Every time you visit one of our advertisers, a honeybee gets its wings.

« Cindy Sheehan Seeks Restraining Order | Home | Update: Obamas ‘Caviar Story’ Is Bogus »

Selected News For Oct 18 – Oct 24

This thread is for the busy bees of S&L to post news items themselves.

In order to make the articles as readable as possible, please try to stick to the format described in the first of these weekly editions here.

Of course articles that fit under the topic of a recent thread should be posted there. As always, remember to excerpt heavily and to provide a link to the original source.

Related Articles:

 

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Saturday, October 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am. You can leave a response.

48 Responses to “Selected News For Oct 18 – Oct 24”

  1. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 12:49 am

    The Los Angeles Times endorses Obama – no shock – but they also take the opportunity to trash Palin again:

    Barack Obama for president

    He is the competent, confident leader who represents the aspirations of the nation.

    It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That’s where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

    We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

    The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.

    Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama’s early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama’s character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/op.....8206.story

    That’s all I can quote without throwing up.

    Our nation has definitely never had a candidate like Mr. Obama – one whose plan will destroy our economy and our national security and actively push us over the edge into a fully socialist nation.

    Well, except for Jimmy Carter.

    Of course, why pass up the chance to slam Palin?

    Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that’s the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain’s judgment.

    Enough said.

    My, aren’t we stupid for having Palin as the only reason we could possibly pull that McCain lever in the first place?

  2. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 12:54 am

    Who cares about fraudulent voter registration; the front page, headline on their web site news in Los Angeles is that some voters’ registrations may have been fraudulently changed to Republican! Horrors!

    Voters contend they were duped into registering as Republicans

    YPM, a group hired by the GOP, allegedly deceived Californians who thought they were signing a petition. YPM denies any wrongdoing. Similar accusations have been leveled against it elsewhere.

    By Evan Halper and Michael Rothfeld

    SACRAMENTO — Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP-hired contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country.

    Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.

    “I am not a Republican,” insisted Karen Ashcraft, 47, a pet clinic manager and former Democrat from Ventura who said she was duped by a signature gatherer into joining the GOP. “I certainly . . . won’t sign anything in front of a grocery store ever again.”

    It is a bait-and-switch scheme familiar to elections experts. The firm hired by the California Republican Party — a small company called Young Political Majors, or YPM, which operates in several states — has been accused of using the tactic across the country.

    Elections officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM staff in Florida and Massachusetts. In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Ventura counties say they are investigating complaints about the company.The firm, which a Republican Party spokesman said is paid $7 to $12 for each registration it secures, has denied any wrongdoing and says it has never been charged with a crime.

    The 70,000 voters YPM has registered for the Republican Party will help combat the public perception that it is struggling amid Democratic gains nationally, give a boost to fundraising efforts and bolster member support for party leaders, political strategists from both parties say. Those who were formerly Democrats will stop receiving phone calls and literature from that party, perhaps affecting its get-out-the-vote efforts.

    Those voters also will be given only a Republican ballot in the next primary election if they do not switch their registration back before then. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/lo.....6330.story

    Expect this to “break large” in the MSM over the weekend too, while the MSM continues their “what’s ACORN?” act.

  3. Exeter
    October 18, 2008 at 1:03 am

    BillK – how can you even read that crap without tearing your eyes out?

  4. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 1:03 am

    Terrorist? No, scholar in Chicago.

    From a whitewashing AP:

    In Chicago, ex-radical better known as a scholar

    By Deanna Bellandi

    These days, Bill Ayers doesn’t want to talk about the Weathermen, the Vietnam-era radical group he helped found that carried out bombings at the Pentagon and the Capitol.

    That doesn’t mean the man who has become a political headache for Barack Obama is hiding his past. In fact, all you need to do is stand outside Ayers’ office at the University of Illinois in Chicago to be confronted with it.

    Ayers’ connection to the Weather Underground is plastered on his door. A postcard for a documentary on the group shows an old mugshot of Ayers. Nearby is cover art from Ayers’ 2001 memoir, “Fugitive Days.”

    But also affixed to the door is the title that reflects how Ayers, now 63, has become known in the past two decades in Chicago: distinguished professor.

    “He gives of himself greatly to his students. He gives of his time, his energies, his commitment,” said Pamela Quiroz, an associate professor who works in the college of education with Ayers. “He is just a superb individual.”

    Quiroz is among more than 3,200 people, mostly academics, who have signed an online petition protesting the “demonization” of Ayers during the campaign for the White House.

    John McCain’s camp has accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” citing, among other things, a 1995 meet-the-candidate coffee that Ayers hosted at his home for Obama when the younger man launched his political career by running for state Senate. The two also served together on a Chicago school reform group and a charity board.

    The subject flared up again during Wednesday’s final presidential debate when McCain said Obama needs to explain the full extent of his relationship with Ayers, whom he called “an old, washed-up terrorist.”

    By all accounts, the two men were not close, and Obama has repeatedly denounced Ayers’ radical activities.

    Ayers has declined repeated requests for interviews. This week, he opened his front door a crack to tell an Associated Press reporter, “I’m not talking, thanks.”

    Perhaps people in Chicago should ask themselves why left-wing domestic terrorists so often target educational careers?

    Perhaps because it makes indoctrination of youth just that much easier?

    Nah.

    Of course Bill Ayers doesn’t want to talk about it, but he still won’t express contrition for it.

    I literally have no doubt that if Bin Laden arrived on any given college campus he would be given “asylum” and granted a tenured professorship on the spot.

    You can just see his office door covered in lovingly laminated photos of the Twin Towers collapsing.

    Would “denouncing” their activities excuse a Republican’s association with McVeigh? Or Bin Laden?

    Somehow, I don’t think so.

    Of course, we need to add Ayers’ own words:

    “I’m not a terrorist,” he said at the time. “We tried to sound a piercing alarm that was unruly, difficult and, sometimes, probably wrong. … I describe what led some people in despair and anger to take some very extreme measures.”

    You know, Bin Laden doesn’t consider himself or al Qaeda to be “terrorists” either.

  5. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 1:19 am

    Biden attacks Palin, too!

    From the AP:

    Biden says robo call ’scurrilous,’ mocks Palin’s comment about NC and ‘pro-America’ areas

    By Kathleen Hennessey

    HENDERSON, Nev. (AP) — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden accused Republicans of employing “scurrilous” campaign tactics and urged supporters not to be distracted from the economic issues affecting their lives.

    Biden pointed to automated phone calls sent to voters in key swing states by Republican John McCain’s campaign. The calls attempt to link Democrat Barack Obama to former ’60s radical William Ayers.

    The calls assert Obama “worked closely with domestic terrorist” Ayers, though there is no evidence the Illinois senator and Ayers are close.

    “The Republican campaign has stepped up its attacks,” Biden told a crowd of 3,800 at an evening rally in the Las Vegas suburbs. “You may have heard about the scurrilous phone calls that are coming into homes – in Nevada and in New Mexico, where I was, and in Virginia, where I’m going – that question Barack Obama’s character and my implication question his patriotism.”

    “They don’t hurt Barack Obama. They don’t hurt me. But they hurt the American people because they’re an attempt to distract you from the issues that matter to your daily lives.”

    The McCain campaign has defended the calls, saying the association between Ayers and Obama raises question about the Democrats’ judgment.

    At an earlier rally, in Mesilla, N.M., Biden took aim at a comment from rival Sarah Palin, in which she said she loves visiting “pro-America” parts of the country. Biden said he believed the whole country is patriotic.

    “Ladies and gentlemen, I have never been to a state that hasn’t sent its sons and daughters to serve its country,” Biden said in Mesilla as the crowd of about 2,000 booed Palin’s reported comments. “It doesn’t matter where you live, we all love this country. And I hope it gets through that one of the reasons why Barack (Obama) and I are running is that we know how damaging the policy of division … has been.

    “We are one nation, under God, indivisible,” Biden shouted to the crowd. “We are all patriotic, we all love this country.”

    According to published reports, Palin told a North Carolina fundraiser Thursday that the best of America was not in Washington, D.C., but in small towns like the one in Alaska where she served as mayor. …

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BIDEN

    Yes, why should small towns be beloved. Everyone knows the best of America is to be found n L.A., S.F., and NYC.

  6. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 1:49 am

    SCOTUS rules that there’s apparently no such thing as a fraudulent voter registration.

    From Fox News:

    Supreme Court Rules With Ohio Secretary of State on Voter Fraud Rules

    The U.S. Supreme Court rules with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, granting her a stay to a temporary restraining order from a federal appeals court that ordered her to provide a system for implementing voter fraud prevention methods.

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Democratic Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, granting her a stay on Friday to a decision from a lower court that ordered her to provide a system for implementing voter fraud prevention methods.

    The decision by the full court repudiates the lower court’s ruling siding with the Ohio Republican Party and ordering Brunner to verify records of about 200,000 of 666,000 new voters this year whose driver’s license and Social Security records don’t match information in other government databases.

    In an unsigned order, the high court ruled that it could not say whether Ohio was properly enforcing the Help America Vote Act. However, it said the Ohio GOP doesn’t have the standing to file the suit.

    “They didn’t deal with the merits of the case,” said Ohio GOP Chairman Bob Bennett. “What they dealt with was a technicality on whether we had standing or not to bring the action.”

    Bennett said Brunner could have set up a system months ago to check the discrepancies and that her actions have left the potential for voter fraud.

    “If we have a close election in Ohio and there’s any doubts, the failures will be laid right at her doorstep,” Bennett said.

    Brunner said the court’s decision would help ease confusion in the run-up to Election Day.

    She said the act was clear that the mismatch lists were to be used to maintain the voter database, not to determine voter eligibility. …

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2.....ter-fraud/

    Color in Ohio for Obama now.

  7. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 1:52 am

    From Fox News:

    Feeling Plumber Fatigue, Media Turn on ‘Joe’

    Like Sarah Palin, it didn’t take long for “Joe the Plumber” to go from political sensation to political target.

    Two nights ago, “Joe the Plumber” was a symbol of the American dream. By Friday morning, you would have thought he was convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    Did you know he owes back taxes? Or that he’s not actually a licensed plumber? And his first name’s not even really Joe, but Samuel?

    The “shocking” revelations spurred a litany of plumber putdowns in newspapers and liberal blogs across the country.

    “Looks like there’s a crack in Joe the Plumber’s story,” Democratic activist Bob Mulholland told the San Francisco Chronicle in a story that topped their Web site Friday morning.

    “Joe the Plumber’s story sprang a few leaks,” The Associated Press reported.

    But does it really matter?

    No, Samuel “Joe” Wurzelbacher doesn’t have a plumbing license, but his employer does. His back taxes total less than $1,200. Not exactly Wesley Snipes. …

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2.....turns-joe/

    What does the tolerant left have to say?

    The opposition research to Joe (it’s uncertain when being a voter turned one into the opposition) seemed to begin instantly. Allegations on the Internet range from claims that he is not a registered voter to suspicions that he was a Republican plant to rumors that he’s related to notorious banker Charles Keating, namesake of the Keating Five scandal that embroiled McCain in the 1980s.

    And hats off to the Toledo Blade for digging up his divorce records to find he made $40,000 in 2006, nothing near the $250,000 he hoped to make by one day buying his boss’ company and possibly becoming susceptible to Obama’s proposed tax increases.

    Daily Kos called him a “right wing loon.” A blog on The Huffington Post pondered him carrying the mantle of the “Angry White Man.” At least one Web site used the term “Plumbergate.”

    FOX News contributor Howard Wolfson, former Hillary Clinton spokesman, had at it when Joe the Plumber was broached as a topic on air Friday morning.

    “He’s not a plumber, his name’s not Joe and he would actually get a tax cut under Barack Obama,” he said. “What it says is that John McCain’s campaign didn’t vet Joe the Plumber.”

