Few conservatives are naive enough to expect the old media to actually do their jobs, and report accurately on health care legislation. The old media act like the participants in Obama's fake 'town halls'.
Thankfully, some Americans are asking questions of their public servants directly. Here are a few questions that no one is asking, but should:

1. The cost of laser eye surgery and most kinds of cosmetic surgeries have dropped over the last few decades. Ironically, most of the time people pay for these procedures out of their own pockets. Is there be a connection?

2. The population of the US is expected to grow from the current approximately 300 million people to 450 million people in the next 40-50 years. It's conceivable that a less fettered private sector could meet the additional medical demand (on top of the aging baby-boomers), but are the prospects good that a system with more government involvement and control will meet the challenge? Is the fact that the house bill goes in the other direction - making it more difficult to build new hospitals - a hopeful sign?

3. The drug companies appear to have thrown in with Obama completely. Much has been made of the possibility of back room deals regarding prices. But another question is pertinent: Is it possible that the drug companies see the possibility of greater drug use under Obamacare? Fewer procedures and surgeries will mean more need for palliative drugs and painkillers.

4. The President has made a major issue of wasted care and tests, at one time pointing to $2 trillion in possible savings. In order to realize these savings, the house bill gives the government the power to set prices and determine what care private insurance companies will charge and offer. Similar determinations will have to be made in the public sphere - eliminating 'unnecessary' tests and procedures. In order to determine which care is or is not cost-effective for society, the house legislation creates a five person appointed panel to review the effectiveness of tests and procedures. Now, there is little doubt that knee and hip replacements are effective - in almost all cases they provide profound relief to their recipients, every day for the rest of their lives. So that is not really the question this panel will address. They will be charged with determining how best to allocate 'scarce' medical  resources in the most cost-effective way. The 60-year-old CEO's knee replacement is cost effective for society - thousands of jobs depend on his stewardship. Not so, demented aunt Sarah. This is the 'death panel' provision. It's a panel, and it will make decisions about which ages and classes of people receive life-saving care - life and death decisions. So the only real question is this: Do we call it a life panel, a life and death panel, or a death panel?

5. Will we be allowed to beg? And will they enjoy it?

Greg Buls

In Ayn Rand's remarkable book, Atlas Shrugged, the most ingenious and productive members of society flee to their own Shangril La, a refuge from the statists who are busy dismantling the country and persecuting the prosperous.
We have no such refuge.

It is impossible for Americans to go anywhere else to find freedom. This is our Shangri La, and it always has been. That it is now under assault is no surprise. The movement against American traditionalism has been well underway for decades.

Long ago, the left foresaw the difficulty of inculcating Americans with the necessary dependency or contempt required to dismantle the country. They undertook to remake America's consciousness in a number of ways.
First, they specifically targeted for takeover America's consciousness forming institutions: media, Hollywood, academia, foundations, and local community organizations.

Second, they changed America's immigration laws to insure that the bulk of people arriving here would not be well educated, and would not be required to show any particular fidelity to America or American traditions (for instance, we allow dual citizenship and do not require proficiency in the national language).

Third, they recognized that the key to long-term power in a democracy is to hold the purse strings, and to make the populace dependent upon government for support. Part of this is making sure voters believe that the left's enemies will take away their benefits. This is not problematic for a democracy, so long as only a small minority are affected, but Social Security and Medicare reach right into every home, and sure enough, every election we hear that Republicans will destroy or cut these programs. It's gotten, already, to the point where something close to half of all American voters are receptive to giving lavish government benefits to middle class citizens who have always been free and independent.

Fourth, they have relentlessly pounded the 'racism' and 'classism' drum, so much so that things like naked voter fraud are excused, and citizens cannot be expected to be able to identify themselves when voting. The left has diminished our most sacred right and responsibility.

Fifth, by relentlessly proposing government action in response to every problem, the left encourages people to think in these terms. Insidiously, they create crises through government action - things like the credit crisis and soaring health insurance costs - and propose more government as the solution. Some problems are so large now that many think only a massive solution of some sort will solve them.

Sixth, they talk down every tradition, institution, and success that make America great: When Americans work hard and want to keep the bulk of the money they earned, they are greedy. When America liberates 25 million men, women, and children from the rule of a genocidal madman, we are imperialists. When America is attacked, we deserved it, when we are at war we will lose, when the rest of the world is against us, they are right. When we find the poor and downtrodden amongst us, as Obama has said over and again, we do "nothing" for them. The existence of free talk radio is the result of ______, and it ought to be controlled by government regulations and censors because it is so biased and unfair. The visceral reaction to all of this thinking is, "You people are literally insane", but there are some fairly intelligent people making these arguments, and some, like Obama, are hypnotic demagogues. Many are listening.

Finally, they quietly undermine or dismantle every other institution in society upon which individuals have always relied, and which have traditionally been at the center of their existence - family, marriage, child-rearing, work, the military, education, religion, local government, and free associations. They want to drive wedges between the individual and every other element of support in society, so that individuals are left standing 'naked before the state'.

It's clear how these forces have combined, at this particular juncture in history. Forty seven years ago, when the democrats' hero JFK was leading this country, these radicals had scarcely reared their heads. JFK was, by modern standards, a relatively conservative president. He would almost certainly have been a republican were he running today. His running mate, however, was not a traditional democrat, and he proved it by opening wide the door to radicalism. The radicals are now in charge of the democrat party, and there is no sign that the sane democrats who are left are capable of dislodging them.

The only reason we are now a weakened nation is that we have allowed America and its constitution to be undermined from within by radicals. We'd never have allowed a foreign power to damage us in this way.

