But as I reviewed the history of the primary and the current issues facing us, it seemed increasingly like the only ethical, pragmatic and appropriate choice.

Consider the caucus fraud, stripping of Clinton’s votes and denial of a fair and open roll call. The relentless sexism from the media and the silence from Democratic Party. Obama’s refusal to have town halls with her and then McCain. Obama’s waffling on important issues like FISA and campaign finance reform. The obscene amounts of money that Obama’s campaign has spent when people are losing their homes. Over 680 million dollars of which we know. Probably more. His lack of judgment in choosing close associates and friends. Like Jeremiah Wright. Tony Rezko. William Ayers. Khalidi.

It is clear that the Democratic Party as we knew it, the Democratic Party of my parents, no longer exists. Its leadership does not support the most basic principle of one person, one vote. And they do not support women, the majority of its membership.

Clearly, it is time to look somewhere else.

And then the economy tanked and the choice became very clear. I have never voted Republican in my life. As I began to study the issues more closely, I grew to really appreciate what John McCain has to say. He understands that you cannot tax small businesses at a high rate, as Obama is proposing. Small businesses are what drive the economy. We need and must create opportunities for Joe (and Josie!) the Plumber. What can Obama be thinking? And how does he possibly plan to pay for all of the programs he is proposing? More taxes in a struggling economy?

Nobody gets this more than the Cuban community in Miami.

Traveling much of the time in Miami with Dr. Lynette Long, the leading expert on the caucus fraud perpetuated against Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee, we did a lot of canvassing and shaking of hands, otherwise known as retail politics. Almost everyone we met were proudly, even vehemently pro McCain. Even the seniors who didn’t speak English would shake their heads and wag their fingers when we asked them about Obama. They are suspicious of charisma and empty promises. Families who had made the treacherous journey to come to America, often leaving behind everything they knew or had owned compared Obama to Castro. “Fidel said change, too,” one young woman said whose family’s property had been seized and whose father had been imprisoned in Cuba for six years. “I don’t want socialism. I know how bad it can be. Our families want to work hard. We want opportunities, not hand outs. We love John Mccain. We trust him.” America is the land of immigrants and opportunities. In honor of these wonderful Cuban Americans who are the soul of Miami and part of the extended heart of this great country, let’s get out the vote.

That being said, our military has performed as well as could be expected under very dangerous circumstances. We have lost brave people, courageous people, to this war. Many of our service people have physical disabilities as a result of being there, and many more have psychological trauma that affects them, their families, and their friends. Our military has given a great deal. They deserve our appreciation, our support, and our respect for what they have done in service to our country.

And, since we are there, how we leave is important. We can’t just pull out all of our troops willy nilly. That would be tremendously irresponsible of us, in terms of the Iraqis who will be left behind without sufficient infrastructure in place, and it will diminish the efforts of our military, and the memory of those who paid the ultimate price.

Below are two videos of two different Iraqi war veterans, both of whom endorse McCain. The first is a sergeant who gave his Purple Heart to McCain:

To say the least, these are two very powerful pieces from those who know first-hand what our being in Iraq means. While I know there are others in the military who do not support McCain, their reasons for doing so speak for themselves.

Finally, there was the following endorsement in my local paper. Now, I have to say, I was stunned. SC is a red state, to be sure, but the city from which this paper comes is not. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw their endorsement of John McCain in this editorial: John McCain For President because they, like many in the MSM, have printed primarily pro-Obama, negative or not-so-pro-McCain pieces. But they nailed it with McCain:

John McCain has served our nation with extraordinary distinction for more than 40 years. But his best service should be yet to come. He understands where America has been, where it is today, and where it must go to fulfill its potential. His proven courage, experience, knowledge, judgment and capacity for working across party lines make him the best choice for the presidency on Tuesday.

Mr. McCain’s habit of delivering blunt “straight talk” represents a refreshing departure from modern political spin. For a quarter century in the U.S. House (1983-87) and Senate (1987-now), the Arizona Republican has applied sound principles of fiscal responsibility and strong national defense on a case-by-case basis.

The self-proclaimed “maverick” has dared to be his own man by taking unpopular positions on tough topics that sent most politicians retreating toward pandering generalizations. He repeatedly, and accurately, points out that he will win no “Miss Congeniality” awards from fellow federal lawmakers — due in large part to his relentless opposition to wasteful “pork” spending.

He has drawn the ire of presidents from his own party and ideological purists on the right by deviating from Republican orthodoxy. Yet his voting record affirms his credentials as a common-sense conservative. And any fair assessment of his record will affirm his prescience over a wide array of difficult issues.

Campaign propaganda to the contrary, Sen. McCain has often opposed President Bush on both the domestic and foreign fronts. He has consistently urged the president to veto spending bills filled with “earmarks” that lacked sufficient legislative scrutiny. He has rightly opposed the folly of wasteful agricultural and ethanol subsidies. He correctly warned, two years ago, that insufficient regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac risked a colossal mortgage-industry meltdown.

