Whoopsie—The Democratic National Committee’s hood ornament got ..er..unscrewed and bounced into the street. Of course, it was loosened up a long while back when the DNC moved itself mostly to Chicago two months before the Democratic Convention. That right there tells you a lot about the DNC. (I think the “D” should be removed—it doesn’t belong there any more.)

Kirsten Powers concludes that DNC Chair, Howard Dean, was helpful to Obama for one reason—staying out of the way.

Dean had high level detractors. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s new Chief of Staff, publicly feuded with Dean over how to spend funds for House races, asserting that Dean was wasting money by spreading it around to all 50 states.

James Carville described Dean’s leadership as “almost Rumsfeldian in its incompetence.”

Paul Begala charged that Dean was “apparently . . . just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their noses.” (More here.)

Then there was Dean’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates for holding their primaries early, only to give both states a reprieve after it was too late for Hillary Clinton to have an honest shot at the nomination.

And Dean gets an “F” for remaining silent while sexism and misogyny ran rampant within the Democratic Party. (Sorry, Howie, the weak admission after it was all over didn’t cut it for anyone.).

But Obama and company should be very grateful to Howard Dean for pushing that 50 state strategy, one that probably helped account for Obama’s win in some previously red states. Whether Dean gets rewarded or stays flopping about in the street as the DNC limo speeds off remains yet to be seen.

The attacks on Sarah Palin are horrendously sexist and wholly unfair.

The media is making it seem as if the Republican party is eating her alive and is reporting horrendously ridiculous hearsay as fact. They have even abandoned any pretense at calling the ridiculous rumors “alleged” or “supposed.”

The assertion that Palin had no idea that Africa was a continent with several countries, but was a country with several states is hard to believe at best. This woman is a college graduate from a major university, not a college drop out. This woman is a governor of the largest and one of the most important states in the country. This woman debated international relations with one of the most knowledgeable foreign policy experts in the country, Joe Biden, and held her own.

And yet, the media just accepts the word of “unnamed” sources… omitting of the fact that last week a staffer was fired for rumor mongering and alleging that other staffers had made certain comments that were never made.

Sarah Palin came on the national scene with what is arguably the biggest eruption of support of all time. Even Barack Obama’s meteoric rise took the 4 years from the 2004 convention to now. Sarah’s was massive and it was instant. The Republican base rallied around her and loved her like she was the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

Then the media stepped in.

The first interviews Palin had with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson were bad… really bad. But then the transcripts came out, and three things came to light.

1. Sarah Palin has not yet learned how to speak in a soundbite media world. Her explanations were longer, a bit more meandering, but solid and logical when taken as a whole.

2. The reporters played gotcha games, asking questions that were intended to trap her into statements without allowing for elaboration.

3. The interviews were HIGHLY edited. Palin’s answers were cut and pasted to other questions, qualifiers were deleted, elaborations were eliminated and anything that would make Palin look like a good competent Governor were eliminated… even down to Couric refusing to address her as “Governor Palin.”

The “News” is no longer an unbiased thing. Unbiased Journalism is dead, and has been for a long time. The News is a narrative, it is a story, and it is a story that is intended to garner ratings. Interviews are part of that story too.

I will let you in on a little secret. If you ever watch an “unbiased” interview with someone or read a “fair” article about someone and you come away with a really good or a really bad impression of someone… it is intentional and don’t you ever believe otherwise.

The left wanted Palin to look like a fool… she scared the bejusus out of them, and so the media began the story that Palin was an idiot through disparaging commentary, manipulated interviews, omission of her positives and derision through “parody.” They created a narrative and now it has gone out of control!

John McCain’s loss is now being blamed on Sarah Palin. Totally Ridiculous.

John McCain faced the most unlikely odds of winning the Presidency… well, possibly ever.

John McCain won the Republican nomination for 3 reasons. First, he is a good, honorable man with a long history of service and is universally admired by both sides of the aisle. Second, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney split the religious and most conservative parts of the Republican base. If not for Huckabee taking votes away from Romney, it is less likely that McCain would have become the nominee. The third reason is that most Republicans realized that McCain was the only one that could have won this election because he was the only one in the field of candidates that could garner votes from the middle… though that did not really translate into support from the conservative base.

The nomination of Sarah Palin was a masterstroke of political maneuvering. Palin instantly ignited the conservative base, divided the traditional democratic bloc of feminists and brought the McCain campaign back into the spotlight.

For the last two months of the primary, once it was obvious that John McCain became the nominee, the Republican side of the election went from being a sideshow to a footnote. McCain was barely garnering back page news and virtually no television coverage, even as he did things and reached out to people as no Republican had done in 40+ years.

In the second and a half it takes to say the name “Sarah Palin” that all changed, and she came out like a fireball… until the media got a hold of her.

Then her support, as planned, began to falter a bit. She went from being loved to well liked by the base, the middle drew back at the wholly unfair caricature that the media portrayed her as being, and the left went into panic mode.

