How Obama Got Elected

http://howobamagotelected.com/

UPDATED: Hiatus

Please don't mistake my recent absence for a lack of interest or for red-state flu. Life has just been very busy since Nov. 4.

In case you haven't heard it enough, Oklahoma had a great night last Tuesday. Dana Murphy won the Corporation Commissioner position in one of the most key races in the state against nationally-funded gay activism poster boy Jim Roth, another one of Aubrey McClendon's failed investments. It's always a great feeling when the candidate who was outspent 4-1 wins.

We took a majority in the State Senate for the first time in forever, which involved Nancy Riley getting burned for costing us the majority last time. That felt good. And Sally Kern was also re-elected against a nationally-funded candidate. Grassroots conservatism is alive and well in Oklahoma, thank God!!

Right now, we've still got one battle being fought. State Senator Jim Reynolds is facing an ACORN travesty. His challenger, David Boren (no relation to that David Boren), also nationally-funded, is requesting multiple recounts of ACORN-tainted votes. Right now, the recount is in progress and Jim is still ahead. I'll update when we get final word. UPDATE: Jim gained 2 votes in the recount, winning the election. However, a hearing has been scheduled to investigate "voting irregularities on both sides." (I'm sure.)

We didn't lose any Republican US seats, which is also a huge win, considering our guys haven't been behaving well recently. However, they're still doing better than any liberal would in their positions, so I am thankful they retained their seats. And, in part because of their wins, the Democrats were kept from their super majority in Congress. Huge, huge victory.

And yes, Obama won. The first half-black man in the history of the United States to become President. Congratulations. Now let's see if he can manage to solve more problems than he causes.

Now we shoot for 2010 to take back Congress like we did in 1994 and elect a Republican governor in 2010. (There is an underground effort to recruit JC Watts. I doubt he'll go for it, but we can dream.)

Prop. 8 passed in California, a huge win for traditional values. And as usual, the crowd who preaches "tolerance" the loudest is assaulting the elderly and stomping on crosses, trying to get the courts to yet again overturn the will of the people. Good luck with holding the public's sympathy on that, guys.

So now, life goes on. And I am letting you know now, my activity on here may be less than before. I am turning my focus to larger projects, and as such need to limit dividing my mind. Or, to usa an analogy, I'm starting to train for a marathon, and while the sprints have been good, I need to start aiming a bit higher.

I know you don't know how you'll get on without reading my posts every few days. Don't worry. You'll be fine. And I'll be back whenever there's something noteworthy, which there will be. OK Legislative session starts soon, so there will be plenty to talk about!

See you then!

Obama Doesn't Understand Insurance

This was written by my brilliant husband, State Farm FSR extraordinaire! Really clears up the insurance issue.

--------------------------------------------------------

I should have gone on about this earlier, but I didn’t feel it necessary, or really, I just didn’t want to take the time. I wish I would have before because I could have pointed out many of Obama’s misunderstandings and explained things to you better. However, one issue recently mentioned again is more than enough.

Obama says he wants his healthcare plan to cover pre-existing conditions. Even if everything else he wants to do was a viable option – which it’s not – this one thing would cause so many problems it would totally disrupt the entire industry on its own. Aside from that, healthcare companies wouldn’t cover them on their own so it’d take a government takeover. This would trigger more problems than I could list if that happened.

However:

Getting coverage for pre-existing conditions sounds great. If you have some major sickness, you would want your carrier to pay for your care because they would have had to pay if you had coverage before you were diagnosed with your illness, right? Great idea….you may think…

Covering pre-existing conditions is an impossibility with insurance! Let me point out that health insurance companies will cover you for things you already have like high blood pressure or minor arthritis, maybe asthma, but not for something like cancer or diabetes, or any other major disease that can result in major treatment needs coming up. You will pay an additional rate if you have high blood pressure because you are a higher risk, just like people who have tickets or accidents in their driving history will pay more for car insurance.

Now you may say at this point, “Insurance companies are being greedy, they can’t do that. They can’t cover me for one thing and not for another.”

Let me give you an example with something you are probably more familiar with: your car insurance. Obviously, you know you have to have car insurance to have coverage when you have an accident. Say you don’t want to pay for the insurance (like 33% of drivers here in Oklahoma) so you don’t buy it. You are then involved in an accident where you are at fault. Just call up the insurance company and pay your first month, they’ll cover it, right? No, that would be called a pre-existing condition. You’ve already wrecked your car, they are not going to pay for that or the other person you hit. It just can’t happen. They would go out of business; it’s unethical to get a service for which you have not paid. You should have had insurance before you got in the accident.

Apply this same principle to health insurance. If you’re sick with something before you get insurance, they can’t give you new coverage. You should have already had health insurance. Even if you had to quit your job because of health, you have something called COBRA already available where you can keep your insurance for 18 months after you have quit working, regardless. Also, you can get in a state insurance pool that does not exclude anyone for anything.

No insurance company can reasonably cover pre-existing conditions. If the insurance company said they would do this, no one would get car insurance and then the rate all the good drivers would pay would be so astronomical it would be unaffordable, more than it already is. Insurance is about spreading risk. The insurance company has people (actuaries) who do lots of math all day and estimate out how many people are going to have accidents on average and they set premiums accordingly. People trying to get coverage for something that cannot be estimated would drive the industry into the ground. It’s not greedy to make money, it’s how business has to work. The insurance industry employees thousands of people and they have to earn a living just like every other industry. Did you know that Wal-Mart makes a profit? So does the movie theater, the restaurant….everyone does. They would go broke if they covered pre-existing conditions. No one would pay for insurance until they needed it. The companies would get stuck with major bills for major health conditions and would not be able to pay the claims of people who really paid for the service.

