By the best estimation there are only 47 people that should vote for Barack Obama.

Let’s count them up:

Only 47 people know Obama well enough to actually vote for him.  For the rest of America he is an unknown.  No one can legitimately go into that booth, send in that absentee ballot or pretend to be a dead guy and vote for Barack Obama and feel that they know who he is, or what he stands for!

There are far too many anti-Semites in Obama’s past for this to be a coincidence!  The list is long: Khalid al-Mansour, Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq), Mazen Asbahi, Minha Husaini, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and of course, his babysitter, Rashid Khalidi.

The causes of tension, between African Americans and Jews in America, are unclear but it is obvious that they exist.  Despite many years of hard work in the civil rights movement, it is obvious that many Black leaders do not like Jews.

Barack Obama’s attendance at dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a radical professor and activist tied to the PLO, is quite probably a product of those tensions and should be construed as tacit acceptance of many anti-Semitic positions taken by the radicals that he calls “acquaintances.”  It would take a man of courage to stand up (as many Jews did for Blacks in the 60’s and 70’s) to all the people that surround him, who are espousing racist views, and denounce the hate-filled speeches as wrong.  Obama must agree with the bile effused by his many friends or he is not a courageous man. 

This blog has called Barack Obama out on his cowardice* on several occasions.  If the country is hoodwinked into electing him president, he must demonstrate that he is a better, braver man than he was in the past.  Cowards do not make good presidents.

* http://moderatelyconservative.blogtownhall.com/2008/09/29/obama’s_cowardice.thtml

The causes of tension, between African Americans and Jews in America, are unclear but it is obvious that they exist.  Despite many years of hard work in the civil rights movement, it is clear that many Black leaders do not like Jews.

Barack Obama’s attendance at dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a radical professor and activist tied to the PLO, is quite probably a product of those tensions and should be construed as tacit acceptance of many anti-Semitic positions taken by the radicals that he calls “acquaintances.”  It would take a man of courage to stand up (as many Jews did for Blacks in the 60’s and 70’s) to all the people that surround him, who are espousing racist views, and denounce the hate-filled speeches as wrong.  Obama must agree with the bile effused by his friends, or he is not a man of courage.

This blog has called Barack Obama out on his cowardice* on several occasions.  If the country is hoodwinked into electing him president, he must demonstrate that he is a better, braver man than he was in the past.  Cowards do not make good presidents.

* http://moderatelyconservative.blogtownhall.com/2008/09/29/obama’s_cowardice.thtml

If "the tape”* were harmless Obama would call for its release.  This story could strain the Shotgun Scale of Press Bias.** (It’s a 10/1, but clearly it could possibly go right off the scale.)

• http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/mccain-slams-la-times-double-standard-withholding-obama-khalidi-tape/

** http://moderatelyconservative.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/27/quantifying_journalistic_integrity.thtml

The caricature of Governor Palin that the Left has created in close collaboration with the media may be wearing off.  She is breaking through the distortions and creating the image that she may be a real woman, a person of substance with genuine emotions and actual accomplishments.

The Left cannot let this stand; they’re in need of a new lie.  What will it be?  We’re waiting.

The Left Will Control:

Both Houses of Congress (almost definitely)

The Supreme Court (eventually)

The Executive (including the military, the FBI and the CIA)

The Universities

Most Major Papers

Public Education

The Major Cities (New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago)

The Federal and State Government Bureaucracies

The Unions

Hollywood

The Networks (NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BET, MTV)

CNN (separated from the networks because they purport to be a neutral news organization)

NPR & PBS (separated from the networks because they are funded by taxpayers)

Network News

Left Wing Websites/Blogs

The Late Night Shows (Leno, Letterman)

The fake news shows that brilliantly indoctrinate their viewers (The Daily Show, Colbert Report)

The Right has:

FOX News (arguably)

Talk Radio (until the “Fairness Doctrine”)

Two or Three Newspapers

Right-leaning Websites/Blogs

Rural America

40 million families (a guesstimate)

Both lists are incomplete, but the top one is scary.

How far in the tank is the media* for Obama?  We need to create a new standard. The system can be based on how much in the national interest a story is, and how far the media tanks for it.

