributions under fake names that look like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed their employer as DASADA/SAFASF.

CBS News did not find any records of these last names, towns or employers anywhere else.

Caught in the act, it looks like Obama will be returning these contributions. But his history of returning illegal contributions after promising to do so is poor.

I am surprised to read about this from CBS. The last story of improprieties in campaign contributions came from Newsweek. I'm really shocked that either of them published a story that could hurt Obama in any way, shape, or form. I guess editors have to sleep sometime and stories get past them.

Jay Cost on ... Nebraska and Maine?

I've been working on a look at some of the key battleground states, but Jay Cost beat me to an unexpected analysis of two states--Nebraska and Maine. Now, Nebraska is going red and likewise Maine is going blue. If that is the case, then why did both camps do the following?

I noted with interest stories today discussing McCain and Obama opening up campaign offices in some far-flung places: McCain in Bangor, Maine and Obama in Omaha, Nebraska.

The answer turns out to lie in the details of the rules in what happens if there is a tie in the electoral college. In that case, the House decides, but each state only gets one vote. That makes things very tricky, as described by Cost:

That's right, the House of Representatives - which acquitted itself so beautifully over the last week! - gets to make the choice, but with a twist. Each state gets one vote. That makes things a little dicey, for both campaigns.

For McCain, the problem is obvious: the Democrats control the Congress. Not only that, but they currently control 27 of the 50 state caucuses. The GOP controls 21 and 2 are split.

But Obama has a problem here, too. In this scenario, McCain will have won more states, which means that to win, Obama will have to convince some Democrats to vote against their states. A few unfortunate souls would probably have to vote against their own districts. In 2004 George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts to Kerry's 180. A 269-269 tie like this implies that McCain will probably have won more districts than Obama, which would complicate matters for the Democrat.

Neither of these situations are happy ones for either candidate so in a strange twist of fate, neither wants a tie. Cost explains:

Why is it that Maine and Nebraska are relevant to this scenario? Most states allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis. Maine and Nebraska do, too - but they also dole out electors depending upon who won which congressional districts. If McCain were to win Maine's second district, he'd get an elector. If Obama were to win Nebraska's third (Correction: second), he'd get an elector. That could make the difference.

For the full analysis, including a discussion on how the VP could end up being from the opposite party of the President, see Cost's piece.

My point in linking it is to point out a key fact that I will be bringing up repeatedly as more and more poll results pour in. If you want to see beyond the smokescreen that is modern, biased polling, you have to watch how the campaigns act and, in particular, where they spend and send resources.

If Obama really thought he was up eight points, as some national polls suggest, he wouldn't bother with an elector in Nebraska. A candidate with an eight point lead will not end up tied in the electoral college--it would be a decisive win. The fact that Obama's campaign is sending people to Nebraska in case of a tie means they themselves don't believe the poll numbers. And that means you shouldn't either.

U.S. Economy to Recover by the Spring?

Hugh Hewitt links to an interesting article at MarketWatch.

Three weeks ago, economists surveyed by a leading trade association said the U.S. economy would recover from the current recession in the second quarter of next year, assuming the credit squeeze in global financial markets improved gradually.

Of course three weeks ago is ancient history now, as noted in the article.

Given Monday's sell-off in the stock markets, the economists would likely be more pessimistic if they were surveyed again, said Chris Varvares, president-elect of the National Association for Business Economics, which released its quarterly survey Monday.

Additional information would always influence predictions, of course.

I don't usually put a lot of stock (excuse the expression) in to what economists predict. My apologies to economists but it just doesn't seem like a very exact science.

Take the use of the word "recession" in the first quote. Now I'd be the last to argue the economy is in good shape. The word depression has be bandied about, let alone recession. But like all sciences, there are terms defined and there precise meanings to the definitions. I believe the accepted definition for recession is two consecutive quarters with negative growth. The current banking collapse is too recent to have effected two quarters.

Will we have a recession? Almost assuredly. But I have trouble trusting the predictions of people who can't be precise in their terminology. If a medical researcher said they had developed an antibiotic to affect an condition caused by a virus, you'd be skeptical of their skill in their medical field, right? Did the researcher mean a vaccination? Or was he referring to a disease caused by a bacteria?

Economic voodoo is hard enough to take seriously if the players can't stick to well-definied terms.

LA NOW President Shelly Mandel Endorses Sarah Palin

When I originally saw this post on Wizbang, I skipped over it. The title is "America, this is what a feminist looks like" and the still of the YouTube video showed Sarah Palin. So I cataloged it away as one more pro-Palin piece by Kim Priestap, who has been an ardent Palin supporter, and moved on.

