YouCampaign

One of the more unique parts of this general election is the ever-evolving access the common voter has to spread his own take on things, spread it to the ends of the earth, and with enough attention from the right places, it'll get more viewership than a high dollar campaign ad, with people actually seeking it out. The Drudge Report linked to this story about one such example:

The film, titled Dear Mr Obama, is the most-viewed election-related video on the YouTube website, attracting more than 11 million hits.

Made by an Iraq war returnee, it's an example of how ordinary Americans have used the website to get their voice heard.

Both campaigns have embraced the popularity and accessibility of YouTube as well, both for a cheap way to spread campaign ads via news coverage of them, or simply to boost the viewership beyond the tv markets. But some of the more compelling videos were made by individuals outside of the campaigns who have either put out personal videos like the one above, or simply called bullshit on some odious claim by stringing together prior statements contrasted with revisionist claims.

One of my favorite examples I dug back up when I was regularly dealing with Obama supporters who seemed to believe their preferred candidate was somehow not being hypocritical with accusations of dishonest smears. From a post earlier this year:

Meet the New Politics...
...Same as the Old Politics.

"Barack Obama stands for a new kind of politics -- a politics without partisan bickering and smear tactics.

You can help push back on the petty and divisive methods of our opponents." - Obama Campaign

(Hat Tip to California Yankee at RedState for many of the links)

Lying about the lies just seems to make this even worse.

If you fell for Obama's and the Howard Dean/DNC's smear campaign against McCain on this 100 years war nonsense, feel free to read the factcheck.org links above, or at Politifact, the NY Times, the NY Times again, the Associated Press, USA Today, the Washington Post fact checker, the Washington Post Again, or even CNN:

"Now, what both the candidates did was go after McCain. Barack Obama, after McCain's policy in Iraq, accusing McCain of wanting to be in Iraq for another 100 years. As you know, John, that is a distortion of what McCain said, and they push back very hard in the McCain campaign when they hear this."

It is, of course, nothing new to anybody who has been paying attention that Obama dropped the ruse of being a new kind of politician early on. As the NY Times reported last summer...

And while among Obama supporters it has become a sort of 'knownfact' that their candidate has run some sort of strikingly honest and new campaign, the facts show otherwise, and a long dig into the factcheck.org archives reveals that the DNC, Obama, and the Obama campaign have been throwing out debunked smears since well before the general election campaign began and continued to do so with false allegations that McCain attempted to cut Social Security checks in half (scare them old ladies!) and debunked accusations that McCain's opposition to one version of a GI Bill was based on some absurd notion that he didn't care about veterans enough.

As the NY Times link above points out, this behavior began between the Democratic candidates over a year before his supporters demanded he 'take the gloves off' with McCain, who he had been smearing with false allegations for most of the year by that point, using false or misleading attacks to paint him as anti-veteran, a warmonger, a threat to old ladies living on SS checks, gross distortions of numerous economy quotes ripped out of context, and sometimes hacked out of a single sentence, to depict the opposite of what McCain was saying. And while Obama and his supporters love to point to factcheck.org when it suits them, they've somehow missed all this crap on the same cite for the last year and a half. One can only assume intentionally at this point.

McCain has consistently faced opponents in this election who have had massive financial advantages and put those advantages to work with a deluge of negative ads on top of those merely touting themselves. As factcheck.org notes, none of the candidates has been a saint when it comes to accuracy or their claims adding up 100%. But to hear the Obama side of it, and strangely their hyper-sensitive supporters, it's McCain who is solely offering the deluge of negativity.

They point to ads with out of context quotes (a common tactic in Obama ads that got far more play in wider markets)

...and to ads that question his questionable associations (a tactic that both Obama and the DNC started long before the general election began)

...and of course distraction (a tactic they've employed constantly and dishonestly with some of McCain's gaffes long after factcheck.org noted that Obama had absolutely no economic experience to speak of while McCain has been a senior member of the commerce committee and sitting on its technology subcommittee).