This makes things crystal clear for conservatives: No matter what the outcome of this election, we are literally fighting for the existence of a free country, and possibly, a free world. If America goes the way of Europe, our light will wane, and the darkness will advance. It's not merely a matter of whether our children will grow up in a free country. Now, as we seriously contemplate the ascendancy of radical leftists to the highest levels of world power, the question literally becomes whether, a generation from now, any children, anywhere, will be born into freedom.
The left and unchecked power are not a good mixture, they are like fire and gasoline. Whatever they control is consumed, or left burnt-out and dessicated. If they are stopped in this election, they will be back in four years. They will never go away, so we must make them powerless.

No matter what the outcome is on election day, our future as active conservatives is clear: These people must be thoroughly discredited, and if possible, their policies must be made illegal. The constitution must be changed to place explicit limits on taxation and federal spending. A separate Amendment may be justified later to re-affirm basic freedoms and address judicial activism. The debate, even if it is ultimately lost, will help to re-affirm the centrality of the constitution, and will engage the nation in a long-overdue discussion about its foundation and its future.

The alternative, as we will all admit if we can bring ourselves to face it, is to watch our country slowly deteriorate under the rule of increasingly radical political demagogues.

It is said that no democracy can endure for long. Thankfully, we do not live in a pure democracy. It is also said that no civilization can endure for long, regardless of its basic structure. But there has never been an America before, and there has never been an American Constitution before. America has long been the exception to many rules, and if we are still a serious people, we can prove these rules wrong as well.

____________________

Last week we were introduced to the fact that Obama's thugs are turning America into a banana republic - they are intent on silencing their critics.
A Florida TV station has been 'cut off' from the Obama campaign because a courageous news-reader read some tough questions to Biden, and didn't back down when he lied in response to every question. How dare she question The Overlord through one of his stooges? Where are her kneepads?
Do you see the outrage with which some criticisms of The Overlord are met? This is the mark of a totalitarian mindset. Think of how Bush has been abused for years, and has borne it with dignity. Not The Overlord. He's sacred - to think otherwise is naked racism.
Already, almost every criticism of The Overlord is met with the response, "racist", and he has yet to assume power over us. His thugs gleefully damage private property to silence critics (think about your car and your willingness to display a McCain/Palin bumper sticker. I would bet it depends a lot on where you live). Several hundred thousand Obama supporters are gathering for a 'victory' party in Chicago. If victory is not at hand, will they quietly go to bed? Not likely - the AP reports that police departments across the country are bracing for riots. Chicago is a hotbed of radicalism. Get ready for some grim times - even if they win, we may see riots. The Overlord is a thug, and he's awoken the rest of the thugs. 'Pretty words' may spill from his mouth, but some of the effluence of a sewer pipe smells sweet.

From this election forward, America will be held hostage by Obama's thugs in every election in which he plays a part. He may even be able to gin up his thugs enough to riot even when he's not involved. The Overlord is the most radical, dangerous, and divisive person ever to reach the national stage.
If Obama were anywhere near the center of the political spectrum, the election would have been over long ago. Instead, he shows every sign of being a marxist, so he repels tens of millions of tradition-minded Americans. He wants to turn the society inside out, so the reacion is visceral. But hate his ideas as we may, we still respect democracy. We're not going to be rioting on election night. We're going to be in our homes ready to protect our families, if necessary, from Obama's thugs.

Think about it: Obama's brownshirts are going  to restrict the freedom of movement of millions of Americans on election day. Never before have they had to worry about where they are going to be that night. No longer. Welcome to Obama's America.

TOTA

The other side has done all they can. They've pitched racism, they've cried racism, they've promised thousands in cash for votes. The media suckfest continues apace, the sucking only interrupted for regular trashing of Gov. Palin and Joe the Plumber. One wonders how regular people who oppose Obama will be treated once he has something close to absolute power.

The criminal media and the Obama campaign have thrown all they can at the wall, and it seems to be working. A new Pew poll has the race at 14 points, compared to Rasmussen's 4 points. This is part of the end game - Pew has been silent, now they have a massive outlier poll, so they run with it! It doesn't bother them that their idiot poll is ten points away from the most consistent poll in race. Anything to discourage the freedom loving people from voting.
Don't get discouraged. Obama is the harbinger of America's end. Open you wallet (I have). Send money to the RNC. Go down to the local GOP hq and ask if they need help. Post comments on the criminal media's stories to correct the bias. Call talk radio. Call the local Obama campaign and ask about Acorn. Call your local media and demand stories on Acorn if you live in a state where they are active.

Most importantely, talk to your friends.
If normally you wouldn't sit down with friends and relatives and discuss politics, do it. If someone tells you that discussing politics and religion is always a bad idea, tell them this:  Who do they think wants that message promoted? It's the people who want to control religion and politics, and through them, control people. They want us silent and cooperative.
Make sure your friends and family know about Ayers et al., about Obama's thug tactics, and about the fact that he has basically been groomed by one radical leftist/marxist after another, from an early age, to do exactly what he is trying to do - deliver America into the hands of socialsists. Finally, make sure they know that Obama's offers to them come with a price - a leash. Once your friends and family start taking Obama's cash, it will be hard to stop. Do your friends and family really want to be dependent upon government for their sustenance? That is the path to slavery.

Don't give up. Don't get discouraged. Every four years, we hear that, "this is the most important election in a lifetime." This time it's true. The risk to America has never been greater. Obama is a clear and present danger to the entire planet. You don't want your children and grandchildren to grow up in a world where Obama has much to say about the direction of things. He truly belongs behind a dirty desk in some urban hellhole, where he can practice his agitation and radicalism without having to pretend to be a man who loves America.
Obama does not love America. If anything, he loves the possibility of wielding the power of America, in order to change America, and through that, the world. Don't let him get away with it.