Insurance is designed as a transfer of risk system. You get it when you don’t need it to pay out when you do need it. You can’t buy life insurance when you just found out you have cancer and only 3 months to live. It doesn’t work that way. It goes back to welfare, wanting something for nothing. Society can’t function that way. Insurance definitely can’t function that way. They can’t pay for the guy who wasn’t responsible and didn’t take care of his insurance and let the guy who is responsible stuck with the bill.

Hope this makes sense. Bottom line, let competition rule the health insurance industry. Competition is what has driven this country forward and we are on the verge of letting it all go.

Don’t let that happen. Vote for freedom, vote to keep our Republic strong.

A Blessing in Disguise?

Obama being elected President, while impalpable to anyone who reads the Constitution, is not the worst thing that could happen to us. Obama’s power will largely depend on the Congress he has to work with.

For weeks, we’ve been anticipating a Democrat surge in the Senate, envisioning a horror movie in which the ultra-liberal President Obama is allowed to ride roughshod over Truth, Justice and The American Way by the Democrat super-majority in the Congress.

But how likely is that scenario?

This is just a theory, and I may (God forbid) be completely wrong, but just bear me out.

Let’s not look at this from the perspective of the Presidential election. What hasn’t received much press is the battle for the House and Senate.

Perhaps, a few weeks ago, the horror movie seemed inevitable. Eight years of media-fueled Republican/Bush hatred drilled the image of a Blue Capitol into the minds of Americans.

Then, the Bailout Bill.

Since then, has there been more anger toward a Congress since the War Between the States? (The draft, maybe. And they’re the side that keeps suggesting bringing that back). Trillions of dollars have been lost on the Stock market. Homes values nation-wide have dropped 17%.

Even Saturday Night Live acknowledged that the Democrat Majority was responsible for the Bailout and for the irresponsibility that led to it, making Bush look like a pawn in the Democrats’ evil plan.

Subsequently, they had to pull and sanitize the skit. Gee, wonder why.

Is it possible that the Democrats are actually losing ground? We aren’t hearing much about Democrats retaining seats from the MSM. The Dreaded Murtha finally looks like he’s going to get the boot. Cindy Sheehan was running against Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank has been exposed as a nutcase. (Or, as I like to call him, Future Cartman.)

And we have the Bailout Bill to thank for this.

Had we actually squashed the Bailout, none of this would have been exposed. The frustration toward the Democrat legislative branch would have been kept at a simmer rather than the raging boil it is now.

Again, this is all theoretical, and it may not affect Obama in the slightest.

But Jack Murtha is losing his seat. SNL spoke against Democrat leadership and got punished. People are noticing.

And it all comes back to the Bailout Bill.

Irony is a…

Intellectuals for McCain/Palin '08

Laura Ingraham asked educated listeners on her radio show to thumb their noses at RINO elitists and join her youtube channel and show their support for McCain/Palin '08. This is a small sampling I collected.

The first video is Laura's.

The Definition of Qualified

What has become glaringly obvious in this election cycle is that no two people have the same idea as to what “qualified” means. People think Sarah Palin is qualified because of this or that, Obama is qualified because of other reasons, and it always ends in a deadlock.

We were actually given what the qualifications for President are by the Founding Fathers. There aren’t many; the reason, presumably, being that the Founding Fathers wanted as many citizens as possible to be eligible to run for office, thus avoiding an elitist ruling class who came out of the affluent or the inbred, like they were used to in Great Britain.

However, the qualifications they did list are very specific:

Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

- Must be a natural-born citizen (or a citizen at the time of the Constitutional Convention, which pretty much rules out everyone alive today – yes, even McCain)
- Must be at least 35 years old
- Must have resided in the US for the last 14 years
That’s it. Those are the only legal qualifications for the President. Pretty simple, right? Pretty cut and dry?

Yet there is question in Barack Obama’s qualifications even under these few standards.

I don’t like conspiracy theories or the narcissistic attitudes they prop up, “I know something you don’t know.” So I didn’t pay much attention to this story when it first surfaced, because it seemed like a fringe rumor that would be quashed pretty quickly.

However, that is not what’s happened. Obama, among many other documents, has refused to produce his Birth Certificate for the lawsuit brought against him challenging his natural-born citizenship. We have to ask, why?

There was a time limit set for his response time. According to the law under which this lawsuit was filed, Obama had a certain period of time to respond by producing his birth certificate or some other document challenging the suit, or else be seen to admit guilt to the charge filed.

Therefore, in the eyes of the law, he has admitted guilt of the allegation alleged in the lawsuit –that he is not a natural-born American citizen.

The time limit for the production of these documents coincided with his trip to Hawaii to visit his grandmother. A trip during which he has banned all media access to his activities. Two weeks before the election. And in his absence, he handed the reigns of his campaign to Hillary Clinton, of all people. Again, why?

A man who has nothing to hide acts like it. Obama has failed to produce documents and then effectively went into hiding when the deadline approached.

This is probably the most important issue in this election. Why? Because if someone Constitutionally unqualified for office is elected to the Presidency, then voter fraud doesn’t really matter. Our Constitution becomes impotent.

Anticipated responses:

"Obama posted a birth certificate on his website."

"Factcheck.org posted a birth certificate."

"Under later amendments his citizenship is otherwise validated."

These are all addressed.

Watch this video, and then pass it along.

This is why we don’t rely on international law.

The next time you hear some liberal judicial activist talk about international precedent and America’s reputation with the world, raise huge red flags and pay very close attention.

Canadia, in the interest of protecting their alleged “nice” reputation, has now allowed and in fact endorsed the prosecution of speech that doesn’t meet the state-prescribed “nice” factor.

