Obama

Obie's excuse machine is cranking

Since late February, this year's presidential campaign has been Barack Obama’s to lose. With vast Main Street appeal and the ability to bilk average citizens out of millions of dollars, the idea that Obama might actually lose seems even more far fetched than the nightly, Pravda-like claims of Keith Olberman. Nonetheless, recent polls have shown that at the least this election will be a horse race until the end. Faced with a tough fight and Zeus forbid an Obama defeat, a strange series of excuses have begun to bubble to the surface as explanation. Fantastically, few assign any blame to Obama or his politics, opting instead, to imagine causes both overly broad and factually inaccurate. In short, the quest for excuses has thusly begun with MSM golden saints writing editorials and even ‘articles’ that try to excuse and justify a potential Obama defeat as a result of... latent racism, Main Street ignorance, or a McCain campaign which is supposedly now both immoral and dirty.

Foremost of these arguments is a completely brazen, totally improper use of racism and the race card. No better example of this can be seen than a recent Washington Post article in which Obama supporter Randall Kennedy said in regard to an Obama defeat: "I'll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice -- not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.”

Such fear-mongering and overly generalized claims are now appearing all over the American left. While divergent in style, the excuse that Obama could only lose due to racism is now a very real, prepositioned part of the 2008 dialogue. To his shame, Obama has from time to time played into this idea with statements to the effect that, racists would only vote for his opponents and his own primary loss might disenfranchise millions of Democrats.

Meanwhile closer polls have spawned a series of rather urgently styled contentions in regard to John McCain, 2008, and the public in general. In a strange mixture of causes, an Obama defeat is now being defined as the result of some kind of foul play by McCain or some kind of group denial on the part of the American public. In this, the American voter is being portrayed as some kind of mindless robot who can only choose according to a visceral response. To me nothing is more insulting to the American voter than to say he or she is motivated solely by wedge issues that he could not "actually" agree with or believe in.

As for the McCain campaign, Obama has been attempting to paint any potential defeat as one at the hands of a James Bond bad guy and not a legitimate political campaign. Obama and his staff are now calling the McCain Campaign the “sleaziest in modern history” and the reincarnation of Nixon-Agnew. Oddly, Obama is trying to take the high ground on an issue when he has no credit as for months his campaign has employed negative attacks, lies, and false quotations. Obama is now playing into that orthodox leftist victimhood that paints the GOP as minions of darkness and Liberals as the perfect and unblemished champions of truth. Oh and yes, the threat of mass liberal exodus to Canada in the event of a GOP victory is back on the table. We should be so lucky.

While the result of such actions is quite the same, the rationale for this pre-defeat debunking differs according to source. For the Obama sympathizers that stack the media, explaining in advance an Obama defeat is a clever escape from realities of a 21st-century America that they never understood and cannot readily command. Keen on personal glory and factual sophistry, many media commentators are now drunk on high-minded Obama rhetoric which has no room for voter choice. In collusion, and in the high coldhearted circles of the Daily Kos or Rosie, lording brains cannot comprehend a world in which voters have examined the candidates in an even-keeled manner and decided to disagree with Sen. Obama and his politics. Like Magtheridon himself, the Hard-Left seems incapable of understanding that America is neither a giant College or a European Principality.

As for the Obama camp itself, laying a groundwork for defeat is, in my opinion, a clever way of hedging bets and raising money. For his part Obama, who for months, has built up himself as a modern day Pharaoh cannot take on the slightest accountability of mistake, lest his superficiality become less bright and his role as a newly discovered Greek god become less pronounced.

Meanwhile, after a rockstar convention and the great discovery of Gov. Sarah Palin the outlook for the GOP ticket has dramatically changed. The party seems rejuvenated and a refreshed Sen. McCain is tearing up the stump with a patriotic, sensible and aggressive agenda of reform. In the moldy conclaves of Republicans and conservatives, months of anguish and reminiscently professorial recrimination has given way to excitement, hope, and whispers of a great leader finally finding his wings. Oh and yes, there are also those wonderful rumblings in many quarters, Democrat, Republican and independent alike that we can actually defeat the farce of Obama and elect the leadership of John McCain.

Palin is our future

The only really interesting topic of discussion for conservatives right now is Sarah Palin. McCain will be the same mediocrity in the White House that he has been in the Senate – he is a stop-gap, purely anti-Obama vote who, despite his great military service, won’t ever be interesting on his own as a political figure and who seems blissfully unaware that the greatest move of his political career, selecting Palin, is the only reason this is even a race. Palin appears to be the kind of entity conservatives have been hunting for since Reagan, that was totally absent from the national GOP stage prior to her selection, and who now will likely be GOP front-runner for president in 2012 if Obama wins this year and front-runner to follow up McCain if McCain wins. Aside from her, the national GOP picture remains depressingly bleak, and if McCain wins, all the influences that have made the party so will be doing all they can to keep Palin from becoming the Margaret Thatcher kind of character she has the potential to become.

If Obama wins, the party purges and soul-searches at all levels and possibly re-orients again to the heartland kind of conservatism that Palin represents, with Palin the de facto leader in preparation for 2012. I’m voting for McCain, but to be honest, it’s tough to say which outcome is really better for the party and country in the long run.

And just think: all these political tectonics have occurred because one woman had the courage and character to stand up to GOP mediocrities in Alaska. We should all learn from her.

