mscout99's blog

The West Wing Predicted the 2008 Election……

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:35:45 +0000

Laugh at me if you will, but I watched the last season and a half of The West Wing. Mainly because I wanted to see if all of the rumors were true that a Republican would win the White House on the show. Of course Hollywood didn’t let that happen, but it was pretty intersting to say the least.
The brief synopsis is this:
The Democrat who wins the election, Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits) practically came out of nowhere to win the nomination. He was a minority candidate, very young, not a lot of Washington experience, and won a huge following. On election night in the show, he picked off South Carolina and Texas, traditionall red states, however he was a Congressman from Texas. He ran on a pretty moderate platform in the general election, with the exception of universal healthcare.
His Republican opponent was an old guy named Arnold Vinnick, a senator from California (played by Allan Alda). Vinnick was old, a moderate Republican, old, a senator for several years, old, and was doing very well in the polls up until an incident at a nuclear reactor tilted the election in Santos’ way. He did wind up winning California in a close race, mainly because it was his home state. The election was a lot closer than this year’s, with Santos clinching the win in a close victory in Nevada. Vinnick immediately concedes out of concern for dragging the country in an electoral fiasco.
I understand that this election wasn’t nearly as close as in the TV show, but there are some striking similarities. There was one especially at the end of the series.

If you haven’t gone to another post, the series ends with Santos putting his administration together, enrolling his kids in a public school (like any president would do that), and his inauguration. Along with putting his administration in place, he offered Vinnick the Secretary of State position, which Vinnick accepted. It’s kind of realistic, since Obama could possibly offer John McCain the post of Secretary of Veterans Affairs. A line that was uttered near the end of one episode kind of struck me at this current time.
To paraphrase, Santos told Vinnick that he could take whatever time that was needed to persuade him, but Vinnick was expected to support whatever decision Santos would make in the end. In other words, say what you want, but it’s my game with my rules. This is what we’re getting with Barack Obama and his cabinet picks. There’s a lot of people out there that are in awe of the “centrists” selected by Obama to fill these posts, but Obama gets the final say on policy. Robert Gates can say whatever he wants on Iraq, but Obama can do whatever he wants in the end. Larry Summers can spew free market economics on Obama as much as he wants, but Obama gets to determine the course of action in the end.
I grow tired of people on the left (and even some on the right) that are telling me to give Obama a chance. I don’t trust him. Maybe Obama really does want to govern from the center, but I don’t think Reid and Pelosi will let him. I also believe that some of these “centrists” are a masquerade. After all, aren’t all of the “moderate” Democrats elected in 2006 voting in lockstep with Reid and Pelosi?
Back to my point, it’s kind of strange how the end of The West Wing told the story of this past election. Not that studying it would have helped all of that much, but whether it’s a nuclear reactor or economic meltdown, sometimes there’s only one incident a candidate needs to propel to victory.

Yes, President-Elect Obama. I want someone who does virtually nothing to combat illegal immigration to run Homeland Security!

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:35:53 +0000

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano will head the Department of Homeland Security. This is like having the fox guard the hen house.
This is quite possibly the worst appointment Barack Obama can make, unless he taps Chuck Hagel to run the DoD. Here we have a governor who does practically nothing to defend the border with Mexico, and our great leader wants her to help come up with solutions to defend us from terrorists? Does this show great judgement, or what?
Napolitano is notorious for only targetting businesses that hire illegal immigrants and other systems that “exploit” them. Look, I’m all about going after businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, but she ignores her responsibility as the governor of Arizona by not going after the illegal immigrants themselves! How in the heck can a former Attorney General of her state blatantly disregard the law? She has even publicy criticized an Arizona Sherrif for volunteering to capture illegal immigrants to be deported.
If people like JaNo (as a friend of mine from Arizona refers to her) are going to be helping Obama protect the country, then we should all be afraid. After all, he already said he would meet with rogue dictators without preconditions; why not seal the deal with putting someone in charge of homeland security who doesn’t even bother to protect the border?