An example: 

On scale of one-to-ten, the Governor Palin wardrobe story was a two (in the national interest) and it received a medium amount of coverage - in the six range.  (2/6)

On the other hand, the Senator Biden gaffe of stating Obama’s inexperience, and possibly slipping with national secrets, was clearly a ten, but received coverage of approximately one (relative to its importance).  (10/1)

Therefore, if the first number matches the second, or is close, than the press has been even-handed, otherwise the difference is the quantifiable press bias, hereby named the Shotgun Scale of Press Bias.  A perfectly balanced score of 5/5, 6/6 or 3/3 etc. is what we should demand of non-editorial reporting.

In this particular case the press bias is a huge factor of 2/6 (-4) negative for Palin and the inexperience/national calamity story was biased 10/1 (+9) in favor of Senator Biden. (We must compare apples to apples, so the stories compared should both be either possibly harmful or possibly helpful.)

It may take some tinkering; I am looking forward to input.

* http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

Dear America,

Lowly citizens, we, the much smarter and wiser media, have been inundated with requests* to be more honest, and balanced, in our coverage of the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. We pledge to continue to be impartial  ;-) .  And, we just wanted to remind you to vote; not for anyone in particular ;-) .  We’ve done all we can to inform you. 

Here’s the list to remember when you get in that booth:

ü     We turned Governor Palin into a caricature; we ignored her accomplishments and exaggerated her flubs.

ü     We’ve ignored the national embarrassment that is Joe Biden.  We’ve passed on Biden’s huge gaffes and have overstated his intellect.

ü     We convinced you that the Republicans are responsible for the economic crisis; Democrats had nothing to do with it.

ü     We did not fully investigate Obama’s radical views and his radical associates.

ü     We’ve let you believe that Republicans control congress.

ü     We’ve ignored the fact that Obama smokes.

ü     We ignored Obama’s very extreme views on abortion.

ü     We’ve obfuscated the tax issue enough to leave you confused (lowering taxes can’t possibly raise income).

ü     We’ve completely ignored any good news from Iraq or the ongoing war on terror

ü     We demonized Bush/Cheney as much as we could and linked McCain to him as tightly as possible.

ü     We’ve called you a racist (let’s face it, most of you outside of New York and San Francisco, are).

And last and most important…

ü     We’ve convinced you, despite Obama’s lack of any real experience, that he is qualified to be President of the United States, possibly the most demanding job in the world.

Yes, we’ve done our job America, now go out and vote, several times if you can, for the person whom we’ve worked very hard.  Oh, and, you’re welcome.

* http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

Bob Dole was a gentleman, too much of a gentleman to defeat Bill Clinton who showed him little respect.  John McCain is a gentleman too, the kind of gentleman who corrects his audience when they say silly things about his opponent.  McCain could be on the same path as Dole if he doesn’t wise up.

McCain is too much of a gentleman to allow people introducing Obama to use his middle name.  That is right, this is a divisive ploy.

McCain was too much of a gentleman to bring the hammer down on Barack and point out that Obama is in favor of infanticide during the debate.  This may be smart, the media would come to Obama’s defense, try to cover it up, portray it as a lie, and (somehow) call McCain a racist.

McCain is too much of a gentleman to bring up Reverend Wright.  This is wrong; Wright’s a legitimate issue that shows whose opinions Obama respects, and that either Obama believes that America is horribly flawed and racist too, or he is too much of a coward to challenge Wright.*

McCain should use every legitimate weapon at his disposal, it’s not as if the media, or his opponent, will ever give him credit for being a gentleman after they, working together, defeat him.

Obama is not a gentleman; he is a coward.

* http://moderatelyconservative.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/09/why_ayers_and_wright_matter.thtml

The Washington Post claim that its endorsement of Barack Obama is mostly about Sarah Palin is boldly indefensible.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post said on FOX News, “This was not a choice of the lesser of two evils. We like Senator McCain and Senator Obama.” This statement was the set-up; voters are supposed to believe that the Post struggled over its decision. The Post continued the feint with, “There is any number of things to respect about what he (McCain) did.”  This line pretends to show the sincerity with which the Post admires John McCain.