One must appreciate the glaring irony in the accusations of 'distraction' when anyone uses his past associations to suggest he might be far more radical than his current rhetoric lets on, especially in light of an extremely short and flimsy record being used to assure voters on how he'll govern. The guy whining and moaning about guilt by association tactics who has made the bedrock of his campaign trying to equate McCain with Bush... a pretty stunning 180 from what Democrats generally argued as late as last year. Obama's VP pick in particular has done probably the most stunning and dramatic 180 out of political expedience from his comments earlier in the primary where he said he'd be proud to run on the same ticket with him.

Further one must truly wonder how Obama could condone his party attempting to tie McCain to the Abramoff scandal, a man who is now in prison greatly due to McCain's inquisition against him that also took down some corrupt members of his own party. Obama similarly has run ads doing the same before McCain ever started pointing to Obama's past associations casting doubt on his claims of centrism.

But at least the YouTubers are out there to help shine some light on this scam known as the 'new kind of politics' since the media seems to have adopted the Obama perspective on what counts or doesn't count when it comes to negative campaigning. As Obama said... you can pull up the video on YouTube, and on all of these matters, you can see how he's just another politician, lying and misleading his way to the pinnacle of our government, with less of a record than Dan Quayle. For Halloween maybe he'll go as a new kind of politician... it'd be nice to see, even if for a day.

Debate and Switch

An interesting find from another local blog showing how absolutely worthless the so-called presidential "debates" are:



Free mutual 90 minute ads for the candidates to regurgitate their talking points with little to no actual moderation or any real challenging of their BS. Even the criticisms from their respective opponents tends to be more talking points which tend to be as dubious as the claims they attempt to shoot down.

The candidates have little to no incentive to make these things intellectually worthwhile since talking-points-often-loudly-repeat works so well, and the media sure as hell isn't going to endanger their cash cow with the ad revenue by shaking things up. Sadly it seems that these things just get more and more dumbed down as time goes on... and only look to get even dumber in the future.

Who do I blame more than anyone for this? The voters in general. Until being spoon-fed bumperstickers stops working on them, there will never be any reason for the candidates not to appeal to their target audience in tv-zombieland. Unfortunately those voters who actually scrutinize both candidates on their bogus claims throughout the campaigns, let alone the debates specifically, are the exception, not the rule. Otherwise neither candidate could claim with a straight face that they'd balance the budget and still promise all the crap that every factchecker notes would only put us more in the red... let alone all the other BS they throw out there with cherry-picked quotes, distorted paraphrases, and blatant factual inaccuracies.

The fact that both candidates pull this nonsense geared towards dunderheads only helps prove that neither party has a monopoly on dunderheads in their ranks and undecided voters who aren't dunderheads are merely more exceptions, and certainly not the rule. Candidates on both sides act accordingly, regurgitating long debunked BS without any fear of it coming back to bite them in the ass. Their ideological supporters rationalize it as a necessity while the target audience is too disinterested to worry about silly things like being blatantly lied to.

What a sad state of affairs.

NRA Recruits Chuck the Kicker

Latest ad (oddly in a similar style to the Huckabee Huck-Chuck Facts ad):



The NRA has dedicated an entire website to pointing out Obama's rhetoric over the years and his short but revealing record on the subject that is anything but a pro-2nd Amendment history. Factcheck.org has taken some exception to their depictions, while the NRA has taken issue with their arguments and potential bias. Interestingly factcheck.org has also taken issue with Obama's deception over his own record on the subject as well.

As usual the truth is somewhere in between Obama's claims of 2nd Amendment defending and the NRA painting him as the ultimate gun grabber. The facts are that Obama's rhetoric and issue positions over the years have included banning every gun I own, but finding actual votes in this regard is elusive in his short career. But many of these statements or issue statements are years old and gleaned from issue position questionnaires while he was pandering to his south side constituency... an area that generally favors strict gun control due to the constant violence hope/change seems unable to deter.

In his current quest for national office the rhetoric has become more nuanced, though still supportive of banning every gun I own. Even without needing to pander to a generally anti-gun district, and even though he's supposedly attempting to avoid any focus on the subject as he believes it is a distraction from things people really care about (Bill of Rights, a distraction?). While claiming to support the 2nd Amendment, he also supports what every gun banner likes to refer to as "reasonable restrictions" since the media parrots that kind of talk without scrutiny it seems. So what are these "reasonable restrictions" that "support the 2nd Amendment?"

