Two pundits, one on the Left and one on the Right (sorta, kinda, almost), each wrote an attack on the Constitution. If this is what we have to look forward to, the future is pretty dismal from a constitutional perspective.

The leftist, Gail Collins , asks George Bush to resign, and Cheney, too, of course, to allow Nancy Pelosi, and therefore Barak Obama, to assume power before January. Her reason: she wants to usher in Obamanomics as quickly as possible. Since Collins writes for the New York Times, it comes as no surprise that such an idea would make the pages of a once-important news outlet. At least Collins make the Bush resignation optional, which is at least a nod to the constitution.

The pundit on the Right, George Will , is more problematic. Will finds parallels between the recent SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and Roe v. Wade. According to Will, both rulings represent an overreach of the powers by the Court, and are therefore equally bad.

Read More →

“A certain amount of corruption is inevitable…” So said Captain Tom Pickett, in The Last Man Standing.

Not so memorable a movie, perhaps, but Pickett certainly understood human nature. It is certainly understandable in politics. The conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens is not a surprise because we know that such things happen. And we believe, eventually, truth will win out and justice will be done.

But justice is not possible in Ohio. Justice has been destroyed in Ohio.

Secretary of State Brunner did not just accommodate voter fraud and corruption, she planned it. She organized it. She went to great lengths to insure that it was carried out, and she used the legal system to keep it from being overturned. ACORN were her tools and accomplices, but the crime is hers.

Governor Strickland tried to appear above it all, but his hands are dirty. Not only did he not intervene in one of the most massive examples of political corruption in recent history, he refuses to deal with the invasion of privacy. Joe the Plumber can be a target of the State. His personal records can be investigated for political reasons, and his private life can be splashed across the national news. His livelihood can be destroyed for political gain. Can anyone ask how a “right to privacy” can justify sodomy and abortion, but does not apply to a man who simply asked a question?

The system of justice has failed miserably. The DOJ lawyers are complicit. The SCOTUS is cowardly. A national election will probably be tainted because of the lack of ethics or courage on the part of those responsible for justice, whether in Ohio or Washington.

It is a stain on the state of Ohio. When the corruption in Ohio exceeds Chicago, or Louisiana of old, the people of Ohio are in serious trouble. If ever there was justification for a recall of elected officials, it is the state officials in Ohio who have used corruption to control not only their state, but to influence the national election as well. The Democrats in Ohio are a very serious threat to our national life. Brunner and Strickland have to go.

1. Joe the Plumber under attack

Picture of Joe the Plumber

Sound bite: McCain to Chris Wallace: “Where are we in America where a candidate for president comes to a person’s driveway, he asks him a question, doesn’t like the answer, and all of a sudden he’s savaged by the candidate’s people? Savaged by them. Here’s a guy who’s a private citizen.”

Voice over: “As bad as that is, it should have been expected. If Obama supporters will call for a special investigation by the Department of Justice into Americans who are concerned that the election will be stolen by fraud, an ordinary American like Joe stands no chance. A campaign that uses Missouri law enforcement officials to arrest people running campaign ads they don’t like. A campaign that enlists the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Americans who remind voters that you have to be a citizen to vote. I guess Joe got off lucky.”

1. Biden on Racism

Picture of Joe Biden

Sound bite: Joe Biden in San Francisco: “Undecided people are having a difficult time just culturally making the change, making the move for the first African American president in the history of the United States of America…”

Voice over: “Joe thinks that the only reason you might be undecided is because you aren’t comfortable voting for an African-American. Apparently Joe just can’t consider that an undecided voter might not want to vote for the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Joe doesn’t understand that an undecided voter might not agree that it is patriotic to raise taxes during difficult economic times. Joe might not understand that an undecided voter is concerned about unlimited, uncontrolled abortion. Joe might not understand that an undecided voter might remember that Obama voted to limit Second Amendment rights in the past, even though he may have changed his mind during the campaign.’

“No, the only reason that Joe thinks a person might be undecided is because the person has difficulty with race. Maybe Joe should meet more undecided voters.”