The fact that she fought corruption on both sides of the aisle, that she holds one of the top 5 most powerful Governorships in the country, that she is the Commander In Chief of the only permanently active duty national guard in the country, and that she has the highest approval rating of any governor in the United States… by far, was totally omitted by the media.

The exit poll statistics actually show that, for the people that the VP decision made a difference, Sarah Palin actually garnered a 3-4% boost for McCain. A boost.

The reason that McCain lost was not because of Palin. He really lost because:

1. The absolute and blatant worship and fealty shown to Barack Obama on the part of the media. I wouldn’t even know where to start it was so obvious and shameful. From tingly legs, to greatest speeches of all time that need to be taught in schools, to out and out lies about Palin, to total deletions of positive attributes, to comments such as “the one,” to the total pass given to the Obama/Biden gaffe machine… the bias and lopsided coverage was horrendous. But he almost did.

2. The absolute Iron Albatross of George W. Bush and his administration. An incumbent President of his own party with the lowest approval rating in history is a nearly impossible thing to overcome… but he almost did.

3. Then the economic crash happened. This is what doomed his candidacy. The general public does not understand that the President actually has very little control over the things that happen in the country, but because he/she is the symbol of America and the biggest spokesperson, the President is always the one to blame. The fact that it is really Congress that deals with and manages the minutia of domestic legislation and regulation is totally lost on them. Even though they may consciously understand, unconsciously they need to blame 1 person and not the nebulous “Congress” and so it falls on the shoulders of the President. Besides, the public never expects anything out of Congress, but demands perfection out of the President… thus we get a Congress with a single digit approval rating and yet the onus of the last few years falls to Bush.

4. The conservative/religious right that makes up the base of the Republican party abandoned them. Many of the evangelicals that bothered to vote, in fact, voted for Barack Obama. The conservatives, on the other hand, never really liked McCain that much anyway and didn’t show up at the polls. The turnout in overall numbers were basically the same as 4 years ago, but the numbers of Democrats that showed up and were willing to wait in line to vote far out numbered the Republicans willing to do the same.

The story that the media is not covering is that Barack Obama did not win because he had a mandate from the people, it is because John McCain did not have a mandate from his own party. If you go back and look at the statistics and exit polls, especially in the battlegrounds, you see a distinct weakness in turnout from the base of the Republican party. If the base of the Republican party had turned out in states such as Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia and Florida in the same numbers they did in 2004, then John McCain would have been President. They did not… not even close.

5. McCain’s campaign staff gave up weeks ago. They decided after the economic crash and the last Presidential debate that there was no way that John McCain was going to win, and they just plain gave up. The effectiveness of McCain’s message dropped like a rock because they stopped crafting arguments. I am going to guess that the campaign staffers were having conflicts with Palin because she is such a fireball and was on the attack, but because there were no finely crafted arguments coming from the campaign, she had to wing it. It was incredibly sad that the most effective argument in the last few weeks of the general election came not from the McCain campaign, but from a plumber that just happened to run into Barack Obama in his driveway. With McCain’s staff in total disarray, they only have themselves to blame… but like Barny Frank and Fannie Mae, they can’t allow it to look like it was their fault.

So why is there a frenzy of attacks on Palin? Well, two reasons really…

1. The left wants her attacked and diminished as much as possible to prevent a possible future as a potent force in national politics. She has the potential to become the next Ron Reagan to the Republicans with the honor of a John McCain. Her future is filled with incredible potential and she could follow the same meteoric path that Barack Obama has, even possibly eclipsing him. That is not something that the left can allow, so they have to diminish her as much as possible and the attacks will only get more vicious in the short term because they no longer have to worry about the immediate rejection of those criticizing her and the immediate impact on votes. They are much more free to become unhinged in their attacks now that the election cycle is over.

2. Part of the Republican Party wants to blame everyone but themselves. They don’t want to admit that they were unable to activate the base or even that they lost the base. They want to blame an external force instead of their utter failure as a party to get things done, and while they cannot turn on John McCain, they unflappable Lion of the party, they can easily turn on Palin… the woman that already has the narrative thanks to the left and to the media.

In short… Sarah Palin is being attacked from the left to prevent her from being a super star and from the right so that they can blame someone other than themselves.

Period.

This is cross posted from my blog Texas Hill Country

Or how about Georgia where the fraud looks to have involved over 100,000 people. Yes, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE. Registered to vote in Georgia, as well as FL or OH.

But hey, let’s not talk about this stuff anymore, okay? That would be a real downer, a killjoy, a buzzkill, and just plain racist. So, let’s just not mention it, shall we? It is only our democracy at stake, but no worries - we have our first biracial president, so all is right with our world!