Two words: gun bans

Every rifle I've owned has cosmetic features that, while changing nothing about the fact that they fire like any other semi-auto rifle, magically turn them into 'assault weapons' according to the proponents of such bans. Obama and Biden being such proponents for years and reaffirming their support of such bans in this campaign.

Every handgun I've ever owned is also potentially on the chopping block according to Obama's rhetoric in this campaign as well as his prior affirmation in supporting the ban of all handguns that he strangely disputes in spite of his continued support for local/state bans of them. "Reasonable" in Obama's description included banning everything down to my grandma's wheelgun a la DC handgun ban standards that he defended during this campaign.

Everything from sport/competition rifles, hunting rifles, sport/competition handguns to old revolvers, to defensive handguns that cops normally carry being thrown into the 'assault weapon' category and banned for civilian use, or general bans from locality to locality or state by state that may go even further. But apparently the 2nd Amendment is defended because shotguns generally aren't on the list of guns he opposes the ownership of. A peculiar way of not infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

With an Obama victory looking fairly inevitable at this point, and the congressional dems drooling for new bans ever since their 'assault weapon' baby expired years back with several close votes to reinstate coming short... it seems highly likely they won't be short on votes this time around, and highly likely they'll have an anti-gun ally in the White House and as an anti-gun tie-breaker Vice-President presiding over such votes in the Senate. The real question is whether they'll wait until his 2nd term to avoid any potential fallout or start crapping on the Bill of Rights right away.

Krauthammering the Ship Jumpers

From his article today in the Washington Post:

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

The full rant is worth the read if you got the time, but that's the meat and potatoes of it. The fact of the matter is that Obama might handle the crises that erupt in his term(s) well, and that in spite of his inexperience he'll either have good advice that he takes to heart or will simply luck out that the choices are obvious or he simply makes the right ones. His inexperience wouldn't be such a big deal if it hadn't become so clear over the past few years that only a landslide of criticism from both sides of the aisle pressuring him to put forth some realistic stances on the world we face seem to upend his propensity for the singing-kumbayah approach that somehow assumes that the world's foremost economic power can merely sit back and take little action to defend its interests from those hellbent on thwarting them in their own interests. As if the example of America alone can change the world and make it sing in harmony. Granted, an inherently American vision that is typically rooted in exceptionalism that Obama tends to dismiss and which history shows to have only been a plausible stand, even while ineffective, when our prominence in the world had yet to be achieved and our isolation from other major powers and significant threats protected us from our inability to accept reality. Even then such high-minded views gave way to reality with our interests here, though rationalized in every way conceivable to avoid the inherent contradiction.

Unless the polls are dramatically off due to the unprecedented factors of this elections, it appears that I'll just have to 'hope' that the world we live in makes up for the current political pressures in holding Obama to the more realistic policies he's swung to in the course of this election. His idealism, when left unchecked, reads like a laundry list of American diplomatic disasters where the universality of our beliefs was assumed and even given higher credence than the cold hard calculus of national interest and power that other world leaders often engage in.

The astute reader will hopefully notice this as much a criticism of Obama as it is a criticism of the underlying factors behind Bush's biggest blunders. But as with any political debate the issues are clouded by the inevitable spin to a degree that people complaining about big spending demand even more, that those who criticized lack of experience are now demanding even less, etc. And clearly here we have people who criticized Bush's naive idealism now demanding even more of it... with a guy they know has also refused to take military options off the table, but whom they 'hope' will merely try to enforce such idealism through trade restrictions and other sanctions that have proven virtually ineffective in this new multi-polar world (and often difficult to implement even back in the bi-polar world).

Oddly enough the guy they now denounce as more of the same was the one regularly getting their praise just a few short years ago. Meanwhile they're defending the guy who is embracing some of their most notorious criticisms of the current administration as a change for the better.