Upon further review, I see that I missed the point of the post. Shelly Mandel, the President of the LA chapter of the Nation Organization for Women, gave a speech in which she praised Sarah Palin and endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket. The linked video starts with a humorous montage scripted to AC/DC, but the speech itself is serious in tone and delivery.

Note that Mandel was forced to start her speech by separating herself from NOW--who are probably very upset in her joint appearance with Palin and the content of her speech.

Kim Priestap makes the following observation:

I was talking to my husband about this and told him that this is probably the reason why she went to California. The endorsement of the president of one of the largest chapters of NOW is huge, which explains why the MSM isn't reporting it.

I had wondered about her reasons for visiting CA myself, and this is a pretty plausible explanation.

What is more astonishing though? The fact that a prominent member of NOW is supporting a Republican ticket or that it is, in fact, worthy of amazement that a member of the National Organization for Women shows support for a woman candidate for Vice President?

Obama and Campaign Finance Fraud

These stories just keep piling up so I thought it was time to round them up a little so a more complete story was readily available. First up is this Newsmax story:

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

The main suspicious characteristic of these donations is as follows.

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

Jack Kelly, a reporter for the Toledo Blade newspaper, also writes on this less than two hundred dollar pattern.

WHO is "Will, Good"?

Mr. Good Will - who lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You" - has contributed 1,000 times to the Barack Obama campaign.

All the contributions have been in amounts of $25 or less. But they add up to $17,375 - far more than the legal limit of $4,600. That's $2,300 each for the primary and general election campaigns.

This loophole in the donation laws seems primed for abuse.

Making contributions on credit cards via the Internet - as both Good Will and Doodad Pro did - makes it easier for foreigners to contribute. Web logger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) reported three Palestinians living in a refugee camp in Gaza tried to donate $33,500 to the Obama campaign last year. They were caught only because the amount was far above the legal limit. If foreigners donate in amounts less than $200, their illegal involvement would be virtually undetectable.

But it gets worse. Obama's campaign claims to have returned these illegal donations from Palestine. Powerline links to a online investigation by Pamela Gellar that shows these donations were never returned. Scott at Powerline adds:

Among the donors Geller identified this past July, for example, was this fellow:

Name: Hbkjb, jkbkj

City: Jkbjnj

Works for: Kuman Bank [doesn't exist]

Occupation: Balanon Jalalan

Amount: $1,077.23

Only the money, of course, is real.

Will anything be done? Will this be investigated? If it were up to the mainstream media, these investigations would never happen. At the very least, they won't happen until after the election and their choice for President is safely elected. Glenn Reynolds writes something encouraging, however.

I JUST GOT THIS EMAIL: "Republican National Committee (RNC) Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross will announce today a complaint that the RNC is filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Obama campaign. The complaint will address foreign national and excessive contributions accepted by the Obama campaign that demonstrate it is operating outside of federal campaign finance law."

As for whether anything will come from this investigation, I have serious doubts. It is possible that it could become a damaging news story but given the medias bias, I'm sure it will be spun as racism on the part of McCain for questioning the donations in the first place.

Media Bias: You May NOT Criticize Obama or You Are Racist

The more the blatant campaigning for Obama by the media grows, the more angry I become. It is a tide of unfairness and stopping the level from rising seems like a futile effort. But I refuse to give up, so here is case number 1,147,386.

AP writer Douglass Daniel performs an "analysis" of Sarah Palin's comments linking terrorist Bill Ayers to Obama.

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

Where to begin?

1. Note that the campaign is faltering. An objective analysis wouldn't be complete without painting your opponent as self-destructing. And make no mistake about it, Daniel considers McCain his opponent just as much as Obama does.
2. Note that the attacks were unsubstantiated in the opinion of Daniel. He contends it was only a minor association and points out "Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career." Early in his career is correct. As in, when Obama launched his state Senate campaign in Illinois, he did it from Ayers' house. I know if I ever decide to run for public office, I'm going to pick a random person I barely know and go to their home to announce the beginning of my campaign. Please.
3. Finally, note that because Palin criticized Obama, her attacks are racial tinged. What is racial about pointing out the connection to a old, white terrorist?

That last point is of course the critical one. You can't say anything negative about Obama, lest you reveal yourself as a racist. Powerline comments:

When the McCain campaign ran an ad that had a white woman in it, it was denounced as racist. When it ran an ad that had an African-American man (Franklin Raines) in it, it was denounced as racist. Now the McCain campaign links Obama to a white man, the former terrorist, and still anti-American, Bill Ayers. That's racist too. I think we've exhausted just about all the possibilities. The only non-racist thing McCain can do, apparently, is concede the election.