    The Ohio press later reported that Wurzelbacher does appear to be registered to vote — as a Republican. And the Daily Kos even corrected The Huffington Post’s claim that he was related to Charles Keating.

  8. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 1:57 am

    If a Republican is subjected to a whiff of a scandal, they resign.

    As usual Democrats say they’ll resign when their cold, dead bodies hit the floor.

    From a “neener-neener” AP:

    Mahoney Admits ‘Multiple’ Affairs But No Crimes

    PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. — U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, embroiled in an adultery scandal and a tight race for re-election, admitted Friday to having at least two affairs but insisted he broke no laws and did not violate his oath of office.

    The first-term Democrat conceded that one of the affairs began as he was running on a family values platform to replace Mark Foley, a Republican who resigned amid revelations that he sent lurid Internet messages to male pages who had worked on Capitol Hill as teenagers.

    Mahoney, 52, apologized to his wife, his daughter and his constituents, even as he maintained he hadn’t been hypocritical.

    “I can understand why people would feel that way and for those people, all I can say is, ‘I’m sorry I let you down,”‘ Mahoney said in his first set of interviews since news broke earlier this week that he had a sexual relationship with Patricia Allen, 50, whom he met while campaigning in 2006.

    Allen went to work for Mahoney’s congressional office, then his campaign. Mahoney said she was fired for performance issues, not because of the affair.

    Allen threatened to sue Mahoney for sexual harassment. They reached a settlement to avoid a public airing, with her payout coming from Mahoney’s personal accounts, not from campaign funds or federal dollars, he said.

    Allen has not returned repeated telephone calls.

    Mahoney also acknowledged he had an affair with a high-ranking Martin County official in his Florida district while simultaneously lobbying the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give the county a $3.4 million hurricane clean-up reimbursement. The funds were awarded last year.

    He insisted, however, that he did nothing more for Martin County than he did for others in his district.

    Mahoney confessed to “multiple” other affairs, though he wouldn’t say how many.

    “You’re asking me over a lifetime? I’m just saying I’ve been unfaithful and I’m sorry for that,” he said.

    The multimillionaire venture capitalist maintained a distinction between his behavior in office and Foley’s, though he wouldn’t specify.

    “With respect to the former congressman, I think that his situation is different from my situation,” Mahoney said. “I don’t want anyone to misinterpret that as me saying somehow I’m saying I’m more proud. I’m not saying that at all.” …

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440183,00.html

    Remember once again that Foley did absolutely nothing illegal, either.

    Being a Democrat is great – if you have no morals, you have no moral compass and thus can never really do anything “wrong.”

  9. BillK
    October 18, 2008 at 5:44 am

    Not like we didn’t know, but here’s one big reason the MSM loves polls when their guy is in front.

    From Denver’s KUSA Television:

    Polls push undecideds to ‘pick a winner’

    By Kyle Clark

    KUSA – Our search for the reason why some voters are influenced by polls brought us to a field of sheep in Adams County.

    “Sheep don’t like to be by themselves,” explained Tom McBride, who heads the Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Office in Thornton.

    For more than 25 years, he’s tended to the flock sandwiched between subdivisions near Interstate 25 and Colorado.

    “They like to be together, they like to herd,” McBride said. “If they’re alone they’re probably just heading to the next bunch of sheep.”

    You’ve heard it called the bandwagon effect. Scientists who study these things call it social proof. People like to do what they think others around them are doing.

    “When you take surveys after an election, more people say they voted for the winner than actually voted for the winner,” said Norman Proviser, a professor of political science at Metro State.

    Proviser says committed voters aren’t likely to be swayed, but undecided voters are more susceptible to the so-called “herding instinct.”

    “I don’t think that it’s completely being one of the sheep,” Proviser said. “But what it is, is if you’re undecided and you have two different places you’d be happy to graze… and you see all your other sheep going to one gazing spot and you’re not really committed to one or another, you might well follow.”

    http://www.9news.com/news/arti.....;catid=339

    So that’s right – if you hadn’t guessed the MSM wants you to follow along like a bunch of good sheep. Baaaaaa.

  10. BillK
    October 19, 2008 at 5:42 am

    From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

    High cost of cheap civic grace

    By Patrick McIlheran

    After San Francisco last year ordered businesses to pay costly health care and sick leave benefits, restaurants started tacking on surcharges to cover it. Many apparently still do.

    It’s a good way to put a price on someone else’s cheap grace.

    Milwaukeeans will have a chance at doing philanthropy on someone else’s tab in a few weeks. A referendum will propose the city require all private-sector businesses to offer paid sick leave to all employees, including part-timers and temps. There’s an ad promoting this on the side of buses now, a picture of a sad-looking girl, thermometer in mouth, since the rule would let employees stay home on behalf of sick children, too.

    Gee, who wouldn’t want to make the little sick girl smile? Simple: Vote yes, proving to yourself you’re kind. There’s a price, but that’s mainly someone else’s problem.

    Mainly restaurateurs’ problem: Backers of the ordinance say restaurants are their biggest targets, since most don’t do paid sick leave. They produced some bought-and-paid-for study saying Milwaukee restaurants really will save heaps because workers will be happier and customers won’t be repelled by sneezing waitresses.

    “This isn’t going to be a cost,” said Amy Stear of the women’s rights group, 9to5. If restaurants say otherwise, said Matthew Brusky of Citizen Action, it’s because they’ve “not thought through this in a real clear way.” Said Stear: “Doesn’t it just make common sense that there won’t be a cost?”

    Well, no. Economists say such mandates really do add up. And restaurateurs, as it happens, have thought about their businesses.

    Which would, first, be violating the law if they let sick employees work: State law has a whole list of symptoms that mean an employee must stay home. Besides, says the Wisconsin Restaurant Association’s president, Ed Lump, it’s really bad for business if the customer gets sick from the staff and complains to his friends.

    So what do restaurants do? Most have paid vacations, says Doug Kennedy, who used to help run a 60-store Arby’s franchise and who now teaches restaurant economics at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. Sick employees could take a day of that.

    More often, he says, you swap shifts. A restaurant with a missing employee needs everyone else to work faster. It’s customary for sick employees or their managers to find substitutes. That way, co-workers aren’t overworked by the sick guy’s absence, and no one loses pay. It keeps costs down in an industry where the profit is single-digit but staffing requirements aren’t flexible.

    “You usually don’t have people losing pay,” said Lump, because “there’s always hours . . . to be picked up from somewhere.”

    Though, as that ad reveals, this isn’t really about sick waitresses as much as about giving them the ability to take off for a sick child without having to swap or ask a co-worker or use up vacation. It’s nice. It just has costs.

    Maybe some will be paid by diners. Those surcharges seem to fly in San Francisco, a liberal town full of foodies. Here? “Milwaukee is not San Francisco, start right there,” said Lump. Restaurants could open a little later, says Lump, or shrink raises or end free employee meals.

    Or maybe do with less labor. McDonald’s, in recent years, has experimented with outsourcing order-takers and with robotic fries makers and soda fillers.

    Those who can’t cut labor this way can try other things — like not expanding. San Francisco’s mandates worsen when you hit 20 employees; “we will always have 18,” vowed the owner of one hot new place to a reporter. Not that a sick-leave mandate will dramatically or even visibly crimp Milwaukee’s business scene, but if you’re talking about an industry where entrepreneurs make 5% profit in exchange for high risk and endless days, the cost just may be a restaurant that never gets past the dream stage. …

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=807317

    That’s OK; I’m sure the mandate will be national come January.

  11. RightWinger
    October 19, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Filling in this hour for BillK, we get this morning’s report of NObama raking in the campaign cash.

    Obama raises stunning $150 million in September

    By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised more than $150 million in September, a stunning and unprecedented eruption of political giving that has given him a wide spending advantage over rival John McCain.

    The campaign released the figure on Sunday, one day before it must file a detailed report of its monthly finances with the Federal Election Commission.

    Obama’s money is fueling a vast campaign operation in an expanding field of competitive states. It also has underwritten a wave of both national and targeted video advertising unseen before in a presidential contest.

    Campaign manager David Plouffe, in an e-mail to supporters Sunday morning, said the campaign had added 632,000 new donors in September, for a total of 3.1 million contributors to the campaign. He said the average donation was $86.

    The Democratic National Committee, moments later, announced that it raised $49.9 million and had $27.5 million in the bank at the start of October. The party has been raising money through joint fundraising events with Obama and can use the money to assist his candidacy.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....bama_money

    Of course this money is coming from illegal legal sources. It’s funny how we are supposedly in the middle of a recession, people are losing their homes, losing jobs, can’t pay for healthcare, heating oil, food, etc. That’s what the MSM tells us.

    So if everybody is so strapped for cash and money is so tight, then how are all these people coming up with the cash to send to Obama? If John McCain was raising this much cash in “the worst economy since the depression”, there would be zillions of questions coming from the left about the legality of this money and that those “evil Republicans” are being underhanded.

  12. texaspsue
    October 19, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Video of the Day:

    Make mine Freedom:

    http://astuteblogger.blogspot......-1948.html

    (astute blogger)

    This video is so appropriate for what we are currently experiencing in these times. It also fits with some of the (troll) comments I have been reading on this site, in the other posts. (I guess history just keeps repeating itself.)

    Just don’t buy any “isms” from the snake oil salesman. :-)

  13. GuppyNblue
    October 20, 2008 at 12:22 am

    texaspsue
    Thank you. That made my day and I can go to bed now. Fundamental understanding that you won’t get from seven years of professors anymore.
    Sweet dreams.

  14. BillK
    October 20, 2008 at 5:14 am

    Liberal actor from liberal TV show urges liberals to be liberals.

    From the Madison, WI Capital Times:

    ‘West Wing’ actor urges Obama supporters to ‘run hard’

    By Maisie Ramsay

    Actor Bradley Whitford, who spent seven years working in a fictional White House in “The West Wing,” knows a thing or two about real-life campaigns as well. The Madison native previously stumped for former Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry before hitting the trail in support of current Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

    Whitford says things are different this time around.

    “I’ve never felt this sense of urgency. I have three kids and I’m sick of picking up the newspaper every day and seeing their future attacked,” said Whitford, who was back in Dane County Sunday. Nearly 40 people turned up for Whitford’s first stop of the day at Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign office in Sun Prairie.

    Whitford’s main message was to keep pushing despite poll numbers showing Obama pulling ahead of Republican rival Sen. John McCain.

    “No matter what the polls say, run hard because I don’t trust those other guys. Run hard and through the finish line,” said Whitford.

    Whitford scheduled stops at four Madison-area campaign offices Sunday. He said that he will also make appearances in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Nevada.

    Many in attendance at the Sun Prairie Obama campaign office cited the economy as their chief concern.

    “I was in a couple depressions. It’s not easy. For the older people it’s a little scary, when you’ve saved all your life,” said Margaret Loftus, 91, of Sun Prairie. Loftus was joined by her two daughters Jerry Wagner, 72, and Shirley Wolfgram, 73, both Sun Prairie residents.

    While Loftus said she’s been politically active her whole life — her son Tom was a former Wisconsin Assembly speaker, gubernatorial candidate, and ambassador to Norway — others in attendance were just getting started. Sun Prairie high school senior Rachel Hankel, 18, cited health care, the war in Iraq, gas prices and reproductive rights as her chief concerns this election. …

    http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/310255

    Whitfield and his wife have long been liberal loons so it’s not surprising to hear his support of another liberal.

    But I can just hear the bubblehead Hankel defend her right to have sex with whomever she wanted and suck the results into a sink – well, as long as its stem cells weren’t required for medical research.

  15. BillK
    October 20, 2008 at 5:26 am

    Wow, this took longer than expected; Republican when he’s working for a Republican Colin Powell to absolutely nobody’s surprise finally endorsed Obama; what took him so long?