Among his long standing wonkish supporters there is everything from gross rationalization of the nuanced Obama since they started supporting him years ago to the full-on disenchantment that he wasn't a more easily marketable Kucinich. It's generally difficult to believe an election-time claim or argument from a candidate as the pressure to appeal to as many voters as possible tends to augment their rhetoric towards more of a sales pitch than an objective and candid detailing of their philosophy and policies, let alone their record that is often spun into whatever the current zeitgeist demands. Unfortunately such obfuscation covers most of Obama's short record given his ambition for higher office appears to have influenced his statements and actions either shortly before or after his Senate seat was claimed.

Voters who have only recently given the candidate a look generally are unaware that his claims of knowing Iraq didn't have WMDs are contradicted by his pre-war rhetoric that they did. They're generally unaware that his claim of 'judgment' against the war was contradicted by the fact that a full year after the war begun he still refused to go on the record on saying how he would have voted on authorizing it. They're generally unaware that his nuanced positions on other foreign policy matters are a distinct swing from his highly criticized (even by his own party and shockingly, his own vp) policy stances. And while the nuanced Obama hardly seems more palatable, is that the version of Obama they're getting come January? Who knows? Not even his supporters can agree what he will or will not be once he's locked in.

I suppose they, like the rest of us, are hoping for the best... whatever we think that may be. And while Obama supporters seem highly gifted at projecting their own take on Obama as what he actually is, they seem wholly incapable of proving why the contradictions don't make such projection a difficult thing to vote for in the ballot box, especially when those projects vary so wildly as to what an Obama admin will actually do on everything from foreign policy to domestic policy.

Sadly none of that matters at this point in the election. The yahoos that threw out the fascist namecalling in this and prior elections are now whining about other yahoos throwing out socialist namecalling as being a code word for black... even though those same yahoos do this to any candidate, including John McCain in the primaries, who appear to pander to any class conflict notion or support any government policy that even remotely resembles any aspect of socialism, regardless of the overwhelming differences otherwise. It's getting so weird at this point there is pre-emptive race card playing and accusing of playing the race card even when responding to Obama supporters doing it.

The inevitable trainwreck of dumb barreling towards November is even more absurd than even I predicted. And to think that I once had some hope that such a matchup would be a unique diversion from the normal hypocritical and idiotic campaigning on the national stage. Just shows the worth of 'hope' in politics I guess.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

The painful readjustment of the markets may have finally hit bottom, with a slow and haphazard recovery potentially on the horizon. National polling has the election squarely in Obama's court at this point, and short of another miraculous comeback by McCain we're heading into an Obama administration that is promising tax hikes on those who still have any significant capital left to invest back into the economy and US business. At the same time he seems to be hitting up the Hoover playbook to match that with restrictions on trade while our domestic markets are contracting due to people tightening their belt here... essentially adding insult to injury to US industries that need to sell products to keep US workers employed.

But just which Obama is going to be running the nation? Will it be the die-hard class warfare Robin Hood from the early primary, who paints the rich as some uncaring and unpatriotic generality that must be punished? Will it be the Obama who toned down his rhetoric a bit with nuance and qualifications that implied he might delay many of his anti-rich policies due to the economic conditions... much as he has done with his foreign policy rhetoric?

People looking at his short resume in government are reasonably worried given his actual voting tends to lean towards the Robin Hood absurdities... especially as you go back further and further to his political roots in Chicago that epitomize the concepts of class struggle in America, not just by the company he kept, but by supporting policies that they championed, though with far less of the fiery rhetoric of his extremist cohorts.

People looking at his more recent record may find some hope of such views being tempered by a bit of realism... but surely would have some doubts about whether much of that was out of realism on what it takes to win nation-wide support for a future Presidential run.

It's anyone's guess as to whether or not President Obama will be closer to Primary Obama or General Election Obama when it comes to economic or foreign policy. With Congressional elections appearing to either maintain or expand a future rubber-stamp on almost any of the above, there's little to restrain him from going either direction beyond the courts he will also be in a strong position to influence over time.