TOTA

John Kerry is a classy guy. These people will say anything, and their leftist supporters will forgive it, because none of them has a shred of class or genuine dignity. Let's see who comes out and condemns Kerry's rudeness. Don't hold your breath. If a significant republican had said something equally stereoptypical about Obama - say, that his favorite meal is chicken and ribs - the election would be over. Kerry was their nominee last time, next to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, he's about as big as they come. Such a witty, clever man.

Does anyone recall the 1996 GOP primaries during which Buchanan made a serious run at the nomination? Some liberal republicans denounced him, thinking themselves the conscience of the party. Right or wrong, they saw in Buchanan a dangerous man who might permanently send their party into the wilderness.

Obama is further to the left than Buchanan is to the right. But the sum total of democrat conscience is one senator from CT, Joe Lieberman. Not a single additional democrat has come forward to question the potential threat that Obama poses to democracy, to America, and to the democrat party. He is by far the most liberal man to ever seek the white house, and not a single conservative democrat aside from Joe Lieberman has a problem with it?

I still maintain that Obama cannot win. By election day, the chaos on wall street will be a month in the past, in all likelihood. If it flares up again, it's hard to see it benefitting Obama any more than it already has. And with any luck, the GOP will clarify their message: Obama means a permanent change to a dependent middle class. He wants working Americans on a firm leash.
Millions of Americans, perhaps ten million or more, will go into the voting booth without a firm commitment to either candidate, and Obama's radicalism and life-long associations with radicals will loom large for many of them. Meanwhile, I can't imagine more than a handful of conservatives sitting this one out. Some may have a literally visceral hatred for McCain, but will vote for him anyway to save their kids and grandkids from the enslavement of socialism.

TOTA

I figure myself a pretty sane fellow. I have a temper, but it probably runs only a little hotter than average.
In spite of my generally angelic nature, I have found myself wanting to crush something many times during this election cycle.

It's not the tawdry democrat nominee, with his lies about Ayers, Acorn, Wright and virtually everything else. It's not his nature, and his supporters' nature, which manifests in such ugliness as intimidating contributors, threatening radio stations, and muddying a common citizen, Joe. It's not that Obama is arguably a flat-out Marxist, and intends that my two little girls grow up in a radically different country - a much worse one in virtually every regard. It's not his radical, angry wife or his lunatic fringe friends. It's not even that I and millions of other Americans suspect - with good reason - that Obama basically hates traditional America and its values. Hates them. It's none of that. It's the fawning complicity of the press in all this.

There is no law againt a demagogue whipping up a bunch of Americans into an angry mob, bent on marxist "change". But it ought to be against the law for the press to be so unrelentingly biased.
This point was driven home as I watched the excellent "B-Cast" from Thursday, Oct. 16th. In the prior day's debate, Obama flatly said that his campaign payment to Acorn earlier this year was the extent of his involvement wtih them. It was a naked lie, as the program goes on to show, highlighting other sources. One news article they quoted noted that their research required only 30 minutes using the internet. Obama and Acorn are old and dear friends. It's him they turn to for their 'power' training sessions (yes, your country is on the verge of being taken over by a radical street agitator).
Acorn is undeniably shady, but since what they do promotes liberalism, they get a pass from the press. Were it a conservative group doing the same thing, it would lead every news story.
Obama's lies about Acorn during the debate are likewise irrelevant because it's Obama. If McCain had lied about involvement with a group that was considerably less shady than Acorn, it would again lead the news, and would be heralded as the big mistake that will 'cost McCain the election'.

The bias is so constant that it's numbing. And it's criminal because it flies under the banner of objectivity. They know about Obama and Acorn, they don't report it because he's essentially their new god. They know about his repeated gaffes and lies, but they ignore them as well. When ABC's Chris Wallace actually asked him a pointed question in a primary debate, he was savaged. This is madness, and these people are madmen. They are willing to throw away honor and integrity to see a leftist elected. In so doing, they are forfeiting the trust of millions of Americans that their colleagues built up over the generations.

TOTA

Who knew? General Powell has at times betrayed more than a whiff of liberalism under the conservative cologne he has worn for years. But now, people whose senses still work are going to have to avoid him like the plague - who knew he could stomach a Marxist, so long as it's a black one?
Gen. Powell must have 'vetted' The Overlord. Did he notice an unusually silent press corps? Did he wonder how it was that he learned more about Todd Palin's past in three days than the old media told people about Obama for 18 months? I ask because I assume he did know these things, and as a result, he must have looked through what the new media was saying about The Overlord. How could Powell not have researched Obama thoroughly, knowing that he still has the ability to affect some votes? We've been told for years that Powell is brilliant and wise; he must have done his homework. So he did, and now Powell is comfortable handing the leadership of the free world to a man who has literally been marinating in nothing but the most radical leftism for his entire life. What that tells any thinking person is that Powell has another agenda, a deeper loyalty. It may be that he genuinely believes that The Overlord's plans are great for America. In that case, his loyalty is to radical liberalism. No problem - just stop posing, General. The pose is worn out anyway - everyone knows the truth now. Your loyalties are either to liberalism or to your race.

Beyond supporting the marxist candidate, Mr. Powell dropped his sizable drawers, bent over, and took a giant crap on Sarah Palin.  He supposedly thinks that the man-boy fraud who has never earned an honest nickel in his life is the man to lead the free world. Then he said that Palin is not qualified. What a fine mind at work. It's hard to distinguish between his thoughts and those of the NYT editorial board.
 
Why not switch parties, General? Most of the right has not respected you for years, now you've alienated every freedom loving American by supporting the black marxist because he's black, or because he's liberal, or a combination of the two. Obama intends to enslave the middle class to dependence on government, and you are now his willing accomplice, your hand shares the whip.

Powell is our Obama. Some people in the GOP decided to make a demi-god out of this man because he is black. He didn't do anything militarily to distinguish himself, and he's politically thoughtless. Let's do our part to get over the race obsession, shall we GOP? It's a giant loser for us in all regards. Let us speak to blacks and other minorities on our terms. We have no special love for any race. To the extent that we treat any race differently, we condescend to them and we debase ourselves.