Oh, no, instead the MSM will spend countless hours talking about what kind of puppy the Obama girls are going to get, and about Obama meeting with the Actual President (which I say that way since so many of the Obamaborg seem to think he is instantly president - does NO ONE take Civics classes anymore?), and his getting his national security briefings. How could I forget? His choosing his cabinet. Oh, yes - that is a fun one - and this is a little shout out to all of my female university teaching family - how about that Lawrence Summers as possible Treasury Secretary? Remember him? The one who had to leave the presidency at Harvard because of his SEXIST TREATMENT OF WOMEN???? Just more of the same from Obama.

Oh, there are a few women’s names bandied around for his cabinet positions, but not as many as the men, that’s for sure. I guess Dr. Lynette Long was right on target when she reported this:

“I want gender parity. I want Obama to go on National television and announce the he will select a female running mate and that half of his cabinet will be women.” He was silent for a second and then sheepishly replied, “We can’t do that?” “Why not?” I asked. “We are over half the population?” “We can’t do that! What if there isn’t a competent woman?” I was stunned. “There are 300 million people in this country, and you can’t find a handful of competent women for the cabinet?” I chided. “You want affirmative action. I don’t believe in affirmative action.” “That’s my offer, take it or leave it.” He left it and guess what, he hasn’t called me any more.

Obama doesn’t believe in supporting women. I’ll use a recent NYT article as evidence. It cited that Obama has 300 foreign policy advisers. The times posted pictures of the top twenty-one of them. Two were women. That’s less than ten percent. So much for parity. So much for the politics of change.

Yeah, and I haven’t heard any woman’s name floated for any part of Obama’s cabinet, have you?

Here’s why I am so damn cranky today, besides all of the ranting above: the Democrats are acting EXACTLY like the Republicans did in 2000. EXACTLY. Ignoring all of the fraud, claiming the “losers” need to get over it, Obama is a Uniter and a Healer, and will make America proud again. Blech. What a crock. This man has not even served a full term in the Senate, and the vast majority of his time there has been spent CAMPAIGNING! Since when is that sufficient experience for the highest office in the land? Even assuming there was no caucus fraud, or Convention fraud, or RBC fraud, or voter fraud, even assuming ALL of that, Obama is WOEFULLY inexperienced, unqualified, and unprepared. Not to mention homophobic and misogynistic. Oh, and ARROGANT as all hell. What a guy.

I understand that many African Americans are ecstatic that “one of their own” is now the President-Elect. But as Patsy from the “Our View - withPatsy and Sugar” on NoQuarter Radio said last night, Obama did NOT grow up like the vast majority of African Americans in this country, he did not grow up in their community. I guess it really doesn’t matter that he is bi-racial, and raised by the white side of the family. Why let facts inform the fantasy? Shut up already! Ahem.

Finally, there is the whole “the voting was of RECORD proportions!” meme being spread far and wide by the Obama Propaganda News. How else to say this? Well, it’s a crock of hooey. The difference between this election and the last one? One percentage point more! Oh, dear goddess, He really IS the Messiah! WOWIE ZOWIE!!!!! Uh, yeah, no, not really. It is not a record turnout, as it turns out. Just one more notch in the “reality” surrounding the candidate, uh, President-Elect, who has rewritten his history whenever it suits. Unfortunately, it suits him a whole bunch.

See, just like Bush in 2000. Only this time the shoe is on the other foot. The Democrats could care less about the irony of it all, the fraud of it all, as long as they won. It really is upside down world now…And it makes me cranky as hell.

Throughout this campaign season, any attempts to discern the “content of (Obama’s) character” have been thwarted by the Propaganda Machine, formerly known as the Fourth Estate, his handlers, the DNC, and his followers who claim, irrationally, I might add, the “Obama will heal us!” as Cher did on The Ellen Degeneres Show Nov. 3rd, as if he truly IS the Obamessiah, ignoring the tremendous splitting of the country, of the Democratic Party itself.

For the first time in memory, a candidate was NOT “known by the company he keeps,” “the birds of a feather which flocked together.” Rather, any mention of Bill Ayers was met, even by university professors with the illogical justification that Obama was only 8 when Bill Ayers and his compatriot, Bernadine Dorhn, were bombing the US Capitol, Pentagon, and other US buildings.

That may be so, but the ideology which drove Ayers and Dorhn is the ideology to which they still adhere. Obama has chosen to have them in his life, to live near them, work with them, and seek them out, as we recently learned for sure (as many of us suspected, and confirmed in this article by Steve Diamond at No Quarter, “Ayers and Obama In Regular Contact Says Source Close to Obama Candidacy“).

The list of his close associates in addition to Ayers and Dorhn are troubling: Rezko, Wright, Khalidi, Kilpatrick, Farakkhan, Blogajevich, et al, a list that contains convicted felons and one under investigation. I have said before, and will say again, any ONE of these people would have sunk any other candidacy, yet in the case of Obama, they were brushed aside as irrelevant. As was the glaring reality that Obama took the majority of his policy positions, often lock, stock, and barrel, from Hillary Clinton. But the Propaganda arm flipped it around, and his minions, again, many university professors, brushed aside his plagiarism as inconsequential. What a great lesson they are teaching their students, and their children.