1. Obama redistribution of wealth

Picture of Obama with Joe the Plumber

Sound bite: Obama: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

2nd sound bite: McCain: “At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives.”

Voice over: “What does Obama really believe about opportunity and America? He thinks he is going to give a tax cut to 38% of Americans who don’t pay taxes to cut. He thinks that giving these people someone else’s money is a tax cut. He thinks that taking money from hard working Americans to give to people who don’t pay taxes is the best way to build the economy. He thinks that the way to build a strong economy is to punish small businesses that are create jobs and wealth in this country. Socialism? Sounds a lot like it.”

http://www.foxnews.com/?CMP=KNC-G-Fox&HBXPK=foxnews&HBX_OU=50&gclid=COaXrJDTrpYCFRs-awoduhYbLQ

See the “Breaking News” headline.

Dang. I hope I read something wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

David Brooks, Palin hater, former conservative, has diagnosed the true infection that resulted in the cancer of Palin: anti-intellectualism. Conservatives just aren’t smart enough to govern. “The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.”

At least he admits one important fact: “Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. Apparently conservatives should simple accept the status quo: the smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.”

So what happened? For completely unexplained reasons, conservatives are no longer willing to acknowledge the superiority of liberal theology and have turned against it. They are not longer willing to bear the completely justified insults and denigrations. They no longer want to support traitorous philosophies by providing paychecks for Ward Churchill, William Ayers, and their fellow travelers. Suicide, I tell you, it’s suicide.

Brooks drank the koolaid that his superior education that landed him his position on the NYT editorial board. He may be “more Republican” than many of his colleagues, but he still believes in the divine right of Harvard graduates to rule the masses. Preparation for leadership requires “constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking”, but alas, all of those critical components have been sacrificed before the constant touch.

The problem, of course, is that the definitions of “constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking” are established by those who want to destroy traditional Americans. Religiosity, self-reliance, morality are bad. “Historical understanding” is the same Marxist interpretation of history without the brutality of Russian dictatorship. “Sophisticated thinking” is whatever philosophy a college professor wants to force on the sheep in his classroom, and push down to the public schools. The fact that these philosophies are basically a denial of fundamental rights of Americans is unimportant to Brooks. We should all accept the superiority of our betters and move on. Constant reading is a good thing. We all agree. However, content sort of bothers some of us hoi polloi. (I would rule out reading the NY Times, for example.)

It is interesting that the two examples of intellectual conservatism provided by Brooks contradict his premise: Lincoln and Churchill. Neither was particularly educated. Lincoln struggled to complete law school, which was considered a trade school in his day, and certainly not classical education. Lincoln’s brilliance came from some inherent quality that was distinct from any education.

Likewise Churchill. Churchill decided that educational pursuits were not for him. He was not a particularly gifted student. He decided to pursue journalism, but unlike Brooks, a particularly patriotic, jingoistic journalism. He was also a soldier. Churchill was well-read, well-traveled, and very sensitive to the issues of his day, but he was considered just as dangerous by the elites of his day as he is by the elites of our day. Perhaps Brooks could venture a small guess about the removal Churchill from school curriculums in the UK. Probably has nothing to do with the fact that the elites of today want nothing to do with a man who believed in the indomitable spirit of his Anglo-Saxon brethren and their right and duty to oppose tyranny. Apparently the 20th century is simply to full to mention everything, so Churchill is out.

Brooks simply presents the bankrupt philosophies of his employers, and puts a more conservative wrapper around them.

That’s according to Nielson:

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/699-million-watched-biden-and-palin’s-vp-debate/

Okay, it was only 69.9 mill. Sue me.

If Republicans win this election, thank Sarah Palin.

She was asked about her stupid comments about Republicans and how her mouth hurt the passage of the bailout. Barney took the question for her.

Can someone point out the stupidity of slandering the Administration and Republicans with 8 years of failure, but from the other side of your mouth saying that everyone has to get behind the Administration’s bill?

Can the House Republicans step and very publicly say they are tired of getting screwed over by Pelosi and her stormtroopers? If the Democrats need bipartisanship now, the Dems should have been practicing it for the last 2 years?