In order to sell the farce that it was considering McCain, the Post needed to create a boogeyman, or in this case, a boogeywoman.  That fall gal was Governor Sarah Palin.  To construct the illusion that Palin was a disqualifier they had to ignore her accomplishments and obvious talents and concentrate on something else.  Hmm, what could that be? The editorial board of Washington’s leading paper chose to focus on some interviews by left-leaning “journalists” who should be on Obama’s payroll.

The Post doesn’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that many of the questions by Gibson/Couric were silly, a form of petty and small-minded journalism, and not typical queries asked of Vice Presidential candidates. The Post must have also ignored the debate, in which Palin did very well, answered questions more candidly than Biden, and did not make up trips to Home Depot or lunches at a restaurant that closed in the 80’s.  The Post only looked at evidence they considered damning, or they would have arrived at a different decision.

Not only did the Post use convenient and flawed logic to eliminate John McCain from consideration, it brought that consideration to the number two spot on the ticket and compared apples to oranges.  Marcus continued, “I think the difference about their inexperience is that Sarah Palin has not demonstrated what Barack Obama has on the campaign trail, which is a deep and nuanced and broad (read liberal) understanding of issues.”

So, Obama’s ability to memorize information and spew it back with flowery speech is equivalent to wisdom, but Palin’s years of executive accomplishments and efforts to fight the Alaskan Republican parties’ political machine mean nothing?  This is a strange and convoluted double standard.

The Post article stated, “Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.”

Are these reservations because Mr. Obama’s centrist rhetoric does not match his very liberal record?  Do the reservations come from the fact that Mr. Obama has a history of associations with extremist, America-hating radicals whom he has not had the courage to challenge?  Is hope enough of a reason to entrust the future of the country to someone whose background has not been completely vetted? Does the Post hope that Biden will not make racist comments to visiting dignitaries?

The most ridiculous claim made in the Post editorial was that Obama was “a master of substance and detail.” Not only is he often wrong, but also he deliberately lies on many occasions. So, Obama’s mistakes and lies don’t count, but Palin’s frustrations in hostile interviews count twice?

Can anyone cite an instance where the Post defended Governor Palin from the indignities that have been aimed at her?  No? That’s okay, though, the Post’s smear, and that’s what it is, is just another nail in the coffin of old-style, liberal feminism; Sarah’s the future.

The Washington Post is guilty of journalistic malpractice.

The continuing caricature of Republicans as losers continues unabated.  The “special” Thursday night episode of Saturday Night Live* continued to skewer John McCain, Sarah Palin (though, only very briefly) and it mocked McCain’s supporters.

McCain was painted as simple-minded, crotchety and stiff.  There was a send-up of a supporter (wearing a McCain/Palin t-shirt) who walked about rambling, was barely intelligible and spewed wacky statements.  Obama was played as calm, cool and reasoned.  Nearly the entire show was a political piece meant to portray Republicans as dumb and out of touch.

There may not be a way to counter such portrayals and there are many people who choose to accept this stereotype, which is an act on intellectual weakness.  Telling and retelling jokes that deride Republicans is becoming a cultural phenomenon. Once upon a time, in a more thoughtful America, comedy was effective as a mild reinforcer of political conceptions; today the parodies, comedians and late-night hosts** establish the points of view - and the GOP will suffer at the polls as a result.

These caricatures explain in large part why McCain’s popularity improves after debates and recedes in the following days, the comedic attacks combine with the vitriol of the left and a (distorted) picture is painted in the collective conscious of many Americans. The combing of MSM distortions, Democrat talking heads who repeat misinformation and a non-stop portrayal of Republicans/conservatives as buffoons add up and to reduce McCain’s overall standing.*** The media assault is immediate, incessant and one-sided.

*http://www.hulu.com/watch/39637/saturday-night-live-update-thursday-debate-open

**http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/16/late-night-comics-skewer-republicans-seven-study-finds/

***http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-souring-on-mccain

You think hanging out with a domestic terrorist (even a white one) is bad.

You criticize Barack Obama for his lack of experience.

