Olbermann

Beyond Man's Law

Obama likely to escape campaign audit.

The Brevity of Memory

In this Times (UK) article, Archbishop of Atlanta Daniel Gregory claims that "[t]he election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope." You see, Archbishop Gregory said that the next time cardinals gathered to elect a Pope they could "in their wisdom" choose an African pontiff.

It seems there are still some things Barack can't do; if only because of history. The Catholic Church has already had at least 3 African Popes. Granted, there is some controversy as at least some, if not all, of these Popes have Berber ancestry and are not considered "black" by some people. However, Catholic tradition holds that there was least 1 "black" Pope during the first couple centuries B.C.

Bob Novak is Wrong

Here, Bob Novak argues that Obama did not get "a mandate" because Democrats only control the entire legislative branch by a small margin. While I think the concept of a mandate shifts depending upon the status of a politician (I would argue that winning 51% to re-elect a president could bemore of a mandate than winning 52% to your first term, the fact is, Obama DESTROYED John McCain by 6%, a major feat in modern Presidential politics, especially considering how well known (and generally liked, personally) John McCain is and how unknown Barack Hussein Obama was (can I use his middle name now?).

The fact is, Democrats now control the Congress, the Senate, the White House, and I believe a majority of governor's mansions and statehouses. And they managed to pick up seats in all of those I believe. The fact is, the nation, over the last 2 years, has soundly rejected the Republican party in virtually every venue possible. Rather than sitting around, licking their wounds, and discussing how "little" the Democrats have acheived, perhaps Republicans should try to figure out where they went wrong and how they can fix it.

Why America is the Greatest Country in History

It's purple fingers in Iraq and it's a 92-year old woman in Texas, voting from an ambulance.

Obama's Victory Speech

Jesse Jackson is sitting there going "I can't believe this isn't me."

What Voter Intimidation Actually Looks Like

All Over But the Crying

Well, McCain got destroyed. Unfortunately (for me), my prediction that the hotly-contested Democratic primary and the cake-walk GOP primary would lead to a strong Dem campaign and a weak GOP campaign turned out to be pretty much right.

Before the gloating and the commiserating, I've got my picks for winners and losers in this election (since I lost, I'll put losers first):

LOSERS:
1. John McCain: he ran a back-assward campaign that stumbled often, he failed to rally his own party and showed he was anything but a leader of conservatives.

2. The GOP: after showing the country they were no better in power than the democrats they ousted, the GOP is now a minority in state houses, Congress, the Senate, and the White House. Their primary candidates were all pretty lousy too.

3. Laissez-faire economics: from McCain's jaunt to Washington, DC to "save the economy" to the Bail Out to Obama's open embrace of wealth redistribution, it's clear that laissez-faire is no longer mainstream in any American political party.

4. The Press: the idea that the press is "biased" is a complete joke; this year the press ran an open guerrilla campaign for Obama, actively withholding information and publishing factual inaccuracies. Now the Republicans will constantly cry Media Bias, but because Obama won, it will all be somehow meaningless and meanwhile, the media seems to have lost all semblance of dignity and impartiality.

5. The "switchers," from those helped cram McCain down conservative's throat (i.e. Chris Buckley) to those who formerly launched all kinds of invective towards Obama (i.e. Peggy Noonan) all kinds of conservatives revealed themselves as nothing but opportunists and attention-mongers.

WINNERS
1. Barack Obama: he befuddled the Clintons and swept the country in a landslide, the man might be the preeminent politician of our day, and that's saying something coming on the heels of Clinton and W.

2. The Democrats. They now run the country. Good luck.

3. Rhetoric. "Obama is a good speaker" was the reason one woman at my office voted for him.

3. Class Warfare: Obama openly espoused it, as did several Senatorial and Congressional candidates and...America embraced them for it.

4. Hope: The effervescent feeling won.

5. Horatio Alger (without the boy-touching stuff): America is the place where anything can happen, including the election of a half-African Socialist, half-Kansan graduate student to President of the United States.

Breaking New! Stop the Presses!

New York Times Discovers...there are terrorists at Gitmo! (shocking, I know)

Obama on Obama

Obama Finally Says Something I Agree With

Obama favors playoffs in college football...

A Glimpse of The First Amendment Under an Imperial Obama?

On Democratic Prompting, the FCC investigates TV Military Analysts who were pro-War on Terrorism and pro-Bush.