I have a wealth of Canadia jokes, but I will refrain for the sake of international relations (and my mother).

In their new book, The Tyranny of Nice, authors Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere, both Canadians, outline what they call the campaign toward “state-enforced niceness.”

In an interview with PJM Political, an XM radio show, Shaidle uses an example of an individual, pastor or layperson, who perhaps quotes a verse out of the Bible condemning homosexuality. That person can now be sued, taken before the Human Rights Commission, and legally banned from ever discussing homosexuality, Christianity, the Bible – any or all of these.

One of the problems, as Shaidle points out, is that movements like this tend to eat their young. Originally, Canadian Jewish groups took advantage of this opportunity to smoke out underground Nazi groups. Now, this commission is pulling in people with “Jewish-sounding” last names as possibly being connected with different activist groups.

Oh, and only certain groups that the judiciary classifies as a “persecuted” group (akin to “endangered species”, I suppose) may lodge complaints, such as homosexual groups or ethnic minorities (if Canadia has any other than Eskimos).

If you’re white, Christian and straight, you’re not “persecuted” and therefore unoffendable.

Right now, author Mark Steyn is facing prosecution based in this judicial activism for a book he wrote in America, that was published in America, and that Canadians read and made comments about on American websites.

Where does this particular international precedent lead? We’re already getting a taste of it.

Obama’s mission to quash free-speech (see here, here, and here) now has precedent in the Great White North.

We now have solid proof of Barack Obama’s similarities to socialist nations with crappy health care and unreasonable standards of living. Consider this a gift. We are being given a glimpse into an Obamanation future.

We can’t afford the nice police. I’d be a goner.

For the full interview, download PJM’s radio show for free through iTunes.

Defend Yourself

To paraphrase Carly Simon: You probably think this blog is about you.

Watch this video.

(I apologize for the low res, it was the best copy I could find)

Apparently there are Christians complaining that they are being “judged” by other “intolerant Christians” for supporting Obama. They think it’s unfair and unloving that they should be forced to defend their choice.

Well, based on this one issue alone, I’d like for any Christian supporting Obama to defend their choice to me. That’s what grown-ups do.

Obama not only opposed a bill that would make this particular form of infanticide illegal, but he then lied to cover it up by accusing others of lying about his stance.

The record shows he either voted ‘no’ or ‘present’ (which counts as a ‘no’ vote) on the finalized versions of both forms of this bill.

This isn’t a “women’s rights” issue, since this specific bill does nothing to affect the rights of the mother. It only applies to babies after an abortion has been performed, and presumes the abortion procedure as having been done. It does not restrict or modify abortion or abortion procedures for a child still in the womb.

You can’t say “but he’s not someone else.” And saying “but he supports this other thing” or “he’s against this other thing” has nothing to do with this particular issue. You as a Christian should be able to justify supporting this man who took an aggressively anti-life stance without bringing up the war in Iraq or the housing “crisis” or tax burden/relief or anything else.

This isn’t like debating economic policy in which different people support different strategies and procedures. This isn’t a morally-neutral gray area. This is a moral issue, plain and simple.

If we as Christians are supposed to use Scripture as our moral compass, than explain to me how you as a Christian feel Scripturally justified to say that this man deserves your support.

Let me be clear: I will ignore and possibly delete any tangential responses. It’s time to play hardball. With only a few weeks left till election, we can’t keep allowing the tough questions to go unanswered.

Cf. this perspective I ran across: http://rainlovedown.blogspot.com/2008/10/tough-questions-christians-should-be.html

It’s Okay, You Can Smile

I don’t know if you know, but we had a big win yesterday. The citizens of America won.

I give you permission: be happy.

Two-thirds of Republicans – and a surprisingly big chunk of Democrats – showed up to represent the interests of the American people, in spite of the psychological warfare engaged by leadership in both parties. Bush put pressure on the Congress to support the bill against his “natural instincts” for a free market economy. Reid and Frank pounded all weekend that “a deal had been reached, the bill is going forward,” so vote for the bill so you don’t get left out. Pelosi got up right before the vote in a last-ditch effort to intimidate members of Congress to just go with the flow, save the world, vote for the bailout or we’ll slash your tires.

It didn’t work. None of it worked. You know why?

Because of you. You, the voters, contacted your Congressmen and told them that you weren’t going to put up with the government pouring out your tax money to bailout their friends. You saved our country from the worst massive tax expenditure in recent history. You did this. Celebrate.

And don’t buy the hype. They told us the economy would break if the bill didn’t pass, and are already citing yesterday’s DOW drop as proof. But it’s not true. The Dow dropped 600 of those 777 points while they were still debating – before the vote was even taken. And the drop yesterday didn’t even crack the top-ten largest percentage drops in the history of the world.

And – the Dow is already up 200 points again this morning.

We’re still here. We’re okay.

The war of accountability between the people of America and the government that represents them will never be over. But we won the most recent battle. Enjoy it. We have another battle coming up. The Senate vote is tomorrow. Contact your Senators with the same fury with which you contacted your Congressmen. It worked before, it will work again.

And yes, there are turncoat members of Congress that we now have to deal with. That’s okay. We’ve had to do that before, we’ll do it again. And we will not only survive, we will thrive.

We won. Celebrate it. Enjoy it. Be motivated. This is proof that the American way really works, that it still works. That we are still living in the greatest country on the face of the earth.

Bailout Madness: How Did We Get Here?

Some resourceful person put together a video outlining the events that led to the late-night backroom deals this weekend. Sometimes what looks like conspiracy is really just a series of unfortunate events.