Along those lines, I am in disbelief that adults, people who would not hire Obama at their own universities or businesses with his refusal to provide ANY documentation of his academic life, or allow friends, families, or fellow students to discuss him to ANYONE trying to get information on this first term senator running for the highest office in the land, would gladly give this man their votes.

I despair that adults, and their children, believe that the means justify the ends, that hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations, over 200,000 in Ohio, and 212,000 discovered in Georgia, in which voters were registered in GA, as well as OH or FL, are dismissed because as one neighbor, a retired university professor said, “ACORN does great work.” The level of voter registration fraud was through the ceiling, as the 16 investigations into ACORN indicate, yet the Propagandists say NOTHING about this as Obama “wins” contests in states where voter registration fraud was rampant. Even duplicate voting is brushed aside, as this video demonstrates (and h/t to a listener of Truthteller’s Election Night Radio Show mentioned):

Um, no - it is NOT okay for anyone to vote more than once in an election. It is FRAUD, and it is ILLEGAL!! But we already know there were instances of this in OH and FL. Heck, in VA, felons were allowed, no, RECRUITED, to vote for Obama, but absentee ballots to our military serving abroad went out late, sparking a lawsuit to make sure THEIR votes were counted. And on and on it goes.

As I said, I despair that adults are teaching our young people that you cheat, lie, and steal to get what you want. While you are at it, make sure you are a sore loser, hammering away at the vanquished in a juvenile, mean-spirited manner, never having learned the concept of gracious winning (especially when the “winning” is suspect). These are the same people who said NOTHING, or were SUPPORTIVE, of the Democratic Party forever smearing its very name by stealing votes from one candidate to give to another. The ends justify the means, and if that means we tarnish, tear down, belittle, smear, and steal from a candidate to win, so be it. Oh - and blame them for it, too, while we are at it as the NY Times did in an incredibly offensive editorial it had up last night celebrating Obama’s defeat of Clinton (I won’t link to it - go find it yourself if you want to read that dribble). We have now taught our young people that you can register as many times as you want, and vote as often as you want - just like on “American Idol”! - to make sure YOUR candidate wins. Fair and square is old school. Now it is win at all and any costs, and belittle your opponent while you are at it.

Then there are the issues of misogyny and race-baiting that sustained this campaign, with the willing participation of the Propaganda Arm, Obama, and the DNC. The treatment of women during this campaign was a low I have not seen in DECADES, yet many women were willing participants to this abuse, claiming even as Obama contradicted them, that he was going to be great for women. Ask Hillary. Ask Sarah. Ask those folks wearing, “Sarah Palin Is a C–t” t-shirts, or the organization that used the “C-word” as its acronym regarding Hillary. Women were treated as not just objects, but as sexual anatomy period, in a most vulgar and derogatory way. Still, since it was the DNC, too many women accepted this treatment from the very party of which they are the majority. How they can celebrate the future presidency of a man who treats women in such a hostile manner is beyond me. That goes for the GLBT community, too. But hey - they got their “Bro Before Ho,” so I know they are happy.

The race baiting that was used to tear down our only two term Democratic president in decades was horrendous to watch, especially as members serving in Congress, people whom President Clinton had helped personally, went out of their way to paint him with the stigma of being racist. Hillary, too. Two people who have worked TIRELESSLY to end discrimination in this people were called racists, and it stuck. Then anyone who would not, could not, imagine voting for the most inexperienced, unqualified candidate who was taking Chicago-style politics national, with his thugs attacking people around the country, were labeled, no, BRANDED racists if they did not support Obama. As women’s rights have been set back decades after this election season, so have been race relations. All in the service of getting this man elected because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character, which is still largely ignored or unexplored by the electorate and the Propagandists.

I do not think this is what Dr. King had in mind. I do not think this is what our founders had in mind, either. This election, with its win at all costs, even if it means cheating, lying, and stealing, is not democracy. It surely isn’t decent. And it is not the American Way. At the moment, I can’t see how this will change - how we will regain any semblance of justice, of knowing right from wrong, of being ethical, moral, good. Yes, we made history last night, but I ask you, at what cost to us, to our country? I weep for us today, at what we have become. I have to hope, and pray, that we will regain what we have lost, but for today, grief overwhelms me.

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.