And Glenn at Instapundit, true to libertarian form, adds:

Well, of course. If you criticize Barack Obama over anything, it's because you're a racist. No doubt that'll hold true if he's elected President, too, which will call for strict anti-racism laws to keep such things under control . . . .

For more commentary on this see Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, the Corner, and Gateway Pundit.

Get Ready for Negative Campaigning In October

McCain's campaign recently announced that they will get tough on Obama regarding his past associations and voting record. As an example, here is Palin in Colorado:

Our opponent, though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would rather target their own country. Americans need to know this. ... We gotta start telling people what the other side represents.

Paul at Powerline has this to say:

As John notes below, the McCain camp has decided to get tougher on Barack Obama down the stretch of this campaign. In the Washington Post's report on this story, Michael Shear contends that "being so aggressive has risks for McCain if it angers swing voters, who often say they are looking for candidates who offer a positive message about what they will do."

But the Obama campaign went brutally negative on McCain last month when Obama briefly fell behind. Even Shear notes (if you read far enough) that "Obama has run television commercials for months linking McCain to lobbyists and hinting at a lack of personal ethics." These ads have not hurt Obama. Thus, if swing voters reject negativity from McCain, it won't be because they want a positive message, it will be because, under the circumstances, they want to vote for Obama.

ABC News is reporting that in response, Obama's campaign will be starting preemptive attacks on McCain starting Monday.

The Obama campaign plans on taking [McCain adviser] Strimple's expressed desire to "turn...a page on this financial crisis" against McCain, to characterize all attacks on Obama as desperation to change the subject.

So if you love to be bombarded with negative campaign ads, get ready for a fun October. I've seen my fair share of negative ads already--it will be interesting to see how the public responds, especially with both sides participating.

While I'm not a big fan of negative campaigning in the current climate, I'm not sure McCain has much choice. The media isn't just biased for Obama--it is refusing to report or even investigate anything that might potentially hurt his campaign. Given that the media has failed in one of its primary functions, McCain has no choice but to become his own media in order to bring some facts to light.

Clearly, this is not as effective as it would be if an "unbiased" third-party were to do it. People will naturally be skeptical of what one candidate says about another. This is why the media being in the tank for Obama is so effective. Years from now, hopefully people will be able to look back and see how dangerous it is for the public media to blatantly try to elect one person President. But for the moment, the country has its blinders on and the media is taking full advantage of it.

Palin Campaigns in Carson City, CA

Earlier today Johan Goldberg at the Corner noted this reaction to an upcoming Sarah Palin rally at Carson City, California from a local Obama community website:

Sarah Palin is coming to Carson this Saturday. Two days after the Vice Presidential Debate, she wants to show the world that she can come to one of the bluest areas in the bluest state in the Union and have over 10,000 people show up for a rally for her. This is outrageous!!!

I might question Palin's appearance in CA as being a waste of campaign resources--what is she hoping to accomplish there? But outrageous? Google's definition of outrageous is:

1. a. Grossly offensive to decency or morality. b. Being well beyond the bounds of good taste
2. Having no regard for morality.

How indecent of Palin to dare to appear in a blue state. How immoral of her. But that aside, the protest was planned. How did the protest go? Like this:

Just got back from the Carson event. There were about 25-30 radical Obama protestors that were basically shut down by everyone else who was shouting back at them, “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.” They were a complete joke, along with their giant posters that showed a woman’s vagina (hand drawn). I guess they thought Palin was going to outlaw them, or something like that.

She was just terrific and pounded the Obama/Biden team hard—boy is she good. There were 15,000 supporters there that just loved her. I can send you photos if you want some to post.

I'm sure the thirty or so protesters will grab most of the coverage from the MSM. But a reader sent Instapundit pictures and as is true so many times, this picture is indeed worth a thousand words. (Click the picture below to see it in full size.)


I'm still seeing the election as an uphill climb for McCain. But if he doesn't unleash Palin as much as possible, he deserves to lose.

Feminist Lynette Long Voting for McCain-Palin

I'm not too proud to admit that this story confuses me. Liberal Democrat and ardent feminist Lynette Long has chosen to vote for McCain-Palin. I must confess I hadn't heard of Ms. Long until I read about her decision on the Gateway Pundit blog. The announcement is newsworthy I suppose because Long is a Hilary Clinton supporter and her decision would be anecdotal evidence that some Clinton supporters are still angry with her treatment by Obama and refuse to vote party lines in order to make a point. Long wrote an essay on her decision at the No Quarter blog:

My loyalty to the progressive women’s movement has been challenged because I have chosen to try a different approach to fight for women’s rights. I want to start by squashing all rumors. No I am not stupid. No I am not a closet Republican. And yes I understand the possible implications on Roe v. Wade by supporting a McCain-Palin ticket.