And why is it, pray tell, everyone thinks OBAMA is going to do anything positive with the mortgage crisis when he is a part of the problem? I just do not get that one - such a shocking lack of logic involved there…

As to the war:

He was an early critic of the failure to send enough troops to Iraq to consolidate our initial victory in the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein from power. Along with trusted Senate colleague and close friend Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sen. McCain was an early and ardent advocate for a “surge” of U.S. troop levels in Iraq, an overdue move President Bush finally ordered in the spring of 2007.

At that time, prominent Democrats in Congress — including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, now his party’s presidential nominee — predicted that such an increase in American forces would fail. A few months later, with the surge’s outcome still in doubt, most pundits decreed that Sen. McCain’s bid for the GOP presidential nomination already had failed. The Democrats were wrong about the surge. The pundits were wrong about the nomination.

I admit - I was one Democrat who was wrong about the surge. I honestly thought it was going to be a disaster. I acknowledge - I was wrong.

Unlike Obama, one cannot deny, McCain has character:

Even Sen. McCain’s detractors must acknowledge that he has shown remarkable backbone by bucking his party’s base on many controversial issues, including:

Illegal immigration: He recognizes it as a problem that demands comprehensive reform, not just a border fence.

Judicial appointments: Along with Sen. Graham, he helped forge a compromise that broke a senatorial stalemate blocking President Bush’s court nominees.

Man-made climate change: He recognizes it as a real threat that must be addressed.

Torture of terror suspects: He vigorously criticized the administration for condoning interrogation abuses that undermine our nation’s moral standing.

Such bold stands have given Sen. McCain considerable credibility as a powerful force for cross-party cooperation.

Now, this is where the Post and Courier pushes the meme about Obama. Honestly, how people can still push this BS is beyond me, but here it is:

We are impressed by Sen. Obama’s positive ability to inspire a broad range of Americans, and by his historic role as our nation’s first black major-party presidential nominee. But he falls far short of Sen. McCain on the decisive question of experience — an especially critical consideration in regard to foreign policy.

And though Sen. Obama promises to foster bipartisan accords, unlike Sen. McCain he has not taken on his party’s base. Sen. Obama chides Sen. McCain for frequently supporting President Bush. However, Sen. Obama has voted with his party’s leadership at an even higher rate. His 2007 voting record was deemed the most liberal in the Senate by the National Journal, which is not a right-wing publication.

Most of Sen. Obama’s positions fall well to the left of the national mainstream, including his push to provide “tax cuts” for many Americans who pay no income tax now. Sen. McCain’s prescription for the ailing economy includes tax relief, but it’s based on practical, free-market fundamentals rather than counterproductive attempts to “spread the wealth.”

Sen. McCain proposes reforming health care via private-sector incentives. Sen. Obama proposes public-sector mandates.

Sen. McCain favors free trade. Sen. Obama increasingly backs protectionism.

Sen. McCain strongly supports school choice. Sen. Obama, despite some lip service, does not.

Sen. McCain has long pushed for entitlement reform. Sen. Obama has not.

Sen. McCain would appoint constitutional constructionists to the federal bench. Sen. Obama would appoint liberal activists.

With strengthened Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate certain, a victory for Sen. Obama would assure a lopsided edge for liberal government.

Back in the day, say before 5/31/08, if someone said we were going to have a liberal government, I would have been ecstatic. But I have seen the light - at least in terms of how the Democrats really act. The way the Democratic leadership and the Democratic Party have treated women this way is simply abhorrent. There is nothing liberal about the way they have acted at all. And frankly, who the hell knows for what Obama really stands considering he has flip flopped on just about everything during this campaign? So, yeah - now, I don’t trust them to have that much power. No way in hell. The editors continue:

A victory for Sen. McCain would assure needed balance between a conservative president and a liberal Congress. More importantly, it would assure a steady, capable and brave hand to guide us through the looming crises sure to come.

As for concerns about Sen. McCain’s age (he turned 72 in August), he has kept a demanding campaign schedule and has routinely kept his lively 96-year-old mother nearby to remind voters that he comes from a family known for healthy longevity. Similar worries were expressed about Winston Churchill, nearly 77 when he began his final stint as British prime minister in 1951, and Ronald Reagan, 17 days shy of his 70th birthday when he became U.S. president in 1981. That’s awfully good septuagenarian company.

And despite misinformed assertions that Sen. McCain would too quickly choose military options, the former Navy fighter pilot knows far better than most that the horror of war should always be a last resort.

No kidding. I have tried to say this to people. Military people always choose war last because they KNOW what it is really like. Never mind that both he and his running mate have children in the theatre currently - he knows, far, far better than Obama possibly could.

Finally:

His reputation for courage long preceded his first run for office. He gallantly endured more than five years as a prisoner of war, including torture, after being shot down over Hanoi. He refused to accept early release after his communist captors discovered his father was the U.S. Pacific commander.

John McCain has demonstrated a strong commitment to principle in the political arena, too. His exemplary qualifications for the White House are clear.

I agree - he is far, far more qualified than Obama could dream of being, he has good character, a backbone, and truly loves this country, all things I cannot say about Obama. I agree with the Edistors of the Post and Courier. They are right - McCain is the clear choice on Tuesday.