Obama and Wright: He Never Complained Once

Read Text of Ad — Click Here

Donate Now to Have This Ad Air in Swing States — Click Here

GOPTrust has raised $4.5 million, and is reaching out to all of us — time is of the essence — for another $2 million to get their ads on all of the major networks, and in all the battleground states. From its site:

• Urgent Letter From Scott Wheeler About Barack Obama
• Joe the Plumber and Obama’s 3 Biggest Lies
• Urgent Letter Re: Obama’s Plan for Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
• FACT SHEET: Obama’s Record on Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
• FACT SHEET: William Ayers - Barack Obama
• FACT SHEET: Obama’s Dismal Record
  on Illegal Aliens
• Dick Morris Praises National Republican Trust PAC

HERE are more GOPTrust.com ads, and news:

Barack Obama: The Redistributor

Read Text of Ad — Click Here

Donate Now to Have This Ad Air in Swing States — Click Here

:::::::::::::::

Visit GOPTrust’s site where you can view its other ads, read all the accompanying transcripts, and donate to get these ads on the air everywhere, especially the battleground states.

Florida polls are reporting a slight uptick for McCain and a downturn of several points for Obama. As the race tightens, McCain’s economic message seems to be hitting home and Senator Obama’s rare unscripted moment continues to haunt him. His blunder gave voters the clearest picture yet of Senator Obama’s tax plans for us.

Today, popular Florida Governor Charlie Christ is featured on the new McCain/Palin radio ad “Spread the Wealth.”� In it, he supports McCain and is also campaigning with him around the state, saying McCain’s economic plan will create millions of new jobs in America:

GOV. CHRIST:

Let me tell you why I support my friend John McCain. He will lower your taxes. He will stop wasteful government spending. And John McCain knows that people don’t want to “spread the wealth.” He knows that Congress should let you keep more of your money, and not take it away. Thank you very much.

ANNCR:

Your savings, your job and your financial security are under siege. Congressional liberals will make it worse. Congressional liberals plan nearly a trillion dollars in new government spending. To pay for it, Congressional liberals promise higher taxes on American families making over $42,000 a year. Barack Obama and Congressional liberals call it spreading the wealth around, we call it higher taxes, bigger government. Either way, it will cost you. Stop ‘em before they make it worse.

Let’s examine these claims more closely:

According to the editorial, “A Bad Scenario“� in Investors Business Daily:

Under an Obama Administration there would be “Nearly $1 Trillion” In New Spending. “Absent enormous cuts in government spending — and Barack Obama alone promises new spending of nearly $1 trillion — there will be no hope of anything resembling a balanced budget.”

PolitiFact’s article ““‘Paid For’ Without Real Money,”� discredits Obama’s claim that his proposals are “paid for;”� saying his rhetoric is “disingenuous.”

“Until he fleshes out his economic plan considerably more, it’s disingenuous to go around claiming his proposals are ‘paid for.’ And that claim is even more suspect considering that his proposals would leave a larger deficit than would the tax laws currently on the books. We find his claim to be Barely True.”

Responding to Obama’s voting in favor of the Democrats’ FY 2009 budget resolution, FactCheck.org’s “The $32,000 Question”� states:

The Democrats’ Budget Raises Taxes On Individuals Earning Approximately $42,000 Or More. “The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000. The $32,000 figure is approximately the taxable income of a single person making $41,500 per year, after all deductions and exclusions.”

Senator Obama would rather Joe and the rest of us not connect the dots on the fine print of any of his plans but instead offers pie in the sky rhetoric.

From the WSJ’s editorial, “Obama’s ‘Patriot’ Act”:

“Put another way, U.S. companies would suddenly have to pay a higher tax rate than their Chinese, Japanese and European competitors. Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.”

David Leonhardt in his Op-Ed, “How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy,” New York Times Magazine, 8/24/08, states that “aside from calling for higher taxes, Obama still lacks a coherent economic message”�:

“Obama, has … a less obvious ideology. Well before this point on the presidential calendar, it’s usually clear where a candidate fits within the political spectrum of his party. With Obama, there is vast disagreement about just how liberal he is, especially on the economy. … Some of the confusion stems from Obama’s own strategy of presenting himself as a postpartisan figure. A few weeks ago, I joined him on a flight from Orlando to Chicago and began our conversation by asking about his economic approach. He started to answer, but then interrupted himself. ‘My core economic theory is pragmatism,’ he said, ‘figuring out what works.’ This, of course, is not the whole story. Invoking pragmatism doesn’t help the average voter much; ideology, though it often gets a bad name, matters, because it offers insight into how a candidate might actually behave as president.”

Obama’s lack of an economic message has contributed to his “worst moments” on the campaign trail, and resulted in policies “that seem more political than economic.”

No kidding. Uh, a Manchurian candidate perhaps? As John McCain stated this week, “Obama will say anything to get elected.”� Leonhardt’s article was written the week of the Democratic Convention. After 20 months of campaigning, how is it possible he still had no indication of what this guy is going to do?

“The lack of such a message [on the economy] has contributed to several of his worst moments over the last year. Most recently, the campaign has come out with a series of small-bore, populist energy plans — a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, a crackdown on speculators, a partial opening of the strategic oil reserve — that seem more political than economic. The most glaring misstep on this score was his comment this spring about bitter rural voters clinging to guns and religion. It was, in effect, an admission that his own message about the economy hadn’t yet broken through.”�

Most devastating is this comment from Leonhardt:

For all his skills as a storyteller and a speaker, he has not settled on a compelling message about how to put the economy on the right path.