Dem ticket voted for infamous bridge

Now this one is just delicious. The Obama campaign has accused Sarah Palin of “first being for the Bridge to Nowhere – before being against it.” At first I was concerned that this could represent a chink in Palin’s heretofore shining reformist armor – but the plot thickens. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) – and verified via the track of votes cast, per the Congressional Register, here’s a bit of information that sheds more light on the whole story:

The Bridge to Nowhere was first funded in August 2005 through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Act through a $223 million earmark inserted by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska). In October, 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act to transfer $75 million in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, along with money for the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska, to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82. Senators Biden (D-Del.) and Obama (D-Ill.) voted against the amendment; Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote.

In November, 2005, Congress included language in the final version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act that allowed the state of Alaska to either spend money on the two bridges or on other surface transportation projects. In October, 2006, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski included $91 million for the Gravina Island Bridge in his budget submission for fiscal year 2007. As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that "The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the 'bridge to nowhere' project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending." Governor Palin said in a statement that "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer."

"Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate," said Schatz. "The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts."

SO: both Barack Obama and Joe Biden actually cast votes preserving the earmark for the “Bridge to Nowhere” against an effort by another rock-solid anti-government waste conservative Republican (Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK), while Governor Palin, irrespective of whatever remarks she may have made during her campaign, actually DID kill the project once assuming office as governor.

In short: both Barack Obama and Joe Biden were “against being against… the Bridge to Nowhere” before Sarah Palin was just plain against it.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Obie underpaying women staffers

First we were treated to the sublimely ironic reality that Al Gore, champion (and prize-winning) crusader against global warming, consumes more energy (and thus has a larger “carbon footprint”) than a half-dozen or more typical families combined, while the Crawford ranch of George W. Bush, evil scourge of environmentalists everywhere, is a model of energy efficiency. Now, we’ve learned that Barack Obama, famously promoting “equal wages for equal work” as a campaign promise and platform plank, is actually paying his female office staffers LESS than men:

“On average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.” (Source: LegiStorm, a “watchdog group”).

Contrast Obama’s record with that of John McCain – who, BTW, Obama castigates as “anti-woman” and “out of touch”:

“On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, ceteris paribus, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain.”

Personally, I always hated it when my parents would admonish me to “Do as I say, not as I do” – shouldn’t we demand more of our leaders?

Big spender Obama faces deficit

When Sen. Obama’s imperial presence deemed it apt to break his own word in regard to public financing, a lofty goal of $300 million was set for the final months of the election. This number was to be gained in three installments of $100 million and in a manner which kept Obama on the trail and out of fundraisers. This seemed like a good plan, especially due to Sen. Obama’s inclination to speak his rather disdainful attitudes when ensconced in the comfort of a finance reception. But so far, this grand three-month plan has gone wrong. The DNC is lagging far behind the RNC in fundraising and Obama’s team has been unable to tax Clinton supporters to the degree that they first believed they could. Obama’s team seems also to be running into a wall where donors and potential donors are simply tapped out. Subsequently, Obama has missed his first month’s goal and indications abound that this shortfall may continue. Yet, have no doubt, Obama will still have substantial financial resources this fall.

Senator Obama, has, for the large part spent his way to success. However, his distributions during the general election have been bizarre, pie in the sky, and overly ambitious. Obama’s initial electoral strategy called for serious financial commitments in over 20 states. Included in these were reliably GOP states like Georgia and Alaska as well as the usual suspects of Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Missouri. Strangely Obama has also made small commitments of money in places like West Texas and Utah. Obama can indeed raise money like the dickens, but he has shown, that he also has the will to spend it like the Tsars, Louis the XVI and Rachel Maddow.

One example of this is in Obama’s efforts to send paid voter registration teams to places like Chicago and New York City. While voter registration can turn the tide in a close state like Colorado, its use in a solidly blue state like New York is dubious at best.

Another case is in regard to Obama’s expenditures in the State of Georgia. Obama has spent over $2 million in a state that the GOP won in 2004 handily. For his investment Obama fought to within 6-9 points of McCain, which obviously isn’t enough to win the state. Now Obama seems to be pulling out of Georgia, but oddly his team seems happy with the Georgia results noting how far they were able to cut into the GOP’s 2004 margin. If these indications pan out Obama will have succeeded in wasting $2 million in the state for no real return.

Now take a look at Alaska. For a time it looked like Obama might be able to capture this state. Some polls even had him even with McCain and so in Obama logic the campaign put financial resources into the State. Then Gov. Palin made it on the GOP ticket and put Alaska out of reach by 20 points. With the Palin development it would make sense that Obama would pull out of Alaska. After all, why waste money on a state that you trail in by such a margin. Obama’s team, however, insists that they are still going to push forward in Alaska, a financial decision that should send rational minds out the window.

Sen. Obama has repeatedly shown a lack of financial sense in his campaign. When faced with tough decisions on where to spend money he seems to be keen on spending it everywhere. Instead of using financial sense to run his campaign, Obama seems to prefer a policy of simply taxing his contributors over and over again. His distribution of campaign funds lacks sense and his proclivity to go back to the well for more is disturbing. This policy raises serious questions about his ability to manage a complex budget. His own behavior exemplifies the fundamental idea of "tax and spend" in epic style.

Sen. Obama is very fond of using the argument that he has managed a campaign as a qualification to be President. I think Americans should acknowledge that argument. Acknowledge it and then take a serious look at how exactly Sen. Obama has been running his campaign. What they will see is a financial house of cards that is frightening and a will to tax supporters and waste money that is downright Roman in scale.