TOTA

Obama has big plans for everyone in the middle classes - lower, middle, and upper. It starts with wedding the middle class inextricably to government, making them to some significant degree dependent upon government for their sustenance. After that, no resistance will be possible, and Obama's vision of government 'solutions' to every perceived problem or injustice will truly be possible. This is the route to leftist control of government for a generation or more.

Forget about banning talk radio. After Obama starts showering new thousands in tax "credits" on families who currently pay no taxes, but are otherwise independent people, they will do what everyone does - adjust their budgets accordingly. If they are reaping the $5000+ that Obama is targeting at those on the lower end of the working income range, it will be a hard thing to refuse him when he insists that "if Republicans win, they will take away your tax credits." Suddenly the credits are covering the entire food budget, or half the rent, and you can't live without it. You're dependent, and unless you have more spine than most people who find themselves in that predicament, you're likely to continue to draw the checks than to demand your independence. This widespread dependency on the part of hard working people has no precedent in American history, and it will likely be a permanent change - once people build this money into their budgets, it will be hard to remove it, even if it is demonstrably true that making working people dependent on government over the long haul hurts rather than helps them.

With dependency comes control (look it up) and ultimately bitterness: first self reproach, then self justification, then entitlement, then finally hatred for the hand that feeds you.

With a smile, Obama offers the middle class a leash.

TOTA

www.tota.blogtownhall.com

WHAT IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT

The Overlord seeks to tie the middle class to government. He wants to make them dependent upon regular checks from the government for this or that, so that in every election, the left can say, "The Republicans will take away ________________."

They've done it with social security for the last 75 years. Chile instituted a private system years ago and the median Chilean has much greater wealth than the median American, but we're too stupid to do it effectively here, if you listen to The Overlord. In reality, he will oppose anything that takes power out of the hands of government and puts it directly in the hands of individuals.
The Overlord wants dependency - they want you to be dependent upon government and to turn away from self-reliance and private associations for support.
On every level, the left seeks to drive wedges between humans and every other source of support and succor: family, community, state, employer, house of worship. The federal government interjects itself in all of these relationships, and seeks to draw every person into the orbit of the state.
They see in society - as it is - great injustice. Some have much, some have little. When The Overlord and his wife speak of America as it is and America as it ought to be, this is what they are talking about - the unequal distribution of wealth. The unequal distribution of effort is irrelevant to them, a side note that is way down on the list of reasons for unequal wealth. And since there is no God and this world is all we will ever experience, the unequal distribution of material security and goods and pleasures is intolerable. Get it? This is all about philosophy, all about fairness. It's not about growing the economy so that a greater and cheaper abundance is available to all. It's not about maximizing the effort of all. It's about the end result, because that's all there is.

That's also why things like voter fraud do not trouble the left, and why they refuse every effort to control it - people have to produce ID to buy a beer, approach the state, cash a check, and often to use a credit card. But it is an undue burden on the poor to require people to have photo ID when voting. Rampant voter fraud is fine with the left because _the entire system is so unfair_ that any means are justified to change it. A little cheating is nothing.

Think twice before surrendering your independence. With dependence comes self-loathing, then self-justification, then a feeling of entitlement and hatred of the hand that feeds you. It's not good for your soul, for your pride, or for your future.

The Overlord speaks as if we presently do nothing for anyone who is hurting. The federal government budget amounts to over $3 trillion of a $14 trillion economy - that doesn't count state and local government, nor future obligations for which we are putting away nothing. Of that $3 trillion, well over half is direct payments to citizens to address various needs. The list of human needs and wants is endless.
You can tax all the millionaires and billionaires at 80% and not get enough to fund The Overlord's plans for larger government. The idea that the 'rich' avoid taxes through loopholes was once true, but is no longer true, the top 5% of earners pay more than 53% of all income taxes. Most in that category pay a combined 50% plus of their income to federal, state, and local taxes. That's not 'progressive' enough for The Overlord. How much of a person's workday can the government lay claim to before the taxpayer starts to wonder if they can afford an extended vacation?
The problem is not too little government. We already have a massive government. The Overlord's scalpel will do little to trim it down, certainly not enough to cover the additional $1 trillion plus he seeks to spend on new government transfer payments to the middle class. Not tax cuts, mind you. It's all about tax credits - you get the money, but only if you behave in ways The Overlord wants to promote. Allowing an actual rate cut which would leave people free to spend the money as they see fit is outside the worldview of The Overlord.

Control and dependency.

TOTA

The overarching Obama goal is to make the middle class dependent upon government spending.

For decades, the left has enjoyed a disproportionate share of the elderly vote by scaring seniors about the future of social security and medicare.  Millions of seniors have voted for the left as a result, and who can blame them? Many live on the edge financially, any reduction of SS benefits or increase in medicare payments could be crippling to them.

Obama seeks to put the US middle class in the same position. He seeks nearly a trillion dollars per year in targeted tax credits - many will go to people who pay no income taxes. These will be naked cash transfers. You can be certain that once these programs are in place, the new leftist election cry will be, "The republicans will take away your child care credits! They will take away your $1000/year credit!"

Until now, the middle class has remained fairly independent of government. In his 1971 "Rules for Radicals", communist Saul Alinsky emphasized the importance of appealing to the middle class, and tying them to government. Alinsky's book served as the basis of Hillary's dissertation in college, and served as a blueprint for Obama's community organizing (he taught other organizers using the book as his bible). Obama's campaign is pure Alinskyism, through and through.
By appealing to the pride, needs, and desires of the middle class, the revolution moves forward with the middle class as willing participants.
That is what Obama seeks.