The finger pointing will probably continue well into his term of who was really responsible for the current economic crisis. Democrats will surely continue to blame deregulation and Republican control in the federal government, while Republicans will continue to blame Democrats who supported the type of lending and government intervention that helped remove the risk of such lending. Objective observers will probably come to the conclusion that neither party is blameless on the issue since the Democrats, Obama included, supported the very policies that led to it, and while Republicans are on the record, McCain included, in opposition, they did not make any large deal out of it until the problems came to a head... probably due to the sacred cows at the crux of the issue being feverishly defended as pro-minority/poor and opponents being accused of racism or apathy towards the plight of minority/poor Americans. Republicans can blame all they want, but where was their backbone against such godawful policy when it could have made a difference? Sacrificed to dodge the 'race card' apparently.

So now we're looking at a nearly inevitable 'change' administration, whose short record is one of being in bed with the very people whose good intentions for some happily neglected and continue to dismiss the negative ramifications it had on all. Now we're left to 'hope' that another idealist with little relevant experience under his belt will be ready to lead the free world. Worked well the last 8 years. But it'll keep the ideologues on the other side happy until, as can be seen with the other ideologues, realism rears its ugly head and begins screwing with their ideology's prospects for re-election.

With any luck, the more pragmatic Obama from the general election will end up in the Oval Office over his absurdly idealistic self from earlier in his career.

That's the Chicago Way

The latest McCain ad:



Rehashing stuff from the primary:



Just another baffling association for an aspiring politician. Whether it be people Obama described as a friend who is heading to prison (Rezko), or friends who incite racial hatred with conspiracies on par with organ thieving (Wright), or people like Ayers who Obama said he was friendly with even though for all intents and purposes should be in prison for running a terror organization. Thanks to prosecutor misconduct though he walked off scott free... and now it's apparently fine for everyone in the corrupt Chicago political machine to shrug it off as, 'hey, those crazy 60s, eh?'

But don't worry, I'm sure as president he'll suddenly have the judgment to surround himself with far less disreputable political allies.

And for the title reference:



Of course instead of escalating the anti, Obama drudged up an even older story with the Keating 5 scandal... but the resulting investigation showed that 2 out of the 5, Senator (and former astronaut) John Glenn, and John McCain were found of no wrong doing. Friends with unrepentant domestic terrorists... versus a two decade old dragging through the mud that preceded a career of anti-corruption accomplishments, including most recently, taking down the Abramoff cronies.

Nice comeback.

Comic Relief: Bailouts and Parachutes

Break Down

Via Drudge, another sign of the real impact of the financial crisis:

CHICAGO (AP) - Residents of foreclosed properties in Chicago and other parts of Cook County don't have to worry about deputies forcing them out. Sheriff Tom Dart says that starting Thursday his office won't take part in evictions.

Dart says he's concerned that many of the people being evicted are renters who were unaware that their landlords have been failing to pay their mortgages. He says his deputies have no way of knowing whether they're removing someone who has defaulted on a loan or someone who has been faithfully paying rent.

Dart says he thinks he's the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop such evictions during the ongoing foreclosure crisis.

Dart says the number of mortgage foreclosures in Cook County has skyrocketed and will probably keep rising.

Not the kind of news I like to hear since my own landlord is based through a company that lists many of the infamous failed and feared near-failing banks and Freddie Mac prominently on their portfolio as people they generally deal with for their financial end.

Should be an interesting year. And by 'interesting' I do mean 'shitty.'

Ugh.

Downfall

The Dow dropped another 5% today... with the freefall continuing in spite attempts to jumpstart the credit mechanisms.



(note the last few weeks that include the 1-day 777 point drop and then the free fall we've seen since the brief partial recovery afterwards)

The Dow ended well below 10,000 today, a psychological barrier that was breached yesterday, but now solidly broken. The S&P 500 closed below 1000, another psychological barrier. A look at the S&P 500 components show that the hurt is fairly spread out. I've heard some reports that pensions and other retirement benefits have taken a net 3 trillion dollar hit due to the loss in value of the investments they're built upon.