The Republican Party CAN Appeal to Everyone

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:58:08 +0000

Guess what? The Republican Party (as well as conservatism) is dead. The death occured on November 4th, and the funeral was on November 5th.
Not only is this hogwash, but it’s served as a rallying cry for me. I know conservatism is alive and well, and I still know that the United States is a center-right country. Anyone else who tells me otherwise gets a fierce debate beat-down from me.
If conservatism is truly dead, then why did Democrats use it in 2006? Why did Barack Obama abandon any talk of his socially liberal positions and talk explicitly about tax cuts (even though his liberal voting recrod proves otherwise) and his hawkish talk on getting Osama bin Laden? It’s strange how they label these tenants of the Republican party as dead, but use them in elections to win power. The saddest part of all is that they’ve been better at it for the past two years.
I’ve seen and heard a lot about what the Republican Party has to do to get back on their feet. Some say we need to move to the center, some say we need to move left of center, and some say we need to move further right. I ask, why does this have to be about left vs right?
Democrats have proven (at least for now) that you can include many socially conservative people in a party that has a pretty liberal view on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the war on terror, and taxes. This is how everything started in 2006. Sometime after 2004, Republicans lost the ability to court more centrist voters, mainly because most of the Washington Republicans governed like Democrats, and also because we weren’t inclusive of many people who weren’t 100% conservative on all issues.
Instead of focusing on the differences, we need to focus on the similarities. Republicans in Texas, for example, have a lot more in common than Republicans in New York than we think, so how do we get this done?

I believe all true Republicans believe in limited government, fiscal conservatism, strong national security, and lower taxes. These are four pillars of the Republican party. Lately, the first two pillars have either been damaged or removed completely. A lot of the Washington R’s decided to spend, entitle, and expand like Democrats, so when 2006 came around, a lot of them had no viable comeback for the criticism. If we attempted, then we were made to be hypocrites. Sadly, they were right.
Whether or not you’re a Republican in rural Texas or urban New York, you believe in those first two pillars, and you long for them to be put back in the foundation. Where I think the divide has started to take place, however, is the social issues. I know I’ll take some fire for this, but this means that we need to stop attempting to demonize or expelling people that are pro-choice or favor gay marriage. I oppose both, but I also know at the same time we need to be inclusive to those that may not be on the same page with us on those issues but still think government involvement should be limited and being smarter with our tax dollars. I know a good deal of “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” people that vote Republican because they still hold out hope that we’ll return to keeping government out of our lives, spend our money more effectively, keep us safe, and lower our taxes. On the other hand, I also know some of the same type that vote Democrat because the Republican party got too liberal in these aspects. If we’re truly going to talk about growing the base, then we need to start looking to reality. I don’t want another four or eight years with no check to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. We can do this, but we need to focus more on our similarities rather than our differences.

So, What if Ted Stevens Wins then Goes to Jail?

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:37:12 +0000

How Ted Stevens is in a position to win his Senate seat in Alaska is beyond me. The man was convicted on multiple counts almost two weeks ago on not reporting gifts to turn (at least from what I’ve heard) a simple cabin into something like the White House. I understand he has gotten a lot, and I mean a lot of stuff for Alaska through huge chunks of pork, but Stevens coming close to re-election is as puzzling to me as Al Franken coming close to winning in Minnesota (please Lord, not Franken), or the 12th district in Pennsylvania re-electing a man who refered to his constituents as racists, and then rednecks.
If Stevens winds up getting jail time, what happens to his seat? Does Sarah Palin appoint someone to fill his term if he goes to prison, or is there a special election? I don’t know what Alaska state law is, so what are the options on teh table?
Another interesting question is that if there has to be a special election, would Sarah Palin run to fill the seat herself?
If it comes to that (and I might be getting ahead of myself here), she shouldn’t run. Focus on getting back to work as governor, do what she needs to do, and prepare for the bludgeoning Democrats will attempt to hand to her when she runs for re-election in 2010. It’s also interesting to note that Lisa Murkowski’s Senate term will be up in 2010 as well, so we know that she could conceivably challenge for that seat as well.
I heard somewhere that her approval ratings have dropped 20 points in Alaska since her selection as John McCain’s running mate, but I haven’t seen any data to support that. One thing is clear, she does have some options, and the Democrats will do anything and everything to either unseat her as Governor or beat her up even more (if they can) to the point she wins a close election and won’t even consider thinking about the Iowa or New Hampshire primaries.
The GOP also needs to make sure she’s included in the future for the party. I have a hard time believing (without new leadership) that the establishment will include her, but discarding the fastest rising star of the party would be a huge mistake. I just hope Palin and the Republican leadership make the right decisions.

