OBAMA: I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

TODD: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction - I mean one of the purposes of doing - going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.

OBAMA: Well –

TODD: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

OBAMA: Look - what I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging; I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury. - MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Interviewing Barack Obama on the upcoming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial.

Kangaroo courts have a long and established history in places where people are not governed by the rule of law, rather by the rule of man.  Rule of law dictates that every person subjected to it will be judged and treated equally with others in the same circumstance.  Rule of Law demands that a person, tried in a court, will face similar charges, similar procedures, and similar outcomes. 

Rule of Man is when a disfavored person or persons can be treated differently based on what a person or persons in power say.  For example, if you are a critic of an administration, you may be faced with a trial with fewer rights, more severe penalties, and a rush to a certain judgment.  We have a system that requires like people and offenses be treated alike.  Obama just stuck his foot in it with this interview.

The entire point, according to the president, for having these men tried in our civilian courts, is to prove to the world we are balanced, measured and fair.  What, as a result of the president’s words, will the rest of the world say?

If KSM is convicted, they will harken back to Obama’s words and say it was never fair in the first place.  The person in power, Obama, made sure there was a conviction regardless of the evidence and the process. 

Should KSM not be convicted the Attorney General has helpfully told the Senate that he will not be released.  How is that going to play?  If he is found not guilty and still kept in prison, where is the justice in that?  Why would anyone believe this wasn’t either a kangaroo court or an unjust detention? 

Really, if this guy is the best and the brightest we have, we are truly in deep doo-doo.

Now this may sound silly or outlandish but there is very little coming out of this nuthouse that isn’t.  So, we must take a breath, step back, and parse the rhetoric.

Obama said in an interview with Major Garrett, perhaps hoping stupid conservatives wouldn’t notice the irony, that we must get a handle on the out of control fiscal situation.  This, of course, is a situation he himself created.  Up until now the standard talking points of ‘Blame Bush’ has served him well.  However, it is difficult to blame the former president for the spending he himself has proposed and signed.  That is merely a road bump for this man.  He thinks he can hoodwink the nation for a little while longer.  Therefore, I think he is going to blame the TelePrompTer of the United States for this growing debacle.

Think about it.  The TOTUS is a perfect foil.  It cannot speak against the president.  It must simply take the abuse.  When Obama says we need more fiscal discipline, the TOTUS is a great target.  It wasn’t he, the president, who proposed ridiculous spending and unheard of deficits, it was TOTUS.  There are more advantages than may be apparent.

TOTUS could be dressed up like Bush on the ranch.  Obama probably thinks that would divert attention away from his own responsibility, at least for a while.  He can hang a sash around the glass projection screen emblazoned with the letter “W”.  Undoubtedly the morons on the left would buy it.  They are still infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome and would be happy to accept that farce.  Certainly his lap dogs in the press would be loathe to point out the obvious, that it’s just TOTUS dressed in a sash.  They’ve been willing to cart his water up until now, why not for a little longer?

Then, he can enlist Bill and Hillary to spread a rumor about the vast right-wing conspiracy’s use of a wireless device to tap into TOTUS feeding it ruinously expensive programs.  Obama didn’t want all this wasteful spending.  No, it was the right-wing conspiracy that tricked him into signing the stimulus bill (better named the Democratic Party Slush Fund), the pork-laden Omnibus Bill and of course, the corpulent 2010 Budget.  Hillary could tell a story about how she evaded snipers in the Congo to find the hidden antennae used by the vast right-wing conspiracy to transmit the evil spending.  Bill could explain how he found the files in his intern’s cigar box.  Simple.

