Chicago Style Politics

I mentioned yesterday how Joe the Plumber has been under investigation by the press and by the Obama campaign because he dared to ask a question. This was not the first time the Obama campaign has used Chicago style politics in this campaign. When Obama ran for state senator he aggressively set out to discredit and through loopholes find ways to knock his opponents off the ballot before there was an election. He was good at it. Today Anat Hakim writes about other tactics recently used by the Obama campaign to shut up anyone who opposes Obama (some excerpts below). And this is from someone who claims to bring a new kind of politics and who promises to reach across the aisle. I guess that becomes possible if you first destroy everyone on the other side of that aisle. It is chilling to consider what this country will look like should Obama become president.

On August 27, 2008, respected radio talk show host, Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, to his nightly program in Chicago. Kurtz had been conducting thorough and in depth research into Barack Obama's extensive ties to the radical left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz was at that point already investigating Obama's connection with Bill Ayers and their collaboration on a left-wing education "reform" organization. After Rosenberg's producer called Obama's Chicago headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz's claims, the Obama campaign declined and instead sent out an Obama Action Wire email to its supporters encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg's station with complains and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed. A slew of enraged Obama supporters in fact bombarded the radio station's switchboard demanding that the interview not go forward. The Obama followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign's official website.

A few weeks later, the Obama campaign again summoned its army of supporters through another Obama Action Wire, inciting them to once again inundate the same Chicago radio show with calls to deny airtime for an interview with author David Freddoso, author of the book The Case Against Barack Obama. The Obama campaign's justification for this attack on free speech was that providing Freddoso with airtime would lower the standards of political discourse.

A nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is headed by a former operative of MoveOn.com (which endorsed Obama) has been going through campaign-finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning" letters intended to depress Republican fundraising.

The Obama campaign demanded that the U.S. Justice Department stop TV stations from airing an independent ad focusing on Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. Again, Obama's followers were summoned to inundate stations with tens of thousands of emails to kill the commercial. What's more, the Obama campaign has demanded that the Justice Department investigate and prosecute the group that produced the Bill Ayers ad (the American Issues Project) and the man who funded the group (Harold Simmons from Dallas, Texas). Most recently, the attorney for Obama for America has asked the U.S. Attorney General to investigate John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Republican Senators Voinovich and Cornyn and Representatives Bachmann, Blunt and Ryan because of the Republicans' attempts to draw attention to ACORN's fraudulent voter registration activities.

Joe The Plumber

History will tell us whether Joe the Plumber unwittingly made the difference in the 2008 presidential campaign. There are a few things though we can already learn from Joe's imprint on this campaign. First of all, it is possible for an average citizen to have some kind of impact on a national level. Joe did not set out to make that kind of impact. In fact if Obama had not answered his question using the phrase "spread the wealth around", most likely Joe would have been long forgotten by now. So Joe was essentially an innocent bystander, minding his own business in his neighborhood when Obama came calling. Joe asked a simple, no nonsense question about Obama's plan to take even more money from wealthy people and give it to others. Obama made the news with his "spreading the wealth around" comment. The second thing we learn from Joe the Plumber is that if Obama and his followers do not like a question, or if Obama messes up an answer, their immediate action is to discredit someone else. In this case it was Joe. All the attention went toward digging up any dirt on this guy. His private records were accessed and he was dragged through the mud. So while one individual can make a difference, that difference may very well come with a price.

But there is something else we learned from Obama's response to Joe the Plumber. Obama believes in a "trickle up" theory of economics. He believes that if the waitress, the mechanic, or the taxi driver is making substantially more money, then anyone who traditionally earns more would equally benefit. In other words, if the waitress is earning more, she will enjoy a higher quality of life, spend more, and consequently drive the economy upward for the higher earners in the world. While this sounds nice, there is a part of the equation that I don't understand: how does the waitress, the mechanic, or the taxi driver get paid more? Where does that money come from? My best guess is one or all of the following: 1) profitable businesses would need to forego any profit in order to pay higher wages; 2) businesses would have to charge substantially more for goods and services; or 3) the government would need to intervene with subsidies (taxes) or by taking over certain businesses. None of these fit into our traditional concept of a free market capitalistic society. Without profits, companies will not grow, hurting our economy in the long term. If companies are charging substantially more in order to pay their employees more, fewer people (including those employees) will be able to afford their goods. All you are doing is shifting numbers higher. And no one (except for maybe Democrats) believes that government should be owning private industries. So my question to Obama is to please explain how all of this happens. How does he pull off a "trickle up" economy without effectively changing our fundamental economic values? What serves as his examples of how this works or that it does work? How do you provide higher pay to these lower income people? If it is through education, then wouldn't these people elevate themselves into higher paying jobs and careers rather than stay an educated waitress or taxi driver?