The Only Way I Got Through

I had planned on doing my own real-time running commentary during the debate tonight - mostly to keep my blood-pressure from spiking everytime I heard the words "maverick" and "uh" - but between getting to the gym and making stir-fry for dinner, time got away from me. Thankfully, Pajamas Media came to the rescue yet again. Vodkapundit Stephen Green (my new role model) wrote up his own commentary on the debate, and kept me thoroughly distracted.

Warning: This has been rated PG-13 by my extremely conservative (lower-case 'c') sensibilites and is guaranteed to make you spit-take your fried rice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6:40PM (All times Mountain, or else I’ll have to do math.) After splitting a bottle of cheap champagne with my bride, I’ve poured myself a hefty Ketel One Citroen martini. And if Wolf Blitzer keeps going on about how people can turn the little dials for stuff they like, I’m going to need my second Ketel One Citroen martini in record time.

6:42PM I’ll admit though that I’d give up booze for a month if I could play with CNN’s map software and giant touch screen.

6:44PM In a global first, Bruce Carroll is Vicodinblogging tonight’s debate. I’ve got ten bucks says he passes out before it’s over.

6:47PM The talking heads agree: Both of these guys pretty much suck at debates, but give McCain the edge. It’s a heavily handicapped race — or maybe a race between the handicapped.

6:50PM Can Obama pull off the commander-in-chief role? Will anyone care three weeks from now? McCain has run a (mostly) smart campaign. How’d he get snookered into holding the foreign affairs debate first?

6:54PM The Obama guys are cracking me up, claiming McCain is a “peerless” debater. I mean, Tony Blair’s dog is probably better at this stuff.

6:55PM My sources inform me that Tony Blair is actually a cat person. Pajamas Media regrets the error.

6:57PM Here’s a better link to Bruce’s Vicodinblog.

7:00PM Somebody just accused Christiane Amanpour of being pretty much unAmerican. Good thing it was from a fellow unAmerican journalist, otherwise there’d be hell to pay.

7:01PM OK, here we go. I’ve just taken a rather large dose of cocktail to fortify myself for the impending disaster. Or brilliant performance. Or whatever.

7:03PM Part of the fate of the free world depends on a coin toss. Don’t think about that.

7:03PM I’m sure I’ve used this joke before, but Jim Lehrer looks amazingly lifelike.

7:04PM Both candidates look good. Cordial. Maybe even warm. Wish I could say the latter about Lehrer.

7:05PM “We must achieve security and solvency.” A quote from Eisenhower to lighten the mood. The question goes to Obama.

7:05PM “We are at a defining moment in our history…” And I think maybe I fell asleep already.

7:06PM Obama’s first answer is very well rehearsed, but maybe obviously so. And his tie seems a little… nightclubbish.

7:06PM But he’s got on a tie pin. (I don’t wear one.)

7:06PM Fumbled the “trickle down” line.

7:07PM Nice note from McCain about Ted Kennedy, who was rushed to a hospital earlier tonight after a “mild seizure.”

7:07PM McCain “isn’t feeling well” about the economic situation. Smart to bring up the health issue, even tangentially?

7:08PM McCain seems solid, and he’s playing up the bipartisan angle. Obama would be smart to follow suit. He’d have been smarter to have started off that way three minutes ago.

7:08PM BAM! Didn’t take long for McCain to bring up our “dependence on foreign oil.”

7:09PM “I am optimistic,” says Obama. Wouldn’t have guessed that from his first answer.

7:10PM Obama is leaving himself wide open for McCain to bring up all the Freddie & Fannie money Obama has taken in four short years — but will he?

7:11PM McCain is telling a great story about Eisenhower. Telling it so well you might believe McCain was there with him. You might even think he was there. First health, now age. That’s a couple unforced errors already.

7:12PM “People will be held accountable in my administration.” Nice contrast with Bush, who would fire someone for peeing in his hat.

7:13PM Speaking of unforced errors, Obama just mentioned “failed energy policies.” Like the Democratic ban on oil drilling that Democrats just allowed to expire because they weren’t brave enough to actually go and change them?

7:14PM I’m glad to see McCain placed equal blame on Washington for once, and not just on Wall Street. But it took him a week to get there?

7:15PM “What would you do to lead the country out of the financial crisis?” McCain: Control spending. And then on to earmarks. Yes, McCain has had two unforced errors, but he’s also pretty adept at turning questions to his strengths.

7:16PM Wow. McCain just claimed that Obama has earmarked almost a million dollars a day as a senator. Can someone look that up, see if it’s right? Obama just took one on the chin, then weakly claimed that NOW he’s refusing earmarks.

7:17PM Ah. Under McCain, 300 billion in tax cuts to the “rich,” says Obama. It’s starting to get nasty. Which means it’s almost time for a second martini.

7:18PM Has anyone factchecked Obama’s claim that he can cut taxes for 95% of families when one third of taxpayers pay no income tax at all?

7:19PM McCain just accused Obama of being a johnny-come-lately on earmarks, and that “maybe that kind of money” isn’t serious to Obama. Right now I’m liking this fight.

7:21PM Obama is begging off on the numbers, and claiming he’ll go “line by line” through the budget. Well, fine. But instead of arguing “change,” Obama is arguing about earmarks. McCain has forced him off that hill called Hope and Change — and that’s an operational, maybe strategic, little win on his part.

7:22PM 15 minutes in, it’s clear that McCain is missing chances to throw uppercuts. But he’s ahead on jabs.

7:23PM 95% of you will get a tax cut! I’m giving you money! Vote for me!

7:24PM Is Obama really claiming that American businesses don’t actually pay enough taxes?