And no surprise... "it's the economy, stupid":



And the Rasmussen Trends:



Short of any game changer so shocking and unprecedented that it could reverse these trends and to the degree needed for a McCain win... even this McCain supporter, who stayed with him through thick and thin of the primaries where he was declared DoA... well, let's just say I don't see what that game changer could be at this point.

I'm pretty sure the last two debates aren't it though. Nor anything else that he initiates.

As usual this is the Democrats' election to lose. Republicans have handed it to them on a silver platter years ago. And though McCain may have been the only candidate who could have pulled off a win... in this economic environment, it'd take a miracle... or soul-selling.

Baracktrination

Last week I posted a video of some Obaminions glorifying their dear leader in full-on creepy cult of personality form. Apparently it just gets weirder. Today I got a link to something more reminiscent of militant youth groups:



Godwin's Law meets Stomp the Yard? Absurd.

The last video I posted was removed by the cultists who posted it... but others copied it and added Hitler youth pop-up comments... but you can get the gist of the original in spite of that nonsense:



The Godwin's law nonsense on this video seems painfully misplaced to me. But perhaps that's just because it reminds me far more of the videos of North Korean school children singing the praises of the 'Dear Leader' than the other.

McCain Goes Back on the Offensive

Obama meanwhile goes on pre-emptive pre-counter attack...

As the norm, any negative ad by the McCain campaign is being painted as a distraction from the real issues, and once again its the economy being pointed to as the real issue.

The problem is that Obama has spent the last few weeks distracting voters from the fact that he and his Democratic allies were the ones pushing for these high-risk loans and supporting the government implicit backing of them through Fannie/Freddie, encouraging them by alleviating lenders from the risk... and supporting the continued demands on lenders to make these kind of loans as pro-minority policy. Over the last several years as Republicans (yes Republicans) pushed for reforms to end these asinine policies and put more regulation on Fannie/Freddie the Democrats have constantly pulled the race card and blocked all attempts to avoid this crisis.

Unlike Obama, McCain is on the record warning of this inevitability and supporting legislation to deal with it.

Unlike Obama, McCain's ties to Fannie/Freddie are guilt-by-association claims only.

Obama on the other hand directly took large amounts of money from them, directly relied on their former CEOs for both financial advice and even put one in charge of his VP selection. Almost every Dem railing about this crisis now the loudest, Obama included, were either silent as Republicans demanded reforms, or blatantly opposed to any changes while regularly employing the race card to protect their baby. Videos galore on youtube detail the gorey hypocrisy on the issue.

Distractions? How about Obama trying to use McCain's general support of deregulation to obscure the fact that McCain tried to do something about this crisis while Obama stood silent and raked in the donations along with his Democratic collegues.

How about using out of context McCain quotes on the economy to paint him as oblivious that factcheck.org has repeatedly noted were misleading or blatantly contradictory to what he actually stated.

How about claiming some sort of superior economic knowledge when factcheck.org has repeatedly pointed out that Obama has almost no significant experience with economic matters while McCain has dealt with economic issues federally for decades as part of his duties as a senior member of the Commerce Committee.

How about lying about McCain's health care proposal to make it sound like its nothing more than a tax on health benefits when it actually credits taxpayers thousands of dollars per year to purchase health care coverage of their choice and breaks down the idiotic rules limiting interstate health care policies. Sound distracting enough?

How about painting McCain as ignorant of technology merely because his war injuries limit his ability to personally use a computer efficiently or easily... completely disregarding his senior status in the tech subcommittee of the Commerce Committee and dealing with e-commerce legislation and regulation forever and a day... and being considered one of the more tech savvy candidates dating back all they way to his 2000 primary campaign. He's no stranger to technology, even if his staff generally does the keyboarding that would be otherwise insanely time consuming for him.

How about lying about McCain thinking that middle class/rich cut off is at 5 million bucks a year? Yeah, factcheck busted Obama out on that whopper as soon as he used it in his nomination acceptance speech along with a host of other deceptions... but has continued to use it blissfully.


Healthcare Distraction - Obama Style:

Probably the biggest claim to fame Obama has on economic issues is that he supports "universal healthcare" and often points to the inefficiency of our health care system in dollars to coverage compared to other health care systems.