Today Obama ridiculed McCain for calling Obama's economic and tax plans as being "socialistic", and his answer to that was that McCain was being selfish. Selfish? Someone makes a living, earns a good, honest wage . . the government comes along asking for an even bigger cut of that in order to give it to someone who is not earning a decent, honest wage . . and for complaining about that he is now called selfish? God help us.

Are You Sure You Want This Guy?

I've always believed that Obama was great at pursuing job titles, but not so great (or even good) at performing those jobs. He's like the guy that is all about the pursuit of various women, but once he gets them, he is not comfortable with maintaining or building that relationship. This video gives us a glimpse of Obama as a U.S. Senator. Watching it, you get the sense that his commitment toward being a senator is not all that deep. Most of these sound bites occurred prior to his run for president. Imagine if being a U.S. Senator was a real job. Would any employer be happy to have an employee who was always late to work like this, or would they fire him? Would you hire someone who was constantly late to work? If not, why give him the job of president? It's 3:00 am . . where is President Obama? Oh, he's running late again, or maybe he's now running for king of the world.

Obama and Taxes

Generally speaking, I do not believe politicians, especially during campaigns. They promise everything to everyone, with either no intentions of actually following through or any idea of how they could actually fulfill their promises. Obama's tax "cuts" for people earning under $250,000 is a great example. He claims that 95% of people in America would experience a tax "cut". By now most people have heard that nearly 40% of Americans do not pay Federal income taxes, so there is no way they can experience a tax "cut". In Obama's plan these 40% would actually receive money from the government, even though they did not pay any income taxes. This is all part of Obama's "spread the wealth" philosophy (also know throughout the world as Marxism). Obama sees these checks as compensating and "cutting" what these people pay in payroll taxes (Social Security), hence the tax "cut". My question is what impact will this have on the future of Social Security? Isn't this working against the purpose and future health of Social Security? Isn't the concept that ALL Americans are to pay into Social Security?

But there is one other aspect of Obama's tax plan that has not been covered by journalists or by the McCain campaign. In 2010 the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire. In 2010 everyones effective tax rate will increase, regardless of how much someone earns. To Obama this is not considered a tax increase ( I wish someone would push him to explain why). For a married couple making $75,000, your taxes will go up by $3,074 when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. For Obama, an extra $3,074 is not a tax increase. How can he get away with claiming tax "cuts" for 95% of the people when he knows everyone will be paying more when the Democratic congress and Obama himself allow the Bush tax cuts of 2003 to expire in 2010? Do you think they will fight to extend those cuts? Fat chance. Democrats have complained about those cuts for the past 5 years.

If you want to read some more about Obama and his tax plans, check this article out. Bottom line: don't trust this guy.

Why I Cannot Vote For Obama

There is no question that Barack Obama is a very telegenic politician. He has managed to capture the imagination of at least half the country. But to me there is a huge disconnect between the masterful speaker and his record of accomplishment. I look at it like this: either we are electing a car salesman for president, or a surgeon. Each comes with a very different set of qualifications. The car salesman is a smooth talker, skilled in making the customer feel good about buying something they maybe don't really need. There's nothing wrong with that. Sales is their job. Contrast that with the surgeon. We want our surgeons to be experienced, well schooled, tested and competent. It would be great if they were good communicators and had a nice bedside manner, but given the choice, we would prefer knowing that they have successfully done this surgery before, many times in fact. I prefer a president with the skill set similar to that of a surgeon over those of a car salesman.

I started to write something here about why I just cannot trust Obama, and therefore why I cannot vote for him. I read today something though that lays it out much better than I ever could, and I would encourage you to take some time to read through this article and watch its accompanying support videos.

Please Help Us Avoid An International Crisis

According to Joe Biden, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy . . We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." If that is the case, then doesn't it make sense that we should not elect Barack Obama as president? Biden is convinced that this international crisis will take place if Obama is president. Let's say this event takes place in much the same way that 9/11 occurred. Wouldn't it be prudent to do whatever we can to prevent that, including not electing the guy who would unwittingly be responsible for such an event? Please do your part to make sure we never have to find out.

Nice Video Showing Tolerance of Liberals

Some McCain/Palin supporters march through the streets of NYC a couple weeks ago. This video shows how the tolerant society responds. The video says it all.

