Red State

Join the forces of 57 million Americans and counting.Capitalists won't surrender their capital, Militias won't surrender their guns, Christians won't surrender their faith, Speakers won't surrender their speech. A "rebel yell" or "a call to action" will not come from the command of a leader. It will come from the sound of the 1st attack made against any of these freedoms. Freedom wants you! 57 million american fighters out number 3 million - million man marchers by 54,000. Our fight is more fierce than a crowd of Acorn sign wavers.

I assume most of you have already seen the Washington Post story admitting their own pro-Obama bias. This is a draw dropping article that has not received enough attention. Many others have broken it down. Try to forward it to those who still think media bias is a myth.

But I wanted to bring to your attention another example of media bias. Embedded below is a foreign reporter admitting on tape that he volunteered for Obama and that he also engaged in plagiarism. Here is the face of the modern media with all of its bias and journalistic integrity on full display:

We are getting our rear-ends whipped by guys like this? Maybe we are losing because liberals are having more fun than us.

Anyone see this image posted front and center on Drudge? It is from Senator Obama’s press conference Friday, and it has something new. No, not that. Rather, the sign on the podium- it says, “The Office of the President Elect”. Hmm.

I have scoured the Constitution of the United States of America, and nowhere do I see a provision of such an official office. Of course, the President-Actual can create and demolish Cabinet posts, but I scoured the news as well and did not find anything about President Bush having done this for “the Office of the President Elect”. Nor do I know of any past President having done this.

So I am forced to ask- when/where/what/how was this created? As a history buff, I am quite curious to find out the answer, as sometimes the creation of new governmental offices reflects historic events in the country. Of course, Sen. Obama’s election itself is historic, but as he is the not the first person in this bigger-picture position, I do not see the necessity of having created this office.

Did you notice- the office already has an Official Seal as well, meaning it must be real.

My Point: Hubris much?

Seriously, I do not remember President Bush or President Clinton having any such signs between December and January, and I am too young to remember beyond that. If anyone really does remember or has images, articles, etc. about such things with past Presidents, I really would like to hear/see about them; please post a comment if you have such evidence one way or the other.

By the way, did you notice that when asked “Will you stick to your plan to raise taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 per year?” that he did not answer one way or the other?

(All appropriate credit for the “sign” joke to the movie “My Date with Drew”.)

DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP

Originally published by Mike "gamecock" DeVine as Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com

What is the big hurry in “declaring” the winner of North Carolina’s electoral votes in the presidential election? Especially since the outcome will not slow down the transition of President-Elect Barack Obama?

The day after the election, AP reported:

“In the unofficial returns, Obama led Republican John McCain by 13,746 votes. Gary Bartlett, the state elections director, said Obama should be considered the unofficial victor. Bartlett said an estimated 40,000 provisional ballots still must be counted, but based on experience, the outcome is not likely to change when the State Board of Elections certifies the results on Nov. 25.”

Electors don’t meet until December 15th, the Joint Session of Congress to count the votes isn’t until January 6th and Inauguration Day isn’t until January 20th.

The Tar Heel state’s election official responsible for carrying out the law gives the AP license to report what “should” be, based on “experience”? After Florida 2000? And just what is the “experience” Bartlett relies upon: that “history suggests that “about 65%” of provisional ballots will be eligible.

The math: Sixty-Five percent of 40,000 equals 26,000, which just happens to be about twice as many votes John McCain needs to win North Carolina.

On Wednesday, the AP and Charlotte Observer (in none of these stories would any actual reporter attack their name to such incompetence) declared “Obama's bid to win North Carolina – now only symbolic” with provisional ballots “holding up” a decision.

What happened to McCain’s “bid”? And how dare those voters hold up a rush to coronate Obama by voting provisionally?

And the outcome is “only” symbolic? If symbolism didn’t matter to Bartlett and his agent, the Associated Press, there would have been no rush to judgment on Friday:

“The Associated Press declared Obama the winner after canvassing counties in North Carolina to determine the number of outstanding provisional ballots. That survey found there aren't enough remaining ballots for Republican John McCain to close a 13,693-vote deficit.”

Clearly AP should replace Johnny, as in “Johnny can’t count.”

Symbols matter, and the AP, aided and abetted by a North Carolina government official, has prematurely foisted a symbol they prefer upon the history books.

That is, until their “history” was examined by DeVine Law.

And this does not even account for all the millions of absentee ballots. For that story check fellow Charlotte political examiner, Caleb Howe.

It seems the process is being carried out and reported by monkeys that don’t want to see or hear anything they don’t want to say about the only bid they care about, i.e. Obama's bid.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

[For links to AP stories cited in this article see original story at Examiner.com]

The continued attacks on Palin on the two trivial issues: diva by UNNAMED aide and clothings.

Somethings are suspicious here. First this aide has never been named. Hiding or does he even exist? Next the fact that MSM ask for the Palin clothings allowance which anyone will think is trivial seems harmless but was turned into a national issue.