That is quite obvious. No wonder Obama’s statements to Joe the plumber were so damaging.

Governor Crist told FOX News, McCain should “continue to focus on the state, continue to do the things that matter to my fellow Floridians. Talk about, you know, reducing their taxes, putting more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. That’s a winning message, and that’s John McCain’s message.”

Apparently, John McCain’s message is starting to get through. At the booth, people vote security and their pocketbook. This is not the primary. Flirting with “American Idol”� is over. It’s gut check time.

Here’s the original 10/12/08 transcript of the exchange between the now famous Joe “the Plumber”� Wurzelbacher and Senator Obama. This is what happens when Senator Obama is off the prompter:

JOE: “I’m a plumber. You know, I work, you know, 10, 12 hours a day. If I buy another truck and add something else to it, and you know, build the company…”
OBAMA: “Right.”
JOE: “… you know, I’m getting taxed more and more.”
OBAMA: “Nobody likes high taxes.”
JOE: “No, not at all.”
OBAMA: “Right? Of course not. So — but what’s happened is, is that we end up — we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than $250,000. We haven’t given a break to folks who make less. It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too. And everybody is so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

I guess Mr. Leonhardt now has his answer about Obama’s economic message. As do we all.

Joe the Plumber exposed the man behind the mask. When Obama could no longer use smoke and mirrors on the economy, Obama, his supporters and the compliant drive-by media resorted to vilifying an innocent bystander. Joe Wurzelbacher’s life is upside down as a result. One of our posters, Propertius, had a brilliant comment about Senator Obama’s actions:

What appalled me about the “Joe”� incident wasn’t Obama’s policy itself - it was the condescension and hostility towards an ordinary voter who just asked him a simple question (followed, of course, by the concerted effort to completely destroy him on the part of Obama himself, Biden, and their churlish ovine catamites in the media and on the net).

This bothered me for a couple of reasons: first, if you can’t tolerate dissent you have no business being the leader of a republic. Second, what does his simultaneously lame and virulent response say about his ability to handle himself under pressure? If an ordinary, Ohio plumber can get under Obama’s skin this way, what will Putin do to him? I really don’t want to find out.

Does anyone think John McCain would have behaved in such a fashion toward someone asking a simple question about his business?

I don’t claim to be a fan of Dennis Miller, but he made a recent on-air comment in response to Obama’s smearing of the opposition and his flagrant use of the race card to destroy those who would question his judgment, background, lack of experience or policies:

“I don’t have a problem with the color of Senator Obama’s skin, I have a problem with the thinness of it.”�

I want to elect a President who is going to protect me, not someone I have to protect.

It will be interesting to see if Floridians agree.

Hot off the presses is this final report from Peniel Cronin, the author of an incredible study, “2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election: Primary versus Caucus: How millions of voters were systematically disenfranchised and election results were skewed,” available at Dr. Lynette Long’s site, which contains a great deal of information on issues of caucus fraud.

Ms. Cronin’s final study, “2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election: The People’s Vote: Delegate Allocation Per Original Votes Cast” is an eye-opener (and is available at the bottom of this post). No Quarter is quite fortunate that Ms. Cronin is allowing US to break this story! Thank you!!

The bottom line is this - had the RBC not interfered, the difference between the PLEDGED delegates would have been - wait for it - 4 (FOUR). Yes, I said 4. And, while caucuses accounted for only 2.9% of voters, they accounted for over 14% of pledged delegates. Never even mind all of the massive caucus irregularities that benefited one person - Obama. Still, the bottom line difference: 4 delegates, AND Clinton won the popular vote. Holy smokes.

Before I go further, allow me to introduce Ms. Cronin to you, and present her credentials:

Peniel Cronin has been President & CEO of Global Basics since 1993. Cronin holds a B.S. in Accounting from Arizona State University and has over 16 years experience as an accountant and Director of Marketing for several SMEs.

Cronin directs product development and market research and developed the algorithms that power the eNameWiz multilingual domain creation and advanced Name Analytics technology.

Enterprise clients through Global Basics have included the Arizona Office of Tourism, the Nevada Commission on Tourism, the Arizona Shopping Consortium, Shop America Alliance, America West Airlines, Southwest Airlines, AeroMexico and numerous other travel and domain industry organizations. Cronin holds three US & German Patents, several trademarks and numerous copyrights.

Cronin has had a disability for 43 years since a car accident in 1965. She was the Director of Marketing for one of the largest Independent Living Centers in the US for over 5 years and is a disability rights activist, speaker, trainer, and peer mentor to both people with disabilities and minority/women business owners.

What an amazing woman she is!