Obama Bans Reporters of Newspapers that Endorsed McCain from his Plane.

Obama Campaign Asks DOJ to Prosecute a 527 Group for Producing An Ad Asking Questions about Obama and Bill Ayers.

Obama Campaign Asks DOJ to Investigate Those Questing ACORN Over Voter Fraud (including John McCain).

Obama Lawyer Threatens TV Stations that Run NRA Ad.

Obama Campaign Asks Supporters to Flood WGN Radio Station with Calls While National Review Author is on Call-in Show.

How does that liberal saying go? If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.

Peggy Noonan Gives a Sort-of Pseudo-Endorsement of Obama

Peggy Noonan has a weird column praising Obama (and McCain a little too) without seeming to actually want him to win or endorsing him. However, I, as jerks are want to do, posted a not nice comment at the WSJ.com. Here it is:

Ms. Noonan is certainly right, if he is elected, Barack Obama will have the ability (just like any other President) to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy. But I think we must ask ourselves just exactly what that new tune will be. You don't have to be a fan of George W. Bush in any sense of the word to recognize that a foreign policy that brooks every provocation, that turns a blind eye to the dangers the world faces, that assumes that America is the cause of and solution to all the world's problems is disastrously naive, at best. Time and time again, Mr. Obama has shown that his foreign policy is nothing but an unfortunate empty shell of rhetoric and hopeful-but-ultimately-unrealistic expectations. Time and again Mr. Obama has insisted that he will meet foreign leaders without precondition, that he will lend the world's worst tyrants America's credibility. Even as Senator, Obama's meeting and touring with Prime Minister Raila Odinga boosted that man's support throughout all of Kenya. But Obama was nowhere to be found when Mr. Odinga's supporters torched a church with 50-some people inside. Is this really the new tone for which Ms. Noonan hopes? A foreign policy too blinded with self-righteousness to recognize good from bad, friend from foe?

Ms. Noonan, [i]is[/i] wrong about at least one thing, however. Mr. Obama's election would not be "a fresh start." Mr. Obama's election would be a return to the domestic and economic policies of 70 years ago. The New Deal isn't so new anymore. And while there are many people in America who openly support those policies, Ms. Noonan, to date, has not been one of their number. Now, however, now that Obama is a "runaway train," Ms. Noonan sees all these policies as "a fresh start." How illuminating.

To Ms. Noonan, Mr. Obama "shows good judgment." Of course that's true, now. It wasn't true when Mr. Obama was younger and a major drug abuser. It wasn't true when he was a community and organizer operating among one of the most corrupt political machines in the country. I'm guessing it probably wasn't true--at least to Ms. Noonan--when Mr. Obama was an Illinois state senator and consistently voted the direct opposite of Ms. Noonan's stated views. But Ms. Noonan is right, for the last 4% of his life, Mr. Obama has shown excellent judgment and therefore is somehow qualified to be President.

Finally, one has to wonder which Barack Obama Ms. Noonan is talking about when she writes "[Obama] took down a political machine without raising his voice." Mr. Obama didn't take down a political machine, he enmeshed himself in it. Over the years, Mr. Obama has shown that there is no member of the Illinois political machine too loathsome to support, that there is no ethical breach bad enough to separate him from the powerful and the greedy. Mr. Obama's own advisers regularly cycle themselves between his camp and the Illinois political machine; perhaps he speaks softly to them about taking down the machine in between political cycles. Some may say that's simply how you get things done in Illinois. Some may say that's simply how politics work in America. Both may be reality, but the Obama who takes down political machines is a mythical creature with no relation to reality.

When Obama won Alabama, it was a great moment. When he refused to criticize Palin, that was a great moment too. His campaign is certainly historic and would definitely serve as a practical rebuke of George W. Bush.

But shouldn't the Presidency be above all that? Shouldn't the Presidency be above the historicity of one man? If Ms. Noonan is so eager to raise the level of political discourse in this country, shouldn't she begin by recognizing that our country is too important to let personal feelings count in the voting booth.

The more people talk about the historical nature of an Obama presidency, the more it appears that they're voting for all the wrong reasons--that they're voting in some sort of vainglorious attempt to somehow squeeze their name into the history books beside Obama's. Or perhaps they're simply voting for Obama because they dislike George W. Bush. But neither a sense of vanity nor a sense of personal animosity should be important enough to count in the ballot box, and while they do, this country will suffer.