But, perhaps the most useful way POTUS can persuade the country this fiscal irresponsibility isn’t his fault is to say TOTUS has been in the pay of the evil insurance companies.  They have been against his health care takeover from the beginning, er well from when it began making even less sense than it did from the beginning.  They conspired with Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to entice the Democrats into spending too much.  They, together with the racist Tea Partiers, fascist Town Hallers, those clinging to their guns and their Bibles, and everyone else who wants a free America have turned the TOTUS against him.  He can hear the black helicopters coming.  The whirling blades are above him, swirling his greatcoat and wrinkling Michelle Antoinette’s dress.  It’s everybody else fault.  They’re all out to get him.  In Michigan and Ohio and Montana and New York . . .   Arrrrrggggggghhh.

Yeah.  Maybe that will work.

Instead of insuring that all votes are counted, only legal ballots are included, there are no fraudulent votes, there is no double counting, and certain regions are not excluded, Ritchie has proposed a ballot that will guide the DFL political machine Minnesota polity through the process.  Ballots are more clearly marked and mailing procedures thoroughly explained so it is easier for his election lackeys judges tomake the next election more fraudulent open.

Minnesota has a series of election laws that make it easy for ACORN voters to register and vote on the same day.  These laws are instrumental for insuring every political operative citizen can have their voice heard. Several times if need be.  

This past election was a squeaker.  The battle for the senate seat was very close, too close to leave to the amateurs.  Therefore, there needs to be clear instructions and steps to make sure the DFL Politburo will of the people is known.

So, Ritchie made the ballot a clear, concise instrument that will be easy for officials to lose, miscount, double count, and set aside for goofy reasons.  Our oligarchy democracy is too precious for such contention.  Ritchie has taken these steps as to once again hoodwink reassure the populace that its democratic ideals are preserved. 

[Just letting you know what ACORN's chief advisor and trainer is doing up here in the North Country.  Perhaps, you can preserve your election process more completely.  We allowed ours to be corrupted beyond belief.  Don't let that happen to you.]

Myth # 1 - Voters in the base will swallow their bile and vote for the least offensive candidate.

When the ‘wizards of smart’ in the Republican Party decided to back Scozzafava, they banked on conservatives being so desperate they’d vote for anyone who wasn’t a Democrat. However, they picked a candidate who was so tainted by the stain of Soros. The voters rebelled. They don’t want, as Glenn Beck puts it, socialism lite, they want a candidate who will work in their best interests. Scozzafava, still reeking from an endorsement from the Working Families Party, isolated her base, reached for the far left, and as such gave the Republican Party an ulcer. That ulcer can only be alleviated by just listening to their constituents. The conservatives are tired of ‘business as usual’.

Myth #2

Political independents are largely malleable and persuadable.

There is a significant difference between independent and moderate. Independents are simply not partisan in nature. They may be conservative or liberal and distrust the party system. Moderates, a subset of independents, are not beholden to either party and weigh the candidates and parties without eliminating the other out of hand.

Just because you have a candidate with schizoid stands on the issues, doesn’t mean the independents and/or moderates will bite. They are just as principled and informed, sometimes more, than partisans. These two groups are just as likely to smell a rat as any other voter. In fact, they may be more likely to realize that ideological inconsistancy is a sign of duplicity and not honesty. While candidates can have positions that are not strict ideological stances, the positions they do take flow from a basic philosophical belief system. When a position, such as Card-Check or support for the stimulus plan, flies in the face of the philosophical base, it appears contrived and therefore suspect.

Myth # 3 Partisans will support their candidates even with ideological differences.

The belief that a voter, even one who is a card carrying member of a party, will vote in lockstep with their brethern is absurd. Almost all voters split the ticket, at least in some cases. The district GOP in New York looked at the metrics and made a plan. They saw the district was mostly Republican but voted for Obama in 2008. That translated, in their minds, to a liberal Republican base that needed some liberal sprinklings to make their candidate more amenable. However, just because Scozzafava has some liberal credentials doesn’t make her the candidate that will serve the district the best. Republican voters began to see that she was not the person for them. Therefore they looked elsewhere. Hoffman offered a better choice that was ideologically more attuned than their own party choice. As a result, the trickle became a flood.