Aren’t you glad I mentioned that song? Now you can have it stuck in your head all day long like I have! Ahem. Of course, I am talking about the ever-changing figure from Obama and his spokespeople on where he draws the line on being rich. First it was $250,000 (though the WSJ said it was really more like $164,500, though Obama never acknowledged that), then it was $200,000, then $150,000 (via Biden), and then yesterday Bill Richardson said $120,000 was rich. Huh - I wonder what it will really end up being should he steal the election? (And you know damn well with ACORN and Project Vote, there will be shenanigans going on because THERE ALREADY ARE!)

Here is Obama in 2003 claiming those who earn more than $70,000 are rich. The cap of the middle class just goes lower and lower. You cannot make this up. But Obama does as he goes along:

Now, I realize that to some people, $70,000 sounds like a lot of money. But if you live in a place like Boston, or NYC, or Chicago, or LA (or anywhere in CA, for that matter), it is not a lot of money. It’s all about context. And, in my neck of the woods, ALL of the businesses are small businesses, many family - owned ones. But hey - don’t take my word for it. Here’s a video for you:

Sigh - if only the DNC had not stolen the nomination from Hillary. But I digress…

It is impossible to give 95% of Americans a tax break when 40% of Americans do not pay taxes. There goes that Obama Logic again…

Here’s Joe Biden - i she once again making a gaffe by actually speaking the truth?

But get this - Obama is now claiming that people who do NOT want to be taxed more are selfish. No, I am not kidding:

Okay - it is selfish to not want more than half of your income to go to taxes. Now, let me just say right up front that I am not someone who is anti-tax. I know that we NEED taxes to pave our roads, employ our firefighters and police officers, educate our children, and care for those in need. BUT - I do not think that it one group of people should disproportionately carry another group of people. And it is absurd to even TALK about raising ANYONE’S taxes in the midst of economic difficulties. That is not new thinking - that has been accepted wisdom for decades now. How about actually collecting taxes from people and businesses who owe it? Or close loopholes for the freakin’ OIL companies?? If Exxon was having record breaking profits every single quarter for years, why should they have gotten an breaks? They sure weren’t giving US any! The point is - obviously we need tax revenue, but to burden an already burdened group of people is not the solution. There are other options available, including growing jobs, which also grows tax revenue, if you think about it.

Bottom line is that I know Obama got used to the line moving all of the time when he was running against Clinton. The media made damn sure of that. But he needs to stop moving the line, or having his surrogates do it for him. Even better, let’s make sure we don’t have to DEAL with Obama’s ever-changing tax ideas by not electing him president.

Or by allowing Obama and his minions to take the election through voter fraud. Once again, if you see any kind of fraudulent or suspicious behavior at your poling place, people wearing political buttons into the polling place, or machines flipping votes, or whatever, the McCain/Palin Team has set up a HOTLINE for suspicious voting activity. Here is the number: 866-976-VOTE. Take your cell phone with you, if you have one. Take photos if you can. Again, 866-976-VOTE. Because we don’t want to find out how low he will go with who is in the middle class (in terms of taxes - we already know how low Obama will go with sexism, promises made FISA, and broken, GLBT rights, etc., etc.)…

Car displaying McCain sticker vandalized

Saturday, October 18, 2008

CLEARWATER (Bay News 9) — A Clearwater man’s vehicle that displayed a bumper sticker supporting John McCain has been defaced in what appears to be a hate crime, authorities say.

According to authorities, 41-year-old Frank Armstrong’s 2006 Lexus LS 430 was parked on the 1400 block of Gulf Boulevard when someone or a group of people scratched the letters “KKK” into the paint and burned a U.S. Flag on the vehicle.

Authorities say those involved also used cigarettes to burn several areas of the car and apparently urinated on the car. …

Armstrong’s vehicle displayed a bumper sticker supporting the McCain campaign and another that was anti-Barack Obama leading investigators to believe the crime was racially or politically motivated.

No witnesses or surveillance video have been found.

Does everyone remember the outrage by Obama supporters, when Obama pulled a massive flip flop and voted for the FISA bill?

Well, he missed the first vote:

“Obama (conveniently?) missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the “Potomac Primaries,” but issued a statement that day declaring “I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty.”

And then he promised to filibuster, but he didn’t:

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

Many Obama supporters, those who weren’t pissed at him, suddenly jumped on the FISA bandwagon:
“What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good. … it’s our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything — including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law — because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

snip

The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

snip

Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it “fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home…”

snip

Obama’s statement warns us that we face what he calls “grave threats,” and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.”

Commenter Hume’s Ghost wrote:

What really rubbed me the wrong way was how Obama in his statement says essentially trust me with these powers, I’ll use them responsibly. Nope.

So, what does this have to do with Joe the plumber and FISA?