There's one big problem with Obama attempting to paint his plan as similar to those more efficient systems: his plan doesn't mirror their systems at all. It merely expands upon our current inefficient system and assumes that magically that it will get more efficient with more money thrown at it.

He'll talk all day long about those in need of coverage and point to efficient systems in other nations... but will never seem to explain how expanding our current inefficient system is either A) possible to fund, B) possible to keep funding as the roles expand over time, C) how it will reduce health care costs, D) how those inevitable increased costs make his plan realistic in any way in the long run, E) how in the short run how it'd be possible to fund it now with our massive budget deficits.

Get ready for another distraction: ending the Iraq war will make it possible. The problem of course is that he's qualified his 'end the war' position and nuanced the details so much that his Iraq plan isn't all that different than anyone elses except in its tone. He's already qualified his withdrawal statements to depend on conditions on the ground, and keeping some forces their as long as necessary to combat terrorists there. Sound familiar? Meanwhile he supports increasing our presence in Afghanistan and even openly invading Pakistan regardless of any destabilization that it may cause and whatever conflicts such action may pull us into.

Factcheck.org has noted that Obama's proposals will send the federal budget spiraling into even greater amounts of insane deficits than Bush could even dream of, regardless if he can pull a magic wand out of his ass and make Iraq go away (unlikely given how he's pretty much qualified his 'end the war' rhetoric to the point of being a hawk). McCain's proposals are in a similar deficit boosting situation, but McCain is on the record of supporting spending freezes, even at the expense of some of his proposals to keep the budget in line.

Obama, on the other hand, hasn't suggested he'll cut back on any of his spending proposals. But he has stated that he'll delay his tax increases on 'the rich' due to the damage they could cause the economy in recession. How they'd be good for the economy when its not in recession was left unexplained. And the media of course didn't feel it worthwhile to call him on his bullshit. Go figure.


Fighting Dirty:

Given Obama's knack for distracting voters from his actual policies behind a cloak of generalities and outright deception, his nearly unlimited treasure chest to disseminate his mind numbing bullshit, his long-standing refusal to debate McCain in host of extra debates on top of the bare minimum... and most importantly the media's knack for parroting Obama's statements as fact with little to no scrutiny even some that have been debunked for months and months, some as far back as the primaries... the complaints about McCain fighting dirty continue to fall on unsympathetic ears.

Obama's deceptions and outright lies about McCain have been going on since the beginning of the year and repeatedly debunked by factcheck.org. They include the deception about supporting endless war or 100 years of war and suggestions that he's some sort of heartless warmonger with little regard for our troops... an absurd accusation based on an out of context quote and debunked as soon as the DNC started trying to peddle that nonsense back in February. They also include Obama and Biden's lies that McCain doesn't care about veterans because they claim he felt a version of the GI Bill legislation recently was too generous, something never uttered by McCain who supported that bill after it was amended to address retention concerns that was the basis for him supporting a different version prior.

A decorated war veteran and former POW being accused of not caring about the troops or veterans... but now the Obaminions whine that pointing out Obama's baffling association with an unrepentant domestic terrorist is somehow the real swift-boating? Such an association would be exploited in any political race due to the sheer idiocy of having it in the first place.

The problem is that Obama springboarded his career through the corrupt Chicago political machine and has been associated with, friends with, and mentored by some of the more corrupt and reviled yahoos in it. Meanwhile Obama did nothing while the DNC attacked McCain as being tied to Abramoff, even though McCain had no connections to him and it was his investigations that spearheaded the eventual downfall of Abramoff and his dirty dealing associates on both sides of the aisle. Abramoff is in prison now, in part, because of McCain's leadership. Not to mention McCain's long fight against unethical influence in politics since before Obama was in office. Palin similarly has made a name for herself in taking down corrupt actors regardless of party. Her rise to power was due to her taking down corrupt political machines... while Obama rose to the top by getting in bed with corrupt political machines.