One thing is clear that MSM was willing to take such trivial issues big. In fact this is a consistent tactics used by BO campaign team since the primaries. As I have said before that once BO got elected, he will proceed with political cleansing in each state. And there is no way he will let Palin off. Remember at the end of the Dems primaries how feud was created in the Clinton camp forcing her to change her campaign manager? It is exactly the same tactics.

So I urge anyone to take this MSM talk with a grain of salt. It can be a trap to implode the Rep party. One got to be very careful here as BO is really not just a come and go candidate/president. We are still yet unclear of his actual motives are.

The only united message for the McCain campaign team and Rep party should just be: Palin was a good choice for VP and let her continue with her wonderful job in Alaska for now.

Although Rep lost the campaign 2008, the results are still admirable since Bush's incumbent rating was so low.

Are you able to think on your own? Well, are you? Are you capable of acting as if you're responsible for who you are and how you go about your daily lives? Apparently those who object to the very existence of Sarah Palin couldn't possibly answer any of the questions I just asked. You want know why? Because they're all mouth pieces and puppets that's why. Broken records lacking the intellect and the individual gumption to think in a manner that signals independent thought. I find myself surrounded by those on television and in my own little world who take recycled sound bites and half truths delivered as credible information and puke it back to you as if they came up with the cockamamie notions on their own. Is this what where we're headed for the next four years?

The liberal media gets to enjoy the under the table hand rub by Barack Obama(Chris Matthews must be happy right about now) The most important issue facing president elect Barack Obama is the very pressing choice of what type of dog he's going to get for his daughters. Nah, never mind the economy, he's going to give us all welfare checks so it should work itself out. Oh and the Russians deploying missiles in Poland to offset the US missile defense system, that's irrelevant compared to the types of drapes his wife is going to buy for the White House. Get with the program you know nothings, the Obama's are stylin' and profilin.

But the most annoying gush fest comes from the less intelligent and serious media such as Hollywood Insider and Extra. They had a portion of the show called "Are You Smarter Than Sarah Palin" well I have a question for the host Mario Lopez, "Are you working more than one day a week?" "Are the Save By The Bell royalty checks supporting you in these economic times?" You see my own skepticism of Palin never transformed me into a mean spirited jerk. I was respectful in my concerns over her dealings with legit issues. Her wardrobe and her mistaking Grand Rapids, Michigan for Cedar Rapids, Iowa aren't legit issues. I mean after all Iowa is but one state out of 57. Because well, not even George Bush made that mistake. And he once said "strategery"

So if the media is going to rail against Palin and drink from the Obama tree for the next four years then perhaps a pair of ear plugs and the device used in Men in Black to wipe away someone's memory could be of good use. Gosh, how I miss the ever reliable team of common sense and independent thought. Where have you gone in such a time of ignorance and moronic dribble. Drool cup anyone?

One of the fun things about flying is you get to pick up free newspapers in airports as you wait. Today, as I enjoyed a little. Memphis BBQ, I perused the A section of the Nation's Newspaper, USA Today.

I know times are tough for the print media, but, honestly, did USA Today need to cut costs by having morons on the editorial page. I feel sorry for Jonah Goldberg (who's writing I really enjoy), who has an insightful article in this rag today, "Election Questions No One Ever Asks', but he has to share the opinion page today with the idiots who write this other dreck.

First, Al Neuharth, who I think is the head cheese over there, writes that he thinks McCain ought to make "Two more maverick moves." Namely, that he should introduce a Constitutional Amendment to limit the age of a president to 69, and that he should retire at the end of his term in 2010. Since Al thinks people over 69 "lose it" he thinks this is a good idea, and, I guess he thinks McCain is losing it, so he should get off the stage. Of course, Al is a good Leftist, so he wants McCain to step down so some Democrat can get that seat in 2010, and I have some better suggestions on his ageism.

Why not have Robert Byrd or Teddy Kennedy introduce this bill? They're about a million years old? Geez, why haven't these guys left the national stage. I empathize for Teddy Kennedy, but he's been off the reservation for years, and Robert Byrd long passed from senility into late stage Alzheimers. And, the junior senator from WV is 71. Why doesn't he step down. Hey, Al, I have an idea, McCain leaves when these two leave? Think a breathing Republican can't win a senate seat in West Virginia? I'll trade the one AZ seat for 2 in WV.

If you really want to help the country, why not introduce bills term limiting Senators and Congressmen? The path to corruption and being a profligate spender begins with re-election. So, let's limit these guys to 2 terms in the senate and 12 years in the House. Really want change - that will do some.

In a "Post-election thoughts" article, USA Today demonstrated their ignorance by incorrectly assuming that voters who were concerned about Sarah Palin's experience ("Surveys of voters, however, showed that three-fifths thought Palin wasn't qualified to be president"), of those, 82% voted for Barack Obama. What they failed to state was that this was not the deciding factor for those voters. Either they're stupid over there (likely) or they want to smear Palin (also likely).

USA Today also claims that there was record turnout this year. All one has to do is look at the numbers to see that about the same number of votes were cast this year as in 2004. Heck, even CNN got that right (saw that in the Situation Room as I waited today). As a percentage of voting age population, it actually went down from 2004.