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    Barack Obama has advantage of big bucks, a big name: Colin Powell

    News of the Republican’s endorsement and a record $150 million raised in a month propel the Democrat as he campaigns in GOP country.

    By Mark Z. Barabak and Richard B. Schmitt

    FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — Barack Obama strongly boosted his presidential prospects on Sunday, winning the coveted endorsement of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and ringing up a staggering $150 million in contributions in a single month of fundraising.

    The endorsement from one of the country’s most respected statesman-soldiers enhances Obama’s credibility on national security issues, and his huge cash haul allows him to extend his crucial advantage on the television airwaves.

    The Illinois senator’s showing came as he continued to drive deep into Republican territory, stumping in North Carolina, which has not backed a Democrat for president since 1976.

    Republican John McCain campaigned Sunday in must-win Ohio, where polls show a close race, and spent part of the day defending running mate Sarah Palin’s qualifications on national television and in a call with Jewish leaders.

    The day’s main stage, however, was a TV studio in Washington, where the retired four-star Army general ended months of speculation by crossing party lines to support Obama, who is vying to become the nation’s first African American president. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/po.....6218.story

    Really? There are still people who respect Colin Powell?

    Oh yeah, that’s right – the Press and Democrats!

    Meanwhile:

    Last week, Palin extolled the values of what she called “the real America” and “very pro-America areas.” On Saturday, a campaign aide spoke about McCain’s support in the “real Virginia,” as opposed to the northern suburbs near the nation’s capital.

    Obama shouted his response over the roar from the crowd of more than 10,000. “There are not real or fake parts of this country,” he said. “We’re not separated by the pro-America and anti-America part of this country. We all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from.”

    Really? We all love this country?

    Why don’t you ask your buddy Ayers about that? Or your former pastor?

    This is what I mean and why we deserve to lose.

    If the roles were reversed, by 6:00 AM tomorrow the DNC would have an ad out showing the “We all love this country” comment while superimposing the rants of Ayers and the “God Damn America” comments of Wright over the top of it.

    Naturally McCain wouldn’t find that fair, thus guaranteeing Obama’s election. McCain dropped onto a World War II battlefield with a musket, and he’s too stupid to realize it.

    We also need a bit more Palin-bashing:

    Twice on Sunday morning, in an interview on Fox News and later in a conference call with Orthodox rabbis and other Jewish leaders, McCain defended his decision to select the first-term governor and former small-town mayor.

    He also opened his remarks at his first rally, in Westerville, Ohio, by praising Palin as “a role model and a reformer” who had “energized America.”

    Palin electrified delegates at the Republican National Convention and continues to draw far larger, more euphoric crowds than McCain. And, initially, she helped McCain rise sharply in the polls and briefly overtake Obama’s once solid lead in national polls.

    But the bounce subsided quickly amid the economic crisis. Despite Palin’s credible performance in the one vice presidential debate, polls show that she has become a liability for McCain, with a plurality saying her presence makes them less likely to vote for the GOP ticket.

    Funny those polls never include the large percentage of us who can only conceive of voting for McCain because of her presence.

    If anyone should be apologizing for anyone’s presence it should be Palin for McCain.

    Quite frankly, each time she defends him, my perception of her drops just a little bit.

  16. BillK
    October 20, 2008 at 5:45 am

    Just a reminder of what else Obama will get to do.

    From the San Francisco Chronicle:

    Next president will shape Supreme Court

    Bob Egelko

    One of the most momentous and least-discussed topics in the presidential campaign is the likely departure in the next four years of as many as three of the more liberal justices on a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court.

    When the subject of judicial appointments was raised during Wednesday’s debate, Democrat Barack Obama observed that Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, “probably hangs in the balance” on the outcome of the election.

    Obama, who supports the ruling, and Republican John McCain, who wants it overturned, then took pains to deny that they would use the case as a “litmus test” in choosing a future justice – denials that their own words appear to contradict.

    As McCain put it, he doesn’t believe anyone who backs Roe vs. Wade “would be part of those qualifications” he will require for judicial nominees, such as “a history of strict adherence to the Constitution.” Obama, for his part, has said he favors nominees who support the constitutional right of privacy, the legal underpinning of the 1973 ruling.

    But abortion is only one of many issues in which the court’s moderate-to-liberal bloc of four justices has joined with the moderately conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy to form a precarious majority – one that would probably be undone by a McCain appointee.

    For starters, there was the 5-4 ruling in June that allowed prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their confinement in federal court, a decision that McCain called “one of the worst” in U.S. history.

    In other close decisions, the court has allowed consideration of racial minority status in college admissions, barred executions of juveniles and the mentally retarded, applied environmental laws to global warming, upheld congressional authority to limit campaign contributions, overturned laws against gay sex and restricted religious displays on public property.

    In each of those cases, the majority included Justices John Paul Stevens, 88; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 75 and in uncertain health; and David Souter, 69, widely reported to be considering retirement.

    The departure of any of them after a McCain victory would undoubtedly lead to an intense battle over confirmation of a successor in a Senate that is likely to remain under Democratic control.

    The election “will determine whether the Supreme Court becomes substantially more conservative or stays ideologically the same,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Irvine. …

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....13IOES.DTL

    Once and for all, Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion, but rather took the decision as to whether it was legal out of states’ hands and gave it to the Federal government by randomly making up new rights in the U.S. Constitution.

  17. BillK
    October 20, 2008 at 5:50 am

    See, it really was all Reagan’s fault all along.

    From the San Francisco Chronicle:

    Crisis inspires rethinking of ‘Reaganomics’

    By Sam Zuckerman

    Big government is staging a comeback.

    When Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981, he famously declared, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Since then, conservative small-government ideas built on a foundation of deregulation and low taxes have dominated the debate over what role Washington should play in the economy.

    Now the tide is turning, political experts on the right and left say. A combination of circumstances, including the resurgence of the Democratic Party and fallout from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is giving impetus to wholesale expansion of government economic intervention.

    “We’ve gone through a period of three decades when the default assumptions were conservative assumptions,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and a policy adviser in the Clinton administration. “That framework has probably been torpedoed by events.”

    If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats strengthen their grip on Congress, the period could be transformative. Democrats would enact a series of programs that they believe would boost economic growth and improve middle-class living standards.

    But even if Republican presidential candidate John McCain were to win, a far-reaching expansion of government’s regulatory authority would be likely. The nation’s brush with financial collapse has changed the game. Despite McCain’s small-government preferences, he now vows “much stricter oversight” of the financial system.

    Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, argues that the nation is entering a period of resurgent government activism that will resemble Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s.

    “This is the end of the era of extreme laissez-faire, of ‘Don’t tax it, don’t regulate it,’ ” Frank said in an interview. “That has now been totally evaporated.” …

    Of course nothing the government has done in the past eight years, let alone the past twenty, has anything to do with policies Reagan had espoused.

    “Conservative small-government ideas” have dominated the debate? In Washington on what planet? Certainly not on the Earth.

    In fact, I think even Democrats will have a hard time growing the Federal Government faster than Bush has, though they’ll certainly try.

    Let’s not forget who voted down increased regulation in 2006… Barney Frank and the Democrats.

    Of course Republicans have been too timid to mention that, so the Press tells the tale they always do, and America will be destroyed in a way there’s little hope it will ever recover from in most of our lifetimes.

    The best part about all this is the big lie – that Bush was “conservative”:

    Even before the financial crisis hit, the idea that government should keep taxes low and get out of the way of business was under assault. Critics argued that three decades of conservative economic policies had fostered inequality and eroded living standards for working and middle-class families. Democrats pushing for programs such as universal health care were poised for big gains in this year’s elections.

    At the same time, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans gave their party’s economic stewardship a bad name, conservatives acknowledge. Government got much larger. While taxes were cut, spending rose rapidly throughout the Bush years. Military spending, anti-terrorism, a Medicare drug benefit and pet congressional projects sucked in hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Then the housing market collapsed, generating loan losses that overwhelmed the financial system. That calamity – and the need to devote more than a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to deal with it – discredited the notion that markets can take care of themselves. Finally came the astonishing spectacle of a conservative Republican administration purchasing ownership stakes in the nation’s leading banks.

    “We nationalized financial institutions and banks by executive fiat,” said David Kotok, chief investment officer of the New Jersey money management firm Cumberland Advisors. “Once this begins to occur, this trend has only one direction to go. The free-market-capitalism economy is history.“

    I say just torch the Reagan Library in Simi Valley now and reopen it as the Franklin Delano Roosevelt economic reeducation center.

    Students have been taught of nothing but Reagan’s failures for decades now, and the American public will soon forget all about him too.

    I’ve never been more serious than when I say don’t ever go to the Reagan Library.

    I have and it’s left me depressed for days at the thought of the legacy that was simply thrown away first by one Bush, a job completed by the second, now apparently for good.

  18. BannedbytheTaliban
    October 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

    More optimistic musing from our favorite bigot, Louis Farrakhan:

    Farrakhan: A ‘new beginning’ for Nation of Islam

    CHICAGO — Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan stressed unity among religions, while still preaching a message of black empowerment, at a rare public event Sunday deemed “a new beginning” for the Chicago-based movement.

    In the nearly two-hour speech, Farrakhan covered topics including immigration, public schools, violence and morality. He vaguely referred to the presidential election but did not specifically mention any candidates.

    “We are all in a journey to become complete human beings,” the 75-year-old Farrakhan told the crowd of thousands gathered inside Mosque Maryam and in white tents outside. “Look how we have become so divided, so hateful, while claiming the same creator.”

    Farrakhan renewed a call for many to get back to the basic tenets of Islam, while still encouraging black pride.

    ….. “Our brothers and sisters from South America are not trying to take your jobs. They are trying to survive,” Farrakhan said.

    http://www.wral.com/news/natio.....y/3769978/

    What great wonders await us as part of the Obamanation.

  19. BillK
    October 20, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Cha-Ching!

    Just a day after his endorsement, the AP reports:

    Obama: Powell will have a role in administration

    By Laurie Kellman

    WASHINGTON (AP) — With or without a formal title, Colin Powell will have Barack Obama’s ear if the Democratic presidential candidate wins the White House in the Nov. 4 election, the candidate said Monday.

    “He will have a role as one of my advisers,” Barack Obama said on NBC’s “Today” in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush’s former secretary of state, endorsed him.

    “Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that’s a good fit for him, is something we’d have to discuss,” Obama said.

    Being a top presidential adviser, especially on foreign policy, would be familiar ground to Powell on a subject that’s relatively new to the freshman Illinois senator. Obama has struggled to establish his foreign policy credentials against GOP candidate John McCain, a decorated military veteran, Vietnam prisoner of war and ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    In the NBC interview, Obama said Powell did not give him a heads-up before he crossed party lines and endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate on the network’s “Meet the Press” a day earlier.

    In that interview, Powell called Obama a “transformational figure” in the nation’s history and expressed disappointment in some of McCain’s campaign tactics. But, Powell said, he didn’t plan to hit the campaign trail with Obama before Election Day.

    “I won’t lie to you, I would love to have him at any stop,” Obama said with a grin Monday. “Obviously, if he wants to show up, he’s got an open invitation.”

    Powell’s endorsement came just hours after Obama’s campaign disclosed that it raised $150 million in September – obliterating the old record of $66 million it had set only one month earlier.

    White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she had not spoken to Bush about his reaction to Powell’s endorsement but added that Bush and Powell have a good relationship.

    “The president greatly respects Gen. Powell as we all do,” Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to an event in Louisiana. …

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA

    So rather than expose Powell for the opportunist he is, the GOP once again shows why they may never again win public office.

  20. BillK
    October 20, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    An AP story complaining that John McCain receives Social Security is suddenly turning up in search engines again; wonder why.

    McCain gets $1,930 a month from ‘broken’ Social Security system

    Republican presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program “a disgrace,” the Associated Press reports.