Barack's Socialism

American Thinker has a great article titled "Why Obama's Socialism Matters". It is a great review and description of socialism. And if you are not convinced that Obama has a Socialistic world view, check this out.

The Rage at McCain Rallies

Over the past couple days much has been made of the apparent rage against Obama heard among people going to McCain/Palin rallies. I don't get the sense that it is all that prevalent or all that scary, but many in the press sure seem to be concerned. They don't like bad things being said about their guy. I tend to think that many of the people in the crowd are actually growing impatient with McCain himself, wishing he would "grow a pair" and start challenging Obama with more conviction and passion. Obama has gotten a free ride throughout the campaign, despite his shady background and his elusive answers, and conservatives are more than disappointed with McCain. I also have to wonder if some of those people hurling insults toward Obama at these rallies are in fact Obama followers who have infiltrated the other side, trying to stir up controversy. It fits in with the kind of tactics used by these people in demonstrations and other venues. Think of it this way: a half dozen Obama supporters at a McCain rally protesting McCain would not make much of an impact (okay, the media would make it out that there were hundreds there); but a half dozen Obama supporters pretending to be McCain supporters and then yelling outrageous insults about Obama ("he's a terrorist", "kill him") . . now that would get noticed. And it would make the McCain supporters look bad.

Regardless, Michelle Malkin has assembled an outstanding collection of rage on the left aimed toward McCain, Palin, and Bush. All of this of course is not a problem for the media or for the Obama campaign. They have no control over it. Yeah . . right.

Some Down Time

I'm taking advantage of some down time by making a trip out to Oregon. Visiting some friends in Portland and then down to Ashland/Medford area. It's always tough leaving Virginia during the fall, especially since the weather has been so great lately. But I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some old friends out west. After that trip I'm heading up to New York City for the PhotoPlus Expo. Looking at some album companies as well as hearing from some nationally recognized photographers. All in all the next couple weeks should provide some fun travel.

ACORN

I just had the displeasure of watching ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson on tv this morning (check it out below). He was being interviewed along with John Fund, who has written a book about stolen elections. I'm not sure I have seen a more annoying person being interviewed then this Levenson guy. What a jerk. It is common for people to interrupt others on these kind of split screen interviews, but this guy took it to a new level today. When he was speaking he was extremely insistent on finishing his comments, not letting John Fund say a word. When it was Fund's turn to answer a question, this Levenson guy would interupt or sigh out loud or go "tsk, tsk, tsk". I could tell that John Fund was in disbelief at Levenson's arrogance and rudeness.



I don't know a whole lot about ACORN, but it is clear that somewhere in there structure they are instructing their below entry level helpers to secure as many registrations as possible, without regard to their legality. How else do you explain that in the 20 states ACORN operates, some 13-14 states are experiencing serious problems with voter fraud via ACORN. If it was one or two states, maybe you could attribute it some rogue person; but this is a pattern that has spread throughout the country. I don't believe Obama's campaign is directly involved in any of this, even though they have contributed several million dollars to ACORN. What bothers me is that Obama and ACORN operate pretty much from the same Saul Alinsky playbook of deception, intimidation, and by shutting down any dissent. Not a good sign for the country if Obama should win this election.

Another Problem For Obama

Jack Cashill makes a very compelling argument that Obama's "Dreams Of My Fathers" was not written by Obama, but by Bill Ayers. On the surface it sounds like a stretch, doesn't it? But if you are curious to how he came to this conclusion, check this out right now. He lays out the timeline for how this could be true, but also examines the choice of words used by both men in their memoirs, as well as the cadence and sentence structure. If this proves to be true (it is certainly possible), it tells us even more about "that one". Not only is he not the thoughtful thinker/writer, but he is lying once again about his true relationship with Ayers. The proof isn't there yet to make those kinds of accusations; but Obama is such an unknown commodity that it is easy for me to draw the above conclusions. What has always struck me is the absence of writings from Obama's past. Cashill writes about this to some extent in his article. That in and of itself causes me to distrust anything Obama is now saying.