Finally, they want to claim that Liddy Dole's loss was due to her negative advertising. Hey, USA Today, her loss was because she was a crappy candidate, a largely ineffective Senator, the financial mess, and Obama's strength in NC (and, she's about 100 years old - isn't Al Neuharth happy she's gone???).

However, in some actual aviation news, the McCain-Palin E190, chartered from Jet Blue, that Palin was using set a world record with a 2900+ mile nonstop flight from Anchorage to Buffalo to return the plane.

The contrast in today's dueling NYT columns between David Brooks and Paul Krugman is worthy of close study even by those who make a habit (as I generally do) of avoiding the New York Times as if it were a leprous sore.

David Brooks, channeling his inner child, absolutely floats way from reality in a warm and whimsical bubble of utopian fantasy wherein the most leftist individual to ever run for the presidency, much less win it, runs a centrist, non-partisan, administration with truth and justice for all.

Meanwhile, Krugman calls for Obama to role over and destroy all conservative opposition and usher in an era of iron-fisted "progressive" domination of the entire United States.

Unfortunately, one man is being a realist here, and the other is having a dizzy spell worthy of a teenage girl at the concert of her "most favoritist" pop idol.

None of this in itself is surprising, but considering the reasons why Brooks finds it necessary to behave this way are instructive. We're going to see a LOT more of this from the conservative pundit class, imprisoned as they are in enemy territory where they've been pistol-whipped into making rote expressions of embarrassment for carrying (even loosely, in Brook's case), the conservative mantle. Had John McCain won, could anyone imagine Brooks writing a column like Krugman's? Krugman writing a column like Brook's?

Immediately after George W. Bush's reelection in 2004, I was immediately struck to hear the same phrase being echoed over and over by Brokaw, Couric, Matthews, and the like--they all began talking right away about how "divided our country" was, how DEEPLY divided, in fact. Bush had just won a "divided" election in a "divided" country, and now these "divisions" were more apparent than ever.

You could hardly hear any story about the election which didn't include a grave analysis of how terribly, terribly, divided we were.

The print media followed suit. The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor, to name just two of many examples, picked up this story about how divided America was.

I found this curious in the extreme--not being able to remember any election which didn't involve the voters being divided. But for some reason, the media was suddenly obsessed with the notion. I suspected, of course, that the most salient "division" here was between the media and their desires. Something that the reaction to the election of Barack Obama has only reinforced.

After all, 46% of voters, just under half, voted not for Barack Obama but John McCain. Certainly this means that we are divided, deeply divided, very close to as divided as possible? But no! The storyline when a Republican loses is not one of division, but of unity, joy, and healing.

On the part of the media, at least, who appear to be the only Americans who really count.

Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Legal Editor for The Minority Report

The maverick martyr mouthed his own losing recriminations in 2000. Putting country first in 2008 requires anonymous men mangle a mother for a mute McCain.

Moderate republicans don't win national elections. President Ford was never elected, there never was a President Dole, and there never will be a President McCain.

Republicans win when they run to the right. They began winning when Nixon discovered the Silent Majority and Reagan made the GOP the Party of Life. The winning coalition was solidified when President Reagan won the Cold War with peace through strength and when his Milton Friedman monetary policy and supply-side fiscal policies produced a recovery that lasted for 25 years.

Many of the same Washington voices on the right, albeit slightly on the right, that now attack the Governor of Alaska as a scape goat for republican defeat, also despised The Gipper. Then, as now, there are men without chests that whisper personal attacks.

Reagan was called an "amiable dunce" for calling evil by its name. A towel-clad Palin is said not to know the parties to NAFTA after negotiating a natural gas treaty with one of its signatories.

Some facts: The polls the cocktail party conservatives worship showed McCain behind most of the year. The only time he moved ahead was after he chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. In fact, while the McCain-Palin ticket rose in the polls after the convention, it was only after the vicious media attacks, including those from the beltway conservative elites, when the republicans actually led. Then came McCain's refusals to address Obama's alliances with extremists and lack of bold leadership after the financial crisis.

But before those machinations we heard from David Brooks of the New York Times, a McCain backer since 2000, that Palin was a "fatal cancer" on the GOP and that Obama was the "mountain" of strength that is always there. Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan describes Palin as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarism" in American politics. Former Bush 43 speech writer David Frum said that Palin's appeal was to a "dwindling number of social conservative voters."

Is Frum referring to the "dwindling numbers" in California, the most liberal state in the nation, that voter to ban gay marriage? Or Florida which also went for Obama but which also amended their Constitution to define marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman? Or the other 39 states that have done the same?

Brooks sees a mountain of vacuousness as Noonan hears vulgarity in g-dropping accents. Yet Brooks is blind to the tumors obscured by Mt. Barack and Noonan is deaf to the echos of The Gipper that conservatives hear oh so clearly from Sarah's lips.

