Is the colossal ego that is Joe Biden (Chair - Senate Foreign Relations Committee) giving away information that is not for public dissemination?  I would not put it passed him; he is a fool and he would do anything to get elected (and seem prescient.)

If he is giving away an attack on Iran he should end up in jail!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html

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.

Analysts on FOX news tried to explain why the big ACORN scam was dangerous yesterday – and they missed it.  The fake names like Mickey Mouse and the roster of the Dallas Cowboys are just media fodder; it is set up to make people think, “Well, obviously Mickey’s not showing up, so this is harmless.” 

The real harm comes when thousands (literally) of well-organized people with fake ID’s, or no ID at all, show up at polling places all throughout Ohio, Florida and the many other swing states.  These people will have realistic sounding names and real addresses.  They will take advantage of the confusion and vote for Obama.  They will then pile into their cars and vans, drive to another district and stand in line again.

The Democrats have probably won many (including at least one Presidential) elections due to fraud before, and they have claimed voter fraud on Republicans, despite the lack of evidence, in the past.  They are mocking McCain for even being concerned about the issue as a way of distracting the public, and they feel justified in stealing the election due to their frustrations with the 2000 election.

No need to worry though, it’s not like Obama isn’t a well-vetted, America-loving, post-racial candidate – it’s okay if he steals the election.

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

Sarah Palin should call a press conference about the recent “troopergate” findings.  The speech should be made in prime time and it should take place in a location of significance in a swing state (the Constitution Center in Philadelphia would be good).

Governor Palin should then talk about the findings and mention how she has been essentially cleared.  This should be short, factual and truthful.  She should be serious, but maintain that positive demeanor that the public loves.

Then the governor should talk about the trooper, listing the various threats he made against her family. Then she should emphasize how he tazered a 10-year-old boy, after which she should say, “I would do anything ethical and legal to protect the your children from a man like this, just as I hoped to do for my family.”

It’s finished; the topic is changed.

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

There’s an old expression, “Birds of a feather, flock together,” it means that people of a like mind will seek out, find each other and join together (Townhall is an example of that).  If Obama rejected the words, deeds and philosophies of these two vile persons (Ayers and Wright) he would not have associated with them, or, if he were brave, he would have challenged them before it was politically expedient.

There are really only two reasons that Obama would have continued his relationships with either of these America-hating liars; cowardice or agreement.  (The claims of ignorance by Obama are preposterous.)  So, he either agrees with them, or he is a coward, it really is that simple. This matters.

I wrote after the first debate: 

As I was watching the debate, I was struck by the contrast on stage. 

John McCain’s a hero who stood up for his country and comrades in the face of torture. John McCain demonstrably loves his country and truly puts it first by challenging his party when he thinks it’s wrong. John McCain is a man brave enough to boldly state the greatness of America, even in places that position is not popular.  Senator McCain stood up to the politics of division when he denounced a radio host for mocking Barack Obama’s (actual) middle name.

Barack Obama’s a coward, who does not even have the courage to stand up and leave when his country is attacked from a pulpit in the church that he voluntarily and regularly attends. Barack Obama, a man so unmistakably craven that hehas never challenges his party, in fact he does not he even have the courage to make many tough votes; instead he votes “present.” Barack Obama attacks the outgoing President so that he does not have to face the hero Senator. Barack Obama, a man who demeans his country to millions oversees just to get their adulation.  Barack Obama incited racial division by (falsely) associating Rush Limbaugh and Senator McCain in a commercial where Limbaugh’s statements were taken out of context and twisted so that they were filled with hate.

Barack Obama is not ready to lead.  He does not have the courage.

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

As I was watching the debate, I was struck by the contrast on stage. 

John McCain’s a hero who stood up for his country and comrades in the face of torture John McCain demonstrably loves his country and truly puts it first by challenging his party when he thinks it’s wrong. John McCain is a man brave enough to boldly state the greatness of America, even in places that position is not popular.  Senator McCain stood up to the politics of division when he denounced a radio host for the mocking of Barack Obama’s (actual) middle name.

Barack Obama’s a coward, who does not even have the courage to stand up and leave when his country is attacked from a pulpit in the church that he voluntarily and regularly attends. Barack Obama, a man so unmistakably craven that he never challenges his party, in fact he does not he even have the courage to make many tough votes; instead he votes “present.” Barack Obama attacks the outgoing President so that he does not have to face the hero Senator. Barack Obama, a man who demeans his country to millions oversees just to get their adulation.  Barack Obama incited racial division by (falsely) associating Rush Limbaugh and Senator McCain in a commercial where Limbaugh’s statements were taken out of context and twisted so that they were filled with hate.

Barack Obama is not ready to lead.  He does not have the courage.

Yes, I’ve already blogged about this, * but where is the outrage?  I am not seeing it (outrage) on CNN, FOX or anywhere else in the press.

I am outraged that Obama would try to intentionally create racial tension in this country.

I am outraged that Obamawould try to insinuate that John McCain is a racist by (false) association.

I am outraged that Obama whines about the race card (I don’t look like the Presidents on the dollar bills), plays it from the bottom of the deck, doesn’t apologize for his accusations and then plays it again!

I am outraged that because Obama is a Democrat, he’ll probably get away with it.

It would be equally outrageous to associate Obama with the hateful comments of Dallas Mavericks' Josh Howard* just because of they are both African American, but maybe someone will.

This, will do damage to the country on many fronts, and it should not be allowed in current-day politics.  I am saddened and outraged.

* http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html

**http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091708dnspomavslede.112d818.html

The Obama camp made a huge mistake when he played the race card in those Rush Limbaugh ads.  If he is not seen as a racial healer, someone who transcends race, he risks alienating those Hillary Dems in the middle of the country.

The ads are not only misleading of Rush’s views, but they are INTENDED to create racial strife among Latinos and white America.  If this is how he intends to govern the country, by dividing and conquering, he will widen the racial gulf that he claims to heal. The country does not need another Democrat playing Jim Crow style politics, I had hoped that they were passed that; they are not.

Lastly, this ad is an insult to the voters it intends to sway.  Obama thinks that Latinos are stupid and will buy this nonsense; I assure you they are not and will not.

Even ABC news got it right: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html