Guilt By Association

Whenever people bring up questions about Obama's relationships with people like Ayers, Wright, Rezko, and ACORN, the Obama camp cries out about the unfairness of using guilt by association. Maybe it's their way of saying "we know he is guilty, so stop making the association". But I have another guilt by association that a candidate has been and still is using: Bush/Cheney = McCain. I was thinking that the Bush/McCain relationship is probably very similar to the Clinton/Obama relationship. I don't think Bush and McCain particularly like each other. They were pretty fierce opponents back in the 2000 election, just like Clinton and Obama were in this election. Bush and McCain have never come across as being "comrades" or even friends. When pressed into duty, each could put on a good enough face for the sake of the party, but you always had a sense that in private they really had no use for each other. That pretty much describes the Clinton/Obama relationship. The thing is, we all understand what is going on and the distrust these people have for each other. Many of us have similar relationships in our lives. So inside we have to laugh whenever we hear Clinton say how much she respects Obama. And, at least to me, it seems insincere on Obama's part, and more than a stretch on his part, to try and associate McCain with George Bush or Dick Cheney. I know it stirs up that part of the country that hates George Bush, but it is clear that even McCain is not a big fan of George Bush. Sure, for the sake of the party and perhaps even for the sake of the country, McCain has in the past expressed his support for the president in certain areas; and in most if not all of those cases it was the proper thing for him to do. But if Democrats want people to stop associating Obama with radical terrorists and preachers and organizations known for voter fraud, then maybe they should consider stopping their own brand of guilt by association.

What Is McCain Thinking?

John McCain proposed during the second debate a $300 billion mortgage bailout. If I understand this correctly, it goes something like this: a person buys a house for $500,000 in 2005 and secures a mortgage of $450,000. The house is currently valued at $350,000, but the person is still liable for the $450,000 mortgage, and perhaps is unable to now make their payments (or unwilling to continue making payments). So now McCain wants the government to essentially buy that person's $450,000 mortgage, revalue the house at $350,000, and then create a new mortgage based on that $350,000. In other words, the government (taxpayers) will come in and cover the difference. For the homebuyer there was no harm, no risk. For the taxpayer there is the forced collection to cover for people's misfortune and/or mistakes and/or bad investments. Where in this entire scenario does personal responsibility fit? With all these bailouts, what's next. I've lost money on several stock investments. When should I expect my bailout from the government? Is this the essence of capitalism? And where will all of this lead? Once this bailout mentality establishes itself, what will ever stop it? McCain is treading dangerous ground here. We would expect this kind of government intervention, government is everything, kind of strategy from the Democrats; it scares me when the supposed conservative is introducing the same kind of nonsense.

Obama and the New Party

It appears that Barrack Obama really is a socialist. Back in the mid 90's Obama belonged to the New Party, a party reportedly established by the Democratic Socialists of America. The New Party apparently was set up to help socialist minded candidates secure wins in elections that they thought they had a shot at winning. The New Party also had strong ties with ACORN. Obama denies involvement with the now out of business New Party, but someone has dug up old website archives that indicate that Obama was a card carrying member. If all of this is true, and it sure seems to be, then we are about to elect someone as president who at least was (and has shown tendencies to still be) a socialist. I cannot believe we have gotten to that point in our country. And even if people had this information (I doubt the big media will follow up or expose this), it's questionable whether it would make a difference. Too many people have already drunk the Kool-Aid. Check out this article for more information.

Presidential Debate #2

Why have a second debate when all the questions are the same as the first debate? No new ground was covered. We, the American public, learned nothing from this debate. What a waste of time. For me personally, I would like to see the two candidates sit down and debate with each other. Perhaps have two moderators, a liberal one and a conservative one. Let the moderators challenge the candidates and what they are saying on the campaign trail. Get them to answer all the questions that they have been dodging over the past year. This is a job interview, and yet we keep asking them the exact same questions week after week, expecting them to give us some new answer. Instead they keep giving us the same evasive responses. It's like we're in the fourth quarter, the players are tired, they (Obama, the press) are in prevent defense, playing it safe. Tom Brokaw, being in charge of this, did a terrible job, simply because he went conventional. Again, what a waste, and what a bore.

Obama's Aloofness

So often it is the coverup of a potential scandal that ends up bringing a person down, rather than the scandal itself. I'm not sure most Americans are tracking with Barrack Obama's past association with William Ayers, so I'm not sure how effective it has been for the McCain/Palin campaign to now make an issue out of that association. But as of today (Oct. 7), the official Obama response is that when Obama worked with Ayers, Obama never knew of Ayers' past terrorist bombings and radical statements. This is remarkable, and highly, highly doubtful. But let's take it at face value. Let's say that Obama, while serving on boards and panels with Ayers, while letting Ayers host his political launch event for state senator, while writing an endorsement for Ayers' book, while living in the same neighborhood . . let's say that Obama really was unaware of this man's radical statements and views, and his highly publicized past bombings of police stations and the Pentagon. And let's add to that Obama being unaware of Jeremiah Wright's radical anti-American rants during sermons at the church Obama attended for 20 years. What kind of picture does this draw of Obama? Seems to me that we have two choices: 1) he is an extremely aloof person, completely unaware of his surroundings; or 2) he knew exactly what these people where up to, but is now denying (lying) that he knew anything. I'm not sure which of these make him all that attractive to be our next president. For a candidate who promises to be ethical and something different, the fact is we've seen this kind of politician before. They'll say and do anything to get elected. It amazes me how so many people see this guy as representing change. When Obama first ran for senate in Illinois, he ran unopposed. Actually he did have opponents, but he sent out surrogates to destroy those opponents and knock them off the ballot. Again, change that we can believe in.