But when one adds pro-choicers Colin Powell and William Weld to the above, one begins to see what really animates the hate directed at the mother of five. One is reminded of the Rockefeller country clubbers that resented the need for those hick Evangelicals if they were to move past asking Speaker Tip O'Neil for washroom keys. The whispers from the husbands of those whose wives insist upon only pregnancies of convenience that produce flawless heirs.

It wasn't good enough that Palin, like Reagan, didn't wear religion on her sleeve. They just decided to go after the cost of her sleeves and the whole dress.

Let's do the math on why the GOP clingers to Roe v. Wade are bitter at the Mother of Trig. The fact is that for these liberals, a woman that would knowingly bring a Down Syndrome baby to term just doesn't add up.

These architects of republican defeat can count votes, but one wonders if they just aren't down with winning unless its with their math, which divides and loses.

The facts refute any claim that Palin or conservatives are responsible for McCain's latest defeat and their vitriol belies their claim that it is social conservatives that are angry and divisive.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Dear Sen. McCain:

Sir, you must be aware that the media has been on fire passing along vicious rumors from unattributed sources within your campaign attacking Sarah Palin. You are the only one who can put an end to this. You chose your campaign staff, and you chose your running mate. To paraphrase Harry Truman, the buck stops with you.

If you are indeed the stand-up guy I believe you to be, please, investigate, get the facts, call a press conference, name names (as you promised to do with any of your colleagues who introduced pork-laden bills), tell the truth and put this rumor-mongering to rest.

I know you are aware of the fact that Gov. Palin did quite a lot to build enthusiasm for your campaign. I've heard you acknowledge such in public. You asked her to run with you, and she gave it all she had. Don't you think you owe it to her and all of those who supported the McCain-Palin ticket to clear all of this speculation up? If it is allowed to continue, it will only serve to harm your reputation, Gov. Palin's and the reputations of those in your campaign who acted honorably.

Sarah Palin and your supporters stood up for you when you asked them to. Now it's your turn, Senator. Stand up! Speak out!

Sincerely,

• JP

Despite their political differences with Obama, many conservatives and conservative pundits are reinforcing the liberals' idea that Barack Obama ran an "almost flawless," "brilliant," "error-free," or in (Steve Forbe's words) "miraculous campaign." Part of resistance to Obama should be deconstructing this aura of infallibility that even some conservatives are granting him.

The point of a campaign is to win, obviously--so Obama's campaign was successful on that score. But brilliant? Flawless? Perfect? Please.

Obama managed to defeat McCain by 7 points after outspending him by hundreds of millions of dollars. McCain, meanwhile, captured a percentage of the vote 20% higher than George Bush's approval rating. Considering the shroud of media-silence and naked cheerleading enjoyed by Obama, and McCain's massive disadvantages in both money and the current political climate, McCain's campaign was arguably the one that most surpassed expectations.

Using baseball as an analogy, here is how Obama's campaign was perfect: the home plate umpire (the media), calls all of your pitches strikes. Even those pitches that hit the dirt, that role over home plate, that sail over the batter's head, or knock the Cracker Jacks out of somebody's hands sitting three rows up behind third base. Every gaffe, inconsistency, or outright falsehood perpetuated by the Obama campaign was either explained away or ignored. Meanwhile, those from McCain or Palin were magnified, attacked, and interpreted as evidence of a campaign in disarray.

The McCain campaign would have lambasted, ridiculed, and attacked had they promised to accept public financing and then managed to outspend Obama by hundreds of millions of dollars. Can anyone doubt it?

When Sarah Palin said that she'd paid for $35 for her wedding ring, multiple reporters were on the case--calling her friends, associates, and family members to "verify" this information. Meanwhile, entire years of Obama's life were never investigated, or were actively covered up. McCain would never have gotten away with a speech like Obama's Jeremiah Wright "race speech," in which he said he could no longer disavow Wright than his own grandmother. Much less would he have seen such a speech praised as equal to or surpassing the Gettysburg Address. And he certainly wouldn't survived reversing himself weeks later when he finally tossed Wright under the bus. A Republican candidate behaving like Obama did throughout the campaign would have been destroyed.

The story of the 2008 presidential campaign is one of the media providing protective cover and dragging a deeply flawed candidate over the finish line. It's a story of creating, maintaining, and refusing to puncture a MYTH.

Obama succeeded simply because he was not PERMITTED to fail, and calling this "perfection" is simply to extend the harmful myth of Obama's infallibility. A myth which ultimately does no favors to Obama, because building him up that high only leaves him farther to fall. It will be impossible to sustain this illusion once its accompanied by the responsibilities of power--although the media will no doubt try.

Why are they throwing Palin under the bus?

Its very simple why they are doing this. Palin has stood up to her own party and has called them out on monopolistic practices in big oil industries and dare challenge the good ol boy network. There may be many reasons why democrats do not like Palin, but they should at least admire her for the strength of her character to stand up against the practice of coruption and greed behind the curtain.

The republicans moderates are throwing her under the bus as payback.