Rather Pathetic, Honestly

So a writer at The Atlantic has started ragging on the LA Times for suppressing a video of Obama and Ayers at a party praising Rashid Khalidi and Charlie Gibson has decided he's going to start asking Obama some tough questions about his rather questionable fund raising operations.

Trouble is, the election is less than a week away. These questions have been swirling around the campaign for weeks and yet we've heard nothing. Now it is clear the press is desperately trying to write a record that they think will make them look bipartisan in the future. Four years from now, when someone implies that Charlie Gibson was in the tank for Obama, he'll say "no, no, look, I asked him some pretty tough questions." Nevermind, of course, that the election is less than a week away and Gibson obviously knows there's nothing anyone can do about corrupt fund-raising practices now.

Frankly, I think it's shallow and it reveals the press for what they really are: snakes who think the rest of this country is too stupid to figure out what they're really doing.

Sidebar

By the way, the new commercial by ACORN/Obama, accusing John McCain of actively suppressing the black vote is utterly disgraceful, although I'm sure no one in the Obama campaign is embarrassed about it (except maybe Joe Biden).

The Vacuous Intellectual

At age 30, she didn't have the audacity to write her memoirs because she had won a popularity contest among the editors of the Harvard law review. Instead she saw a problem with her small town and became mayor. She didn't hope to become part of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country, instead she ran against her own party on a "clean government" platform. Instead of sabbaticals to Bali, she worked on fishing boats with her husband. For all this, she has been charged one of the teeming masses, part of that faceless (and obviously brainless) part of America that doesn't live on the East Coast or in LA. She is the very opposite of her Democratic opponents, she is an anti-intellectual.

But let us look briefly at those "intellectuals" she's running against. You see, these are serious people, you can tell they've "thought" about things. But where, for instance, did Joe Biden earn his intellectual stripes? Hopefully it wasn't in law school, where he had to repeat a class for plagiarism and graduated near the bottom of his class (despite his assertions many years later). Surely it wasn't when he first ran for the Democratic nomination and was forced to pull out after he lied about his early life and law school and his undergraduate transcript. It must be at Katie's Restaurant where, according to Mr. Biden himself, he gauges the problems of everyday Americans. Of course, the fact that Katie's hasn't been open for years doesn't deter him.

But what about Mr. Obama? Surely his ability to act serious means he is serious. But Obama does nothing but blindly follow the most liberal political views in American politics. When pressed to explain his more liberal votes in the Illinois State Senate, instead of explaining his reasoning for making them, he simply blames his former staff! The NY Times' description of his time in law school is no better. The picture painted was of a man unwilling (or unable) to enter into the serious debates his peers held all around him. Instead of taking a side or proffering his own ideas, Mr. Obama sat mute, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything. Surely this man is a great a thinker!

I think the truth is, the idea of the modern intellectual is largely smoke and mirrors. Joe Biden is more "intellectual" than Sarah Palin because he's "thought about the issues." Nevermind that he's been proven wrong on virtually every position he's ever taken. As for Obama, mutely watching his Harvard classmates debate topics earns him the right to be intellectual while Sarah Palin living an actual life earns her nothing but contempt from the "working man's party."

Who was the last Democrat President who was not "intellectual" (if not "an intellectual")? Jackson? And yet compare public opinion of Barack Obama and the utter vacuousness of his so-called "intellectualism" with Ronald Reagan, a man who had been making serious policy speeches for 20 years, who ran California, and who successfully debated William F. Buckley on television by the time he was President.

The Pro-America Parts of America

Sarah Palin's comment about the "pro-America areas of this great nation" has drawn much criticism and hysteria. I would not characterize any area in the United States as anti-American. Large urban areas filled with liberals, like New York, contain just as many patriots per capita as any other place. See, e.g., 9/11/2001. So her comment is not accurate, or politically smart. But there is some truth to the sentiment she expresses.

The contributors to this blog visited Morgantown, West Virginia, one weekend last fall. We had always joked about starting "U-S-A" chants in public places just to see if anybody would join in. Upon entering one establishment on a Saturday night in Morgantown, we began to chant "U-S-A." Everyone else in the place joined in and enthusiastically chanted along with us. Would that ever happen in DC or San Francisco? It wouldn't last more than 20 seconds in New York before you were belted across the back of the head with a rolled up copy of The Nation by some guy wearing tight black jeans and a Che Guevara shirt. So there are certainy different comfort levels with public displays of patriotism depending on where you are in America.