7:24PM But I’ll give Obama this much credit: “Loopholes” is usually a Republican complaint. He’s taken that one away. But now he’s talking health care and against free markets and this is a foreign policy debate?

7:25PM McCain just took one of those uppercuts. It’s not connecting, quite, but at least he finally tried one.

7:25PM What a wasted chance. McCain is stumbling now. But Obama says, “It’s just not true, it’s just not true.” But he never says how it isn’t true.

7:26PM Lehrer has done OK, I suppose, but this ought to be his last major debate.

7:27PM Obama: “I don’t have a plan.” OK, he didn’t quite say that, but he does say we need “energy independence.” And then he gave a nice little reach around to Detroit automakers. Hello, Michigan’s 17 electoral college votes!

7:28PM Affordable college? Infrastructure? What was the question again, Barack?

7:28PM Joe Biden has possessed the body of Barack Obama. He just. won’t. stop.

7:29PM “It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.” “I oppose ethanol subsidies.” I know McCain wasn’t planning to take Iowa, but I wonder if he just kissed off Indiana and Ohio, too.

7:30PM If this were Oxford, it would start like this: “Resolved: That we would like to hold all of the primaries over again.”

7:31PM Obama says some things “will have to be delayed.” Lehrer says “What?” Obama answers with stuff he doesn’t want to delay, and stuff he doesn’t want to cut, and taxes he wants to raise. And college tuition! Somebody’s got to pay off his wife’s loans.

7:32PM Obama’s liberalism is just “opposition to Bush’s failed policies.”

7:33PM McCain would freeze spending on everything but defense and such. Obama says, “yes, but…” Which has been his entire performance so far tonight. That’s playing defense. That’s playing to lose.

7:34PM McCain just put Obama on defense again on energy. “You can’t get there from here.” I’m starting to wonder if the old guy has been laying low this whole time.

7:35PM I understood that there would be a foreign policy debate. And that there would be no math.

7:36PM “Spending 300 billion dollars on tax cuts.” That right there explains why I haven’t voted for a Democrat for President since 1992, and would rather not until they beat that sentiment out of themselves. Preferably using ball-peen hammers.

7:38PM “I just have to make this point, Jim.” Obama his hitting McCain hard for voting for “most” of Bush’s budgets.

7:39PM “It is well known that I haven’t been voted Miss Congeniality” in working with Bush. And then McCain outlined lots of places where he has parted ways with Bush… while sneaking in an endorsement for Palin. Nicely turned, McCain. More of this, please.

7:40PM If I’m not mistaken, there’s been a foreign policy question, and an answer to match. “We are winning in Iraq… with honor,” says McCain.

7:41PM OK, quick question: Without peeking, repeat one thing Obama has said.

7:41PM Obama opposed Iraq. Who knew! But didn’t he also oppose the surge that McCain endorsed before Bush and before the Pentagon? “Distraction… Afghanistan… blah blah blah.”

7:42PM Obama has GOT to stop counting the costs of the Iraq War, at a time when Americans are feeling better about it. It’s bad politics, bad strategy, and absolutely shitty leadership. If you’ll pardon my English.

7:43PM McCain says the next President won’t decide IF to go into Iraq, but HOW to exit and WHAT to leave behind. And it’s there that Obama’s judgement has been wrong for years.

7:44PM I’m going to miss some stuff now, while I go shake another martini. I trust you’ll understand and forgive.

7:46PM Ahhh.

7:46PM “Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.”

7:47PM I haven’t been paying attention to CNN’s audience-o-meter. Can someone tell me how the candidates are doing? It’s a gimmick, but I’m curious — and I have to LISTEN to these debates while I focus on typing on the screen.

7:48PM I live and breathe this stuff, even while drinking, but I can barely follow Obama’s answers. McCain is hardly inspiring, but he at least seems to make sense.

7:49PM Wasn’t Obama promising to reduce our troops in Iraq “in 16 months” at least 12 months ago? Why won’t the left call for his warmongering head?

7:50PM Obama has got to stop doing that half smile thing. I know, because I do it too. All the freaking time.

7:52PM I just spent HOURS talking to Austin Bay about Afghanistan last weekend. And his assessment — wise when Obama was writing junior high school love poems — does not match up with that of the senator from Illinois.

7:53PM You know, Obama is right — and has been right — about calling for more troops for Afghanistan. But now he’s calling for more eradication of poppy seeds… and extending the Drug War to Afghanistan is the single biggest mistake Bush has made in that country.

7:54PM “You don’t say that out loud,” says McCain, about Obama’s promise to invade Pakistan. My exact words, from the first time Obama made his stupid, juvenile threat.

7:56PM “Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan,” says Obama. This must be Obama v2.0. Three-point-oh?

7:57PM Heh. Obama just slammed McCain about “prudence” after that “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” song. It’s a fair cop.

7:57PM This is Obama’s first really solid answer. So I can promise you it’s the one all the news outlets (save *maybe* Fox) will be running tomorrow.

7:58PM Now there’s a bit of history I’d forgotten. McCain voted against his “dear friend” Reagan’s deployment of Marines to Lebanon. Kind of squashes that whole “prudence” complaint.

7:58PM Do a shot every time McCain says “I have a record.” He doesn’t *need* to say, “And my opponent doesn’t.”

8:00PM Can I vote McCain for Best Old Uncle?

8:01PM “No soldier ever dies in vain,” says Obama. That’s in direct contradiction to something he said during the primaries. Can someone look that up for me, please, while I drink? (I’m lazy, it’s true.)

8:02PM “You’d think Obama would have gone to Afghanistan.” And then McCain further slammed Obama for hiding behind Senate rules (although I doubt many people caught that one).