He wants you and everyone you know to either be more dependent upon government, or to cough up more of your money to encourage greater dependency in others. Once these hooks are into the middle class, there will be no turning back. There's not a single significant income transfer program in the country's history that has been removed once implemented. At best (see welfare reform) a decades long effort can limit these programs.
But once you start giving people cash on a regular basis, they will adjust the rest of their economic decisions, so that these payments will become central to their income. Large swaths of the middle class will become government dependents, and the future of American politics will never be the same.

Greg Buls

Obama's sympathy for the poor is bound-less because every need he can identify and address is another group of clients for the state.

According to Kathleen Parker's newest article, Obama has a special place in his heart for the Appalachian 'hill people'. Let's be serious. Obama's mentor thinks whites are the enemy (at least Jews, anyway, by his own words). We know what Obama thinks about PA whites, he must think the poor Appalachians are living in caves and still trying to get a grip on 'fire'.

Obama is not evil. He is a selective perfectionist. He sees gross imperfections in the world and he cannot abide them. This is a fine mindset for a charity worker or a law enforcement officer, but not for someone with aspirations to great power.
The world is by nature imperfect; the evolutionist atheists on the left ought to embrace the process whereby the strong survive and the herd is culled, but they do everything they can to retard it (the rest of us care for the unfortunate because they are God's children). Those who believe themselves creations can abide the world's imperfection; this imperfection is not a dead end, and is necessary for the existence of real love, which depends upon a willingness to suffer. Those who accept reality can also abide imperfection, knowing that trying to eradicate it often makes things worse, or creates new problems. But not the leftist - he must agitate to tear down the foundations of the very land upon which he stands because it is not perfect.
It would be one thing if the leftists were willing to explicitly lay out what they want to do, as a few brave souls have done. But they have to wrap their intentions in words that mask their actual desires - they know that people don't want what they want, so they hide it and try to fool people. By doing so they subvert democracy. Republicans lie, but they aren't lying about their basic intentions.
***********************************

Obama's interview with Gibson was laughable. Of course these items are handled as "some on the right are saying", or "McCain is attacking you by saying". When these issues are addressed, Obama is given an out right off the bat - it's clearly all irrelevant and political, only the right gives a fig about it.
The public knows more about Todd Palin's 22 year old DUI than they know about a half dozen Obama black holes: Ayers, Khalidi, Raines and Johnson, Fannie/Freddie money, and Obama and Ayers pissing $110 million down the drain with their activist handling of the Annenberg Challenge.
There's a reason, of course. If taxpayers know the garbage that Obama approved in his stewardship of the AC, whilst rejecting fundamental study areas like math and science, he would not win the election. This is his only executive experience, where he was able to make decisions, and they were about Obama and politics first, a lot of other things, and finally, about quality education.

Fear not: Their answers to the Ayers thing will not hold. They're saying now that Obama didn't know Ayers was a terrorist when he went to his house to launch his demagoguery. That's absurd on its face. He says he assumed Ayers had repented - is it really conceivable that he never discussed this with anyone? Ayers was clear and adamant about his virtue, saying he would to it all over again, only better.

Here are the first two clear lessons learned from this:
1. The fact that Ayers is a 'respected figure' in Chicago politics and a professor there tells us only that Chicago politics is extraordinarily radical, not that Ayers is not a radical marxist. Apparently, you can be anything other than a conservative and find some place in Chicago politics. There is a reason Alinsky (sp? - who cares, he's a monster) chose Chicago, and he clearly planted seeds there. It was the Alinsky people who brought Obama there to work, once Obama was determined to go there because it was so radical.
2. It will not matter what the bulk of Obama's supporters come to believe about Ayers, it will be irrelevant. They will still support the man. Even if the once anticipated Michelle Obama "whitey" tape actually appears, most of their supporters won't care, and will think the right is evil for bringing it out. In short, the bulk of Obama's supporters have motivations that transcend national cohesion, national security, and common sense.

TOTA

The three most recent polls, all of which are post VP debate, have McCain down by an average of four points, from a 6.2 deficit three days ago.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

The NBC News/WSJ poll that has Obama up by 6 also has the generic congressional up by 13, two above the average of the others. So it probably oversampled democrats.

They tried to sell the idea that the race was over when Obama went up by six. All other things being equal, we'll likely see a tie race this time next week. If any of the stink surrounding the Chosen One starts to stick, this race could turn quickly. Apparently the best Obama has to throw at McCain is the Keating 5. He and his handlers truly hope we are a nation of blithering idiots. McCain was exonerated by a Senate ethics committee. They are bringing it up because they have nothing else. Our man is truly Mr. Clean.

TOTA

Opportunities abound.

1. More government is the solution to every problem identified by Obama. Obama should be pressed to identify any exceptions, which will invariably be a very tiny part of his overall plan. In no instance does he believe that less government is the answer.

2. Obama tried to press Iraqis to delay US troop withdrawals in favor of negotiating anew with his new administration. Why?

3. If the kindergarten sex-ed issue comes up, McCain should be familiar with the language of the legislation. It does not limit K sex-ed to "warnings about strangers".

4. Only 2/3 of workers pay any income taxes. How can he cut taxes for 95% of all workers? Obama says the "rich" don't pay their fair share, yet the majority of people he wants to hit with punitive taxes are small business owners. It would not be out of line to ask him what percentage of the income tax burden the top 5% now pay, and what percentage he thinks they ought to pay. America deserves to know his idea of fairness. He can put it in such a way that he won't come across as defending "the rich" (God forbid).

5. Obama has said he'd consider postponing his tax increases until after the economy improves, so that they don't further damage the economy now. If they are damaging, why impose them at all?

6. McCain needs to clearly explain his $5000 health insurance tax credit. And he needs to flesh this issue out: If costs are going to come down, the only way to do it is to increase competition and consumer choice. Obama should be challenged to produce a single instance where more government involvement has reduced the overall cost of anything.