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Digging dirt on Joe is a bad idea, Lee Cary:

This afternoon ABC’s Charlie Gibson reported on his hourly radio news report the results of his network diggin’ dirt on Joe the Plumber. Gibson reported that Joe has a “lien” for failing to “pay his property tax.” The lead-in, stated by a co-reporter, was “Oh, by the way, Joe…”

This is just a taste of the “Thugocracy” that Michael Barone wrote about. Criticize Obama and the old big media will work hard to ruin you. This is extremely dangerous for this democracy.

Operation Destroy Joe the Plumber- Michelle Malkin:

My syndicated column today reports on Team Obama and the Obamedia’s mission to tear down Joe the Plumber. Yes, we are in the midst of a new contagion: Joe The Plumber Derangement Syndrome. JTPDS.

Now, pay close attention to how the MSM rushes to uncover every last bit of gossip and dirt about Joe Wurzelbacher’s life. Some of it is relevant to the public policy questions he posed to Obama. Much of it is not. More here.

L.A. Times: Joe the Plumber Has Liens!!!!

The Los Angeles Times reports:

So, you know. Critical in that sense.

Democratic Underground launches a full on assault, exposing all of his personal information, rummaging through his divorce papers, and financial records, and more.

Now, I am sure you are wondering how I can blame Obama and Biden for the actions of their supporters? Well, for starters, the same way the Obama camp can blame McCain and Palin for their supporters yelling out *kill him* wrt Obama, at their rallies, even when it never even happened.

And also because Biden and Obama have gone on TV and repeatedly mocked, and insulted, and misconstrued what Joe said.

Joe: “I’m looking at buying a business” So, he doesn’t own a business now, he doesn’t make $250K now, and he won’t make $250K if he buys it, his business will earn $250K.

And here, Obama MOCKS the plumber, and then he MOCKS that McCain is *fighting for the plumber*. And then he scoffs that a plumber doesn’t make $250K a year. So, is Obama mocking the fact that McCain is fighting for the small business owner, who make less then $250K a year? Or is he mocking plumbers, in general, and that it is impossible that a plumber can make $250K a year, because they didn’t go to Harvard? I am confused on what point Obama is making…

So, back to my point. Obama has *enflamed the hatred* on Joe the Plumber. He has mocked him, humiliated him, and not spoken out to stop the insanity that has been launched by his supporters on Joe the Plumber.

Which, now thinking about how Obama voted to support FISA, a bill that “fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home…” it doesn’t surprise me.

Obama has allowed, and enflamed a full on violation and assault onto a private citizen, who just happened to be in his own home, when Obama ascended on his neighborhood. Joe the Plumber dared to ask a question of *The One*.

Barack Obama Mocks Joe The Plumber and Joe Loses His Job!

And Obama has failed to protect, or speak out for, the privacy of a law abiding American at home, by mocking him, and not speaking out.

Watch out… you know what’s next.

Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Martin Luther King said he dreamed of a day when a person would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That day has obviously not arrived for Obama, his campaign and those in the DNC, who think making an issue of race and using it to try and intimidate weak minded people is the way to win the election.

— Marc Rubin, co-founder, The Denver Group

When I interviewed Marc Rubin recently, his comment opened a door to a truth many media blowhards would rather remain closed: that the media playing the race card now is just as baseless as their rapt musings about Obama were then, when ‘Obamania’ began at the start of this most bizarre and outrageously corrupt election year.

It is heartbreaking that ‘pols’ like Kansas Governor Sebelius would imply that people are not voting for Obama because they are racist. Senator Obama’s own running mate, Joe Biden, can’t quite seem to get on the bandwagon, grasping at straws to promote Obama, telling southern voters they need to vote for him because he is black.

What about voting for someone based on whether they are qualified to do the job? Isn’t that what the great Reverend King was asking for? Isn’t that what he lived and died for?

Senator Clinton just said she wanted to be judged on the merits: character, record, actions, behavior.

Well, how is Senator Obama stacking up on the ‘character’ front that Rev. King found so important? Frankly, character seems sorely lacking in Obama’s instruction to his supporters to ‘get in people’s faces’ and the mounting evidence that his campaign is behind the viral hatred directed at Governor Palin.

Biden let slip that even he thought Obama’s ‘email ad’ re McCain was hitting below the belt — then he got taken to the woodshed and Biden’s talking points have once again been ‘adjusted.’ Biden, surely not the most silver-tongued devil, has to run around making the most of a candidate it is evident even he does not know what to do with.

And now, in the midst of a horrible financial crisis, Obama’s response was, “Congress will call me if they need me.” I forgot – he is the ‘delegater’. So as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party, he wants no part of assisting in a bi-partisan solution to an incredibly serious problem. When exactly is he going to start showing off his consensus building skills on the Senate floor?

He criticized McCain for wanting to postpone the debate a few days – meanwhile McCain has been after Obama for MONTHS to have joint town hall meetings to debate the issues and Obama couldn’t be bothered. Now suddenly when he’d have to roll up his sleeves and do some work, he’d rather debate. What happened? Had he already memorized all his answers to foreign policy questions he thought he was going to be asked? Meanwhile the debate went forward as planned. What was all the fuss? A lot of posturing from Senator Obama, and little problem solving.