What is the Republican Solution to Health Care?

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:22:47 +0000

I thought John McCain’s healthcare plan was a pretty good start. A $5000 tax credit so you can buy the coverage you need to get from whoever and wherever has the best plan to fit your needs. I thought this was a very good way to promote free market solutions to the cost of health coverage, but it wasn’t enough.
In the past few elections, it seems that from Bush 41, to Bob Dole, to Bush 43, and to John McCain, Republicans are about as uncomfortable talking about healthcare solutions as much as they’re uncomforitable courting and recruiting more minorities to join the party. It’s very sad that we don’t have a clear agenda. As much as we disagree with socialized healthcare, at least the Democrats have a plan to speak of.
The most popular phrases I hear is “make healthcare more affordable.” That’s great. What we tend to not get after the phrase is how to do it. If McCain had a clear and concise plan rather than his tax credit when he said “make healthcare more affordable,” he could have scored some points with lower-income voters.
So, how do we do it?

Healthcare services are expensive, we all know that. I’ve worked in the healthcare field (with a Medicare contractor, on the private insurance side, and as a staffing supervisor for radiology technicians) for five years and I’ve seen a l lot of the costs firsthand. Have you ever had an MRI, for example? Ever wonder about how much those puppies cost? Try anywhere between $1 million and $2.5 million. Facilities that build MRI suites can expect to fork over a half million alone. Drugs are expensive, nursing care is expensive, etc, etc, etc.
While advances in technology have provided signifigant breakthroughs, it’s not cheap. Health insurance companies can’t pay 100% of the bill, 100% of the time, even though Obama and his liberal allies want the federal government to do that. Forcing them to pay more, or regulating what can be charged for services infringes on our capitalistic principles. No voter wants to hear this, so what solutions do we have?
One theory is how to deal with the drug companies. I understand they rely a lot on grants and subsdies from the government, but why hasn’t there been any more advances on curing cancer or AIDS? It seems there’s a new drug for impotence, depression, or irritable bowel syndrome every week. If we’re giving money to drug companies, then we need to see their progress in attacking diseases like cancer, alzheimer’s, or AIDS. I hate using the word “fair,” but it would seem that if we’re handing them billions of taxpayer dollars, then its only fair to see what progress they’ve made.
Do we offer tax incentives to hospitals for having the most up to date equipment, procedures, and success rates? What about incentives for hospitals to become teaching facilities? What about incentives for companies that have a fitness center or offer discounts to gyms for its employees?
Personally, I liked McCain’s tax credit idea. It sounded a lot better than making corporations pay into making healthcare affordable for people who won’t get a job, or a government run system that’s disastrous in Canada and throughout Europe. I’m not saying that these proposals are right, or even close, but we need to come up with something else besides “make healthcare more affordable” and then wanting to move on to the next subject.
What are your thoughts? I’m not just looking at a standpoint of winning elections, I want conservative ideas and principles to help our healthcare system.

How the Presidential Election Looked from Omaha

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:33:48 +0000

The Republican party is in trouble. Big trouble. And this is from a state that is supposed to be redder than blood, if there’s such a thing.
Barack Obama had a huge advantage in money. Ignore the fact that he backed out on his promise to accept public financing. The money gave him serious advantages in the swing states, and it’s one reason that Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina; all GOP stalwarts, went blue.
But Republicans are in danger of losing Nebraska. There is a changing demographic up here, and the Democrats were able to get an impressive ground game and volunteer effort that just surprised me beyond all belief. The Obamabots knocked on my door twice, Scott Kleeb and Jim Esch (Democrat Senate and 2nd Congressional District candidates, respectively) knocked on my door, and they all called my home as well. Heck, I was contacted by Obama’s Omaha campaign office on my cell phone. I personally thought it was a prank at first.
In terms of Republican contact, there were a few internal poll calls to my home. The only knock I had on my door was on Sunday evening at about 6:00pm. I asked the worker what took so long in getting on the ground, and he had no clue. He looked at me like I had two heads.
Hopefully, this was a fluke, and we just took everything for granted. However, this doesn’t bode well at all.