    “I’m receiving benefits,” McCain told campaign reporters, but added, “the system is broken.”

    In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.

    McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65.

    Last week, McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers … and that’s a disgrace.”

    B.J. Jarrett from the Social Security Administration said that individuals can refuse retirement benefits.

    In 2006, McCain’s wife Cindy earned $6 million, and has a net worth of approximately $100 million.

    http://sanfrancisco.bizjournal.....ily79.html

    See? Everything is just fine with Social Security! How dare McCain point out it’s a Ponzi scheme when he’s getting money from it.

    He should be living off his wife’s money instead, just like John Heinz Kerry.

  21. BillK
    October 21, 2008 at 6:43 am

    The Los Angeles Times’ daily “give it up” article.

    Swing voters are bothered by John McCain’s temperament and his party

    Many of those polled are leaning toward Barack Obama largely because of differences in demeanor in dealing with the financial crisis.

    By Michael Finnegan

    Julia Cavenaugh is a Republican from Texas who voted twice for President Bush, so it is no easy stretch for the second-grade teacher to cast her ballot for Barack Obama.

    Fed up with Republicans over the economy, she likes Obama’s tax and healthcare plans. After the economic crisis erupted last month, she found another reason to reject her party’s presidential nominee: temperament.

    Watching John McCain debate Obama, she found his body language hostile, and said he seemed upset by his rival’s answers on the economy. “Obama is more tactful,” she said.

    That’s part of why Cavenaugh increasingly sees Obama as the answer to her nagging question: “Who’s going to represent our country better?”

    Swing voters have tilted Obama’s way as the economy has overwhelmed all other issues as the top priority for Americans. In interviews with Cavenaugh and a dozen others who participated in a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, demeanor emerged as a dominant theme in their explanations for why they trusted Obama more than McCain to guide the nation out of its financial crisis. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/po.....4780.story

    Let’s see, a second grade teacher who likes Obama’s tax and health care plans and is allegedly a Republican?

    Uh, yeah.

  22. BillK
    October 21, 2008 at 6:46 am

    Something else to blame Bush for.

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    U.S. suicide rate is up

    It’s climbed steadily since 1999. The most alarming increase is among middle-age adults: nearly 16%.

    By Denise Gellene

    After falling for more than a decade, the U.S. suicide rate has climbed steadily since 1999, driven by an alarming increase among middle-age adults, researchers said Monday.

    A new six-year analysis in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that the U.S. suicide rate rose to 11 per 100,000 people in 2005, from 10.5 per 100,000 in 1999, an increase of just under 5%.

    The report found that virtually all of the increase was attributable to a nearly 16% jump in suicides among people ages 40 to 64, a group not commonly seen as high-risk. The rate for that age group rose to 15.6 per 100,000 in 2005, from 13.5 per 100,000 in 1999.

    Susan P. Baker, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and an author of the study, said she was baffled by the findings. Sociological studies have found that middle age is generally a time of relative security and emotional well-being, she said.

    “We really don’t know what is causing this,” said Dr. Paula Clayton, research director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, who was not involved in the study. “All we have is speculation.”

    One possibility, she said, is that the increase in suicides might be tied to a concurrent increase in abuse of prescription pain pills, such as OxyContin. Studies have shown that people who abuse drugs are at greater risk for suicide, she noted.

    Another possible explanation, she said, was the drop in hormone replacement therapy after it was linked to health risks in 2002. Women who gave up the drugs or decided not to take them might have been more susceptible to depression and potentially suicide, she said.

    Dr. Ian Cook, an associate professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study, said stresses of modern life, particularly worries in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, might have a role. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/sc.....8216.story

    What?

    The doctors actually didn’t posit that life under the Bush administration has been so horrible after Clinton that people saw no choice but to end it all?

  23. BillK
    October 21, 2008 at 7:03 am

    Some hints of the hell to come, from the Wall Street Journal:

    Obama’s Carbon Ultimatum

    The coming offer you won’t be able to refuse.

    Liberals pretend that only President Bush is preventing the U.S. from adopting some global warming “solution.” But occasionally their mask slips. As Barack Obama’s energy adviser has now made clear, the would-be President intends to blackmail — or rather, greenmail — Congress into falling in line with his climate agenda.

    Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama’s key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency “would initiate those rulemakings” that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that “in the absence of Congressional action” 18 months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.

    Well, well. For years, Democrats — including Senator Obama — have been howling about the “politicization” of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration. The complaint has been that the White House blocked EPA bureaucrats from making the so-called “endangerment finding” on carbon. Now it turns out that a President Obama would himself wield such a finding as a political bludgeon. He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside.

    The EPA hasn’t made a secret of how it would like to centrally plan the U.S. economy under the 1970 Clean Air Act. In a blueprint released in July, the agency didn’t exactly say it’d collectivize the farms — but pretty close, down to the “grass clippings.” The EPA would monitor and regulate the carbon emissions of “lawn and garden equipment” as well as everything with an engine, like cars, planes and boats. Eco-bureaucrats envision thousands of other emissions limits on all types of energy. Coal-fired power and other fossil fuels would be ruled out of existence, while all other prices would rise as the huge economic costs of the new regime were passed down the energy chain to consumers.

    These costs would far exceed the burden of a straight carbon tax or cap-and-trade system enacted by Congress, because the Clean Air Act was never written to apply to carbon and other greenhouse gases. It’s like trying to do brain surgery with a butter knife. Mr. Obama wants to move ahead anyway because he knows that the costs of any carbon program will be high. He knows, too, that Congress — even with strongly Democratic majorities — might still balk at supporting tax increases on their constituents, even if it is done in the name of global warming.

    Climate-change politics don’t break cleanly along partisan lines. The burden of a carbon clampdown will fall disproportionately on some states over others, especially the 25 interior states that get more than 50% of their electricity from coal. Rustbelt manufacturing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania will get hit hard too. Once President Bush leaves office, the coastal Democrats pushing hardest for a climate change program might find their colleagues splitting off, especially after they vote for a huge tax increase on incomes.

    Thus Messrs. Obama and Grumet want to invoke a political deus ex machina driven by a faulty interpretation of the Clean Air Act to force Congress’s hand. Mr. Obama and Democrats can then tell Americans that Congress must act to tax and regulate carbon to save the country from even worse bureaucratic consequences. It’s Mr. Obama’s version of Jack Benny’s old “your money or your life” routine, but without the punch line.

    The strategy is most notable for what it says about the climate-change lobby and its new standard bearer. Supposedly global warming is the transcendent challenge of the age, but Mr. Obama evidently doesn’t believe he’ll be able to convince his own party to do something about it without a bureaucratic ultimatum. Mr. Grumet justified it this way: “The U.S. has to move quickly domestically . . . We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus.” …

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....48473.html

    Not a surprise and yet it’s still shocking to see it in print.

  24. BillK
    October 21, 2008 at 7:08 am

    It’s not surprising that MoveOn.org resorts to such childishness, but rather, as usual that the Republicans do nothing in response.

    From the Wall Street Journal’s blogs:

    Where Palin Goes, the MoveOn Moose Will Follow

    By Susan Davis

    MoveOn.org’s political arm released a new 30-second ad, “Moose,” today featuring a talking mounted moose head that will air in markets based on where Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s travels over the next two weeks.

    The liberal activist group said the ad was spurred by the latest Washington Post/ABC poll out today that shows 52% of respondents stating they have less confidence in John McCain because of his choice of running mate.

    The ad began airing today in Las Vegas in anticipation of Palin’s scheduled Tuesday visit. Since a candidate’s traveling schedule isn’t released too far in advance, a spokeman for MoveOn said the ad buys will be done in increments. Next up is Ohio, where Palin is scheduled to travel this week.

    “You really gotta question John McCain’s judgment pickin’ Sarah Palin as his VP,” the animated moose says in the ad, who also, apparently, hails from Alaska, “We know her up here. She doesn’t have any national security experience. She can’t even explain Bush’s war policy. But she supports his war. And now she’s an expert because she can see Russia? McCain is 72 and she could end up in charge. She may be a little ‘trigger-happy’–I should know.”

    The Alaska governor recently discussed the charms of moose hunting on the trail at stops in New Hampshire and Maine. “I know that we can count on the good people of New Hampshire because you’re a lot like the people of Alaska,” she told a crowd last week in Dover, N.H. “We all love good moose hunting, I know that.”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....6:g4:r1:c0

    Are we really that deluded that many of us are only voting for McCain because of Palin?

    Because I certainly don’t see the “Sarah Barracuda” I’ve heard so much about.

    If the McCain camp can shut her up that much, we don’t deserve to even come within 10 percent of winning.

    Not unlike what the polls actually are showing.

  25. BannedbytheTaliban
    October 21, 2008 at 9:36 am

    From the USAtoday website:

    White supremacists target middle America

    By Marisol Bello, USA TODAY
    The white-power movement is changing its marketing strategy to broaden its appeal.
    The USA’s largest neo-Nazi group is ditching its trademark brown Nazi uniform with swastika armband for a more muted look in black fatigues…

    “Many people in this country, even if they were upset with the country’s immigration policies, never felt that threatened until now,” Black, 55, says. “White people were the majority. That’s rapidly changing.”

    Black says the candidacy of Barack Obama has raised his site’s profile.

    In the past year, members have posted 337 entries on Stormfront related to Obama, ranging from whether an Obama victory will start a revolution among whites to whether the candidate will take away gun rights.

    Black’s son, Derek, 19, was elected to the Palm Beach County, Fla., Republican committee in August. Local Republican leaders are trying to unseat him after learning of his white supremacist ties.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/n.....titialskip

    Of course you don’t have to read the whole article to get the point the USAtoday is trying to make, the GOP is nothing but racists and bigots. It is listed on the top of the page in the picture caption. But after a little fear mongering, they get to the point, “Black says the candidacy of Barack Obama has raised his site’s profile.”

    After all, the only reason someone would have not to vote for Barack “the guiding light” Obama is because they are racist. There simply are no other acceptable reasons.

    [Moved to its own thread.]

  26. Icarus
    October 21, 2008 at 11:42 am

    From ABC affiliate:

    Bachmann Comment Fallout Hits Campaign

    (ABC 6 NEWS) — Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann says it was a misunderstanding, and that her words were twisted on national TV.

    Bachmann is now trying to explain her comments as democrats try to seize a new opportunity.

    It all started with an interview that Bachmann gave on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

    “So you believe that Barack Obama has anti-American views?” asked Matthews.

    “Absolutely. I’m very concerned he may have anti-American views. That’s what the American people are concerned about,” responded Bachmann, inciting the backlash.

    Bachmann claims she was taken out of context and that Matthews first used the term “anti-American.”

    “This interview was one where I did not call Barack Obama anti-American. Those words Chris Mathews put in my mouth and then later suggested they were mine. They weren’t mine,” Bachmann said yesterday.

    The comments inflamed democrats. Democrats around the country have donated more than $800,000 to her DFL opponent’s campaign in just three days.

    “The one advantage Representative Bachmann has was that she was leading us in fundraising. Well, she’s given that all away and we’re going to be able to go toe-to-toe with her the rest of the way through the campaign,” says Elwyn Tinklenberg, Bachmann’s democratic opponent.

    The National Democratic Party says it will pour another million dollars into the race to defeat Bachmann. The State DFL Party will try to use her comments to paint all republicans with the same brush.

    Bachmann says she thinks this controversy will blow over and voters in her district will base their votes on issues.

    http://kaaltv.com/article/stor.....?cat=10217

    I’d like to hear more on Michele Bachmman… and what anyone is doing to support & defend her.

  27. DW
    October 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
    From the AP:

    Dead goldfish offered the chance to vote in Illinois

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    CHICAGO – The only “agent of change” Princess ever supported was the person who freshened the water in her fishbowl.