And now to the results Ms. Cronin has compiled. It will knock your socks off to see the actual numbers, the graphs, and machinations involved to get Obama the nomination. Many of us are aware of the level of caucus fraud that occurred over the Democratic Primaries, but the Numbers Don’t Lie, and here they are, including a spreadsheet of the votes state-by-state (click on the page to enlarge it):

Wow, right? There is more in this excellent report, but I thought this was of particular interest regarding the whole caucus returns:

Perhaps most troubling of all the elements that impacted the final delegate count was the lack of reliable election results –i.e., the undisclosed voter attendance data and non-certified caucus vote counts from 4 of the 6 largest caucus states in terms of votes cast. Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine did not even report total voter turnout and votes.

Together, these states cast an estimated 558,000 of the 1,057,136 million total caucus votes for Obama and Clinton. Thus, 53% of the total votes reported from the 13 caucus states were a guesstimate based on state Democratic Party estimates of voter turnout or based on projections by various researchers and news organizations.

Notably, the reported vote totals varied depending on the projection made by different news organizations and election researchers. There was no certification of results (and probably no solid audit trail) that would provide an exact vote count
as required to be reported through a primary voting system.

In addition to these 4 states, there were no solid vote-count numbers presented for the Texas caucus. In fact, the election vote tally there stopped after approximately 41% of the precincts had reported results.

From a delegate standpoint, these 4 caucus states plus the Texas caucus accounted for 239 pledged delegates – 48% of the total 498 pledged allocated to all caucuses.

Holy moly. Who knew that these were “ESTIMATES” and not actual counts for these caucuses? So let me understand this - not only did Obama have these caucuses gamed, but in most of them, they didn’t even bother to COUNT them all?? Um, counting isn’t rocket science, after all - addition is something you learn early on in grammar school. But it didn’t happen in this election. That seems to be a theme for the Democratic Primaries - “let’s not bother to count all of the votes this year, okey dokie?” Uh, yeah.

There is more, and I highly recommend you read the rest of it (it is short, but powerful). In conclusion, Ms. Cronin offers these thoughts (with slight corrections to web addresses):

With the overall election results being so starkly different between the two voting systems used – primary versus caucus,and given all the reports (and actual signed affidavits) of irregularities and fraud, why didn’t the DNC call for an investigation into the caucus results?

With so many complaints of irregularities, why didn’t superdelegates stop and question the legitimacy of the delegate count reported? As representatives of the people, why didn’t they look back to the pledged delegate count as determined
by the People’s Vote – the original votes cast and take note of Clinton’s 175,000 vote-victory margin over Obama and consider the flawed nature of the caucus system along with the small number of total votes the caucus-goers represented – before casting their votes which in the end selected Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee? *

Think about it: 239 delegates, nearly half of all caucus pledged delegates, were impacted! That is more than enough to skew or sway any competitive election. And with what justification: under-funded, Party-financed elections, inadequate
volunteers to staff and monitor the caucuses, sloppy audit and paper trail systems? The State Democratic parties that run and finance caucus elections should not follow a separate, less-compliant set of rules. The DNC should act quickly to reform caucus voting systems and State Parties must be mandated to comply or get out of the electioneering business.

How is Democracy or the American voter served by the flawed caucus voting system or the Party’s blindness to it? Caucuses, while exemplary as a forum of debate and discussion, must be reformed or abandoned as a voting system before the next election cycle. Never again should the will of the majority of voters be thwarted by the will of the minority.

To read my original research entitled “2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election: Primary versus Caucus: How millions of voters were systemically disenfranchised and election results were skewed” and to investigate caucus fraud issues further, go to: http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud/statistics/ and http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/. I also recommend “Has America Outgrown the Caucus?” by Tova Wang a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation.

Another point to be made in terms of why the superdelegates did (or did not) do as they did was money, hence the *. I recommend this video by HRCinO8 to you - it is one you may have seen before, but it emphasizes how much money Obama shelled out to superdelegates.

These are excellent questions, Ms. Cronin. Another question raised in our email exchanges prior to this article was: Did ACORN have any involvement in the rampant caucus fraud that occurred this year? As of yet, I have no proof one way or the other, and would certainly be interested in any certifiable, authentic connections. It does seem plausible to me, though, given the extent of their voter registration fraud. Why would they do one and not the other?

And given the extent of that voter registration fraud, Ms. Cronin also questioned voting Third Party this year since the potential fraud is so pervasive that every vote against corruption is critical. While we know Gore actually won FL, the votes siphoned off to Nader made it easier to ignore the actual recount tally (post-Supreme Court decision). I think Ms. Cronin makes a good point regarding third party voting and the query about any connection to ACORN. I would like to thank her for making sense of all of the caucus irregularities and for showing, clearly, what we all suspected and knew in our hearts - that the DNC appointed Obama its nominee, not the votes or will of the people. For that, they have some ’splaining to do…

From Wikipedia:

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Democratic Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate.