People often wonder, how are we ever going to bring about real change to washington? It will only happen when people like Palin are willing to call out their own party in an atempt to keep people honest. It will only happen when the people in the republican party are willing to be open and transparent.

The GOP lost this race because it has become as gutless as the democrats, because politics has become a matter of convenience and expediency, rather than one of principled service.

A lack of knowledge and experience is something that can be corrected, but lack of character and integrity cannot.

I keep hearing, let's not fight or point fingers, we need to keep moving forward and get back to business as usual. I say no. We need to stop. We have a serious rift within our party that is an infected sore that is turning gangrene. I know it sound confrontational, because it is. I know it sounds devisive, because it is. I know it sounds like I am being uncooperative, because I am. What is happening to Palin is symbolic to what happens all the time in the republican party. The republican fiscal conservatives that lean liberal socialy use Social conservatives collectively so as to achieve their goals and objectives politically but then throw them under the bus at the first drop of a hat. They use social issues as bi-partisanship currency whenever conveinent.

I would rather cutoff a limb than have the gangrene spread. I would rather limp on one foot, than stand on two feet without my integrity in tact.

We have been told that Palin was choosen to run on the ticket in order to entice votes from those who supported Hillary Clinton, and when that didn't happen, they are saying she hurt the campaign. The real truth is, McCain didn't have the ability to excite the conservative base of the party. Palin was added to the ticket because they knew her values and character were what the McCain ticket lacked in authenticity to ignite the social conservatives of the party, and that is exactly what she did. It was McCain's job to reach across and try to pull in the independants and secure the moderate vote based on his bi-partisan record. He failed, or rather he wasn't able to do that.

I have nothing but respect for McCain and all that he has done for this country, but the fact of the matter is, the only reason why McCain did as good as he did, was because of Palin. She held up her end and cause many of conservative base to come out and vote.

If you think I am being too radical or too extreme, then throw me under the bus too. At least then I will know I am in good company with Palin.

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/erick/2008/nov/05/operation-leper/

-Three states voted to ban gay marriage, including Florida, where 60% of the vote was required, and California, which is notoriously liberal. Gay marriage bans are now 30-for-30 out of our fifty states. This supports two major theses, the first of which is that we are still a center-right country. There was much talk on the networks last night about a “tectonic shift” in the makeup of the American electorate, but this is ridiculous, as 55 million people voted against Barack Obama-the-anointed. Second, the perfect track record of these ballot initiatives helps the argument that gay marriage is fundamentally unacceptable across human nature. You would figure that somewhere, in some state, with some particular demographic population, that such a vote would fail, but it has not, including in those votes were a supermajority was required. In fact, it was exit-polled that both the CA and FL votes this year were supported by over 70% of African-Americans (of whom about 90% voted for Obama) and over 50% of Hispanics, indicating that the sanctity of marriage is a universal one, regardless of what some “progressives” might have us think. Of note, Arkansas voters also banned gay couples from adopting children; it seems that people in the heartland believe that kids deserve a mom and a dad. All my point here is emphasizing that the people voted for these things, so nobody can claim that conservative lawmakers or judges or whomever are trumping the will of the people; these results are America.

-The GOP losses in Congress appear to be limited. It’s possible that the Dems will have only 56 Senate seats (or less, depending on Lieberman) when it seemed very possible that they could have 60. Also, the GOP may have lost only 20 House seats instead of the 25-30 that were predicted. The analysis here is that John McCain lost his election; the GOP brand does not seem to have done it for him. That said, I am not surprised that the GOP brand appears marred, and frankly I think it’s high time that we have more Eric Cantors and less Elizabeth Doles, even if it means fewer GOP seats overall.

-This “mandate” business opens the door for conservatives in 2010. Already, we are seeing extreme partisanship in Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff (wasn’t Barack the “post-partisan” candidate?). Further, Obama is getting a crap economy that showed it doesn’t like him by losing 500 points on the DJIA today. (Yahoo! Finance top headline: "Stocks Plunge as Investors Ponder Obama Presidency; Dow Falls Nearly 500- AP") He also inherits a war in Iraq that may prove to be his undoing no matter what, whether it’s because he loses his 2012 base vote by breaking his promise and keeping troops there or because he pulls out soon as promised but the region goes to heck. Finally, he will have to deal with all of his international expectations, and given Canada’s and Europe’s increasing conservatism (see: Sarkozy), this might be quite difficult. Really there’s more than these things, but the point is that any “mandate” is almost a kiss of death where anything that goes wrong is blown out of proportion as a failure to execute (see: 1992, 2004). Given this, real conservatives, and not just GOP party politicians (who have clearly been rejected) can start gearing up now with honest hopes.

-It is now proven that people like Sarah Palin can succeed. “People like Sarah Palin” include: outside-the-beltways, ideological conservatives, women, moms, “plain-talkers”, pro-life women, moose hunters, Miss America winners, self-made family people, and others of the like. Do not believe what is said about her having hurt the ticket; she helped the ticket and excited people, no matter how much experience she had or didn’t have.

-The mainstream media has been outed as ridiculously liberal. One flashy new example here.