7. If Obama's personal associations crop up, McCain cannot say that these subjects are tawdry and off limits. What is tawdry is Obama's record of questionable associations. McCain needs to frame this as an issue of judgment, and of fundamental disconnection from the American mainstream - it is remarkable that Obama thought that normal Americans wouldn't be shocked by his company and his afro-centric church. The people in Obama's church went nuts every time Rev. Wright slammed America - are we to believe that Wright avoided generating these rapturous reactions whenever Obama was in church?

8. Focus on the human component of Iraq: First, our soldiers. They have been repeatedly betrayed by democrats, who have accused them of all manner of atrocity, have tried to deny them funding, and have said that the war is lost and can never be won. There is no parallel in American history aside from Vietnam. Both political parties have traditionally stood against America's enemies to the end whenever Americans have been in the field. Our soldiers hear what Democrat politicians say about their war - it cannot hearten them. Second, Iraqis. Iraq is a country littered with mass graves. If Iraq were the size of America, Hussein killed the equivalent of 3-4 million people, and attacked a mid-sized city with chemical weapons, killing 50000+.  Almost every American knew someone who died in Vietnam, and 70000 Americans gave their lives there. Imagine living in a country where you knew many people who ended up being killed by their own government. Countless thousands more suffered torture and repeated rape in Hussein's sons' rape rooms. When we helped the Iraqi people turn the page, we made a commitment to those 25 million individuals. Now that the surge has succeeded, political reconciliation is continuing apace.
We've made a significant commitment to Iraq; after all that our brave soldiers and our taxpayers have given, we're not going to risk failure, as Obama is willing to do. We're not going to give the enemy a drop dead date to rally around, and plan towards. It took Americans longer to get their house in order after winning freedom from tyranny than the Iraqis have taken to date. If we abandon them as Obama plans, it will be a betrayal, and a signal to all people struggling under tyranny and slavery that Americans will not stand with them to the end.

9. He must trace the mortgage crisis in broad terms. For most of America's history, the price of houses kept pace with inflation. Laws written by democrats brought millions of new buyers into the housing market, driving up prices and producing the bubble that has now burst. Lenders were forced to make loans they would not have otherwise made, and then they engaged in all kinds of shenanigans to mitigate the additional risk.

10. McCain ought to paint this housing/credit crisis as a perfect example of the need for reform, and the difficulty of reform. He needs to note that Bush attempted on 12 or more occasions to curb Fannie and Freddie, or to institute additional oversight. Anyone can make a far-reaching speech touching on potential problems facing the country, and years later say, "I warned about this years ago". It takes a leader to deliver change, which is why McCain co-sponsored, two years ago, the most far-reaching reform of F&F ever proposed. Democrats killed it in committee on a party-line vote.
Democrats are openly blaming the Bush administration for this whole mess, and people have to access alternate media to hear anything different. This affects every republican running this year, the democrats cannot be allowed to get away with it. They stubbornly refused, in the face of mounting evidence, to do anything about these problems.
This is a case where both more regulation of Washington and more regulation of wall street was required. But McCain cannot trash-talk the free market - it was government action that ultimately led to the entire crisis. Absent the Community Re-Investment Act and the subsequent changes in borrower requirements, the housing market would be placid. There was no scare in the housing markets during the 1987 and 1991 Wall Street dives. He also ought to note that more regulation is not always the answer; in general, business, particularly small businesses, needs to be freed from regulation. 75,000 additional pages of federal regulations are produced every year. Obama makes it sound like the free market is unfettered, and is to blame - McCain must deny this adamantly, and place the blame where it lies, on the round shoulders of activist government.
Clarifying this is potentially as important for the base as it is for the voters. We've been treated to three weeks of Barney Frank sniveling about Bush's recklessness ruining the economy, with no response from our leaders in Washington. The record needs to be set straight in the only place it can be - an unfiltered forum. McCain doesn't have to coddle Bush - no one did enough to prevent this. But at every step, democrats resisted change. Challenge democrats to open investigations to get to the root of the problems.

11. It makes little impact to challenge Obama's new spending plans if he's allowed to get away with the idea that closing loopholes will pay for all of it. What loopholes, exactly? McCain also ought to familiarize himself with the actual impact on the lower and middle classes of the evil Bush tax cuts.

12. If Obama lies, call him on it there and then. Challenge him directly on it. And if a subject comes up that the media has ignored, include as part of the answer that this is but one of many stories you'll hear little about if you are dependent upon old media for your news. The vultures are literally digging through Palin's garbage, but Obama's past is off limits. Make the point that millions of Americans still don't really know the man.

13. Be ready for Obama's stock answers on infanticide. His most consistent answer is that there was already a law on the books to protect these Illinois children. But the Illinois government was considering new legislation precisely because the old law was not working, as testimony clearly showed.
Obama doesn't know when human life begins, and he's said his first act as president will be to strike down all abortion limitations, including such things as parental notification. Under Obama, America would be the most abortion-friendly country in the world. And Mr. Obama talks a lot about how we're judged by how we treat the least among us.

14. A spirited defense of Sarah may be possible, if circumstances permit. Voters know more about Sarah's daughter's pregnancy than they do about Obama wasting $100 million dollars of Anenberg Challenge education money in Chicago, in his only executive experience to date.

15. When Obama invariably argues that McCain is Bush because they vote together 90% of the time, McCain needs to point out that many votes are not contentious political issues, Obama also votes with Bush frequently - few people vote against naming federal buildings, etc. And Obama votes with the left 97% of the time. Challenge him to name one time he's bucked his party. And point out that he's the most liberal member of the Senate. If Obama is not a liberal, there is no such thing.