McCain, by actually showing he cared enough about the American people to suspend his campaign and get back to Congress and work across the aisle, as he has done many times in the past, made it clear that Obama, in contrast, is just about “me, me, me.”

Rev. King said:

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

There’s that pesky character question again.

The DNC was so sure that Senator Obama’s deep pockets and romantic rhetoric would sweep into the White House and usher in all the down ticket Dems with him. The media, along with the cowardly and corrupt DNC party leadership, got to exorcise their Clinton Derangement Syndrome as a perk, so they were more than happy to play along.

Despite the polling sample manipulations and gyrations, it is very clear that this race is too close for comfort. Historically, we know that Senator Obama over polls and he has a bad habit of not being able to close the deal.

So the media, and Obama’s campaign have fabricated a great cover story: race bias is keeping his numbers from breaking 50%, despite all his money and a fawning press. Senator McCain, who used to be a press favorite, is now, along with Gov. Palin, enjoying some of the disgusting one-sided treatment that Senator Clinton was ‘privileged’ to receive. Wait. I take that back. NOTHING could be as bad as the daily flogging Hillary had to put up with. But it’s close.

While I don’t doubt that there are people influenced by race bias in this country, clearly, we have discovered there are far more misogynists out there. The difference is, racism is not acceptable in polite society. Sexism is — the sky’s the limit! Obama used that to his advantage.

And how would Rev. King judge Senator Obama’s statement that he’s not the kind of candidate you are used to seeing on the face of a dollar bill? Obama has been playing the race card to his advantage, too. What is the content of Obama’s character that he would turn his ethnic background into a political parlor trick?

Just as is trying to avoid dealing with the current economic crisis, back in February Senator Obama was all talk, too, promising that he would filibuster on FISA if necessary. But on July 9th, it was Hillary who voted to protect the fourth amendment. She voted to stop telecom companies from having retroactive immunity on their warrantless wiretapping. Obama rolled over. So much for his filibuster on FISA.

Didn’t his thoughtless capitulation anger his supporters? To the contrary, they are furious with us for not falling in line and supporting him, no matter how skewed we think this contest was or how cowardly his behavior. I have been waiting for a real leader, with character, to emerge. Thus far, I have not seen one in Obama.

Looking back, what if Senator Obama had staged a filibuster on the floor of the Senate the morning FISA was to come to a vote?

Can you picture it? The great orator would stand and speak on behalf of the American people and fight for a righteous cause. He would look every Senator in the eye and make his case. Some of them might look at the clock, seeing lunchtime tick by as he spoke without a break. Late into the afternoon, he would not yield the floor. He’d talk himself hoarse.

And then, a woman would stand up – Joan of Arc in a pantsuit. “Have some water, Senator, yield the floor to me. I’ll keep going.” And he’d nod, and take a drink and she would continue the fight while he took a break.

If any of you have any doubt that this lady, no matter their differences, would have stood side by side with Barack to do this – you don’t know Hillary. You don’t know who she is or what she has stood for her entire life. She’d speak effectively and passionately until her voice caved. Maybe Senator Feingold would pick up the baton. How about Senator Patty Murray, perhaps Senator Shumer or any one of the 28 Senators who actually voted to protect our rights…

It wouldn’t matter. What would matter is the spectacle of Barack Obama – not necessarily leading the parade, but being one of a hard working team, willing to go down fighting for a principle.

Character.

Can you imagine it? Can you imagine the publicity? What if it went on for a couple of days? The Senate session heard around the world. A romantic notion perhaps: a good old fashioned filibuster. A bunch of well paid, well-heeled Senators willing to put something on the line and talk till they had no more spit and stand there and sweat for the American people. And then when Barack got his wind back – he would continue.

Would it even matter if he or they convinced enough Senators to vote their way?

Rev. King also said:

All labour that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.

Obama would have shown the American people and the world something much more important than making a fancy speech at the Siegessaule in Berlin or standing in front of 75,000 and some faux Greek columns at Invesco Field. He wouldn’t be playing President. He would be exhibiting real leadership.

And character.

That’s a ‘uniter.’ Someone who does more than pay lip service to a cause on a teleprompter, but a person who is actually willing to risk something for an ideal. For us. Despite his inexperience and every other reason I have not to vote for him, if I had just once seen THAT guy, I might have taken a second look. But we see on the economic crisis, he once again tried to avoid making a commitment.

A teacher of mine once said “character is as character does.” Obama’s character told him, ‘If I can’t win, I won’t fight.’ Remember how he took a powder on the voters of West Virginia and Kentucky, for example? That tells me he does not have what it takes to be the leader of the free world. It is precisely his go-along-to-get-along-pandering-throw-anyone-under-the-bus attitude that makes it clear he hasn’t the backbone to take care of me or this country.

In our interview, Marc Rubin also said that Obama’s race baiting:

[Was] a sign of desperation and reinforces the truth that Senator Obama has nothing to say and nothing to offer. We have many, many African Americans who have been elected to public office — mayors, governors, members of Congress, members of state legislatures, and none of them had to use race as a tactic to get elected. All were elected on their merits and won re-election or were defeated based on their performances. In the end the more Obama uses race the more he is telling people he has no game.