8:03PM Lehrer says they’re even on time. But that they’ve run out of five minute thingies. Give it to Lehrer for running an even debate, if nothing else.

8:04PM In the comments, Dave writes, “‘Paahkistaahn’ might be closer to the correct pronunciation, but it comes across as effete. (Jenjiss kaahn?)”

8:05PM The best way to hurt Iran is to lower oil prices. McCain ought to be hammering that fact as part of his Drill Now, Drill Frickin’ Everything mantra.

8:06PM Oh, and he slid it in under the wire, but every Jew watching just noted McCain say “never again.” Obama should have followed suit, but so far hasn’t.

8:07PM Obama just said sanctions haven’t worked against Iran!

8:08PM But yet we need “tougher sanctions.”

8:08PM “Tough, direct diplomacy against Iran!” I wave papers in your general direction, you Persian sons of hamsters!

8:09PM Pardon me as I wet myself while McCain spanks Obama over his promise to negotiate with Iran “without preconditions.” It’s like gay porn, only this stuff turns me on. (Sorry, Bruce!)

8:10PM “Let’s talk about this,” says Obama. Isn’t that the goddamn problem, you inexperienced, officious little whelp?

8:11PM Obama is man enough to admit that “it may not work” to have the Iranian president over at the White House. Back in high school, we used to say, “No sh*t, Sherlock?”

8:12PM Every time Obama complains that the Bush strategy hasn’t worked with Iran, he reinforces the point that his own plan is just more of the same, only granting Iran even more prestige. How stupid does he thing we are? How naive is he?

8:13PM “I’m not going to set the White House visitor schedule before I’m elected.” And Obama just got another welt across his behind.

8:14PM I don’t know if McCain will win. I still doubt it, and sometimes I dread it. But if he doesn’t do better with Jews than any Republican since… ever, then there’s something wrong here.

8:15PM “Preconditions” = “Preparation,” says Obama. To again put it in high school terms: Studying for your exams is the same as expecting your teacher to just give you an A.

8:15PM “Aw, please,” says McCain. It’s about time somebody said that to this contorted naif.

8:16PM On to Russia …

8:17PM How do you see Russia? Obama: “uh … um … ah … we need to assess…” Maybe even a study group!

8:18PM Do I sound dismissive about the distinguished senator from Illinois? Oh, good!

8:18PM Don’t get me wrong — McCain is hardly my dream candidate. Unfortunately for me, and the nation, Cal Coolidge has been dead for quite some time now.

8:19PM Quoting Obama, “Both sides ought to show restraint.” Both sides including … GEORGIA! And again McCain draws a contrast between himself and Bush. And again Obama comes off as me-too at best, a naif at worst.

8:22PM This debate still has ten minutes or so to go. But it’s not too soon to give you a wrap. McCain is no debater. He wouldn’t last a second during Question Hour in the British Parliament. And yet Obama is coming off in third place in a two-man session.

8:23PM Obama expected Russia to trade its “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia and Abkhazia with “international peacekeepers.” And how did he propose to do that, even prior to the invasion? If you thought I was too harsh calling him a “naif” before, surely you agree with me now.

8:24PM Last question …

8:25PM “I’ve never said I object to nuclear waste.” Then let’s store it on Chicago’s south side!

8:25.5PM I mean, who would notice?

8:27PM Now that it’s almost over, may I at long last say … “oh, the humanity!”

8:30PM OK, I’ll give you a real close now. Obama strikes me as a modern Chamberlain, praising his (oh-so-transient) “peace with honor.” McCain, however, comes across as “peace when we’re done kicking you ass and not one moment sooner.” And since this was ostensibly a foreign policy debate, I give the win to McCain. Oh, and one other thing — Obama is still talking as I write this. But he’s spending his last answer angling for the European vote, which does nothing but reinforce my point.

8:33PM One last thing. McCain is finishing with, “Obama still doesn’t understand.” It’s true that McCain pulled a lot of punches. But he’s won on points — and at the end, I think that was his strategy all along. Had he come on too strong, McCain would have left himself open to those charges of being imprudent. Tonight he was prudent, if sometimes overly so. Obama came across as an impudent naif — and that’s not what Americans want, need, or can afford in times like these.

8:35PM OK, one more one last thing. McCain kinda sucks with or without a teleprompter. But Obama keeps fumbling the easy ones, where all he has to do is segue into his stump speech talking points. If that reminds you of his initial response to the Georgia invasion, it’s for good reason. The man simply is not ready for the burden of this office. But I’m more than ready for another martini. So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll see you next week at the next debate. Cheers! -----------------------------------------------------------------------

But the killer quote came from Henry Kissinger whom Obama had invoked to criticize McCain’s stance that we should not meet unconditionally with Ahmadinejad. Kissinger retorted: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.” http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/who-won-the-debate/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my one piece of personal commentary: Someone needs to tell Obama that Reagan already ended the Cold War. These Kennedy-esque attempts to beg forgiveness for existence from foreign countries will only get more of us killed. And yes, China is launching its third space mission. Congratulations. And guess who's been to the moon already? I don't think our kids need to worry about keeping up with the Chinese.

On a side note: I have long been admiring Cindy McCain's fashion sense. I'd sell a kidney to get an appointment with her stylist. But what was Michelle Obama wearing? From whose curtains did she steal that dress?

UPDATED --- Kill the Bill!

Scroll down for update It's time to contact your Congressmen and Senators. Tell them to kill the bailout bill and not use our tax dollars to bail out irresponsible lenders. Our Congressmen and Senators need to know that their constituents do not support this hasty, foolish move to throw good money after bad.

This would be a bold move, crossing the President's recommendations last night. Our representatives in Washington need to know that we will support them in that, and that party lines need to disappear on this issue.