Myth # 4

Moderates will not vote for an ideological candidate. They want a candidate who can work with both sides.

Moderates do not want a candidate who will work with both sides, not as an attribute. They want a candidate who will fight for their best interests and will not become embroiled in partisan wrangling. Those are two very different things. Moderates have an ideological basis to their belief system just as partisans do. It is simply not a basis that relies on Republican or Democratic brands to fulfill. They want results that are good for their district, as they see it. They still want the best result and view interfraternal bickering as impeding that goal.

Myth # 5 - Bipartisan voting results show a candidate has real carrying power.

If this final myth were true, the swing districts would have the safest seats in Congress. However, it is absolutely false. Swing districts are notorious for flipping from party to party depending on the mood in the country. Highly ideological bailwicks are the safest seats and these seats are completely controlled by one party or the other. For the most part, Democrats have a lock on big cities. They didn’t get that lock by being ideologically mushy. They did it by overtaking the political system, installing machines, and regulating the system. Republicans, for some odd reason, believe that they must cater to Democrats at the exclusion of their base. Democrats don’t cater to anyone, and it works. They make their case, cement their power, and move on.

Republicans made a bad bet at the race track with Scozzafava. While I understand their political calculations, they started with some very questionable premises. These premises all rely on political myths that support altering the message to fit the populace instead of persuading the voters you are right. Candidates who ‘fit’ with local races are important as long as they are believable and apt. But, metrics never trumps a good argument. Work on the metrics while making a sound political case.

Don’t believe that moderates are looking for any excuse to vote for a Democrat. They aren’t. They are looking out for their best interests regardless of party affiliation. Understand that fact, and don’t be scared.

“Pelosi said that the public plan, which she prefers to call a “consumer option,” would compete with private insurers.” New York Times October 29, 2009

Well, isn’t that nice. If this doesn’t work to jamb the bill down our throats, I have a few more suggestions that may sugarcoat this bitter little jagged pill.

Perhaps it could be called the ‘apple pie and baseball’ option. Or, maybe it could be the ‘amber waves of grain’ option. We could call it the ‘God and Country’ option or the ‘Whiskers on Kittens’ option. As long as we are making up ridiculous names for this boondoggle, let’s think of more appropriate ones.

‘Grandma Got Run Over by Cutting Medicare’ Option
‘Free to Illegal Aliens but not to Me’ Option
‘Tax-Me, Tax-Me’ Option
‘Sex Ed but No Pacemakers’ Option
or even,
‘Screw Healthcare, Let’s have Socialism’ Option. After all, we know if we all just get along, the world will heal itself.

Capitalism is based on the holder of the capital being in control of the means of production. That is all. There is no component of capitalism that demands free markets, open competition, or fairness. Now, capitalism works best when it is open, free, and transparent. Those are the checks and balances that make a market work efficiently.

Socialism requires that the means of production be held and controlled by the society as directed, supposedly, by the working class. The government is the usual agent for the working class to do this, at least in theory. In practice, it is a political oligarchy that runs the means of production. This oligarchy can be technocrats who know what they are doing or any other group that is supposedly informed. However, it is a closed system of control that relies on political maneuvering and political will.

Soros believes deeply in capitalism as it pertains to him. What he wants is a mixed economy like that in Europe. He wants capital to control the means of production and for the political arm of a society to direct the market in his direction. Therefore, he and his fellow travelers can fleece the public at will. Without competition and conflict, he can control costs, control prices, and milk the public to his own benefit. Now, to do this he needs a political party to direct the market in his direction and shield him from rivals.

That is why he bought the Democratic Party. They are suckers for this kind of thing because they don’t really understand market forces, or macroeconomics, or economic gamesmanship. They are so excited to have a deep pocket on their side they cannot do enough water-carrying for him.