The next section is long, but quote-worthy:

A few days after posting the article I delivered a shortened version of [a previously published] speech at a McCain-Palin Rally. An executive member of the National Organization for Women contacted me the very next day. It was a friendly conversation tinted with sarcasm.

“How do you feel about your speech?” she asked me.

“Great.” I responded. “Why shouldn’t I feel great? I gave a speech about women’s rights in front of a large audience. I highlighted the underrepresentation of women in every branch of government, the sexism in the media, and the unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party.”

“Where did you give your speech?”

A rhetorical question deserved a quip answer, “Before thirty-thousand Americans.” Republicans are Americans, aren’t they?

“By speaking at a McCain-Palin event people will think you are endorsing McCain.” That’s the point, I am endorsing McCain-Palin.

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the NOW executive's office to see her facial expression. Long adds:

I will by not be held hostage by the Democratic Party that turned a blind eye to the corruption in the Democratic primaries and Democratic caucuses.

I will not be held hostage by the Democratic Party that ignored a woman who got 18 million votes.

I will not be held hostage by the Democratic Party a party that was deaf, dumb and blind to the persistent and pervasive sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton.

I will not be held hostage by a Democratic Party that has never had a female head of the DNC.

I will not be threatened into submission. I will not cast my vote based on fear.

So far this story made sense to me. I can't say that one Clinton supporter (or a even a few) announcing a vote for McCain is going to have him quaking in his boots. But certainly the percentage of the Democratic vote that Obama can achieve is an interesting issue this election. If a significant number of Clinton supports stay home or vote for McCain, it could be catastrophic for him in swing states.

What did confuse me, though, was where Long chose to make her announcement--on Aljazeera TV. Huh? Other than Bin Laden and other terrorists, who makes announcements on that network? Was MSNBC considered to conservative? (Please, try to stop laughing.) Did she think if announced it on CNN that people would miss it? Who in the U.S. gets their news from Aljazeera?

Her follow-up post on No Quarter blog was an interesting read. Color me confused her choice of TV network. I report, you decide...

Biden Confused on the Constitution

Over at Powerline, John posts on how Biden showed a lack of understanding about the Constitution during his debate with Palin. The question to Palin:

Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

And Biden's eventual answer (emphasis by John):

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

There are some problems with the parts emphasized, above.

First of all, he gets wrong one of the most basic facts about the Constitution: Article 1 establishes the legislative branch, not, as Biden said, the executive branch. This is not exactly an obscure fact; my 17-year-old daughter pointed it out at the time.

Second, it simply isn't true that the Constitution treats the Vice President only as a member of the executive branch. The Vice President is mentioned in Article II as part of the executive branch, but he is also given legislative powers by Section 3 of Article 1, which establishes the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Vice President Cheney's "bizarre notion" is in keeping with the plain text of the Constitution.

Finally, Biden misstated the Vice President's role in the Senate. It isn't true that he "preside[s] over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote." The Constitution contemplates that the Vice President will be the full-time President of the Senate, replaced by a President pro tempore "in the absence of the Vice President." It's true that the Vice President only gets to vote in case of a tie; but, of course, that's the only time it matters.

Now, as John also notes, this lack of understanding of the Constitution isn't going to cost Obama-Biden any votes. But what he doesn't mention is the difference in treatment Biden gets by the media compared to Palin.

Palin asked for clarification of the "Bush Doctrine"--a term that has four different meanings associated with it. The media reacted as if Palin started drooling on the floor during the interview. See!? She isn't qualified! Biden shows a clear lack of understanding on what the Constitution says about the Vice President's role in the Senate--he has been a Senator for more than thirty years--and the media shrugs and looks the other way.

Can you imagine if Palin were quizzed about the Constitution during an interview and showed the lack of understanding that Biden did?

Post-Debate Palin Brings Back a Fighting Attitude

With the combination of the bad economic news and a couple of poor interview performances, something happened last week that hadn't happened in quite a while in this campaign: Palin wasn't the big news story. Her attitude changed, too. Conservatives argued that she was being handled too severely by McCain's advisers and the "Free Sarah Palin!" movement started.

After the debate (watched by an astounding 70 million people) and highly positive reviews on her performance, it appears that a free Sarah Palin is indeed back and exerting her influence on the campaign.

McCain's campaign recently announced they were pulling out of Michigan. Palin volunteered to go to Michigan and campaign on her own. Now, it probably won't happen and her energies will likely be more effective in other states such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. But this is the attitude and energy that was missing from McCain's campaign the last week or so.

