It’s rarely wrong.
…Obama’s greatest fear is big turnout in mostly ignored rural areas for McCain and not enough of a turnout, not a big enough turnout in these urban areas and in the inner suburbs. Now, this article talks about North Carolina and Missouri, but I have to assume the McCain people think the same scenario could play out in Pennsylvania, ’cause they’re there. They have been there for the last week. It also has a large population in rural and small towns, and it was in this state’s primary that Obama made his bitter clinger remarks at the billionaire fundraiser out in San Francisco. Look, folks, the thing to keep in mind here is that these reports that we’re getting from inside the Obama campaign…
Yeah, and Murtha’s, Murtha’s asked for a million-dollar campaign donation. He’s in trouble. Jack Murtha’s in trouble in his “racist” “redneck” district, quote Jack Murtha, unquote, near Johnstown. He’s in trouble. There’s a lot going on here that the Drive-Bys are not reporting because they’ve been swept up in all that we have learned here from the inside Obama campaign that the entire campaign has been to create an illusion. The entire campaign has been to create an illusion — starting with skewing pollsters and co-opting the Drive-By Media — to make it look like this is a fait accompli from the get-go. And this is why in the past week to ten days, I’ve made the point repeatedly here, not to fall prey to what you see on television and read in the dwindling editions of newspapers that are out there.
Bottom line: Ignore the polls. Ignore the exit polling on election night. Ignore the Obamaniacs’ attempts to make you think the election is over. It’s not over until you vote.
And now a nudge from Team Sarah.
Meanwhile, Obama says that if you’re against higher taxes you’re selfish. Well, to me being selfish is a virtue, but I doubt he sees it that way, and neither do most people when they hear the word.
Which is why, pace the tortured parsing of Obama’s supporters, this is a good ad:
For years I have complained that not once in my life have I been able to vote for president. I’ve always voted against someone. (Yes, to be honest, I wasn’t even voting for Reagan. Do you remember the clowns who ran against him?)
I hereby repent of that attitude, buoyed by the late, great Robert Heinlein:
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for … but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”
Instapundit just posted another Heinlein quote. Again, it’s a keeper.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
The whole idea of confusing “sharing” with communism is laughable. If he stole another kid’s sandwich at gunpoint, took a big bite, and then distributed what’s left to other kids, that would be communism. And the notion that you can “tax the rich” to benefit the poor is beyond risible. Does he really think his minions are that stupid?
Don’t answer that.
I’m just wondering when Obama plans on sharing his peanut butter sandwich with brother George and Aunt Zeituni.
Maybe he’s waiting to give Auntie her PB&J after she finds a legal address.
One More Update:
This is not the Auntie’s immigration status I knew.
Still thinking of voting for Obama? Read Mark Alexander’s essay at the head of today’s Patriot Post.
I was speaking with a friend recently, a man who lived most of his life under the Communist regime in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. He has spent several years and continues to incur many legal expenses in his endeavor to become a U.S. citizen, but he has since lost his enthusiasm.
“The prospect of an Obama presidency is like dèja vu for me,” he explained. “The socialist goal back home was that everyone had equal wealth. They met that goal—eventually no one had anything. Any attempt to work harder to achieve a better standard of living for your family was considered contrary to the welfare of the state, and dutifully discouraged. Socialism is a big hole, easy to fall into and hard to climb out of.”
He lamented, “The American dream is not something I want to wake up from—but too many Americans have no idea what they have, and are about to lose it. Socialism seems an appealing ideal, collective ownership, equal society, ‘sharing the wealth,’ et cetera. But it has a downside: It doesn’t work.”
And read William J. H. Boetker’s Ten Cannots.
- You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
- You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
- You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
- You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
- You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
- You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
- You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
- You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
- You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
- You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to this:
Should Barack Obama succeed in deceiving a majority of voters next Tuesday, our readers have suggested two methods of protest: Either displaying your flag upside down [a sign of distress] or flying it at half mast — or both, for seven days, and doing the same on inauguration day, 20 January 2009.
Contrast that protest with what a few fringies on the Left are threatening.