-Oh, yes, we elected a black person as our President freely and Constitutionally. Why is this last on my list? Not because it doesn’t deserve serious mention especially on a historical blog, but because I am sick of this being the top headline. (Why isn’t the headline that we elected the first Marxist socialist?) If the idea is that we have transcended race and that race relations in America are finally at ease, then the point should be that we elected Barack Obama over John McCain, not that we elected a black person. Therefore, I hope that we can praise and/or criticize Obama and his administration freely based on its policies and actions; I don’t want to hear anything about how any such criticism might be racist (now or in the future) and I don’t want to hear ever again that people who vote against a minority candidate must be racist. From now on, all campaigns, candidates, office holders, and election losers, must be just that, without regard to race. By the way, voters in Nebraska have overturned affirmative action there and it’s possible at the moment that Coloradans might do the same. This is a very good thing, as the ultimate goal has always been to judge people “on the content of their character” only, whether they are seeking a job, admission to a school, or the Presidency of the United States.

Ok, enough for now. I don’t want to make it sound like this is all good, because it’s not. In fact, it may be horrible, and the Rahm Emanuel selection really makes it look like it will be. I will post soon about my first gut emotional reaction (negative, of course) to the election results; it will be more historically-based, I promise.

Hey, Conservatives- DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP!

As exit polling data begins to be released, remember this pithy quote from Sam Feist, political director at CNN: "Exit poll information in the hands of trained professionals is perfectly fine. Exit poll information in the hand of the general public, who may not understand what it means or stands for, can be dangerous."

Clearly the mainstream media, with its history of handling exit polls and early returns so professionally, and making such accurate predictions based on them, is an authority unto itself on this issue, and one which hoi polloi, who clearly aren't smart enough to read the tea leaves that are exit polls, should bow down to.

Just don't mention 2000, when networks called Florida before the panhandle had finished voting (and a month before the result was certified), or 2004, when the exit polling experts in the MSM reported that John Kerry was running away with the presidential election. After all, you -- hoi polloi who are not "trained professionals" -- simply "don't understand" how those MSM experts were right all along.

In two previous postings, here and here, I have discussed six reasons why Sen. John McCain should emerge victorious in tomorrow's race for the White House. To recap, they are media bias, oversampling of Democrats by most polling organizations, Obama campaign smugness, his long list of criminal and radical associates, the center-right majority of America's voters and the uncounted millions of PUMAs hiding under cover, coiled like a spring to attack their prey.

There are more.

McCain has cut deeply into Obama's once seemingly insurmountable lead on the question of which candidate is better able to turn the economy around:

McCain scored sharp gains on the pivotal issue of jobs and the economy in the past week, helping him gain a bit on front-runner Barack Obama and narrow the presidential race as it heads into the final week, according to an Ipsos/McClatchy Poll released Tuesday.

The poll found Obama’s margin over McCain on who’s stronger on jobs and the economy — by far the top issue in the country — down from 16 points to 7 points in one week.

Thanks to Joe the Plumber, McCain has been better able to define Obama as a tax-raiser and an income re-distributor.

Also helping McCain on the economic front are the lowest gasoline pump prices the nation has seen since May of 2007:

Gasoline prices fell to their lowest level in more than a year and a-half Wednesday, according to a nationwide survey of credit card swipes at gasoline stations.

The average price of unleaded regular gas dropped 4 cents to $2.589 a gallon, according to the survey released by motorist group AAA.

Gas has fallen 42 straight days, since Sept. 17, just after Hurricanes Gustav and Ike battered the Gulf coast. The last time gas was this low was Mar. 26, 2007. (See correction.)

Prices are now down 37.1%, or $1.485, from the record high price of $4.114 a gallon set July 17. The average price dropped below $3 a gallon on Oct. 18 for the first time in nearly nine months.

And now, just hours away from the polls opening, coal has become a campaign issue with the discovery of an interview containing this Obama quote:

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

John McCain and Sarah Palin have been having a field day with Obama's lump of coal in the stockings of energy producers and consumers in their closing campaign rallies.

Even worse, Obama said in the same interview that that his cap-and-trade policies would make energy prices skyrocket:

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Between higher energy prices from Obama-style cap-and-trade and higher gasoline prices from his determination to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, undecided American voters should be seeing a vote for Obama as somewhat equivalent to taking a loaded gun and shooting themselves in the wallet.

As if all of this wasn't bad enough, surrogates have loaded guns of their own, and they continue to shoot the Obama campaign in the foot. Perhaps Team Obama thought it had inoculated their guy from such tomfoolery by putting a tight muzzle on Joe Biden's mouth, but there were others waiting to pick up the slack. First, Gov. Bill Richardson defined down the middle class, making some wonder if anyone would actually get the tax cut Obama never misses an opportunity to promise. Then liberal Rep. Jerry Nadler made an astounding comment on Obama's political courage - saying that in essence that the junior Senator from Illinois didn't have it. The Nadler shot only serves to reinforce the McCain-Palin claim that theirs is the only presidential ticket with candidates who possess stout political spines.