Continuing on this theme, Palin also made a statement that Obama was not ready to be commander-in-chief based on his comments on Afghanistan.

Calling Obama "reckless," Palin said that where she comes from Obama's remarks "disqualify someone from consideration for the next commander-in-chief."

"Some of his comments that he's made about the war, that I think, in my world disqualify someone from consideration for the next commander-in-chief," said Palin. "Some of the comments he's made about Afghanistan, what we are doing there, 'just air raiding villages and killing civilians.' That's reckless."

Somehow that comment by Obama had slipped past me.

That comment seems very typical of Obama's style. First, he is calling for more troops in Afghanistan. How does that sit with his anti-war-for-any-reason, Code Pink base? Second, he suggests that the American military is willfully just killing civilians. This is along the same lines of Biden assuming U.S. Marines are guilty of slaughtering civilians in Iraq before a trial. Trials have now acquitted 8 of these 9 Marines of all charges with the last one still awaiting trial.

You just can't hide a distaste this strong. Obama and Biden and many of their supporters have no respect for American military personnel. They don't just disapprove of military actions--they disapprove of the people that carry them out. That is an important distinction. People, in their opinion, become soldiers not out of sense of honor or duty to country, but because they are poor and have no other choices in life. With an attitude like that, I find it unlikely that they will carry states like Virginia where so many veterans reside.

McCain has not called Obama out on this attitude. Perhaps his military background and demeanor prevent him from doing so. But the invigorated Sarah Palin is able to do so and that in the end could have a significant impact on the campaign.

CNN Reports: Palin Speaks at a Higher Grade Level Than Biden

This is a lighthearted way to start of a Saturday morning, but I just couldn't resist. Jonah Goldberg at the Corner links to this CNN article on an analysis of the language used by Palin and Biden in the vice-presidential debate.

Grade level: Biden, 7.8; Palin, 9.5

I thought Palin was a back-water, red-neck breeder that just popped out kids in between moose huntin' and bible thumpin'?

The article itself is amusing. It makes sure you know that there is no bias in the article, no matter what you read. For example:

The analysis noted that the "passive voice can be used to deflect responsibility; Biden used active voice when referring to [Vice President Dick] Cheney and [President] Bush; Palin countered with passive deflections."

"It obscures the doer of the action," said Language Monitor President Paul Payack, an independent with no political affiliation.

Got that? I emphasized the last part just in case you thought Payack was one of those independents with a political affiliation.

The article does have some other interesting comments. Particularly:

Thursday night's debate between the vice presidential candidates "was more collegial, thinking out loud as opposed to just hammering points," Payack said in trying to explain the difference. "It was a much calmer style."

I agree. Many pundits have offered as analysis that Palin has the ability to "look through the camera and enter your living room" and that Biden was "genuine and heartfelt". It is hard to exhibit either of these qualities when hammering home campaign talking points.

My favorite comment in the article is this parenthetical comment:

(Newspapers are typically written to a sixth-grade reading level.)

Indeed.

Media Bias: "Mistakes" in Transcripts

I'm always fascinated by new way for media bias to show its ugly face and Michael Ledeen at the Corner unearthed a new one concerning the Palin-Biden debate.

He notes the transcript reads Palin as saying:

And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

but it left out two rather important words. The real quote is as follows.

And I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

Why is it errors in transcripts never seem to be missing words like "the" or "an"? Why instead are they words that completely change the meaning of the statement? Why does this change in meaning often benefit the candidate on the left?

As Professior Xavier from the X-Men might respond: Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

New Republican As: What Just Happened?

I have a confessions to make. In most cases, I can't sit through an entire campaign ad--especially a negative one. I don't care which side produced it, 30 or 60 seconds of "my opponent is a slime ball" just doesn't hold my interest that long. It is like the mini-equivalent of a convention speech. We all know the point, why do I have to wait until the end to hear it?

So when I kept seeing links to the a new ad entitled "What Just Happened?" that was 90-seconds long my first thought was: Ugggh. How are you going to get anyone to sit that long for a political ad?

That's why I was totally shocked I watched the whole thing.

Maybe it is because I am frustrated that Obama is getting a boost from the banking collapse when there is no reason he should be. (And the ad neglected to include Obama's campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.) But this ad was well-done.

Conservatives Excited After Palin-Biden Debate

I mentioned last night that a VP debate--in the absence of a huge misstep--is unlikely to result a huge shift in presidential polling, regardless of who won. The one chance McCain has would be a reinvigoration of the conservative base. From a survey of conservative blogs, that seems to have happened.