From the Much Hated Obama-Cult-Wire

San Francisco finds religion! (again)

Palin on Weekend Update

Men love them some Palin

“The criticism is part of the process,” Mr. McLain said, adding of Ms. Palin, “Who can’t trust a mother?”

The dudes tend to make themselves noticed. “You tell ’em baby,” a man yelled out at a rally Wednesday night on a high school football field in Salem, N.H.

I mean, cooooooooooooome on.

From the WayBackMachine

Asked for, received: Morning in America

Oh No Joe!

On today's Good Morning America, Dianne Sawyer revealed, with apparent glee, that "Joe the Plumber" has a dark and shadowy past. You see, he owes almost $1200 in back taxes! Can you believe that? A guy who already owes $1200 is worried about increasing taxes? I find that hilariously impossible to believe!

Secondly, Joe, doesn't have an unnecessary plumber's license. What shame! What horror! You see, Joe works as a plumber, for a plumbing company, but doesn't have a plumbing license because--he doesn't own the company. Oh Dianne, lucky thing you so snarkily reported all this. However, what Sawyer didn't say was that, because he plans to buy the company soon, Joe is in the middle of the licensing process.

Here's my question, maybe some of the faithful can answer it. Why are people combing through Joe's tax records? Why is he under a microscope? Because he was approached by the fearless leader and had something other than praise?

Let's just say this, Joe has already been more scrutinized than Bill Ayers.

GOP: Fat, Complacent, Lazy

I guess conservatives thought they'd never have to worry that a candidate for President of the United States would openly espouse wealth redistribution and gain votes because of it. The liberals, we were led to believe, would use subterfuge, skulduggery, artifice, guile, all the tricks in their bag. Aided by the mainstream media, these politicians would sneakily obtain positions of power and then enforce hidden socialist tendencies.

In truth, however, the Democratic candidate for President openly espouses wealth redistribution. He brazenly asserts that the tax system isn't about government revenue but about "fairness." He looks middle-income Americans in their eye when he says that he plans to share their wealth.

Where is the conservative panoply? Have we forgotten Hayek and Friedman and Goldwater and Hazlitt and Bastiat and their arguments? Has the GOP moved so far into the compassionate conservative camp that it can no longer mount a reasonable defense of the free market and American principals?

Did we miss our rendezvous with destiny?

David Allen Greer is Back!

As predicted, Greer's new show is pretty freakin' good. I have always maintained, going back at least to his In Living Color days, that Greer was one of the funniest people around. He was hilarious as "The Truth" on Crank Yankers and I've often lamented that DAG and Tommy Davidson should be on television more.

It's Abundantly Clear

McCain has no interest in being President of the United States.

McCain Tonight

My opinion is that the first line McCain must make against Obama is that his naivete has already led to people's deaths and making him the President only increases the likelihood of that repeating (I say 'first' because it's obvious McCain needs to do a lot tonight).

As I previously noted, yesterday the Washington Times ran an article about the massacre of 50 church-goers in Kenya by supporters of prime minister Odinga. It seems that, with his support in Kenya waning, PM Odinga received a huge boost when he toured the Kenya countryside with Sen. Barack Obama, who made several speeches on the socialist prime minister's behalf.

While Obama is not responsible for those parishioner's deaths, I think that this story viscerally illustrates the danger that exists when a naive politician blindly lends credibility foreign leaders.

What is the danger when the President of the United States decides to unilaterally meet with every foreign leader without precondition? Barack Obama was only a Senator when he supported Odinga and an entire church was massacred then.

E.J. Dionne and the Loss of All Credibility

Today, Dionne writes that "When [John McCain's] running mate, Sarah Palin, first brought up Obama's association with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, who has become a centerpiece of McCain's attacks, she accused Obama of 'palling around with terrorists.' What other 'terrorists' was she thinking about?"

Such garbage reveals either Dionne's incompetence or refusal to acknowledge even that which Obama himself has admitted. Of course there is the ever-present Bill Ayers, whose name surfaces at virtually every intersection in Obama's life over the last 15 years or so. But that's only one, right? Well, Ayers' is married to Bernardine Dohrn, another former weatherman terrorist. And it was at an intimate gathering at Dohrn and Ayers' house that Obama's political career was launched. Furthermore, there are indications that Dohrn may have worked with Obama's wife at Sidley Austin. This all despite Obama's insistence that Ayers' was "just a guy" living on his street.

But wait there's more!