In 2004, President Bush carried most conties in Nebraska. Obama picked up Douglas County (Omaha) and Lancaster County (Lincoln). Omaha and Lincoln have the two largest colleges in the state, so getting the younger voters out helped in those two areas. However, his broad appeal to blacks and the still-growing population of hispanics gave him the edge in these counties.
Statewide, President Bush won with 65% of the vote in 2004. Last night, McCain carried the state with only 57% of the vote. Not only did the Hispanics help him out in the major cities, but their growing population in the other counties helped him narrow the gap as well. I contacted the Douglas County Republican Party for a yard sign and they didn’t have any. And this was in October! Add this with a disastrous get out the vote effort, and I can see why we lost eight percent here. Heck, I knew there was a problem when they didn’t call Nebraska right when the polls closed here.
I don’t blame the McCain campaign for these problems, but the leadership failure from the top of the party sure as heck trickled down to Nebraska. I’m scared that it’s trickled down to other states.
I’ve already theorized that the party is in trouble. There’s no leadership right now, we’ve thrown our president out with the garbage, and some are blaming Sarah Palin for the loss yesterday. But we need to get our acts together, or Nebraska, and possibly other reliable strongholds like Texas will fall victim to Democrats also.

Sarah Palin, Welcome to “Under the Bus”

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:45:39 +0000

It seems there are a lot of bitter feelings towards Sarah Palin from certain McCain staffers. Palin denies there was any type of rift, and maybe she honestly believes that, but it’s pretty obvious that she, like President Bush, is getting tossed under the proverbeal bus.
Carl Cameron reported earlier this afternoon on FOX some wild stories; she refused preparation for the interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, she got upset about the negative media coverage and even threw temper tantrums about it, going off script, opposing the decision to pull out of Michigan, and not knowing Africa was a continent. I doubt the last statement, however, considering Barack Obama he’s been to 57 states, and Joe Biden thought “jobs” had three letters in it and mentioned an eating eastablishment that’s been closed for nearly a decade in the VP debate, gaffes are bound to occur at times.
John McCain’s people, and maybe even McCain himself, have some obvious tense feelings towards Sarah Palin. Sounds to me like they’re blaming her for the loss. I see it a different way. Palin gave McCain a chance, albeit a small one, to win. Had Romney, Huckabee, Lieberman been selected, this election would have been conceded shortly after the second round of polls closed. Palin gave McCain an excited base that was cold to McCain in the first place.
As far as my reference to President Bush, I’ve already stated you can attack me for supporting him. I’ve had disagreements with spending, illegal immigration, and his prosecution on the war in Iraq. However, the economy was strong for the majority of his presidency, he kept us safe after 9/11, helped gain seats in both the House and Senate in 2002, and actually tried working with both parties to accomplish things for the country. He had no defense from practically anyone in 2006, and in 2008 the Republicans said, “don’t call us, we’ll call you.” Kind of harsh, even though he has low approval ratings. As the party’s leader, he was tossed aside with yesterday’s trash. Folks, this was the leader of the party. Part of me thinks Bush told himself “to hell with you all,” and for good reason. While I’ve had disagreements with him, I think he’s been a good president overall and treated unfairly by the party. With no leadership, what did we expect to happen?
Going back to Sarah Palin, she was at first getting treated unfairly by the media, and she’s now getting the same treatment by people on the McCain camp, who ran a pretty lousy campaign in their own right. As more and more of these reports leak out, it will even further damage her reputation, embolden Democrats to attack her re-election bid for governor, and pretty much force her to forget about 2012. So much for energizing the base.
I’m sure more will be coming out and there will be a book deal in it for someone, but this isn’t good news. If we start twisting the knives now and playing the blame game, how can we look to win over the people when we can’t even win over each other?

Dick Durbin’s Daughter Passes Away

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:50:41 +0000

Sometimes we get so caught up in politcis that we put aside the fact that the people we either support strongly or oppose with every last breath are human beings just like us.
I just saw on CNN.com that Dick Durbin’s daughter passed away earlier today. Even though we disagree with Durbin on pretty much all of the political issues, no parent should have to bury their child, and this is no doubt a tragic day. Please send the Durbins, her widow, and her son your prayers.