Kevin at Wizbang thought, as he predicted she would, that Palin appeared capable, genuine, and likeable.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air called it a home run and concludes:

McCain needed this debate victory tonight, and it may restart the Palin phenomenon, just in time for the final stretch of the election. This time, though, the McCain campaign has to get Palin out in press conferences, interviews, and contact with the people. She’s sharp, able, and energetic, and she could win this election for McCain if he would just let her.

Over at Hugh Hewitt's blog, posters can't contain themselves. There are posts entitled Sarah 2.0: Wonderful, Through Sarah Palin, ordinary, non-mystical Americans may reclaim their national government, and The Second Palin Bounce and the Rise of John McCut. That last post begins:

Sarah Palin's comeback performance last night re-energized the GOP base, reignited her anti-Manhattan-Beltway elites message and re-opened the door to John McCain.

Powerline waxes poetic with Grace Under Pressure giving this lofty praise:

Ernest Hemingway famously defined courage as grace under pressure. I thought Joe Biden did well in the debate last night for those who might have been unaware of his liberties with the truth. But Sarah Palin provided a good example of the kind of grace about which Hemingway spoke.

You may scoff at that analysis, but it is hard to argue that the author isn't excited and that is my point.

Michael Sparxx at Polipundit thought that Hockey Mom Palin Scores the Hat Trick. Michael starts with:

Huge night for Sarah Palin last night at the one and only Vice Presidential debate. Palin, who has had a few awkward moments in recent mainstream media interviews, turned it up last night and joined us in our living room last night for 90 minutes.

which I can agree with. He continues:

For Biden, he will probably not have a great day today as some of the statements he made last night will be revealed to be false, mostly times he defended some of Obama’s votes and statements.

I think this is wishful thinking. The MSM will shield him from most, if not all, false statements. From an Instapundit poll comment:

Palin won this debate quite handily. But give the MSM a day or two and they'll convince most people that Biden blew the doors off poor ignorant Sarah.

A discussion of the impact, if any, of Biden's false and misleading statements will be the subject of another post.

It is clear to me that if nothing else Palin has people on the right excited again. A depressed GOP base was never going to eek out a McCain victory. I still see the landscape as heavily tilted in Obama's favor, but at least there are roads and paths McCain might take to give him a chance at victory.

Luntz Focus Group Declares Palin a Huge Winner in the Debate

I've seen this mentioned many times now, from multiple blogs so I thought it was worthy of a link. A focus group by Frank Luntz found Palin to be a blowout winner in the debate tonight. This results was covered at Hot Air, Wizbang, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, and Volokh Conspiracy.

Color me skeptical that this will make any difference.

As Hot Air noted, CBS and MSNBC conducted their own completely unbiased and scientific reaction polls and found Biden to be the huge, huge winner--especially with independent voters making the loss even more devastating for Team McCain. I'm sure you are just shocked by their findings.

Luntz is predicting a shift in the polls towards McCain because of the VP debate. Really? I think one can lose a debate spectacularly and cause a shift--though VP's are largely irrelevant. In any case, while Palin may have won, Biden did just fine on his own, so I find predictions of a major shift in polls dubious at best.

To be fair, there is one way that polls might shift. A number of polls have shown a shift in numbers towards Obama not because Obama's support with Democrats or independents are up but because Republican enthusiasm is down. That is, Republicans are doubtful of McCain's chances and have stopped participating in polls. Just surveying the conservative blogs, you can see Palin's performance has them talking again--and not negatively. If that enthusiasm carries to the rest of the party, a shift in poll results could indeed be seen. But that speaks more to the (lack of) accuracy of the polls and not to independents sweeping to support Palin based on her debate performance.

Ohio Supreme Court Rules in Favor of McCain

While I was on the road, I noted this post at Gateway Pundit talking about voting irregularities in the making in Ohio. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner apparently behind three voting-related decisions.

1. A new rule that lets people register and vote the same day.
2. Observers will be banned from polling stations.
3. Deny absentee ballots that failed to have a box checked.

In a little bit of good news, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that in the case of number three, the ballots have to be counted. Now I'm not exactly why that news is good news for McCain. They surely haven't counted the ballots yet, right? I'm thinking that they must be ballots from oversea military personnel and that vote is surely going to McCain. If that is the case, the Democrats really have to stop making efforts to disenfranchise military personnel. That attitude combined with trying to get felons to vote could eventually turn the media against them. OK, maybe not, but I can dream, can't I?

The other two points on Gateway Pundit's list are disturbing. I know in Colorado if you aren't registered by October 6, you aren't voting. This gives state officials time to actually make sure the registrations are proper. And not allowing observers in the polling stations ranks right up there with "not requiring identification" to vote. Arguments that people will be intimidated by observers is nonsensical. Every time I have voted, some people behind a desk have confirmed that I am indeed registered. Aren't these people more intimidating than some observer?