Finally, the strategic centerpiece of Obama's campaign, the attempt to link John McCain to President Bush and cast a potential McCain administration as a third Bush term, failed miserably. It wasn't for lack of trying. Obama and his surrogates seized every opportunity to make the case, but it didn't sell:

The biggest arrow in the Democrats' quiver is cut from an old, wooden meme that asks Americans to transfer their visceral hatred of President George W. Bush onto John McCain. If there's a way to link the Arizona senator to the lame duck president, you better believe the Democrats have thought of it. Voting record? Bush and McCain agree ninety percent of the time. Economic issues? Just "more of the same." Those adoring hugs between McCain and the president? They're the kicker of every Obama ad.

But so much for that. After four months of stagnating and ultimately drooping support for Barack Obama among the anti-Bush independents, it's time to concede that the strategy isn't working. More than half the country considers McCain a legitimate "agent of change," according to a September Gallup poll. In key blocs such as independents and Americans making more than $75,000, he's tied with Obama within the margin of error.

How can Americans consider McCain an agent of change when Democrats keep reminding them that he's just like President Bush? To amend a line from Obama's convention speech: It's not because Americans don't get it; it's because average American doesn't care.

As Peter Balk wrote in the New York Times Magazine last week, America has moved on from the Bush legacy. The surge has taken Iraq casualties off the front page. The Democratic Congress has taken the policy-making off the White House agenda.

The failure to make the election all about Bush-McCain by the Obama campaign has made the election all about Obama. What independents are mulling over right now, just hours before they will go to the polls, are questions about - not McCain or Bush - but Obama. Who is this guy? Can we trust him? What will he do in the event of a major world crisis? What if Iran tries to make good on its promise to make a "rotting corpse" out of Israel, one of our staunchest allies? Will he really cut taxes? Has he ever voted to do so? This is not where the Obama campaign planned to be at this stage of the election.

So in addition to the six reasons previously given why John McCain should win the presidential election, I have added four more - his gains in the eyes of voters as a trustworthy manager of the economy, new doubts about Obama on energy matters fueled by old promises, loose cannons in the Obama ranks and the failure of Team Obama's most important strategic goal. That makes ten important things, all of which are working in John McCain's favor as voters prepare to cast their ballots.

A victory tomorrow for McCain will be all the sweeter because he will have beaten not only the vaunted Obama campaign, but the media, the pollsters and expectations as well. But it's not like he hasn't done it before.

- JP

Inspired by the Obama campaign's decision to kick reporters from three McCain-endorsing newspapers off his campaign plane, cartoonist Will Warren has produced this latest in his ongoing line of editorial cartoon gems:

How many of you live in one of the states ACORN is being investigated for voter fraud? How many of you know the media is trying to cover up this story? How many of you agree that Barack Obama should he win on Tuesday would have an asterisk placed by his name? It's kind of like when Barry Bonds or Rafael Palmero broke home run records, the powers that be in the majors put an asterisk by their names in the record books to let everyone know that their feat didn't really count pending any evidence of illegal steroid use. Well, if Obama wins on Tuesday I think there should be an asterisk by his name. I think we should strip his portrait from the wall in the White House until this voter fraud scandal is solved. Out of 20,000 I believe registrations 1200 were fraudulent and the media is like "Oh well" This is insane. This is pay back for Florida in 2000 like I don't know what. The Democrats still carry the anger and bitterness for the 2000 election so they decide, not to make sure that everything fair and following the rules, but to steal the election like they claimed the Republicans did in 2000. So like they said Bush's presidency doesn't count because of Florida and the popular vote, if Obama wins his presidency shouldn't count because of ACORN and the 1200 fake registration forms.

We Republicans can make a movie like Recount and pour our biases into the movie like the Hollywood Democrats did. We can have our own Katherine Harris and blow her character way out of proportion(Laura Dern's portrayal was over the top)

But that would anger the media and the left wouldn't it? See it's not okay for Republicans to "cheat" even though we didn't, but it's okay for Democrats to win at all costs even if those tactics threaten democracy? What's next Obama reconfiguring the constitution so he can have a 3rd or 4th term like FDR? He already said the constitution was fundamentally unjust. What's so unjust about freedom and individual rights? That's like saying grocery stores are unjust because some of the food is too expensive.

That was always my fear ever since I learned about ACORN and their mafioso tactics. They cram the voting booths and they bombard states with suspect registration forms and they get away with it. They intimidate voters who don't support their candidate and they use extortion to get what they want. If the media fails to point this out then they would have taken part in the biggest heist since Lufthansa.