My Opinion: MSM will Call Key Battleground States for Obama Right After Polls Close

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:56:40 +0000

According to the McCain campaign e-mail update I got last night, they are very excited about their chances in possibly winning Iowa and Colorado on Tuesday. I don’t know if I am as optimistic, but then again we were supposed to believe that Obama should already appoint his cabinet and start working on his agenda with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. I said in another post that we’ll be up for a long night on Tuesday, and I’m beginning to have second thoughts about that now.
Barack Obama may legitimately win this election on Tuesday. But I fear a repeat on Florida in 2000 where they called it for Gore early on. Karl Rove, to this day, still claims it cost President Bush a ton of votes, when they called Florida for Gore. This caused voters in the midwest and mountain regions to think the race was over and made some Bush voters stay home.
I think this is what will happen on Tuesday. I believe that the MSM (CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and NBC) will call Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and quite possibly Ohio for Obama within a half hour after the polls close. If Iowa and Colorado are truly very close, they will do what they can to crush the enthusiasm of any McCain supporters out there to wrap this up as soon as possible so the celebration can begin.
Look, the media has been in the tank for this guy since he won the Iowa primaries. They’ve overlooked everything about his past, and all of his drastic shifts in policies and statements from the primaries (where he was running as a far left loon) to the general election (where he’s running like a centrist, echoing the tone of Ronald Reagan). If they’ve given him a free pass and not investigated him like they should have, then what’s one more night of twisting things around to get him elected? I can seriously see this happening, and FOX News may be the lone outcast, refusing to call states for Obama until the vast majority of votes (at least 80%) have been counted.
I still plan on keeping the TV on FOX all night Tuesday, (I might be dragging all day on Wednesday from lack of sleep) but please heed my warning here. If you watch CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN they will call the election very early for Obama. Watch them at your own peril. Don’t let them get you down. We’re in striking distance of pulling off an upset, and I’m not going to let them ruin my night.

URGENT: In One Day Polling, McCain Leads Obama 48%-47%

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:10:32 +0000

I know it’s only a one-point lead, and the experts are predicting a pretty blue electoral map next Tuesday, but should we be getting excited?
I’ve let you guys and gals know that I had a period where I was getting down a month ago or so about the polls, and I apologized. And another thanks to all of you here at RedState (my new favorite website) for picking me up and helping to keep this in perspective. I’ve talked to a lot of people, sent a lot of e-mails, and can say I’ve changed some minds. While it is discouraging that there really hasn’t been a ground game for McCain/Palin in Omaha, I highly doubt Obama will steal an electoral vote from the second district here in Nebraska (we split votes just like in Maine).
I saw on Drudge a headline that says Zogby will release a one-day poll that shows McCain pulling ahead of Obama, with a 48%-47% advantage. While I don’t consider myself someone who will get excited over one poll, showing an advantage within the margin of error, has this race really tightened up to the point that the Obama people are that nervous?
Before I went to Drudge, I checked my e-mail which had a “state of the campaign” update on it. It talks about Iowa, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with great confidence. They were talking about how they still appear to be a little down, but are within striking distance. I don’t know if this is a farce, or if this is real. But the fact that Obama is back in Iowa, a state that has been called for Obama for the past month or so, kind of tells me something.
It also says something to see that on Rassmusen, more voters trusted McCain on the economy now. That didn’t relate to the national numbers as Obama was still showing a four-point lead and they are still predicting Obama to win, but if more voters are trusting McCain on the economy, I would think that it would take two or three days to catch up to the statewide polls.
Once again, I’m being a little cautious in saying that McCain will win, but I think this may show the infomercial was all for naught. Sure, a lot of the base saw it and loved it to death, but how did it sway undecideds? Frank Luntz’s “focus group” indicated that no one learned anything new from this, they just got the same rhetoric in a Hollywood setting. Could this have turned people off? Could he have lost some slight support in this?
I’m not ready to call the election yet, but I do have one prediction. It’s going to be a very long night, and this may make the mess in 2000 look like a game of jacks. I don’t expect getting a lot of sleep Tuesday night.

Did Bill Clinton Help of Hurt Barack Obama?

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:07:47 +0000

I found this quote from Bill Clinton odd when he campaigned for Barack Obama recently down in Florida:

I haven’t cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis),” Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. “He said, ‘Tell me what the right thing to do is. What’s the right thing for America? Don’t tell me what’s popular. You tell me what’s right — I’ll figure out how to sell it.