I might hold out hope that a suit could be brought concerning these other two points. But in the case of same-day registrations, it is probably too late. They are only open for a short period and during that period Bruce Springsteen will be performing at Ohio State in a huge voter registration effort.

Is there any doubt that, given the desperation showing in Ohio by the Democrats, that McCain still leads despite his national polling difficulties?

Expected Post Debate Spin for Palin-Biden

It seems apparent that neither candidate blew up during tonight's debate. So without any obvious
"I can't believe I just saw that" moments, what will the post-debate spin be? Here's my guess.

Palin, in general, will be given the nod. Expectation for her were so low that by not breaking down into tears or just mumbling "can you repeat the question?" over and over again, she destroyed expectations. General reactions to Biden was that he did OK, but was boring.

So given that outcome, the results of the debate need to be marginalized by the media. I think the basic argument will be--too little, too late. Intrade currently has Obama at 67%, McCain at 31%. The message will be "the race is over folks" with the subliminal message of "oh yeah, and if you are conservative, give up now and don't even bother campaigning or voting."

That's my prediction.

McCain Pulls Out of Michigan--Which Should Suprise No One Yet It Does?

A few weeks ago, before the economic issues came to a head, there was a lot of chatter about McCain taking Michigan from Obama. The thought was a combination of "hockey moms for Palin" and a disgraced Democratic mayor in Detroit might be enough to push Michigan red. Even in the pre-bank collapse utopia for McCain, make no mistake about it--Michigan was a long shot.

In the past two weeks, McCain has taken a significant hit in support. Is he out of the race? No, not yet. But he certainly has a an uphill climb ahead of him. Today his campaign announced it was pulling out of Michigan. People are point at this as a sign of how bad things have gotten.

I don't understand. If Michigan goes to McCain, then McCain is winning in a landslide. It is clear now that if McCain wins, it is going to be a close, close race. Think 271-269. So it is only natural for him to pull out of Michigan. This isn't a sign of anything other than that his staff if running a well-planned campaign.

Now if he pulls out of Colorado--that is a sign he is done. Bring out the fat lady and have her dedicate a song to President Obama. But Michigan? Not so much.

Late Start on the Palin-Biden Debate

I just got back from a short vacation and noticed I missed the first 20 minutes of the Palin-Biden debate. A quick survey of the blog-o-sphere would suggest no on has imploded yet.

Places to look:

Hugh Hewitt is doing his matrix of questions thing again. So far his summary has been Palin: strong, Biden: good attacks. But the night is young.

Ann Althouse is live-blogging as well. I look back at what I missed and see she has these two comments about Palin:

She's speaking too quickly, sounding nervous.

and

And I note that she's speaking clearly and confidently. There is no stumbling or fear, as far as I can see.

If this is her tactic to make me wish I had seen it live, it's working...

Glenn is live-blogging (at least he is adding updates) and has a list of many more live-bloggers. He notes:

The McCain folks email: "Biden said McCain voted 'the exact same way' as Obama to raise taxes on people making $42,000/year. That’s a lie. McCain didn’t vote on either bill."

Is that McCain supporters or the actual McCain campaign? Either way, the point stands.

More (much more) later.

The Missing Point of the Gwen Ifill / Moderator Debacle

In reading reactions to Gwen Ifill being the moderator for tomorrow's Palin-Biden debate, I find that people are missing the point.

The general reaction to criticism of Ifill being the moderator is mock-outrage that people would question her ability to perform impartially as moderator despite the fact that she is so in the tank for Obama, she has gills. I don't buy that for a second.

It isn't that she might or might not be able to hide her bias--it's that she should never be put in the position in the first place. Of course everyone has biases so finding a truly unbiased person is a fruitless thought exercise. But how hard would it be to find somebody who doesn't actively support, write magazine articles about, and have a vested interest in one of the candidates?

If huge personal biases are not a big deal, then may I suggest a change for final McCain-Obama debate--moderator Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure that would over like a lead brick with the left. But can't Rush be asked to put his (huge, annoying, loud) biases aside and moderator fairly?

Part of me hopes that Ifill flubs in a major way and is shown to be horribly partial while moderating. The other part knows that no matter how unfair she is the only people that will make note of it will be those "crazy conservative bloggers". So perhaps it is best for me to hope for a truly impartial performance by Ifill in order to give Palin a level playing field.

Bernhard Sees Backlash for "Palin Should be Gang-Raped" Suggestion

A couple of weeks ago I wrote how "comedian" Sandra Bernhard thought the best thing that could happen to Palin would be for her to be gang-raped by black men.