    So election officials in Chicago’s northern suburbs want to know why voter registration material was sent to the dead goldfish.

    Beth Nudelman, who owned the fish, said Princess may have landed on a mailing list because the family once filled in the pet’s name when they got a second phone line for a computer.

    The paperwork sent to a “Princess Nudelman” likely came from the “Women’s Voices, Women Vote” project, which sent nearly 1 million mailings to Illinois households in August.

    Group spokeswoman Sarah Johnson said the list they used mistakenly included some pets.

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/We.....11-ap.html

    Here’s a link to “Women’s Voices, Women’s Vote”. Care to play yet another round of guess that party affiliation?
    http://www.americavotes.org/site/

    And note how C-NEWS filed this in their “Weird News” section. Oh my -what a fluke…

  28. take_no_prisoners
    October 22, 2008 at 12:54 am

    How dare you, or anyone else, challenge this poor dead goldfish’s right to vote!! One more example of the Republicans despicable attempt to prevent every vote from being counted!! You, sir, are worse than Hitler!!

    / sarc

    –It’s truly sad that I had to add the sarcasm bit.

  29. BillK
    October 22, 2008 at 2:23 am

    Today’s Palin hit piece, from Politico via Fox News:

    Report: RNC Spent More Than $150,000 to Spruce Up Palin

    The Republican National Committee reportedly went on a spending spree in September to sharpen Sarah Palin’s appearance

    Plenty has been said about Sarah Palin’s appearance, from her designer glasses to her striking similarity to actress Tina Fey.

    But lately her stylish look has come at a price — more than $150,000 of which was paid for by the Republican National Committee — according to a report Tuesday by Politico.

    The Web site cited financial disclosure records that suggest the wardrobe makeover began in September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling nearly $50,000.

    The documents also show a $75,000 shopping trip at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in September, as well as about $4,700 spent on hair and makeup, Politico reported. Documents don’t show similar costs in August.

    John McCain announced Palin as his running mate on Aug. 29, just before the Republican National Convention, held Sept. 1 to 4 in St. Paul, Minn.

    Politico said a McCain spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, saying “the campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent.”

    But a top McCain campaign staff member later told FOX News, “With all of the important issues facing the country right now, its remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.”

    A review by Politico of expenditures by Barack Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee revealed “no similar spending.”

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2.....uce-palin/

    Gee, wonder why.

    Ladies, care to comment? Anyone wonder what Hillary’s shopping bills looked like?

  30. BillK
    October 22, 2008 at 2:34 am

    Scandal!

    From the AP:

    AP INVESTIGATION: Alaska funded Palin kids’ travel

    By Brett J. Blackledge, Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.

    The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.

    In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters’ 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.

    Alaska law does not specifically address expenses for a governor’s children. The law allows for payment of expenses for anyone conducting official state business.

    As governor, Palin justified having the state pay for the travel of her daughters – Bristol, 17; Willow, 14; and Piper, 7 – by noting on travel forms that the girls had been invited to attend or participate in events on the governor’s schedule.

    But some organizers of these events said they were surprised when the Palin children showed up uninvited, or said they agreed to a request by the governor to allow the children to attend.

    Several other organizers said the children merely accompanied their mother and did not participate. The trips enabled Palin, whose main state office is in the capital of Juneau, to spend more time with her children.

    “She said any event she can take her kids to is an event she tries to attend,” said Jennifer McCarthy, who helped organize the June 2007 Family Day Celebration picnic in Ketchikan that Piper attended with her parents.

    State Finance Director Kim Garnero told The Associated Press she has not reviewed the Palins’ travel expense forms, so she could not say whether the daughters’ travel with their mother would meet the definition of official business. …

    http://customwire.ap.org/dynam.....ILY_TRAVEL

    Three reporters and this is all they came up with?

    Of course:

    Tony Knowles, a Democratic former governor of Alaska who lost to Palin in a 2006 bid to reclaim the job, said he never charged the state for his three children’s commercial flights or claimed their travel as official state business.

    Knowles, who was governor from 1994 to 2002, is the only other recent Alaska governor who had school-age children while in office.

    “There was no valid reason for the children to be along on state business,” said Knowles, a supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. “I cannot recall any instance during my eight years as governor where it would have been appropriate to claim they performed state business.”

    I wonder if Chelsea ever traveled anywhere at taxpayer expense?

    Oh that’s right, Chelsea was and continues to be off-limits.

    Just think how much Palin could have saved the taxpayers had she had abortions in each case instead!

  31. BillK
    October 22, 2008 at 5:58 am

    Some truth from the Boston Globe?

    Comedy has become a liberal genre

    Takes big role in presidential political race

    By Lisa Wangsness

    WASHINGTON – Last week John McCain tried to make peace with David Letterman, who has been in a snit with McCain since the GOP presidential nominee canceled an appearance on his show weeks ago. But the jokes didn’t exactly flow; in what felt more like a rant than a ribbing, Letterman grilled McCain in disapproving tones about everything from his attacks on Barack Obama to his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

    Palin, meanwhile, good-naturedly joined the “Saturday Night Live” cast this weekend to poke fun at herself. But the real Palin seemed oddly flat next to Tina Fey’s celebrated impersonation of her as a ditzy hick who resorts to cornball flirtatiousness when confronted with basic policy questions.

    “And now I’d like to entertain everybody with some fancy pageant-walking,” Fey’s Palin announced in the middle of a faux press conference, bringing down the house as the real Palin looked on backstage.

    Both appearances drew gargantuan ratings, the highest in 14 years for “SNL” and almost three years for Letterman. But they also underlined the extent to which comedy has become a liberal genre in America, at a time when comedy has taken on an unprecedentedly important role in presidential politics.

    Though the nation has been closely divided along partisan lines for years, the funniest and most politically important acts are overwhelmingly at the expense of conservatives and often carry a clear partisan message.

    “You do have conservative humor, but in the mainstream, it has become so dominated by liberal dislike of conservatives,” said Richard Vatz, a professor of rhetoric and communication at Towson University in Maryland who writes for a conservative blog. Millions have downloaded Sarah Silverman’s Internet video urging Jewish children to fly to Florida and persuade their grandparents to vote for Obama, whom she calls “our last hope of ending our reputation as the [expletive] of the universe.”

    Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show,” a relentless critic of the Bush administration, depicts McCain – once a frequent guest on his show – as an ill-tempered oldster and a President Bush toady. After the second presidential debate, he gently teased Obama about his perfect composure before mercilessly comparing McCain’s perambulations during the town hall-style forum to those of a dotty retiree searching for his dog. (”Mr. Puddles! I have Snausages!” Stewart’s faux-McCain muttered in a voice-over as he wandered the stage.)

    “SNL” features impersonations of Obama and his running mate Joe Biden as well as Palin, and producer Lorne Michaels told the Globe that the show favors what is funny, not a particular candidate. …

    http://www.boston.com/news/pol.....ral_genre/

    At least they admit it.

    Meanwhile:

    The film “American Carol,” was written and directed by David Zucker, the man behind such iconic comedies as “Airplane” and “The Naked Gun.” The movie promised to be among the boldest of the season because it is the rarest of breeds, a conservative send-up of the political left.

    But nobody is paying much attention to the movie – the reviews are in, and they say it’s just not that funny. Even though it stars such pedigreed funnymen as Leslie Nielsen and Kelsey Grammer, it grossed just $3.8 million the weekend it opened.

    Zucker attributes “American Carol’s” poor reviews to the critics’ own liberal bias. “When we showed it to conservative audiences, it was like they loved it.”

    But he says he’s done with making conservative comedies. Maybe half the country pines for them, he said, but it’s the half that waits for movies to come out on DVD.

    Sorry, Mr. Zucker, but I went and, well, it just wasn’t that funny.

    If you want real, biting Conservative humor I suggest the Shanklin parodies on Rush’s show and of course Ann Coulter’s biting wit.

    However, given the response in New York to Palin on SNL, I honestly think the post-election analysis will show one of the biggest mistakes the McCain camp made was trying to shield Sarah from the public.

    I don’t care what the MSM says, at every appearance I’ve seen, the public loves Sarah and what she says hits home.

    Too bad they won’t let her speak.

    Hopefully she’ll continue to do a good job in Alaska and at least one state will be decently run…

  32. BillK
    October 22, 2008 at 6:05 am

    Associated with the above, from Martin Eisenstadt’s political blog:

    Barack Obama to appear on SNL. Lorne Michaels contributes $4600 to his campaign.

    In the wake of Sarah Palin’s star-confirming appearance on SNL, it may come as a surprise to learn that Lorne Michaels recently contributed $4600 to Barack Obama’s campaign, and NBC CEO Jeffrey Immelt contributed $10,000 to Joe Biden’s Delaware Democratic State Committee.

    Of course, some of you loyal readers will say, “But Marty, you told us that Lorne Michaels was in the tank for McCain.” And indeed, you may remember that I pointed out on my post on Sept. 10, that Lorne Michaels and NBC CEO Jeffrey Immelt were early John McCain supporters. But apparently they read my post, too, because the Obama/Biden contributions were posted shortly after the summer FEC reporting period. Maybe Michaels just knew that McCain and whoever he picked as veep would be easier to mock than Mitt Romney?

    I heard from one of Sarah’s aides this morning that at the obligatory SNL after party, a slightly affected Seth Meyers blurted out something to the effect of “…yeah, but just wait til you see what we have cooked up for Obama’s appearance right before the election.” You may remember that Obama “canceled” his appearance on the show on opening night because of Hurricane Ike. But sources now say that it could have been a ploy cooked up by Lorne Michaels and David Axelrod to save Obama for the November 1st show… right before the election.

    http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com.....-campaign/

    Wow, what a surprise… not.

  33. BillK
    October 22, 2008 at 6:12 am

    More truth, from the Hollywood Reporter:

    Republicans in biz feel stifled, bullied

    Conservatives claim their politics can have consequences

    By Paul Bond

    At a recent event for Republicans in Hollywood, an actress was asked whether she had ever worn her pro-Sarah Palin pin to an audition.

    “You must be joking!” she said with a laugh, adding, “But I see Obama stuff all the time.”

    It’s no secret that the entertainment industry is overwhelmingly liberal — political donations this presidential cycle from the movie, TV and music industries recently were running about 86% Democrat versus 14% Republican. But being outnumbered is one thing, but being bullied by your liberal co-workers into keeping your opinions to yourself is quite another.

    Is that what’s going on? Yes, say many of the industry’s conservatives. That’s why secret organizations with such names as “SpeakEasy” and “The Sunday Night Club” spring up every so often. They’re not conservative per se, they just let it be known that attendees of their gatherings may freely discuss politics without being chastised for not toeing the liberal line.

    “Are you kidding me? Of course it’s true,” Kelsey Grammer said when asked whether the town is hostile to conservatives. “I wish Hollywood was a two-party town, but it’s not.”

    Grammer said he knows of a makeup trailer that sported a sign warning Republicans to keep out and of U.S. war veterans who keep their backgrounds a secret from their Hollywood co-workers because they hear them belittle the military.

    He even said that, earlier in his career, his job was threatened by a prominent sitcom director who demanded he donate money to Barbara Boxer’s U.S. Senate campaign. To keep his job, he gave $10,000 to Boxer and the Democrats.

    Nowadays, Grammer is a bankable actor who is unafraid to speak his mind. His advice to less established industry players, though, is to shut up about politics — “unless you think the way you are supposed to think,” and that means liberal.

    Unlike Grammer, most Hollywood conservatives appear to be of the closeted variety. “I know every liberal at work and don’t know any conservatives because they never speak up,” a longtime executive at Warner Bros. said. …

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.c.....11538?pn=1

    Believe me, Hollywood is far from the only place this is true; science and engineering are also fields in which it is just assumed you are liberal because the people speaking can’t honestly imagine that “one of those people” could be in their midst.