Can the Republicans in general get serious about corruption and donations? Can someone, anyone, point out that the Democrats are responsible for this mess? The problem would be a lot smaller if the Dems hadn’t blocked reform.

It’s time to fight back.

Some of you folks here serve in the House? Why can’t Republicans rise up righteous and smote them hip and thigh? Here we have a chance to fight back socialism for a few more years, and maybe, just maybe, win an election. Why not get really mean about this whole thing?

The fact that the Democrats want to use 20% of the profits from the bailout funds subsidize the corruption of ACORN will not make the pages of the NYT, WAPO, or even the Dallas Morning News. Heck, you can’t even find the fact that ACORN is a criminal organization dedicated to subverting the political process by illegally creating voters. And you sure ain’t gonna find out that Obama sent them $800,000 for their efforts.

If the bailout fails to pass, Republicans are going to take the hit. It’s time to start educating people on the corruption of the Democrats. Since it will never be reported by the MSM, the Republicans need to buy some air time and get it in the news. Any ads that accuse the Dems of corruption will make the 24hr news cycle, and the education will begin.

Winning the war will take millions. Losing will take everything we’ve got for a long time.

In today’s Washington Post, George Will wrote that John McCain “is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html?referrer=emailarticle

Will’s point is that McCain’s attack on SEC Chairman, Chris Cox, was “false and deeply unfair,” and indicates that McCain doesn’t understand what is happening on Wall Street.

While Cox’s role in the problem can be debated, it is a stretch to say that McCain doesn’t understand the crisis on Wall Street. The most important fact of the whole sorry episode is that McCain somehow guessed that the national economy was in danger by the subprime market. Lucky rookie guess, I suppose. But if not a lucky guess, then McCain has been aware of the danger to Wall Street since at least 2005, when he proposed oversight of the subprime market, specifically over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It would appear that the evidence speaks for itself.

So is McCain unjustified in attacking Chris Cox?

What is the role of SEC Chairman? Is awareness of market dangers included in the job description? How about speaking out on dangerous trends? I remember that Alan Greenspan was considered prescient for his warnings about the dotcom bubble and the potential impact on the markets and the overall economy. If a flustered rookie who is admittedly weaker on economics than on military or foreign policy can see the problems developing, should the SEC Chairman have an inkling of the problems? And perhaps suggest that something needs to be done?

McCain’s passion, or temper, or opinionated statements, are well-known. He has been criticized for them. But the fact that he is intemperate does not mean that he is wrong. If Cox has any oversight responsibilities, he should have sounded the warning early. The fact that every (is it really “every”? I think it is) investment banking entity is in collapse should have been noticed by someone. Blackhedd at this site has been warning about the collapse of the subprime market and the potential to destroy Wall Street and the economy. But perhaps blackhedd has better sources than Chris Cox.

Blackhedd, what opinions do you have on Chris Cox and Mccain’s opinion of him?

Perhaps George Will ties his bowties too tight. Perhaps Will doesn’t like McCain, and is willing to strain at the gnat while swallowing the camel. But it does not seem like a stretch that the SEC Chairman might have had a bit of warning on this collapse and exercised some authority to hold back the tide on this one.

“My friends, the devastation on the Gulf Coast is massive. Homes and businesses have been destroyed, and will have to be rebuilt. We have to insure that the labor force that rebuilds America is American. These jobs need to be filled by honest, hard-working Americans, helping other honest, hard-working Americans. These are the fundamentals that have made America great.”

Sarah Palin was a member of the Pentecostal Church. Past tense. Was. Which many of us consider a plus, in spite of some practices that we personally don’t participate in. It kinda defines her moral positions, as well as the whole Jew/Israeli thing.

Not a surprise, though, is it? The issue has been raised a few…dozen times.

In case you thought religion was going away, it’s not.
According to the TOL, Joe Biden used to belong to the Catholic Church. You would think that the American press might just mention it. Or not. It ain’t going so well for Joe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/geraldwarner/blog/2008/09/19/joebidenlosesbarackobamathecatholicvote

The money quote:

On September 2 the Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania (a crucial swing state) banned him from communion in his diocese. That is effective excommunication.