Obama refers to such issues as distractions. But when it comes to reforming government and fighting corruption his associations to disreputable and corrupt machine politics yahoos is quite relevant when compared to the actual accomplishments of the mavericks. Obama's accomplishments when it comes to reform and corruption was getting a lot of money and support from corrupt yahoos, including his "friend" (his description) Tony Rezko who is on his way to prison and his long time associate, William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist that if you want to push left-wing agendas in Chicago public schools with no real improvements to education but flushing a shitload of money down the toilet of Chicago machine politics into radical left-wing groups instead... he's your man. Obama hasn't worked with him for several years now, but Obama's political career started in his living room and it was one of his first stepping stones on his path to the Presidency.

But that's a distraction, not relevant to Obama's committment to real change, nor his judgment while running for a job where associates are critical to his ability to govern and to the American people (where it might be embarassing to describe a friend, practically family, a political advisor, spiritual advisor, made part of his campaign for president over a span of 20 years... is suddenly someone he describes as not the man he knows)... not relevant at all.

Bringing up the Keating 5 episode in which McCain wasn't found of any wrong doing and spent the rest of his career proving his dedication to reform with a record to show for it is apparently a serious issue of great concern to the American people. Or something.

The general rule seems to be: if it points out a relevant weakness of Obama or points out some of his gross distortions of the truth or any of his numerous revisions of his own claims and history... it's a distraction. If it's hippy dippy generalities that obscure the absurdity of his prior statements or actual policies... it's important to the American people and they are the 'real issues.'

Meet the 'new kind of politics,' same as the old kind of politics. I see no reason for McCain to pull any punches heading into november. The DNC and Obama have been attempting to swift-boat McCain for most of the year. McCain bringing up an idiotic association of Obama's when he's running for a job where it's critical to surround yourself by reputable advisors and select worthy appointees to some of the most powerful positions in the Executive and Judicial branches isn't a distraction, it speaks to the judgment that Obama claims to have but has little record of actually having.

Dammit...

Debate: Best Line

"But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give him my best advice."

SHOCK: Palin Love Child Discovered!

All grown up, the young man has established himself as a career mascot - one of his few options given his severe interspecies related deformities. The McCain camp has refused to comment to confirm or deny the allegations though left-wing bloggers have allegedly confirmed them via DNA found in the trash cans of both Palin and the child whose name has not been released at this time.

As the news flew across the internet at the speed of light, the father's myspace page was discovered (though now deleted) which confirms the allegations. The father, apparently unemployed, described himself as living off the land in the Alaskan wild.

It's being reported that the NY Times is planning on running a full front page article on the scandal today, and though some have questioned the authenticity of the claim, the editorial staff has defended the move in a statement this morning: "If the McCain campaign hadn't have had the audacity to pick someone we hadn't already established talking points on, we wouldn't have to do the vetting process for him."

Obama's Campaign has reaffirmed its position that the children of candidates are off limits. Meanwhile a 527 run by the DNC chairman's brother has released a series of ads questioning McCain's judgment for the Palin pick given the scandal and also denied any coordination with his brother's party or presidential candidate.

[/parody of the anti-palin rumor mill]

VP Debate Bingo

I'm sure there's a hundred different ways to use these as a basis for a drinking game as well:



The page lets you randomize the sound bites and choose either a Biden card or a Palin one. Just makes me all warm and fuzzy they were looking out for the polito-nerds.

Thanks Newsweek!

Cubs Fan in October

Side effects: Depression, Delusions, and high probability of epic-fail.

Oof!!!

Go CUBBIES!!!

The Cubs are taking on the Dodgers in their first post-season game this October... tonight at 5:30PM Central.



(from my last Cubs Game... which so happened to be against the Dodgers)

Unfortunately game two overlaps with the "must see" VP debates, so I'll probably have to run the debates on the computer streaming from c-span.org and have the Cubs game going on at the same time. Debates start at 8PM our time and the Game 2 starts at 8:30PM... so that should work out. Better to be distracted for the first couple innings than the last two.

But I must be an unusual Cubs fan... since I take it seriously. Obama, the White Sox fan, got his team in yesterday by the skin of their teeth. A real tragedy after he insulted mine. He's probably just 'bitter' and 'clinging' to old Comiskey park...



Time for the underdogs to bear down.