You tell me what’s right, and I’ll figure out how to sell it? Nice. I want this guy in the White House.
Keep in mind, this was the same Barack Obama that issued a joint statement with John McCain about rising above politics in the face of the economic crisis, then called him “erratic” and accused him of not being able to handle multiple things at once when McCain decided to suspend his campaign to go back to Washington. After saying, “call me if you need me,” he goes back to Washington anyway. At first he claimed credit for the bill getting passed, but noticed he hasn’t said anything about it since.
First, we find out that Joe Biden has been muzzled, chained up, and thrown in the basement until November 5th. Second, we find out that Lazarus himself (Bill Clinton) has decided to praise Obama while making him sound like the economic moron we know he has been. I guess it just goes to show that Hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned.

Barack Obama, (R) Illinois

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:23:48 +0000

In 2006, the Democrats defeated the Republicans in the midterm “thumping” by using Mark Foley and Macaca when the polls started showing Republicans making gains. The Democrats also successfully recruited more conservative/moderate candidates to compare more evenly with their Republican counterparts so the “liberal” tag couldn’t stick very well.
Now I firmly belive Barack Obama embraces socialism in every way, and I believe his national security and economic policies would make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan. But if you listen to his rhetoric, he sounds more like a Republican, even like President Bush:
* Listen to all of his tax cut promises. President Bush promised tax cuts of all sorts, but Obama is trying to “out-Bush” McCain on taxes. I have NEVER head a liberal Democrat promise so much in tax cuts.
* Listen to how hawkish he has been on Afghanistan. He’s going to capture or kill bin Laden. And now, instead of promising to end the war immediately (like he did in the primaries), he’s now talking about ending the war “responsibly.”
* He’s now starting to talk about a “new era of fiscal responsibility.” Very Reaganesque.
Cut taxes and kill terrorists. Sound familiar? Go back four years ago and listen to President Bush and Senator Kerry. And now, in 2008, listen to the campaign promises that Barack Obama speaks of in very borad terms and who it corresponds to. I’ll give you a hint; it’s not John Kerry.

So, Will the Infomercial Blunt McCain’s Progress in the Polls?

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:52:48 +0000

I want honesty, folks. I had to get the kids ready for bed, and then was tempted to see it, but I decided I would much rather watch my favorite NBA team, the San Antonio Spurs, bow down to the Phoenix Suns. A friend of mine watched it and said there was nothing new except the same “hope and change” crap he recites every time he’s on TV.
Granted my friends and I are just “a tad” biased, but I seriously want to know if there was anything new, besides dropping the $250,000 down to $200,000 in this commercial that he hasn’t said before that will hinder McCain’s movement in the polls. I’m sad to say that if Obama gets back up to a seven or eight point lead nationally after all of this, then it just might be time to start thinking about 2012.
So let me hear it. Anything signifigant happen?

Why Won’t the Los Angeles Times Release this Famous Video?

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:44:36 +0000

The Los Angeles Times responds to the McCain campaigns demands to do their job, release the tape, and make the information public:

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”
So we’re not releasing the tape to protect a source? Or are they not releasing the tape to protect Obama. I’ll speculate both!

First and foremost, there’s some pretty damaging footage of Obama on this tape doing something; whether its a favorable reaction to the poem that accuses Israel of terrorism, or socializing with some pretty shady characters at this party. Speaking of which, Greta Van Sustern on FOX tonight mentioned that there was a possibility that Willam Ayers was at the same event, but didn’t cite any eveidence to that possibility. If Obama is on this tape with William Ayers, and reacting favorably to this poem, then it definitely throws out this “just a guy in my neighborhood” excuse.
The second issue here is protecting their source. The LA Times did publish a story about the event in April, but won’t release the tape. How would this damage the source of the story unless it’s someone who was campaigning against Obama in the primary and is now claiming to be an Obama ally? Maybe Hillary Clinton? That’s my bet. I have no evidence to substantiate this theory, but it makes perfect sense to me. If they release a tape with Obama and Ayers on it giving praise to a PLO mouthpiece, and also release it’s from Clinton then they’re putting both Obama and Clinton at risk. If this was just some regular reporter as a souce, then it would be no issue at all. If the source was Clinton, or someone in the Clinton campaign, then you can talk about a bombshell.
Anyway, the fix is in. If for some reason anyone here on RedState thought that the media wasn’t tanking for Obama, then you should have all the evidence you need right now. No other outlet is talking about the 2001 interview but FOX. Go to CNN or MSNBC, ABC, or even CBS. Anything there? Nope. Anything from the print media? Nope.