I think, Reverend King might have found this statement from African American candidate for Congress LTC Allan West appropriate:

My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone…however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.

It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a “uniter” and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.

We see very clearly Obama’s unwillingness to go to the mat for anything. Not even the economy he promises to change. The Democratic Party is neck deep in this – doesn’t he want to clean up the corruption there, too?

Perhaps Senator Obama was terrified of returning to Washington because he would have to commit to a plan and take a stand. He cannot vote “present” as he did in the state legislature. No more lofty rhetoric. But a plan of action – NOW. And if he is wrong, he will finally be cornered, as he has avoided being cornered thus far in his political career, by avoiding tough votes and decisions. President Bush called Obama back to Congress. Harry Reid’s protestations were not enough to protect Obama from having to do his job.

On FISA, if Senator Obama had thought enough about the American people to risk taking a few days off from campaigning in order to roll up his sleeves and work, and fight, how much do you want to bet he’d have taken a giant step towards pulling in some of the 42% of Hillary supporters who refuse to vote for him?

As to the current crisis, perhaps it is once again easier to hide out and deflect blame. But playing the race card won’t help him this time.

Character is as character does.

Doesn’t quite match up to Reverend King’s standards, does it?

How are the markets doing? Where are you at on the bailout deal?

OPEN THREAD.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs — the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

While I take exception to his claim of the “media as liberal and blinkered in its worldview for decades,” a claim not borne out when Bush was running against Gore or Kerry, I do agree with his assessment that the media has been woefully inadequate in vetting Obama.

Blankley asserts:

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign. Thus, the public image of Obama is of a “man who never was.”

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as “Major William Martin, R.M.,” which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater — all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

Well, those of us who are still thinking human beings know that to be true. We have been presented a hopey-changey-unicorn riding man who has nefarious associates who must never be mentioned or investigated by the media; who has a dearth of experience and legislative accomplishments; who seems hell-bent on acquiring power for power alone, beginning with his time in the IL State Senate (Obama’s Lost Years, “Obama And Me“); a man who has flipped and flopped so many times he should have been on the US Men’s Gymnastics team; who has lied, and lied, and lied about his family, his upbringing, his career, and his opponents; and who has demonstrated an arrogance and sexism not usually on display by public officials, especially one who wants to be president. Yes, WE know who the real man is, and it is NOT the one the media has been hell-bent to promote.

Blankley continues:

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don’t see Obama’s ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile “come on” when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels’ disciples, not Cronkite’s.

More appalling, a skit on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin’s husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama’s life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama’s two years at New York’s Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband’s driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

He noticed! Just like we non-Kool-Aide drinkers! Yes, we know FAR more about Governor Sarah Palin in a very short time than we have learned about Obama. And about those universities Obama attended - transcripts, please!!!

And here is an issue we have discussed a good bit.

It is about damn time someone else picked this up: But in two years, they haven’t bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Besides some outstanding work at No Quarter (Larry Johnson, LisaB, DrKate, Steve Diamond, and SusanUNPC, among others), Stanley Kurtz has been one of the very few journalists looking into the Ayers/Obama connection. He was a guest of Greta Van Susteren’s last night, and was also on with Bill O’Reilly recently. Here is the LINK.

I have heard so many Obamabots, including members of my own family, tout Obama’s line that Obama was only 8 when Ayers bombed those buildings. As if that is the only issue. Exceedingly narrow bits of truth can only take one so far, yet that is to what they are clinging. His relationship is much more expansive than he, or the MSM, would like us to know. Same with much of his time in the realm of Chicago-style politics:

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama’s rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great — and unflattering — details on Obama’s Chicago years presented in David Freddoso’s new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso’s book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal’s respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, “The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis.”
.
That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama’s imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain’s image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street’s leaders currently are for their failings.

Well, he’s got it right, IMHO, but for many people, the MSM is the only option they have. That is not a comforting thought. Especially when you have people like George Will trying to frame McCain’s persona in a negative light. In his recent article, “McCain Loses His Head,” he states:

It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

I’m sorry, George - you are going to attack McCain on temperament?? You mean, like THIS?

Yeah, okay. Thanks, George, for proving Blankley’s point. I have seen more and more recently about McCain’s temper, something I have not seen from him, but I have seen it PLENTY from Obama. Go back and look at the last debate he deigned to have with Senator Clinton, or anytime he was actually questioned about his policies and associates. He does not like for ANYONE to challenge or question him. Ah, just what we want in a world leader - a thin-skinned, arrogant, inexperienced, shallow man who got where he is today by getting any real challengers removed from his path. Perfect. Thanks, MSM!!! It is only our nation’s health at stake, but keep it up and you’ll get your wish fulfilled - another president on a par with George W. Bush. I can hardly wait…

I said, “In the privacy of the voting booth, it is not men who will take her down. It is women. Not enough women will vote for her.”