    A typical response from one of the Reporter’s readers:

    Oh, cry me a river, all you poor, bullied, ostracized conservatives. Maybe the reasons you’re the minority in Hollywood are the same as the reasons you’re the minority in any metropolitan community in the US… because your party has driven this country into the ground over the past eight years. You feel excluded? It doesn’t compare to being a gay man or woman and being excluded from the right to marry, as your party is fighting to do. Andrew Klavan says today’s anti-war movies were “made by people who sit around at Skybar discussing their Pacifist world view.” Actually, Andrew, a lot of these “liberals” are actually sincere, compassionate, generous people who donate a lot of time and money to those less fortunate. Poor Kelsey Grammer has managed to make quite a respectable living despite being “shunned” by Hollywood’s liberal majority. I wonder how much he – and his fellow conservatives Mel Gibson and Victoria Jackson – do to help their fellow man and woman.

    Sure, “a lot” in the case of Hollywood celebrities is a few dollars here and there.

    When’s the last time you heard of, say, Brad Pitt donating the salary from his latest film to the New Orleans residents he claims to love and care for so much?

    Not when he and Angelina need to jet off to some foreign country to have their latest child.

    But there’s no sense in arguing with liberals; you’d have more luck arguing with cattle in an effort to get them not to poo in the pasture.

  34. BannedbytheTaliban
    October 22, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Some classic misdirection from CNN:

    Ex-GOP operative tells cautionary tale about ‘how to rig an election’

    MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) — Allen Raymond is living proof that political dirty tricksters do exist.

    The former Republican political operative went to federal prison after he pleaded guilty to charges of phone harassment. He jammed the phone lines of New Hampshire’s Democratic Party on Election Day six years ago

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html

    Need I post anymore? We all know how this one turns out. Can anyone find me where in the MSM ACORN, or any other legitimate voter fraud, is linked to the Dems. Or how all the voter fraud this election is overwhelmingly biased toward Obama. No, they just need to dig up 6 year old dirt to smear the republicans. Needless to say he never stopped one person from voting, nor did he cast, nor was responsible for any fraudulent ballots. But none the less, he is a dirty trickster. And by the way, Republican is mentioned no less than 8 times in the article.

    What media bias?

  35. BillK
    October 23, 2008 at 3:53 am

    Those mean, dirty Republicans!

    From a delighted AP:

    Telemarketers quit over anti-Obama phone calls

    By Scott Bauer

    MADISON — Telemarketers in Wisconsin and West Virginia asked to make calls bashing Barack Obama and linking him to 1960s radical William Ayers quit their jobs rather than read the required script.

    The calls were paid for by the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee and are being placed in several states across the country.

    In West Virginia, Fairmont State University student Chaylee Cole said she and a friend refused to call people and read a script last week that linked Obama to Ayers.

    “I just didn’t agree with it,” Cole said Wednesday. “I didn’t know it if was true and I wasn’t going to call people and push this on them.”

    Cole, 18, said she and her friend Kelsey Stalnaker left work that day without getting paid. Cole said she quit the following day, on Friday. Stalnaker did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

    The McCain campaign defended the Ayers call.

    “At no point has anyone disputed any point in this phone call,” said campaign spokeswoman Sarah Lenti. “Barack Obama has yet to answer the many questions the American people have about his connections to an unrepentant domestic terrorist. If the script is troubling, it is because many find Obama’s associations and judgment very troubling.”

    Neither she nor Republican National Committee spokesman Chris Taylor would say how many states the call is being placed in. Democrats have reported receiving the call in battleground states across the country including Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Missouri.

    Cole, a Democrat who said she will vote for Obama, felt the call crossed the line.

    “Democrat or Republican, the candidates ought to be about what they can do best for our country and not slandering one’s name,” she said.

    The call claims that “Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country.”

    Obama has denounced Ayers’ past violent activities and has said Ayers is not and has never been involved in the campaign. …

    http://www.madison.com/tct/news/310763

    So an idiot 18 year-old self-professed Democrat who is voting for Obama refuses to make a phone call for McCain because she in her bubbleheaded ignorance hasn’t done the research to know of Obama’s links to Ayers, and it’s news.

    No bias. None at all.

  36. BillK
    October 23, 2008 at 4:12 am

    From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

    Voter fraud, suppression battle to intensify as election approaches

    By Greg J. Borowski

    For those weary of the battle between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama as the presidential election approaches, there is another clash sure to intensify in the final days: Fraud vs. Suppression.

    Republicans and allies warn of voter fraud and attempts to steal the election, while Democrats and supporters decry voter suppression and intimidation.

    That fight is being waged in legal filings, conference calls, formal protests and news releases across the country, including in Wisconsin, where a dispute over the statewide voter list goes before a Dane County judge today.

    It may be easy to dismiss the debate as typical partisan wrangling. But the fight has a real impact on what voters experience at the polls and who casts ballots.

    From one side: Are voter lists clean, to guard against ineligible votes being cast on Nov. 4? And the other: Will polling places operate smoothly, without long lines, so eligible voters don’t walk away in frustration?

    In Wisconsin, the questions carry special importance. The 2004 election was decided by about 11,400 votes, or 0.4%. The state has one of the most open systems in the nation, with same day registration and no photo ID requirement.

    “There’s no question, our laws place a great deal of trust in individual voters,” Bruce Landgraf, an assistant Milwaukee County district attorney focused on election issues, said Wednesday at a forum at the Marquette University Law School.

    The debate will take center stage today, when a judge returns to the lawsuit filed by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, against the state Government Accountability Board.

    At issue: Whether the board and local election officials will be required to compare people who registered between Jan. 1, 2006, and Aug. 5, 2008, against driver’s license records. Under federal law, those checks were supposed to start Jan. 1, 2006, but the state’s computer system couldn’t run the checks until this August.

    The board says there is no time to make the checks before the election.

    Van Hollen says the checks are needed to assure only valid voters are on the list. Critics, noting he is a state co-chair of McCain’s campaign, say the lawsuit reeks of partisanship. The accountability board says most of the discrepancies are minor, such as missing initials.

    While that lawsuit has garnered the most attention, the fraud vs. suppression battle has played out in many ways and often focused on Milwaukee — the state’s largest city, a Democratic stronghold and site of election problems in 2004.

    For instance, a coalition of labor unions recently sent letters to the city Election Commission threatening protests if they were not satisfied with the city’s election plans, from the number of voting machines assigned to each ward to staffing levels. The protests did not materialize after they talked with city officials.

    The city has been a flashpoint in the national debate over voter registration drives run by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN.

    In the final presidential debate, McCain said the group was “on the verge of perpetuating one of the greatest voter frauds in the history of this country” and highlighted links between Obama and ACORN. The FBI has said it is investigating the group.

    Democrats have noted McCain has ties to a firm now embroiled in its own voter registration fraud allegations. And the Obama campaign has asked an independent prosecutor to review what it considers voter suppression efforts.

    In the Milwaukee case, the city has referred 49 workers from ACORN and the Community Voters Project to the district attorney’s office. Charges related to fraudulent registration cards have been filed against three, all with the voters project.

    Janet Boles, a political science professor at Marquette University, said the fraud vs. intimidation battle intensified after the 2000 election, in which a Florida recount gave the White House to Republican George W. Bush.

    She noted it also coincides with another factor: rising turnout.

    Numbers were up in 2004, and many believe a record turnout is possible this year.

    “Those who dropped out and were not participating are disproportionately the poor,” said Boles. “Suddenly, we get blatant attempts at voter suppression just as those who were dropping out are dropping back in.” …

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=809369

    What a shocking statement from a Marquette University professor! You’d think being a professor requires one to be liberal or something.

    What a sad state of affairs as well that waiting in too long a line to vote is also now somehow “voter suppression,” as is merely observing:

    A recent e-mail from a state party official seeking police officers and military officials to be poll watchers in “intimidating” wards in the city drew a rebuke from Democrats, who said the intent was to discourage voters.

    “When Republicans send poll watchers into the city of Milwaukee, it’s an effort to reduce the number of people getting a ballot,” said Scot Ross, head of the advocacy group One Wisconsin Now.

    Yes, I’m sure Republicans will be at polls with guns drawn to make sure the poor and minorities don’t vote… yet the left would like people to believe just that, and I’m sure that far too many people actually do.

  37. BillK
    October 23, 2008 at 4:17 am

    From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

    New citizens eager to vote

    Number of naturalizations swells in months before election

    By Georgia Pabst

    An episode of gout put Jiju Kalapurakkal on crutches Wednesday, but he was determined not to miss his naturalization ceremony at Milwaukee’s federal courthouse.

    “I didn’t want to postpone it because I wanted to become a citizen before the election,” he said.

    Kalapurakkal, 38, who came here from India 10 years ago, is among thousands swelling the ranks of new Americans just in time for Nov. 4.

    “Since the summer of 2007, we’ve seen a tremendous surge of applications for naturalizations, which takes from six to 12 months,” said William Wright, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in Washington, D.C.

    One reason is the jump in the application fee from $300 to $595 in summer 2007, he said.

    “But there was also a major movement from advocacy groups who pushed for naturalization as part of the get-out-the-vote campaign,” he said. “There was a lot of talk about comprehensive immigration reform, so many wanted to get in while they can. That motivated a lot of folks.” …

    Ruby Pascual Briones, 52, of Williams Bay, who emigrated from the Philippines five years ago, said it’s her privilege and duty as a citizen to vote. She wasn’t shy about her presidential pick.

    “I’m voting for McCain,” she said with a big smile. “I’m pro-life, conservative and Christian, and that’s who I’m going for.”

    Armando Padilla, 34, a Mexican immigrant who works at a meat packing plant in Milwaukee, said he’s glad to become a citizen for the opportunity it will mean. He hopes one day to bring his parents here from León. He said he has not quite decided for whom to vote, although he’s leaning toward Barack Obama.

    “I think he wants to help Hispanics,” he said. …

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=809355

    You know Briones’ vote has got to piss off the advocacy groups.

    But someone should let Padilla know of “Amnesty” McCain’s background.

    [Moved to its own thread.]

  38. BillK
    October 23, 2008 at 4:24 am

    More on Palin’s “scandalous” “makeover” from the Los Angeles Times:

    Sarah Palin’s RNC-funded makeover: a fashion do or don’t?

    The beauty or scandal of the Republican vice presidential nominee’s new look appears to be in the eye of the beholder’s party.

    By Robin Abcarian and Kate Linthicum

    She portrays herself in campaign appearances as an average working woman with small-town values, a hockey mom who shops at Wal-Mart, the wife of a union member who works with his hands.

    So the news that the Republican National Committee has bought Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family nearly $150,000 worth of clothing since September has fueled charges of hypocrisy by her detractors and sparked questions about the legality of the expenditures.

    At a time when GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is struggling to convince voters that he understands their economic pain — introducing them to “Joe the Plumber” last week to prove it — his running mate’s shopping spree at the most rarefied retail temples may undercut his message.

    “What is shocking is that in the middle of a credit crunch, when all the candidates are trying to demonstrate they understand Joe Six-Pack and Main Street, that Sarah Palin would go shopping at the high end of 7th Avenue,” said Susan Scafidi, a professor at Fordham University School of Law who specializes in fashion law. “I am surprised that the RNC was careless enough to let its bill show up in the press.”

    The RNC listed the expenditures in its September and October Federal Election Commission filings. The website Politico first reported the story.

    The purchases occurred primarily on Sept. 10 in New York and Minneapolis at Neiman Marcus ($75,062.63), Saks Fifth Avenue ($49,425.74) and Bloomingdale’s ($5,102.71). Some money was apparently spent on clothes for her husband, Todd ($4,902.08), and her children, including a $92 romper from an upscale Minneapolis baby store that her infant son wore at the Republican national convention.