Think of the benefits to Soros to his business. He can offload his healthcare benefits to the government. He can eliminate his competition through exclusive government contracts. He can control the market through regulation of his competitors while skating around them. It is a win-win for the big guy. In the mean time, the Democratic Party has simply become pawns in his international economic scheme. They, for a few million, are nothing more than an investment of Soros. He spent all that money for a return. As a good capitalist, that money invested better turn a profit or he’ll begin turning off the spigot. The party is so reliant upon him they will be forced to do his bidding. Without him, they are lost.

The real nugget Soros wants passed is crap and tax. That is the worldwide gem that will enable him to make billions more by controlling carbon dioxide and therefore all production and usage. Since everything economic turns on the expense and use of energy, he will be in a position to fleece the public internationally. With the United States easily the largest player, he will have a platform to control the ebb and flow of all economic development.

But, we are a dangerous foe to him. The American public isn’t as compliant as the hapless Democrats. We are resisting this centralized authority that will control the market. We believe in freedom and liberty, both social and economic. We recognize the most important defenses we have are economic independence. Centralized control necessarily extinguishes that kind of independence of action. By its very nature, it demands the market open to free, autonomous actors must be destroyed.

Mixed economies expose the worst of both worlds. Preferred capitalism, which benefits certain people to the detriment of others, is not democratic and free. It is the favoritism supported by Soros. For the Democratic Party to enable this economic fascism is inherently destructive. It also poisons the entire partisan group. It doesn’t favor the best economic forces but the best connected. Our efficiency and effectiveness will decrease while Soros bank account fills with our money.

Down with the plutocrats.

So, CNN decided to hire old David as a pet conservative to comment on the nation’s events as a political conservative. As a former speech writer for George W. Bush, they presume he must be a conservative, but an acceptable one since he is an intellectual and so understands their delicate sensibilities. He won’t startle them with a principled opposing viewpoint. He will gently suggest and oh so careful chide. As a conservative intellectual, he will make them look balanced and fair. Oh, how far from the truth that is.

Frum’s first post to CNN is a ‘laugh out loud’ examination and explanation of the viewpoints of the Tea Partiers and Townhallers. (I did literally laugh out loud at the prospect). Reading his description of the motivations and fears, not to mention the outrage, expressed was like reading the critique of a painting by a blind person. It was like a vegan describing the succulence and texture of a filet mignon. It was similar to a lecture given by Stalin on democracy. They were just some pixels on a screen. His writing was numb, devoid of passion, and utterly silly.

Now, no one can be sure just where Mr. Frum got his information on what the protestors are feeling, but it certainly wasn’t from a town hall participant. Granted, it was a sympathetic article, but so ill-informed as to be sad. It could be imagined that the estimable Frum had a clothespin on his nose as he furiously wrote his commentary. I’m sure the stench, as described by Harry Reid’s portrayl of ‘tourists,’ filled his nose. After all, we are the great unwashed of the nation. We are the supporters and friends of everyday people yearning to live free, independent lives in liberty. That must have caused the bile to rise in his collectivist, elitist throat.

But, never you mind. That is the drivel the Washington cocktail party will read and believe. They’d never condescend to read our impassioned words or heady pleas. They’d rather have the well composted horse apples an intellectual like David Frum has to serve. These people want to understand our ideas within their own, narrow context. That context is within the collectivist narrative that confines our attributes to the vile capitalist, the mean liberatarian, the socially conservative moron, or the frightened, barely coherent populist. Frum chose to paint us as the last category.

“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare.’ Those words — quoted by so many TV talking heads — never seem actually to have been spoken by anyone.” Mr. Frum begins the tale. He is trying to calm the jittery cocktail set that are disturbed by images of Americans demanding answers to questions they don’t understand. He is saying the quote is apocryphal when it was actually President Obama who began the assault on the townhallers by characterizing them as uninformed idiots. Obama had smiled and chuckled after this supposed quote and then knowingly gave his adoring fans that look that said, ‘you know how stupid they are.’ But, let’s give it to Frum for questioning the source of the president’s smear.