The ones who will not vote for her are the ones who do not vote for themselves. And in the primary, this turned out to be the case. So you’ll understand when I get a big kick out of the women supporting Obama, celebrities and civilians alike, who are shouting at those of us who won’t fall in line…

But the Republicans will overturn Roe v. Wade!!!

…Uh, not likely. Eight years of Reagan and twelve years of the Bushies did not overturn stare decisis (well settled law) and I sincerely doubt that the moderate/maverick McCain/Palin ticket will.

Besides, ladies, if you were so worried about it, maybe you should have voted for the gal who has been showing up for our causes her whole life. Not the guy whose gonna love you and leave you…

Roe v. Wade allows for lots of saber rattling by both sides every four years to keep the respective party faithful in line. As if women are one issue voters and have nothing else on their minds; as if we really think this issue is on the forefront of anyone’s Presidential agenda. Please see Texas Hill Country’s wonderful piece on Roe v. McCain.

In fact, my progressive Hillary-supporter-to-the-death husband had this to say in response:

“…on the state of the women’s movement: if it is [only about] Roe, then women are in for a long haul. As a man, and an early supporter of NOW, I have long advocated for women to take their power.

Unfortunately, my wife was right when she said that Hillary’s undoing would come from women. It’s been women like Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington that led the bashing of Hillary. Until women are willing to believe in their own power, nothing will change for them.

Too many women are waiting to be told who to vote for, how to vote, and the younger ones don’t even know the history of the women’s movement or why they should care.

If the women of this country had come out in force for the smartest person running for president, Hillary would be set for the White House. She has paved the road for Sarah Palin and hopefully, Gov. Palin won’t drop the ball.

When I listen to arguments against Gov. Palin and they are “She can’t manage her own kids, how can she run the country?” it makes me want to puke.

Nobody says about Obumble: “He raised his kids in a church that taught them welcome to the KKK of America and God damn America with a wife who’s never been proud of the country, so how can he make positive choices for the country?”

…There are too many of us men who understand that we are not the arbiters of women’s bodies and have no right to tell them what they should do. We should be there in support to help make the best decision.”

Women are the most powerful voting block in this nation. If we unite, guess what – we’ll finally get an agenda passed and not listen when we are told to keep waiting in line. Obama certainly wants his women fans to wait in line…right, Sweetie?

Hillary’s policies were spot on, coherent and much more effective. She has a record on women’s rights that you can trust. Well?

“Oh, but he gives a great speech. He’s so brilliant!!!”

No. He’s got a brilliant teleprompter operator who keeps the copy flowing for him.

I had an experience recently that I found fascinating from a behavioral standpoint. I was in a room of 10 other professional women, all educated, all entrepreneurs who ranged in age from 28 to 60. A 50-ish woman announced that she needed to buy a new car. The leader of the group immediately said “take a man with you” – as if having a penis automatically means you are a mechanic, you are better able to negotiate a good deal and the salesmen will not screw with you.

Every other woman in that group nodded in agreement – except me. Now it so happens in our house, you want a good deal on a car – I’m your gal.

While this incident is by no means a generalization, I was disappointed to see smart women buying into an idiotic stereotype about themselves. I didn’t know doodle-y squat about cars – I went to the library. I got on the Internet. I figured it out. I am now a barracuda at the car dealership.

In re Hillary: How can women trust another woman if they don’t trust themselves?

You’ll pardon me if these are not the women I want telling me who I need to vote for. I had a 42 year old female Obama supporter say to my face that she thinks ‘Hillary is smarter, but Obama is for change.’ Ugh. I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.

This is even more painful because in my involvement this campaign season, I have been privileged to find among my new friends and colleagues the most amazing, powerful, savvy women who understand very clearly what we’re fighting for and why they wanted Hillary and not Obama. Likewise, the progressive men who stepped up just as solidly and courageously have made an otherwise incredibly infuriating experience that much less so. I applaud you all.

Another woman, 55, said she voted for Obama because ‘he’s cute.’ But look at his legislative record! His flip flops on FISA! NAFTA! Iraq! AIG! Women’s rights! Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell! Gay rights! Present votes, no votes, wrong votes! Lying about Revs. Wright, Pfleger and Meeks! Lying about Rezko, Auchi, Ayers!!

Blah blah blah, like talking to a wall.

“I like him. He’s just nice.”

I did not bother to inquire further.

And any women who trash either Senator Clinton or Governor Palin using sexist reasoning have no business telling me who is going to protect my rights when they are, by extension, slandering themselves every time they repeat these kinds of attacks.

Ironic that today, we have Michelle Obama having the equivalent of a fireside chat with a group in Charlotte, N.C. According to Associated Press

Michelle Obama asked voters Thursday to make their choice on the issues, not because, “I like that guy” or, “she’s cute.”

Might she be talking about Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

“I’m talking about me,” she said with a smile.

Cute? If Michelle is inferring that Governor Palin hasn’t got anything but ‘cute’ going for her, think again. This woman is living feminism – she has it all: family, husband, career. She is also living her principles whether you or I agree with all of them or not.