Obama is an eggshell covered with tiny cracks. The whole appears together, but it is in fact in danger of fragmenting at any time. There's a legion of leftists who will work for and support the man regardless what he says or does. But the hard rump of democrat voters probably represents no more than 30-35% of the electorate. The rest are potential McCain voters if they can be made to understand just how radical this man is, how vapid his ideas are, and how utterly alien he is to the thinking and experience of the vast bulk of Americans. It's not that he's black, it's that he was essentially marinated in leftist theory most of his life; he has no conservative friends or associates, nor is there a shred of evidence that he ever seriously considered any points of view outside the hard left. A public figure, he's nonetheless led a cloistered life.

TOTA

It turns out that racism is everywhere. We used to think it was obvious - contempt for another individual or group, or believing that another person is somehow deficient, because of their skin color. You don't hear or see much of that thinking anymore. But it turns out that we are just as racist as ever, we're just a lot more subtle about it. The great white mass and the racist politicians that represent us (republicans) have finally schemed long enough figure out a way to really pump out the racism, without it being quite so obvious.

The latest paragon of virtue and fairness to point to this new racism is Time magazine. Time is a news magazine that is published on a weekly basis, for people who like their news sufficiently cured and frequently irrelevant. You may remember having seen Time at supermarket checkout stands back in the early to mid 1990s. Time reports on a new McCain ad that pictures the corrupt and black ex-Fannie chief Franklin Raines, then pictures a white woman as the 'victim' of Raines malfeasance. Time evidently believes this is beyond the pale - racism. They accuse McCain of "playing the race card".
Fannie is at the center of the housing meltdown and has been a bastion of corruption, so it is news. Raines is black - sorry, McCain didn't appoint him or have anything to do with his birthing. Raines cooked the books to make Fannie look stronger than it was so that he could get big bonuses - he raked in $90 million over six years. The white woman probably is representative of the average victim of Fannie's malfeasance - many single white women and mothers bought houses during the democrat led period of insane lending, or are the ones working the finances for families in trouble. Should the ad have pictured a black person, or a white man? I can think of hit pieces Time could write about either of those scandalous choices.
So here's the math: McCain can point to malfeasance on the part of any black connected to Obama. But he can't juxtapose them next to whites in any way that makes it seem that whites may have been affected by their corruption. Or maybe picturing raines, and connecting
him to Obama would have been enough for Time to cry foul, since both are black. I guess the math is a little fuzzy.
When normal people see this ad, they think, "Gee, Obama is seeking advice from a fellow at the center of the housing mess, and it's affecting average Americans."
When the mental midgets at Time see this ad, they think, "There the racist republicans go again, here's an ad showing a black man victimizing a white lady."
When normal people see this ad, the mental midgets at Time believe that we are thinking, "Damn negroes! Damn negro Obama! Can't negroes do anything right? Negroes are all corrupt when they get into politics, where negroes don't belong. Here go the negroes again, abusing poor white people. Damn negroes. Martha, did you sticth my hood for me? Where's my rope? Are we taking the kids?" The people at Time who had anything to do with this piece should be ashamed of themselves.  The people at Time don't know any 'average' white people, they can't, or they'd know how repulsive their thinking is to the average white American.

It's not enough that Time perpetuates this lazy race-baiting, they also encourage racialist thinking by being overtly one-sided in their approach. Obama has repeatedly spoken in _explicitly_ racial terms, saying over and over that the GOP is trying to scare everyone because he is black, and because he doesn't look like the rest of the presidents on our money. This is _explicitly_ racial, but you will search in vain for an article headlined "Obama plays the race card" anywhere in Time or anywhere else in the old media. How about Michelle Obama and her scurrilously racist comments? And does Time know or care about the explicitly racist church Obama attended for 20 years? If any figure on the right spent one day in a church with white-leaning beliefs, their entire career in politics would be ruined.

It's a massive double standard, and it exists because Time and the rest of the media are racists, if you accept anything close to their definition. 
If racism is defined as racialism - a fixation on race - then Time is certainly racist.
If racism is defined as animus and preference because of skin coloring, then Time is certainly racist. Not only do they consistently give a pass to bad behavior on the part of minorities, they cheer-lead everything that gives advantages to any race.

Past aspects of Obama's life and past comments by Obama make it clear that he is fixated on race, "White man's greed runs a world in need". Those weren't his words, they were the words of his wise mentor, Jeremiah Wright. But Obama was so impressed with them that he included them in his 2nd autobiography, written at the age of 45 (after he had racked up so many more accomplishments after the publication of his first autobiography). Obama has surrounded himself with people with this same obsession, he attended a church with an explicitly racialist worldview and foundation, and the comments of his bed-mate are telling. Time encourages racism by helping the racist Obama at every turn. Did Time report on Obama's support for reparations? I didn't think so. Reparations is an explicitly racist policy. Had McCain spoken favorably of any policy benefiting whites at the explicit expense of blacks, the campaign would be over.


There is no end to this madness, so long as the insane definition of racism held by the left is allowed to prevail. Another example of how it plays out: It is considered racist to discuss crime statistics in racial terms. The government does collect data on crime in racial terms, but it is basically forbidden to discuss this data. Arguably, with the liberal definition, anything said about minorities can be considered racist if it can be considered a negative. It's fine to say that black unemployment is 12%, for instance - in that case, the unemployed blacks can easily be inferred to be victims of white racism, or the white system. But no failure of character or substance can be assumed or inferred - that would be racist. That is why it's not kosher to report crime in racial terms - most people still buy into the antiquated notion that it's the criminal's fault when he commits a crime, not the fault of society, or poverty, or racism. So the fault is one of character, thus it is taboo to discuss it publicly. One might ask what good reporting on crime in racial terms could possibly do. I can think of a slew of good reasons to report crime in racial terms, enough for another blog.