McCain vs Obama

Barrack Obama and John McCain are two very different people. Obama is young, McCain is older than most candidates we have seen before. Obama is an effective communicator (as long as he has his tele-prompter), McCain is oftentimes painful to listen to. Obama is an evangelist, McCain is the pastoral counselor. Obama has few confidants from his past (what ones there were have been thrown under the bus), McCain seems to have a large number of close friends that have stood by him throughout his life (and have not yet been thrown under the bus). This last point to me seems striking. McCain has many surrogates, among them Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, as well as a number of men who served with him in the military. All of these relationships go back 10, 20, even 40 years. There is a depth and a commitment within these kind of relationships. These are not people who are opportunistic, just hanging around hoping their guy wins the lottery so they might get a windfall. When I look at Obama however, I wonder who are his guys? Who are the people who have stood by him (and he has stood by them) over the years? Can you name one person, beyond his wife? Sure, there are tons of people supporting him now, but all of these people are new friends of Obama. I suspect that many of them have their hands open, hoping to partake of some of the crumbs that fall off his table. But there is no depth to these relationships. Many of them probably don't know Obama well enough to really know what he believes. They just like the thought of what they think he believes. Certainly there is no substance behind it because there is no substance to Obama and his past. Obama is a loner. In his world there is him and . . well, him. Maybe that makes for a good president, someone who is largely detached, unable to take meaningful stands, and has few friends or work associates. Maybe someone like that can withstand the desires to appease people or to become emotionally tied to issues or constituents. It doesn't sound too appealing to me, and I'd rather have someone who is poor at communicating but comes with depth and a lifetime of friends and associates who respect him. Two very different people.

Afghanistan

Senator Obama (and Biden) have a lot invested in Afghanistan. That is where our attention should be, as they see it. We need more troops, more money, and more attention paid to that area. But why? Why do Democrats, who 1) traditionally hate war, 2) continually tell us that money spent in Iraq could be used to improve our schools or pay for health care, and 3) proclaim that America is evil for getting involved in or occupying other countries . . why do they want to fight, spend money, and occupy Afghanistan? And they want to do this without any exit plan. I'm not quite sure I understand this. I'm not disagreeing with them. After the September 11 memorials and reminders, I still believe we need to be over there fighting and disrupting any and all terrorists operations. Presumably that is the thinking of the Democrats. I wonder though how long they could stomach seeing American servicemen and women dying in Afghanistan. How long before they lose interest in being there any longer. Again, what is their exit strategy? For years they demanded one for Iraq. I just don't hear anyone asking them for one in the fight they have chosen.

Palin Won

That's all I wanted to say. Palin won the debate. Joe Biden was so intent on not addressing or attacking her that he looked like he was on some kind of pain medication. Sure, he spouted off a bunch of facts and history which made him appear knowledgeable and experienced, but half of what he said was flat out wrong. It sounded good, but what good is it if the facts and the history he is quickly throwing out is just wrong? Palin looked good, sounded good, and came across with undeniable charm. She connected. Considering all the pressure she was under to perform and show us some depth, I think she showed a lot of courage and confidence. You won't hear the main stream media declare Palin a winner . . they have too much invested in Obama. So the best they will say is that it was a tie. I know better. Palin won.

The Economy Part II

I just read a good article by Matt Mayer about the economy. It's a bit windy and long, but there are some great points in there about the "taxing the rich" mentality, about how taxing one economic class (the rich) excessively while doling out money to another class (non-taxpayers) creates a divided non-productive nation, and the consequences of all that. Here is a sampling:

"[As Scottish Philosopher Alexander] Tytler studied the lifecycles of civilizations and found that they last for roughly 200 years. These civilizations followed a similar pattern. Tytler categorized the pattern as such: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

In conclusion Mayer says: "The American economy is in a very rough patch. The last thing it needs is a president who thinks that the road to prosperity is paved by punishing producers, increasing dependency, over-regulating, and driving up labor costs."