Everything goes better with Yakkity Sax:
And no, I don’t think the choice of the bolt length is subliminal support for polygamy. I’ve had people throw polygamy at me as an argument against Prop 8. That’s nonsense. If you want polygamy you should vote no on it, since prop 8 closes the door on arbitrary redefinitions of marriage. (Yes, there is a satisfying irony knowing that the Mormons in California are effectively campaigning against polygamy. That ought to convince people they’ve rejected it. I mean, it’s been a century, folks.)
for using the Associated Press’ name in this blatantly fake parody.
Is the New Media ready to step up to the plate?
But just as my 2006 pieces on Afghanistan explicitly warned that chaos was descending upon the land, I write it here clearly again: during 2009, we likely will see more fighting in Afghanistan than we have experienced to date. Come spring and summer, friendly casualties from all sides will likely be at an all-time high. There is no end in sight. I would not doubt that, given time and barring some extreme unforeseen changes in the situation, the Afghanistan-Pakistan war might well devolve into something far worse than we ever saw in Iraq.
If America elects a president who does not understand the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we could fumble the hard-won progress in Iraq and lose the war in Afghanistan. In fact, many Americans think that we could lose America as we know it.
You must have seen that other video. Now watch this one.
Heck, just look at any of Ramirez’s work. Today’s is great:
He gets the phrase “journalistic ethics” in the same paragraph as the Los Angeles Times.
Even if you accept for argument’s sake the bunk about honoring the “source’s” supposed wishes, the newspaper wouldn’t need to release the tape in order to give us a more comprehensive account of what happened that evening. So it’s not that the Times is simply withholding the tape. The Times is trying to suppress the story. Not the story as Wallsten spun it back in April. The full story.
The full story couldn’t be more relevant. Barack Obama says he is a staunch supporter of Israel. The importance of the Khalidi festivities isn’t simply that Obama lavished praise on a man who was an Arafat apologist — although that is troubling in itself. What also matters is that many speakers (no doubt including Obama’s good friend Khalidi himself) said extremely provocative things about Israel and American policy.
While that went on, Obama apparently sat there in tacit acceptance, if not approval. He didn’t get up to leave. He wasn’t roused to a defense of his country. He didn’t deliver a spirited condemnation of Islamic terror. He just sat there. And when it came his turn to speak, he spoke … glowingly … about Khalidi. He was clearly comfortable around the agitators and, equally crucial, they were clearly comfortable spewing their bile in front of him — confident that they were certainly not giving offense.
Are you befuddled by all the conservatives jumping ship to Obama? Let noted conservative T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII explain.
Certainly, my endorsement has raised more than a few eyebrows around the National Topsider water cooler, particularly among the alumni of jejune cow colleges like Michigan or Dartmouth. They sometimes point to Mr. Obama’s radical Rolodex and his hooey about “weath redistribution” and “dictatorship of the proletariat.” But, as I patiently explain, this is precisely the point – it is hooey, over-the-top rhetorical flourishes obviously designed by Mr. Obama to win over benighted inner city hoi polloi (a feat, I might add, that even the Great Communicator himself was unable to accomplish). As for his so-called radical ties, who among us hasn’t sent dinner party invitations to Gore Vidal and a leftwing terrorists or two to enliven the postprandial conversation? Leonard Bernstein loved hosting all manner of Weathermen and Black Panthers and Symbionese Liberation Army celebrities at his Park Avenue pied a terre, but it didn’t mean the Maestro wasn’t in favor of low taxes. On the contrary; I know for a fact he itemized every cent of the catering bills for his famous terrorist cocktail parties.
I can imagine a lot of libertarians going this way. It’s pretty close to my reasoning.
One reason I speculate that this is what I “think is going on here” among libertarians is that until fairly recently this is exactly what I was thinking, even until relatively recently, and I was genuinely on the fence between McCain and Barr (acknowledging that Barr is both a bit of a nut and has some statist tendencies himself). But one reason why I linked Pete duPont’s sobering WSJ column the other day is that I have slowly come to the conclusion that as bad as McCain is, Obama really is much, much worse than I realized for a long time. Maybe I’m just slower at this than others, but it really took a long for it to sink in to me exactly how far left Obama really is. On every single issue that I am aware of, he seems to be at the far left end of the Democratic Party spectrum. I mean really out there.