In a campaign season where few if any of the players have seen any negative consequences for outlandish and disgusting statements, it is nice to see it happen--if just this once. A woman's shelter named Rosie's Place has uninvited Bernhard from a benefit appearance.

Many guests at Rosie's Place, a Boston shelter, have been victims of violence, public relations director Leemarie Mosca said.

"In light of our mission, we don't think violence against women is a laughing matter," she said.

Mosca said the shelter expected to book a replacement before the Oct. 16 luncheon "Funny Women ... Serious Business."

"Right now, our main focus is our event and making sure the event is a success," Mosca said. "And for us, that means not including Sandra Bernhard at this time."

Ed Morrissey comments:

Often in this campaign, and really over the last ten years, we’ve often wondered where real feminists went after ugly eruptions like Bernhard’s. The idea that a supposed feminist would legitimize rape as a political weapon is so disgusting that a more naïve observer would expect a torrent of outrage from Bernhard’s fellow feminists in response. Instead, their silence stands as an indictment of them as feminists, and as human beings.

My original comment on the matter stands. You shouldn't need my thoughts or links to other commentary to know that suggesting gang-rape for any reason is beyond the pale. But hats off to Rosie's Place for doing what's right, even while others gave silent approval by doing and saying nothing.

Media Bias: The Solution?

In a change of pace, Glenn Reynolds wrote a (for him) long essay on Instapundit today in place of a quick, one-line post as is his norm. The subject of his post was how to fight the current media bias. While I am glad to see him give the topic press (excuse the expression) I can't say I find his suggestions entirely encouraging. He starts:

EARLIER, I promised some thoughts on what to do about the news media's outright campaigning for Obama. (And that's what it is. Media bias used to mean that the would slow-walk stories that reflected badly on their candidate; now they just flat out ignore them, or even try to shoot them down. They're not just in the tank, they're functioning as arms of the campaign, and Obama's strategy shows that he knows that and is relying on it.)

How depressing is it that his analysis is 100% correct, yet many people wouldn't agree with the statement. I have a lot friends who are Democrats and they all maintain that while CNN and MSNBC have a slight liberal bias, FoxNews is so conservative it should be a cartoon network, not a news channel. I have been encouraged this campaign to see polls where a majority of the people both see the bias and see that it is for Obama. That's a start, but only a start.

One of his suggestions I like:

If you want to have a media environment that isn't dominated by the Gwen Ifills and Keith Olbermanns of the world, you need to ensure that other kinds of voices flourish. That means supporting the alternatives with your eyeballs, your subscriptions, your advertiser-patronage (and you could write those advertisers and tell them you're happy that they're supporting that kind of programming, too -- they probably don't get many letters like that, so they'll be noticed) -- basically, your money. Businesses need money to flourish. There's a vast underserved population out there, for news, entertainment, movies, etc., and if people start serving it, the current "mainstream" media won't be so mainstream anymore. So if you're unhappy with current offerings, put your money where your mouth is.

This just might motivate me to follow his suggestion. At the moment I get all of my news and read all of my opinions online. I don't buy any magazine or newspapers--ever. But this doesn't give money to anyone. Perhaps it would be a good idea to give some support to a media source that is (at least somewhat) unbiased.

Glenn's other suggestion is more troublesome:

And if you're one of the people with creative interests, start making alternative stuff. Not just news and punditry, but entertainment, documentaries, etc. If An American Carol does well this weekend, it'll make it a lot easier for the next film of its type to be made. If Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary work does well, it'll encourage a lot more of that kind of work.

Think of it like cultivating a garden: Starve the weeds, feed the flowers. Like gardening, it's work. But like gardening, if you do the work you'll see results.

This is all very fatherly but it is quite an undertaking. What he basically suggests is to create media and entertainment and documentaries to rival CNNABCCBSMSNBC and Hollywood. That is no small order.

I mean, I have an idea for a SNL-like skit. Have Biden and Palin debating with Gwen Ifill the moderator. In between questions have the Ifill-look-a-like ask for short breaks where she runs to a closet off stage and services Obama. No more crude than what SNL already churns out and it makes the point. Now all I need are some writers, actors, a set, a crew, and network to air it on. I think it might be a while before I start competing with alternative content to SNL.

I don't know if I have any better suggestions than Glenn provides. I can say I'm frightened of an Obama presidency where the media makes no effort to report on anything negative and performs no investigative reporting. While I was never a fan of the attitude of the media after Watergate--in Hollywood investigative reporting was always a hero's duty and every government employee was corrupt and part of a grand, evil conspiracy. But the opposite of this--where the media is just an arm of the government and can be used to indoctrinate the population--is much, much worse.