Why? Abortion.

That’s got to hurt him as a homeboy from Scranton.

So does the Catholic Church really hate Obama, to interject religion and morality into the campaign? Or is abortion still an important issue to many, many Americans?

1. In 2005, McCain understood the roots of our current problems on Wall Street. He proposed legislation that was killed by Chris Dodd. Is a campaign ad detailing these facts in really bad taste or out of bounds? It seems to me that it would go a long way toward countering the attack that he followed the same old policies.

2. Dodd and Obama received more money from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros. than any other poliiticians. Is it in bad taste to point out that politicians who are bought off are not likely to impose the needed regulation? Okay, bought off is a little. Find a nice way to say “bought off.”

3. Obama is attempting to undermine the State Department and the executive branch in Iraq. Okay, so he doesn’t like Bush. The fact that he he doesn’t like the President is no reason to break the law. Does Obama feel like he is above the law since he doesn’t like the President?

4. Should not the topic of abortion be raised at some point? Is it such a killer that it cannot be discussed? It has, in fact, been discussed, and by the Obama campaign. Look, guys, the Catholic Church has finally emphatically and publicly said abortion is wrong. Politicians who protect and advocate abortion policy are wrong, to the point of being disciplined by the Church. No, don’t get involved in church matters and discipline, don’t even mention it. But surely two candidates who support life can make a campaign ad that clearly states their position.

5. Energy is a big winner. Why can’t McCain and all of the other Republicans running for office make much hay while the sun shines on this topic? Ridicule the stupidity of the bill that got out of the House of Representatives. If Republicans can fairly be tarred with Bush, Democrats can be tarred with Pelosi and Reid.

6. Why no ad on Rangel? He admitted that he didn’t pay taxes. He admitted to felonies. Why no ads about the fact that he still serves in Congress, deciding tax policy?

I’m sure there are other issues. I would like to see one of those chat sessions between you smart guys on what ads would be acceptable. But mostly I would like to win this election.

A factoid known to all those of us addicted to the blogs: Obama will ask beg, plead, entreat and implore Hillary to campaign to keep the women’s vote.

It seems likely that Hillary will, in fact, play the faithful Democrat and campaign more visibly for Obama. If this were to appear on a lefty blog, it would point out that Hillary will once again play the dutiful ___ (wife, Democrat, party member, whatever) and come to the defense of her man. It would also pity the poor woman for craving acceptance so deeply that she must defend the __ (husband, opponent, Uber-Messiah) that ridiculed the very thing that the ____ (husband, opponent Uber-Messiah) now needs: her gender.

Still, a picture of abject emotional neediness is more complimentary than the fact that Hillary needs $24 million, and Obama has that same $24 million. Obama needs 18 million votes, and Hillary “has” each of those 18 million votes. (I question that. More below). Hillary also needs to maintain the appearance of party loyalty for her run in 2012. The only real decision that Hillary has to make is how to get the money, look loyal, and make sure that Obama loses.

Read More →

Otherwise, why select such an “experienced” Senator as a running mate?

Insert video of Nancy Pelosi saying, “Drilling is a hoax”*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdpyF-Rjnc&feature=related

(Insert still picture of Pelosi. Background scroll of rising oil prices with corresponding to increase in oil price.) Voice over: “Under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, oil rose to $147 a barrel, the highest price for oil in history.” (Large print, blinking “July 11, 2008, oil price $147.27 per barrel”.)

Insert Nancy Pelosi video, repeat sentence, “Drilling is a hoax.”

(Insert picture of person at gas pump, filling their car. Background scroll of rising gasoline pump, price rising from $2.00/gallon to more than $4.00/gallon.) Voice over: “The price you paid for gasoline has increased to more than $4.00 a gallon.”

(Montage of oil drilling pictures: coastal, land, Alaska) Voice over: “America has proven oil reserves that can save Americans money. Lower prices for food, clothes, housing, air travel. The American economy can grow instead of shrink. More jobs instead of fewer jobs. A stronger America because fuel cost less.”

Read More →