Michelle Obama is the last person who should be talking about ‘not voting for someone because they’re cute’ – she’s got the husband who walked into a Pennsylvania factory and offered a woman a kiss for a vote. How about if he ‘gets down on one knee,’ he said…

After a most questionable primary victory, no man who ignores 18,000,000 Hillary voters and tells the women to ‘get over it’ can convince me he gives a rosy red damn about my rights. No one who pays the women on his staff less than the men can convince me he gives a damn about equal pay and opportunity for women. And no man who behaves like a sexist on the campaign trail gets to force my vote for him in order to protect my reproductive freedom.

Pardon my dust but the words ‘trust’ and ‘Senator Obama’ don’t exactly go together comfortably in the same sentence.

Vote on the issues? If Senator Obama wanders too far from his teleprompter, he’s lucky he remembers what the issues are.

And I promise you ladies, he is not gonna remember YOU!!

Months ago, after I tried my best to impress upon the ‘nice, cute voter’ every argument regarding Obama’s problematic record and two-faced rhetoric, she voted ‘cute’ anyway.

Well, for those ladies who did the same and keep yelling at us to follow suit, frankly, I would feel much safer with a candidate I didn’t agree with half the time who actually told me what he stands for than a candidate who pretends to agree with everything I say, but when push comes to shove, will shove me under the bus along with the other ‘leave-behinds’ he has stepped over in his ultimate power grab.

The choice is yours. In voting for Obama, you may be choosing the label of “Democrat” but that is all you are getting. A label.

Obama’s so ‘progressive’ that he chose a safe, good ole sexist from the Senate, while McCain reached out to a maverick soul mate in Sarah Palin.

You see, the words ‘progressive’ and ‘Senator Obama’ don’t exactly go together either.

And beyond women’s rights, if you want to see a progressive and a true leader in action on the economic front, watch and read here.

The only true progressive in the race this year, the woman who brought us ‘a long way baby’ is back in New York, continuing to do her job, for women’s rights and for all of us.

Even though some of you didn’t give enough of a damn to reward her for it.

Brace yourselves:

Obama Outraged at Being Accused of Not Supporting Something He Doesn’t Support

Obama, on the trail in New Mexico, had this to say of McCain:

“And today he accused me of not supporting what the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank did with AIG despite no evidence whatsoever that that’s what I had said.”

To recap, when I wrote earlier today that Obama supported the bailout, I quickly was instructed by his staff that this was not the case. He just didn’t oppose it, I was told.

Now he’s so adamant about not opposing the Fed’s move that he’s complaining about McCain’s portrayal.

Where, I wonder, is the line between not opposing and, ya know, supporting.

Thanks, Jonathan, I was wondering the same thing. The economy is in the toilet. I have no idea what Obama thinks he’s realistically going to do to get us out of it and now I can’t even get an honest opinion or assessment from him of what he thinks about what the Administration has already done.

I guess he needs to consult some polls first to see which way the wind is blowing. Ya know, if the American people like it. Or check with those 300 policy advisors to see if he’s for it or against it.

That is, if he even knows which group got bailed out? Does he? Let’s check.

On ABC’s Political Punch, Jake Tapper posted this little item the other day:

AIG, AIG, AIG, AGGGGGHHHHHH

At a time when Sen. Barack Obama is trying to project expertise and instill confidence in his potential stewardship of the economy, his campaign this morning sent out his statement on the Fed’s bailout of the AIG where it misidentified the American International Group, calling it the “American Insurance Group.”

So we could change Martin’s Politico.com title from:

Obama Outraged at Being Accused of Not Supporting Something He Doesn’t Support

to:

Obama Outraged at Being Accused of Not Supporting Something He Doesn’t Support and Doesn’t Know Anything About

Uh oh. Well, come on, Jake. He’s busy campaigning. He got confused. Can’t he just eat his waffle?

And while we’re on the subject of for or against:

Without recapping every single example of Senator Obama’s misstatements or flip flips, cause, ya know – we’d be here all day – I harken back to an interview Obama did with The Advocate, after GLBT groups complained he wasn’t making himself available to them. The interview is so nice. He just sounds so nice, and he agrees with everything you say. And he sees all sides of the issue and still of kind manages to insult good Democrats in the process.

Why discuss an interview on an unrelated subject? Because by the end of it, I defy you to figure out if he’s pro gay rights or not, pro choice or pro life. Pro Democrat or Pro Republican. Please, read it for yourself. Typical. We’re left scratching our heads…

Window or aisle, Senator? Smoking or non-smoking? Decaf or Regular?

Darlin’, in the White House, with your feet up behind that desk, ya can’t just vote ‘present.’ Ya know, like ya did 130 times in the State Legislature. And ya can’t say “oops, I hit the wrong button” six times, either.

A decision was required on the vote on FISA for instance. Where’s that filibuster Senator? What too much work? To expend political energy and lung power for a principal. Say like protection from warrantless searches. Like not giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies for what they did…

In a crisis, real leadership will be required, too. You may not have time for those polls. What if those 300 advisors are on a ski trip at Banff?

A decision is required.

Yay or nay.

Pick one, Senator Obama.

We’re waiting.