“The town hallers were angry, but they were not crazy, and they were not stupid. They knew perfectly well that Medicare is provided by the government. They also knew that their government is proposing to change Medicare in ways they do not like.” This is Frum’s paean to the hoi polloi. He gives a gentle reminder to the delicate metrosexuals in Washington that the average American isn’t as lame-brained as they imagine. He states that they are unable to fully articulate it as intelligently as he is. Therefore, he will set it out for them. He, the great intellectual that he is, will parse their coarse, meandering thoughts and explain them to his fellow dilettantes.

“The changes the president has in mind won’t kill Grandma. But they will change medicine in ways Grandma may find uncomfortable. Ten years from now, Grandma probably won’t have a personal doctor. Her Medicare will cover less — and cost more.” Frum explains that his less sophisticated fellow conservatives must resort to simple, easy-to-digest relationships to exclaim their displeasure. The relationship of ‘Grandma’ is one that is elemental enough for us to express. In addition, we grubby tyros can sense there is something fundamentally wrong in the healthcare proposal. We may not be able to describe it fully, but Mr. Frum thinks he has the answer. The hayseeds in the political sticks intuit that less money for the elderly will lead to less care. They don’t really understand such complex issues, but they can roughly cipher the result in their straw-filled heads.

You see, the philosophic debate does run deeper, Frum posits. It is the fear that someone else, someone less deserving will get their care. He insists it’s because these hicks hate immigrants. “But the debate over illegal immigrants is a proxy for something larger and more unsettling to older Americans. The problem is not illegal immigration, it is all low-skilled immigration, legal and illegal.” Frum succinctly surmises the residents of Boondocks are really a-feared of their standard of living being overtaken by them ‘furriners.’ Yuck. Well, gosh darnit. I don’t think that was an argument ever made or insinuated by the town hall protestors. Rather, they were furious the government has continued to allow a huge number of people to break the law and enter this country illegally. They are protesting the slippery slope the ‘rule of law’ has taken. Frum has other ideas.

In their own, backward way, the Tea Parties and the town halls were about something so much more classic, according to Frum. “And it’s the emotion that explains the actual quote — not the bogus quote — we heard from so many town hall protesters this summer: ‘Fix old. No new.” Huh? What kind of hillbilly reaction is he feeding these elites? The anger expressed was over the socialization of our private sector. It was about the irresponsible spending and power grab by the government. It was an expression of rage over a bunch of sleazy, ignorant, power-hungry, contemptuous politicians who don’t believe that have to read the bills, listen to us, stop and take a breath, or protect our interests. Frum completely misses the mark. Small wonder since it’s obvious he hasn’t a clue as to what the protests were about. Thank God he’s explaining it to his hoity-toidy peers. If you wonder why the New York/Washington power lunchers are confused, it’s because of the kind of regurgitated gruel the traditional ‘conservative’ commentators are spoon feeding them. It isn’t the liberals we need to fear as much as the pointy head conservative lapdogs.

Frum comments on the future of the conservative movement and the Republican party as it stands. He is worried about the direction of the cause. He opines about influences such as Sarah Palin. “She’s a divisive force within the Republican Party…And many fear, as I do…that she represents a future that leads the party both to political defeat and then to ineffectiveness in government.” You mean like irresponsible earmark spending, political gamesmanship, elitism, snobbery, ignoring the voters, and marginalizing political dissent of the establishment. That’s what you’ve provided Mr. Frum. You, and your fellow sycophants gave us defeat, failure, and contempt. You are the ones that lost all political power because we believed your lavender-scented hype. Then you lose and blame Sarah Palin? That is truly contemptible and beneath my disgust. Small wonder you are so bitter. It was your political game that we played for the past four years and it was your strategy that led to a rabid socialist Congress and president. Don’t lecture us on Sarah Palin’s dangerous proclivities. It is the beam in your own eye you need to remove.