You worry when a well-funded organization tries to steal the American election.

You believe Obama’s friendships with vehement anti-Semites is a problem.

You are scared that Louis Farrakhan calls Obama the messiah.

No one on the left is a racist, but you might be.

Numerous complaints of imagined racism are already starting to split the nation.  Obama must clear up these false claims or he risks beginning a new and horrible era in American race relations, especially if he should win the Presidency.

It is already inevitable that there will be numerous claims of racism by many people in the event of an Obama victory each time Obama is criticized.  The first amendment will come under considerable strain.  This is, and will continue to be, a relentless and organized attempt to stifle criticism of Obama and, more specifically, his agenda.

Are they actually saying that tying Obama to a WHITE terrorist is akin to the Willie Horton ads?*  Well, yes they are.  It’s silly, silly and shameless. (The arguments over racism in the Horton ad are also specious, but that’s for another day.)

The saddest of these pathetic and embarrassing accusations is the one by John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and veteran of the civil rights movement, he is well aware that what he is saying is not right; it’s a shameful exaggeration at the least, and can more appropriately be called an outright incitement of racial discord.

It’s odd that when the left calls Bush a murderer, accuse our troops of (disproved) atrocities, and attacks Sarah Palin in blatantly sexist ways, that’s all fair game, but if Republicans do everything possible to bring NOT to bring race into the campaign, they are racists.  This is a VERY dangerous game and it must be stopped.

What if McCain’s VP candidate had said, on camera, to an Indian man, that it was not possible to go into a Dunkin Donuts without having an Indian accent?  How is it that Joe Biden gets away with that?**

* http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/10/12/2008-10-12_shameless_john_mccain_plays_the_willie_h.html

http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/877049.html

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081012/D93OQ2SO0.html

** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU

Check out some actual bigotry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

Kirk Douglas kicked off the recent conversation of an American apology for slavery with comments he made in an interview.  I think John McCain should take up this issue and ask Democrats, the party directly responsible for slavery and institutionalized racism, to issue an apology.

Shouldn’t Republicans, the party that ended slavery, and never had (correct me if I am wrong) racist positions as part of its parties’ official positions, be thanked? In fact:

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats were by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill (Civil Rights Act of 1964). In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes. *

Maybe, if John McCain demanded this apology from the Democrats, it would help change the recent argument that every Republican critique of Barack Obama is racially charged.  It is a tribute to the Democrat apparatchiks that they have been so successful at distorting their past so well, that the finger of blame for racism always seems to point at Republicans.  Wow!

This is obviously a tongue-in-cheek argument; slavery was clearly a horrible part of American history and reasonable people can argue that an apology is justified, but it seems obvious that some people were guilty of that crime and some were on the side of good.  How did history get so confused?

*http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2008180644_webkirkdouglas.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSCVIw0tYG8GIpYdhbb2Ej17vUPgD93JCDG80

Everything is racist.  That makes it easy; doesn’t it?  Everything a Republican does, or says, or wants to do, it’s all “tinged,” or “veiled” in racism (see links below).  All Republicans are bigots, don’t give them the benefit of the doubt or let the facts get in the way.  The media will play the race card for Obama at every opportunity.  Race-baiters can make wild and unsupported claims without investigation. 

The media is so far in the tank for Obama that it is harming the electoral process and American race relations at the same time.  The press will also warn of racial incidents in the event of an Obama loss so often that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why is that the Republicans have laid off the Wright issue when he would be a much more effective person than Ayers to point to as closely associated with Obama?  Any guesses?  The answer is simple; it’s because he’s black, and he leads a black church.  Republicans actually fear the race issue in this election, even when it would be extremely effective and appropriate to bring to the fore, they avoid it.

The press should be careful though, if Obama does become President they will be the targets of the unwarranted claims of racism at the first sign of negative reports.  It will be a humorous moment when they finally, collectively realize that Obama is completely unvetted, and uninvestigated just as they claim about the Iraq war.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93LAKT01&show_article=1

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/black-congressmen-declare-racism-palin-s-rhetoric?page=0%2C0

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93KD6Q00&show_article=1