Well, a couple days ago, Hastings was speaking to a group of Jewish Democrats and exhorted them to vote for Obama because Palin is dangerous.

OK, he didn’t say “dangerous.” I paraphrased. This is what he said according to CNN:

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. Hastings, who is African-American, was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.

Hastings clearly was speaking to a sympathetic audience and thought he could “let his [completely metaphoric] hair down.” I guess this is why:

The support of Jewish voters is shaping up to be a highly sought after prize in the general election match-up between Sen. Obama and Sen. John McCain. Jews have historically favored Democrats by wide margins in recent presidential races. But, the McCain campaign is making a concerted effort to go after the loyal Democratic constituency and Obama has been plagued by false Internet rumors that he is Muslim which have had particular salience in the Jewish community.

So, is it just Alaskans in general or only Sarah Palin who couldn’t care less about Jews and blacks? I guess Alcee forgot that old saying that when you point one finger at someone else, 3 point back at you.

Is Axelrod right? Could it be McCain has energized his base but that Obama remains ahead?

Using Electoral-Vote.com’s numbers, I created a list of red states and compared Obama’s numbers to Kerry’s percentages in 2004. All but three of the state polls are post-Palin.

This is not a comprehensive list of all red states. However, I believe it’s a fair representation of reliable Republican states. Our purpose is to see if there’s been an uptick for McCain over Obama relative to the previous presidential election.

All battleground states are out, regardless of who won in 2004. Additionally, I did not include red states which Obama is now actively fighting for, like Virginia, or historically red states like New Hampshire, which Kerry won. In most states, there’s no difference in the relative position between Kerry’s final result and Obama’s current standing; in other states Obama is actually doing better than Kerry.

Let’s take a look at Axelrod’s assertion that red states are becoming redder:

As you can see, Obama is faring no worse than John Kerry did. In fact, the current state of the race is remarkably similar to the final results in 2004. It follows, then, that state polls reflect similar numbers as 2004. Obama’s weak numbers, as I believe Axelrod is implying, are not coming from intolerant red state voters. According to Rasmussen, McCain is leading Obama by approximately 2%, and in 2004 Bush beat Kerry by 2.4%. Obama is performing in Republican states about as well as any Democrat could be expected.

Contrary to Axelrod’s statement, Obama’s decline in national polling is not due to inordinately low numbers in deep-red states. Indeed, the opposite is true: Obama is under-performing in reliably Democratic states. As Truthteller demonstrates with the spreadsheet below, Obama is under-performing in blue states such as New York (population 20 million) and New Jersey (population 9 million). These high population Democratic states will skew national numbers far more than low population red states like North Dakota (population 640,000), while Republican Texas (population 24 million), where Obama is in nearly the same spot as Kerry, is easily offset by the densely populated California and Illinois, both states where Obama is doing very well. Additionally, Obama is trending down in the swing state of Ohio:

	New York	New Jersey	Minnesota	Pennsylvania	Ohio
McCain-Palin	41	45	45	47	48
Obama-Biden	46	48	45	47	45

Because of these weak blue- and swing-state numbers, Obama now has to defend more real estate than McCain. Truthteller writes:

So now Obama must invest precious and finite resources in states such as New Jersey and New York. And instead of campaigning in Arkansas, Nevada, Florida or Louisiana, he will hold events in Minnesota, a state that should be solidly Democratic in the current political climate. He may even have to campaign in New York now that McCain is within five points of the underperforming Obama.

And Hill Buzz sees a potential map-changer in McCain:

If McCain was only leading in Utah by 5 points, we’d say this election was over, and that McCain would lose GOP strongholds.

Instead, the opposite seems to be true. SoetorObama leads in NY by only 5 points, in NJ by 3 points, and in MI and PA by just 2 points.

To us, it looks like McCain could be the one changing the electoral map this year, with traditionally blue states having a better chance of turning red instead of the other way around.

Shortly after Obama’s grandiose trip to Europe, I wrote: “I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America.” There’s nothing earth-shattering in my suggestion, but I think that’s exactly what’s so troubling about the Obama campaign. It’s not the economy, it’s the arrogance. I think Obama’s odd trip to Europe — and the arrogance of selecting Biden over Hillary — is at the heart of many of Obama’s troubles today. The American people will vote for Ivy League candidates, but only those who come to their towns to listen and not to lecture.

Obama’s arrogance is now becoming a matter of concern for Democratic strategists. The statement below by an unnamed source in the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph should send fear into the hearts of Obama’s supporters:

A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: “These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They’re the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won’t accept that they are losing and they won’t listen.”

With this mentality, it’s no wonder Axelrod is blaming Obama’s woes on red states. Ani writes:

Of course there is a bunker mentality. Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, must protect his carefully sculpted media creation at all costs. Their whole strategy has been to overwhelm their way into the presidency with huge rallies and concerts, presidential emblems, soaring rhetoric and platitudes.