Go to this website:

http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx

Fill out your information and you will be given a list of your Congressmen and Senators, along with links to their websites. You can directly email them and tell them to Kill the Bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: Your emails and phone calls are working! If you have not yet contacted your Congressmen and Senators, do so now and encourage them to keep up the fight against this bill! Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson fears the Wall Street bailout deal is falling apart after a chaotic White House meeting, sources say.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/stephanopoulo-6.html Paulson walked into the room where Democrats were caucusing after today's meeting at the White House and pleaded with them, "Please don't blow this up." Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chair of the House Financial Services Committee was livid saying, "Don't say that to us after all we've been through!" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "We're not the ones trying to blow this up; it's the House Republicans." "I know, I know," Paulson replied.

Also see:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/25/kill-the-bailout-call-your-gop-representative/ http://monicamemo.typepad.com/weblog/2008/09/deal-or-no-deal.html http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93E28NG0&show_article=1

The Winning Formula: Palin-McCain ’08!

Just to be clear, I was pulling for Mitt Romney.

The McCain camp has made a fabulous choice in Gov. Sarah Palin as the VP pick. (And it's 'Palin' like 'whalin''…like hunting whales. I know, gross, but the best Alaska analogy I could come up with.)

The only way this could be any better would be if the RNC were to completely ignore the will of the people and make McCain-Palin into Palin-McCain. Okay, I'm being a little sarcastic. But only a little.

Of course, the Dems, the MSM and their mindless minions are furious and disappointed. Their comments toward Palin (aside from the asinine lies, like that her Downs son Trig isn't really her son…yeah, I know) can pretty much fall into two basic groups: "She's too inexperienced" and "She's an unknown."

Both of these are pretty easy to shoot down, if one is willing to analyze the data in an objective way.

To say she is inexperienced betrays a flawed concept of what "experience" is. She's "too inexperienced" because she hasn't served 100 years in the Senate like Biden or McCain?

She is the ONLY person anywhere near the Presidency right now who has served in the executive branch of government, rather than the legislative. This is far more significant than even Conservative pundits are acknowledging. Having a legislator jump from a legislative position to an executive position automatically inserts a learning curve the candidate would face between the two branches of government.

A Governor is merely a President on a microcosmic level.

Legislators (Senators) have never had to actually balance a budget. A governor has.

Legislators have never had to function as the Commander in Chief of a military. A governor has (State National Guard, FYI).

A Legislator doesn't have veto power (don't they wish). Legislators cast votes, but they don't sign bills into law.

Legislators have very limited realms of responsibility compared to governors. They sit on committees and pontificate in the legislature. They don't have to sit behind a desk with the knowledge they may one day have to push the button.

And what has Palin done with her time in office?

She decimated Alaska's budget by over $200 billion dollars.

She has stopped, canceled or repealed many wasteful projects through the state, saving Alaska millions.

She lived up to every one of her campaign promises, including that of reducing her own salary.

She was a major player in stopping the Bridge to Nowhere pork-barrel project (along with our own Sen. Tom Coburn).

She is fiercely Christian and pro-life (both proved by her accepting her teenaged daughter's pregnancy and choice to keep her child rather than abort it), pro-Second Amendment, and has already started America toward energy independence by getting Alaska to build a pipeline to America's oil reserves, all while raising a family, including her oldest son Track, about to be deployed to Iraq.

Of course, when the extremely biased members of the MSM (I'm talking to YOU, Bill O'Reilly) hear these facts – not opinions, facts – they dismiss them by saying, "Well, but she's an unknown."

That happened to me recently. After trying to outline Palin's accomplishments (and getting cut-off before I was able to finish my first sentence), the person I was talking to gave me a "talk to the hand" gesture and said, "You're just trying to justify her as a choice because you're a Republican. I'm a Republican, too, but I'm not going to try and make the best of this when no one knows who she is."

Translation: "She doesn't work because I've never heard of her." The bottom line in this argument is arrogance. That makes you feel special, doesn't it? If YOU haven't heard of this woman, then obviously she can't be any good.

Of course, following that same line of thought, that must mean Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman would have been a better choice, eh? Hey, don't let the facts get in the way of my opinion!

No objective Conservative can be disappointed by the choice of Sarah Palin, unless it's that she's up for veep rather than actual President.

Help us, Sarah Palin. You're our only hope.