Remove it, and stop lying about us.

Memo to Republicans: Begin making the arguments. Dionne doesn’t want a discussion on the issues. He wants you to concede all points, try and play the collectivist game, and lose election after election because you do not reflect the values or ideas of your own side.

Let’s hope the Democrats listen to him and the Republicans ignore him.

Dionne believes that embracing Obama’s radicalism and taking to even further is the winning strategy for Democrats. He admits, like it or lump it, Obama is the defining element of their party. His agenda is their agenda. For a Democrat to display independence from this ideal is madness. They must take the party line, push it, and they will win. Obama is their present and future.

In fact, I would hope the Democratic Party would take it a step further. Embrace Pelosi and Reid. Please, oh please bring them to your districts and parade them around for all to see. Connect yourself with the far left agenda. Call Pelosi your captain, Reid your commander, Obama your sovereign. That would be great because these three are about the most incompetent, disingenuous imposters in the history of the country.

Embrace the policies of these people. Rave about the stimulus and the 25 jobs it has saved or created. Talk about how the deficits and debt are good for America. Dither on foreign affairs and encourage bowing to dictators and talking with mad men. Keep up attacks and smears on the American populace. Try marginalizing over half the country. Please, oh please keep doing what you’re doing.

However, you Democrats who know better should think about the consequences. These policies, programs, spending, and strategies will not work. What’s more, you know they won’t. You are lapping at the feet of the mentally deranged. If you want to succeed and for the country to succeed, you may want to think about Dionne’s track record for predictions and be skeptical.

Dionne predicted that America was entering into a new age of broad consensus and cordiality. Republicans, if they wanted any relevance whatsoever, would have to come to the table and grovel for the scraps. Democrats would have an easy time of it. A mere nine months ago that analysis was sopped up like gravy with the Republican establishment. Most of the Ed Rollins, David Gergens, David Frums, and Michael Gersons of the world predicted just such a scenario. But, dedicated Republicans and independents were not so sure. The broad consensus supposedly created by this ‘historic’ (actually histrionic) election was a mile wide and an inch deep. The stimulus was the first test.
Principled House and Senate members of the GOP recognized this boondoggle of out-of-control spending was voter poison. They resisted and the people responded. Tea parties, raucous townhall meetings, and millions of emails and letters, phone calls and visitations later, the Democrats are on the wrong side of history. Dionne was wrong, dead wrong.

Republicans must learn that kowtowing to these disastrous programs and schemes will not improve the country, bring consensus, or win elections. They must make the case that more governmental control is not the answer. They must stand up and fight. We already are. We, the public, are infuriated at the power grab and corruption being revealed daily in a press that tries to hide it. Even among Democrats, for the polls are excluding a big percentage of Republicans and more importantly independents, this irresponsible behavior is unpopular. While the Democratic Party is firmly behind the president as a person, they are nervous and questioning of his policies.

But, we must give Mr. Dionne his due. He proposes a country which knuckles under this radical agenda, accepts it without hesitation. Let the Democrats heed his advice. The rest of us know better. Let Dionne lead them down the garden path and into the briar patch.

The Obama election and subsequent socialistic Congress that was seated unnerved the Republican political scientists. For the past four years, their strategy of political coalitions, political patronage, and measuring the odds fell flat. Rather than examine the message and readjust the arguments, they convinced themselves it was the metrics at fault. As their Marxist professors had taught them, it wasn’t individuals who voted but blocs of identifible groups who behaved in certain, predictable ways.

Michael Gerson and David Brooks were not arguing a moderate or conservative political philosophy when they attacked the right, they were following the metric measures argument of the political scientists. The country is getting more ‘diverse’ ethnically and culturally. The conservative message does not ‘fit’ those groups’ thinking. We must, as Republicans, mediate our message in order to have political heft.