Imagine if McCain had voters in his home state of Arizona coming into Colorado where he's down in the polls or in New Mexico. Imagine if ACORN was a right wing organization, the media would be on this story like white on rice. This double standard is not only annoying and stupid but it also threatens democracy. The media is suppose to be a watch dog for the people who pay for the newspapers and the cable in which these outlets are broadcast. During "Obama mania" we've seen a growing trend of "propaganda news reporting". Networks like NBC, MSNBC, and others have openly welcomed and embraced Obama only or Obama friendly interviews, reporting, and analysis, at one point I couldn't tell if I was watching NBC or Al-Jezeera. And for those who do not abide by the rules of the master or his yes men who run the networks, well, they'll get booted so fast their heads will spin. Ever wonder what happened to Dan Abrams and Tucker Carlson? Why was Abrams replaced by Rachel Maddow? A known Obama cheerleader. You be the judge. Is this a new propaganda media? Or is this fawning crap shoot a phase?

The media could be the real mid-wife of the November 4th victory by Senator McCain and Governor Palin.

How is this possible? Have you ever had a friend or acquaintance who tells you the same story, more than three or four times? You tell that friend to stop talking about this one thing, yet they keep talking about it.

You try to tell them nicely. You try to tell them firmly. You try yelling. Like a robot, they will not stop. You are past the stages of resignation and anger. You can do nothing to change their behavior. They will not, under any circumstances, shut up.

Even if you started out agreeing with them on some things, you soon find yourself disagreeing. For months they keep on and on.

Finally, you silently resolve to yourself to do exactly the opposite of what they want. In fact, you cannot wait to do exactly the opposite of what they want.

They cannot understand. They do not try to understand.

They attack those with dissenting views. They hold in contempt those with dissenting views. They have disgust for dissenting views. They will eliminate any information or facts which could even lead to dissenting views. And they shout, a lot.

They will invite those with dissenting views, just to belittle and discredit them. They talk. They study. Legions of off-air producers and researchers slavishly work for their message of every day: Obama must be elected.

With electronic, robotic and catatonic-inducing-Obamatronic 24/7 repetition they compile reasons they are right, and you are wrong. They have no self-discipline to stop.

You work hard. You have a busy life. You are tired of them. Tired of everything about them and what they want. You are a doer, not a talker.

But they keep asking, do you agree? Will you do what they want?

So, you lie. It’s the rational option.

Can you argue with a machine? It spits out every known argument to counter what ever you believe, with great moral certitude and superiority. It is a religious missionary that electronically stalks you.

You may think that if it finds out what you think, and how you will vote, the machine may label you with horrible, socially stigmatizing names, and force you to face the wrath of strangers who judge you instantly and harshly and wrongly.

No, it is better to lie to the machine. Machines have no soul, or margin for understanding anything other than the answer, their answer. It is a waste of time to talk, argue or disagree with the machine.

This is the machine’s great weakness: it does not listen.

But Americans are not sheep. They are not like Europeans who collectively behave in a manner in which the elite-made machine dictates. Americans do not allow impassable class structures to form. This is one manifestation of why Americans resist, mightily, being told what to do.

And it’s a genetic trait. The American gene pool is imbued with the DNA of revolutionaries and immigrants. The revolutionaries went to war for their independence, and fought against their inherited rulers. The immigrants crossed oceans or land bridges between continents, with the courage to face the unknown, and to build and create something new. We have the DNA of risk takers and warriors.

This makes most of the world’s population, who stayed in their home country, uncomfortable. It also makes civil disobedience, toughness, strength of leadership and a built in resistance to Groupthink – lemming like behavior -- part and parcel of the American ethos.

And thus, believing their own propaganda, will the media machine of 2008 help elect the object of their contempt and disrespect; which is funny, and human, and exactly the opposite of what the machine wants.

No doubt it has been a long hard fight so why are there so many ready to play straight into Obama's hands and give up! Stop your worrying and moaning and get out there and talk to people, turn your negative low esteem around and get positive. If you need a pick-up check out HillBuzz, this site has it together! Obama and the media are playing head games with Americans and especially McCain supporters in an effort to keep them from voting on Tuesday. Get the word out to everyone and don't let them sit at home thinking their vote doesn't count BECAUSE EVERY VOTE COUNTS! I have also heard a lot of comments that people are afraid that riots will break out of Obama loses. Don't be fooled, it is more head games from the Obama campaign. If there are some crazies out there that do riot, so what they are just hurting themselves. I have been conducting an unofficial poll among business owners in my area and they say that ever since Obama became the Democratic candidate and the news media has shown their bias, the economy has degraded. While they all plans of doing more hitring and expanding, they are ALL waiting for this election to get over before they make any moves. Why? 100% of them say that if Obama wins, they WILL NOT expand their payroll or business BUT if McCain they are confident that he will turn this country around. Pick yourselves out and show Obama what REAL AMERICANS are about! We all know the media is slanted so DON'T believe a word that comes from their vile mouths!

No doubt it has been a long hard fight so why are there so many ready to play straight into Obama's hands and give up! Stop your worrying and moaning and get out there and talk to people, turn your negative low esteem around and get positive. If you need a pick-up check out HillBuzz, this site has it together! Obama and the media are playing head games with Americans and especially McCain supporters in an effort to keep them from voting on Tuesday. Get the word out to everyone and don't let them sit at home thinking their vote doesn't count BECAUSE EVERY VOTE COUNTS!