Don't Tell Me To Be Calm

Fair Warning: This will be a long one. Due to circumstances beyond my control, the subsequent installments of our discussion will be taking a slightly different direction than I had intended. So, we’re going to just jump right into it here and talk about what we conservatives have gotten ourselves into. However, I am also very encouraged. A good number of you are being proactive and seeking out the truth. The truth will set us free. Thank you for being independent and spreading the truth to others. I am less anxious about my generation because of you. I guess we have to accept that John McCain is going to be our Presidential nominee. I say this because every other viable candidate has dropped out and endorsed McCain for the sake of “unity.” Whether this is reaching out or goose-stepping, it doesn’t really matter. Now, let’s review what John McCain has done for the three branches of Conservatism. He has made this convenient for us in the three following pieces of legislation. I don’t need to comment on the fact that these are all titled McCain-“A Prominent Democrat”. As usual, sources will be listed at the end. McCain-Feingold: McCain-Feingold claims to bring campaign finance reform. It is reform, to be sure, but not for the benefit of American citizens. McCain-Feingold bans all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before an election. President Bush signed and the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly upheld McCain-Feingold. What McCain-Feingold did accomplish was opening the door for Congress to decide what is acceptable political speech. For the first time in American history, individual citizens cannot join with like-minded others as members of a variety of associations to buy a broadcast spot to criticize an incumbent congressman by name for 60 days prior to the November election. This law gives career politicians the power of government to silence their critics. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves. The most important reason to oppose McCain-Feingold is the way the 1st Amendment is written. "Congress shall make no law . . ." What is so hard to understand about that? McCain created a law that was in direct contradiction to the most fundamental of American rights: the right to communicate. This is stepping-stone legislation, guys. If they can control our speech about specific people and issues, they can expand that to other areas as well. See China, where a person is allowed to be a Christian – as long as he doesn’t tell anyone? This is a blow to social conservatives. McCain has already used this to his own benefit. I’ll let Rush explain: “Romney was up ten points in Florida until two things happened — until McCain started with this bulls**t about Romney being in favor of a timeline for withdrawal — he did that on a Saturday….This thing about McCain and Romney — I know it's politics. It's what it is, and I don't whine and complain about it. But I found it very interesting. It was a Saturday he made that claim. So it's three days before the election. And Romney, because of McCain-Feingold, his groups could not go out and run ads countering what McCain had said….So while McCain-Feingold prevented Romney, or Romney's groups, from responding to it [with] TV ads, McCain was free to mouth off. A little irony.” McCain-Kennedy: McCain and Kennedy created legislation that would give legal status--amnesty--to 10 million illegal aliens, and create a guest-worker program to admit even more foreign workers. In essence it is the same as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: amnesty up front for millions of illegal aliens, and promises to enforce immigration law. Such promises are quickly abandoned--but in 1986, people didn't know that yet. The result of the amnesty was completely predictable: a profusion of fraudulent documentation, a doubling of the illegal population (to more than 10 million), and the normalization of illegal immigration, something that had been widely considered unacceptable only a few years before. Supporters of the McCain-Kennedy proposal deny that it's an amnesty, pointing to the fact that illegals must pay a modest fine before they are legalized. But since the goal of an illegal immigrant is to enter and stay in the United States, anything that legalizes his presence is a reward; the fine is just a retroactive smuggling fee paid to the U.S. government. This does not help our national security. It is, in effect, an amnesty--which undercuts the rule of law by rewarding those who have acted wrongly and will only encourage further illegal entry. Effective internal enforcement must deter further illegal entry. Any effective deterrent must require individuals to leave and apply for admission without prejudice or advantage. This is an attack on foreign-policy conservatives. Thankfully, McCain-Kennedy failed to be ratified. However, this is still an important “front line” position McCain took and we should all take note. McCain-Lieberman: McCain-Lieberman is a bill dealing with global warming and carbon emissions in the US. I won’t spend any time here debating the science behind the global warming argument. That’s for another time. But the problem with McCain-Lieberman is not the faulty science. The problem is how it affects business. According to the study, McCain-Lieberman 2004: --will cost the average U.S. household at least $600 per year by 2010, rising to at least $1,000 per year by 2020; --will cost the U.S. economy at least 39,000 jobs in 2010, and at least 190,000 jobs by 2020; --will force at least a 13 percent rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a 19 percent rise in electricity prices by 2020; and --will force at least a 9 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 14 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2020. Also, McCain-Leiberman: --would cost the average U.S. household at least $1,300 per year by 2010, rising to at least $2,300 per year by 2020; --would cost the U.S. economy at least 250,000 jobs in 2010, and at least 610,000 jobs by 2020; --would force at least a 31 percent rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a 43 percent rise in electricity prices by 2020; and --would force at least a 23 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 37 percent rise in gasoline prices by 2020. The new Charles River study is especially informative for state legislators because it breaks down costs on a state-by-state basis reflecting local economic factors. For example, the study reports Illinoisans would suffer even more under McCain-Lieberman 2004 than the national average. McCain-Lieberman 2004 would cost the average Illinois household at least $700 per year by 2010 and at least $1,100 per year by 2020. Similarly, the New England governors' plan would disproportionately affect Illinoisans by forcing at least a $1,400 decline in average household income by 2010, and at least a $2,400 decline in average household income by 2020. Oh, and in interesting news, a revamped 2007 version of this bill not only was sponsored by McCain-Leiberman, but our good friend Sen. Obama put his name behind it as well. As we can see, in the interest of carbon emissions, McCain decided to make war on consumers, industry, and state and government income alike. This is against the interests of fiscal conservatives. As a result, on the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal. -- He excoriated pro-life judicial nominee Samuel Alito as too "conservative." -- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants. -- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold. -- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo. -- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. -- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels. -- He voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos and opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. So, what say you? What is your thought process on this? Are we to vote for a man who seems to be fighting against us at every turn, for the sake of unity and having an ‘R’ president instead of a ‘D’ president for the next four years? Or should we simply vote against the opposing candidate? Do we vote for someone who actually admits they’re a Democrat rather than put a man in office who would hurt the party’s image? Or, as some already say they are going to, should we just not vote at all? I understand people who are of that opinion. I certainly would like to vote for someone rather than just against someone. At this point, I don’t know what I’ll do. And there are still, what, 9 months until the election? Anything can happen before then. So I don’t know. I don’t have a conclusion for this one. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4342 http://eminentdomain.blogspot.com/2007/04/mccain-feingold-still-bad-legislation.html http://www.examiner.com/a-256840~Editorial__McCain_Feingold_was_a_mistake.html http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/30/john-mccain-vs-the-right-no-easy-peace/ http://www.realcampaignreform.org/babka/rcr_man.htm http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+latest+amnesty:+McCain+and+Kennedy+make+a+bad+pair+on+immigration-a0133983352 http://www.911securitysolutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=38 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15431 http://anncoulter.com/ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1713041-2,00.html