Racist currents in this country do exist, but you are more likely to find them among blacks and hispanics than among whites. This is little wonder, when you consider that Time and others have been telling minorities for decades that they inhabit a hopelessly racist country. When people are told this on a regular basis, is it surprising if they look for reasons to believe it? Thus the interaction between whites and others is poisoned. It matters not a whit how pure of heart any particular white person is toward minorities, they are automatically suspected of being deficient - morally - because of their membership in a specific race. Is that racism? It certainly fits the classic definition.

The left realizes that race is a giant lever of political power. The democrats have successfully used race for decades to insure they regularly get 90% of the black vote. And they use it shamelessly. Crime was a major issue in the 1980s, and in the 1988 election, democrat candidate Mike Dukakis was taken to task for a policy that allowed convicted violent felons weekend furloughs, unsupervised. One of these people, Willie Horton, killed a man on one of these furloughs. An organization friendly to George W. Bush ran an ad about it - a perfectly legitimate attack ad: The northeastern liberal governor is out of touch with Americans on crime. Unfortunately, the ad was also racist. It said that, "the policy was applied to all prisoners, even blacks". No, actually it said that, "a number of violent black felons had committed new violent felonies while on furlough". No, not that either. It simply said the name "Willie Horton" and showed his picture - he's black. That fact set off a firestorm. It wasn't that there were three white guys who had done the same thing, and the racist republicans chose the black one. He was the only furlough murderer. It was because they showed a picture of a murdering thug to make a point about crime, and that thug was black. That was the racism.

This mindset precludes utterly any real resolution of racial issues. When we're routinely accused of racism when we aren't even thinking about race, how is an open and honest dialogue possible?
The template now in place is rotten to its core. It makes no accounting for the fact that _almost all_ whites have no animus in their hearts toward minorities. If they are seen succeeding, we are cheered, if they fail we are discouraged. On the very rare occasion that a public figure clearly denigrates them, we are outraged (I'm trying to think of when this last happened). When black leaders speak to the higher virtues of their people (and everyone) we encourage them, and sometimes we encourage them even when they speak to envy and contempt. Most of us could care less what a person's skin color is, we truly care more about character.
It is fair to say that most of us encourage our children to think of minorities no differently than they think of anyone else, to think of them as individuals. I don't know what most black and hispanic parents are telling their children, and letting them overhear in the house, but we know what Time magazine wants the little ones to hear and think.

TOTA

It's a real pleasure to see the McCain campaign surging, and to see the Senator consistently talking like a conservative. He's said enough about the issues that matter - judges, border security, taxes, etc. - that conservatives feel they can hold him accountable if he strays from promises. And the environmental issues are likely to disappear - they are being overshadowed, and a consensus is starting to build that the Earth is entering a cooling period, and that we can do little about climate change in any event, absent complete cooperation from burgeoning China and India. McCain can point to economic uncertainty and the real lack of significant consensus on climate change as reasons to put off action in favor of further study.
None of us doubt that America will always be first in McCain's heart, and his desire to see government contained appears to be real, as does his zest for new energy production. In short, even without Palin, McCain is looking like the kind of candidate we could have stomached in any case. Had he picked Romney, given the current meltdown in the credit markets, conservatives would have found other reasons to be energized. Outside the party, there is another source of energy that ought to make the party react like it's been slapped - Obama's apparent Marxist leanings and racialist thinking.

But with Sarah Palin in tow, McCain's swelling campaign has become a tidal wave. In addition to the party loving her, she connects with normal people, and contrasts sharply in nearly every regard to the charlatans on the other side.  Mrs. Palin appears to be so fundamentally decent that she serves as something of a sanity check: If you find yourself hating this woman, there is good reason to believe that you suffer from some kind of mental illness. You may find yourself surrounded with people who agree with you, who likewise hate her. They, too, are likely suffering from mental illness.
Consider: Biden is a foreign policy 'expert' who voted for the war, against the surge, and wanted to break Iraq into three permanently warring pieces. He opposes missile defense, going back to the beginning. He's scary on foreign policy, and a giant liberal on other issues. He's got lots of experience sitting in the senate, but very little experience making sound decisions there. He would make a lousy VP or President. But we don't hate him. I haven't heard a hateful word spoken about him on talk radio, and I listen to about 10 hours/day. In contrast, many on the left have a pulsing, visceral hatred for Sarah Palin. They want to see her destroyed and humiliated. Those people should seek therapy. Har har - No, I'm not kidding. If the idea of Sarah Palin fills your heart with anger and hatred, you are in need of help.

Back to luck. Yes, Palin represents an incredible bit of luck for the GOP. The energy issue likely killed Obama before Palin even came along. That, her, his gaffes, and his increasingly shrill and strident approach have cooked him for good. But it took Palin - a stroke of luck, exactly the right person at the right time and in the right context - to drive the nails into the coffin. With any further luck and good fortune, President McCain and VP Palin will actually do something significant and improve the brand of the GOP. If they can't, we're probably cooked. This is the third election in a row in which we got lucky.

In 2000, had Gore not shown himself in the debates to be an insufferable blowhard, he'd probably have won. Had he not insisted on a selective recount, he'd have lost with great honor and probably won in 2004. Had the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth not come along with their book, showing what a phony preening jackass John Kerry is, and had he not been such a flaming liberal, Kerry would have won. The Democrats have yet to nominate a moderate. The GOP has yet to craft a message that is widely appealing to Hispanics. If they ever do, leftists will form a human chain on the border to keep any more of them out. As things stand, our demographic advantages are diminishing. It's true that conservatives breed more than liberals, but their kids then get run through the leftist-dominated culture and consciousness-forming institutions.

In short, our luck will run out some day unless something fundamental changes. Perhaps the conservative/reform branding by McCain/Palin will stick. Something has to change, we can't count on luck forever.

TOTA

(End the debate, Senator Kerry - show us your scars.)