This article from the Washington Times outlays Obama's travels through Kenya with Raila Odinga, as well as speaking on Mr. Odinga's behalf. Mr. Odinga, whose supporters burnt a parish of the Assembly of God church with approximately 50 parishioners inside (the ones that managed to escape were hacked to death by the mob), is the socialist prime minister of Kenya.

What proved to be impossible for E.J. Dionne took me roughly 15 minutes to prove: that Palin was correct, terrorists.

Fall of the House of Buckley?

While a senior a Yale, William F. Buckley founded a journal of politics entitled The National Buckley, and a literary magazine called The Buckley Review. Later, he would merge the two publications into what is now known as The Buckley Buckley, at least according to David Brooks. Somewhere along the way, the Buckley Buckley would morph into the National Review.

At the Nat'l Rev., Mark Steyn wrote a pretty darn good column on the back page. With Mark Steyn tied up in the ironically named Canadian Human Rights Commissions though, the amazingly talented Christopher Buckley, son of William F., recently took the reins of the last page of the Nat'l Rev. With William F. Buckley's passing this year, it appeared, at least to me, that some of torch had been passed.

Only 7 columns in, however, Chris Buckley endorsed Barack Obama in a mildly insulting article (see below). At least a few of the editors of the Buckley Buckley were not pleased. In a move of apparent childish flippancy, Chris Buckley offered to resign. As Steyn, an equally talented writer, was freed from bonds of the commission's shackles, the resignation was accepted. Now the pages of the Nat'l Rev. drift out to sea Buckley-less.

I can't help think that the readers of National Review are the worse off for this whole debacle. While I think Buckley's argument for endorsing Obama was fatally flawed (more on that later), it did not diminish his ability to write (imagine, Steyn and C. Buckley in the same issue). Unfortunately, that appears like an unlikely pipe-dream for me now. I'm also saddened by the unshakable feeling that Chris Buckley greatly diminished himself during the handling of this whole thing.

Response

1) You can write about whatever you want. I just find it boring and trivial and wish you would write about more substantive issues instead of harping on (what I believe to be) non-issues in this campaign.

2) Yes, the children singing is weird in a "Children of the Corn" odd sort of way but I actually think it is great that people and children look up to the future President of the United States. I know, I know. God forbid.

3) This comment has everything to do with your personality trait that is it is "you against the world" and less with what I actually wrote. I never, ever ever ever implied anything of the sort. What I implied was the use of the racial slurs without condemnation by Palin is what is holding this country back. If someone disagrees with Obama's policies, fine. But to continue to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist (which is false) and then allow the crowd to scream racial and ethnic epithets does hold this country back from moving past racism. Re-read the post before you go off and accuse me of saying what would've have been a stupid comment. The continuing use of the line "palling around with terrorist" continues to breed hatred and leads to racial and ethnic epithets being screamed at during campaign events. Go watch some youtube video of events. Or read here, here, or here.

You write: "Honestly, what I really am saddened and amazed by is that these people have nothing better in their life than to worship a politician. That they apparently have no problem forcing impressionable children to do the same is an outrage. How vacuous must your life be when your only glimmer of hope is a politician?"

I think you are being completely shortsighted. Just because you have been fortunate to have had heroes throughout your life that probably include family and close friends does not mean others have been so fortunate. Maybe you/I can't completely understand a lot of these attitudes (note: Calling him the Messiah is obviously bat-shit crazy). But maybe, just maybe, Obama isn't the worst hero for a young person to have. His life story is pretty miraculous and I truly think these rumors involving Ayers are crazy and have continued to state that the craziness of Reverend Wright does not mean Obama is also similarly crazy or believes similar ideas. Apart of being intelligent is the ability to be discriminating: seperate the good ideas from the bad. I think Obama has this ability and therefore the continued attacks associating Obama with shady characters holds no water with me. Show me something Obama has done totally wrong?! Stop showing me what people he knows did wrong because they are not running for President. I can show you things McCain, the actual man, did wrong without having to argue that he was friends with shady characters.

I didn't make a personal attack against you. You know I think to highly of you to do so such a thing (at least on the blog). Non-issue.

You wrote: "that is the most worrisome aspect of speaking out against Barack Obama: close friends and associates have implied awful motives and deeds to me simply because I am not an Obama supporter." See here. Nobody (no party) is perfect.

Christopher Buckley endorses Obama

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/10/a-buckley-endorses-obama/