    The shopping spree cost about 75 times more than the average American spends per year on clothing; in 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, that figure was $1,874. It also totaled more than the $125,000 Palin makes annually as governor.

    In the February issue of Vogue, Palin joked that her preferred designers were “Patagonia and North Face.” But by the time she arrived onstage in St. Paul, Minn., last month to accept the nomination, her wardrobe transition was well underway: She wore a narrow black skirt and a Valentino silk jacket worth $2,500.

    Though she has not disclosed the labels she is wearing, fashion observers think she has worn Gianfranco Ferre, St. John and Anne Klein. On the trail, she is accompanied by a hairstylist and makeup artist.

    In Los Angeles on Wednesday, shoppers were split along partisan lines.

    “It’s hypocritical for her to say she’s a hockey mom on one side and then spend $70,000 at Neiman’s,” said Floyd Allyn, 45, who was shopping at Target in West Hollywood. “It’s just like McCain not knowing how many houses he owns.”

    But McCain supporter Christy Huber of Omaha was accepting. Shopping with friends in Beverly Hills, Huber, 60, paused in front of Saks Fifth Avenue. “If she had worn crappy clothes,” Huber said, “then everyone would have made fun of her for it.” …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....4359.story

    The press is really trying so hard to get a “scandal” to stick to Palin, but nothing seems to be working.

    Meanwhile, someone’s got to be able to come up with Hillary’s shopping receipts, not to mention Michelle Obama’s.

    Surprisingly enough, someone from Hollywood had perspective:

    Though voters may debate the wisdom of Palin’s purchases, and election law experts quibble, one wardrobe expert was impressed.

    “I am an Obama supporter, but when I heard that for $150,000, they dressed her, her children and her husband, I thought, ‘that’s not much,’ ” said Vicki Sanchez, a costume designer who dressed Geena Davis as the first female U.S. president on the short-lived TV show “Commander in Chief.”

    “When you start buying $3,000 suits, boots that cost anywhere from $800 and up, and designer shoes, which cost $500 at least, it goes fast,” Sanchez said. “She looks damn good. Get over it.”

  39. BillK
    October 23, 2008 at 4:28 am

    The GOP are a bunch of racists, talking in “code” again.

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    The ‘real’ America, really

    America today looks less and less like the one extolled by GOP mythmakers.

    By Rosa Brooks

    According to Sarah Palin, she and John McCain “believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”

    Um, very, um. … Yeah.

    Palin later backed away from these remarks, but the McCain-Palin campaign’s staff and surrogates — and even the guy at the top of the ticket — keep hammering the same message: Some parts of America — and some Americans — are just more authentic and “pro-America” than others.

    On Saturday, for instance, McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer suggested that although northern Virginia may have “gone more Democratic,” “real Virginia” (the “part of the state that’s more Southern in nature”) will be “very responsive” to McCain. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) joined the chorus, telling the crowd at a McCain rally, “Liberals hate real Americans that work, and accomplish, and achieve, and believe in God.”

    Hayes, like Palin, later forswore his remarks, but on Tuesday in western Pennsylvania — one of the few parts of the state where Barack Obama doesn’t hold a clear lead — McCain worked the same theme: Western Pennsylvania “is the most God-loving, most patriotic part of America.”

    The GOP code isn’t hard to crack: There’s the America that might vote for Obama (a suspect America populated by people with liberal notions, big-city ways and, no doubt, dark skin), and then there’s the “real” America, where people live in small towns, believe in God and country, and are … well … white.

    The divisive GOP rhetoric we’ve been hearing lately is hardly new. But with each passing year, the “real” America of GOP mythmaking bears less and less resemblance to the America most Americans live in.

    About 80% of Americans live in metropolitan areas, not small towns. A third of us are ethnic and racial minorities, but that’s changing: Already,nearly 45% of children under 5 are minorities. Although 88%of us believe in God, 70% think that religions other than our own are equally valid routes to truth. And while 59% of us think that wearing an American flag pin is a decent way to show patriotism, even more of us (66%) think that protesting U.S. policies we oppose is a good way to show patriotism. These days, more than half of us say we prefer the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/op.....478.column

    She’s actually proving the GOP’s point.

    The majority of those living in metropolitan areas are liberals who think protests are somehow patriotic and are, of course Democrats.

    Why we should let New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles drive policy for the rest of the country (you know, those “fly over” idiots who cling to Guns and God) is something she never quite makes clear, but I don’t think I need even ask if she has the infamous “Jesusland” graphic hanging on her office wall.

    Of course there’s the little matter of race, too, but liberals are never afraid to inject racism on our behalf.

  40. BillK
    October 23, 2008 at 4:32 am

    Grasping at straws doesn’t even begin to describe the press’ desperation now.

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    Sarah Palin’s college years left no lasting impression

    In the five years of her collegiate career, spanning four universities in three states, Palin left behind few traces. Not many professors or students even remember her.

    By Robin Abcarian

    Reported from Moscow, Idaho — What can we learn about our political stars from impressions they made in college?

    Sen. John McCain is remembered as a passionate contrarian who won the hearts of his classmates at the Naval Academy. Sen. Barack Obama, who attended Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, is remembered as a daunting scholar and calming influence. Sen. Joe Biden, who had a brush with plagiarism at Syracuse University College of Law, is remembered fondly by professors who found him charming.

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, however, is barely remembered at all.

    In the five years of her collegiate career, spanning four universities in three states, Palin left behind few traces.

    “Looking at this dynamic personality now, it mystifies me that I wouldn’t remember her,” said Jim Fisher, Palin’s journalism instructor at the University of Idaho, where she graduated with a bachelor of science degree in journalism in 1987.

    Palin, he said, took his public affairs reporting class, an upper-division course limited to 15 students. “It’s the funniest damn thing,” Fisher said. “No one can recall her.”

    “I don’t remember her,” said Roy Atwood, Palin’s academic advisor at the university.

    Indeed, interviews with a dozen professors yielded not a single snippet of a memory.

    Most were perplexed and frustrated that they could offer no insight into a woman who has become their most famous former student. Only a few classmates recalled her, and those with the strongest memories were people she had grown up with in Alaska. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/po.....9822.story

    I wouldn’t expect my professors or fellow students to remember me either.

    If you’re a quiet student who gets their work done why would you be notable?

    Yet somehow this is bad; perhaps Palin should have held some protests instead.

  41. BillK
    October 24, 2008 at 4:32 am

    A victory for voter fraud in Wisconsin, thanks to (shock!) an activist judge.

    From the (Madison) Wisconsin State Journal:

    Van Hollen case tossed, may ease lines for voters

    By Mark Pitsch

    The decision by a Dane County circuit judge Thursday to toss out a lawsuit seeking to force the state to double-check voter registrations going back two years likely means a smoother Election Day, with fewer voters having to re-register at the polls and faster-moving lines, officials said.

    But Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who filed the suit against the state Government Accountability Board in September, said not doing the checks raises the odds of voter fraud, and he vowed to appeal.

    The lawsuit sought to force the accountability board to order local clerks to check hundreds of thousands of voter registrations since January 2006 against state driver, death and felon databases to ensure accuracy and comply with the federal Help America Vote Act. The suit also sought to purge ineligible voters from the rolls.

    Critics said the move would throw hundreds of thousands of registrations into doubt, possibly creating a post-election ballot-counting frenzy such as that seen in Florida after the 2000 presidential election. Van Hollen maintained the checks were needed to guard against fraud that could possibly sway the presidential election.

    Ruling 12 days before the election, Judge Maryann Sumi said Van Hollen failed to show that state or federal law was being violated.

    “Nothing in state or federal law requires that there be a data match as a condition on the right to vote,” Sumi said. “HAVA does not supplant Wisconsin’s constitutionally protected right to establish its own voter eligibility standards.”

    Sumi also said that Van Hollen did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The U.S. attorney general is charged with enforcing HAVA, she said, and Van Hollen should have asked the accountability board for a hearing on the matter before filing suit.

    Van Hollen said he was disappointed but said he would appeal.

    “We cannot lose sight of the goal of this lawsuit,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “Wisconsin needs an accurate statewide voter list. Wisconsin needs to comply with state and federal laws designed to protect the right to vote. Looking the other way is not an option.”

    A spokesman said Van Hollen was still hopeful of a resolution before the Nov. 4 election and that the appeal, possibly directly to the state Supreme Court, would be filed soon.

    Sumi also ruled Thursday that the state Republican Party has no standing to join the suit. Reince Priebus, chairman of the state party, said party lawyers would review the order and consider an appeal.

    Lester Pines, a lawyer for the accountability board, called the ruling “an absolute validation.”

    “Judge Sumi’s decision was exceptionally scholarly, well-reasoned and supported by the law,” Pines said. …

    http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/310899

    So, just to sum up, a Wisconsin judge ruled that the Wisconsin AG “does not have standing” to enforce voter registration laws, only the Federal Government does.

    Sounds like an Obama voter to me.

  42. BillK
    October 24, 2008 at 4:40 am

    The daily Los Angeles Times Palin hit piece:

    Palin appointed friends and donors to key posts in Alaska, records show

    100-plus jobs went to campaign donors or their relatives, sometimes without apparent regard to qualifications. Several donors got state-subsidized loans for business ventures of dubious public value.

    By Charles Pillar

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, plucked from relative obscurity in part for her reform credentials, has been eager to tout them in her vice presidential campaign.

    “I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau when I stood up to the special interests and the lobbyists and the big oil companies and the good old boys,” Palin told the Republican National Convention in her acceptance speech. She said that as a new governor she “shook things up, and in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.”

    By midway through her first term, she had signed an ethics reform bill, increased oil profit taxes and tweaked Big Oil again by awarding a gas pipeline contract to a Canadian company.

    In some other respects, a Los Angeles Times examination of state records shows, her approach to government was business as usual. Take, for example, the tradition of patronage. Some of Palin’s most controversial appointments involved donors, records show.

    * More than 100 appointments to state posts — nearly 1 in 4 — went to campaign contributors or their relatives, sometimes without apparent regard to qualifications.

    * Palin filled 16 state offices with appointees from families that donated $2,000 to $5,600 and were among her top political patrons.

    * Several of Palin’s leading campaign donors received state-subsidized industrial development loans of up to $3.6 million for business ventures of questionable public value.

    * Palin picked a donor to replace the public safety commissioner she fired. But the new top cop had to resign days later under an ethics cloud. And Palin drew a formal ethics complaint still pending against her and several aides for allegedly helping another donor and fundraiser land a state job.

    Most new governors install friends and supporters in state jobs. But Alaska historians say some of Palin’s appointees were less qualified than those of her Republican and Democratic predecessors.

    University of Alaska historian Steve Haycox said Palin has been a reformer. But he said she has a penchant for placing supporters, many of them ill-prepared, in high posts. He called it “cronyism” far beyond what previous governors have done and a contradiction of her high-minded philosophy.…

    http://www.latimes.com/news/pr.....6906.story

    Wow, can you imagine a politician appointing friends and donors to key posts?

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

    She should have appointed her enemies and political opponents instead – the Democrats would have.

    What?

    They do the same?

    Silly me.

    I mean really, appointments from family members of donors? That never happens with Democrats,

    But that’s OK – Democrats never even mention “reform” so they don’t need to even try.

  43. BillK
    October 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

    A defense from Sarah Palin via the AP:

    Palin Denies Accepting $150,000 in Designer Clothes

    VP candidate calls herself “frugal,” insists she did not accept wardrobe from RNC and “that is not who we are”

    ORMOND BEACH, Fla. — Sarah Palin insisted in an interview on Thursday that she did not accept $150,000 worth of designer clothes from the Republican Party and said the media spotlight on the story is evidence of bias against women candidates.