Breaking Down the IBD/TIPP Poll

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:40:09 +0000

Seven days left. After nearly two years of campaigning, debates, Hope and Change (and lies, smear, and deceit), and not vetting the Democratic nominee for President, the press is calling the election for Barack Obama. He’s your next president, so if you don’t like him, you may as well stay home on election day. The polls, after all, agree with that statement, so go ahead and celebrate….or lament.
Looking at the polls so far today, it appears things are tightening up, and it will hopefully continue to do so. The latest IBD/TIPP poll shows some pretty sobering numbers for Barack Obama in terms of undecideds, and even voters between the ages of 18-24, which is a key demographic for Obama winning next Tuesday.
Here’s the breakdown:
* Obama leads, 46.5% to 43.3%. This means that 10.1% are still undecided.
* McCain leads among 18-24 year old voters, 53% to 42%, with 5% undecided. They note that there’s fluctuations due to a small sample, but that could be huge.
* McCain leads by six among among men, Obama by ten among women. Both genders show 10% undecided.
* Both candidates run pretty evenly among voters of their own party, but Obama leads 43% to 38% with a whopping 19% undecided.
The poll is outside the margin of error by only .2%, but the big key here is that there are a lot of people out there that are undecided. This means Obama hasn’t been able to seal the deal quite yet.
This may not necessarily be a reason to get too excited yet, but it’s good news. If the election was over by now like the media wants us to think, you wouldn’t see a huge number of undecideds. McCain needs to play the tape of Obama criticizing the Supreme Court for not being radical enough to conisder redistribution of wealth so everyone can see the Marxist that Obama really is. If the MSM sits on it and hides it, however, it will be pretty tough.
I can’t predict who will win right now, but the only prediction I have is that next Tuesday will be a long night. This thing might not get called until early Wednesday morning.

Breaking Down the IBD/TIPP Poll

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:39:49 +0000

Breaking Down the IBD/TIPP Poll

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:38:57 +0000

Sarah Palin has Gone “Rogue”

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:03:19 +0000

Most of us can agree that journalism has practically been nonexistent in this election season. The MSM has consistently put the message out the Barack Obama and the Democrats are on the side of good, and John McCain and the Republicans are on the side of evil. Most of us can also agree that they have decided to spend more time digging in dumpsters in Wasilla than looking into Obama’s past. We have to raise so much fuss about wardrobes and a bogus “ethics” violation run by a partisan Obama supporter and his buddy, but we lend no credence to hanging out with domestic terrorists or having socialist views on the economy.
Barack Obama wants you to think the election is over. The MSM wants you to get depressed so you deicde to stay home next Tuesday. Democrats, start popping open the champagne bottles. Get that new presidential seal ready. Harry Reid, your magic number of 60 is certain.
If that’s the case, then why go with this?
According to CNN and other MSM outlets, Sarah Palin has decided to throw John McCain under the bus and start gunning for 2012. McCain aides have leaked some pretty damaging stuff to the MSM about her wanting to do her own thing, getting off message, becoming a “diva,” and deciding to stick around and answer questions from the press at the anger of her press secretary. She disagrees with robocalls and pulling out of Michigan. Yep, she’s thrown McCain on the side of the road, waiting for him to be picked up with the rest of the trash.