And finds that Obama must have been “eight years old” in about 1981. It’s a gigantic post, the kind of real “investigative journalism” that bloggers like Zombie can do so well. The bottom line:
The strand connecting Obama to Ayers in 1981 is admittedly tenuous, but it is visible. And what we see may only be a tiny part of the story. The information available at this stage is woefully incomplete. But all the evidence hinting at their connection is certainly within the realm of possibility. And what is most certain is that Obama, as a very grown-up twenty-year-old, came very very close to the orbit of the Weather Underground and William Ayers.
Just found this great site via The Corner. Enjoy it before Obama has it shut down and the owners prosecuted.
The Marines are here. The real ones.
Stop lying about us in your ads.
The Heritage Foundation
If not, just consider what we have to look forward to judicial-wise if Obama takes control.
[Obama] also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.
If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.
I say again to those who chant “But Carter gave us Reagan” that there are two things to consider. First, Obama is so far left he makes Carter look like Barry Goldwater. Second, we have still not recovered from the damage Carter did. And Obama has already proven to be much, much nastier than the Nasty Little Man.
If thinking of the Courts doesn’t depress you, just think of how you’ll be investigated if you dare to ask the wrong question.
I was in Orlando over the weekend. I was struck by several things. One, everybody was just incredibly nice there. Another was that there were campaign signs everywhere – for local races. I didn’t see one Obama nor McCain sign.
But I did see a button in someone’s office. It read:
He may be dead, but he’s better than Obama.
Elaine Lafferty, Democrat and former editor in chief of Ms., says Sarah Palin’s a Brainiac.
Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
On a related note, take four minutes to hear the point Glenn Loury makes here.
Now we have Coastal Elites for Sarah Palin
Do you find yourself telling your squash partner to call you “Barracuda” during a match? Have you set aside a weekend for “snow machining” when you winter in Vail? When someone asks you to make his martini extra dry, do you respond “you betcha”? During your last pheasant walk-up, did you stop to consider that moose hunting might be a good change of pace? Upon seeing Sen. McCain introduce Gov. Palin, did you announce, “Well, Dorothy Parker sure got that one wrong!” If so, this group is for you.
Not a typo for Mexican food. One of Saturn’s moons.
Boston.com has been doing a great job on astrononomy images lately. Their Big Picture feature on the sun is amazing.
Brought to you by Glenn Beck.
If that seems over the top, watch it again with images (mostly) from actual Obama ads. (They slipped in a couple of ringers, which weakens the parody a bit.)
This is airing in Cleveland, OH.
Oh, and now everywhere thanks to Drudge.
Charles, at LGF, is calling on everybody to rattle the LA Times’ cage.
The Los Angeles Times is hiding a potentially explosive video of a presidential candidate, during the final days of an election.
This is brazen, unethical media malfeasance.
Don’t let them get away with it.
There are links to contact the paper and their advertisers there on LGF.
Melanie Philips asks, is America really going to do this?
There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can’t sleep at night.
Mark Levin has similar worries.
The question is whether enough Americans understand what’s at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.
think this is a pretty good spot.
There are signs in my neighborhood urging a no on prop 8, using the equality argument. That’s one of the main reasons to vote yes: If homosexual “marriage” is treated as a matter of equality, if arbitrary definitions of marriage can be incorporated into the law by fiat, then “equality” dictates that the state also sanction the following:
- A guy who wants to marry his cousin.
- A guy who wants to marry his sister.
- A guy who wants to marry his goat.
- A guy who wants to marry a lot of women at once.
- And, in California, at least, a guy who wants to marry his car.
That would be chaos, not equality.
“This is so serious that I predict it will get almost one-tenth as much national coverage as something some guy may have yelled at a Palin rally once.”
Probably just an isolated incident.
And, to be painfully clear, doesn’t mean that everybody behaves this way.
But I can tell you it doesn’t surprize me much.
Yes, it seems that (as usual) skepticism is indicated. (That’s with the caveat that polygraph tests are not scientific). What’s wrong with some people? I mean, you expect this stuff from the Left. But when someone ostensibly on our side goes all walkies like this it adds disappointment and incredulity to the mix.
I was out of town for a few days and missed this. Sadly, the fact that she was a Ron Paul supporter partially explains the behavior. How I used to like that man. It made it hard to take when he turned out to be the crazy uncle.