The problem is, those metrics are not stagnant measures of political opinion but fluid ones that change with the different sides making the arguments to the voters. ‘Blacks don’t vote for Republicans,’ is a time-honored premise and so instead of trying to persuade blacks that the Democratic Party has done them no favors, they believed the right must cater to their proclivities. But, this does nothing for political discourse nor does it do the country any service. It makes the Republican brand a kind of milk-toast version of Democratic principles.

Political fights are won most fully by persuasion and not metrics. We cannot win a political fight by betting on the most demographically favorable horse. We must win through changing hearts and minds. This must be done regardless of sex, skin color, national origin, or religion, not because of such things. Catholics were always consistant, reliable Democratic voters until recent years. They were persuaded the left was not in tune with their belief system and so they turned.

Hispanics will be the same. Hispanics are conservative socially and fiscally careful. They also start many small businesses and hire workers, pay business taxes, and abhor government meddling. We need to make the case to them on ‘best interest’ principles and not skin color/national origin issues. The left uses these groups as grist in their political machine. We need to show them how their interests and our interests intersect.

But, until the Republican Party is dissuaded from its metrics/labeling practices of horse betting, there will be little left to fight for. We want what is best for the country and not a political party. The new movement on the right is for the best interests of its citizens, as people, and not for amorphous social groups.

David Brooks and Michael Gerson are wrong about diversity because they inherently accept the left’s disingenuous notion of voting blocs. Diversity, if it means anything, is diversity of opinion and not melatonin. By fighting Hoffman and propping up Scozzafava, they betting such a tenuous and inherently destructive political strategy will win. It will not. Not in the end.

“Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.” - Rosalind S. Helderman and Anne E. Kornblut

The dissemblers, posing as journalists, are now claiming Deeds didn’t include Obama in his campaign in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. The Compost doesn’t have Google, apparently, because a simple search with the words ‘Obama’, ‘Deeds’, and ‘Virginia’ yielded multiple stories of Obama stumping in Virginia for this hapless candidate.

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch on August 7th, “Creigh will continue the progress that has been made in the commonwealth — he will continue to make that progress especially when it comes to education,” said Obama, who spoke after Deeds and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. There are multiple photos of Deeds standing behind Obama as he makes those remarks in support of the Democratic candidate. Is that ‘failing to embrace’ Obama? I don’t think so.

From Bloomberg on September 2nd, Deeds Campaign manager says, “It’s rough,” Abbey said. “The White House has been very engaged since the second he became the nominee,” Abbey said. “Clearly they understand how to win in Virginia, but it’s a little different” this year because of the shift in independent support.” In spite of this claim, the Compost article reports, “A senior administration official said Deeds badly erred on several fronts, including not doing a better job of coordinating with the White House.” Let’s see, if the Deed’s campaign manager believes the White House was deeply involved, and the White House is claiming there was incomplete coordination, what is the truth? The person in September who was actually running the campaign or a spooked White House dissembler. Umm

Doug Heye of U.S. News and World Report wrote, “Mo Elleithee, a Deeds campaign spokesman and highly regarded Democratic campaign veteran, told the Post the campaign “enjoyed a tremendous relationship with the White House,” as well as the DNC and Democratic Governors Association, in addition to receiving significant help with specific requests.” Heye then goes on to back up that assertion with personal evidence of the administration’s close involvement in the campaign through email and appearance evidence.

Yet, the dissemblers at the White House blithely throw Deeds under the bus and dismiss their own involvement in this debacle.

ABC News reports on October 21st, “the Creigh Deeds gubernatorial campaign today released a new TV ad entitled “Fired Up” which features President Obama – and only President Obama.” Huh? Does that sound like stubborn distancing? Is ‘failing to use the president’? Has Deeds’ dissed the president and overlooked the “Dear Leader’s” gracious offer of help?

Of course not. The referendum on the ‘Anointed One’ is in full swing. Dissemblers unite!