Sarah Palin has now become the pure example of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Here are some examples:
* The MSM complains that she never makes herself available for questions, then decides to run negative stories about her when she does.
* At a time when Republicans are billed as brainless and blindly following orders, Palin gets attacked for disagreeing with McCain on the Michigan strategy and the robocalls.
* We constantly hear about how supporters at McCain/Palin rallies are shouting negative things about Barack Obama without condemnation from the candidates, but we hear nothing about the negative things being shouted and ignored at Obama/Biden rallies. Well I guess that never happens!
* If she were to wear her normal clothes she would get billed as “trailer trahs,” but when we hear the RNC spent money on her appearance she’s a fake. By the way, who footed the bill for Biden’s botox injections?
* And finally, nothing she says will make anyone in the MSM or Obama/Biden supporters happy. Why does it matter at this point?
I’d like to pay more attention to the first and second points. What happened early on is that the media was so ticked off about her not taking any questions, then MSNBC and CNN both ran clips of her taking questions at an airport tarmac with her press secretary saying “that’s all, thank you” several times. So we went from one extreme with her not being available at all, and now we’ll attack her for answering questions? Give me a break!
In terms of Palin being critical for the Michigan strategy and the robocalls, then who cares? I once interviewed for a management position where a division head told me that a key trait of the person he wanted to hire was someone that would disagree with him from time to time and be willing to make their case for alternative solutions. I got that job. John McCain picked Sarah Palin because she goes against the grain, has a history of reform, and wouldn’t be afraid to disagree with him. Good leaders will appoint or promote people who may have a different take on things to make sure they get all sides of the story before making a decision.
If any of the McCain aides are frustrated with Palin, they need to get over it. They should actually be lining up to kiss her feet because she energized a base that was turned off to John McCain. This election would truly be over had he not picked her. And you know what, she does need to think about 2012, win or lose. She’d be a fool not to. But what this article is about is the fact that there are still a lot of doubts about Barack Obama out there, and they’re sweating it out that the coronarion hasn’t already started. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when Obama called Biden and told him to shut the heck up after guaranteeing a crisis in six months, or thinking “jobs” only had three letters.
Let’s see; wardrobe flap, disagreements with McCain, accusing her of thinking about her own future. Seems like the Democrats are the ones getting off message right about now.

Joe the Plumber’s Information Accessed by Government Computers!

Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:26:20 +0000

The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that Joe’s information was possibly accessed by state and law-enforcement computer systems.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver’s license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

I find it interesting that his information was accessed within 48 hours of the final debate, and whoever did it is being very sneaky, indeed:

The attorney general’s office is investigating if the access of Wuzelbacher’s BMV information through the office’s Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway computer system was unauthorized, said spokeswoman Jennifer Brindisi.

“We’re trying to pinpoint where it came from,” she said. The investigation could become “criminal in nature,” she said. Brindisi would not identify the account that pulled the information on Oct. 16.

Records show it was a “test account” assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general’s office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.

So you mean to tell me that there isn’t a way to look up the system to see who requested a test account for the days the information was accessed? How about the user ID in the system that set up the user name and password? It shouldn’t be that difficult to pinpoint where it came from, but that’s just me beling a little too simplistic.
Come on folks, we’re not stupid. We know where this came from. This will be another one of those William Ayers/Jeremiah Wright/ACORN things were Barack Obama (or maybe someone in his campaign) was associated with it but is able to stay an arm’s length away from the scrutiny. I would be very surprised indeed to see if the person that did this wasn’t an Obama supporter, or even instructed by the Obama campaign to do so.
Let’s see; Sarah Palin’s e-mails were hacked by a state senator’s son, and now Joe the Plumer, an anti-Obama voter had his private information hacked into for political gain? Doesn’t this sound a little Clintonesque?

Barack Obama Clarifies Joe Biden’s “Crisis” Remarks, Blames Presidnt Bush for Anything that Might Happen

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:59:49 +0000

From FOXNews.com:

The next administration will face international challenges regardless of who is elected president, Barack Obama said Wednesday, rebutting criticism of Joe Biden’s statement over the weekend that the Democratic candidate will face a “generated crisis” if elected.

Obama said the key reason the next president will face such threats is because of the damaging policies of the past eight years, and he said he’s confident his administration will meet such a test.

Let me get this right. “There will be an international crisis to test me. I don’t know when it will happen, or where it will originate. But when it does, you can bet it won’t be my responsbility. This is George Bush’s fault.”
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the theme for the first term of an Obama administration. Doesn’tmatter if we’re talking national security, economy, or energy independence. All we need to know is Barack Obama is innocent of any responsibility, and George Bush will be the reason why Obama is an incompetent leader.
Look, I’ll risk the ridicule and unpopularity for saying this: I’ve disagreed with President Bush on spending, immigration, and the prosecution of the war in Iraq. I think some his cabinet member selections have been questionable. Bt one thing he has done an outstanding job on has been taking the fight to the terrorists and keeping us safe since 9/11. Any reasonable person should be able to recognize that. If you wish to assail me for sticking up for President Bush on national security issues, then be my guest.
“Blame Bush” will only work for so long, Senator Obama. The time will come when you have to back up your style with substance, problems with solutions, and answers about your questionable character. Should you ever be graced by winning this election and honored with the responsibility of defending the constitution, you’ll need to deliver on your promises. So far, you’ve shown little ability to do so.