    “I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race,” Palin said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune posted on the newspaper’s Web site Thursday night. “Do you remember the conversations that took place about her, say superficial things that they don’t talk about with men, her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that? That’s a bit of that double standard.”

    Palin, who is John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, said the clothes were not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention.

    Most of the clothes have never left the campaign plane and “that is not who we are,” she told the newspaper.

    “It’s kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported,” Palin said.

    “That whole thing is just, bad!” she said. “Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are.”

    News of the purchases of designer clothes, largely from upscale Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, contrasts with the image Palin has crafted as a typical “hockey mom.”

    McCain was asked several questions on Thursday about the shopping spree — and he answered each one more or less the same way: Palin needed clothes and they’ll be donated to charity.

    “She needed clothes at the time. They’ll be donated at end of this campaign. They’ll be donated to charity,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus between Florida rallies.

    Asked for details on how they’ll be donated, McCain said, “It works by her getting some clothes when she was made the nominee of the party and it will be donated back to charity.”

    Asked if he was surprised at the amount spent, McCain said, “It works that the clothes will be donated to charity. Nothing surprises me.”< ?b>

    McCain offered no further comment, except to say that the Republican National Committee doesn’t buy his clothes.

    Also on Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a private watchdog group in Washington, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Palin, the Republican National Committee and several political operatives alleging that the purchase of clothing for Palin and her family violates Federal Election Campaign Act.

    The law prohibits a candidate for federal office from converting campaign funds to personal use. CREW notes that FEC regulations make clear the prohibition applies to clothing but also provide that donations by candidates to charity are not for personal use. CREW argued this exception might apply to Palin’s clothes but doesn’t appear to apply to clothes for her family.

    Asked Wednesday who had paid for the suit he was wearing, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden told WSLS-TV in Roanoke, Va.: “I pay for my suits. I pay for all of my own clothing.” …

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2.....r-clothes/

    Of course you’ll either not hear this in the MSM, or it will be reported with a knowing smirk and sneer.

    Meanwhile I like the way McCain’s comment almost directly contradicts Palin’s.

    I really wish Palin would simply admit she’s having to run against McCain, not with him… :-(

  44. BillK
    October 24, 2008 at 8:27 am

    The sitting police chief of Los Angeles records a robocall for Obama.

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    Bratton records phone message supporting Obama

    The endorsement, which is not yet being used, extols the Democratic presidential candidate’s record on ‘policing issues,’ the LAPD chief says.

    By Joel Rubin

    Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton waded into the contentious U.S. presidential campaign Thursday, recording an automated telephone message on behalf of Democrat Barack Obama.

    The message challenged Republican John McCain’s “record on policing issues and extolled Obama’s,” Bratton said in an interview. It comes, he said, in response to a telephone message recently made by former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in support of McCain and critical of Obama’s law enforcement bona fides.

    A spokesperson for Obama declined to comment. According to Bratton, the campaign held off from making fast use of it, opting not to send it out to potential voters on Thursday. It was unclear when, or in which states, the campaign planned to use the recording.

    Describing himself as “an independent,” Bratton said he decided to assist Obama because “Democrats are much more supportive on policing issues. Republicans are just not good on local policing.”

    Bratton, one of the nation’s leading law enforcement figures, is widely credited for his success in dramatically reducing crime rates in Los Angeles and New York, where he led the Police Department for two years in the mid-1990s. The tit for tat with Giuliani is steeped in ill-will between the two: Giuliani, mayor in New York when Bratton was police commissioner, clashed with Bratton over credit for the falling crime rate. Bratton eventually resigned his post.

    The recording is the first time Bratton has lent his considerable reputation to Obama’s campaign. The police chief was widely seen as a firm supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during her unsuccessful bid for her party’s nomination. The recording is bound to refuel incessant rumors that Bratton is looking to land the top spot at the FBI or Homeland Security in a Democratic administration. …

    http://www.latimes.com/news/po.....7272.story

    Let’s see, there are at least two things here.

    First, I hope no one was drinking coffee while reading the line that “Democrats are more supportive on policing issues.” If not, don’t blame me for the fact that you need a new computer now.

    Democrats? Supportive of Police? On which planet would that be? Would those be the same Democrats who sued the Los Angeles Police because their commands to disperse at an immigration rally were only given in English? The same Democrats who regularly sue the LAPD for profiling? Those Democrats?

    Second, Giuliani isn’t a sitting official. By recording this message, you’ve just told any Republicans in Los Angeles, few as they are, that their Police Chief cares more about politics than about protecting them. Nice.

    Finally, what was the whine about a few posts up about Palin naming political supporters to positions of import? Not that Barry would name a supporter to a top spot at the FBI or DHS – no, not at all…

  45. BillK
    October 24, 2008 at 8:35 am

    The daily Palin-bashing article from the San Francisco Chronicle:

    Pricey new duds aren’t helping Palin in polls

    By Joe Garofoli

    Receiving more than $150,000 in clothing and accessories from the Republican National Committee last month doesn’t just run counter to Gov. Sarah Palin’s image as a “Wal-Mart Mom from Wasilla,” it also might have violated the spirit if not the letter of a campaign finance law co-authored by her running mate, Sen. John McCain.

    The 2002 McCain-Feingold law prohibits funds that “are donated for the purpose of supporting the activities of a federal or state officeholder” from being used for personal expenses, including clothing, but it doesn’t preclude party committees from doing so.

    Politico.com first reported the expenditure on clothing, hair styling, makeup and other “campaign accessories” made in September, and the McCain camp couldn’t tamp down the story by saying that it intended to donate the items to charity after the election.

    “With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses,” McCain spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said. “It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.”

    However, in May 1993, McCain said, “The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly.”

    What’s eroding even more significantly – and quickly – could be the public’s confidence in Palin. For the first time Wednesday, according to a new MSNBC/Wall Street Journal poll, more people have a negative response to Palin than a positive one. The poll of 1,159 registered voters from Oct. 17 to 20 found that 47 percent viewed Palin negatively; 38 percent saw her in a positive light. The poll found that 55 percent felt she wasn’t qualified to be president.

    In September, shortly after McCain asked her to join the GOP ticket, Palin enjoyed a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.

    “Coming at a time that more Americans are being asked to do more with less, this doesn’t look good,” said Linda Basch, president of the nonpartisan National Council for Research on Women.

    “The question about her clothing fits in with her two-dimensional portrayal in this campaign: She’s either the attack dog or the hot babe,” Basch said. “The American people (in the MSNBC/WSJ poll) are showing that they believe that she doesn’t have a command of domestic or foreign policy issues. She has not spoken out about the issues that matter in this campaign to women.

    “And now, people feel the hot babe is not going to be able to fix things,” she said. …

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....13MAOF.DTL

    Could you imagine the “National Council for Research on Women” referring to any Democrat s “the hot babe?”

    Where are the women’s groups complaining about the reduction of Palin to her appearance?

    Nowhere, of course.

    I also don’t quite buy the polls touting Palin’s falling ratings.

    If they’re true, McCain is done anyway, so it doesn’t make a difference.

    Funny how every Republican I talk to says they’re voting for McCain because of Palin.

    So if the Independents hate her, we lose.

    But the Conservatives hate McCain, so the GOP would have lost anyway.

    Six of one, a half dozen of another.

    Meanwhile, I love this analysis:

    Perhaps Palin’s self-appointed “hockey mom” image was a bit overblown.

    “She was never a hockey mom, she was always the prom queen sitting in the back of the convertible waving to the hockey moms,” said Simon Doonan, creative director at Barneys New York, the high-end clothing store.

    As a fashion expert, Doonan didn’t have a problem with Palin’s expenditures, as $150,000 doesn’t go as far as it used to – especially when you’re a national candidate making several personal appearances a day. He estimated that outfitting Palin – shoes to accessories – in the style she has been sporting would run about $5,000 per outfit.

    “In my mind, ($150,000) is not nearly enough,” Doonan said. “She should be out there feeding the economy – as long as she is buying American and shopping retail.”

    Once again, she’s not normal, she’s the “prom queen” – she’s too attractive to be taken seriously.

    Part of the clothing affair is a double standard that female politicians face. Democrat John Edwards drew scorn during the primaries last year for receiving two $400 haircuts, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s wardrobe was dissected in ways almost equal to examinations of her health care policy.

    “Men have it easy in that they have this uniform – a dark suit, white shirt and red tie – while women are expected to be different,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics.

    Personally, I’m looking forward to Obama winning and letting the press get on to the real job of destroying the America we all know.

    I’m sick of it all and just don’t see how McCain/Palin have a snowball’s chance right now with the forces aligned against us.

    And that’s without whatever last minute smear the Democrats have ready to roll November 3 that will be impossible to refute before people hit the polls.

    Finally, I’d like to see what percentage of people believe Obama isn’t qualified to be President – it’s got to be near 55% even among those voting for him, because they’re so enraged with false anger at Republicans they’d vote for Hitler if he was running as a Democrat.

    You know that’s gotta piss Hillary off…

  46. BillK
    October 24, 2008 at 10:19 am

    No bias nor agenda here. Not at all.

    From USA Today:

    Group asks IRS to investigate Catholic bishop against Obama

    By Daniel Burke

    WASHINGTON — A church-state watchdog group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether the Roman Catholic bishop of Paterson, N.J., violated tax laws by denouncing Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.
    In a letter sent to the IRS on Wednesday (Oct. 22), Americans United for Separation of Church and State accused Paterson Bishop Arthur Serratelli of illegal partisanship for lambasting Obama’s support of abortion rights.

    In a column posted on the Diocese of Paterson’s website and published in its weekly newspaper, Serratelli also compared Obama to King Herod, the biblical monarch who ordered the death of John the Baptist.

    The bishop did not refer to Obama by name but only as “the present democratic (sic) candidate.”

    Under federal tax law, nonprofit groups — including religious organizations — are prohibited from intervening in campaigns for public office by endorsing or opposing candidates.

    Serratelli wrote that Obama has pledged, if elected president, to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, abortion-rights legislation the Catholic Church vehemently opposes.

    “If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood,” Serratelli wrote.

    The Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United, said it is “impossible to interpret this passage as anything but a command to vote against ‘the present Democratic candidate’ because of his promise to sign a certain piece of legislation disfavored by the Catholic Church’s hierarchy.”

    http://usatoday.com/news/relig.....bama_N.htm

    Perhaps he should have just said “I oppose any candidate whose pastor preaches hate and damns the fine country we live in.”

    Of course “Americans United” (which of course represents few Americans at all) misses the point that it’s not just the petulant whim of this Priest, a Cardinal or even the Pope to oppose this legislation.

    Rather it goes against a central tenant of the church’s teaching.

    It’s as if Congress were preparing legislation saying Mary was not a virgin but rather a single mother that got knocked up, and had we had “Freedom of Choice” legislation she could have just aborted Jesus and stopped all this Christian bull.

    (Don’t expect Democrats to not craft such a bill, but I digress.)

    It wouldn’t merely be “disagreement” with the bill by the church’s hiearchy, it would be a completely against everything the church represented.

    Now I know the Kennedys for one can sit in a Catholic Church and be given Communion while being directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of unborn children each year, but it’s amazing how Freedom of Speech means nothing in cases like this.

  47. 1sttofight
    October 24, 2008 at 10:42 am

    If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

    If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

    There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

    If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

    Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

    But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
    at must read article.

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

    It just shows how in the tank for democrats and dishonest the msm really is.

  48. spiffyw
    October 24, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    This guy has got it right spot on on .20 mins but Wow.

    Hon. James David Manning, PhD preaches about Obama’a mama, grandmama, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezco, William Ayers, and more in the message called “God Save America” preached on Saturday, 18 October 2008

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5777

You must be logged in to post a comment.


« Home | To Top
« Cindy Sheehan Seeks Restraining Order | Update: Obamas ‘Caviar Story’ Is Bogus »